Procurement Bill [HL]
Wednesday 11th May 2022
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 Read Hansard Text
Procurement Bill [HL]
Wednesday 25th May 2022
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
Since the British people voted to leave the European Union, and we finally got it done, this country is being freed from many bureaucratic and process-driven regulations that stifled our country and businesses for many years—
Lord True (Con)
Noble Lords opposite laugh at the concept, but one of the most prominent of these regulations was the EU public procurement network. Frankly, I would have thought that noble Lords would have heard that cry from businesses up and down this country. We now have the opportunity to reform it. I am delighted that the Second Reading of this important Bill has come to your Lordships’ House because it has a particular capacity to scrutinise complex matters. I look forward to working with your Lordships across the House on that basis.
Public procurement is one of the most important and influential duties of Her Majesty’s Government: £1 in every £3 of public money—some £300 billion a year—is spent on public procurement. Imagine the power of the most efficient and effective use of that money every year. Imagine the extra small businesses that we could help to hire more workers, expand their operations and contribute to the wealth of this nation. Imagine the efficiencies that we could achieve so that we could spend more on our National Health Service and other vital public services.
The Procurement Bill reflects over two years of intense policy development—I pay tribute to all those involved—a Green Paper, government responses and meetings with hundreds of stakeholders. This work is being carried forward by my right honourable friend the Minister for Government Efficiency, Mr Rees-Mogg. The Bill will reform the UK’s public procurement regime, making it quicker, simpler, more transparent and better able to meet the UK’s needs, while remaining compliant with our international obligations. It will introduce a new regime that is based on value for money, competition and objective criteria in decision-making. It will create a simpler and more flexible commercial system that better meets our country’s needs, and it will more effectively open up public procurement to new entrants such as small businesses and social enterprises, so that they can compete for and win more public contracts.
Before rising to speak, I listened to your Lordships’ concern on the matter of human rights abuses in China; I agree with many of the comments that were made. The Bill will strengthen the approach to excluding suppliers where there is clear evidence of their involvement in modern slavery practices—for example, in the increasing number of reports of human rights abuses in Xinjiang. Running through each part of the Bill is the theme of transparency. We want to deliver the highest possible standards of transparency in public procurement, and the Bill paves the way for that.
Leaving the EU has provided the UK with the responsibility and opportunity to overhaul the public procurement regulations. The current regimes for awarding public contracts are too restrictive, with too much red tape for buyers and suppliers alike, which results in attention being focused on the wrong activities rather than on value for money. There are currently over 350 different procurement regulations spread over a number of different regimes for different types of procurement, including defence and security. The Procurement Bill will consolidate these into a single regime that is quicker, simpler and better meets the needs of the UK. We have removed the duplication and overlap in the current four regimes to create one rulebook which everyone can use. The Bill will also enable the creation of a digital platform for suppliers to register their details once for use in any bids, while a central online transparency platform will allow suppliers to see all opportunities in one place. We hope that this will accelerate spending with SMEs.
This is a large and technical Bill. It includes a number of regulation-making powers, and I have no doubt that your Lordships will want to consider those carefully. We submit—and hope to convince your Lordships—that these powers are necessary to ensure that the legislation will continue to facilitate a modern procurement structure for many years to come, so that we can put in place a lasting model which will allow us to keep pace with technological advances and new trade agreements, and to stay ahead of those who may try to use procurement improperly. As we continue to scrutinise this legislation, we will revisit some of the powers included and will seek to improve on those, if necessary. I also accept that there are some areas that will need refinement, and we will come back at Committee with appropriate amendments.
I will now provide a more detailed overview of some of the key aspects of the Bill. Turning first to territorial application, we have delivered this Bill in a spirit of co-operation with the other nations of the United Kingdom—I welcome this. As part of the policy development process, we welcomed Welsh and Northern Irish policy officials into our team so that they had a critical role in shaping this legislation from the very beginning. The result is legislation whose general scope applies to all contracting authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This will ensure that contracting authorities and suppliers can benefit from the efficiencies of having a broadly consistent regime operating across the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. The Scottish Government have opted not to join the UK Government Bill and will retain their own procurement regulations in respect of devolved Scottish authorities. This is similar to how the current regulations operate, with the Scottish Government having transposed the EU directives into their own statute book. There may be some in both Houses who will regret this. I am sure that we would all welcome our Scottish friends if they wished to join the new system proposed by the Bill; taxpayers and public services alike would benefit across the whole United Kingdom.
Part 1 of the Bill sets out which authorities and contracts it applies to. It covers contracts awarded by most central government departments, their arms-length bodies and the wider public sector, including local government and health authorities. This also includes contracts awarded by utilities companies operating in the water, energy and transport sectors, and concession contracts. The Bill also sets out a small number of simpler rules which apply to lower-value contracts, and it makes provision to carve out those procurements regulated by the Health and Care Act in order to ensure clarity about which regime applies.
The Bill consolidates the current procurement regimes and therefore extends to defence and security contracts. Defence procurement will benefit from the simplification and increased flexibility of the core regime. There are a limited number of derogations that meet the specific needs of defence and security procurements, and which will support delivery of the Defence and Security Industrial Strategy published in March 2021. A national security exemption has also been retained to protect our national interest. The Bill also includes a separate schedule to enable reforms to the Single Source Contract Regulations 2014. The proposed reforms seek to ensure that these regulations fully support the delivery of the Defence and Security Industrial Strategy by supporting a more strategic relationship between government and the defence and security industries. My noble friend Lady Goldie will be assisting your Lordships on these provisions.
Part 2 of the Bill is focused on the principles and objectives that must underlie the awarding of a public contract. Contracting authorities must have regard to delivering value for money, maximising public benefit, transparency, and acting with integrity. Integrity must sit at the heart of the process. It means that there must be good management, prevention of misconduct, and control to prevent fraud and corruption.
Part 5 of the Bill sets out the particular requirements on contracting authorities to identify and manage conflicts of interest.
Public procurement should also support the delivery of strategic national priorities, and this part of the Bill makes provision for a national procurement policy statement and a Wales procurement policy statement to support this.
In Part 3, the Bill sets out how a contracting authority can undertake a procurement and award a contract. Competition is at the heart of the regime. The Bill introduces a new procedure for running a competitive tendering process colloquially known as the “competitive flexible procedure”—I am not quite sure how colloquial that is—ensuring for the very first time that contracting authorities can design a competition to best suit the particular needs of their contract and market.
There will continue to be a special regime for certain social, health and education services, specifically identified by secondary legislation, which may be procured as “light-touch contracts”, leaving room for authorities to design procurement procedures that are more appropriate for these types of services. These light-touch contracts are still subject to the necessary safeguarding requirements.
The Bill also continues the existing ability to reserve certain contracts for public service mutuals and for supported employment providers. There are a limited number of circumstances in which it may be necessary to award a contract without competition. The Bill sets these out, including new rules governing the award of contracts to protect life and public order.
Part 3 also sets out the circumstances in which a supplier may be excluded from a procurement due to serious misconduct, unacceptably poor performance or other circumstances which make the supplier unfit to bid for public contracts. Contracting authorities will be able more easily to reject bids from suppliers which pose unacceptable risks.
Part 3 also legislates for the introduction of a public debarment list for serious cases of misconduct. For far too long, too many unscrupulous suppliers have continued to win public sector contracts due to the ambiguity of the rules, multiplicity of systems and lack of central effective oversight.
The important work on procurement does not stop once a contract has been awarded, so Part 4 of the Bill sets out steps that must be taken to manage a contract. This includes the strengthening of rules ensuring that suppliers are paid on time and new requirements to assess and publish information about how suppliers are performing.
Running throughout the Bill are requirements to publish notices. These are the foundations for the new standards of transparency which will play such a crucial role in the new regime. Our ambitions are high, and we want to ensure that procurement information is publicly available, not only to support effective competition but to provide the public with insight into how their money is being spent. Part 8 of the Bill provides for regulations which will require contracting authorities to publish these notices, resulting in more transparency and greater scrutiny.
In respect of Covid-19 contracts, the Government are clear that all offers for PPE, regardless of the route through which they were identified, underwent rigorous financial, commercial, legal and policy assessment led by officials from various government departments.
Part 9 details what remedies are available to suppliers for breach of the new regime by contracting authorities where that has resulted in loss or damage. Having an effective and well-functioning remedies regime is essential to the successful operation of any public procurement regime.
Any claims made during an applicable standstill period—between the award decision and the entering into of the contract—will result in the procurement being automatically suspended. We will introduce a new test for the court to consider, when hearing applications for the automatic suspension to be lifted, that is better suited to procurement than the one currently applied.
Part 10 of the Bill gives an appropriate authority oversight over contracting authorities and the power to investigate their compliance with this new Act as part of a new procurement review unit.
The UK is already party to a number of international agreements which guarantee valuable market access for UK suppliers. For example, our membership of the WTO’s Agreement on Government Procurement gives British businesses access to £1.3 trillion in public procurement opportunities overseas. Access to these markets is a two-way street and requires the UK to ensure that treaty state suppliers have equivalent access to UK markets. Part 7 prohibits a contracting authority from discriminating against suppliers from those states. This part also contains a power to make regulations specifying the agreements listed in that schedule. This provides greater flexibility to be able to extend the procurement regime to cover matters covered by the UK’s international procurement agreements, both current and future. This is a well-defined and tightly restricted power which will enable the procurement aspects of future trade agreements to be enacted efficiently, but I have no doubt we will discuss this in Committee. It is not an open door to changing UK procurement regulations to meet international commitments. This power allows only for the extension of the UK procurement regime to cover overseas suppliers covered by such agreements. Amendment of the UK’s procurement rules is outside the scope of this power, even if it were to be required as part of an international agreement. It would not, for example, allow the opening up of NHS clinical healthcare procurements to private providers from any state. To do so would require broader legislative changes, and this power has been carefully drafted so as not to allow for that.
In conclusion, there has never been a piece of UK procurement legislation as comprehensive as this. I hope that I will be able to demonstrate, in our discussions on the Bill, how this Government plan to reform procurement so that we can collectively boost business, spread opportunity, level up the country and strengthen our union. I very much look forward to taking the Bill through your Lordships’ House and I will be keen to hear any questions and suggestions your Lordships may have, today and throughout our proceedings. I commend the Bill to the House, and I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction to the Bill, which is quite complex in some areas. I begin by saying that we welcome this Bill. Changes to the procurement regime are long overdue, not least as a procurement Bill was promised in the last Session, so it is good that we finally have it before us today. I know from my experience of navigating OJEU just how complicated the EU procurement regime can be, so we support the Government’s stated ambition of speeding up and simplifying the processes. We welcome particularly the move from awarding contracts based on most advantageous tender, or MAT, rather than MEAT, the most economically advantageous tender, which will allow more flexibility around procurement, and the duty to consider breaking contracts into lots will also help social enterprises and SMEs.
The first part of the Bill, which replaces definitions that came about from long negotiations between EU member states with clearer definitions, has been welcomed across the board, as has the ambition to simplify rules and bring a range of existing rules together into one place. Having said that, recent events and investigations have shone a light on the clear failures of the current procurement regime and government practices during the Covid pandemic, with huge concerns raised in a time of great sacrifice for many people.
I heard what the Minister said on this matter in his introduction, but taxpayers’ money was wasted— £9 billion spent on PPE was written off, with £2.6 billion spent on items that were “not suitable” for the NHS. That is one in 10 of all items. There is also £800 million of additional stock that has not been used. We also know that there were major issues with direct awards. We appreciate that Governments have to act quickly during a crisis, but contracts worth tens of millions that were given out through the VIP fast lane, totalling almost £2 billion, lacked scrutiny or transparency. This Bill gives us the opportunity to fix that—to put in place a rigorous procurement regime which would prevent these practices happening again.
We are concerned that transparency seems to have slipped down the agenda when compared to the original proposals in the Green Paper. The Public Contracts Regulations 2015 have more on transparency than the Bill before us, so why are the Government taking a step backwards? Since the Government did not comply with the current transparency rules during the pandemic, can the Minister reassure noble Lords that this is not because they are finding transparency rules a little bit tricky to comply with? While we welcome the Bill, we do have concerns that many of the positive changes proposed in the 2020 Green Paper and the Government’s response to the consultation appear to be either missing or watered down, despite being welcomed by business, industry, trade unions and other stakeholders.
What we need from this Bill is a genuine commitment to reshape procurement to the very highest standards—from the integrity of the process to the delivery of real social and economic value. While we will no doubt explore these issues in more detail in Committee, I would like to raise some of my key concerns with the Minister at this stage. I look forward to clarification in his response today and further discussion on how improvements can be made as the Bill progresses through your Lordships’ House.
Turning first to the principles, the majority of the more than 600 respondents to the Green Paper consultation supported legal principles for procurement. In their response, the Government stated that they would
“introduce the proposed principles of public procurement into legislation as described”.
The proposed principles are
“public good, value for money, transparency, integrity, fair treatment of suppliers and non-discrimination”,
and we absolutely support them.
However, disappointingly, Part 2—“Principles and objectives”—does not have the principles laid out clearly in a clause on the face of the Bill, despite doing so for the objectives. The principles are an integral part of procurement. They are a vital tool for setting out what legislation is designed to achieve and by what its success will be judged. The rest of the world knows this; almost every other piece of procurement legislation in the world starts with clear principles, so it is surprising that this is not in the Bill, and we believe that this needs to be revised. Furthermore,
“acting, and being seen to act, with integrity”,
as set out in the objectives, could also include a wider duty of transparency. Even in the midst of a crisis, integrity and transparency should be non-negotiable.
Looking at the objectives, we believe that the Government are wasting a huge opportunity to put the environment and tackling climate change right at the centre of how public money is spent. Why is there no mention of this in the objectives, no commitment to sustainable procurement, and no duty for all government departments to comply with the carbon reduction plan and demonstrate sustainable procurement performance? If the Government are to achieve their goal of net zero, climate and nature goals must be an integral part of any new legislation that will have an impact on its delivery. Does the Minister not agree that sustainable procurement will help avoid damage to the environment while at the same time generating benefits for business, society and the economy?
Another gap in the Bill is a commitment to social value, which does not appear at all. There should be specific reference to social value being part of the public benefit in order to provide clarity to public bodies, companies and social enterprises. Social value should be embedded in the procurement system through appropriate guidance and reporting requirements for public bodies, as seemed to be the case in the Green Paper proposals. In fact, the Government’s response to the consultation stated:
“A procurement regime that is simple, flexible and takes greater account of social value can play a big role in contributing to the Government’s levelling-up goals.”
I absolutely agree. As a matter of principle, social value will improve circumstances for residents by bringing money and jobs to local areas, which should in turn go some way towards helping to level up the country.
This is especially true in more disadvantaged areas. A more responsive, community-focused supply chain spreads the social value net further, helping to maximise environmental and social well-being at every level, and would contribute positively to the Government’s levelling-up ambitions. So why is it no longer in the Bill? Have the Government already given up on their levelling-up goals, or does the Minister recognise that this is an oversight in the drafting that needs to be corrected?
The Government’s 2019 manifesto asserted that the public sector should
“‘Buy British’ to support our farmers and reduce environmental costs.”
Public procurement has the potential to create thousands of jobs for UK farmers and food producers and to help deliver the Government’s climate and nature emergency commitments. Can the Minister outline how the Bill before us will achieve those commitments? We need to do what we can to ensure that far more public contracts are awarded to British businesses—something that will have a positive effect on our economy but also support those who are struggling to get through the current cost of living crisis.
Moving on to the fair treatment of suppliers, we have concerns that the language on requiring contracting authorities to make impartial decisions without conflict of interest has been weakened, as too has the important principle of non-discrimination. I hope that the Government will therefore commit to tightening up these areas of the Bill as we move into Committee.
The Green Paper included a positive commitment to the digital single suppliers portal, operating on a “tell us once” principle. This would not quite level the playing field between supersized corporate bidders such as Serco and SMEs from across the country, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction, removing an unnecessary obstacle for smaller, less well-resourced options. My understanding is that this is still the Government’s intention, but I can see nothing in the Bill to ensure that it will actually happen. Do the Government remain committed to putting this on a statutory footing, or will further regulation and guidance be published? If this is linked to other digital systems such as Contracts Finder—again, I hope the Minister can confirm that this is still happening—it could also help to level the playing field when contracting authorities are making decisions.
There are also several areas of exemption in the Bill. Part 13 includes powers
“to disapply this Act in relation to procurement by NHS in England”
and
“to amend this Act in relation to private utilities”.
Schedule 2, “Exempted contracts”, includes defence and security contracts, which my noble friend Lord Coaker will consider further in his winding-up speech. What criteria were used to draw up this group of exemptions? Following the Minister’s introduction, can he clarify exactly how ministerial discretion for NHS procurement will apply? For example, what services is this intended to cover? Will it apply just to clinical services? I am sure your Lordships’ House will agree that we do not want to see a repeat of what happened during the pandemic.
The Minister mentioned—and we are aware—that there is going to be a six-month lead-in for the implementation of the Act’s provisions once it is passed. Even so, there will be significant challenges to meet the timescales, considering the number of changes proposed in the Bill. Does the Minister agree that the Government will need to provide substantial support; for example, for staff training, for communicating the many changes to the system to prospective suppliers, and to cash-strapped local authorities? If so, will he outline what that support will look like?
This really is an opportunity for the Government to be bold, to address these concerns, and to help rebuild public confidence in how taxpayers’ money is spent. There is much in the Bill that I have not had the time to cover today, and we will, of course, be tabling amendments to try to improve it. I offer the Minister our constructive support to work closely with him and his department officials so that, by the time it leaves this place, it will be truly fit for purpose.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be working on this Bill with a new set of colleagues: a new set of Front-Bench spokespeople from Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition and a new Minister. I look forward, as the noble Baroness does, to a fruitful process in working on this Bill.
In framing the Bill, the Government explained that they had three options: to do nothing, to do the minimum or to carry out wholesale reform. They have chosen reform, which we welcome; the Bill is the result of that reform process. What is it for, and how wholesale are those reforms? The reforms are less wholesale than the Green Paper suggested they might be, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, just said in her excellent speech. I will not try to cover the same ground that she did, but I associate myself with all of her comments.
I will, however, start with the point with which she started: the missing principles for the Bill. Without those principles, it will be difficult to guide the rest of what we are doing. There are objectives, and they appear in Clause 11. As we have seen, they are value for money, maximising public benefit, sharing information and acting with integrity. We would all sign up to those. Elsewhere in the Bill documentation, there are all sorts of other lists that are all similar, but different in a subtle way. This is not nit-picking, because it is important to understand where the Bill is headed and what it is seeking to achieve. Some of the objectives are potentially conflicting, and we need to know where the priority lies.
For example, to create greater opportunities for small businesses and social enterprises, which I understand and agree is one of the important elements of the Bill, there might be a higher initial cost attached. How will the Government calculate the public benefit that they get from the process of broadening the remit? What priority will they give to value for money? The impact assessment says that the highest priority is value for money. However, it also says that the Bill will be required to take into account national strategic priorities such as job-creation potential, improving supply resilience and tackling climate change. There is no help as to how these trade off, and there is no understanding of what “take into account” means. Of course, none of these is on the face of the Bill, so we do not have a definition of “public benefit” anywhere.
All the language so far completely avoids the issue of supplier ethics and human rights. I know that the noble Lord on my left and others will bring this up, and I expect to agree with them. My noble friend Lady Parminter will no doubt speak to the need for a central role for procurement in fighting climate change. I also believe that that has to be written into the Bill and I hope that the Minister will hear that from others as well.
There are other definitions in the Bill which are not helpful. The Explanatory Notes refer to “fair treatment”, so perhaps the Minister could explain what “fair” means in the context of this new process. Perhaps he will agree with me that “equal” might have been a better word. Here is an example: it is unclear how the Bill, in its present form, will replace the regulatory framework for accessibility within public procurement legislation. Therefore, can the Minister please explain how the new regime will ensure that specifications take into account accessibility criteria and design for all users? This is just one example of what is potentially dropping out.
For the Bill to be implemented, it needs to be understood. For that to happen, the Government need to differentiate what they are seeking to achieve and be very clear about the Bill’s moral, as well as economic, objectives. I am sure that we will give Ministers plenty of opportunity to do that in Committee.
One of the benefits paraded in various government publications is that the new data platform will deliver centralised data. How will the Government use that data and who will use it? On the data protection front, the UK has to date employed GDPR as its tool. However, changes in data protection law heralded by the new data reform Bill set out in the consultation Data: A New Direction call into question the level of proper oversight of that data. We already see companies from the US sweeping up and using data that is currently available; for example, within the NHS. They operate free, in effect, from proper scrutiny. Without explicit safeguards in the legislation, there will be a real opportunity for data abuse.
The Government talk of visibility and transparency in the Bill. If those are realised that will be thoroughly welcome and we encourage that process. However, if we needed an example of how the lack of visibility leads to corruption, there is the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and which I think my noble friend Lord Strasburger will give, of the abuses of what I might describe as a system based on Ministers’ WhatsApp rather than a transparent system. That was a scandal, and we must have a system that ensures that that sort of thing can never happen again.
How transparent is the legislation? I note that, alongside defence and security interests, the Advanced Research and Invention Agency—ARIA—is exempted. Not only is ARIA carved out of the Freedom of Information Act, it is able to procure in secret. Why should we not know from whom this agency buys its electricity? Overall, much of the information the public might seek about public contracts has been or is being put beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act. Although the Government talk about transparency, their legislation seems to demonstrate a drift—if not a jump—in the opposite direction.
The Minister sought to defuse the treaty state supplier issue by using the NHS opt-out as an example but, of course, that is in only one sector. My noble friend Lady Brinton will be talking to that issue, but let us remember what Clause 82(1) says:
“A contracting authority may not, in carrying out a procurement, below-threshold procurement or international organisation procurement, discriminate against a treaty state supplier.”
Can the Minister confirm that if a UK contracting authority wanted specifically to buy British food from a British farmer, it would be unable to do so at the expense of a treaty state supplier such as, in future, an Australian farmer, selling a similar product at a lower price? That not only flies in the face of many social objectives, it seems to fly in the face of the Subsidy Control Act, which includes provision for purchasing under a subsidy scheme to support local businesses and certain products. Which of these two factors prevails? Is it the treaty state supplier rule or the subsidy control rule, because they do not work in the same direction?
More broadly, essentially, if the market is opened by a treaty, the contracting authority is bound to buy the product that offers the best value for money—remember, that was the number one criterion of the four set out in the government documents. I fear that that will be headline price, irrespective of what it does to local capability in future. Other countries may be looking at reshoring; the Bill delivers the opposite.
The regulation-making power in Clause 8(2) relates to common procurement vocabulary—or CPV—codes, which the Cabinet Office has explained will be used to decide which contracts benefit from the light- touch regime. Understandably, this legislation does not include the long list of what might be on that CPV list, but I feel sure that there will be some important issues here.
I would like to ask the Minister what “light touch” actually means. If it means service contracts of the sort that the Minister hinted at, then far from “light touch”, “rigorous oversight” might be more appropriate. I give the example of the children’s homes issue, which is currently live. Perhaps the Minister can help us before we get to Committee by publishing either a draft or an indicative list of what the Government expect to be in the statutory instrument that will bring the CPV codes to your Lordship’s House.
I am also in the dark about how this Bill, the Sewel convention, the Trade Act and the UK Internal Market Act intersect. For example, if a Scottish-based public authority seeks to purchase a product from a treaty state supplier, does the Minister agree that it is up to the Scottish Government whether the regulations in Scotland need to be the same as those in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Secondly, can the Minister please explain what happens if that Scottish public authority offer then extends to the rest of the United Kingdom—for example, across the border to England? The Procurement Bill seems to say that once it crosses the border and there is a difference, Westminster regulations need to be applied, not Edinburgh’s. However, I suggest that the non-discrimination parts of the UK Internal Market Act mandate the exact opposite, and I think an interpretation of the Sewel convention is a moot point. Further, there is the common frameworks process, which is still live. Can the Minister please reconcile all these issues for your Lordships’ House?
As I reach the end, I turn to implementation, which will not be trivial. We know that the Government are very challenged when it comes to digital projects. In its report, The Challenges in Implementing Digital Change, the National Audit Office reviewed the implementation of digital programmes by government, going back, I think, over 25 years.
Its comments are extremely apposite. It said:
“Initiating digital change involves taking a difficult set of decisions about risk and opportunity, but these decisions often do not reflect the reality of the legacy environment and do not fit comfortably into government’s standard mechanisms for approval, procurement, funding and assurance.”
The report also found that digital leaders
“often struggle to get the attention, understanding and support they need from senior decision-makers”
who lack sufficient digital expertise. It will be important to remember that as this project progresses. We know from past government IT disasters that delivery is always harder than it is portrayed when launched at the Dispatch Box.
As far as I can tell from the impact assessment, the estimated cost of launching this platform is £36 million, which seems ambitious to say the least, given the Government’s 25 years of underperformance on digital projects. In Whitehall alone, this involves a lot of people. The Cabinet Office Civil Service statistics for 2021 say there were 12,340 civil servants in the procurement commercial function that year. Of course, as we have heard, there are many more people in local authorities and public utilities being brought into this system.
For some of the Whitehall departments, these numbers are huge. In the Ministry of Defence, including agencies, more than 2,000 employees are involved in procurement. In the Minister’s own Cabinet Office, again including agencies, it is more than 1,700 employees. I know from experience of working in the private sector that when a large enterprise implements a cross-business digital programme, the systems analysts always meet the same response. They go into a department, which says, “Yes, I agree that this is a very good idea, but you have to understand that we are different”.
There are two ways of dealing with this response. One is to instigate local variations to comply with all the perceived differences; the other is to use this digital platform to lead cultural change. In my experience— I have helped on a number of company-wide ERP implementations, and in a way this is a much bigger version of that—if you choose the variation route, it is a road to confusion and cost. But the second one, invoking real cultural change, is still a challenge. These departments are supertankers of departmental culture that will take years of sustained activity to turn around. A couple of days’ training here or there will not do it; these people have to own this system, believe in it and want it to succeed.
Any Bill that seeks to do what this Bill seeks to do is ambitious. It is a long Bill and covers all sorts of different departments. The process we are about to embark on will be long and detailed. There is a lot of work to do before the Bill is fit to be enacted, but we will work very hard with the Minister and Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition to help that to happen.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I may be a relatively new Member of your Lordships’ House, but I suspect that the Second Reading of the Procurement Bill may not capture the public’s imagination today in quite the way that certain other events and reports taking place in Westminster will. But that should not in any way detract from the importance of the measures before us, because the Bill represents an important advance on a number of the predecessor EU procurement regimes that we have been subject to and generally moves us in the right direction. As the Minister said, it has the potential to simplify and accelerate public procurement and to deal with some of the lessons, both positive and negative, that have arisen during the coronavirus pandemic.
I will briefly mention three avenues that may be worth considering further as the Bill progresses through your Lordships’ House. The first is the connection between the procurement regime and supply chain resilience for the UK. No doubt we will discuss multiple times this afternoon the experience that arose as the UK Government and the Department of Health and Social Care sought to procure PPE and testing for the National Health Service during the pandemic and, as was the case with many other European countries, faced a supply crunch as Chinese factories closed down. The problem has been sustained as China pursues its zero Covid policy, now overlaid with Ukrainian disruptions as a result of the war.
The question is not simply: what are the procurement mechanisms that the Government use in spot markets at times of crisis? It is: what strategic assessment have the Government made of which aspects of our supply chains need onshoring? The orthodoxy for many years has been that just-in-time logistics are the most efficient way—until you get a shock such as the pandemic, in which case it becomes blatantly obvious that they are not. At that point you wish you had stockpiles or onshore capability. In the same way that, for example, Sir John Parker’s national shipbuilding review looked at what the supply chain might look like for naval vessel procurement, I wonder whether the Minister can tell us how he thinks a similar approach will be taken to supply chain resilience for other aspects of what the public service will need in the future.
Secondly, I suspect that your Lordships will be looking for greater clarity, as this Bill proceeds, on aspects of these proposals which at the moment are remitted to regulation or guidance. Only a few short weeks ago, Royal Assent was given to the Health and Care Act 2022. Many noble Lords participated in the extensive discussions around what the procurement regime that was set out in that Act should be as it applies to the National Health Service. On the Health and Care Act 2022, the Cabinet Office memo of 11 May to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee says:
“It has not been possible to set out on the face of that Act the scope of procurement Regulations made under it, so this Bill”—
the Procurement Bill—
“needs to be able to make provision to manage the overlap.”
Therefore, Clause 108 would grant Ministers the power to “disapply” provisions in relation to
“services or goods to which health procurement rules apply”.
I suspect that your Lordships will want much greater clarity on the circumstances under which those will or will not be disapplied.
Frankly, that will go in both directions: there will be some services where, having had the debate as part of the Health and Care Act, we will be clear that they should not be subject to competitive market principles; and there will be other areas where they must be, even where industry partners will sometimes try to exclude them from that scope. An example of this is the importance of using competitive procurement mechanisms for the purchase of medicines, where in some cases, I am afraid, some of our life sciences partners would rather that market mechanisms were not used to drive value for taxpayers and for patients. Indeed, when the National Health Service was seeking to procure medicines for hepatitis C so that we could eliminate that virus and save hundreds of millions of pounds in the process, it was sued for daring to use procurement mechanisms in those circumstances.
So we must be quite precise as to the circumstances under which we will and will not do this. Simply leaving it to regulatory guidance is not good enough, because some of us—I say this gently—have buyer’s remorse about some aspects of the Health and Care Act, including aspects which were left to regulation or ministerial discretion. I am thinking particularly of the debate we had around childhood obesity just a few short weeks ago, where we were promised that we would indeed be cutting out junk food advertising on TV aimed at kids. Days later, however, that commitment was ditched—actually, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said that it was not a backtrack but a delay. I read elsewhere that this is part of scraping the barnacles off the boat. Most of us do not regard children’s health as a barnacle to be scraped off the broadcasting boat. Therefore, we will want more clarity on some of these distinctions, rather than leaving them purely to regulation and future ministerial fiat.
Thirdly and finally, as we think about the application of these new procurement rules to infrastructure and big capital projects, we should have the humility to recognise that, by themselves, the rules will not speed up delivery. To will the end is to will the means. Frankly, the root cause of stalled and delayed infra- structure—be it energy, defence or health—is more often not the procurement rulebook per se but the absence of multiyear capital allocations funded at the correct level, the result of delayed business case approval and the result of a lack of constancy in political direction on the results we seek to achieve.
We have seen that in the defence sector: the House of Commons Defence Committee made the point in respect of naval procurement in its memorably named report published before Christmas, We’re Going to Need a Bigger Navy. I am afraid that we are seeing that right now in connection with the proposed building of 40 new hospitals. This is going to be a major piece of procurement for the Government and the National Health Service. It was a very welcome commitment that the Prime Minister made in the run-up to the 2019 general election on a visit to North Manchester General Hospital. As I pointed out at the time, that hospital was opened in 1876 when the then Prime Minister was Benjamin Disraeli. So there is a need to get on with it, but the fact is that we have only a three- year capital allocation—£3.7 billion—and that does not buy you 40 hospitals. Matt Hancock, the then Secretary of State, said back in 2019 that the first eight of them hospitals were “ready to go”, but we now see in the latest Department of Health and Social Care publication that their planned start date is “TBC”.
So the fact is that the procurement processes will help but by themselves they will not get us the result. We need greater clarity on how the totality of the Government’s effort can help advance these important goals, we need greater clarity on the circumstances under which these rules will or will not apply in the health sector and elsewhere, and—that is not my phone, by the way—we need greater clarity in respect of the way in which other social goals will be advanced.
Finally, no doubt we will hear a certain amount this afternoon about the net-zero agenda and how that could be incorporated. A friendly suggestion would be that the Government could follow their own precedent in very wisely incorporating a set of amendments in the Health and Care Act. All we really need is for the amendments the Government accepted there to be incorporated in this Bill and perhaps we will be 9/10ths of the way home and dry.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stevens. He very helpfully reminded us that we might legislate but it is the Government’s job to execute. The ability with which the execution of policy is carried out is a fundamental part of this. I might also say that, as the noble Lord unfortunately discovered in the particular respect he mentioned, we can legislate but if we leave loopholes we allow the Government to drive coaches and horses through them from time to time. That is why we sometimes have to look very hard at Bills to make sure they very clearly express Parliament’s intentions. Important and detailed as this Bill is—the way my noble friend Lord True very clearly set out the Bill’s intentions was most helpful —as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, we want constructively now to engage with that and to seek to improve the Bill before we send it to the other place.
In terms of interests, I am a director and adviser to LOW Associates, which is a beneficiary of procurement contracts with the European Union. I have looked quite carefully: we have a number of contracts with the European Commission and we advise on European procurement. Although that gives me experience in this respect, I do not think it gives rise to any direct conflict of interest—but I make the declaration in case anybody wants to check it out.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, is absolutely right. Where the NHS is concerned, “light touch” should not mean without proper transparency, processes and the ability to understand what is being bought and why. Indeed, there has been some activity in the NHS that should be paralleled across government. Procurement is increasingly seen as an essential part of the quality of management. That is happening through things such as Getting It Right First Time and the benefit of the report from the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, on procurement in the NHS, which included building a procurement profession inside the NHS, which hardly existed. Right across government, we need chief procurement officers to be seen as often as important as chief financial officers in getting the quality of service and value right.
Because this is Second Reading and time is necessarily short, I will mention just two things—there will be further detail on the Bill—that I want to raise in this debate and that I hope to follow up in Committee and on Report. The Chancellor the Exchequer, in his Spring Statement in March, said that
“over the last 50 years, innovation drove around half the UK’s productivity growth, but since the financial crisis, the rate of increase has slowed more than in other countries. Our lower rate of innovation explains almost all our productivity gap with the United States.”—[Official Report, Commons, 23/3/22; col. 341.]
It is clear from the research that innovation and procurement are intimately related in an economy. Procurement, as a mechanism for fostering innovation in an economy, is probably more important than the grant-led systems that we often focus on. We often operate on the supply side, saying, “We must have more scientists, start-ups and grants for innovation”, but actually we need to remember that the demand side may have at least equal impact, because demand pulls through innovation. The home market—the UK market—in particular can be of additional and significant importance to innovative suppliers, enabling them to establish and bring forward innovation in an economy. Innovation needs to be an essential part of our procurement process.
I acknowledge that the objective of procurement is not innovation but to secure quality and value in public services and to do so in a transparent and fair way. But the consequences of procurement to society are terrifically important. What the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, were saying about social value is terrifically important. We should acknowledge and understand the externalities of procurement, and, through the legislation, we should tell the public contracting authorities that they should take account of them. There was an interesting exchange on this.
The Government’s national procurement policy statement, published in June 2021, acknowledged that the national priority is social value. In that context, “social value” was defined as
“new businesses, new jobs and new skills; tackling climate change and reducing waste, and improving supplier diversity, innovation and resilience.”
This relates to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, was making, and to my own point about innovation. These things are all in there, but they are not in the Bill, because the day after the Bill comes into force, the Government could write a new national procurement policy statement.
My initial submission at Second Reading is that government should be very clear that the procurement objectives include not only public benefit but social value, and the latter must be defined in the national procurement policy statement in the ways that we specify in the Bill. I hope to include all those points, including the issues relating to climate change, supply chain resilience and the importance, from my point of view, of procurement-led innovation in the economy.
I will make one other point about treaty state suppliers—this is not the point that was previously made. The International Agreements Committee, of which I am a member, is scrutinising the Australia and New Zealand free trade agreements, which are the first of their kind. The Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill has been introduced in the other place, and the purpose of this legislation will be to repeal that when the time comes. So, at the same moment, we have a Bill at each end, with one repealing the other—why is that the case? Looking at the Explanatory Notes to the Bill in the other place, I see that it is clearly because the Government expect that Bill to pass rapidly and this one to pass slowly. Therefore, the consequence is that they need that legislation quickly but will subsequently repeal it using this legislation. This is the way that such legislative matters proceed.
My problem is that Schedule 12 to this Bill simply repeals that legislation. So, if we were to amend the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill at any point in the future, it could—or, in fact, would—be repealed by government by virtue of Schedule 12, so any debate on the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill is pointless. I hope that we make sure that that does not happen. We must therefore have a serious debate about whether we are happy for future free trade agreements with procurement chapters to be implemented solely by secondary, rather than primary, legislation. We had this debate on the Trade Act, and I think that we will need to come back to it.
Overall, this is an important Bill, very well introduced by my noble friend—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
There are only 11 schedules to my copy of the Bill.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Forgive me—it was actually added to Schedule 9. But I am referring to paragraph 3 in Schedule 11, on repeals. None the less, I welcome the Bill and look forward to our debates on it.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very impressive introduction. This is an important new framework, representing some progress and some decent measures of reform. Of course, as ever, language overstates the problems and usually the benefits, but ambition is no bad thing in this area. We saw from the excellent speeches of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that there are a lot of issues here which will lead to a very interesting and useful debate.
The Minister said that this would deliver an effective and efficient regime. As we heard from the last speakers, a variety of things not inherently in the Bill would lead to an effective and efficient regime. We must give due regard to those and ensure that we have the right skills, the right capacity, and the right objectives. A few areas are not present which I would be keen for the Minister or this House to give a view on, to ensure that we get them right.
I am concerned that the Minister gave a clean bill of health to the Covid procurement process. In my experience in business, it is untenable to say that there were rigorous evaluations. If you were procuring based on selecting people who did not have one moment’s experience in being able to source effectively, and if you do not know how to do quality control or logistics, then it is untenable. The number of companies in that list that got it shows that it was not done properly. I am concerned that we do not have the mechanisms reflected in this Bill to ensure that those things which are important once you have a framework are there.
I also think we must consider one of the things that is not there, and which has led to many unsuccessful procurements: late changes being made to the system. Whether that is mending or meddling—I hope that it is more the first than the latter—these are significant areas which affect the capacity of procurement and its success. We must work out how those can be done better, not least with the changes to parcelling to allow for small businesses to be part of it.
I reinforce the point so excellently expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, that our supply chain resilience is an important part of this. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, talked about innovation, but the general use of market-making, not as a central mechanism but as an important function of £300 billion-worth of expenditure, and the way that has been so successfully used by many other countries to improve their capacity to deal with cybersecurity, regional variations, or other things—that resilience—is really important.
Notwithstanding that, I greatly congratulate the Government. I am very heartened by the increased focus on small businesses and on late payment and payment terms. This is to be warmly applauded and welcomed, and I am very grateful to the Government for making these changes. I can see a wry smile from a previous Minister because I am banging the same drum, but I will carry on doing so.
In Part 4, Clauses 63 and 64 set a maximum 30 days for payment, so there is no real change for government. However, if my interpretation of Schedule 2 is correct, this is all-encompassing, and this deals with supply chains and utility companies—a major step forward, so again I greatly congratulate the Government on doing that. I hope that this means that they will amend the late payment of commercial debts Act by setting maximum payment terms of 30 days for all suppliers, bringing the procurement Act, the Prompt Payment Code and the Late Payment of Commercial Debts Regulations into alignment.
I would also be very keen for the Minister to guarantee that after the Government have defined supply chains, they will have also dealt with the increasing practice of putting in a financial service company between the main contractors, with whom they contract and where there is an obligation for 30 days in the supply chain, to offset the supplier to a contract with another party which gives them 90 days. That is a way in which that mechanism has been subverted. I hope that the Government can be consistent in ensuring that this is applied throughout. It would be of great benefit to small businesses.
In Clause 65, there are strong provisions on information about payments under public contracts. Again, this appears to require public bodies to submit information along the lines of the duty to report. It would be sensible for the Government to use the existing mechanism available under duty to report, which gives a single point of reference for businesses to review public and private payment performance, and it would be a helpful addition.
In Part 8, Clauses 85(2)(a) and 85(2)(b) concern some potential exclusions to the duties to publish and provide information, and it talks about prejudicing interests. I would be grateful if the Minister could ensure that payment terms are never part of those exclusions, to make sure that that information continues to flow consistently.
The Bill provides for a contracting authority’s duty to comply with Parts 1 to 5, 7 and 8, saying that only enforceable and civil proceedings are covered under this part. The Government really need to recognise the litigation costs required. Lord Justice Jackson’s review of civil litigation costs found that the claimant’s costs for cases in the £50,000 to £110,000 region are likely to exceed £110,000, while the defendant can expect costs in excess of £129,000. It is unrealistic to expect small businesses that are trying to break into this market to be able to rely on that as a protection. I therefore suggest that, as an alternative, small businesses be able to report abuses to the Small Business Commissioner so that it can investigate them. I further suggest that the Small Business Commissioner be given both the budget and autonomy to act independently on such claims.
In Part 10, Clause 96(1) and Part 13, Clause 111(1)(a), an appropriate authority may investigate compliance under the Act. The appropriate authority is, of course, a Minister of the Crown. I remind the House that the Small Business Commissioner is already well versed in matters pertaining to late payments and, with that in mind, I strongly suggest that it could also be called upon to perform that duty.
Finally, in Schedule 2 there is one area of concern on which it would be useful if the Government expanded during Committee: how far do the 30-day terms extend? Is it just government purchases—for example, the petrol for ambulances—or does it fully affect the whole supply chain of a utility company’s expenditure on, for example, branding, refit costs and so on? If it is the latter, this is even more excellent news and a first step in reducing all contracts to a maximum of 30 days, and it is to be warmly welcomed.
Although there are many wider issues, which I look forward to examining, I welcome the provisions on small businesses and hope that the Minister and his department will take extra care to make sure that they remain consistent, and that the advances they have developed to the benefit of small businesses are carried through the entirety of the Bill.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, speaking on defence matters, I am not used to having detailed legislative scrutiny. We rarely have legislation, and when it comes forward it is often like the Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order, which is on half a side of A4, and the Explanatory Notes are equally short and, in most cases, rather unnecessary. The message is essentially: “We need this legislation in order to carry on having the Armed Forces”.
On this occasion, I rise to speak with some trepidation on the Procurement Bill, because as the noble Lord, Lord True, pointed out in his opening remarks, it is a very detailed Bill and not one to which I would normally put my name. On this occasion, therefore, I am extremely grateful for the Explanatory Notes. I will speak to the core part of the Bill that I welcome: the fact that if we are to have a single procurement regime, it should include defence. However much we might endorse Her Majesty’s Armed Forces and welcome what they do, it is very rare for anybody to stand up and say that the defence procurement regime works incredibly well and cannot be improved. So in that sense, this is a welcome Bill.
By way of preamble, I would very much like to welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord True, in introducing the Bill and in his response to a previous question from the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg—that this Bill could have relevance to genocide and modern slavery. I assume that my noble friend Lord Alton will raise this issue in his contribution. The opportunity for us to raise questions about values in procurement is hugely welcome. That the Government were willing to make some amendments to the then Health and Care Bill was also very welcome in this regard. If a single procurement regime were to lead to best practice, ensuring that contracts which could be seen as corrupt were not let, or that people’s What’s App groups were not relevant to procurement, this would all be very welcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, has just pointed out that procurement is sometimes about trying to change the spec—maybe mending or meddling. In defence procurement, contracts regularly run over length and over budget. Many civilians, many of whom are not interested in defence, may not have noticed, for example, questions about the A400M or Ajax armoured vehicles. It is a bit similar to Crossrail, now welcomed as the Elizabeth line, being four years over time and over budget. In a whole series of reports, most recently in November 2021, the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee has pointed out some of the problems with defence procurement. Cumulatively, various pieces of defence equipment are running 21 years behind schedule—although one assumes that no single item is 21 years overdue.
The noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead—he is not in his place today, although he may appear at some later point in proceedings on the Bill—has on many occasions asked questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, about the number of ships and the procurement process, including when a certain class of ship will come on stream. We keep being told that this may be in the mid or late-2020s. Delay is a perennial problem in defence procurement. If this legislation is to offer a single approach to procurement, of which defence is part, that sounds very welcome.
As my noble friend Lord Fox pointed out, there are a number of exemptions in the legislation. A whole clause lists various exemptions, chief among them being those relating to defence. I would be grateful if the Minister, either today or in writing, or the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, when preparing for the Bill Committee, could indicate to your Lordships the Government’s thinking on exemptions, particularly those linked to defence. Some would appear straightforward. If a tank or armoured vehicle is in another country, it would not necessarily be brought back to the United Kingdom to be repaired. If there are larger procurement issues to do with repairs, maybe we need to think about not exempting these provisions. What is Her Majesty’s Government’s thinking on exemptions?
As is so often the case, there are some weasel words in the schedules about national security, which is mentioned twice as an exclusion and as an exemption. Procurement might be exempted from this regime if there are national security reasons to do so. Who determines whether something is a matter of national security? Is it the National Security Council? Is it the Home Office if it is a domestic matter? Will it be the organisation seeking to procure—whether that be the MoD, the Home Office or some other body—who say: “This is a matter of national security, and therefore it should be exempt”? Is the legislation sufficiently clear on that? If not, then that is an area where perhaps we need to bring some amendments to tighten the legislation. Those who advocated Brexit would say that this new approach to procurement legislation gives us more control over procurement and allows this House and the other place to scrutinise legislation so we should be doing it properly. Exemptions in terms of national security are a concern.
There will also be exclusions on the basis of national security. That clearly sounds very sensible on the face of it. You would not seek to procure equipment—particularly defence equipment—from a provider which might jeopardise British security. That seems a no-brainer. But again, who is making that decision about providers potentially jeopardising national security? Will there be a register? Will companies be on a list of providers that cannot be used because they jeopardise national security? That might be an area where there could be some probing amendments.
In terms of defence, having some improved procurement mechanisms might be very welcome. In its November report, the Public Accounts Committee argued that:
“To meet the aspirations of the Integrated Review, the Department’s—
that is, the MoD’s—
“broken system for acquiring military equipment needs an urgent rethink, led by HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office.”
Is this Bill the Cabinet Office’s response to the need for the MoD to improve its behaviour and its procurement provisions? Personally, I think it would be quite good to keep Her Majesty’s Treasury out of these things because, while we might want value for money in defence procurement, we also need to ensure that we are procuring the right things, and the Treasury’s approach to the bottom line might not be the right way forward.
In defence procurement in particular, having the right legislation will matter, but so will scrutiny of the actual contracts that are being let. It will be vital not just to get this legislation right but to ensure that, in major complex procurements in the future, we do not allow the politicisation of procurement to allow Ministers and officials to keep going back asking, “Could we just amend this contract? Could we add a few more bells and whistles?” Every time that happens, the cost of a contract goes up and the overruns go on longer.
This legislation offers some opportunities, but it will still be incumbent on your Lordships’ House and the other place to ensure that, in defence procurement, we really scrutinise everything that the MoD is doing.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, with his customary thoroughness in opening today’s debate, the noble Lord, Lord True, outlined the purpose of this Procurement Bill with its 13 parts, 116 clauses and 11 schedules. We have just heard a very incisive speech from my good friend the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, about defence procurement. I will not follow her on that particular line of argument today—I certainly will be interested in amendments later on—but I simply draw to her attention, and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Lord, Lord True, the evidence given this morning by Sir Nick Carter, former Chief of the Defence Staff, and expert witnesses on procurement by the Royal Navy to the International Relations and Defence Select Committee, which I think will have a bearing on what the noble Baroness has just said to the House.
At the very outset, I thank the noble Lord, Lord True, for setting aside time to meet on two occasions to discuss the Government’s policy in connection with the procurement of goods made in states credibly accused of genocide and states using slave labour. I particularly welcome what he said at the very outset of the debate, following that Urgent Question earlier on about John Sudworth’s harrowing documentary, which was broadcast by the BBC, documenting the terrible excesses taking place in Xinjiang. He, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, are right that work is being done across both Houses already to bring forward amendments to tackle ethical procurement, slave labour and national resilience. So, although I welcome this Bill, and the intentions which lie behind it—not least the ambition outlined in the Green Paper and in the Explanatory Notes that value for money must always be conditioned by the public good, transparency, integrity, equal treatment and non-discrimination—I would add to that list, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, added in his remarks, words like “ethical” and “resilience”.
In drawing attention to my non-financial interests in the register, I think the House will not be surprised to learn that, as the Bill proceeds, I would like to return to the purchase of products made by slave labour in terrible conditions by Uighurs in the genocidal state of Xinjiang, which I have pursued as an issue with others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, during the passage of recent legislation. I see the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is in his place, and it has been a pleasure to work with him too on the Health and Care Bill, the Nationality and Borders Bill, the telecommunications Bills and the Trade Bill, in bringing in amendments on this theme.
The very welcome decision of Parliament to insist that the eradication of slavery is a lodestar for the National Health Service procurement is a curtain-raiser for this Bill, and I congratulate the Government on that. Some of these issues are addressed in the—still undebated—report of the International Relations and Defence Committee, published in September last, on China, trade and security, which we subtitled A Strategic Void. This Bill offers an opportunity to fill some of that void, and I would commend the report to the noble Lord, Lord True, as a very good background document to these specific issues.
Essentially, procurement should strengthen national resilience. It should reduce dependency on states which pose risks to our national security. It should protect British manufacturing from competitors that use slave labour, or grossly exploited labour, and send a signal to the private sector that it is simply unethical to buy cheap goods from states where citizens are being subjected to appalling inhumanity, including genocide. After all—this is not hyperbole or some piece of sloganeering or virtue signalling—it is the Foreign Secretary, Elizabeth Truss, who has said that a genocide is under way.
A third of all UK public expenditure, around £300 billion a year, is earmarked for public procurement. This is a staggering amount of money, which—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was quite right to say —can be used to achieve a great deal of public good. I know the noble Lord well enough to know that he is not lighting a bonfire of 350 regulations simply to create a fertile ground for anarchy. It is a perfectly reasonable public policy objective to try and accelerate and simplify public procurement, but we must use this opportunity to do more than that. I know that the noble Lord shares my strongly held belief that we should tackle the strategic void, the incoherence, and in some quarters the unwillingness to squarely face the threat posed by rising authoritarianism. I am certain that this Bill provides an admirable opportunity to put flesh on the bones.
When it comes to challenging authoritarianism and ridding companies and actors that do their bidding from our procurement supply chain, we are streets behind our Five Eyes partners, like Australia and the bipartisan approach now being evidenced in the United States. We must better co-ordinate procurement policies with our allies. Let me give just two examples. Two years ago, the US Government blacklisted Hikvision and Dahua Technology from their procurement supply chain and, alongside Australia, has actively been removing Chinese cameras and technology from sensitive government buildings.
Since January 2020, on 25 occasions in speeches and questions in this House, I have raised the UK’s decision to procure 1 million Hikvision cameras. Yet we continue to use them in government departments, local authorities, NHS trusts and schools. I am told that they may even be bought and placed alongside the entire length of HS2—perhaps the Minister could tell us if that is indeed the case. A negligent procurement policy means that we will ultimately end up stripping them out, as we did with Huawei, at huge public cost.
Last week, IPVM, the world’s leading video surveillance information source, released a 32-page white paper on Hikvision. It noted that the company has been
“contracted to design, implement, and directly operate Xinjiang surveillance”
as part of the network of concentration camps where over a million Uighur Muslims are detained until 2040. Hikvision even actively collaborates with the Chinese Government as a co-author of national and provincial standards of surveillance and the development of cameras that target Uighurs. More than 42% of Hikvision is owned by the Chinese state. During the first half of 2021, the company received RMB 223 million in state subsidies, and its chairman, Chen Zongnian, is a member of the National People’s Congress.
I believe the Government privately recognise the threat posed by Hikvision and Dahua Technology, and I welcome the steps taken by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Sajid Javid, who acted recently to remove their cameras and technology from his department. What is needed is a cross-departmental strategy to remove cameras not only from government departments but from the UK procurement supply chains as a whole. In a letter to the Cabinet Secretary dated 21 April, Professor Fraser Sampson, the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, said he was
“encouraged to see reports … that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has now prohibited any further procurement of Hikvision surveillance technology by his department”.
Will the Minister undertake to share his own department’s response to that letter from Professor Sampson, and will he explain why, if this is the right thing to do in one department, is it not right to do it across government? It cannot be right that the domestic surveillance market is dominated by a Chinese company which is complicit in genocide and has been blacklisted by our closest partner, and yet is able to use state subsidies to undercut its competitors.
On 2 February, in a debate on a Motion to Regret, I set out at length the arguments about Hikvision, and pointed out:
“In the 1940s, we did not allow the widespread use of IBM’s machines, or other tools of genocide used in Nazi Germany and manufactured by slave labour in factories and concentration camps, to be sold in the United Kingdom”.—[Official Report, 2/2/22; col. 987.]
This Procurement Bill should set a bar as high as that. Mass surveillance systems have always been the handmaiden of fascism. The Government should come forward with a timetable to remove these cameras and technology from the public sector supply chain, and campaign to encourage and support businesses in the private sector to do the same. We simply cannot allow the tools of genocide to continue to be used so readily in our daily lives.
My second and very brief point concerns resilience and dependency. I have regularly raised my concerns about the potential sale of Newport Wafer Fab, the country’s biggest producer of semiconductors and microchips, to a company with links to China and, inevitably, the CCP. We will always be purchasers of microchips and semiconductors; perhaps the Minister can tell us how many contracts it has had over the past 10 years with the Ministry of Defence, and their worth —and it is particularly helpful that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, is in her place to help him with that response. What is more, there is an urgent need for a strategic, joined-up and coherent approach.
To conclude, I hope the Minister will consider amending Part 2 of the Bill to include a duty to have regard to national resilience, and to reduce dependency on states with interests that are hostile to those of the United Kingdom. Like my noble friend Lord Stevens of Birmingham and the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, I have pointed regularly to the £10 billion we have spent with China on 1 billion items of PPE. That amount is about the size of our entire reduced budget for our overseas aid programme. A duty to have regard to national resilience might be a good way of challenging this.
I thank Minister for his courtesy and his time in meeting to discuss these issues and I look forward to participating during the passage of this important and timely Bill.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I start by drawing attention to my entry in the register of interests, particularly my majority shareholding in FMA, a company that supports the implementation of reforms for Governments outside—I stress “outside”—the United Kingdom; this includes supporting them on the reform and operation of their procurement systems. I should also draw attention to the 2020 review that I conducted pro bono for the Government, the Cabinet Office and the Treasury on cross-cutting functions across the British Government, including the commercial and procurement functions.
There are not many people for whom public procurement is a subject that sets the pulse racing, but they are all here in the Chamber. For those of us who have lived and breathed this subject, it is a pleasure to speak on it and welcome the Bill that my noble friend the Minister has introduced.
A number of contributions so far have pointed to things that noble Lords would like to see in the Bill but are not in the Bill. My concern is slightly in the other direction. I would prefer the Bill not to be too constraining and restrictive because I have observed that it is possible to have perfect procurement law and terrible procurement outcomes, and really bad procurement law and much better procurement outcomes.
The legacy regime includes the EU’s public procurement directives, the first iteration of which I was involved in negotiating way back in the 1980s. They became somewhat more convoluted subsequently, it is fair to say, but they were not terrible. Yet, in 2010, when the coalition Government were formed—the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, will remember this—we discovered a horrendous legacy of dreadful contracts that the Government had entered into right across the piece. Our task, which was to drive out cost from the overhead running costs of government, involved us renegotiating many of those contracts and making substantial savings very quickly. However, it was not the fault of the law, which was not bad at all; it was all about the way in which the laws were being operated. Through the efficiency drive we led at that time, with enormous support from our coalition partners in the Liberal Democrat party—particularly Danny Alexander, the then Chief Secretary, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace—we made savings, cumulatively over five years, of some £52 billion, essentially from the running costs of government.
So the law is not the most important part of government procurement. I urge your Lordships, as this Bill goes through its time, to resist the temptation that there will certainly be—we have heard some of this so far—to add things to it. At the end of it, procurement is primarily, although not exclusively, about buying goods and services that are needed to serve our security and citizens in the most effective way. That is about quality and cost and requires good practices; the practices have not always been good.
When we came into government in 2010, I discovered that the time taken for formal tender processes to be completed was double what it was in Germany. The rules were followed properly yet the time taken was, on average, twice as long. We made changes and cut the time for British procurements to half of Germany’s average time, all without making any changes to the law—that is, just by reforming practices. Suppliers would tell me that it cost them four times as much to bid for public sector contracts as it did for private sector contracts.
There are two malign effects of that. One is that the extra costs involved in bidding for such contracts get put on to the price bid, and the taxpayer picks up the tab for that. The second, of course, is that the extra costs and the restrictive practices which are completely unnecessarily incorporated into so many procurements mean that smaller and younger vendors are often—generally, actually—frozen out. Just in the field of IT and digital, we found that 87% of the Government’s spend on IT was with seven vendors, all multinationals.
One of the problems with building a really successful tech sector or ecosystem in the UK was that vendors had no, or very little, opportunity to bid for and win public sector contracts due to a combination of turnover thresholds, the routine requirement for companies to show three years of audited accounts, the requirement to show that you had insurance in place to cover the cost of the bid at the time of bidding, often huge performance bonds, and excessively complicated pre-procurement questionnaires—none of which was necessary under the law. All were avoidable but they had the effect of freezing out smaller, newer, and often more dynamic and innovative, suppliers. My noble friend Lord Lansley is quite right to say that supporting innovation is not the purpose of procurement, but innovation can be incredibly important in making procurement more effective and enabling newer ideas to come to the service of the country. It is really important that that should happen.
Within the constraints of the EU procurement regulations and directives, we exceeded our aim of 25% of government procurement by value going to SMEs. Understandably, we were not allowed to discriminate in favour of UK suppliers but, of course, SMEs are much more likely to be local and UK-based, and that was a big part of supporting the supply side of the economy. There was a tendency for too many contracts to be large—huge—multi-year contracts which smaller businesses were unable to bid for.
On central procurement, I found that there were 800 people employed at the centre of government—at that stage, under the aegis of the Treasury—yet they could not tell me who the 20 biggest suppliers to government were. We had to guess at that, write to the chief executives of the companies we guessed were the biggest suppliers, and invite them to give us full transparency, or full visibility, over it. Of course, there are huge savings to be made by central procurement, for the whole of government, of commodities, goods and services. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, rightly said, when you try to do that—we succeeded in making some limited progress down that path—it is amazing, with the rich vein of creativity you tap into, to hear the reasons why it cannot possibly be done. People say, “We totally agree with it in principle. It makes very good sense, but our needs are completely unique and distinctive”, and exceptionalism becomes a religion. Again, the law does not operate on that area—these are operational decisions to be made by the Government when it comes to implementing and executing this law.
This brings me to the most important part—the people who operate procurement. There are three parts in any procurement: pre-tender market engagement, the formal tender process and post-award contract management. However, in most Governments, it is the middle part of that—the formal tender process—which attracts all the attention. Just as in the world of defence and security there is a class of public servants we affectionately know as “securocrats”, I came to know the people—often many people—who work in procurement, and I fondly refer to them as “procurocrats”. They are people for whom process is king, and for whom process will always trump the outcome. They thought that if they could say that they followed the process, even if it arrived at a stupid outcome with poor value for money, no one could criticise them.
You need to have commercial DNA injected into public procurement so that the pre-tender market engagement can be done in a confident and knowledgeable way, and therefore to frame the procurement tender in much more effectively. The process of tenders is often embarked on too early, without real knowledge of what you are trying to achieve or what it is possible to achieve, and then of course you get into endless alterations and changes to the procurement, which is where the suppliers make their money. Some suppliers told me that changes in the operation of a contract could deliver them a rate of return of 40%. Then there is post-award contract management, which we discovered was weak across the Government. Again, that is where the suppliers were too often making too much money.
It is that lack of experienced, confident, commercial operators inside government that often leads to these problems. I would sometimes hear procurement people in government saying, “But, Minister, we’re not allowed to exercise judgment”. What? Surely that is what we pay them for. The danger of excessively prescriptive procurement processes is that the focus is all on just buying what looks like it is cheapest so that no one can criticise you; it is just about the maths. If you have not allowed innovative vendors to look at new and different ways of delivering the goods or services, it just boils down to whatever is cheapest—and that is a bad outcome for the Government and the taxpayer.
The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee fulfil an important function but cast a long shadow, and officials can become nervous of exercising judgment and not going for what looks like the cheapest option, for fear that they will subsequently be taken to task. That is one reason why the role of departmental boards can be so important. Strong and experienced commercial non-execs on those boards can support officials in exercising judgments effectively.
I submit that the professionalisation of the procurement function is more important than the precise letter of the law that we are debating today. I believe that a full assessment of the commercial function is now nearly complete, with accreditation of those professionals and support for those who fail to meet the standards to meet them subsequently.
On the Bill itself, I urge the House not to make the mistake of thinking that the law is the only thing that matters. Of course, it is important and necessary to replace the EU regime, but I urge us not to import into it more and more changes that make the Government a prisoner of the process. Some changes were made under the law to require pre-procurement questionnaires to be much more standardised and unified, supporting smaller companies to be able to bid for and win these contracts. I support the single digital platform, which builds on the Contracts Finder website that was created, and the transparency.
The noble Baroness from the Opposition Front Bench talked about the absence of references to social value in the Bill. Unless I am mistaken—perhaps the Minister can deal with this when he closes the debate—the social value Act of 2012 has not been repealed and is still in existence. It allows social value to be incorporated in procurements on a permissive basis.
The debarment register is welcome. It is important for procurement-contracting authorities to be able to look across the piece at the track record of suppliers, not just at what has been done with that particular contracting authority. We sometimes found ourselves obliged to give contracts to companies that were suing the Government, and I know of no other commercial organisation where that would be regarded as remotely accessible.
So I commend the Minister for the elegant way in which he has recommended this Bill and I look forward to discussing it in the course of its passage through the House.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, like others, I thank the Minister for his meticulous introduction to this Bill. It is also a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Maude. His vast experience as a Minister and an adviser to successive Governments in the public procurement area is important to us, as is his contention that it is not just the law that is important. However, the law does set the context, and that is what we are debating today.
As has been explained, this Bill is supposed to be part of the Brexit dividend, replacing a complex and allegedly heavy-handed EU system and the four sets of regulations transposed into British law into one single place. I am not sure that a Bill of 115 clauses, 11 sections and umpteen possibilities of secondary legislation is quite the simplification that is sometimes claimed.
Together with the Subsidies Control Act, which we passed a few weeks ago, the Bill, in effect, redefines the formal contractual interface between the private sector and the various aspects of the state. It is bound to be complicated; it is at least as complicated as the EU system. In some senses, it is actually more complicated. I welcome the intentions of the Bill, but I regret, as I will come to, the watering down of some of the intentions that were in the earlier consultative process.
I have a few preliminary questions about the Bill. First, in the EU, the public contracts operation was overseen and enforced by the Commission, which had a degree of independence from the wrangles on the Council of Ministers and, indeed, from the mainstream activity of the Commission itself. It was not entirely immune from that, for obvious reasons, but it had a clear authority. Who is the authority in enforcing this and in ensuring that the umpteen public authorities abide by it and that companies understand it? In the Subsidies Control Act, there is an authority for the CMA. There is no central authority so far—that I can discern—in this Bill.
Secondly, we have to accept that there is a degree to which this is more ambitious than the EU system was. The main aim of the EU system was to ensure that companies in member states had equal access to procurement in member states. It ensured that the contracting and bidding processes went through an EU-defined system, but it did not actually put an obligation on the member states that their contract content should be exactly the same and go through similar processes and similar forms. This Bill goes further in that direction, with the contracts that are going to be extended by public authorities, the devolved Administrations—importantly—and local authorities, and in the actual content of the contracts themselves. So the Bill is actually more ambitious than the EU system in some ways, and goes a long way to defining the contract form itself. It applies to all public authorities within England, Wales and Northern Ireland—but not Scotland. This in itself raises a number of questions if Scottish companies, for example, bid for English-based or Welsh-based contracts.
It also raises certain questions in Northern Ireland. I do not want to go into the morass of the protocol but, because the single market provisions apply in Northern Ireland to a degree, that complicates the system in terms of Northern Ireland adopting it.
I welcome many of the approaches in the Bill. I particularly welcome, as did my noble friend Lady Hayman, the shift away from “best economically advantageous” to simply “most advantageous”. That is an important signal, but it is not necessarily followed through. It reflects the representations of many groups that the interests in various levels and types of public sector contracts go well beyond minimising the immediate cost to the taxpayer, the ratepayer and the businesses funding the public authority. Value for money, however, is still seen as the prime objective and is defined in pretty narrow terms.
In reality, local authorities, for example, would need to consider not only the cost minimisation and the cost of delivery of what are the defined aims of a particular contract but the wider economic effects on their communities and local business, and the environmental effect on their areas and beyond. That goes beyond the normal understanding of value for money.
I mention a few of those wider social value issues—the noble Lord, Lord Maude, referred to the social value of legislation—that need to be taken into account in awarding state public authority contracts. They include overseeing the list of potential contractors, including overseas contractors—which I shall come back to. These social value issues also include an environmental dimension, I suggest—especially climate change and greenhouse gas emissions—local preference issues for local companies and local employment, human rights issues, employment rights issues, and accessibility to public services.
The Bill also needs to recognise much more explicitly some of the general points that were made in the consultation and have been made again today. For example, the transparency provisions are not particularly strong and the relationship between transparency and the proposed digital system needs to be spelled out. Accountability and probity in public office need to be emphasised and explicit. We have had a number of recent issues in which probity in public office and the appropriateness of the awarding of contracts have been seriously questioned and suggestions of cronyism made.
Public procurement accounts for roughly 15% of all carbon emissions, and the public benefit of taking into account carbon emissions in the procurement process needs to be reflected in the Bill. That means that tenders which might otherwise be attractive can be rejected if there is a negative impact on carbon emissions, and potential contractors can be excluded if their record on the carbon front is poor. To be safe, that needs to appear in statute. It appears in the national policy statement—well, the draft of it—but, of course, that is not statute.
Likewise, on local preference, it must be possible for local authorities and devolved Administrations to give a degree of preference to local companies—SMEs, start-ups and social enterprises in particular—and for the creation of local employment, and for national public bodies to give preference to UK-based companies in certain respects. In Committee on the then Subsidy Control Bill, I asked whether any such local preference would be classified as a subsidy under the post-Brexit state aid rules. I never received a clear answer and I shall ask again now in relation to this Bill. Will local or national preference be accepted as a public benefit under these new and complex post-Brexit rules?
On human rights and employment rights, I think I heard the Minister say that the Bill will allow the exclusion of potential bidders on the ground of their human rights record—but I should like him to repeat it. For example, on employment rights, would P&O, in view of its recent behaviour, now be excluded from contracts for the development of freeports?
The international dimension here is also important. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to, we exclude Chinese companies from certain security and communications-based contracts, but does that apply to individual public authorities and their contracts, and other Chinese companies, on similar grounds? Does that require a national policy or can local authorities take their own decisions?
In a more contentious area, I have noticed that the Government have told local authorities and other public bodies that they cannot, for example, ban Israeli companies from their contract lists. I make no comment on the rights and wrongs of that argument, but it indicates that there is a clear, public, national policy on the issue. How does this apply now to, for example, Qatari companies, in view of what we know about their treatment of employees and employment rights in preparation for the World Cup? Would a local authority now be penalised for deleting a Qatari company from that list on those grounds? There must be hundreds of similar examples.
I briefly mention one other point: accessibility. I hope the Minister has seen the submission from the RNIB on this issue, but it is important that the Bill reflects the need for public contracts to take account of their effect on those who are disabled. I hope that is one aspect that can be reflected. It was referred to in the consultation and now needs to be reflected in the Bill. These are a few of the issues that I hope we can explore further at later stages. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, especially his comments about social values.
Included in Section 70 of the Health and Care Act was a description of changes to the public procurement rules for health services, but most of which will be in regulation and the details of which are woefully short on the sort of information that we have in this Bill. In its 15th report, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said on the relevant clauses of the Health and Care Bill that “full analysis” of the proposals,
“has not been completed and there has not been time to produce a more developed proposal.”
We asked on Report why on earth the Government would wish to bring into force legislation that they themselves admit they have not had time to analyse, let alone to produce a more developed proposal, when everyone knew that a Cabinet Office cross-departmental Bill was not just planned but heavily trailed.
Paragraphs 17 and 18 of the DPRRC report said about the Health and Care Bill:
“We do not accept that the inclusion of regulation-making powers should be a cover for inadequately developed policy”
and:
“Ministers would not ordinarily propose clauses in one Bill possibly requiring imminent amendment in a subsequent Bill without expecting to face questions. The House may wish to seek further and better particulars from the Minister concerning the possible effect of any Cabinet Office procurement Bill on the Health and Care Bill, and … to press the Minister on why it was necessary to include provision, based on inadequately developed policy, in the Health and Care Bill when the Government intend to introduce a procurement Bill.”
I have to say that it was no clearer after the passage of the Health and Care Act, and I am even more bemused by the reference in a procurement Bill to only certain health services being excluded, a detail not outlined in the Health and Care Act at all.
May I ask the Minister to write to Peers to explain which elements of NHS contracts are excluded from the Bill and how we can be confident that the protections and transparency that he outlined in his opening speech will also be applied to NHS services excluded from this Bill but covered by the very brief detail in the Health and Care Act? I suspect he might have a problem in doing that, for exactly the reasons that the DPRRC made clear: there is no detail available at all on those health contracts.
Returning to this Bill, paragraphs 19 and 20 of Schedule 2 set out the preferential arrangements for procurement rules of an international organisation or set out in an international agreement. Paragraph 20 says that a contract may be awarded under international obligations even where the award rules would be different from those otherwise set out in the Act. I heard the Minister’s comments in his opening speech, but I would be grateful for confirmation that the arrangements in paragraphs 19 and 20 of Schedule 2 are as strong as those we had under the EU public procurement directive, which made it clear that, unlike non-public services, a public body based in an EU member state can accept a contract that is not the cheapest provided it fulfils the quality, continuity, accessibility and comprehensiveness of services and innovation. In the EU directive there was also no need to publish procurement advertisements cross-border. This goes to the heart of my noble friend Lord Fox’s question to the Minister about the provision of source of supply when an international treaty is in place.
Although I noticed that the Minister was somewhat scathing in his speech about the previous EU directive, it was this directive that provided a guarantee that US companies could not come in and cherry pick our NHS under the terms of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. On 18 November 2014, the noble Lord, Lord Livingston of Parkhead, answered my question in your Lordship’s House by quoting an EU Commissioner. He said that
“Commissioner de Gucht has been very clear:
‘Public services are always exempted ... The argument is abused in your country for political reasons’.
That is pretty clear. The US has also made it entirely clear. Its chief negotiator”—
on TTIP—
“said that it was not seeking for public services to be incorporated. No one on either side is seeking to have the NHS treated in a different way ... trade agreements to date have always protected public services.”—[Official Report, 18/11/14; col. 374.]
I also raised these issues in a later debate with the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, who responded:
“The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked about procurement. I can tell them that we have implemented our obligations under the EU directive. The Government are absolutely committed that the NHS is, and always will be, a public service … whether overseas or here. That will be in our gift and we will not put that on the table for trade partners, whatever they say they want.”—[Official Report, 29/3/18; col. 947.]
Can the Minister confirm that it is still the intention, expressed by the noble Lords, Lord O’Shaughnessy and Lord Livingston, in their ministerial roles, that those same protections will exist in the Procurement Bill, not just for the NHS but for other public services, as under the EU directive?
The equality impact assessment for the Bill says at paragraph 6:
“This is a largely technical bill regulating how public procurements are undertaken. The nature of the bill means it has limited equality impacts, whether direct or indirect.”
I echo the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that the Royal National Institute of Blind People is very concerned that, in replacing existing regulations, the Bill overwrites requirements of particular significance to the 14 million disabled people in the UK that ensure that publicly procured goods and services are accessible to everyone. It is unclear how the Bill in its present form will replace the regulatory framework for accessibility within public procurement legislation. I ask the Minister: how will the new regime ensure that specifications take into account accessibility criteria and design for all users, including those with disabilities?
I echo the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on procurement of goods in countries where modern slavery or genocide is believed to happen. I look forward to returning to this during later stages of the Bill. I agree that more needs to be done. I also agree with his key points about surveillance equipment sourced from China.
A number of noble Lords referred to emergency contracts issued during the pandemic. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, I am struggling to see how the arrangements in this Bill would work in practice. The noble Lord made critical but gentle points about the need for an emergency power, but I can be blunter than he was prepared to be. Will the arrangements for special exemptions in emergencies be strong enough to prevent the scandal of the “VIP lane” and some of the other contracts made in relation to the pandemic? Will all emergency contracts be transparent, even if publication has to be delayed for a few contracts because of the nature of whatever the emergency is, whether pandemic or war? It appears that Ministers seemed to believe that many of the pandemic contracts across a number of departments, not just health, would never see the light of day. Emergency should not mean secret, not rule-bound and not checked.
The UK Anti-Corruption Coalition says that, despite the warm words in the Green Paper, the Bill does not create a clear, unambiguous imperative in primary legislation for a single rulebook with full transparency. It also makes the point, which I and others have made, that too much is left for secondary legislation—again. The Minister is now hearing that argument across your Lordships’ House: there is real concern about far too much not being in primary legislation.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, my interest in this large and complex Bill relates to how it will affect the ability of small businesses, particularly in sectors such as construction and engineering services, to access public procurement opportunities. Of course, this is one of the Bill’s stated policy objectives.
The six principles on which the Bill is based are welcomed by small businesses in these sectors. However, as ever, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating—will the Bill deliver what it sets out to do, and will it foster the sorts of good practices and professionalism that the noble Lord, Lord Maude, tellingly emphasised from his deep experience? I was also struck by a phrase used by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asking how the arrangements in the Bill will actually work “in practice”; that will be the nub of the Bill’s success. Many of the measures required to create the new public procurement culture envisaged in the Transforming Public Procurement Green Paper do not feature in the Bill itself; presumably, they will be introduced in subsequent secondary legislation.
The importance of procurement in bringing about needed culture change in the construction sector is recognised in the levelling-up department’s recent Guidance on Collaborative Procurement for Design and Construction to Support Building Safety and in the Cabinet Office’s Construction Playbook. One of my concerns during the passage of the Building Safety Bill was about how such guidance would be put into practice, so I hope to hear from the Minister what regulation, oversight and monitoring mechanisms are planned to ensure that this Procurement Bill achieves its policy goals. The Green Paper speaks of a “Procurement Review Unit”; I wonder what role that will play and why it does not appear in the Bill.
The new system proposed in the Green Paper and embodied in the Bill introduces many new approaches and terminologies that small businesses already finding it difficult to access public procurement may find it hard to get to grips with. The Green Paper also speaks of a
“programme of learning and development to meet the varying needs of stakeholders”
during the six-month lead-in period. Can the Minister confirm that this will include access to relevant training and support for small businesses seeking to learn the rules of the game in order to access public contracts? What plans are there to promote the early engagement of contractors and their supply chains in the tendering process? What plans are there for the pre-market engagement of civil servants so that they can gain an understanding of emerging trends and technologies before going to tender? Clause 17’s requirement for contracting authorities to consider dividing procurements into “lots” is welcome for small businesses, but what are the levers to ensure that this actually happens, and what are the remedies if it does not?
Small businesses often need to use commercial framework providers to access public procurement. This can add significant costs, often 10% or more, to their market prices, and these costs are not entirely visible to them. So how do the Government plan to ensure transparency in the fees charged by such providers? Will the
“central register of commercial tools”
mentioned in the Green Paper require publication of these fees and charges so that SMEs that use such tools can understand the true costs of doing so? How will the Bill help to deliver the gold standard recommendations of Professor David Mosey’s review of public sector construction frameworks?
As the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, mentioned earlier, onerous and unfair contract terms and payment practices are another significant barrier to small businesses accessing public sector contracts. The Green Paper included proposals to give small businesses at all levels in the supply chain
“better access to contracting authorities to expose payment delays.”
It also proposed that public bodies look at the payment performance of any supplier in a public sector contract supply chain.
The Government’s response confirmed their intention to introduce these proposals into legislation, as does the Bill’s impact assessment. Can the Minister confirm that this is still the plan and how it will be implemented? Like the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, I welcome the clauses in the Bill which apparently extend 30-day payment terms right down the supply chain. However, prompt payment initiatives have a history of ineffectiveness, so I would like to know how the Minister plans to ensure that this does not happen this time and what sanctions may be imposed on late payers.
SMEs are often pioneers in their sector: innovating, training and providing real social value impact. As we have heard, social value is another important aspect of the Green Paper which has not surfaced in the Bill. I am glad to say that Wales is leading the way with its Draft Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Bill. SMEs may be precluded from such innovation if they are not engaged until after tenders have been awarded at the upper tiers of the supply chain. The Bill’s emphasis on a value-led, rather than a price-led, approach to procurement—MAT rather than MEAT—is welcome, as long as it becomes more than a neat new acronym. Public sector contracting authorities need to move to awarding contracts at the price that maximises innovation, investment and training, thereby avoiding the scenarios of paying twice or squeezing the margins of suppliers, which ultimately result in behaviours highlighted by the building safety crisis, whereby lowest cost has been prioritised over quality and safety outcomes.
Much of what I have said relates to measures not specifically covered in the Bill as it stands, so I hope that the Minister will tell us what plans he has to publish draft regulations which address some of these areas in the course of the Bill’s passage. I welcome the Bill and I hope that the Minister will be able to give some reassurance that the proposed new system will include the necessary regulation, oversight and monitoring mechanisms, not just to enable small businesses to play a much larger and more valuable part in future contracts, including in construction, but to ensure that they do.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, there is a lot to like in this Bill and, like my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham, I do not think that it will be improved by adding a lot of extra things to it.
My favourite kind of Bills are the ones which repeal EU-derived legislation and replace it with legislation designed for the UK. As such, my favourite clause in this Bill is Clause 107, and my favourite schedule is Schedule 11. Unfortunately, some of the new rules still seem to be written in EU-speak. In particular, I have in mind the description of a “public contract” in Clause 2 which uses the term “for pecuniary interest”, which I have failed to find in any UK-based legal usage in this context. I am sure we can explore that in Committee.
I have one main problem with the Bill: the public procurement rules are still very complicated. Creating the new procurement system requires over 110 pages of primary legislation in this Bill, and who knows how much more in the secondary legislation. I acknowledge that we must remain compliant with the WTO’s Agreement on Government Procurement, and I also pay tribute to the extensive consultation the Government have carried out before bringing this Bill forward. Of course, the Government have made significant changes, reducing seven procurement categories to three, and having a single set of procedures for most public procurement. I will say in passing that I regret that there is a power in the Bill to allow the NHS to go its own way; it would have been very much more satisfactory if a single code had applied across all public procurement. The NHS, in particular, needs to be exposed to more competitive procurement, not protected from it. I would really like to see Clause 108 removed. However, I am a political realist when it comes to the quasi-religion of the NHS, and I accept that I may not achieve that ambition.
My challenge to my noble friend the Minister is whether more simplification could have been achieved. Could the procurement code be even more streamlined and even more principles-based?
My personal knowledge of public procurement is limited to being engaged in a number of public procurements as both a seller and a buyer over the years, and therefore I claim no specialist knowledge of public procurement and I cannot point to a better way to draft it. However, I am aware that there is a whole army of public procurement specialists out there. A number of noble Lords have already referred to the sorts of numbers of people in various parts of the public sector who are handling public procurement. I have a feeling that we should have a way to liberate more of them so that they can be more productively employed in the economy.
My noble friend the Minister will also be aware that the UK’s reputation for gold-plating regulations is well known and that we often went voluntarily much further even than we were required to by the EU. Can my noble friend tell the House how the Government satisfied themselves that gold-plating does not live on in this Bill? It would be terrible if we allowed the UK to be dragged down by the kind of bureaucratic groupthink that we really ought to have left behind.
I said earlier that there is a lot to like about the Bill, and, like other noble Lords, I particularly like the way in which the Government have shaped the basis of contract award, shifting from the “most economically advantageous tender” to the “most advantageous tender”. The previous formulation had a tendency to drive contracts towards lowest-cost tender and left little scope for longer-term strategic considerations or for innovation, which other noble Lords have spoken about. Although it was entirely possible under the EU system not to award contracts to the lowest bidder, the new formulation makes it clear that a narrow economic evaluation is a part of, but not the heart of, public procurement—and that is good.
Turning to SMEs, which other noble Lords have already covered, we know that they have traditionally found the public procurement processes intimidating and inaccessible. With its emphasis on proportionality, the Bill may well help to open up public procurement to more SMEs. The 30-day payment term throughout the supply chain will certainly be welcomed by SMEs if it is actually delivered. The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, who is no longer in his place, made some important points about that.
The Government will be aware that SMEs may still perceive that significant barriers will be associated with engaging with public sector procurement, despite the improvements made in the Bill. What will the Government do to promote SME involvement in public sector procurement and to demystify the new regime and help them to access it?
My final point relates to light-touch contracts, which are allowed under Clause 8. I rather liked the Government’s initial proposal in their consultation to subsume light-touch contracts into the mainstream, especially given the reformulation of contract classifications and the articulation of procurement objectives. However, the Government have given in to pressure to keep the light-touch regime going. I do not challenge that, but I hope that the Government will keep it under review.
The extraordinarily wide power to designate light-touch contracts under Clause 8 has already been mentioned, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Although there are matters to which the Government must have regard for specifying services as light-touch, there is no actual restriction on what the Government could put in this category. The regulation-making power is the affirmative procedure, which is of course better than the negative procedure, but not by much in practical terms. I hope that my noble friend can explain why the Government have chosen to make the light-touch regime so open-ended, otherwise we may need to look at that very carefully in Committee.
I look forward to scrutinising the Bill in Committee, but also hope that we can get it on to the statute book as quickly as possible so that its benefits can be realised. That hope may well be unrealistic given the evident enthusiasm from other noble Lords for an extensive Committee stage, but I can but hope.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests, as listed in the register, as a chair, vice-president or commissioner of a range of environmental and conservation NGOs.
I declare today Groundhog Day for two reasons. First, I am following the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for the second day in a row. I am pleased to do so; and it proves that the Whips’ Office has a sense of humour since I revealed yesterday that I have disagreed with the noble Baroness consistently for the past 44 years.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I take the noble Baroness’s challenge: I will do the maths shortly and pass her a note, although I did look up her CV yesterday to check the date. It was 1988; the rest of your Lordships can now do the maths.
The second Groundhog Day phenomenon is that, yesterday, I and many other noble Lords pressed the Government on the lack of climate change, environment and biodiversity objectives in the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill. We asked why the Government were missing an opportunity to ensure the delivery of their target to halt species decline by 2030 through the mechanisms of that investment vehicle.
Today, we have a similar—even bigger—real opportunity in the Procurement Bill. Many of the opportunities on the environment and climate change were outlined by my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock. The Minister told us that public procurement is big: it was worth £357 billion in the past year, makes up a third of all public expenditure, represents 13% of GDP and is estimated to account for 15% of climate-changing emissions. Public procurement on this scale has the capacity to be a huge influencer for good in terms of the climate change and environmental performance of the whole of the public supply chain. This influence could go even further because public procurement shapes the performance not only of the suppliers of goods and services that are publicly procured but of the wider markets to which the same suppliers also sell. Basically, my message is that it can influence a big slug of the economy.
The twin crises of climate change and biodiversity decline are allegedly two of the Government’s highest priorities. We boasted about this on the world stage at COP 26 in Glasgow only a few months ago. Yet when the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord True, signed off the Bill’s formal statement under the Environment Act 2021, he never spoke a truer word—if I can pun—when he said that this Bill cannot be construed as environmental legislation. He was absolutely right because it cannot, although it may talk about “maximising public benefit” as a key objective. The Green Paper on which the Government consulted referred to public benefit as including
“the delivery of strategic national priorities”,
including those relating to the environment, yet we have no formal definition of “public benefit” in the Bill. Your Lordships’ House is being asked to pass the Bill when some key elements of public benefit, climate change and performance in support of targets in the Government’s 25-year environment plan are relegated to the National Procurement Policy Statement and a set of policy notes.
The current version of the National Procurement Policy Statement is pretty flabby. It says:
“All contracting authorities should consider the following national priority outcomes”,
which include climate change, the environment and biodiversity. The phrase “should consider” is a bit weak, is it not? It is not “must deliver” or “must adhere to”; it is just “should consider”. That is not good enough. We are at a “Thelma & Louise” moment; for those noble Lords who are not cinema buffs, let me explain. We in the world are currently living it up beyond our means and driving madly towards a cliff edge. We need action to meet the Government’s urgent environment and climate change targets as an objective of public procurement in the Bill and we need it to be a requirement, not simply a consideration.
Can I also ask the Minister whether we can have sight of whatever upgrade to the national procurement policy statement the Government are planning to issue? It is so important to this Bill—otherwise, we are considering a bit of a pig in a poke. Will the Minister also consider whether the process of changing the NPPS could be improved? Currently, it is subject to a procedure equivalent to the negative procedure. Does the Minister think that this is sufficient parliamentary scrutiny of such an important document?
I turn to two further elements of the Bill. The Government are touting the exclusions section as progressive and praiseworthy. That has some merit. The Bill says that the conviction of an offence involving
“significant harm to the environment”
constitutes discretionary guidance for excluding suppliers from procurement—but only “discretionary”. The exclusion provisions must be much tougher than that, to give a clear signal that only operators who consistently meet high environmental standards will be considered.
Secondly, though the transparency requirements are very welcome, they depend on secondary legislation and do not currently impose requirements for suppliers to report publicly on environmental commitments, either in the NPPS or in individual contracts. The Government’s record on tracking performance is not great. The National Audit Office has repeatedly raised concerns about the lack of data and monitoring of compliance with the current government buying standards. It is interesting to see that the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Defence simply stopped collecting the data because it was so embarrassing to have to report. The Environmental Audit Committee at the other end concluded that it appears impossible to know whether departments have improved their sustainable procurement performance. So should the Minister not consider including reporting environmental commitments in the transparency framework that the Government are proposing to establish, and saying so in the Bill?
Somebody once told me that football would be a terrible game if you did not keep the score. I actually think that football is a terrible game—but let us at least keep a proper, transparent score on how public procurement is delivering these important public benefits.
Along with many other noble Lords, I look forward to returning to these issues at subsequent stages of the Bill, to make sure that this terrific opportunity to use procurement as a powerful lever for improving the performance of the Government’s climate change and environmental targets is not lost. We are drinking in the last chance saloon, and if we do not use all the levers at our disposal, we will not meet the climate change and biodiversity decline challenges—and I am amazed that the Government have not recognised how much of an own goal this would be.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly. I associate myself entirely with the remarks of my noble friend Lady Young. I welcome the fact that the Government have set very clear net-zero targets. I hope that they will do similarly for nature targets in the near future, as the Environment Act requires. As my noble friend said, it would be an own goal if the Government were not to take the opportunities in this Bill to create market incentives to ensure that businesses move their supply chains to a more sustainable model. The Government can spend all they want on putting money into green energy and stopping harmful subsidies going into agriculture, but they will be missing a major opportunity if they do not address the opportunities in procurement.
Colleagues around the House have talked about the huge sums of money and the opportunities to do this. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, talked about the money spent in the NHS and the opportunities, highlighted in the Health and Care Act, to decarbonise procurement. My noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham talked about the massive sums of money in defence. In recent weeks, our own Environment and Climate Change Committee has been looking at the opportunities in the area of food procurement to deliver many benefits by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, at the same time as tackling the growing obesity crisis among our children.
So there are massive opportunities, and when I looked at this Bill I was concerned. The words “net zero”, “nature”, “biodiversity”, “weight loss” and “waste reduction” are not in the Bill, the Explanatory Notes or the impact assessment—and indeed, in his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord True, did not mention net zero or the environment at all.
I will be brief. I add my weight to the calls already made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and others for there to be a mechanism to put our concern for net zero and environmental goals in the Bill. The obvious way is to put it into Clause 11 under the procurement objectives; that would be the clearest way. Otherwise, there is a danger, as the noble Lord, Lord Maude, memorably said, that it will always be just about the money.
Equally, it could be that the Government choose to define in the Bill what they mean by public benefit. The Green Paper is very clear what public benefit means. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who is not in his place, said, the Green Paper explicitly includes the environmental and net-zero goals. If that were in the Bill, that would be another way to do it. Or, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, suggested, another way would be to transpose some of the mechanisms put into the Health and Care Act by the Government. So there are plenty of suggestions from around this House, but there is a growing consensus that the Government have to do it.
Secondly, we need to make sure that the national procurement policy statement is as robust as it can be. Clearly, it will help if we get the objectives for the procurements correct. From looking at what was printed in the Cabinet Office procurement notes produced last year, there has been concern that, yes, it talks about meeting net-zero goals, addressing circular waste, reducing the amount of waste and tackling nature, but the carbon reduction plans apply only to central government, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, rightly said. Why? Why are we asking only people who are taking services from central government to produce carbon reduction plans to 2050? Why not all public authorities? We need to make sure that future public procurement statements are as strong as they need to be.
For me, that issue is strongly allied to scrutiny by this House of what that national procurement policy statement would be. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised a point about procedure in the House: it looks to be almost equivalent to a negative instrument. It may be that the Delegated Powers Committee has said that, because this policy statement does not have the ability to insist that someone does something and can only guide, it has to be a negative instrument. I find that quite amazing, given how powerful this statement could be, and I am sure that we as a House would want to be clear on the reasons for the proposed scrutiny.
Even if it is to be a negative instrument, we in this House have the power to change the period of time we have to scrutinise it. It says here that it is 40 days, but I worked out that, if you take out Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, it is effectively about three weeks. The reason I feel really quite strongly on this—I think we all feel strongly about parliamentary scrutiny—is that this will be the first document that will control so much of public procurement post Brexit and post the rules we had before.
We have just had a parallel policy statement, the environmental principles policy statement, which was meant to drive environmental protection across the heart of all government, and we in this House were given 21 days to scrutinise it. That is what we allowed for in the Environment Act. I sat through the passage of the Environment Act and I missed it. It is an own goal, and I am refusing to allow us to make the same mistake. I say this as a committee chair—the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, is also in the Chamber—because, given the difficulty of getting some Ministers to come before us so that we can scrutinise issues, and the need to then bring it back to the House and table a regret Motion or a take-note Motion, 21 days is not enough. This is a really important policy statement, so if the Government do come back and say, “Yes, it’s got to be a negative instrument”, we would of course accept it if that was legally what we had to accept—but I serve notice now that we will not accept 40-day scrutiny by this House of the national procurement policy statement.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I too welcome the Bill but I want to make five short points. First, as a victim of bad government procurement and as someone who has had to look at the law quite carefully, I cannot but emphasise the importance of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Maude, that in considering the Bill what matters, as in most legislation, is the delivery and the three stages he described. I shall not weary noble Lords with more stories about it but, believe me, my whole experience is that that is far more important than the law.
Secondly, however, we must get the law right. Therefore, I warmly welcome what was suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock: the Bill should contain principles. It is plain that this was thought of. One can tell from the table of contents and the headings that someone forgot to take the word “principles” out because there are no principles. There is a principle, which I think is self-evident, that you have to procure in accordance with the Bill. There is no point in having a clause to say that, so the draftsman may have had second thoughts. A good lawyer ought to have second, third and fourth thoughts. It would be very helpful to know what the considerations are so that the House can reach a judgment.
The reason I think there should be principles takes me to my third point. It is plain that there is a relationship between procurement and subsidy. In the discussions on the Subsidy Control Bill, it was accepted that procurement could be used to subsidise and encourage local performance. I cannot find any reference to subsidies in this Bill and it therefore seems very important to put into a principle the relationship between control of subsidies and its use to develop the local economies and procurement. It has to be grappled with and this should not be left to the courts.
Fourthly, in looking at this piece of legislation, which I hope simplifies matters, it is a great misfortune that we will end up with a regime in the United Kingdom —forgetting the Northern Ireland protocol for the moment—that applies to three of the nations but not the fourth. I really hope that the way the Government have been able to bring in Wales and Northern Ireland will influence Scotland. It is surely to its advantage that there is a single procurement regime. It must be to its economic advantage, although I can see why there are arguments that some may think it not to its political advantage.
My fifth point is about the importance of remedies. The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, was quite right in the point to which he drew attention. I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, about the Subsidy Control Act. That has the CMA in it but the CMA does not have many teeth and depends on private enforcement. This Bill is wholly dependent on private enforcement. I do not want to develop this point now, but when one looks at Part 9 there are terrible problems, particularly for smaller companies. If you have a dispute about the contract for the west coast line, one can see that money may not be too great an objection, but when you have a much smaller one—and much of this is concerned with smaller sums of money and encouraging SMEs—you must have an enforcement process that is economic.
One resort might be that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, which is recourse to an outside body other than the courts. But I very much urge the Minister to engage with the Civil Justice Council to see if a process can be devised that deals with the real problems of procurement. You want to use the power to deal with a difficult contract where the process has been in breach of the regulations by stopping that going forward, but you do not want to end up in the situation where you allow that contract to go forward, without having looked at an alternative available remedy of damages, and the local authority or the Government end up paying all over again.
It may be in the public interest in this case for there to be something short and sharp that comes to a decisive conclusion, but remedies are a key issue which we should not ignore. It requires creatives thinking. We ought not to rely on the traditional way, as the courts have done. It is very good for lawyers—they make a lot of money and will have an even better year next year—but we must do something to deal with the unique problem of ensuring that the people who breach these regulations do not go forward with a contract and that the taxpayer does not end up paying two people. Those are my five short points.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, who showed how much more interesting a debate on a procurement Bill can be than we thought when we started out on this journey. I declare an interest as president of GS1 and of the Health Care Supply Association, and I pay tribute to NHS procurement officials for the fantastic work that they did during Covid.
Like most other noble Lords,I support the intent of the Bill to make public procurement quicker, simpler and more transparent. However, there is a balance to be struck. I take on board the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Maude, that outcome is more important than process, particularly in relation to the public sector’s poor record in supporting innovation and the perennial UK problem that we are a country great at innovation but very slow to adopt it, particularly in the public sector.
We must, however, have some process and tracking of what happens. We saw with Covid what happens when you do not have it. The PAC’s report readily acknowledged the challenge faced by the Government, but the failure to be transparent about decisions, publish contracts in a timely manner and maintain proper records left them open to accusations of cronyism and waste. Somehow, the Minister, through the passage of this Bill, must convince us that in moving to a quicker and more efficient system, proper process will continue while also allowing SMEs and innovative companies to take part and win tenders. The state of our economy suggests that unless we invest in innovation, we will be in very challenging times in the years ahead.
On defence, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made very trenchant points. Reading the PAC’s report this month on the MoD’s worrying inability to control costs was sobering. The report said that the MoD’s reliance on billions of pounds of future cost reductions to keep within its budget looks like a lot of trouble to come. It currently has no plans to support how these might be delivered and rising inflation will make pressure on affordability worse. The Government, however, are saying that they have done sufficient to ensure that our Armed Forces are in a state of preparedness for many of the challenges to come. That does not add up. The MoD has rejected the PAC’s general point, but I know who I would trust more in relation to defence contracts.
I principally wanted to mention the NHS, which the Minister kindly mentioned in his opening speech. We have just had the passage of what is now the Health and Care Act. There was quite a debate about procurement because that Act takes out the enforced tendering of clinical services from the Health and Social Care Act 2012. There is concern that in the Act there is now an all-catching clause which effectively gives the Secretary of State power, through regulations, to change the whole NHS procurement process. This was in anticipation of this Bill.
The noble Lord was very clear in his opening speech that this Bill is not going to be used to turn the clock back and allow for the tendering out of clinical services where it is not required to do so. It would be good to get his confirmation, and also for him to spell out what Clause 108 of this Bill means, which gives the power to Ministers, through regulations, to disapply provisions of this Bill in relation to procurement by the NHS in England. I hope that the two things go together, but it would be good to get some clarification.
I support what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said very strongly. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, has also mentioned this. In the Health and Care Act, there was an insertion of Section 81, which provides that:
“The Secretary of State must … make such provision … with a view to eradicating the use in the health service in England of goods or services that are tainted by slavery and human trafficking.”
Will this be replicated in this Bill? Does the Minister further accept—this was raised in the Answer on Xinjiang today—that this Bill should be amended to include at least a discretionary exclusion ground for companies closely associated with serious human rights abuses? I am sure there will be a number of amendments in this field, and past history would suggest that the Government would be advised to accept them, or at least accept the principle.
My final point, which a number of noble Lords have also made, is on the post-award contract management that the noble Lord, Lord Maude, talked about. The monitoring of public procurement contracts has been very poor. Many PFI deals were poorly procured. Many recent deals involving the use of private providers through centrally awarded contracts or frameworks have not proven to be good value for money. We seem to have in the public sector a bureaucratic edifice where huge energy goes into the agreement of a contract, but once that is done, people move on to looking at a new contract. Monitoring and managing the contract is simply not done effectively. In our meeting with the noble Lord, Lord True, a week ago, which was very helpful, he talked about his department, or the Government, engaging in development and training support programmes for procurement professionals, with a particular focus on contract management. That is very welcome. I ask the noble Lord, Lord True, whether that will be extended throughout the public sector. Although we are much concerned here with central government contracts, the principles must be enunciated throughout the public sector. In terms of value for money and for our future confidence in public procurement, it is essential that we up our game in relation to contract management.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow my noble friend. I agree with his views on the public procurement of particularly large projects in this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Maude, also mentioned, the costs of preparing bids are much higher here than in many other European countries, and I believe that the costs relating to HS2 involved spending £15 billion on consultants. Why do we need so much money spent on consultants? Is it because the commissioning authority is frightened of making decisions itself, or is it for some other reason? It is pretty frightening. The costs of HS2 are very high—probably double what the Government are saying at the moment—and ditto with the Ajax tanks, which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned, and, of course, Hinkley Point, which is not strictly a government procurement project but which we will all end up paying for in the end. And dear old Crossrail was opened yesterday—a wonderful project, but it is £5 billion over budget and three years late.
One thing that links many of these projects is that they usually fall down on the IT towards the end of the project. In other words, I wonder whether the people who commission these projects—whether in the private or public sector—have realised that we need to keep up with the latest IT developments rather than keeping on making sure that the civil engineering is on programme. I am a civil engineer, and it is lovely to talk about these things, but actually it is the IT which causes many problems and I think we have to learn some lessons from that.
One further point before I get on to what I really want to talk about, which is local authority procurement, is the issue of Scotland not being part of this Bill at the moment. I would like to ask the Minister: if the new HS2 trains that are going to run to Glasgow and Edinburgh are procured in England, will they be allowed to travel into Scotland, or will there be some need for financial or technical approval? It would be very stupid if there was any cost or anything else—and the vice versa would equally apply—but I think it is something we need to think about when we start to scrutinise the Bill. I hope that the Bill will improve things. I support this Bill, but, as other noble Lords have said, there is a lot of work to be done to make it fit for purpose.
I have one other question for the Minister. It may take a year or two before the Bill comes into effect, so what is the current process and rules for local authority procurement? Are we still carrying on with the European Union procurement rules, or is it a sort of free-for-all? It would be interesting to know what the present situation is.
I want to speak briefly about local authority procurement, on which the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, also made some interesting comments. I worry that the system, even as it is set out in the Bill, leaves too much control with Ministers, with very little oversight or enforcement. I think that is quite worrying. As many noble Lords have said, including my noble friend Lady Hayman and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, key principles are wonderful, but we need to get into more detail. We need clear objectives, and I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord True, mentioned value for money, value for the customer and value for the taxpayer, and competition. But many noble Lords have mentioned— and I think these are missing in its strongest part—transparency of process, transparency of results, which includes the Freedom of Information Act, and some kind of independent scrutiny or overview, and possibly an appeals body. I would be interested also to see what exemptions are being proposed, because it is very easy for exemptions to be used as a quick shortcut to a process which may be quite difficult at the end of the day.
On local authority procurement, I have an example from the Isles of Scilly, which noble Lords may have heard me speak about before, and this week my Select Committee went to Birmingham and Coventry to look at transport—but there are many other similar examples. These things start off with the government bidding process. Local authorities are, as we all know, very short of money, and tendering costs money and time, which they do not have much of. The Government, in their localism programme for town centre improvements or whatever, offer a competition, which I am sure is welcomed by everybody, but do not actually allow the councils or the other responding authorities time to prepare a proper bid. Nor do they allow them to have the funding to do that, when you look at the rules and the amount of information that is required to produce these bids.
What it therefore needs is for the first bid to be for funding to get enough money to prepare a proper bid for the next phase. And so it goes on. We found this on several transport projects we talked about in Birmingham and the West Midlands generally. I have also found it in watching from afar—or not so far—the attempt by the local authority in the Isles of Scilly to get a new ferry through the localism bid, which would involve working with the monopoly supplier of services, for £48 million, to be given a new ferry with no competition. I can understand why it is doing it, because it does not have the money to prepare the bid.
We therefore have to be very careful that this legislation does not allow local authorities to cut corners for political or cost reasons because they cannot afford to do anything else. I could go into great detail on this but I am not going to. It is not just the Isles of Scilly, Birmingham or Coventry transport. If one reads some of the stories that come out quite regularly in Private Eye, one sees an awful lot of examples of local authorities that cut corners—and have probably been caught doing it, otherwise it would not be published—because of political expediency, because they could not afford to do anything else or because it was said to be urgent. We have to be very careful when we scrutinise the Bill that we recognise that local authorities do not have much money and that it is very tempting to cut corners politically, because it might be useful for the next election or whatever.
I hope we can allow a bit more devolution of the funding for, say, transport in the West Midlands so that local authorities have an incentive to do it properly, with oversight scrutiny but not total nitpicking of the kind that goes on at the moment. I repeat what I said before: at the moment, the Treasury requires Network Rail to apply to it for approval to paint the railings at a station. That is micromanagement just gone darn stupid.
My last comment is on the role of government in the Bill. It is as the “contracting authority”, what is called the “appropriate authority”, the compiler of debarment lists—I am sure all noble Lords know what that means—and a sort of appeal body to the Minister of the Crown in Clause 61. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, there need to be some remedies that do not involve central government. I am not sure what that is—I am no lawyer—but it really is important. All these things coming together under government, with the local authorities also being subject to their political pressure, means that we could end up with a disaster. We do not want that. There is enormous potential in the Bill, but there will be quite a lot of discussion in Committee, and probably further on, about some changes that will need to be made to make sure it really works properly.
Lord Strasburger (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will focus my remarks on what went so badly wrong with the procurement of PPE and how it should inform our approach to this Bill. I will also take this opportunity to share with the House one particular PPE contract that ended in suspicious circumstances that should concern us all.
The first problem with PPE procurement was that the UK started the pandemic from a bad place. Much of our stockpile of PPE items had been neglected and allowed to fall out of date, making it unusable due to the risk that it would fail to protect its users. The stockpile was created in 2009 at a cost of £500 million, following an outbreak of swine flu. Sadly, during the eight months prior to Covid being declared a health emergency of international concern, 200 million items in our stockpile went out of date, including 80% of the respirators, and the stockpile included no gowns, visors or testing swabs. So the flying start we should have had in tackling the pandemic was lost.
The next problem was that the Government were slow to respond to this crisis. They were advised several times to build up PPE stocks, but by the time they eventually started looking for PPE, it was well and truly a seller’s market and prices had gone through the roof.
These procurement failures intensified the scale of the challenge our country faced to protect healthcare staff and other key workers. The Government scrambled to make up for lost time, and this involved abandoning all the measures designed to prevent corruption in procurement and ensure that taxpayers get value for money. Not only was competitive tendering dropped; until May 2020, the eight-point due diligence process was also suspended.
Worse still, with its secretive decision to set up the VIP lane for companies recommended by politicians and officials, the Government exposed the process to potential cronyism and corruption on a massive scale. Firms in the VIP lane had a 10 times better chance of winning a contract, but they had no special qualities that justified that priority—other than their political connections. In fact, the actual performance of the VIP lane contractors appears to be worse than that of those who had no priority. The Department of Health and Social Care estimates that overall, 53% of VIP lane suppliers delivered PPE not fit for front-line services, compared with 11% of all suppliers.
Billions of pounds-worth of orders were funnelled into the VIP lane companies run by friends and associates of Conservative politicians. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Feldman of Elstree, recommended four successful companies; the then Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, recommended four as well, including his local pub landlord; while Michael Gove referred Meller Designs, a firm run by David Meller, who has donated £60,000 to the Conservative Party, including funding for Mr Gove’s leadership bid.
I will not bore the House with the full list of generous politicians, but many successful bidders for PPE contracts were set up on the spur of the moment and had flimsy balance sheets. Many had no prior experience of supplying PPE, or had a controversial history, including tax evasion, fraud and human rights abuses. Trade Markets Direct, a dormant company run by a former bookmaker, was awarded a £3.8 million contract. Michael Saiger, a Miami-based jewellery designer, was awarded £250 million of PPE business and £108 million went to a pest control company, again with no experience of PPE.
Other unlikely companies to benefit from government largesse were a hotel carpeting business, a naval design firm, a luxury packaging company and a month-old firm owned by offshore finance specialists. Transparency International estimates that 20% of the contracts awarded between February and November 2020 contained one or more flags for possible corruption. Some £255 million- worth of contracts went to companies that did not even exist 60 days before they won the business. Meanwhile, many well-established companies with a long history of supplying PPE, but without the seemingly essential ingredient of political clout, could not get a look in. Some offered products several times but never heard back from the Government, presumably because resources had been diverted to the VIP lane.
How has all this frenetic activity turned out for taxpayers? The answer, I am afraid, is not very well. The Department of Health’s annual report for 2020-21 reveals that it spent £12.1 billion on emergency PPE and, of that, £8.7 billion—70%—has been written off because the price has fallen, the PPE is unsuitable or it is past its expiry date. This is waste on a monumental scale, brought about by the Government’s failure to maintain adequate stocks before the pandemic and their tardiness in getting into the market, despite being advised to do so before prices took off.
These serious blunders were compounded by the chaotic way procurement was managed. As Gareth Davies, head of the National Audit Office, puts it, the department’s procurement was vulnerable to fraud due to large numbers of contracts being awarded to new suppliers, many of which came through the controversial VIP lane. He also points to a lack of checks on the quality of goods received and poor inventory management. If you add the wasted £8.7 billion to the £4.3 billion lost in fraudulent Covid grants, it comes to £1 billion more than the Government expect to raise from the increase in national insurance. To put it another way, if PPE procurement and Covid grants had been properly managed, we could have avoided wasting £13 billion of taxpayers’ money—and avoided the increase in national insurance at a time when people are struggling with the cost of living crisis.
This huge scandal has passed most of our press by. With a couple of honourable exceptions, the mainstream media has been shamefully silent. The only thorough report I have seen appeared in the New York Times in December 2020, and none of our papers picked it up, with the exception of the Guardian and Byline Times. Most papers have maintained a strict omerta.
Who has carried the can for this massive scandal? Which Ministers or officials have fallen on their swords or been fired? As we all know, nobody has taken responsibility; nobody has even apologised. As is always the way with this Government, seemingly no-one is to blame—which leaves us exposed to similarly poor performance when the next crisis arrives. It also means that the relatives and friends of the NHS workers and the staff and residents of care homes who perished through lack of PPE will get no explanation or apology.
As I promised at the start, I shall now tell the fascinating and deeply worrying story of Adrian Buckley, a gentleman from Yorkshire who has been trading with China for 32 years and has a full-time sourcing manager based in China on his payroll, not merely an agent. I am recounting his experiences in the summer of 2020 as an illustration of what can go wrong when competitive tendering is abandoned and individual Ministers and officials are given too much untrammelled discretion to select contractors.
In May 2020, Mr Buckley’s company, Buckley Healthcare Ltd, fulfilled an order for 1 million surgical gowns for a hospital trust in Yorkshire. The procurement director was so satisfied that he recommended Mr Buckley’s company to the NHS procurement officer, who informed Mr Buckley that he was putting his company forward to the Cabinet Office to supply 24 million gowns nationally. Mr Buckley and his sourcing manager scoured China for a factory with the capacity and skills to handle such a large order. They also thoroughly checked that the factory had access to the necessary raw materials and that the factory and its staff could meet the required specification for the products. After some time, they found a factory that met all the requirements, which was no mean feat in the frenzied market that existed at that time.
On 4 June 2020, Mr Buckley sent full details and prices to the NHS procurement officer, who forwarded them to the Cabinet Office. After a two-week silence, the details were re-sent to the office of the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, who was managing PPE procurement for the Government from the Cabinet Office. The email included the full specification and photos and videos from inside the factory.
On 25 June, three days after the company had been told that its proposal had been sent for approval, it was informed that the contract had been placed elsewhere. The company was surprised and disappointed, but assumed that it had been outbid and accepted the outcome.
A few days later, however, the company received an agitated phone call from the owner of the Chinese factory saying that he had been contacted by an agent for a company of which he had never heard concerning an order identical to the one he had planned with Mr Buckley. From the naive questions being asked, it was clear that this new company had no experience of buying PPE. Now suspicious that his company’s extensive investigation work and detailed proposal had been passed by the Government to another company—a debutant in the market—Mr Buckley emailed the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, asking what was going on. He received a reply from a civil servant offering first one and then another phoney reason for rejecting the Buckley bid, both of which were quickly dispensed with.
On 12 September, the contract with the other company was published, 30 days later than it should have been. It revealed that the contract had been awarded to a company called Inivos, which appears to have no previous experience of PPE. But the most startling revelation in the contract details was that the price paid to Inivos was £12 million higher than Mr Buckley’s proposal. So, there is every reason to suspect that the details of Mr Buckley’s supply arrangements were passed to Inivos, and that taxpayers have been robbed of £12 million in the process.
There is a full audit trail of all communications between the Cabinet Office and Mr Buckley’s company to support his version of events. I should say, by the way, that Mr Buckley and I have totally different political outlooks. He was a strong advocate of Brexit—although his serious problems with the new Brexit bureaucracy are causing him to think again—but he and I share a strong distaste for corruption and dishonesty. Many years ago, he donated £50,000 to the Conservative Party, and we both wonder whether he would have suffered the same fate from the Cabinet Office if he had kept up his payments to the Tories.
Will the Minister initiate an independent and forensic inquiry into whether a Minister or official in the Cabinet Office behaved unethically and passed to Inivos Mr Buckley’s gold-dust information on where and how to acquire the goods? Where is the extra £12 million? Did it remain with Inivos as super-profit, or was it shared with whoever disclosed the details of Mr Buckley’s supply arrangement with the Chinese factory—if that in fact happened? We also need to audit the other PPE contracts to find any other instances of similar behaviour.
Returning to the Bill, it lacks the necessary provisions to guarantee the integrity of the Government’s procurement process, as identified by the good people at the UK Anti-Corruption Coalition. Clauses 40 and 42 appear to give the Government the opportunity to discard the checks and rules, as they did for PPE procurement with such disastrous consequences. Transparency seems to have mysteriously slipped backwards since the Green Paper. These shortfalls, and others, must be rectified as the Bill passes through this House so that we never see a repeat of the cronyism and possible corruption that happened with the PPE contracts.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, and to identify totally with the important points he raised. I hope very much that his questions—on supplies at the time of the Covid outbreak and on whether this Bill will in fact be able to tighten up on the sort of happenings during that period that we just heard most alarmingly about—have been heard by the Government. I hope his speech does not get lost in the sands of time and that there will be answers to those questions.
Touching on the comments the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, made a moment ago, there is the question of the capacity we have within these islands to manufacture these things ourselves. That feeds through to the important speech made by my noble friend Lord Alton with regard to the policies of the Chinese regime towards its own citizens and the fact that we depend so much on Chinese manufacturing capacity to meet our needs. We have an overdependence on it, which surely leaves us immensely vulnerable to China in the general context as well as in the context we heard about from the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, a moment ago.
I also identify with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on the disability issues, and the important points made by my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, on the needs of small businesses, particularly those in the construction sector.
During the last Session, I was very much involved in debating the subsidy Bill, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, implied is a first cousin of the Bill that we have today. At that time, I described the way in which successive Welsh Governments had succeeded in using public sector procurement as a tool to stimulate the Welsh economy, within the framework of the European single market. So successful was that policy that, over two decades, the proportion of goods and services secured by the Welsh Government in Wales increased from 35% to 55%. This meant that we were securing work for employees, more trade for businesses in Wales and, often, far lower product miles, which helps our carbon footprint.
This is surely all to the good, provided that it is done in a manner that does not deliver inferior goods or services, does not significantly increase the price of procurement, does not lead to appreciable market distortion and does not prevent companies from outside Wales setting up in Wales to tender for such work. It is worth noting that, after this policy had reached a stable level, it contributed to a significant fall in unemployment levels in Wales, which, before the impact of Covid, had dropped to a level below the UK average for the first time in three generations. What this Welsh policy did not achieve was to raise significantly the average GDP per head in Wales; that is another issue that might be worthy of debate on another day. These factors are relevant background to our consideration of the Bill.
I welcome the fact that the Government have acknowledged, in Clause 13, that Welsh Ministers may publish their own strategic priorities in relation to procurement. In relation to the fact that Scotland is not in this agreement, I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, that uniformity of regulation across the nations is valid only if circumstances and aspiration are similar in each. We will need a mechanism that allows for flexibility between the nations of these islands as well as the advantages that come from having markets that are as open as they can be.
I understand that the wording of Clause 13 has been agreed with the Welsh Government, as the Minister suggested. Assuming that to be the case, it is a much-needed positive step forward in the relationship between Westminster and Cardiff Bay—I welcome this. However, it is far from clear how the application of a different approach to procurement in Wales will be rolled out in practice within this new regime. The Bill is silent on that key question, perhaps understandably, because I believe that discussions are ongoing on that matter.
If procurement policy in Wales, as underpinned in law, is identical to the provisions of the Bill—in which case the provisions of Clause 13 are purely declaratory—in practice, the provisions of the Bill will apply in their entirety to Wales, whether or not they chime in with the procurement policy of the Welsh Government. If that is the case, Clause 13 will be little more than window dressing. Alternatively—and I believe that this is more likely—Clause 13 is a vehicle whereby different procurement laws may be implemented in Wales, and the Welsh Government have been planning to bring forward their own Bill within their devolved legislative competence. I certainly hope that that is the case. I assume that the Senedd has devolved competence in all the relevant areas within the Bill. But, if it is not so, some legislative mechanism should be built into the Bill to give the Senedd the power to fine-tune legislation in these matters. Equally, there must be a lever whereby the provisions of parts of the Bill are disapplied in Wales, if circumstances dictate that. This can be agreed by the UK and Welsh Governments.
The Minister touched on these matters when opening the debate, and I hope that he can further clarify in the wind-up. It is, after all, totally inappropriate that statements are written into the UK statute book which could transpire to be meaningless. The Welsh Government have essentially used their procurement policy, working within the European framework which applied to these matters, to support disadvantaged communities by helping to maximise job opportunities in Wales. The EU allowed us to do this. It appears, however, depending on the interpretation of Clause 13, that in some circumstances the UK Government could in practice debar the Welsh Government from doing so. This goes to the heart of the approach that we take to disadvantaged people and the duty of government to safeguard them.
Against that background, it is revealing to consider the wording used in Clause 32 of this Bill, which, rightly, makes provision for contracts to support disadvantaged individuals. However, it does nothing to provide for disadvantaged communities, which is essentially the policy followed by the Welsh Government and which was endorsed by the EU. It is here that we see the reality of Brexit staring us in the face. If that is acknowledged by the UK Government, and if they wish to address the adverse implications for Wales, they should either give real teeth to Clause 13 and allow Wales to develop its own policy, underpinned in law, or, if they maintain that this distorts the UK single market, they should amend the Bill to ensure that public procurement policy throughout the UK can help address disadvantaged communities wherever they may be.
I know that the Welsh Government have greater ambitions in this field which they wish to progress. We shall look forward, in due course, to a Welsh legislative measure being introduced in the Senedd to facilitate this. One such ambition may be to help start-ups in Wales and help micro-companies to grow. Enabling them to bid for public sector contracts is one way of facilitating that growth. For a small business, the bureaucracy of bidding for such contracts can be daunting, and I know that a report on this will be published next week by the Coalition for a Digital Economy, or Coadec. I hope that the UK and Welsh Governments will pay attention to its analysis and representations. In the meantime, if the Welsh Government wanted to change their procurement rules in order to assist such small companies, can the Government give an assurance that they will be free to do so, either through Clause 13, suitably stiffened up to be fit for purpose, or by other legislative means?
Clause 11 of the Bill spells out what the Government see as their four procurement objectives: value for money, public benefit, transparent procurement policies, and acting with integrity. No one would argue with these four, though one might quibble about the order in which they are placed. To my mind, public benefit and value for money should be regarded as equally significant and worthy of equal weight when assessed for any contract. In other words, if government pays a penny more for a widget but by doing so helps secure a dozen jobs in an area of high unemployment, then it is a compromise which earns its place.
Perhaps I may raise a question in relation to the definition of “a devolved Welsh authority”, which arises in several places in the Bill. It is a term which constrains the powers exercised by the Welsh Ministers, as specified in Clause 99. That defines devolved Welsh authorities as ones falling into the definition of Section 157A of the Government of Wales Act 2006. That section relates to powers exercisable only in relation to Wales. Where does that leave Welsh Water, a not-for-profit utility some of whose responsibilities straddle the Wales- England border?
There are other aspects of this Bill which we undoubtedly will need to examine in Committee. Those include the need for transparency and for the public sector to appreciate the challenges facing small businesses when they try to secure public sector tenders. There is, in particular, a need for the public, and especially businesses which find the challenges of tendering successfully to be daunting, to be assured that the allocation of public sector contracts is totally fair and above board and that there is no room for the “old pals act” to secure business for companies that happen to be well connected.
I think that I have flagged up enough issues to which we should apply ourselves in Committee. I look forward to following these up at that time, and to hearing tonight the Minister’s response to the points which I have raised.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord. With 28 years of experience in local government, and eight years on the board of Transport for London, I have long had a very strong interest in procurement. I am delighted that so many noble Lords have an equally strong interest in procurement. However, it is somewhat dispiriting that so many Members have strayed off into using this Bill as yet another opportunity to roll out a number of anti-capitalist themes and proposals which will no doubt reappear in Committee and then be duly taken out by a sensible Government when it returns to another place.
My question is rather more radical than those raised by most noble Lords so far: whether we actually need this Bill at all. Of course, we need to scrap the EU regulations, but do we need to replace them at all? In large parts of Europe—I say this without specifying any particular parts—there was a history of municipal corruption in the award of contracts in a non-transparent and corrupt way, and it was right that we should tackle that as a single European Community while we were a member of it. It was also the case that the European Union saw these regulations as a means of forcing the development of a single market. As we are no longer a member of the single market, that consideration is not relevant to us.
When it comes to municipal corruption, I will be so bold as to say that, in this country, we have been remarkably free of it. In my lifetime, there have been a few very significant cases—but only very, very few. We are very fortunate; we have an enviable record of a lack of corruption in public bodies. I was expecting at this point to be jeered at in the wake of the remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger. Yet, even if the allegations made and hinted at by the noble Lord were all vindicated, the remedy for them would lie in the criminal law and not in this Bill. This is because we have a full panoply of criminal law dealing with municipal and public body corruption, against the taking of bribes and against misconduct in public office. This is where we should look for remedies to the sort of corruption with which these regulations were originally intended to deal, rather than this Bill, which in my view is almost irrelevant. Indeed, the weakness of the Bill in relation to remedies has already been pointed out by other noble Lords, particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.
I ask myself—and my noble friend the Minister can explain this later—why we do not simply scrap the existing regulations, rely on the criminal law as we used to before we joined the European Union, and then perhaps an esteemed body, such as the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, could issue a good practice note on how local authorities should comply with our international obligations. Is anything more than that actually needed?
The bureaucratisation of honesty—which is what we are actually discussing here—has led, over recent years, to the creation of what I call a high priesthood of procurement. By that, I mean people who are dedicated to the process—because this is a process Bill—of honesty rather than to its substance. Having got the grip of the process of procurement, they often refuse to let it go, even though everyone can see—even themselves quite often—that the procurement process is leading to a disaster. I hope that this Bill would at least be drafted in such a way as to avoid the pitfalls of the current system. I know that there have been some war stories, but I will take the opportunity to illustrate what I am saying with some of my own.
Very fortunately for me, back in the 1990s a very wise council officer said to me, “Do you know, I can get any result I want out of a procurement process? The secret, Councillor Moylan, is in how you set up the conditions by which the final decision will be made.” The whole system rests on what conditions you set up. I will give just a few examples. I know of one public procurement project, for services, which allocated 40% of the points to what was called “project compatibility”. When I said, “What does that mean?”, they said, “It means that we can choose whoever it is we want to work with, because they will be compatible with us.”
On another occasion, I was brought in to sit on an architectural panel; I was not involved early on, so I did not have a chance to shape the conditions. It was an architectural procurement—not a construction procurement—for a major public building. Having interviewed the various architects and seen their proposals, when we decided which one we wanted we were told by local government officers, who had brought their own lawyers to control us, that we could not have it because it did not meet the criteria. We asked what criteria it was not meeting, and the answer was financial stability—35% of the points had been given, without anyone being consulted, to the financial stability. Financial stability is important in some contracts, but if you choose a one-man architecture practice to build something for you and he goes bankrupt, you just rehire him; there is no consideration of financial stability when it comes to procuring services such as that. But we ended up with the architect we did not want because we had left it all too late.
I will now come to the question of the new, iconic bus shelter for London. Noble Lords will notice that there is no such thing as a new, iconic bus shelter for London. I engaged with TfL on this before I joined the board, and I said, “We should have a new, iconic bus shelter for London, because they are dreadful—absolutely appalling.” Peter Hendy, who was then commissioner of Transport for London, was good enough to agree that something should be done. I was representing London Councils at the time, so we set up jointly a process in which we invited architects to submit proposals for this wonderful thing. TfL officers ran it as a procurement process.
A large number of wonderful designs were put to us—20 appeared—some of which were so extravagant that they could never have been used. A design panel was put in place to make the architectural judgments, only for us to discover at the end of the presentations that we were not allowed to take design into account because the TfL officers had used the branch of the procurement process that you would use if you were buying a piece of air-conditioning plant. So it was to be judged entirely on the specification of whether it kept the rain out and things such as that. The entire purpose of the exercise was defeated through a misapplication of the procurement process, and we all agreed, exhausted by that point, that basically we would abandon it and come back to it. But we never did, so London still has a wide variability and a high level of ugliness in its bus shelters.
These revelations may shock noble Lords—I do not know—but they would not have shocked anybody engaged in public procurement in most other European Union countries, because they are perfectly aware that most European Union legislation is written with a high degree of rigidity as far as the words are concerned, and a high degree of flexibility as far as the application is concerned. Reference was made earlier to our gold-plating things. It is not that we gold-plate them; it is that we take them seriously in a way that other countries do not.
I say to my noble friend that my worry is simply this. We are quite rightly getting rid of a set of regulations that do not work for us and were designed for certain stances that do not apply to us, but instead of taking the radical approach of asking what the point of them was in the first place and whether we need them, we are in great danger of replicating them but with an English touch—sorry, I should not say English, because I am speaking just after the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and I should have said earlier how delighted we all are that Wales has joined in this great corporate endeavour. My worry is that we simply put a local—a national—touch on them, but we end up with the same problems. We will still be doing obeisance to the high priesthood of procurement, and we will find that we are no further forward and will certainly not be dealing with allegations of corruption because, as I said, those will effectively still be dealt with under the criminal law.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, it has been an interesting, wide-ranging debate. I will base the bulk of my speech on the Government’s Green Paper, Transforming Public Procurement, published in December 2020. My interest is in what has been described as contract compliance by public authorities. It must be understood that public authorities, those covered by this legislation, have a range of objectives that come into play when they procure goods and services. Obtaining the goods or services at the lowest possible price is only one of a range of objectives they could follow.
Another objective—an overriding objective, I argue—is to encourage and secure a range of government policies through the contracts into which they enter. The Government’s support for this understanding of the role of procurement was clear in the Green Paper, which said:
“By improving public procurement, the Government can not only save the taxpayer money but drive social, environmental and economic benefits across every region of the country.”
I repeat: government policy is about not just price but achieving
“social, environmental and economic benefits across … the country.”
There is no indication of an order of priority of these different objectives.
The Green Paper states that
“we want to send a clear message that public sector commercial teams do not have to select the lowest price bid, and that in setting the procurement strategy, drafting the contract terms and evaluating tenders they can and should take a broad view of value for money that includes social value … We propose allowing buyers to include criteria that go beyond the subject matter of the contract and encourage suppliers to operate in a way that contributes to economic, social and environmental outcomes on the basis of the ‘most advantageous tender’.”
I anticipate that my noble friend Lord Hendy will not talk about bus shelters but emphasise how this approach can support improvements in employment standards.
Simply as another example, I emphasise how contract compliance, operated as part of procurement policies, can lead to improvements in environmental standards both in the UK and abroad. It is no exaggeration to say that this is a crucial element in what the Government need to do to achieve their goals for arresting climate change. It would be absurd if public authorities did not assess the impact on the climate of their procurement policies.
My concern is therefore that the Government’s position as set out in the Bill is now less clear-cut than it was in the Green Paper. For example, in paragraph 3 of the Explanatory Notes there is the statement of different goals, but paragraph 4 then goes on to talk only about
“value for money for taxpayers.”
We already have a national procurement policy statement, which was issued last year and is a sort of progenitor of the statutory statement we can anticipate later this year, I assume. Again, it sets out the range of objectives but then, in a separate paragraph, identifies and gives precedence to value for money. I am concerned that value for money is in some way seen as the key objective and the others as subsidiary. Do the Government still adhere to the approach set out in the Green Paper? This is obviously a key issue to consider in Committee, so will the Minister make the position clear: does the policy in the Green Paper still apply? In the explanatory statement and the statement of principles—the policy statement—it appears that at one stage there was a paragraph setting out the range of objectives, but then, unfortunately, someone read it and said, “This won’t do; we need an additional statement to emphasise money.” I really want clarity on that.
What role will there be within the national procurement policy statement for local policy objectives, even local objectives not fully in line with national objectives? The useful report, as ever, from the Library tells us that the Cabinet Office set out that the intention of the NPPS was not to impose the Government’s political priorities on bodies normally outside of their control, but rather to influence them. As you read through the paragraph however, it is clear that it is expecting its own democratically elected separate bodies to adopt the Government’s core principles. Will the Government make it clear that local authorities, which have their own democratic mandate, will not be dragooned by central government?
Finally, people may be surprised to know, a point about pensions. There is nothing in the Bill directly relating to pension schemes, but some schemes will end up being classed as contracting authorities and will be required to undertake procurement in the same way as government departments and local authorities. The Government say that attempts to introduce flexibility to simplify public procurement processes could impact on this sort of organisation. Great stress has been placed on the importance of simplicity in the process. I am not sure that simplicity is a good objective on its own. Clarity is an important objective, but simplicity can lead to confusion and difficulties for those organisations not regularly working through this process.
I am not expecting the Minister to respond on the impact on pension schemes at this stage, but it is an issue to which I think we need to return—smaller organisations caught within the remit. The Bill already includes provision for some exemptions, and we will need to look at whether waivers are required for some specific organisations.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, my contribution relates to the Bill’s impact on registered providers of social housing—bodies involved in contract procurement worth billions of pounds each year. The sector is a key contributor to easing the housing crisis by building tens of thousands of new homes, helping to fix the building safety disaster and undertaking day-to-day works to ensure residents in social housing have decent homes, while addressing the climate crisis and seeking to implement an ambitious decarbonisation strategy.
I want to raise one factual question, one issue of principle and one point of practical detail. First, am I right in assuming that the definition of public authorities, which clearly covers the non-profit registered providers of housing—housing associations, in common parlance—also covers the new breed of for-profit registered providers? The latter can obtain government grants and are subject to regulation by the Regulator of Social Housing. Indeed, their profit-making ethos may demand increased regulatory attention, compared with the non-profit providers, but are they classified for the purposes of this Bill as public authorities?
Secondly, my overarching point of principle concerns one way in which the procurement process can determine the success or failure of a contract. I have received excellent briefings from the specialist law firm Trowers & Hamlins. The view of experts in this field is that the use of current relative price models drives a race to the bottom. As many noble Lords have pointed out, a key objective of the Bill is to maximise the public benefit of contracts. But the current process actually leads to a narrow interpretation of best value which translates into awarding the highest marks to the tender with the lowest price and downplays the real benefits of other, more expensive but more advantageous bids. Even if the weighting split between quality and price favours quality, the evaluation model gives preference to the lowest price. In effect, the public sector asks bidders to guess the lowest price to win—not the actual price they think is necessary to perform the contract properly. Such an approach can undermine the relationship between client and contractor. From day one, the contractor must look to cut costs and retrieve its profit margin. This leads to conflict and loss of quality, innovation, investment, apprenticeships and safety.
The UK Construction Playbook already acknowledges the harm caused by such pricing models. This acknowledgement needs to flow into the Procurement Bill and its associated guidance. The Bill already requires scoring methodologies to be described in the tender documents. I suggest that this obligation incorporates provision to prevent these unhelpful “relative price models” from being used by public authorities when procuring contracts that should prioritise safety, quality and value.
My third and final point is about a grey area in the world of public procurement to which my noble friend Lord Aberdare has drawn attention. This relates to the fees charged by procurement consortia that offer a service to bodies such as housing associations that are not confident of their compliance with all the statutory regulations governing procurement. These organisations make sure that all the necessary requirements are met—for which they charge a fee that can add anything from 3% to 10% to the cost of the contract. While larger housing providers such as Places for People—which has explained the position to me—have in-house expertise to perform this role, smaller operators are spending millions of pounds hiring these intermediary bodies.
The practical point I want to leave with the Minister is that these procurement consortia should not be operating—as some are—under a cloak of commercial secrecy. Since taxpayers’ money is involved, surely the Bill should require these transactions to be fully disclosed, proportionate and used solely in the public interest.
In conclusion, are for-profit registered providers covered by the Bill? Can unintended preference for price over social value—currently built into most evaluation models—be prevented through this legislation for those contracts which have quality, safety and value at their core? Will the Minister look at mandatory transparency for the fees charged by procurement consortia to ensure that they are used solely in the public interest?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Best. As always, he was extremely incisive and clear about our all too often tragically awful housing and general building sector. I very much wish to associate myself with his remarks about transparency. We need to ensure and extend that, and not allow commercial confidentiality to overcome it. This extends far beyond the housing sector.
I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. As second-last of the Back-Bench speakers, it is a great challenge not to repeat anything. I will seek not to do that, so I begin by associating myself entirely with the comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Parminter, who covered many of the issues that your Lordships’ House might expect me, as a Green, to cover. Perhaps it is fortunate that I land at this particular spot on the list, because mine might be described, in chunks at least, as a balancing speech to that of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.
As we look at the Bill we have to start by looking at the disastrous history of the outsourcing of government services over the past decades. I am not being specifically party-political or looking at only one side of your Lordships’ House here. There was some acknowledgement of this in a government press release on 6 December 2021, which said that the Government would seek to exclude
“companies with a track record of poor delivery, fraud or corruption”
from winning public contracts.
To pick a few of the worst offenders more or less at random—if you want a wider selection, pick up any Private Eye and you will find many more—let us start with Serco, which was fined £22.9 million in a settlement with the Serious Fraud Office over its electronic tagging contract. That was a deal through which it dodged criminal charges. Capita, with a £1.3 billion contract for Army recruitment, missed every target for recruiting both regulars and reserves, in some years by 45% and never in a decade by less than 21%.
Arguably the worst offender of all is G4S, which advertises itself as
“the leading global, integrated security company”,
with more than half a million mostly low-paid employees around the world and a human rights record to rival a failed state. It was profiting from running Birmingham jail until it spectacularly lost control—due, the independent monitoring board suggested, to insufficient staffing levels and quality. One job ad put out by G4S said that
“no specific previous qualifications or experience”
were required to be a prison custody officer. The state’s highly trained officers had to come to the rescue when G4S lost control. It also had the contract for Medway Secure Training Centre, which houses some of the most vulnerable children in the country, as well as for Rainsbrook Secure Training Centre. Both contracts had to be taken off it in consequence of its absolute failure.
So it is very clear that this Bill is to be welcomed. Indeed, we have heard welcomes for the Bill from all around the House—except perhaps from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. However, it is worth going back to something that lots of people said. In his introduction, the Minister claimed that this was part of the famed and much-celebrated Brexit dividend, although of course, as I will come back to, many other members of the European Union seem to have managed without the continual stream of outsourcing disasters involving multinational companies that we have had under exactly the same set of EU rules.
However, let us start from where we are now and make the Bill as good as possible. For that, we really need some clarity. It is really important to stress that Clause 18, which talks about the “most advantageous tender” in a competitive tendering process, is not actually new. It is already possible under current regulations and guidance. Bringing in something that already exists will not change culture and practice. Many noble Lords have expressed the concern that value for money equals lowest unit cost. There has to be focus on social, environmental and economic value, particularly in our disadvantaged communities.
There has to be an opening up to small and medium-sized enterprises—which the Government say they wish to achieve—and away from these disastrous failed multinationals, which are great at being cash cows and terrible at delivering services. On that point, I associate myself in particular with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, that the idea that a small or medium-sized enterprise, in dealing with a big organisation on a contract that has gone wrong, can use civil remedies and take it to court is clearly utterly impractical. We need something else. We also need to look very closely at the way the 30-day payment regime is expressed in the Bill and whether it is strong enough.
I note the useful briefing from the Local Government Association, which notes, as the Green Party often does, that so many apparently cheap things have been costing us dear in this low-wage economy, such as the lack of investment in training and skills and the environmental damage. However, I think I would acknowledge as a Green that there is something of a philosophical problem here in that this is trying to set some rules from Westminster that apply around England and Wales, at least. Green philosophy shows a way forward here. In this Bill we need to have a foundation of basic standards while allowing freedom for councils and other commissioning bodies to choose higher employment, environmental and service standards. I note the call from the Local Government Association for national funding for the upskilling of council procurement officers. We all know how stretched local government is, so I have a specific question for the Minister. Do the Government intend to provide resources to local councils to ensure that they are able to work with the significant change that the Government outline in the Bill?
I note also in passing a number of useful briefings that have stressed very much the importance of getting away from the multinationals. They are from Social Enterprise UK, Coadec—the Coalition for a Digital Economy—the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the National Association for Voluntary and Community Action. I note also a very useful briefing from UNISON, which says that what we need are inclusive, high-quality sustainable public services. Those are not just about procurement; they are also, of course, about decent funding.
I should like to make a couple of specific points about the detail. I suggest that Schedules 6 and 7 need to be combined. Schedule 6 has the mandatory exclusion grounds, which include conviction for corporate manslaughter or corporate homicide, fraud, bribery, slavery and human trafficking, organised crime and tax offences. I am glad they are regarded as exclusions. That is a good place to start, but I think we have to look at some of the contracts set over recent years to see that that does not seem to have been applied.
Schedule 7 lists the discretionary exclusion grounds. These include labour market misconduct, environmental misconduct, competition infringements and professional misconduct. Surely these grounds should also exclude bidders. If that means that all the bidders are excluded—perhaps not unlikely, given the tale of woe with which I started—maybe we need to get to a contract specification that caters for a different sort of bidder, such as a social enterprise or indeed a public body constituted for the purpose of delivering that service or goods.
Here, I cycle back to where I started and warn noble Lords that this is where I get to my most controversial bit. I note that all my case studies—perhaps they were not entirely randomly selected—are about the exercise of the coercive power of the state. I would say that whether in prisons, courts, policing or the military, the exercise of those grave responsibilities—the literal power, in the worst cases, over life and death, and certainly the power over individual liberty—should not come from contracts for which the Government hand over responsibility. It should remain in government hands. I will be talking to the Public Bill Office to see whether there is a way to bring that into the Bill.
I have been mostly negative but I always like to be hopeful so I shall circle back to the points raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Parminter, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Maude, who said: can we get the heart racing about public procurement? Absolutely I can and I can point to the fact that, back in October 2019, the first Written Questions I put down in your Lordships’ House as a new baby Peer—of a few days, I think—were about public procurement. I asked the Government how much organic and local food was being bought for schools, hospitals and prisons. I think noble Lords who have been round a lot longer than I will probably know the answer I got to each of those Questions. Exactly right—the Government do not know.
I come to a point on which, for the second day in a row, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and I can perhaps agree: impact assessment. Reading all the pages of this long and complex Bill, I cannot see—I am not a legal expert—where we have an impact assessment of what the Bill does in, say, two years’ time. How will it have changed public procurement to improve public health, the economic situation of disadvantaged areas and the state of our environment and natural world by cutting carbon emissions? I leave your Lordships’ House with this question: how will we see the Bill’s impacts?
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I will not speak about the bus shelters of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, or my brother, but I support what was said by my noble friends Lady Hayman and Lady Young, the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Bennett, and others about the use of public procurement as an instrument to advance environmental objectives.
Public procurement is also a very efficient way by which government and public authorities can require high standards from, and provide a good example to, employers. This is an important aspect of fulfilling the second objective in Clause 11(1)—“maximising public benefit”—because, of course, every public contract to which the Bill will apply requires workers to execute it. The United Kingdom has long recognised public procurement as a particularly apt tool to protect and enhance wages and working conditions. The fair wages resolutions of the House of Commons date back to 1891. Their final form was the fair wages resolution of 1946, introduced by Labour and supported by the Conservatives. In his speech in support, Harold Macmillan said of the Government:
“in placing their buying power—and this is the story behind this Resolution—they should see that they do so only with the best employers and that they do not use their contracting power to do down the better employer and to get better prices from the bad employer.”—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/1946; col. 632.]
At that stage, the fair wages resolution had been elaborated from 1891 so that, in 1946, it had two main components. First, government contractors and subcontractors were required, as a condition of their contracts, to observe those terms and conditions of employment that had been established for the trade or industry in the relevant district by joint negotiating machinery or by arbitration. Secondly, in the absence of such established terms, contractors had to observe terms no less favourable than the general level observed by other employers whose general circumstances in the relevant trade or industry were similar. Questions arising under the resolution were first referred to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service for conciliation and, if unsuccessful, to the Central Arbitration Committee for decision. These provisions were generally duplicated by public authorities, public bodies and the nationalised industries. In this way, wages, terms and conditions were driven up and good employers were not undercut by bad employers.
The resolution was rescinded by the Thatcher Government in 1983. To do so, it was first necessary for the United Kingdom to denounce, in 1982, International Labour Organization Convention 94, the Labour Clauses (Public Contracts) Convention 1949, which had adopted much of its text from the fair wages resolution.
Industrial relations have of course changed a great deal since 1983. Then, over 80% of British workers still had terms and conditions of employment set by collective agreements negotiated between employers and trade unions. Most of that coverage was by national agreements in various sectors. So the abolition of the fair wages resolution did not immediately have a great impact, but the policy and legislation of successive Governments have now reduced collective bargaining coverage to something below 25% of the workforce. Indeed, less than 13% of workers in the private sector, where public contracts will be placed, have the benefit of collectively agreed terms and conditions.
Consequently, today, the vast majority of the workforce are at the mercy of the labour market and employer diktat to set the terms and conditions on which they have to work. The national minimum wage is intended to protect the lowest hourly rate, but it cannot, of course, create the “high-wage, high-productivity economy” to which this Government aspire. So, reversion to negotiated terms and conditions, as elsewhere in western Europe, and as advocated by both the ILO and the OECD—see successive employment outlooks from 2017 onwards—and, as proposed by the fair wages Bill now before the New Zealand Parliament, might well redress the falling value of real wages in this country, wages which are already lower in value now than they were 12 years ago, particularly in the lowest three quarters of the wage distribution, with the exception of the very lowest paid.
This Bill presents the opportunity to revert to the 1891 and 1946 precedents as a simple and powerful mechanism to drive up wages, terms and conditions and to prevent bad employers from undercutting good ones. I will propose an amendment to that effect, if the Government are unwilling to move their own, and would be happy to consider with colleagues how these principles might apply to overseas suppliers, which we have heard about this evening. The Bill also provides the opportunity to deal with any number of other workplace abuses. Here is the chance to make public contracts dependent on not behaving as P&O Ferries did, as my noble friend Lord Whitty pointed out. Here is a chance to put an end to the noxious practice of “fire and rehire”, at least by public bodies. If it be thought that public bodies do not resort to such tactics, Richmond upon Thames College is an example of such a body, which has threatened 127 lecturers with that very ploy. Again, if the Government do not move such amendments, and in the absence of an employment Bill, I would wish to do so.
There are a number of other good practices to encourage and bad practices to discourage which this Bill could achieve by way of conditionality for the grant of public contracts, but I will not take time now to go through them. I have just one further point. The public procurement regulations which are to be displaced by the current Bill do not do any of the things that I have mentioned. But one thing that those regulations did do—in Regulation 56(2) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, for example—was allow public authority contractors to refuse tenderers which failed to comply with the various environmental, social and labour law provisions listed in Annex X to the EU public contracts directive of 2014. Amongst other things, that annexe lists ILO Convention 87 on the right to organise and ILO Convention 98 on the right to bargain collectively. These provisions have been excised from the current Bill. Schedule 7 does not include such international standards as grounds for discretionary exclusion of tenderers, and the list of international agreements in Schedule 9 does not include any ILO conventions or, indeed, any human rights instruments at all.
The UK was the first country to ratify Conventions 87 and 98, in 1948 and 1949 respectively. They became the most fundamental and are now the most ratified of all the conventions of the ILO. The present Government might harbour the desire to denounce those conventions, as they did 40 years ago with Convention 94, given that the UK has been found to be continuously in breach of them since at least 1989. However, they cannot denounce them because they have recently committed to
“respecting, promoting and effectively implementing the internationally recognised core labour standards, as defined in the fundamental ILO Conventions, which are: … (a) freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining”—
I will not read the rest, but I am quoting from Article 399 of the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement of last year. That article also reiterates that the Government
“commits to implementing all the ILO Conventions that the United Kingdom and the Member States have respectively ratified”.
In light of that, I ask the Minister: how can the exclusion in this Bill of references to ILO Conventions 87 and 98 as a potential basis of refusing tenderers be justified?
In conclusion, I wonder if the Minister would be prepared to meet to discuss whether and to what extent labour standards might be made conditions for public contracts.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Maude, remarked that this is a dull subject and implied that we are all rather nerdish to be here. It has been, I think, a constructively nerdish debate. I admit that I have learned quite a lot about the problems of public procurement from working with the noble Lord, Lord Maude. I disagreed strongly with some of his ideas, but I agreed very strongly with some of them as well. I also shared his frustration that some of his best ideas were blocked by the departmentalism of Whitehall and the argument that each department made, as others do, of “We’re different from the others —besides, I’m the Accountable Officer to Parliament”, and that a number of opportunities for reasonable reform were therefore missed. Procurement is a very dull subject most of the time, but one punctuated by scandals when they hit the Daily Mail.
As a revising Chamber, if we are able to work together, our aim in this Bill should be to provide a framework which can outlast the present Government and to provide a stable, long-term environment for contracting between different parts of government and outside suppliers. The Minister will recognise that I say that with particular passion, having survived the Elections Act, as it now is, which was a deeply partisan and deeply unsatisfactory Bill which will have to be rewritten by whichever party comes into office after the next election. Let us do this one differently, please.
There is an awful lot of windy Brexiteer rhetoric about “taking back control” and replacing
“the current bureaucratic and process-driven EU regime for public procurement”—
but here we have an unavoidably bureaucratic and process-driven Bill to replace the EU regime. The Bill does not entirely “take back control” because, as we will have to discuss, the UK will still be governed by various international standards and limited by the commitments given in the various trade agreements we are signing with other countries.
What we must focus on is getting the framework and the requisite elements of parliamentary oversight right. I think we all recognise that we cannot do much more than that. The problems of implementation cannot be dealt with very easily in law. The training of national and local civil servants to manage procurement is clearly very important; outside the Bill, I would like to ask the Minister whether we can have some more information about what sort of training is being laid on to improve the quality of procurement at all levels.
There is clearly an excessively complicated contracts process which enables outsourcing companies like Serco and Capita, and the sad Carillion, to write contracts which they therefore win but which they do not actually execute quite as well as others might have done. We are dependent on the success of the digital platform, which we will have to discuss, but its actual execution is clearly out of the hands of anyone in this Chamber, although the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on our Benches, will want to discuss that a little more.
On parliamentary oversight, there is some very imprecise language, as always, in this Bill: “an appropriate authority” may do this, that and the other. Every time I read that, I thought of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and his committee, and how much he will pounce on the idea that tertiary legislation will be provided by some sort of authority somewhere around or near Whitehall. Clause 12, on the national procurement policy statement, which we have discussed in some detail, states that
“a Minister … must … carry out such consultation as the Minister considers appropriate”
and the statement can be amended or replaced whenever a Minister considers it necessary. Since 2015, Ministers have changed, on average, every 15 months. We have had five or six Cabinet Ministers in various offices since 2015. That is an appalling rate of turnover. It also means that continuity is very hard to get and that parliamentary oversight questioning a Minister, asking why he or she wants to change the policy statement or whatever it may be, is an important part of trying to maintain continuity. We all know that in many areas of procurement, continuity and a long-term perspective are extremely important.
Many of the most attractive reforming ideas in the Green Paper, Transforming Public Procurement, appear only weakly in the Bill. The Green Paper proposes, for example,
“a new flexible procedure that gives buyers freedom to negotiate and innovate to get the best from the private, charity and social enterprise sectors”,
but the charity and social enterprise sectors have almost entirely disappeared from the Bill. The Minister’s letter at the time of First Reading stated that the reforms to the procurement regime would be based on value for money, competition and objective criteria in decision-making, whatever those objective criteria may be. The briefing on Bills in the Queen’s Speech goes further, claiming that the Bill enshrines the principles of public procurement, with value for money first and foremost. We have heard from others in this debate that even the concept of value for money depends on whether you are saying value of money over one year, over five years or, as the manager of Crossrail said on television yesterday, over 60 years. It changes your calculations considerably. However, Clause 11 balances all this by adding as an objective “maximising public benefit”, and Clause 18 refers to the “most advantageous tender”, deliberately changed from previously, when it was the “most economically advantageous tender”—again without spelling out what criteria should come into play.
We will wish to put back in the Bill the language of the Green Paper, which states, for example, in paragraph 89:
“A more sophisticated understanding of different types of value—including social value … wider public policy delivery and whole-life value”
and refers in paragraph 100 to delivering
“greater value through a contract in broader qualitative (including social and environmental) terms”.
In paragraph 39, the Green Paper calls for
“a proportionate delivery model assessment before deciding whether to outsource, insource or re-procure a service thorough evidenced based analysis”.
That is wonderful but, again, why is not the option of insourcing confirmed in the Bill? We are all aware of the failure of water privatisation, for example, to deliver the promise that it would bring a surge of additional investment into the sector to clean up England’s rivers and coastlines. It did not lead to that; it generated high profits for its investors instead.
The Bill is very soft on private utilities, in view of their very mixed record in several sectors. It aims, as Minister told us, to reduce the regulatory burden on private utilities and to reduce transparency requirements to “the minimum required” by international trade agreements. The Bill contains a mechanism to exempt utilities in some sectors, such as ports, from procurement regulation. Even Dominic Raab has now discovered that ports are an important part of our national resilience and security structure. I am therefore not sure that exempting them from that level of supervision is desirable.
The Minister is a good populist. I draw his attention to the Survation poll of voters in the red wall seats captured by the Conservatives in 2019, which showed an overwhelming preference for some form of public ownership and management of water, energy supply, public transport, health and social care services. The Government are not giving their voters what they want.
The case for not automatically assuming that private service companies will provide the best outcome is strongest in the provision of personal services and social care, as the MacAlister report has just shown. The report states bluntly:
“Providing care for children should not be based on profit.”
The horrifying stories in today’s Times about the excessive profits made by convicted criminals through managing social care for children reinforce all of that case. Local authorities may often be the most appropriate provider. One of the most absurd and damaging central government decisions on outsourcing was, at the beginning of the pandemic, to put out the test and trace scheme to two large service companies, one of them based in Florida, which had no idea of local geography or conditions, when local public health officers already had the knowledge and contacts to provide a faster and more effective response. The Minister has a distinguished record in local government. I am sure that he does not share the view of some of his ministerial colleagues that central government should always have the main control of everything that goes on.
Briefings on the Bill all refer to ensuring “greater transparency of data”. We have all learned to be sceptical of government promises of transparency, freedom of information, and so on. Here, too, we shall want to ensure that there is active parliamentary oversight.
The briefings we have received from the Local Government Association and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations contain a number of reasoned criticisms and proposals for amendments which I hope the Government will accept to improve the Bill. I particularly noted the NCVO’s reference to the role that some strategic suppliers play in adding SMEs and charities to their promised supply chains but then not following through by giving them contracts—using charities and SMEs as “bid candy”, as I gather is the phrase. A more critical approach to companies that are skilled in drafting sophisticated contracts but not good at delivery is clearly needed but, again, that is more a matter of changing the negotiation of contracts and improving monitoring than of drafting in the Bill.
There are issues of corruption and of preventing undue political influence, which are touched on in Part 5—Clauses 74 to 76—which we will also need to discuss, despite the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I am not entirely sure that I yet understand the concept of dynamic markets, and I should welcome a further briefing on that.
I end where I began: I hope that, as a group of nerds, we can agree to a considerable degree on what needs to be done, that we can manage to put into the Bill a coherent framework for the future of public procurement, and that the Minister will co-operate with us—I thank him very much for the briefings we have already had and look forward to more—in achieving that objective.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. It is a privilege to follow him and say that I agree with much of what he had to say and the way he said it. I also thank the Minister for the customary way in which he introduced the Bill and tried to explain the various parts of it—I think the whole House was grateful to him for doing that. The thrust of the debate has shown that most noble Lords are basically in favour of much of the Bill and the direction in which it is going. However, we seek to improve and develop it, and to test what the Government really mean in certain aspects of it. I hope that the Minister will take my remarks in that context.
To the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, I say that I support the Government’s endeavour. I guess that makes the Minister a semi-capitalist, whereas I am a full-blown anti-capitalist in what I am going to say, so I apologise to the noble Lord in advance for that. I hope he will manage to stay in his seat and not get too upset by some of the things I am going to say. It appears to me that, so far as he is concerned, his own Government are treading down a dangerous path—whereas, for me, they are very much treading down a welcome path.
My noble friend Lord Whitty hit the nail on the head when he said that the importance of all this is that law sets the context, the priorities for a Government and the way in which you would wish a Government to act. This is the importance of the Bill before us. As my noble friend Lady Hayman pointed out in her excellent opening speech, this is the opportunity for us as a country—but also for this Government, pushed and supported in many ways by many of us in this House—to actually change direction. I think that is what the country wants. Coming out of the pandemic, the country does not want a return to things as they were and to business as usual. I believe that that is why the Government have done this. Of course, they have been consulting on it, but they mentioned it in the last Queen’s Speech in 2021 and did not do anything. Now they have mentioned it in 2022 and come forward with it—so I think they themselves recognise that there is a need to act. The public want something better, we want something better, and now is the time for us all to move forward.
On the £300 billion-worth of public spending, I would be interested to learn what the actual figure is with the exemptions. If the Minister cannot give it to us now, can he write to us with the actual figure: is it £300 billion or will it be less than that with the exemptions and so on that are included in the Bill? If we accept that figure, £300 billion-worth of public spending can be used to drive forward the sort of country and businesses we want. As many noble Lords in this debate have said, this is the way we can move forward and the direction we can take. Whether it be on labour, climate, levelling up, anti-poverty or anything else, this is a real opportunity for us to change direction. That is what is at the heart of this Second Reading debate: have the Government gone far enough, could they go further and what other steps could they take in order to move forward?
The Government set out six principles in their Green Paper—
“the public good, value for money, transparency, integrity, fair treatment of suppliers and non-discrimination”—
so it is somewhat disappointing to find that, when we come to the actual Bill, we have four factors and no principles. I think it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, who mentioned the importance of Clauses 11 and 12 taken together, where there are objectives but no principles. What we mean by that will be a subject for debate by all of us in Committee. Clause 11 is fundamental to the whole operation of the Bill. What are we going to require businesses to do? What are we going to expect of them? What will the public procurement push them to do?
At some point the Minister will also need to clarify Clause 12 and what the national procurement policy statement will be. My understanding is that the existing one will go and a new one will be produced following the passage of the Bill. I think we need to know what is said on that.
Many noble Lords mentioned the need for us to consider things such as social, environmental and labour clauses. That is why Clause 18 is really important. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Parminter, and very powerfully my noble friend Lady Young pointed out, the move from having the most economically advantageous tender to taking out the reference to “economic” and having in its place the “most advantageous tender” gives us the opportunity to include social and environmental issues. As my noble friends Lord Davies and Lord Hendy pointed out, we can look at labour proposals with respect to that and demand certain things of businesses, because that is the sort of model and the sort of change we want.
My noble friend Lord Mendelsohn, from his experience as a businessman, and others pointed out the importance of this for small businesses. What will it mean for them? How will it help them? As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked, how will the new digital portal work in a way that gives business access to the sorts of things the Government want? What about the late-payment provisions in the Bill? How will they help? How will it work? There are all sorts of questions to be answered, and obviously we can discuss the details in Committee.
Transparency is everything. You cannot do anything without transparency—without knowing what is happening and what is going on. As my noble friend Lady Young pointed out, we need the data to be able to do that. Otherwise, it will be like the analogy with football—not liking football and not even knowing the result because nobody has given it to you, so you cannot tell who has won or lost.
One of the really important things is how all this will be enforced. In the Green Paper there was a procurement review unit, which has now been downgraded to an “appropriate authority”, with no clarity on what that means. As far as I can understand from reading Part 10, the appropriate authority will be able to make recommendations and conduct an investigation, but there is no way that those recommendations, as a result of any investigation, will be binding. The Minister will correct me if I have this wrong, but if they are not binding, what difference does it make? How will the new appropriate authority that will enforce all these regulations work in practice and ensure that what we intend and want from the Bill actually happens?
How will we ensure that the benefits outlined in the Procurement Bill spill over into defence? Clause 105 deals with single-source contracts, which are worth approaching £10 billion. How will that work? As I understand it, there will be new secondary legislation to deal with that. All the Bill does is to introduce primary legislation to allow changes to be made to secondary legislation, which will deal with the single-source contracts that the Ministry of Defence operates in certain circumstances. I do not understand what difference that will make, and at some point we will need to understand that.
There is a huge problem with defence spending, which has bedevilled the department for a number of years. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and my noble friend Lord Hunt spoke about that. To take one example, 29 Ajax vehicles have been delivered to the Government at a cost of £3.5 billion so far. There are more on the way. We are supposed to have 569, which were supposed to have been delivered four or five years ago, so there is a huge problem around this. We need to know how the Procurement Bill will improve defence procurement and all that.
Secondary legislation is a huge problem. Large numbers of regulations are set out in Clause 110, so while we have the principle that we will debate and discuss, much of this will be done by secondary legislation. That will be a real problem because the devil will be in the detail. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, mentioned some of the problems with secondary legislation in respect of this Bill, including how it will interrelate and cross over with the Health and Care Act. He was right to point that out for the benefit of noble Lords.
I want to talk a little about Part 7. The noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, all mentioned the importance of procurement in the context of our international obligations. I do not believe that the British public, or the vast majority of decent people, would want anybody to be procuring from companies or countries where there are huge human rights violations. We are all realistic about this. We all know that it is very difficult, but it cannot be right that, where we are absolutely certain that there are human rights violations, it is business as usual. I hope that when we discuss Part 7 with the Minister in Committee, it will become clearer that the requirement for our international obligations to have a greater human rights dimension—in who we procure from and what we procure—is a really important part of the Bill.
In conclusion, we have approximately £300 billion of public expenditure. The days of the lowest-cost rules must be over. That is the demand from the citizens of this country. Other factors can be, and should be, taken into account. The Bill is a huge opportunity and the Government have grasped it, but many of us are going to push them further for a change to how procurement works—to rework it and remake it in a way that reflects modern business practice, the modern economy and the modern society that people want. It is an opportunity that we have to take.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank very much all those who have taken part in the debate. Myriad points have been raised from all sides of the House. I never know what the usual channels are deciding, but it is probably a good thing that, as I understand it, we are not going into Committee for some time because I can feel a compendious letter to your Lordships coming on, which might be as long as the Explanatory Notes.
Your Lordships will forgive me if I do not deal with every detailed point; I will try to address some of the main themes of the debate, which were expressed very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, when she opened and the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Wallace, in summing up. We will not agree on all these things. Certainly, in some of the speeches from the other side, there was a yearning to impose policies on the private sector—on people outside government. The high-water mark was the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, which I guess was the counterpoint to the low-water mark—I am not sure there was any water in it at all—of the speech of my noble friend Lord Moylan. To impose your political objectives on a nation, you have to win an election and form a Government. What we need to do—there was great support and great consensus across the House on this—is put together a framework that we could all work with to provide clarity, simplicity and, yes, transparency, which I will come on to, for those seeking to provide to public procurers.
An important speech on defence was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the subject was also alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. My noble friend Lady Goldie will respond in writing on the points made but, obviously, when we get into Committee, we will be able to address the points.
Points were raised about control, management and remedies. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, put forward some ideas. We will reflect on those but, basically, the law of the land is the framework; my noble friend was right.
Many noble Lords alluded to Covid-19 procurement. I understand that but we need to look forward. While the debate was going on, I looked this up on my machine and saw that in April 2020 the leader of the Liberal Democrats was calling for all red tape to be swept aside to get PPE. People in other parties were saying the same. Yes, mistakes were made, but when you make mistakes you must learn from them. We are putting together a regime that will deliver more comprehensive transparency requirements, clear requirements on identification, management of conflicts of interest and so on. It is right that we should address those things, but the priority of the Government—indeed, of all of us in all parties—as the pandemic we knew so little about arose, was to save lives. I acknowledge that there are lessons, but I hope that when we look at how the Bill is structured, we will see that we have an improved framework for addressing all aspects of procurement.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and others rightly addressed the issue of human rights. We will discuss this in Committee. I had the pleasure of discussing it with the noble Lord before, as he was kind enough to say. Certainly, modern slavery has no place in government supply chains; I affirm that strongly. I accept that the current rules on excluding suppliers linked to modern slavery are too weak. For example, they require the supplier to have been convicted, or for there to have been a breach of international treaties. These rules are not capable of dealing with some of the issues that we see.
We are making explicit provision in the Bill to disregard bids from suppliers known to use forced labour or to perpetuate modern slavery in their supply chain. Authorities will be able to exclude them where there is sufficient evidence; they do not need to have a conviction. We are seeking to respond in this area and no doubt we will be probed further.
One issue raised right from the start by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was that of principles. A lot of people have said that this was in the Green Paper but is not in this Bill. A Green Paper is a basis for consultation and reflection. A Bill is the proposition that the Government put before Parliament and this is the proposition that we are putting before Parliament. The Bill splits the procurement principles into a group of objectives and rules to help contracting parties understand what they are obliged to do. The rules on equal treatment, now termed “same treatment”, in Clause 11(2) and (3) are obligations that set minimum standards in plain English that contracting authorities must follow on treating suppliers in the same way to create a level playing field. Non-discrimination, in the context of the Bill, means discrimination against treaty state suppliers on the grounds of nationality, which is a concept different from non-discrimination in the UK market. The national rules on non-discrimination in the Bill can be found in Clauses 81 to 83.
There were a number of changes to the principles. For example, the procedural transparency obligations in the Bill are complemented by a new information-sharing objective in Clause 11(1)(c), which will provide clarity to contracting authorities on exactly what they need to publish. There is also no need for an objective to maximise competition in procurement processes under the Bill, as procedural obligations start with the use of open and fair competition, unless there are legitimate grounds to dispense with or narrow competition. The most obvious of those would be special cases for direct award.
I acknowledge that transparency has been a key ask for the House. The House expects that transparency will be improved. We believe that the Bill does this. We are extending the scope of publication requirements to include planning and contract performance, in addition to current requirements to publish contract opportunities and contract awards. By implementing the open contracting data standard we will publish data across the public sector so that it can be analysed at contract and category level, and compared internationally. The new regime will also establish obligations on contracting authorities to capture potential conflicts of interest for individuals working on procurement additionally, or mandate the publication of a transparency notice whenever a decision is made to award a contract using a procedure as a direct award. This will all be supplemented by a comprehensive training programme that will be available to contracting authorities, which I will come back to later.
We remain committed to our aim to embed transparency by default through the commercial life cycle. We recognise and make no apology that this new regime seeks to do that. The new central digital platform will be designed to make complying with the new transparency requirements automated and low cost. We intend to make data analysis tools available to contracting authorities, which will ensure that they can use the data available to drive value for money.
Taxpayers have a right to see how public money is spent. There is abundant evidence of public engagement with contracting information, and it increases as the data improves. Because the data will be more comprehensive it will be more valuable and, we believe, better used. I have no doubt that we will be tested on that, but I assure the noble Baroness opposite that it is something we are extremely determined to achieve.
On social objectives, I was asked by a number of noble Lords how the Bill will help with achieving net zero. I accept that the Bill does not include any specific provisions on the Government’s target to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, but it will require contracting authorities to have regard to national and local priorities as set out in a national procurement policy statement to be published by the Government, and the Wales procurement policy statement to be published by Welsh Ministers. Many noble Lords have given notice that they will want to return to examination of the national procurement policy statement, how it will operate and how it will go forward, but there are statements in there.
Public sector buyers are able to structure their procurements so as to give more weight to bids that create jobs and opportunities for our communities, where this is relevant to the contract being procured. This is absolutely in line with the concept of value for money. Social value in procurement is not about a large corporate’s environmental, social and governance policies but about how the contract can be delivered in such a way that it delivers additional outcomes, such as upskilling prison leavers, which I think someone referred to.
Delivering value for taxpayers should certainly be the key driver behind any decision to award contracts to companies using public money, but again, public sector buyers will have to have regard to the national policy statement. The Bill will take forward a change from “most economically advantageous” to “most advantageous” to reinforce the message that they should take a comprehensive assessment of value for money, including the wider value of benefits, in the evaluation of tenders.
I know that many of your Lordships want to see and have asked for buying British. Public sector procurers are required to determine the most advantageous offer through fair and open competition. We confirmed in December 2020 that below-threshold contracts can now be reserved for UK suppliers and for small suppliers where it is good value for money. This applies to contracts—in those strange figures in the Bill that arise from international treaty—with a value below £138,760 for goods and services, and £5.336 million for construction in central government.
Above those thresholds, we need to act in line with our international obligations. A blanket “Buy British” policy would conflict with the UK’s international obligations to treat suppliers from other countries on an equal footing. The requirement for fair and open competition is a two-way street because it gives UK firms access to other markets. Within the UK, on average, just over 2% of UK contracts by value were awarded directly to foreign suppliers between—
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I am confused and I am sure he can help me. Clause 82(1) specifically says:
“A contracting authority may not, in carrying out a procurement, below-threshold procurement or international organisation procurement, discriminate against a treaty state supplier.”
The Minister just said the opposite of that in the case of below-threshold procurement. The Bill is very clear that a below-threshold procurement does not let off the contracting authority from having to give the contract to a treaty state supplier.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I was hoping to make progress and I know that your Lordships would like to conclude these matters. As the noble Lord says, those clauses refer to international treaty obligations. What I was saying was in reference to a contract to let; I was asked very pertinently by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for example, about local authorities buying locally, and I repeat what I said: below-threshold contracts can be reserved for suppliers located in a particular geographical area. If international issues arise, that is a different matter. This policy was set out in the Government’s Procurement Policy Note 11/20.
My noble friend Lord Lansley and many others, including the noble Baroness at the start, asked me about innovation. The legislation will put more emphasis on publishing pipelines of upcoming demand, procurement planning and pre-market engagement so that businesses can properly gear up to deliver and offer the best innovative solutions. It will have a new competitive tendering procedure which will enable contracting authorities to design and run procedures that suit these markets. For example, it will allow them to contract with partners to research, develop and eventually buy a new product and service in a single process. The new rules will make it clear that buying innovation does not apply only to buying something brand new but can be about developing an existing product to meet different requirements.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and others asked about the health service and the relationship with the DHSC. These reforms sit alongside proposals to reform healthcare commissioning which have been enacted through the Health and Care Act. We recognise the need for integration between local authorities and the NHS, both for joint commissioning and integrated provision, and we will work closely with the Department of Health and Social Care.
I repeat: the public procurement provisions will not result in the NHS being privatised. The procurement of clinical healthcare services by NHS bodies will be governed by DHSC legislation and is separate to the proposals in the Bill. However, the non-clinical services, such as professional services or clinical consumables, will remain part of the Bill. Clause 108, which I agree is widely framed as it sits in the Bill, is needed to ensure that it neatly dovetails with any regime created under the Health and Care Act, providing clarity. Obviously, we will have that probed.
Accessibility was another theme that was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Fox. The Government remain committed to ensuring that public procurement drives value for money, and that includes better outcomes for disabled people, as it must. The Bill does not dictate how technical specifications may be drawn up, only what is actually prohibited, as set out in Clause 24. However, there is a clear expectation that when contracting authorities set technical specifications for procurement, they do so in a way that takes into account accessibility criteria for disabled persons. Clearly, this is an important matter that requires further consideration, and we commit to doing that.
Training is important, and the training package will be made available in good time for users to prepare for the new regime being implemented. That is why we have committed to six months’ notice before going live, and the training will be rolled out. The Cabinet Office will provide both funded training and written guidance and learning aids, covering the range and depth of knowledge requirements for those operating within the new system. The online learning will be free at the point of access for contracting authorities. The knowledge drops will be freely accessible for all via YouTube, and the written guidance and learnings will also be free and accessible for all via GOV.UK.
The noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Aberdare, asked some pertinent and specific questions about small businesses, and I will certainly make sure that they are answered. This legislation will help SMEs to win contracts for many reasons: bidders will only have to submit their core credentials to the single platform once, for example, making it easier and more efficient to bid. The single transparency platform, or single sign-on, means that suppliers will be able to see all opportunities.
The new concept of dynamic markets, which we will explore, is intended to provide greater opportunity for SMEs to join and win work in the course of a contracting period. The Bill will ensure that subcontractors in chains will also benefit from prompt payment obligations.
There are many other ways in which we intend to help SMEs. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, asked about the great Principality of Wales. Wales will, as he knows, have the power to publish its own procurement policy statement, in which it can set out its own local priorities for communities. We have worked closely with the Welsh Government to ensure that there is continuity for Welsh contracting authorities. For the first time, Welsh Ministers will be able to regulate the procurement of some goods and services in Wales by some cross-border contracting authorities. But in our judgment, it is right that, where the scope of a procurement extends outside Wales into the rest of the UK, the UK rules should apply.
Publicly funded housing associations would be in scope of the contracting authority definition. However, I am advised that privately funded providers of social housing would not be in scope because they do not meet either the funding or the control requirements. I will write to the noble Lord further about this.
I was going to address points about data collection, but—
Lord True (Con)
I will indeed write a letter. It is very helpful to have my noble friend write my speeches for me.
I will answer other points but, to conclude, I thank noble Lords for their extremely intelligent, thoughtful and well-considered remarks, which the Government will consider in Committee. Our proposals have been consulted on extensively and we believe that they are common sense, but we can always gain from listening to your Lordships. In that spirit, I hope that your Lordships will support these proposals as they progress through the House.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I do not want to detain the House, but, since my noble friend Lord Strasburger made some serious points about a major contract, could the Minister possibly say that he will undertake to meet him and others to respond to some of the points he made?
Lord True (Con)
The noble Lord made a speech that went wide of the Bill. I will look at what he said in Hansard and respond thereafter. I make no commitment at this point.
Procurement Bill [HL]
Monday 4th July 2022
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-II Second marshalled list for Grand Committee - (4 Jul 2022)
“Procurement and covered procurement
(1) In this Act—(a) “procurement” means the award, entry into and management of a contract;(b) “covered procurement” means the award, entry into and management of a public contract.(2) In this Act, a reference to a procurement or covered procurement includes a reference to—(a) any step taken for the purpose of awarding, entering into or managing the contract;(b) a part of the procurement;(c) termination of the procurement before award.(3) In this Act, a reference to a contracting authority carrying out a procurement is a reference to a contracting authority carrying out a procurement—(a) on its own behalf, including where it acts jointly with or through another person other than a centralised procurement authority, and(b) if the contracting authority is a centralised procurement authority—(i) for or on behalf of another contracting authority, or(ii) for the purpose of the supply of goods, services or works to another contracting authority.(4) In this Act, “centralised procurement authority” means a contracting authority that is in the business of carrying out procurement for or on behalf of, or for the purpose of the supply of goods, services or works to, other contracting authorities.”
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1 I will speak to the first group of amendments. Before so doing, I give notice to the Committee that Amendment 528—which I discovered only this morning had been grouped with this group, but which refers to matters relating to the health service—has been degrouped, because it is logical and to the benefit of the Committee that we discuss issues relating to the NHS part of the Bill together. I will address all the other amendments in this group.
I start by acknowledging and sincerely apologising for the number of government amendments. At Second Reading, in what I thought was all candour at the time, I said that I recognised there were areas of the Bill that would need refinement in Committee. However, the volume of amendments is still regrettable. I assure noble Lords that many of the amendments in this group and others are narrowly focused and technical in nature. We are putting them forward now only to ensure that the Bill functions properly and effectively.
We have issued a Keeling schedule setting out where the range of government amendments will fit in if your Lordships are pleased, eventually, to accept them. The bulk of the amendments in this group and others do not change the general policy intent of the Bill. Indeed, some of them serve to reflect more fully the original policy objectives as set out in the Government’s Green Paper and subsequent responses to it. I know from discussions at Second Reading and in the engagement I have already had with many of your Lordships—which I undertake to continue, not only between Committee and Report but, in the light of concerns that have been expressed, during Committee to clarify anything that is concerning noble Lords—that many noble Lords wish to get closer to the original policy objectives. That is evident from the number of non-government amendments that have been proposed, which we will be discussing. That is not an indication necessarily that we will have a meeting of minds on those, but some of them flow from that.
In many cases the need for amendments has been highlighted by external organisations. We are grateful for their scrutiny and input into improving the Bill. The interconnected nature of the Bill inevitably means that a single small amendment to a definition in one clause leads to multiple amendments to reflect the same definition where it features in later clauses to ensure coherence and consistency. Obviously, that frequently happens in the passage of legislation.
I repeat that I accept with all sincerity that the number of government amendments is not welcome and is undesirable. However, their end effect, when your Lordships have had the opportunity to reflect on them fully, of providing greater legal clarity will be beneficial to the Bill as a whole and to the large procurement community that will use it for many years to come.
The first group contains some of the Government’s amendments with the most general effect on provisions in the Bill, though these remain technical in focus. Amendments in this group relate to the introduction of the concept of “covered procurement” and to the devolved Administrations.
The proposed new clause before Clause 1 includes technical amendments to the definition of procurement and, as I just said, the introduction of the term “covered procurement” to distinguish between the categories of contract subject to different obligations under the Bill. “Covered procurement” refers to those contracts fully regulated by the Bill’s provisions; “procurement” refers to those contracts that are less regulated but none the less catered for to an extent, such as the below-threshold contracts and international organisation procurement. These changes recognise obligations under various trade agreements. The group also contains a number of consequential amendments to reflect this amended definition throughout the Bill.
Other amendments in this group did not originate from the Government but were requested by the devolved Administrations to amend how the legislation applies in Wales or Northern Ireland. As I said at Second Reading, we have been very grateful for discussions with and input from colleagues in Wales and Northern Ireland. These amendments include a small number of derogations from particular provisions in the Bill where they do not align with those Administrations’ policy goals. We have listened to the concerns of the devolved Administrations, and I hope noble Lords will agree that it is sensible to make these changes at an early stage to ensure that we have legislation that works for all contracting authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Lord Wigley (PC)
I realise it is unusual to intervene on the opening speech, but it may be for the convenience of the Committee to understand the changes with regard to the devolved Administrations. Can the Minister confirm that these have all been agreed with the Welsh Government, in the case of Wales, and, where they relate to Northern Ireland, in Northern Ireland, or are there some here that, because of the time pressure, there has been no opportunity to discuss with the devolved Administrations?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I will have to be advised on that. I have been advised that they are the result of discussions. If that is not the case, I will set the position clearly and straightly when I come to wind up the debate. I have been led to believe, and know from my own involvement in the matter, that there has been a good deal of agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of Wales. I will certainly confirm that in winding up.
The group also contains a number of technical amendments which are required to ensure that provisions relating to the Bill’s application in the devolved Administrations function properly.
To repeat what I said at Second Reading, I regret that the Scottish Government have opted not to join the Bill. They will retain their own procurement regulations in respect of devolved Scottish authorities. I am sure we would all welcome our Scottish friends if they wished to join the new system proposed by the Bill. Taxpayers and public services alike across the whole United Kingdom would benefit from that. However, at this juncture I am able to lay only those matters requested by the devolved Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his apology at the beginning, which I believe to be sincere and heartfelt. I also thank him, I think, for his introduction of the first of these 50 amendments; it was relatively short, given that they come with little explanation. It is said that there is a productivity crisis in this country—not so in the Cabinet Office amendment-generation department. The Minister can be proud of its performance.
More seriously, I commend the Bill team and the Government Whips’ Office, who have been wrestling with this leviathan of amendments, not least over the weekend. I thank them for their hard work. I will return to the process we are facing after making a few comments on the amendments, particularly around the covered procurement element.
Amendment 1 and several others seek to clarify things by defining covered procurement. I remain confused about where this phrase comes from and why it was necessary. There was no sense from the Minister’s introduction as to why it was necessary to come back after Second Reading with a new phrase. Can he say where this term comes from? Is it employed elsewhere in legislation? I think it is in contract law but it was difficult to find other manifestations of it. I should remind the Minister that, every time a new term like this arrives in legislation, it proliferates a great deal of other legislation because each new word or term will be tested to the limit in the law. If we start bringing in new terms such as this, the Bill will be a lawyers’ enrichment fund—I can see the lawyer opposite nodding in agreement—and that is not a good thing for the country or for government.
In his discussions, the Minister said that many of these new amendments came from consultation that was subsequent to Second Reading. Avoiding the obvious question as to why Her Majesty’s Government did not consult more beforehand, I would like to know which organisations and individuals put forward the need for this change. My guess is that it was not an external force but an internal one, and possibly that the Cabinet Office, having used one lawyer, decided to use a different one who had a whole set of different opinions on the legal nature of the Bill, and that is where the vast majority of these amendments have come from. Far be it from me to say what the benefits are of changing a horse half way across a stream, but we are, I suspect, reaping the consequences. If I am wrong, I am happy for the Minister to tell us so or to publish the consultation that happened subsequent to Second Reading. I will be happy to admit that that was not the truth.
As we noted at Second Reading this is an important Bill, dealing as it does with the technical process for managing a considerable amount of money spent on behalf of the British people by public institutions. We support this process. We noted that it needs to be in the public interest, as well as providing value for money. The objective of this Committee process should be, and should remain, to have a proper debate around how such issues are brought to the fore in this legislation. However, because of the sheer incompetence of the Cabinet Office—a Cabinet Office that, I note, recently published its guide to improving the quality of the legislative process—we are instead pulled into a debate around process.
During Second Reading, there seemed to be a measure of good will. My noble friend Lord Wallace spoke about the need for a co-operative process and the Minister seemed to agree. Subsequently, as the Minister has pointed out, with fewer than four days before the first day in Grand Committee, we were confronted with 350 government amendments. That could have been managed in a co-operative way, but that did not happen. Even if we had to have the amendments, to drop them with no warning so near to the process was an inappropriate way of being co-operative.
Then, at 8.56 am on Sunday, which I remind everybody was yesterday, we all received an updated grouping of amendments. In this, there were 77 changes from the document we had received on Friday—I repeat, 77 changes—with the shape of the groups radically changed. For Members to be presented with so many changes, and then for those changes to keep on moving, right up to the wire, is unacceptable. I stress again that this is not the fault of the Government Whips’ Office, which I suspect was kept at work all weekend thanks to this process and the Minister’s insistence that we plough on with the Bill in the way that was originally planned.
Lord Fox (LD)
I will correct my speech. It has not even been received by all the interested parties, which makes it worse.
Furthermore, to date, the Cabinet Office has not provided proper explanatory statements for each of the new government amendments. There is nothing in the current Marshalled List. The eighth group, which we had planned to debate today, contains a group of amendments that was wholly absent from the Minister’s original letter and the table that some, if not all, of us received when that letter came. Essentially, we have had no time—hours, at best—to consider these amendments.
More than that, the Minister stressed the value of the external community and the input we get from interested parties in this legislation. Those interested parties have not had a little time to consider these amendments; they have had no time. They are not on the record for those bodies that can feed in and positively reinforce your Lordships’ legislative process. We are missing all that. So never mind the unintended consequences of this legislation—we do not even know what the intended consequences are.
For this reason, I put the Minister on a warning that I will object to each of his amendments. When the Question on Amendment 1 is put, I will be not content. My understanding of the process is that, in Grand Committee, this will mean that the amendment will need to be withdrawn.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, where do I start? This is a really important and long-awaited Bill, so it is incredibly disappointing that, after so much time, the Bill was not fit to have been published when it was. With all these amendments, it is quite different from what we debated at Second Reading, even if many of the amendments are technical and there to tidy up. The Government really should have thought about this and got their act together before the Bill was published in the first place.
I know that the Minister is someone we can work with constructively on Bills—I appreciate that—but the Government’s incompetence over the weekend and the way this has been done challenge our ability to work together constructively. That is something else that disappoints me personally. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pointed out, it puts too much pressure on staff, who were expected to try to pull this Bill into shape over the weekend.
I reiterate completely what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said about providing proper Explanatory Notes rather than annexe A, which was very thin on information and, in some cases, did not cover everything that the amendments were about. I spent most of the weekend trying to get my head around a lot of these amendments and cross-reference with the annexe. This is an important Bill and a lot of it is technical. I am not a procurement law expert, so I need support in the Explanatory Notes to understand exactly what is happening and what the amendments will do. When we are cross-referencing and trying to make sense of things, it is hard. As a member of the Opposition, let me say that this is not just about holding the Government to account; as I said, it is about working constructively to make legislation better. The Government have not helped us to do this.
My plea to the Minister is that we really need to move on from this and make sure that we can scrutinise Bills in a much better way. We are where we are with the Procurement Bill.
I totally understand and support what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said about objecting to some of the amendments, because all this has been deeply unhelpful. Okay, we will do only three groups today, but at some point we have to get stuck in. It took me over two hours yesterday to go through all the amendments in group 1—group 2 has about three times that number. If we are going to do this properly, and actually look at the amendments rather than take the Government’s word on what is in them, it will be very time consuming.
I am afraid I am going to share with noble Lords some of what I did yesterday. It needs to be spelled out how complicated and confusing it is when we try to manage something such as this. Obviously, I started with group 1 and the proposed new Clause 1, which is about procurement and covered procurement. I read the amendment. I did not really understand what covered procurement it is, so I looked at section 5 of annexe A, which is just definitions; there is no further information. I still do not really understand the implications of changing this terminology. That is something we need to get across to the Government. We need to know exactly what is happening. This also has an impact on Amendments 55, 301, 405, 406, 408, 411, 416, 453 and 454. This affects many parts of the Bill, so we have to understand what is going on here.
I then looked at Amendment 172 to Clause 30, which would delete the word “procurement” and insert
“the award of a public contract”.
Apparently this is in annexe A, sections 3 and 8. Section 3 just says “replaces references to associated supply with associated person and expanding the concept”, but again, why? Why is that important? Why do we have to do that? Section 8 is about ensuring clarity on how a contracting authority must treat a supplier. Why do those changes do that? What is the purpose behind changing the terminology?
We have talked about the devolved Administrations. Amendments 282 to 285 to Clause 51 are about Northern Ireland. This is covered by sections 26 and 27 of annexe A, which say that “contract deal notices in respect of light-touch regime contracts must be published in 180 days.” Again, there is no proper explanation of how that affects Northern Ireland and what it means for the way it carries out procurement.
Moving on, I came to Amendments 342, 349, 356, 378, 380 and 383, which also refer to Northern Ireland, and Amendments 392 and 433, which refer to Wales. But the annexe also mentions Wales for the amendments that are supposed to be about just Northern Ireland, so it does not cover everything that the amendments say they do. I had had about four cups of coffee by this point just to try to keep going.
Amendments 377, 381, 385 and 387 would insert the word “was”, but the parts of the Bill they would amend already have the word “was”. Again, I am really confused about why we need another “was”.
Amendments 379, 382, 386 and 388 would insert
“as part of a procurement”.
If that is something that needed to be spelled out, I find it extraordinary that it was not written in in the first place.
Amendment 389 would delete subsection (10), which says:
“This section also does not apply to … defence and security contracts, or … private utilities.”
That is not tidying up or technical; it would delete a subsection that says something. I ask the Minister: what does that actually mean? What does it do? Why is that subsection being deleted? What is the purpose behind it?
Amendment 390 would delete a paragraph that reads,
“the value thresholds in subsection (2)”.
Again, it is not a tidying-up but a deletion. What does this actually mean? I am sure I am confusing everyone here because they do not have the Bill in the right places in front of them—I could read out the actual page numbers, if noble Lords want.
Amendment 391 would delete “in subsection (7)” on page 46, line 9. Why are those words being deleted? What is the purpose behind it?
Amendment 395—there are a lot like this—would delete “supplier” and add “person”. If this terminology was wrong, why was it not picked up so much earlier, when the Bill was being first drafted?
Amendment 424 would delete
“the award of a contract”
and insert “procurement”. Again, if that is the terminology that should have been used, why was it put in wrong in the first place?
In Amendment 425, “unless it is awarded” is to be deleted and “other than procurement” inserted. Those do not really seem the same to me, so what is the point of that change? What are the Government trying to do?
Amendment 426 would delete paragraph (c) on page 50, line 18:
“in relation to the management of such a contract.”
Why do we need paragraph (c) deleted? What is the purpose of it? Annexe A does not tell us any of this information.
Amendment 437 says:
“Page 53, line 3, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b)”.
Why are we deleting paragraphs (a) and (b)? What is the purpose and what are the consequences?
Amendment 438 says:
“Page 53, line 17, leave out ‘or services’ and insert ‘, services or works’”.
That seems the sort of thing that should have been drafted correctly in the first place.
Amendment 439 says:
“Page 53, line 26, leave out from ‘procurement’ to end of line 27”.
That is also the same in Amendment 462. Again, it looks to me like something that should have been done properly in the first place.
Amendment 440 says:
“Page 53, line 37, at end insert”,
and noble Lords can see the words on the Marshalled List—there is a lot there, and I really do not think that anyone wants me to read it all out. Again, this is not a technical adjustment but inserts quite a substantial amount of text. What are the implications? These may all be marvellous changes that benefit the Bill, but the point is that we do not know because we do not understand what is going on here.
Amendment 463 would delete subsection (8) on page 57, line 7. Amendments 439 and 462 do the same thing. What is the purpose of deleting subsection (8)?
I will not cover Amendment 528, because it has been moved to a different group. Noble Lords will be glad to know that I have only two left.
The annexe says that Amendment 540 is to define expressions. It inserts “covered procurement” and “debarment list”. What does “covered procurement” mean? Why does it reference the “debarment list”? That is similar to Amendments 542 and 543.
I will finish there. I just wanted to get across to the Committee and the Minister how very confusing this is and how little back-up information we have. We want to work constructively with the Minister. We want this to be a good Bill. For goodness’ sake, we just need to be able to get it sorted.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am the bearer of a simpler brain than the noble Baroness, so I may not cast too much helpful light, but I will do my best. I come to this more in general terms than trying to work from the specific to the general.
I thank my noble friend very much for taking out Amendment 528. I was going to ask him to do that, because we should consider the health service issues together, including Amendment 30 relating to the scope of the light-touch contracts.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I found the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, quite interesting, but whether he is correct, we will have to wait for the Minister’s response to find out.
My problem, as has been mentioned by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is that of definitions and the lack of reasons for change. For me, procurement is the process of awarding a contract. We need to know the definition of what is a public contract—perhaps the noble Lord is right; perhaps he is not—and what is not. In Amendment 1, the only difference between procurement and covered procurement is the word “public”, as he said. Where is the definition of uncovered procurement, if you like? We need that, and we also need an explanation of all these amendments, but I shall not go on, because my noble friend has delivered a massive argument. She said she spent all weekend on this, but she is just scratching the surface—which is even more frightening.
At the end of Amendment 1, we get something called the “centralised procurement authority”, which seems to be the top level—perhaps they are very large contracts. Can the Minister give some examples of what kind of contracts will be covered by that? It states that that is a
“contracting authority that is in the business of carrying out procurement for or on behalf of, or for the purpose of the supply of goods, services or works to, other contracting authorities.”
We can all give examples of those, and I am sure we will come to them later, but it is important that we have a definition of “public” and of “procurement”, and of how that is different from awarding a contract. Procurement, to me, is a process. It starts with tendering and ends up with, you hope, an award of contract. Why all these changes? There needs to be a definition and explanation against each one.
I will say just one more thing, because I am sure that everyone else will have spent the weekend going through each of these amendments. Amendment 440, which a noble Lord—I cannot remember who—just mentioned, refers to
“a supplier’s association with a state”.
“State” is an interesting word. What is a state? Is it Scotland or Wales? My noble friend next to me will have views on Wales but there needs to be a definition of “a state”. It suddenly pops up in Amendment 440. Presumably, if it means separate states, such as Wales and England, there will be frontiers between the two to make sure that goods go in the right direction.
I wanted to cover those two small issues, and want explanations from the Minister. I end by wishing the Minister well in taking the Bill forward. Noble Lords who have already spoken, in particular my noble friend Lady Hayman, have done a magnificent job but we are probably going to have several weeks of going through each of these amendments and asking the questions that she so rightly asked.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I will speak briefly, as I intervened on the Minister’s opening speech. I want to reinforce the points that have been made and perhaps add a little to them.
I come to this from the viewpoint of the Welsh Government, who have worked closely with the UK Government on this matter over a period of time; designated civil servants from the Welsh Government have been co-operating on it. Therefore, this is not a matter of contention in that way; it is a question of making sure that there is an understanding and that the end product will work for both. Where it is necessary to have some fine-tuning for the sake of Wales or Northern Ireland, but not Scotland in this case—
Lord Wigley (PC)
Scotland may come in but, at the moment, it is doing its own thing. This is a matter of getting a process where fine-tuning is possible.
It is not so much the content that concerns me—frankly, I was engaged in other things yesterday and did not have an opportunity to work through the amendments. As I said in the Chamber, the previous Sunday I worked through every one of the 80-odd amendments, so that I could have a coherent conversation with the Welsh Minister, civil servants in Cardiff and noble Lords who were involved, including the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I did so in order to get their understanding. To be fair, they were constructive about this Bill—as the Bill stood, relatively few points were of contention to them. But as I indicated earlier, I am concerned that they have an opportunity to see whether any of the changes that are now being made through this large number of amendments might have an effect on their understanding of its slightly different application in Wales than in England.
That is the general intention: to get a system of procurement that can work for the Welsh Government in delivering their economic targets, which they have using successfully over the past few years, and to do so in a way that does not disrupt the UK market. A balance must be struck there. It is essential that both ends of the M4 understand each other on this. I am sure that the noble Baroness who opened for the Opposition will have had conversations with Welsh Ministers and will know about their concerns.
This is not about undermining or opposing the Bill. It is about making sure that it works properly, as intended, for both sides. That is what I hope for. If it is necessary to step back at this point, check and make sure that that is the case, it would be far better for us to do that now rather than pass into law things that become challengeable in the courts, at which point we will end up with all sorts of mess.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I regret I was unable to participate in Second Reading. However, I followed that debate and have read the Minister’s letter to those who took part. I also have amendments that we will be discussing later in Committee.
The noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Lansley, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and I are now veterans of legislation that the Government have sought to change quite radically. There were at least two iterations of the Trade Bill, and then there was the Professional Qualifications Bill. That has raised a wry smile on the noble Baroness’s face, and it has brought back significant memories.
The difference, however, is that, for those Bills, the Minister was able to recognise not only the mood of the House but the practical consequences of bringing forward significant changes without there being a degree of consensus—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has said—at least on understanding what the Government were intending to do before they brought forward the changes. The passage of the Professional Qualifications Bill was paused. The Government recognised that their case had not been made, preparations had not been in place and that the materials were not available for Parliament to do its constitutional duty to scrutinise. I hear the Minister repeat time and again in the Chamber how much he values this Parliament, and this House in particular, doing our job. However, on this Bill, which he is responsible for, he is denying us the very tools to carry out this proper scrutiny work.
There is a precedent of other Ministers and other departments recognising that a pause is not a government defeat but will strengthen their case when they bring back their properly worked out amendments. Indeed, on the Professional Qualifications Bill and Trade Bill, there was consensus on the amendments brought forward at the end. It helped the Government carry out their job, as we were sincere in believing that they had faith in their proposals.
If we are to be soothsayers as far as understanding what the Government are seeking to do, then the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made a reasonable fist of trying to interpret Amendment 1—the Minister chose not to do so. If the noble Lord is right or wrong, we should at least know what the Government intend when changing that proposal because, as my noble friend Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, indicated, not a single government amendment has come with an explanatory statement.
I refer to the Cabinet Office Guide to Making Legislation from 2022, which the Minister is responsible for—I am certain the Minister has a copy; I can lend him mine if he wants. Section C is on “Essential Guidance for Bill Teams”; I think the Bill team is sitting behind him. In paragraph 22, on Amendments—this is from the Cabinet Office’s own guidance, not from me—it says:
“All government amendments require an explanatory statement, in plain English, setting what an amendment will do.”
So, why did the Minister refuse that on this Bill? It is a mockery of the guidance.
The Minister, after making his apology to the Grand Committee, chose not to outline any of the amendments. He did not explain whether Amendment 1 and the others will have significant policy implementation differences. If the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is correct, then they will. That is how all of those who will be putting together procurement and replying to tenders will interpret the legislation, so of course it will have an implication on that. That is why we look at impact assessments to consider what level of consequence there will be.
The Government have not felt it necessary to bring any changes to the impact assessment—unlike for the Professional Qualifications Bill, I remind the Minister. However, this is also stated categorically in the Guide to Making Legislation in paragraph 13, on impact assessments:
“The … impact assessment … will need to be updated during parliamentary passage to reflect any changes made to the bill”.
I therefore ask the Minister: why has there been no update to the impact assessment to take into consideration any changes made to the Bill?
If the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is correct, there will need to be some quite significant changes to the impact assessment, because the cost is all predicated on the streamlined approach that has been presented under the Bill before the Government sought to amend it. The Committee does not need to be reminded that the Government now want a far more competitive, flexible, streamlined procedure, moving from seven systems to three. If it is now the dance of the three and half veils, of “covered” or not covered, and organisations are having to work out which area they are going to fill in, of course there will be impacts that need to be outlined.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I totally agree with everything that has been said. The rubric “technical amendments” has been bandied about in these discussions. The next group of government amendments, and the one after that, are described in the email from the Whips’ Office as “technical”. This group is not described as technical. If it is not technical, my presumption is that there are substantive changes involved and that no one, least of all the Minister, has told us what they are. I cannot see how we can agree the amendments today unless we are told what the substantial changes involved are.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for not having spoken at Second Reading. I have taken a keen interest in the Bill, particularly in the devolution aspects. I will speak to government Amendments 355, 392 and 433.
I share the concerns of my noble friend Lord Fox, who speaks for the whole Lib Dem team, and other Peers who have spoken about the manner in which the Bill has been presented to us. Like others, I am particularly concerned about the large number of new government amendments tabled last week, the vast majority of which had no Member’s explanatory statement attached to them. The confusion over the weekend, when some amendments were removed from groupings and others were duplicated, must have been as stressful for staff as it was for Members trying to prepare for today. I echo my noble friend Lord Fox’s admiration for the efforts of the Government Whips’ Office staff.
Had the Government withdrawn the Bill after Second Reading, taken some time to incorporate the 300-plus amendments into the body of Bill and presented us with an entirely new document, life would have been so much easier for us all, including the Minister. Of course, it is not the Government’s job to make life simpler or easier for us, but it is their job to help us make good legislation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said. We have the potential to be, as we are now, in a situation fraught with difficulties, confusion and recriminations.
Having made my own personal protest about the Bill, I must commend the UK Government and the Welsh Government on the working relationship between them as they work together on issues in the Bill. We heard from the Welsh Finance Minister about the excellent working relationship and the efforts of all concerned to approach discussions in a cordial and constructive manner. I thank the Minister for that.
I understand that a number of amendments have been agreed between the two teams and that some of them are in this group, but I am slightly worried that in all the confusion with the tabling of 342—or is it 350?—new government amendments, key agreements might be missed out or overlooked. It would help us greatly to scrutinise the devolution aspects of the Bill if we could receive a list of the agreements between the two Governments and the amendments to which they refer.
I am pleased that the three amendments I am speaking to recognise the role of the Welsh Ministers. In Amendment 355 to Clause 64, “An appropriate authority” is replaced by the more specific
“A Minister of the Crown or the Welsh Ministers”,
recognising the role of Welsh Ministers in the publishing of payment compliance notices.
Amendment 392 adds new subsection (12) to Clause 70:
“A Minister of the Crown or the Welsh Ministers may by regulations amend this section for the purpose of changing the percentage thresholds.”
In Amendment 433 to Clause 80, the reference to
“A Minister of the Crown or the Welsh Ministers”
confirms the amending power of Ministers in relation to changing the number of days within which sums may be paid.
All these are very welcome, but I would have been grateful for explanatory statements to help me decipher which of the other 300-plus amendments have implications for devolution. Can the Minister confirm that all the amendments requested by the Welsh Government have been included? Are there any outstanding issues that would prevent the Senedd passing an LCM for the Bill?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I do not want to prolong the debate. I must say that, having spent the weekend worrying whether I was thick-headed in not understanding the concept of a covered contract, I am relieved to discover that I am by no means alone. In a different tone, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches are very grateful to the Minister for the extremely helpful briefing we had today on the digital platform. That is precisely the sort of relationship we should have as we approach a Bill such as this one.
The Minister should remember that, while the Government are having their own consultations with outside interests, we are doing the same, with rather fewer staff. We have had some very helpful conversations over the past two weeks with various outside interests and groups, and will continue to have others. But, of course, we have had no opportunity to discuss with them the implications of the latest amendments which the Government have tabled. Some 60% of the current amendments are government amendments, and a minority come from outside the Government.
We have heard so far that this Committee is in no sense convinced that Amendment 1 is necessary. We have all struggled to understand why the Government have introduced all these amendments, and some of us have struggled with various other concepts in the Bill. I am grateful to the officials who explained the concept of dynamic markets to me; I am still not entirely sure that I understand the difference between a centralised contracting authority and a contracting authority, and we have tabled an amendment on that. These things are important in getting the Bill through. It takes time and it takes sympathy between the Government and those trying to scrutinise the Bill. As the first House to do this, we are now clearly in some difficulty over where we have got to.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I want to raise a question about the wording of the definition in Amendment 1. I am troubled by the word “covered”. It does not spring off the page as an explanation in itself as to why there is a distinction between procurement pure and simple and this other procurement, described as “covered”. Having looked at the language in paragraphs (a) and (b), I think the obvious word to choose in paragraph (b) is “public” procurement. However, having listened to the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I am doubtful as to whether that distinction is what the definition seeks to describe. But if it is not doing that, and the word “public” would be wrong, is it not possible to find a more obvious word than “covered”?
The choice of language is crucial in a definition clause. It ought to be possible for the reader to take from the definition an immediate explanation as to why there is a distinction between the types of procurement in paragraphs (a) and (b). If it is necessary to go through the hoops that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, did, I wonder whether it is possible to achieve anything sensible by ordinary language—which is a reason to say it might be better not to have the definition at all. However, if the definition is thought to be necessary, please could a better word than “covered” be found, so that the definition helps us, at the beginning of this complex Bill, to truly understand the distinction between paragraphs (a) and (b)?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken, although I cannot say it always made for the easiest listening. I have been in opposition, and will be again one day, so I fully understand where those noble Lords who expressed concerns are coming from. I have also been on the Back Benches on my side, and will be again one day, so I fully understand where my colleagues are coming from as well.
It is unsatisfactory that so many amendments have been laid. I apologised for that. It is not, in any of your Lordships’ submission, sufficient. I could tell a few tales out of school, but I am a believer in the old concept that the Minister at the Dispatch Box takes full and personal responsibility for the criticisms that are made. I accept that. The amendments should have been brought forward in a more informative—to use the word from the very impressive speech by the noble Baroness opposite, whom I look forward to working with on the Bill—and timely manner.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My understanding is that the only way this could be done better is for the Government to withdraw the amendments and bring them back with explanatory statements. Explanatory statement cannot be tabled separately, so if the Minister is sincere that the Committee will not face continuing lists of government amendments without explanatory statements, the sensible course of action would be for him to withdraw them and bring them back with explanatory statements so that we can consider them properly.
Lord True (Con)
That was, in a sense, the implication of what I was saying. We are debating only Amendment 1 at this stage, but for the avoidance of doubt, if it helps the noble Lord, at the end of these remarks I will beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1. Your Lordships could indeed obstruct these matters, but I will withdraw the amendment and see that we fulfil the undertaking that I have given.
More generally, important questions were asked about definitions. I must say to the noble and learned Lord that, until relatively recently—I use that word because I do not want to define it more narrowly—I was not familiar with the concept of “covered”. However, it has come forward after careful reflection by the Cabinet Office and the Bill and legal teams. It is intended to make the concepts in the Bill clearer to use and understand. I mentioned “covered procurement” in my opening remarks. “Covered” was intended to refer to those contracts that are fully regulated by the Bill’s provisions, whereas “procurement” refers to those contracts that are less regulated but none the less catered for, such as below-threshold contracts and, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, said, international organisation procurement.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I think the problem may be in the language of paragraph (b), because it does not fulfil what the Minister has been saying is the intention of “covered”. You could keep “covered” but reword paragraph (b) so that it explains more fully what “covered” means, which is what I think the Minister is attempting to do. As it stands, it is very confusing. A confusing definition is a bad way to start a Bill.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble and learned Lord’s remarks. We will take them away. I have said that I will withdraw the amendment.
My noble friend Lord Lansley was accurate in divining the Government’s intention with this. The intent is to distinguish between the fully regulated—I will not use the word “covered”—and the less regulated.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but I am glad that I was not misdirecting myself.
On the noble and learned Lord’s point, I understood what it meant only when I looked at what “public contract”, as defined by Clause 2, means. Once one looks at Clause 2, it becomes very straightforward to check it. I looked at Clause 1 and realised that it is not a national covered procurement policy statement but a national procurement policy statement. None of the amendments change that bit, which told me that what we are dealing with here is the Government proposing that there should be a mechanism for talking about procurement in its broadest sense, while intending to regulate procurement in a slightly narrower sense by regulating everything above the value threshold. This did not seem intrinsically confusing to me once I understood what it is we are trying to do here.
Lord True (Con)
I do not think that, in public remarks that will be recorded for all eternity in Hansard, Ministers should ever agree to the idea that anyone might be confused by the crystalline words that come before the Committee, but I must say that I did not, at first blush, understand these proposals when they were put forward and laid. I understand the objective, and think that both the noble and learned Lord and my noble friend have understood and divined it. We believe that it meets the requirement but, in the light of what your Lordships have said, I am sure that we can reflect on that. I will withdraw this amendment so that we can come back to it.
My advice from legal advisers is that this amendment adequately achieves the objective we sought. As to the elegance of it, I am not going to go into a disquisition of other circumstances in which “covered”—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
While the Minister is reflecting, might he be able to comment today on the legal advice that he has clearly received? He kindly referred to my reference to international obligations, including the TCA. In the legal text of the TCA, “covered procurement” is stated as the area where the TCA and the UK have an agreement. It is unclear whether the definition, and what the Government are seeking to do in this Bill, will have the same meaning as “covered procurement” in the TCA. Can the Minister clarify that point?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I was going to make a proposal. The legislation obviously reflects our existing international obligations, including the TCA, but this is not the only definitional point that has been raised. I cannot find the others in my notes but the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for example, asked about a centralised procurement authority. A centralised procurement authority is a body that sets up procurement or purchasing arrangements for use by other contracting authorities; examples would be the Yorkshire Purchasing Organisation or the Crown Commercial Service. That is one definitional issue. The noble Lord asked about the meaning of “state” in Amendment 440. That refers to a country with which we have an international agreement.
It is regrettable that this should happen after we have had this debate. Having heard the strength of feeling expressed by your Lordships on these amendments, especially the definitional ones such as the definition of “covered procurement”, I will ask my officials to hold a technical briefing on these matters for interested Peers. I will ask for invitations to be sent out by my office after the debate, in the hope that some of these points can be clarified. I know that is not to the greatest convenience of your Lordships because the Committee is due to come back on Wednesday, but it should help further to explain the rationale and necessity for some of these late amendments, which were advised on us by our legal advisers. I or my office will be in touch with noble Lords who are here with that offer, so that we can undertake that.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, about the impact assessment. Again, we will reflect on that point but my advice, even in the light of these amendments, is that as there has been no change to the general policy intent of the Bill, there is therefore no change to the costs and benefits of the impact assessment. I am therefore not advised that it is necessary to revise it, but I will second-guess that advice in the light of the noble Lord’s contribution. Although there are wording changes, to take up what my noble friend Lord Lansley said, the general intent of the Bill remains the same.
On the question of the devolved Administrations—obviously, there is a particular issue at the moment in the case of the Northern Ireland Executive, which is why some of these matters are ongoing—I am grateful for what the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said about the sense of co-operation. I believe that is reflected in both directions. I was asked whether all these things had yet been formally agreed. As I understand it, most of these amendments have been; some have been agreed and discussed at official level but may not technically have been signed off by Ministers. It is certainly our intention and, I believe, the Welsh Government’s intention that we will reach full and constructive agreement, which will enable the proposals to be recommended to the Senedd. This has been an area of good and striking co-operation. I say publicly to the Committee again how much we appreciate that, as I did in my opening remarks.
I hope I have briefly dealt with the question of “covered”, “not covered” and some of the other definitional things. I hope that the further formal briefing I have offered can be arranged at a convenient time for most Peers tomorrow, and will go some way to answering this. I give a commitment that, when we go forward, I will not accept to lay before your Lordships and take to a vote something where there is no proper explanation of the individual amendments in the manner that the noble Baroness opposite quite rightly asked for. There should be a clear explanatory statement. I will ask for that to be done in respect of the amendments that are coming forward to explain the whys and whats in detail, and how the various groups interlock. Again, I will not tell tales out of school, but one of the issues is that there are interconnections between these different groups and how they have been sliced. I repeat that commitment.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister for that. I do not think he answered the question my noble friend asked. Accepting that government Amendment 1 will now be withdrawn, will the government amendments in this group, from Amendment 47 to Amendment 543, be retabled for us to have a proper debate on each of them? As the noble Baroness set out, there are a lot of questions around each of them, none of which have currently been addressed. I am unclear on the mechanism by which those amendments will be retabled. Can the Minister confirm that that will happen so that we can have a proper debate on those amendments?
Lord True (Con)
I will have to take procedural advice on that. My understanding is that if I withdraw Amendment 1 it is not the case that the group has been negatived and therefore that the other amendments do not lie on the Order Paper. The Government would obviously have preferred, despite all the justified criticisms—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
I hate to interrupt the noble Lord in full flow, but a Division has been called in the Chamber.
Lord True (Con)
In order to finish, as I was just about say, we wish to facilitate proper discussion. Obviously, how to proceed is a matter to be discussed in the usual channels. There are matters in the amendments in this group which are technical and one or two raise definitional issues, and so on. We will work on the advice to your Lordships that I promised. In parallel—I cannot speak for usual channels—we will have discussion in the usual channels about how best to proceed in a way that does not lead to a recurrence of this undesirable situation, for which I repeat apologies. There are important, specific and thematic amendments—I like amendments to be thematic. The Government sometimes have good ideas and the Opposition have good ideas—sometimes—and the best way is if all these things are grouped thematically, which is why, when I saw that this health amendment had suddenly crept in, I said, “We should surely do that later.”
We will have usual channels discussions. I hope we can proceed, but we will find which way we can proceed that is best for your Lordships and does not result in a situation such as this. As I said, I shall not come back without explanations that are clear and timely—I cannot remember the phrase I used. We will see what we can do.
With that undertaking and that for usual channels discussions, in the light of the brief earlier discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
These amendments would remove private utilities from the ambit of the Bill which at present allows the government and devolved authorities by order to regulate industry and its procurement practices.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am glad that we have been able to move on to this group of amendments, all of which were tabled in good time. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his apology, tone and constructive response on the last group. I have some sympathy with him since, when I was on the Front Bench, I used to do Lords starters and they can be difficult because you have less stakeholder involvement and input than in the Commons. However, there is more scope to change a Bill that starts in the Lords, and that can be a good thing. I thank the Bill team for passing me its copy of the Keeling schedule, and I look forward to the child’s guide to procurement.
I apologise for not having spoken at Second Reading. If I had been able to, I would have brought my experience of procurement in government and in the EU, and in buying and selling everything from services to beans at Tesco. We were even stopped from selling cars alongside groceries by EU rules. I am a former director of Capita, and I register a current interest as chair of Crown Agents, the not-for-profit international development company with considerable expertise in procurement.
First, I am particularly interested in delegated powers and in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, on that issue. Secondly, I am keen to find a way of helping small businesses to better access procurement opportunities and encourage productivity and growth. Thirdly, as ever, I am concerned about costs to businesses and citizens—I know the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, is too.
I also want to understand and test the reach of this legislation, which is the subject of my 12 amendments on private utilities, starting with Amendment 2. It is kindly supported by my noble friend Lord Moylan and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. We all sit on the Built Environment Committee together and are steeped in the problems of public transport in towns and cities at present.
In his Second Reading speech, my noble friend Lord Moylan questioned whether we needed this Bill at all, certainly on its current scale, and he bemoaned the bureaucratisation of procurement. I also worry about this, because of its enormous cost both to the state and to bidders and deliverers of contracts. When I was in retail, we always tried to reduce red tape and cut costs, and pass on the benefits in lower prices, which helped to attract customers. There is less sign of that here than I had hoped. There are fewer regulations, but I fear that the burdens imposed are in fact greater than those being removed, particularly in this area of public utilities. In my direct experience, it is not only the number of rules that matters but their impact.
It seems wrong for a Bill about public procurement to cover private utilities. I appreciate that there is an EU directive and UK implementing regulations that the Government want to replace, but I am not entirely sure that this should be done here. Indeed, the Government seem a little hesitant themselves, as they have taken a power to remove private utilities from the scope of the Bill or alter the rules as and when they legislate elsewhere. This is wrong and novel. As the excellent report by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee says, this appears to be the use of
“a tool to cover imperfect policy development.”
I compare the situation to my time as a civil servant heading a Bill team—imagine it—when we were generally obliged to have the subordinate legislation in draft to accompany a Bill and, as a result, we avoided a lot of errors that would have required corrective Bills or regulations later. In the EU, many utilities are in public hands, as some are here, which I am sure explained the need for the original utilities directive. In the UK, many transport, water and telecoms utilities are in private hands and make a huge contribution to the economy as a result. I see that electricity has already been taken out in Schedule 4, at least in some respects.
Some might say, “Why not cover private utilities and force them to embrace transparency and comply with the many cross-compliance measures set out in this Bill?” “Government knows best” seems to be the modern approach. Because they are in private industry, not government or local government, we should be extremely careful about regulating private utilities. If I worked in a private utility, my advice to my shareholders on reading the Bill would have been to get out of the sector. It is proposed that they should embrace public sector bureaucracy—which is still very substantial, despite all the good efforts of the Cabinet Office in putting the Bill together—but they continue to have a private sector degree of risk.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 2, and tabled Amendments 25 to 27. The noble Baroness raised some interesting questions. I will start by trying to establish some definitions. Clause 1(1)(b)(iii) refers to “a private utility”. We all know what a utility is, but there are subsets of risk and government involvement. It would be nice to know what exactly the Government mean by “a private utility” in the context of this Bill. That is my first question and the reason for my putting my name to this amendment. The Bill defines a “public authority” and a “public undertaking”, but it does not define a “private utility”. I think it should. I have lots of questions and examples that I could ask the Minister to come back on, but I will not do that now.
When one reads about the problems of utilities, whether water, gas or transport, they all have regulators of some description but they often have slightly different powers. I have noticed over the past 10 or 15 years in the water sector that, when the regulator changes the instruction or whatever that it gives a company, it sometimes changes dramatically. If the Government do not like it, they can either advise the regulator quietly, “Would you mind doing it slightly differently?”, or, in extremis, I believe they can sack the regulator.
Then we get into the question of whether these utilities should be in the Bill at all. We had a Question in your Lordships’ House today about a passenger franchise rail operator that was roundly criticised by a number of noble Lords for its bad performance. Should the appointment of those operators be subject to competitive tendering? Should they be appointed by the regulator? They are certainly not at the moment. The regulator is supposed to keep an eye on them, but they are effectively appointed by the Government. One could argue, “What’s wrong with having it in here?”, but I believe they are an excepted utility at the moment anyway.
I am afraid I get confused by all this. I hope that the Minister can explain the exact reasons for excluding these utilities. I am in a bit of a quandary as to whether they should be excluded. It probably comes down to the risk the noble Baroness referred to and whether you like what they are doing. That is not a good reason for doing it, because what we might individually or collectively like is not necessarily the same.
I come back to this question of “a public authority”, “a public undertaking” and “a private utility”. I will give one other example. Some noble Lords will know I have been involved in trying to get the Council of the Isles of Scilly, where I live, to put in a proper bid to get a new ferry. Unfortunately, it has decided that it would like to get £48 million from the Government to give to the monopoly supplier of transport services without any competitive tendering. To me, competitive tendering for all these things is vital because you get not only value for money but a much better service on the whole.
On the whole, the contracting authority should be able to make changes if the people it is contracted with are not performing. I therefore ask the Minister: why are utilities excluded? Is it for the right reason, or will the Government find another way of doing what they presumably want to if the regulators—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said that the regulators have the last say in this—do not have the scope to award contracts?
As I said on the previous group, we need explanations and definitions. I am afraid that I shall go on a bit about this, because it is very difficult to understand it all if you do not get them.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I hesitate to appear to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkely, but I shall humiliate myself by doing so. I venture to suggest that there is a definition of a “private utility” in Clause 5. It is only to be understood in its fullness if read with Schedule 4, at page 84, which specifies what “utility activities” are. If one looks at Clause 5 and Schedule 4, one can see what the Government are trying to do. However, I am not sure that what the Government are trying to do is worth while or appropriate. To that extent, I support the comments of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe.
The background is that we are starting from an EU procurement directive that applied to the whole single market of 27 states, and which needed to take account of the fact that most utility activities in most of those states are effectively provided by arms of the state, whereas in the UK we have blazed a successful path of privatisation, so many utility activities that in other parts of the single market are carried out by the state are carried out here by private companies. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, makes a very important point when he says that those private companies are, in nearly all instances, subject to some form of regulation.
Before I go further, I draw attention to Schedule 4, which specifies those activities. The subheadings, which I know are not technically part of the Bill, include “Gas and heat”, “Electricity”—
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think electricity is later taken out, as I mentioned.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Oh well. I shall just work on the text I have; I mean, what is one meant to do? There is “Water” and “Transport”. “Ports and airports” and “Extraction of oil and gas” are also mentioned, but it is the first few that matter. It is striking that the rollout of broadband, the internet and such things do not count as a utility; I should have thought that they were characteristically examples of a utility. My noble friend will no doubt be able to give me a compelling rationale why they are not included.
I come back to the point I made a moment ago about the regulator. I read out the subheadings because noble Lords can see that the activities we are discussing are nearly all regulated, funded by the commitment of private capital with an assumption that private capital will be reasonably efficient in procurement, even if simply for the benefit of shareholders. This does not preclude defalcation, fraud, bribery or giving contracts to your best mate but, as I explained at Second Reading, the Bill does not deal with those issues. If they arose, be it in a public authority or a private company, they would be dealt with through the criminal law because they are all criminal offences. One would not pursue them for a trivial breach of a procedural requirement under the Bill; one would go after them for fraud, taking bribes or all these other criminal things, which are nothing to do with the Bill.
All that makes me think that including private utilities is not entirely appropriate. If it were felt that procurement undertaken by private utilities needed some form of statutory control it would be better in a separate Bill that actually focused on the principles, rather than the procedure, allowing private companies to pursue those procedures appropriate to achieving their shareholders’ ends, just as we allow Tesco to do—with the exception of selling cars next door to fruit. I cannot contemplate for a moment why the European Union should take exception to that, but apparently it did. Essentially, we leave Tesco to decide what procurement processes to follow because it is a private company risking private capital. That is the essential ground on which I make my point.
Finally, I turn to transport, because I have more direct experience of it as a utility than I do the others. There are some distinctions to be drawn. I take as an example Transport for London; as noble Lords may know, I served on the board. Transport for London perhaps should be subject to procurement regulations of this character, but Transport for London is in part categorised as a local government body. It is covered by some local government legislation, as well as by its own Act. That might be the rationale for including a body such as Transport for London, or some of its equivalent bodies that have been created around the country.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for expanding fully on these amendments but in the case of some of the categories in Schedule 4, there is no regulator with the power to appoint companies to do things. Ports and airports come to mind; the Government will probably do those. Are we happy that the Government can do that without any sort of regulatory oversight?
Lord Moylan (Con)
You could have more of me, my Lords, but I will simply say that I know nothing about ports. However, I know a little about airports and they are technically subject to economic regulation by the Civil Aviation Authority. It is true that that authority has, through its own risk assessment, decided that only Heathrow Airport will be subject to full economic regulation. Gatwick and Stansted are subject to some, while most other airports are not economically regulated; that is, they can set their own charges and if people do not want to fly into their airport, they will fly to another. It is not entirely true, it is fair to say, that where it matters airports are not economically regulated, because they are. I suppose that the Civil Aviation Authority could always reverse its decision, if it saw fit. It has the power to expand economic regulation to other airports if that were felt necessary. Having added that, I shall subside and look forward to my noble friend’s response.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, this is my first intervention on the Bill because on the day of Second Reading I was convalescing at home and not allowed to go anywhere.
On this business, regarding utilities, I am afraid I come at this from a simple property professional’s standpoint. It always used to be gas, water, electricity, drainage and telecoms; those were the utilities on which people relied for the use of buildings and property of all sorts. We seem to have dropped drainage, for reasons I cannot quite understand, when it is merely the dirty-water function of the clean-water provider of drinking water, which is referred to.
I declare my interest as one of those who serve under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, on the Built Environment Committee, as do the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Berkeley. I am very privileged to do that. Last week, when we were talking about the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill, it was noted that the very purpose of the telecoms giants was to try to convince government that they were a utility, should have utility powers and should, encompassed in that, have certain powers of coercion. They have come into that from the private sector, whereas dear old British Telecom, aka Openreach and a few other things, has come at it from the other direction—the hardwired traditional utility standpoint that was protected, with all sorts of powers to acquire wayleaves and so on.
The noble Baroness referred to imperfect policy development. I almost got up and said “Hear, hear” to that, because we need to start sorting out what exactly we mean by these utilities that look in lots of different directions. Some of them are very commercial—some are very controversial—and others come from a highly and necessarily regulated background because they are important for health, stability and all sorts of other basic things that require regulation as to quality and quantity in the essential needs of the public. It is not so much the voluntary needs, and perhaps even less the voluntary needs of business, but the essential needs of the public.
We seem to have an increasing muddle between what may be regarded as that essential element that has to be regulated for the purposes I have suggested and the wider commercial endeavour that goes with it. Because that distinction has been made ever less clear, for reasons that I perfectly understand—the utilities were privatised for reasons to do with funding, and I do not pass judgment on that—like Voltaire’s Candide I stand here noting both cause and effect. This is exactly the situation we are in; utility activities are mired in this very issue. I look forward very much to the Minister’s answer on that. He has a great grasp of these intellectual refinements, and I hope he will be able to enlighten us. I think a bit of a distinction needs to be made here between essential purposes and processes that are essentially voluntary and commercial.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister will pick up on the noble Earl’s Voltaire reference and tell us that we live in the best of all possible worlds. In my previous intervention, I mentioned the Government’s productivity. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, appears to be spoiling that, trying to do in two Bills what the Minister is trying to do in one. I think one Bill on this may be enough.
The point raised by the noble Lord on utilities, developed by the noble Earl, is extremely pertinent. It is a wider question that spreads into things such as the Building Safety Act, for example, where there is an assumption that utilities have a particular role to play. Are hardwiring, broadband and things such as that utilities or not? There are wider implications in this than simply the nature of the Bill. There are questions to be answered.
There is also a precedent already forming in the Bill about public services being carved out. That is the NHS issue, of course, where separate legislation is pulling out some aspects of the jurisdiction of this Bill. I do not expect to have that debate on this group, because the Minister has helped us to move everything into one group. We can have that debate later, but the principle of carving things out has been accepted by the Government. In that respect, the tablers of these amendments have something to go on. The interesting question they are providing through these amendments is: what is in and what is out? In a sense, that covers part of our curiosity around the Bill.
We should not be too obsessive about this, and nor should the noble Lord opposite, because Clause 109,
“Power to amend this Act in relation to private utilities”,
allows the Government to turn the whole thing upside down anyway. Clause 109(1) says:
“An appropriate authority may by regulations amend this Act for the purpose of reducing the regulation of private utilities under this Act.”
In fact, none of this debate makes any difference because, by regulation, the Government can ignore themselves in any case. We already have a problem, Houston.
The noble Lord talked about the difference between private delivery of services and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, talked about the fact that these organisations took on risk. With the train operating companies, when the risk turned around they just surrendered their licences. It is not real risk in the sense we might understand it in the private sector; it is a different world.
For that reason, I find it very difficult to go along with the amendments that try to extract private delivery of public service from the Bill’s ambitions. Large sums of money that have, lest we forget, originated from the pockets of UK citizens in the form of tariffs, fares or subsidies are then disbursed, or potentially disbursed, by the private companies as they procure things to deliver from their private sector the public services they are pledged and allowed by licence to supply. The Bill may, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, set out, interfere with the board’s licence to operate on a wider scale when it decides how to go about making purchases, but that is not unreasonable, given that it has hitched its wagon to a public service. When capital enters the business of delivering a public service, in my view it sacrifices the true independence to operate that it would have if it delivered a private service to private individuals. That is the deal: business gets to ply its trade on the condition that government and usually a regulator, but not always, meddle with its business model. It is a condition to operate.
For this reason, I am very interested to hear how the Minister will respond to your Lordships’ questions. These have been very worthwhile amendments and I thank the tablers. I look forward to the Minister explaining, first, what a “public service” is, secondly, what a “utility” is and, thirdly, where they sit in the context of the Bill.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. It has been interesting to listen to comments on this area, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley in their introduction to their amendments. Clearly, the changes proposed could have huge implications for utilities. There was a greater amount of flexibility for utilities in the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016 that this Bill loses. The Government have acknowledged that consolidating the UCR with the Public Contracts Regulations will be a major and complex legislative exercise. Considering the issues we debated earlier, I hope that this is an area where we can work together to make sure we get it right for everybody involved.
One of the things we have to be careful about is not increasing bureaucracy when at the heart of the Bill is the desire to speed up procurement processes. I will note a few things in the briefings I have had on the Bill. First, it is worth noting the international Agreement on Government Procurement, which is within the framework of the WTO. It establishes rules requiring that
“open, fair and transparent conditions of competition be ensured in government procurement.”
Although it does that, it does not require WTO members to implement procurement rules for the utilities sector.
Furthermore, as we have heard, the UK is no longer obliged under EU law to implement procurement rules for the utilities sector. The UK’s utilities sector is, of course, very different from those in many of its European counterparts. Therefore, using solutions that were originally designed for European markets may not be appropriate for the UK. We need to take note of all that.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it has been an interesting and important debate, which we will reflect on as we go forward in the normal way between Committee and Report. I was asked a couple of definitional questions again, including: what is a public undertaking? Clause 1(2) defines a public undertaking as
“an undertaking that is not a public authority but … is funded wholly or mainly from public funds, or … is subject to contracting authority oversight.”
Public undertakings differ from bodies that are also funded wholly or mainly from public funds, or are subject to public authority oversight but which are considered to be public authorities, in that public undertakings do not have functions of a public nature, which means their activities may be more economic and commercial in nature—these are some of the things we have been discussing. For example, although it is no longer a public undertaking, before the Government sold their share in 2015, Eurostar International was a public undertaking. I am sure that people will examine that definition in Hansard. I will come on to some other points shortly.
On the question of what a private utility is, utilities are public sector bodies—public authorities or public undertakings—that carry out utility activities, or certain private organisations carrying out utility activities, which are the private utilities. The Bill covers private utilities only where they have been granted a “special or exclusive right” to carry out a utility activity. Rights are “special or exclusive” where they have been granted by a statutory, regulatory or administrative provision, and the granting of that right in itself substantially limits other utilities from carrying out those activities—it is a competition issue. This effectively puts them in a position of a natural monopoly and therefore they could, however unlikely it may be, engage, for example, in preferential treatment that favours their own affiliates or strategic partners and discriminates against other suppliers bidding for contracts, which could negatively impact the market and customers. That would not be good for the industry or consumers.
Furthermore, though I listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness opposite said in relation to international agreements, the UK is required by various international agreements to ensure that private utilities do not discriminate against foreign suppliers with rights under international trade agreements, known in the Bill as “treaty state suppliers”, and that they adhere to the rules we have agreed for utilities procurements. This is why the Bill regulates private utilities but only to the extent required by those international agreements and where we consider it appropriate or necessary to make the regime work.
There has been a lot of debate in relation to the extent of coverage; I will come on to that. A philosophical question was posed by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox: what is in and what is out? I am sure that we will debate and discuss this in our engagement as the Bill goes forward. There was a slight difference of opinion. Behind me, I have been hearing, “Everybody out”, whereas, on the other side, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, seemed at one time to stray towards a definition of private delivery of public service. That sounds like the kind of concept that might have led Mr Benn or Mr Corbyn to say, “Let’s have them all in. They provide food, the banks and all these things”. I do not think that one would want to go that far but obviously there is a question of how far; indeed, my noble friends behind me have posed the question of “if at all”.
I was alarmed by what my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said, with her immense experience both in the public sector in Europe and in business. She said that, as it is drafted, she would find the Bill a deterrent to applying for public business. That is certainly not what the Government intend at all.
I will come back to the question of coverage shortly but we have included a number of measures that will reduce the regulatory burden for private utilities. For example, the Bill contains a number of provisions unique for all types of utilities, such as the higher financial thresholds and the utilities dynamic markets, which are available only to utilities. In framework agreements, public utilities can let closed frameworks for up to eight years and there is no maximum term for frameworks entered into by private utilities. In addition, with contract amendments, there is no 50% financial cap on the value of permitted modifications.
Obviously, the Bill seeks to reduce the regulatory burden on private utilities in terms of transparency. The transparency requirements for private utilities are the minimum required by international agreements—that is, the tender notice, the transparency notice in cases of direct award and the award notice. Regarding mandatory and discretionary exclusions, the Bill retains the flexibility under the current regime where the application of mandatory exclusions is discretionary for a private utility. Private utilities are not restricted in the duration of closed frameworks, which is generally four years for non-utilities. The terms of any closed framework are their commercial decision. Private utilities will also not be subject to oversight by the procurement review unit, which we will come to discuss later in the Bill.
I was asked about broadband and drainage. I am not sure that I have an answer on drainage except to say that I always evoke the great spirit of Bazalgette. Schedule 4 sets out that the Bill covers utilities operating in the water, energy and transport sectors that are regulated in our international trade agreements to minimise the burdens on utilities. Broadband is not covered by those trade agreements so we have not chosen to regulate public or private utilities in that area.
In relation to that, I was asked about private bus companies and Transport for London. Private utilities that run transport services, such as private bus companies, are regulated as they operate services where they have special or exclusive rights to do so. That limits competition and is reflected in international trade agreements; for example, the World Trade Organization government procurement agreement specifically lists Transport for London as being covered by that agreement. The Bill exempts it under paragraph 17 of Schedule 2 as it will be regulated by Department for Transport regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about the reasons for excluding certain utilities. I will turn to his amendments now. Schedule 4(8) includes certain utility sectors that are exempt from the regulations. As they have proved to the European Commission, they are exposed to competitive forces. Schedule 4(8) provides an exemption determination for those decisions. If other sectors can do similarly, we will be able to exempt them from procurement regulations.
Regarding the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, Schedule 4 sets out the scope of utilities activities, largely mirroring the coverage of the existing regime domestically. I repeat: this reflects our commitments in trade agreements such as the WTO’s GPA. Amendment 25 would extend the exclusion for the supply of gas and heat produced as a consequence of carrying out a non-utility activity to all contracting authorities where this is currently available only to private utilities and public undertakings. This would breach our commitments in the WTO government procurement agreement and other international agreements where this exemption applies only to private utilities and public undertakings. It does not apply to contracting authorities that are public authorities.
Amendments 26 and 27 seek to remove from the scope of the Bill utility contracts related to public transport services and contracts associated with activities for the provision of airports and ports, as was discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Moylan. Both activities are covered under the existing regime, and are required by our international commitments under the WTO GPA and other international agreements that require access to utility contracts in the transport, ports and airports sectors. The Bill therefore regulates these utility activities to comply with our international obligations.
As my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said, the Bill provides for a mechanism in Schedule 4(7); this was alluded to in a different context by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. This will be developed to permit an appropriate authority to exempt utilities operating in these sectors where they are exposed to competition. This would apply to all utilities and is permissible under our international obligations.
I will reflect carefully on—
Lord Scriven (LD)
Can the Minister clarify what an appropriate authority is? Who are the appropriate authorities and what is the process for that appropriate authority to amend the private utilities provision?
Lord True (Con)
I was asked that at Second Reading. An appropriate authority is a Minister of the Crown or a Welsh Minister. Indeed, the noble Lord’s colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, referred to this when we discussed the earlier group of amendments. We clarified it in some of the amendments that we tabled but were not brought forward earlier. Among them was an amendment to replace “appropriate authority”, although I cannot remember with what exact words—a Minister of the Crown or a Welsh Minister, I think.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I think that my noble friend is approaching his peroration. May I ask him for a little clarity? Take the example of the bus company. Bus companies operating under a franchise—for example, those in London—appear to be covered because they have a special and exclusive right. That appears to be what my noble friend is saying; if I am wrong, please correct me. Even though they have bid competitively for that special and exclusive right, and even though it generally lasts only for a number of years—this is to justify the balance of capital investment that might be required for them to allow—then comes back into competitive tender, they appear to be covered.
Bearing in mind that I am sticking with the text of the Bill as circulated, my noble friend says that Schedule 2(17) exempts them. However, that is not what it appears to do. It exempts a contract rather than a contractor, and says:
“A contract for the provision of public passenger transport services”.
In simple terms, is my noble friend saying that, when a bus company procures a building, a new piece of plant, some equipment or even some buses, it is or is not covered by the procurement regulations, even on the assumption that it falls into the special and exclusive category?
Lord True (Con)
My noble friend has very characteristically not only picked up an onion but begun to peel it into various levels of the commitment and nature of the activity. I will look into the particular issues in relation to buses referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Moylan.
What I was going to say does not really amount to a peroration. Indeed, at this time, one does not really need a great peroration. What I am here to do is to listen. A range of very interesting and important points have been raised by noble Lords on all sides in relation to the operation of the legislation on private utilities. I will look carefully at Hansard and undertake to have discussions on these matters between now and Report. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken—
Lord Fox (LD)
I sense that the Minister is winding. I have a quick question, which I think is best responded to by a letter. It is regarding international agreements and particularly telecoms, which were mentioned. The Australia agreement carves out specifically kit and hardware, but not telecom services, which appear to be left in. Will the Minister write to us about what the carve-out on broadband services is in, for example, the Australia trade deal and other trade deals?
Lord True (Con)
Yes, my Lords. I have committed to write in relation to that and I will pick up other questions that have been raised, including by the noble Lord. Obviously, there are existing international agreements that are, if you like, deposited, and which we have to work with, as well as issues of how we move forward case by case, but I will certainly address in a letter the point the noble Lord asks about. It is a legitimate question. The status of international agreements was also raised from the Front Bench opposite, and I will write to the noble Lord on that matter and copy it to colleagues in the Committee.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, this has been a workmanlike discussion, the unpeeling of the onion—the first of many unpeelings of onions, I think. I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for his support, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox—the philosophy of scope is a good phrase. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, made a strong point about the WTO, which leads me to ask the Minister whether in his follow-up letters he will be able to give us a little more feeling about what is in and what is out for each of the utilities.
I am concerned about that because when we come on to talk about what is covered, it makes a difference—for example, doing special things for small businesses, could we have rules that are not too bureaucratic? Schedules 6 and 7 look quite burdensome through the eyes of a small company. It seems that a lot is covered and then there are executive powers to decide what is taken out and excluded, so the power is with the Minister. I would like to come back to that when we debate the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, on delegated powers. It is an important issue.
Can we find a way of not making things too bureaucratic? The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made the same point from the other side. Can we improve productivity and growth, which we all desperately want to do in the current circumstances? Can this Bill be a vehicle for that and for improving our international competitiveness? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lansley
“(3A) A university is not a public undertaking for these purposes.”
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity, by way of Amendment 3, to probe—I think it is literally that—how the Bill is to be interpreted in relation to the activities of various organisations. I am using universities as a way of trying to understand how it works. Clearly, universities are charter bodies. I assume they are not included in a definition of public authorities, since they do not exercise an authority of a public nature. That is question No. 1.
Question No. 2 is: if they are not a public authority under Clause 1, are they a public undertaking in that they are
“funded wholly or mainly from public funds”
or
“subject to contracting authority oversight”?
Are they subject to such an oversight? Is the Office for Students such a contracting authority? I suspect it might be, and might have oversight. Is the intention that universities, purely by way of an example, should be included in the definition of public undertakings for these purposes? If they are, I come back to Amendment 3 and say: perhaps they should not be because, as charter bodies, they are self-governing institutions and, I would have thought, can be perfectly comfortable outside the scope of the legislation.
I will not comment on other amendments in the group, other than to say that they afford an opportunity, not least for my noble friend Lady Noakes—I think she is not intending that hers be moved—to explore the way in which public contracts are to be defined, the extent to which there are exempted contracts within those and the rationale behind the listing of the exempted contracts in Schedule 2. I will leave that to my noble friend. Suffice it to say that I am, as my noble friend the Minister said, generally in a position of us trying to regulate less rather than more and to get to the point where people are clear where they are pursuing things competitively, where they are self-governing institutions and where they have other forms of accountability. Where we are not required by our international obligations or other reasons to impose regulatory requirements on them, we should try to avoid doing so. I would be grateful if my noble friend if he uses the example of universities as a way of helping us understand how the specific provisions in Clause 1 are to be interpreted. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have a number of probing amendments in this group and throughout the Bill. The majority of them have been inspired by Professor Sanchez-Graells of the Centre for Global Law and Innovation at the University of Bristol Law School. I am grateful to him for sending me his research-based analysis of the Bill, which listed 50 areas to explore further. Noble Lords will be relieved to know that I have whittled this down to a smaller number of probing amendments.
In this group I shall speak to Amendments 4, 8, 9, 23 and 29 in my name. Amendment 4 is a probing amendment in relation to the definition of “public authority” in Clause 1. Subsection (2) includes authorities or undertakings
“subject to contracting authority oversight”,
which is defined in subsection (4). That says “contracting authority oversight” exists
“if the authority is subject to the management or control of … a board more than half the members of which are appointed by a particular contracting authority.”
My amendment probes whether this is the right definition.
The Bill’s definition appears to turn on whether board members are actually appointed by a contracting authority. Company boards are appointed by shareholders, so who is appointed by whom depends on whether the shareholders exercise their voting rights in any election of directors. A contracting authority may own a majority of shares and hence be capable of appointing a majority, or even all, of the directors but may not in fact exercise its rights, whether by accident or design. Nevertheless, the authority will be capable of voting for board appointments and would, in normal parlance, be treated as having control. Most definitions of “control” in other legislation use that concept and I suggest that the Bill would be better drafted on the ability to control, rather than on what votes have taken place in the past.
My Amendments 8, 23 and 29 probe why the Bill, with its admirable aim to consign EU procurement code to history for the UK, has persisted in using language that can only have been derived from the EU and is not part of UK usage. I raised this at Second Reading. When I searched online for “pecuniary interest”, which is the particular phrase used, the only references that came up were to declarations of pecuniary interests in connection with standards in public life. The term is used in that way in secondary legislation dealing with local authorities. It never seems to be used in the context of contracts.
My amendments propose replacing “pecuniary interest” with “consideration”, which is a term that has a long-standing pedigree in contract law. An alternative could be to remove the words entirely, as it is not clear why it is necessary to restrict contracts that state a consideration, monetary or otherwise.
My last amendment in this group is Amendment 9, which probes another term that is used in Clause 2. A contract within the scope of the Bill is one for the supply of goods, services or works to a contracting authority. The context in which I tabled this amendment was to see whether it covered contracts where a contracting authority contracts for services to be provided to some other person; for example, where social care services are procured. This is clearly the intention of the Bill, but I am not clear that it has been drafted to achieve that.
On reflection, I query whether the words “to a contracting authority” were at all necessary in the clause. It may be a hangover from the EU rules, which we have by no means escaped with this Bill. Every time words are put into legislation, there is a question about what they mean or do not mean. This came up earlier when the noble Lord, Lord Fox, was speaking. It is important to be clear that we use words only when we absolutely have to and that they have definite meaning.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I shall finish by offering a comment on another amendment in this group. Amendment 5, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Fox, is a bit like déjà vu all over again.
The Member’s explanatory note says it is probing why ARIA is excluded from the scope of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, is well aware from his involvement in the passage of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Act that it is excluded because Parliament has already decided to exclude ARIA from procurement regulations. I know he did not like it then and he clearly does not like it now, but it is clear government policy that has been approved by Parliament in order that ARIA can be a nimble research body, free to pursue its aims without being shackled by a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy. Nothing has changed since that Act was passed.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow my noble friend with a few brief remarks. I say at the outset that I regret that I was unable to contribute to Second Reading. I shall limit my remarks today to my arguments probing why Clause 2 and Schedule 2 are part of the Bill. This raises a more general question as to why we actually need the Bill, as I understand that we are already in the GPA. We have had a number of Statements about this and discussions in this regard with the Minister responsible for trade, my noble friend Lord Grimstone. I would be grateful if my noble friend could elaborate on what I am about to put to him.
As I understand it, the purpose of the Bill is twofold: first, to reform the UK’s public procurement regime following our exit from the EU; and, secondly, to create a simpler, more transparent system that better meets the country’s needs rather than being based on transposed EU directives. I understand that we are to have a separate exercise where we go through all the retained EU law, when we come to what is euphemistically known as the Brexit freedoms Bill, to decide which of those retained EU directives we may wish to keep.
My understanding is that much of what is before us today, as my noble friend has explained, is already covered by the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement—the GPA, as it is called. The aim of that agreement is to mutually open government procurement markets to those party to that agreement. The threshold values are, curiously, almost identical to the thresholds that had to be met through our membership of the European Union, which was roughly €136,000. We are now looking at £138,760 as the threshold for the general agreements for goods; for services, it is the same amount and, for construction, it is £5 million-plus.
As my noble friend Lord Lansley rightly assumed, I am trying to ascertain through this debate the way in which public contracts can be defined. I am assisted in this regard by paragraph 16 of the Explanatory Notes, which sets out that:
“The Public Contracts Regulations 2015 will be repealed and new rules on procurement will be set out in the new regime. Most central government departments, their arms-length bodies and the wider public sector including local government, health authorities and schools will have to follow the procedures set out in the Bill in awarding a contract with a value above set thresholds to suppliers.”
If, for example, there is a public procurement contract for food, for vegetables and meat, for a local school, hospital, prison or some other public body, what is the procedure that will have to be followed after the adoption of the Bill and, more specifically, the regulations that will flow from it?
That is the specific question that I would like my noble friend the Minister to address. How will public procurement for contracts over the threshold be treated? For the purposes of the Act, will they be treated differently from those that already apply under the GPA? How will the contracts apply for those that are under the magic threshold of £138,760? In effect, will the same procedures apply as before we left the European Union? I am particularly interested in food, fruit and vegetables, for the reason that we were all told this was going to be a benefit—a Brexit dividend from leaving the European Union—but I am struggling to see how this dividend will be delivered in this regard. When these contracts are put out for tender, whether they are above or below the threshold, how will that procedure apply? Can those that are under the stated threshold be awarded to local suppliers without being put out for international tender, or could we have Spanish or, indeed, African companies applying to deliver these?
I admit to being confused, because we were told that this was something that would happen after we left the European Union, and I am still struggling to see how these contracts are going to happen. We were told that it would boost local growers in this country to have these contracts put out for tender once we were no longer in the European Union. I look forward, with great anticipation, to my noble friend the Minister’s reply.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, up to her final couple of sentences, I was going to recommend that the Minister listen very closely to the advice from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. This group of amendments essentially carries on the theme of what is in and what is out, which is the existential theme of almost everything we are debating that is not a government amendment. In that respect again, it is a welcome set of amendments and I think, all joking aside, that the noble Baroness’s points are really important points for the Minister to clear up. I do not understand where we are on this and if the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, does not then it probably is not understandable.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak on this set of amendments, particularly Amendment 42. It is the first time that I have been able to speak on the Bill. I was not able to participate in Second Reading, but I have followed the debate and, like many noble Lords, spent the weekend probably losing a little hair trying to make sense of the number of amendments that have come out. I thank the Minister for the withdrawal of Amendment 1 and for looking to find a way forward with some of the issues that those amendments made.
Particularly with Amendment 42, I raise my interests in the register, particularly as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as an adviser to the Robertson group of organisations, which does work with the public sector. Amendment 42 is genuinely probing. It addresses what is in, what is out and what is the autonomy and the role of local authorities within the Bill. In particular, when a local authority works with others, how do some of the provisions within the Bill work—whether it is a central purchasing authority or not—particularly when they overlap with other procurement legislation in, for example, the Health and Care Act?
I shall put a couple of scenarios to the Minister and genuinely look forward to hearing some of his replies. First, local authorities are being asked to significantly integrate social care and health. They will be part of integrated care boards, which are purchasing organisations. Some public sector money from local authorities will come forward as part of that. When they are purchasing as an integrated care board and significant amounts of local authority money is put in there, which provisions will the local authority be asked to enact? Will it be the provisions within this Bill or the provisions under Sections 79 and 81 of the recently enacted Health and Care Act? There will be potential conflicts of interest as to by which procurement rules two different partners procuring a public good will be bound. I hope the Minister can help to explain that scenario.
There are also lots of local authorities that have significant public-private partnerships. Again, what rules will the public-private partnership be bound by, particularly when the local authority purchases significant services or goods with a private sector organisation which are to be used for public procurement? How will the private sector organisation be bound by that? For example, what rules will there be for that public-private partnership when purchasing a good, depending on whether the 51% amount has been put forward by the public sector—the local authority—or by the private sector entity?
I understand from reading the Bill that there will be the national procurement policy statement. I just need to understand from the Minister what autonomy local authorities will have to move away from the procurement guidelines that will be in the NPPS.
Finally, it would be helpful if local authorities could be put in the Bill as centralised procurement authorities. Is there any particular reason why the Government did not take that on board in the Bill?
There are many general questions about local authorities; those are a number that I wish to probe. I genuinely look forward to the Minister’s answers.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome the question of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, about local authorities. They are so often underappreciated and undervalued, and we need to know what can and cannot be done in a collective way—the question he is rightly probing. For example, a simple question would be: for planning services—where my committee has identified a huge shortage of talent and resources in some planning authorities—could you have a collective procurement, and would that be caught by this Bill?
I also ask what the GPA does on telecoms and the internet infrastructure. I must say that I tried in vain, as a Minister, to get contracts for the roll-out of infrastructure around Washington DC—there was not a level playing field. I fear that overseas interests will benefit preferentially from this Bill, as they have done in some other areas, such as contracts for difference in energy. Can the Bill help to hold the GPA to level the playing field?
I strongly support my noble friend Lady Noakes, both on her brilliant technical points, which I barely understand, and on ARIA. On the latter, I agree with her that it must be free from hassle—I think we agreed that in our debates in this House. It probably does not have enough money, but it is important to ensure that it can proceed without the benefit of lots of new regulations, which could be quite bureaucratic to them.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 7. I do not think I need comment on any of the other amendments in this group. I tabled this probing amendment to ask why this particular piece of text is here:
“This Act does not apply to Her Majesty acting in her private capacity.”
That is quite unusual in Bills. Usually at the end there is a clause that says something along the lines that Her Majesty and, often, the Duke of Cornwall have given their consent to that piece of legislation. Sometimes when I ask the Minister what relevance the Bill has to the Duke of Cornwall they cannot answer; no one seems able to because it is nicely confidential.
Obviously I can see why Her Majesty acting as the Crown is included in this Bill because effectively the Crown is the Government. However, why is the Duke of Cornwall not included in the Bill in his private capacity? He usually appears alongside Her Majesty. The Duchy of Cornwall has said it is in the private sector, which means, whatever we are going to call it, that it is a private sector organisation that presumably will have to comply with every other part of the Bill.
It is interesting to see where the sovereign grant for transport comes in. I happened to get a Written Answer today. I asked who funded the return charter flight of the Duke of Sussex from the United States for the jubilee. According to media reports, it was the most expensive charter plane that you could possibly get, and it seemed to me that, as in so many of these matters, they could actually have gone on the scheduled service. The answer I had was that it was not funded by the sovereign grant because that
“only covers expenses incurred by other Members of the Royal Family when they undertake official duties on behalf of Her Majesty”,
and clearly that was not the case. When it comes to the sovereign grant and the award of contracts for helicopters or planes across the world that the Royal Family—or even occasionally members of the Government—might take, presumably that will be subject to competitive tendering because they are acting in their public capacity.
It would be good to hear from the Minister what correspondence, if any, took place before Clause 1(9) came into the Bill. Are the Government quite happy with it? I look forward to hearing his answer.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, my name is on some of these amendments. My colleagues have spoken to several of them so I shall merely add a few things.
I was particularly concerned by the term “centralised”. The context in which we are operating is that England is by far the most centralised country in the developed world. The concept of a centralised procurement authority implies, “Whitehall tells the rest of you what to do”. For that reason, we think it important to put a number of phrases into the Bill emphasising that local authorities have a part to play. In particular, we should put here the idea that consortia of local authorities—for example, the local authorities of West Yorkshire operating together—have the ability to co-operate as centralised procurement authorities.
There will be a number of other occasions in the Bill where I and my colleagues will want to put in social enterprise, social values, non-profits and charities. They were strongly emphasised in the Green Paper and the consultation; they are not in the Bill. We think that including those elements will help to broaden the way in which Ministers and officials will approach outsourcing and public contracting. This relates also to the issues that my noble friend Lord Purvis raised about the international dimension and the importance of trade and co-operation agreements, and the point the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, made about the unbalanced way in which these occasionally operate: we are much more open to others than they are to us.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 19 and comment very briefly, because it was a pleasure to follow my noble friend, simply to emphasise the point that he and my noble friend Lord Scriven made about local authorities. I want to add just two other elements of that and combine it with a comment, since we started on this group with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about universities. In the case of my former constituency, Heriot-Watt University was part of a number of consortia with other universities and other organisations, which included charitable trusts, research trusts and other groups. Since they became procurement bodies themselves, it would be very useful for the Government to be very clear as to how this Act will consider an institution as a procuring body, including as part of a consortium of which the partners are not covered by this legislation.
On the point about local authorities, I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify for those local authorities that work cross-border. There is the borderlands consortium of local authorities in England and Scotland. In my understanding of how the Bill is drafted, that consortium would not come under the Bill because only local authorities, or local authorities in Scotland that operate on fully reserved matters, would do so. The consortium does not operate on fully reserved matters but it is a single consortium that receives a borderland deal from the Treasury and is a procuring authority. It would be very helpful if the Minister would clarify the status, under the legislation, of the border consortium of local authorities.
The purpose behind Amendment 19 is to develop that probing and to ask for consideration of the treaty state suppliers and the international agreements. What comes under the terminology of international agreements? The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and I have raised questions on many occasions about what the Government consider to be a treaty for international agreement purposes. I understand entirely that the Government’s purpose behind this legislation is flexibility, but also transparency. I support those, particularly the transparency angle. We therefore need to look carefully at the areas that are exempted.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, raised the point about ARIA; I will not intervene in the mutual relationship between her and my noble friend Lord Fox on the relationship with ARIA, and I know that UK Research and Innovation is not linked with ARIA. However, I found it interesting that UK Research and Innovation is included in our trade agreement with Australia under the procurement chapter by virtue of it being a listed body. If we need to look at which bodies will be included in this legislation, there are exhaustive lists—it says: “This list is exhaustive”—in our trade agreements, which are now in scope of this legislation but which many Members may think are not. For example, at 6.9, UK Research and Innovation is included.
Most interestingly, the Bill excludes Government Communications Headquarters, but it is included in the list of bodies in our FTA with Australia under the procurement chapter. I do not know how they will interact. We will come to this when we come to the elements of international trade, but where does GCHQ sit as regards procurement? We are obliged to cover it under the Australia FTA but we are seeking to exclude it under the Bill. I simply do not know the answer, so I look forward to the Minister clarifying that point.
The amendment on international agreements is to clarify what the Government consider an international agreement. Paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 states:
“A contract awarded under a procedure specified in an international agreement of which the United Kingdom is a signatory relating to … the implementation of a joint project between the signatories to that agreement.”
That could be extraordinarily wide, and if it includes agreements which are not under FTAs it could be enormously wide.
I just need to look at two contemporaneous cases under memoranda of understanding. These are agreements which the Government say are underpinned, with commitments to honour them. One is the Rwanda MoU on immigration—I visited the centre in Kigali two weeks ago. There is procurement that could be under that agreement, whether for the aircraft which have been brought from Spain to fly individuals out there, or indeed the Hope Guest House Ltd, a private limited company in Kigali that is to be the reception centre for these people and which I visited myself. I asked the authorities there: “If it is a limited company, how do I know what the details are—the terms and conditions?” They told me that it was under a one-year rolling contract but I have no idea how it was procured, and the same goes for the British side. This is a joint agreement with joint procurement, and I believe that it should be transparent, but under the Bill the Government are seeking to exclude that.
There are a number of different areas. There are international higher education partnership agreements. Even if the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is successful with his amendment, it would be rendered useless under paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 because the Government will be able to say that it is under an international higher education agreement. We have signed between 15 and 18 agreements with China on preferential market access, including investments through UK pension funds, which potentially come within scope of this as well. We have an investment partnership with the UAE, the details of which have not been published; I have not been able to find them and the Library has asked the DIT for the text but it has not been forthcoming. However, these are potentially joint procurement agreements. Some may be beneficial; others I look at with a cautious eye. Depending on how they are defined and on how the Government wish to use them, the transparency elements of procurement could be bypassed because of paragraph 19 of Schedule 2. Therefore, I would like the Government to explain.
In closing, because it links to a number of international agreements and has been previously referenced on treaties, I recognise the 24 treaties listed in Schedule 20, but the impact assessment relates only to 20, so I do not know why there is that discrepancy. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify the discrepancy between the two.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Hayman after her remarks. I apologise to the Committee for being a few minutes late; I was unavoidably detained on other business. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord True, for dealing with a really difficult situation with—as we might all agree—his normal courtesy. I think it was the best that could be done in the circumstances; withdrawing government Amendment 1 allowed us to move to this group of amendments. We all appreciate his offer of continuing discussions in the next day or so to consider how we take all this forward. It would be remiss to not start with thanks to the Minister for that, otherwise the Committee would have been a complete and utter catastrophe. As we can see, however, with this group of amendments we have got on to the real purpose of the Committee, which is to get to the real detail, as seen in the various contributions made by all noble Lords. All the amendments put forward have asked very reasonable questions, which seek to clarify the Government’s intentions. I shall certainly make those points in the few minutes that I speak for.
I start by saying that I was really interested in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, because it goes to the heart of the issue. You can read “pecuniary” in all sorts of ways. I looked it up with the help of my noble friend Lady Hayman and it has to do with money, so I was quite pleased to read that—from a non-legislative point of view—because I thought it meant that it was about the supply of the contracts, the pecuniary interests would not matter and it was a “standards in public life” type of approach, but of course it is not. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has clarified that for me. What “pecuniary” means in this context is a really interesting point: why are the Government including it and why would the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, not be an improvement? Again, the details of some of these amendments are really worthwhile points to look at.
I wanted to raise some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, started to get to in the debate on whether Clause 2 and Schedule 2 should stand part. There is also the question of where Schedule 1 takes us. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, will be interested in this, having asked who will police this. The Government use the term “estimated value” in Clause 2 and, to be fair to them, that is very important for this aspect of a public contract. Clause 3 deals with how estimated value is worked out; then, in Schedule 3, it is done by regulation. Schedule 3 lays out how the estimated value may be set, so I will not go through it. What I could not find out—a point also made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox—is who ensures that it is properly done; in other words, that the estimated value is a proper estimated value and that the system laid out in Schedule 3 works. If I understood the Minister, he said that it is a matter for the Minister—a matter for the Crown. Could he just clarify who polices this? Who ensures that the estimated value is indeed a proper estimated value? That would be helpful to the Committee.
Lord True (Con)
Again, my Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have spoken. There have been some interesting speeches. Indeed, I will certainly take the final speech by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in which he seemed to deplore the idea that the Government should have any regulatory powers, back to my right honourable friend. We will certainly watch for that as we go forward.
On his more general point in relation to the Delegated Powers Committee and so on, I do take what he said seriously. We will have a debate on that in the next session. I will look into his specific point about secondary and primary legislation. If there is an answer that is an advance on what is already in the public domain, I will certainly have that for the next session when we will look at delegated powers.
I am not really a fan of wide-ranging groups that cover a whole range of different subjects. They seem to have become the habit of our times. When I first had experience of your Lordships’ House, we had quite short debates on relatively narrow subjects, which enabled the Minister and the House generally to concentrate. So I will endeavour to answer all the various points that have been made but some of them may have to come in writing. We will look very carefully at Hansard because there was a very broad range of questions, which started with the questions on universities.
Lord Fox (LD)
Can I just point out that the grouping comes from the Government Whips’ Office? We could have extracted all our amendments, one by one, and created a larger number of groups but, probably in deference to the will of the Government, we did not. The future of how many amendments you have in a particular group lies very much in the hands of the Government, not Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition’s or ours.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, they are negotiated in the usual channels. Sometimes it is a fatal thing in your Lordships’ House to express an opinion, in all respect to your Lordships, of how I think things may be done. We are all imperfect—I am sure the usual channels are not perfect—but having a large group does raise challenges in terms of accountability.
I will try to address the various points raised. I apologise if they were so broad that I may miss some of them, for whatever reason. We started on universities with Amendment 3 from my noble friend Lord Lansley. His amendment would exclude universities from a definition of public undertakings within the definition of a contracting authority, and consequently from the scope of the public procurement rules. He asked about public undertakings and public authorities. Public undertakings are relevant only in the context of the utilities that we were discussing. The universities will be public authorities if they meet the public authorities test, and not caught if they do not meet it.
Universities are included in the UK’s coverage commitments under the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Government Procurement as contracting authorities that are subject to the rules, where they are publicly funded. The existing definition of a contracting authority in the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 contains tests of the extent to which a body is publicly funded or publicly controlled. These tests are then applied by the body in question to determine whether they are caught by the definition. The definition of a contracting authority in the Bill is intended to capture the same bodies. Universities are therefore in scope of the procurement rules, but only to the extent that they are mainly publicly funded or controlled. The position is likely to vary depending on universities’ funding streams, and those that derive the majority of their revenue from commercial activities would likely be out of scope.
Amendment 4 in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes would adjust the definition of a contracting authority in such a way that bodies would be brought into scope where they are subject to control by a board if more than half the members are “capable of being” appointed by a contracting authority. I think there was some interest in that proposition on both sides of the Committee. Our initial feeling is that it would mean a more prescriptive and potentially wider scope than the proposed definition, which brings into scope only bodies controlled by a board that has been
“appointed by a … contracting authority.”
Again, the definition of contracting authority in the Bill is intended to capture the same bodies as in the existing Public Contracts Regulations. We are not seeking to change the scope of bodies covered in any way, though some adjustments have been necessary to replace references to European concepts such as bodies governed by public law with the more relevant UK analogous concept of bodies undertaking public functions. Ensuring consistency is necessary not only for practical continuity purposes but in respect of the United Kingdom’s international market access commitments in free trade agreements, which use the existing definition as the basis of the UK’s coverage offer.
The current definition brings into scope bodies that have a board more than half of whose members are appointed
“by the State, regional or local authorities, or by other bodies governed by public law”.
The definition in the Bill is consistent with this by bringing in bodies that are subject to the management or control of
“a board more than half … of which are appointed by a … contracting authority.”
The existing definition in the Public Contracts Regulations does not contain any reference, as per the proposed amendment, to the notion of board members “capable of being” appointed by a particular contracting authority. Whether or not an authority chooses to exercise its right to appoint members to a board is not addressed, and was not intended to be addressed, within the definition. For that reason, we do not currently consider that it would be appropriate to adjust the definition in the way the amendment suggests.
However, I have listened carefully to what my noble friend has suggested. We will consider further whether it is possible to exercise control without making appointments by the threat of control. For the moment I ask my noble friend not to move the amendment, which we cannot support as it stands.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful. Just so that the Minister writes the correct letter to me, I am fully aware that sub-paragraph 19(a) relates to agreements about
“the stationing of military personnel”.
However, sub-paragraph 19(b) is so broadly drawn that it is not directly linked to military agreements. I hope that the Minister does not write to me concerning anything to do with military procurement because that is absolutely not what I raised. My concern about sub-paragraph (b) regards the other agreements that are not military.
Lord True (Con)
I was actually coming on to the rest of that but, with respect, the noble Lord asked me a specific question about government communications in his utterance; therefore I was responding to it.
Going further, in line with the existing exemption under the current regime, as provided for in the GPA, partner nations will typically agree to the rules for the award of contracts in a joint project by one or more of the partners in an international agreement. We cannot expect our international contracting partners, each with different national procurement procedures in some cases, to follow the specific procedural rules in this Bill. The ability to switch off the procedural rules in the legislation where there is a clash with what was agreed with the parties to the international agreement is essential to facilitate arrangements; however, I will clarify that further for the noble Lord. Again, I ask that this amendment be withdrawn.
I turn to Amendment 42, which relates to local authorities. I apologise for the length of my speech but a number of different themes came out here. Given my life and my having been involved in setting up joint arrangements with other authorities, I understand where the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is coming from in seeking to add to and amend Clause 10 to make it explicit that a group of local authorities forming a consortium may constitute a centralised procurement authority. As an old local government hand, I do not particularly like that phrase; on the other hand, earlier, I cited the Yorkshire procurement arrangements as the type of thing that would be permitted and would be a centralised procurement authority.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I suggest looking at the definitions in Clause 112. I note that the terms “central government authority”, which clearly does not apply, and “centralised procurement authority” occur together. I suggest that, in introducing an amendment on Report, the Government may care to consider something that replaces “centralised” with “combined”? That would not have the implication of being run from Whitehall and would express much more explicitly what is intended.
Lord True (Con)
I will certainly reflect on anything that is said in Committee. “Combined authority” has a particular meaning and understanding. Local authorities can procure things together without being a combined authority; perhaps the noble Lord, being a good Liberal Democrat, might like to propose a federalised approach. I will take away the point he made. I was going to say that I agree with him and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that it is correct that local authorities can band together to form consortia to undertake procurements; that is something we wish to encourage. I will look into the particular case of border lands that the noble Lord—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
It is a federal question that I am asking, about states that border combined authorities.
Lord True (Con)
I am not sure that the First Minister is looking for a federation.
Where a procurement is being undertaken by one or more local authorities that are in the business of carrying out procurement for others, as when they form a consortium to undertake several procurements over a period of time, those authorities would constitute whatever we call it—a centralised procurement authority, for the purpose of the Bill—without the need for the amendment. Conversely, where a group of local authorities come together to undertake joint procurement on a one-off or ad hoc basis, they are entitled to do that as joint procurement under Clause 10(4)(a).
There are other aspects in relation to local authorities. The Government have a clarifying amendment in the megagroup that comes up next, which I hope will also give some reassurance to noble Lords opposite that we want freedom for local authorities—although they will have to have regard to the priorities and national procurement strategy, as any other body will. Ultimately, they will remain accountable to their electorates for their own procurement decisions.
I was asked about how integrated care boards fit into the Bill. I understand that we are still in discussion with the Department of Health to agree what matters are within the health and care procurement rules. This will be debated later on in the Bill; I hope to come forward with more clarification on that.
Finally, a lot of general matters were raised relating to Clause 2, not only by my noble friend but by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, opposite. My note-taking was running out a bit but I will obviously pick up as much as I can of the remarks and write further.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was able to pursue some of things that I touched on. What concerns me most, particularly given what my noble friend the Minister said about the earlier amendments in this group, is that I am at a loss to understand why we need this Bill if so much of it is already set out in the GPA or in existing law. Can my noble friend explain the role of the thresholds, particularly in the provision of food to public authorities?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, we need the Bill because we need a national procurement structure. I hear what my noble friend says but there has been agreement across the Front Benches and from the Liberal Democrats that we need to establish a framework that will last. People may have different views on whether it diverges enough or not at all from the arrangements we have—doubtless that will be explored—but we need to have such a framework and a body.
Clause 2, which is probed, classifies three types of contracts that are public contracts. The first category covers contracts for the supply of goods, services and works, provided that they are not subject to an exemption. I was asked about how each of those exemptions was arrived at. I cannot answer on all of them here but I can certainly provide information to the noble Lord. The second category covers frameworks—that is, contracts providing for the future award of other contracts. The third is concession contracts, which we will discuss.
I turn to the concerns around what Schedule 2 is about. It sets out the types of contracts where the contracting authority does not need to apply the rules for the contract award procedure; they are exempted from the procurement rules. The Bill needs to ensure that contracting authorities have the freedom to carry out the most appropriate procurement where the rules in the Bill might otherwise be unsuitable, for example where it is necessary to protect national security interests and the procurement is too sensitive to advertise; where the contract award procedures are governed by other legislation, as in rail services, which are currently awarded under a separate regime operated by the Department for Transport; or where it is necessary to protect the Government’s ability to make public policy interventions, such as on broadcasting content.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My noble friend should not feel he has to apologise for responding to colleagues in Committee who raised a number of points. That is precisely what we are here for, and we are grateful to him for that; he did so extremely well, and it helped us to realise some of the important links in the Bill, how it is structured and why it is structured as it is. For example, the fact that we have for a long time been signatories to the Agreement on Government Procurement, the GPA, has been reflected in EU legislation; in the absence of EU legislation or carrying it forward as retained EU law, we want our own legislation, but the GPA does not apply in the United Kingdom unless we legislate for it. That is how our domestic legislation works, and we have to have a structure to do that.
Coming back to my Amendment 3, I had not understood that the GPA itself was the basis for the interpretation of whether universities are public authorities for these purposes. Happily, I do not think it will distress universities too much, as it is a continuation of their existing situation. When we look at exempted contracts, we see that research and development and employment contracts are out, which are probably their two main elements of expenditure. I should think they would be perfectly comfortable with that.
On that basis, I will not detain the Committee any longer. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 3.
Procurement Bill [HL]
Wednesday 6th July 2022
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-II(a) Amendments for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (5 Jul 2022)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, before I begin, I would like to make a brief personal statement. Do not get too excited; it is not what you might think—
Lord True (Con)
In answer to an interesting question in the Chamber yesterday, I implied that my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft had not been present in Committee. I had not noticed that she was here and I personally apologised to her afterwards. But, as my remark lies in Hansard, I thought it appropriate to correct the record. My noble friend Lady Wheatcroft graciously said that she did not expect me to do this, but I think that it is the proper thing to do.
In moving Amendment 10, I will speak to this group of government amendments. Monday was difficult and, on behalf of the Government, I candidly acknowledged the contrition and sympathy that we felt about the number of amendments that were put down. I think that we have arrived at a better place. As noble Lords know, we arranged a briefing for noble Lords on today’s amendments and I am grateful to the officials who gave this at short notice. I hope that noble Lords who were not able to be there have had the chance to consider the supplementary information on the government amendments that was circulated. Officials will be available again tomorrow to provide a technical briefing for your Lordships on the remaining government amendments.
The government amendments in this group refer only to Schedule 2, which lists what is an “exempted contract”. The exemptions are not mutually exclusive and a contract can be an exempted contract if it falls under multiple paragraphs of this schedule. If a contract is exempted, its award and management will not be subject to any of the legislation, unless it is an international organisation procurement, where some obligations apply.
Amendment 10 to Schedule 2 would ensure consistency with similar drafting elsewhere in the Bill. For any of the exemptions in this schedule to apply, the subject of a contract must represent the main purpose and cannot reasonably be supplied under a separate contract. The amendment would add “reasonably” to this description and is consistent with drafting elsewhere in the Bill—for example, on mixed procurements, the duty to consider lots and estimating the value of a contract.
Amendment 11 clarifies the exemptions for vertical arrangements, which arise where a contracting authority enters into an arrangement with an organisation that is connected vertically with it—in other words, with an entity under its control, or what is called a “controlled person” in the legislation. A typical example might be a trading company set up by a local authority to fulfil a specific task, such as carrying out waste treatment and collection for the authority. We briefly discussed this on our first day, when I said that the Government would bring forward further facilitating amendments; I know that the Liberal Democrat Front Bench expressed an interest in that.
Amendment 12 deals with a consequential update to clause formatting following Amendment 11. These amendments to the definition of vertical arrangements have been tabled following some helpful feedback from stakeholders, including the Local Government Association, of which I believe I still may be a vice-president, in which case I should declare an interest. The feedback showed that the drafting did not properly provide for the fact that such arrangements may involve control by more than just one contracting authority. The government amendments therefore ensure that this exemption will continue to apply where there is joint control of the controlled person, as it does now.
Amendment 13 has two parts. The first part—the inclusion of new sub-paragraph (5)—is a result of the amendment to provide for joint control. It ensures that joint control may still be achieved where one person is representing multiple contracting authorities on the board—or similar body—of the controlled body. This continues the existing position in Regulation 12(6) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. The second part—the inclusion of new sub-paragraph (6)—stems from the updated definition of “contracting authority”, which means that the vertical arrangements exemption would unintentionally have allowed a wider category of organisations to access the exemptions than intended. This amendment ensures that the vertical and horizontal arrangements are available only to the intended public sector contracting authorities and not to public undertakings and private utilities, which have arrangements that reflect their more commercial nature.
Amendment 14 is a mirror of Amendment 13, for the same reasons. In this case, the purpose is to limit the availability of the horizontal arrangement exemptions to the intended public sector contracting authority recipients.
Amendments 15 and 16 remove the term “legal activity”, which is currently defined by reference to the Legal Services Act 2007, and replaces it with the term “legal services”. This is necessary because the definition in the 2007 Act is not appropriately applicable in a Scots law context. Leaving the term undefined allows the exemption flexibility to adapt to different legal systems within the confines of the remainder of the exemption.
I turn now to the final government amendment in this group. Amendment 17 adds a reference to legislation that explains the meanings of “contract of employment” and “worker’s contract” in Northern Ireland. This is a result of the talks with the Northern Ireland authorities. Adding the Northern Ireland reference again allows the exemption flexibility to adapt to different legal systems, provided that the remainder of the exemption is met. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 11A, which is an amendment to government Amendment 11. Amendment 11A is really only a place- holder to discuss some broader concepts about this Bill and about paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 in particular.
I confess that I paid little attention to the government amendments ahead of our first day in Committee. Like other noble Lords, I was completely overwhelmed by the huge groupings and the lack of explanation that arrived before they were tabled—hence, I tabled Amendment 11A only yesterday. I am certainly grateful for the explainer that was circulated yesterday. I have not yet read all 60 pages, but a reasonable summary is something like this: “We are trying to keep the new UK procurement code as close as possible to EU rules.”
This is at the heart of one of my main problems with this Bill: we have not created a UK code at all. The Bill may well have simplified or reduced the number of different sets of rules, but that has not achieved a significant simplification of the rules to any meaningful degree. Furthermore, it uses terms and concepts that are comprehensible only to procurement practitioners and in a way that is often alien to the way in which we do things in other areas. It has few principles and a whole load of pernickety rules, of which this schedule is one. In short, this is the EU way of doing things and not the UK way of doing things. I believe that we have missed an opportunity to create something that would have worked better for UK businesses and, indeed, for the UK public authorities that have to comply with it.
I turn to the specifics of Amendment 11A. The amendment would delete new sub-paragraph (2A) in Schedule 2, which is contained in my noble friend’s Amendment 11. Sub-paragraph (2A) is not new, as it rewrites sub-paragraph (2)(c) of the existing Bill. The effect of sub-paragraph (2A) denies the vertical arrangements exemption that my noble friend has just described if the body concerned has even one share held by other than a public authority. I think that this is nonsense. Holding one share or any other kind of minority holding does not change the nature of control, which is what paragraph 2 purports to base the vertical exemption on. It would restrict the exemption to bodies that are wholly owned by the public sector, in effect, and I can see no economic rationale for that.
I also want to challenge two other aspects of paragraph 2, arising out of new sub-paragraph (2B), which is a rewrite of the existing sub-paragraph (2)(b). There is one material change from the existing sub-paragraph (2)(b). It is similar to the issue that I raised in the context of Amendment 4, which we debated on our first day in Committee. The existing sub-paragraph (2)(b) refers to a person who
“exerts, or can exert, a decisive influence”.
The new version merely talks about a person who “exerts a decisive influence”. I explained on Monday that the conventional UK approach when looking at things such as control is to use a test based on the capacity to control rather than actual control. Curiously, paragraph 2 uses that concept of capacity to control because it uses the basic definition of control via the parent undertaking definition in Section 1162 of the Companies Act 2006. Under that section, control exists if a parent undertaking holds a majority of voting rights or has the right to appoint or remove a majority of the board. That is, control exists for the basic purpose of this clause if there is the ability to control, whether or not the right is used. Can my noble friend explain why the Government are using one approach to control but another for decisive influence, deliberately caused by the amendment that he has just moved?
I now turn to the concept of decisive influence itself. If someone other than a controlling authority exercises decisive influence, the vertical arrangement exemption does not apply, so it is important to find out what it means. I expected to find a definition of the term “decisive influence” in the Bill, because it is not a term that is found in general use related to companies or the control of organisations, but I cannot find a definition.
Interestingly—I say “interestingly” as I find it interesting, but I am a bit of an anorak on these things—Section 1162 of the Companies Act contains the concept of dominant influence, which is an alternative way of establishing whether a parent undertaking exists. A dominant interest is defined in Schedule 7 to that Act and requires a right to give directions to a board of directors that the board of directors has to comply with. The Companies Act does not use “decisive influence”; it uses “dominant interest”.
How then do we establish whether decisive influence exits? Do we assume that because the Bill does not use the Section 1162 definition it means something different? That might imply that it is something below the level of control, but precisely what it is getting at seems unclear. As far as I can tell, decisive influence is not a term used in English law, which comes back to my point that we are still rooting ourselves in EU law. It is found in EU competition law and, in that context, it is used as part of a rebuttable presumption of control, so that if a majority of shares are held the parent undertaking is assumed to exercise decisive influence on the subsidiary undertaking.
If it means a variant of control, we end up saying that vertical arrangements will not be exempt even if a contracting authority can control a body. If another body in fact controls that body, it does not matter if the other body can control it but does not do so; it just looks at whether it exercises control. However, the exemption is denied if a tiny fraction of the shareholding of the undertaking is held outside the public sector. There is another leg, which is if less than 80% of the activity is carried out for the contracting authority. There is a confusing set of thresholds for denying the exemption. It is even more complicated if joint control is involved, but I will not go into that. I submit that logic and common sense have somehow gone missing in paragraph 2 and that it needs a rethink.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 11 only. It carries over into our new domestic legislation what is referred to in the European Union legal context as the Teckal exemption. To that extent, it illustrates and gives force to the point made by my noble friend Lady Noakes that we are very much replicating European Union law here. The reason I rise to address it is that I wish to seek a point of clarification from my noble friend the Minister. It arises from my experience—this is an interest that I once declared but I think has now expired—of chairing Urban Design London, a body that benefited from the Teckal exemption. So I have some experience of how it works.
Urban Design London was—I mean “is”; it still exists and operates—an unincorporated association established between Transport for London, the Greater London Authority and London Councils, representing the London boroughs. Its purpose is to generate training for the benefit of local government officers, Transport for London officers and others in good practice in planning, urban design and transport design. I am very proud of it—it is a successful little body—but it was set up as an unincorporated association, meaning that it is not incorporated and not a company.
I am anxious because there are two versions of the legislation that I can look at: the one that was originally circulated and the one that has replaced it. I might say that the one that has replaced it is a great deal better than the original; it clearly shows the influence of the Local Government Association and people who understand these things. The version in the amendment is generally much better. However, I am concerned about the references to the Companies Act in sub-paragraph (2B), to be inserted by Amendment 11. The clarification I seek is that this is sufficiently broadly drawn that the controlled body that benefits from the Teckal exemption does not have to be incorporated and read in a Companies Act structure. I see my noble friend looking round; I will understand entirely if he is not able to give a firm direction to me on that point today. I simply reserve the right, depending on what he says, to bring something back on Report. I am not pressing him too far on that, but it is something that I would like to know.
I have one other point, which is that I am delighted to see that what was a provision in the originally circulated version of the Bill—whereby an appropriate authority may by regulation make provision about how to calculate the percentage of activities of the controlled body—has been dropped. The percentage of activities is relevant, because one of the qualifiers under the Teckal exemption is that 80% of your activities have to be carried out for the controlling party or parties, but “activities” is not defined. In the case of UDL, which was largely a body which employed staff who did things, we took the view as a board that the appropriate measure was staff time, but there might be bodies where “activities” should be measured by turnover, size of contracts or income and expenditure. I want my noble friend to confirm that the clause enabling an appropriate authority to make regulations on this topic has been dropped in the new amendment.
It should be, because these bodies need to be left to make their own responsible decisions about the best and appropriate means of deciding how to measure their own activities. I see no reason for the Secretary of State to be involved in making regulations about it, and if they behave perversely, they will of course be subject to potentially being sued by a contractor who had failed to achieve business that they might otherwise reasonably have thought they would have obtained.
At the risk of being a little tedious, I seek clarification from my noble friend on those two points, and if he is able to provide it not today but after the Committee, that would be more than welcome.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I want to address the change in relation to Scottish law. Before doing that, I will pick up the point made a moment ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, with regard to the influence of European terminology. She will not be surprised to know that I have no problem with the influence of European terminology; if we are to hunt all European influences out of our legislation, it will take a very long time and leave quite a lot of uncertainty around the place. None the less, I take the point she makes with regard to the substance of the implications, and the question of a capacity to influence is a very important consideration. If a capacity to influence exists, that may have an ongoing impact without it being written in black and white. That has to be taken on board.
I want to ask the Minister about the change to get in line with Scottish law. If there is in future a change in Scottish law or a change in the ruling in the courts in Scotland, presumably that could have an implication for the way in which the Bill, when enacted, works out. Does that mean there will have to be a review every time there is a change in Scotland that might impact on this, because we are working within one market and we need to make sure there is consistency running through this? Perhaps I can park that question with the Minister, as it is a relevant one that arises from what he said.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, at the beginning of the Committee the Minister had a teaser with his announcement. It is very clear that he is not going to resign, because no Minister would put himself through this process and then resign. We can be clear about his intentions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said that she was interested in this and that perhaps some of us might not be. I am interested. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, have made important contributions to this group of amendments.
Since Monday, much industry has proceeded. We have new groups of amendments and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, pointed out, we have explanations for those amendments and what they seek to achieve. We thank the Bill team and the Government Whips’ Office for that hard work, which cannot have been easy. We also had a meeting with the Bill team this morning, which has helped us somewhat.
This is progress, although I always like to spoil praise by saying that we really should not have been starting from here in the first place. This is vital legislation that will set the scene for procurement right across our country, and the details need to be correct. We have started to hear that, in just one area, the details remain very much open to question.
Some of the amendments in this group are relatively small changes, including Amendments 10, 12, 16 and 17; others are trying to do a bit more. As we heard from the Minister, Amendment 11 rights a problem that was identified by both my noble friend Lord Wallace and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, of groups of local authorities working in tandem.
I welcome that the Government have taken the advice of the LGA, but it seems slightly strange that it was sought or delivered after Second Reading rather than some time before it. One of the problems we sometimes have with the Government is that they forget the central role of local authorities, particularly in something like this. Local authorities should have been front and centre in the process of writing this legislation, but, far from it, it seems that they are something of an afterthought. That is where some difficulties are emerging, because, in a sense, we are trying to bend things back to fit local authorities when they should have been framed for local authorities in the first place. This amendment is welcome, with the caveat that we need clarity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, brought up the issue of clarity and the lack of definition. We heard the result of one of the legal cases that went to the European Union, the Teckal exemption, set out by the noble Lord. Most of the controversy of the European legislation has been hammered out in courts. As I said on Monday, we are spoiling for lots of legal fights in this legislation because of the loose definitions, absence of definitions and cross-definitions. I completely take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that if we try to write across something using terms which do not appear in the UK lexicon of company law, we will be starting from first principles in the court in order to define them. That will not be in the interests of any government business or of local authorities. We need a clear and legally binding understanding of what all these terms mean. The Minister must use either the Dispatch Box or the legislation—preferably the latter—to clear up that ambiguity.
The second part of Amendment 13 is an example of what the Government giveth the Lords taketh away. Having cut across the public contracts regulation and removed exemptions for public undertaking and private utilities, as I understand it the Government are, with this amendment, replacing those exemptions and focusing this vertical exemption only on public utilities. As far as we are concerned, that is perfectly fine, but again, this is an example where the Bill has had to be corrected because of missing points that cut across. There are so many cross-cuts in this legislation.
Amendments 15 and 16 are another example. Here, as the Minister set out and as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, requested, “legal activity” has meaning in Scotland and not the meaning that the Government intended for this Bill. We now have to choose something that has no meaning at all, which is “legal services”. In the words of the Government, there is a flexible definition for this. We are being asked to put a flexible definition into the centre of a Bill. I am not keen on this sort of flexibility of language, and this is another example of flexible or misunderstandable language being put into legislation. We are looking for clarity from the Minister. If it is not Pepper v Hart clarity, we need clarity written into what we have. On some of the issues mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and others, we need to remove that “flexibility” from our language in the Bill.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I shall add some questions to those posed so far on this group. Before I do, I thank the Bill team for the technical briefing this morning that I took part in remotely and for the further information that the Minister promised and which was provided and circulated with the explanatory statements. They were helpful. Of course, they do not answer all the questions, but that is the purpose of Committee.
Overall, it begs the question as to where we stand on the overall proportion of procurement that would be under covered and non-covered areas, and what is now under exempted areas. The Minister rejected my call for an updated impact assessment. At the moment, we have no information as to what level of procurement we are dealing with in these new areas. It would be helpful if the Minister could say what proportion of the procurement is now likely to be within the covered, non-covered and exempted areas.
With regard to ownership and persons, I posed a question to the technical team this morning, so I hope they have had time to provide some information to the Minister. There seems to be an assumption in the drafting that contracting authorities are either public or private bodies, but it is less clear on the other areas within the broad public sector, where there are, effectively, trust models for the delivery of services. These do not fall neatly into the category of a public or private body. Indeed, I am aware of procuring bodies that delivered services in the Scottish Borders, my former constituency area, that were hybrids between purely public authority bodies, charitable bodies, pension funds and public interest vehicles. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether Amendment 11 will cover all these areas. If it does not, there will still be gaps when it comes to some of the consortia which are both traditional centralised bodies, as we discussed on Monday, and those that are other trust models.
I turn now to my second question, which I also posed to the technical team—to be fair to them, I got some form of answer. It relates to contracting authorities acting jointly when one is English and one is Scottish. What legal framework will they be operating under? The Bill team—I hope I relate this correctly; they have no right of reply, so I hope I am fair in what I say —noted that, later in the Bill, there are regulation-making powers to cover these areas. However, my concern is that, presumably, we would not be expecting regulations to be brought forward to suit individual contracting authorities acting jointly where one is Scottish and one is English. This is a slightly different point from which the Minister said on Monday he would write to me, because it relates directly to this amendment. I did not receive a letter clarifying these cross-border issues. The Minister may say that he was rather busy—
Lord True (Con)
The noble Lord has generously acknowledged, as others have, that the officials have been extremely busy. There will be a response to the noble Lord’s question, as I undertook. With respect to the officials, it is unreasonable to complain that a letter has not been received, given all the other activities going on. I repeat the undertaking. The noble Lord will receive a letter, but I must defend my officials.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I hope the Minister will reflect on his comments. At no stage did I criticise officials for not receiving a letter. This is a ministerial responsibility. A Minister gives an undertaking to write to a Member in Committee. A Minister brings forward and moves amendments in Committee which are pertinent to the issue I raised when the Minister said that he would write to me. I was not criticising any officials. If any criticism to be laid, it is against the Minister. I simply said that, in the absence of the letter he promised to send me, I am asking these questions for clarification. That is reasonable.
On exemptions, there has been some reference to legal services. I understand the point that has been raised about making sure that there is a distinction from Scottish legal services as appropriate, and I certainly support the Government doing that. However, my understanding is that, for some of the treaty suppliers, there are obligations under some of the treaties on the mutual recognition of professional and legal qualifications. My understanding is that the exemption for legal services under this Bill will cover those other areas where the mutual recognition of professional qualifications in carrying out certain legal services will also be excluded. I understand that a body would be unable to procure legal services that are separate from those exempted, but they are then covered in other areas of professional qualifications. This will leave certain gaps in our treaty obligations.
I reviewed the Australia agreement on the carve-out on legal services. It is broadly the same, so I understand where the Government are coming from as far as these exemptions are concerned, but it is not exactly the same. Perhaps the Minister could give some further explanation as to what is likely to be allowed under the provision of legal services by certain providers of legal services that have mutual qualification recognition, because the position on legal services is still uncertain. If the Minister could respond to those points, I would be grateful.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord True, those who have been working with him and the officials for the briefing we received this morning and for listening to the anger, frankly, that there was on Monday about the situation. We were where we were; we are grateful to the Minister for doing what he could to degroup the amendments and sort things out as best he could. Clearly, there are still a number of issues, and many of us are still struggling to put together the various mountains of paper we have to try to make sense of it.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on her extremely important Amendment 11A. I must say that, in my reading of Schedule 2, I had not picked that issue up, which shows part of the problem—I know that the Minister accepts this—of not having enough time. The noble Baroness’s point was on decisive influence and what that means. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, the definition of particular words and phrases bedevils us at the present time. I pray in aid because, later on, I will point out one word in a couple of phrases that I think makes all the difference; I hope the Committee will bear with me and recognise that I am not being trivial—changing one word would make a significant difference to the meaning in the Bill. As well as pointing something out to us, the noble Baroness has made an extremely important point about what “decisive influence” means in paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3) of Schedule 2.
I would add to what the noble Baroness said. This is really important because is it not only
“a decisive influence on the activities of the person”;
it is also “directly or indirectly”. You then really get into the question of what on earth it means. To be frank, when you get into “decisive influence” and “indirectly”, it becomes extremely difficult. Again, I thank the noble Baroness. Like her, I look forward to listening to the answer the Minister gives with respect to that.
I agree with most of the remarks made by the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Fox, and others. I have decided not to read out my notes, because I want to try to get to the heart of this for the benefit of those who read our proceedings. If I get this wrong, the Minister will need to correct me. We need to understand where we are and what is happening.
My understanding is that the current procurement regime—not the regime envisaged by the Procurement Bill—operates under the existing Public Contracts Regulations 2015. Because we left the EU, the original Procurement Bill sought to transpose the 2015 regulations into British law. Unfortunately, in doing that, the Bill made a series of errors, and in particular around the Teckal exemption—however it is pronounced; I do not have the same mastery of languages as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. That exemption was not actually in the original drafting. The Local Government Association and all the other bodies were horrified—from what I have seen of the statements they have made to the Government—because it meant that many of the things they were able to do under the 2015 regulations with the Teckal exemption would no longer be allowed and they would have to change their procurement processes. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who gave the very good example of the transport initiative, of which he was proud, but the LGA and other bodies were worried that these sorts of arrangements would not be operational in the same way as was drafted in the original Procurement Bill.
The Committee will correct me if I am wrong, but this is the million-dollar question for me, and the reason I abandoned my notes: do the Government amendments in this group, led by Amendment 10, mean—as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, other noble Lords, the LGA and many other organisations which have made representations to us are concerned it does—that the 2015 regulations have been transposed into the amended version of the Bill, along with the Teckal exemption to those regulations? That is what people will be looking for, because British law, as it will stand when this Bill becomes an Act, will mean that they can operate the various arrangements that they have either vertically with an entity in themselves, or horizontally with other local authorities or bodies.
If we look across the country, we see that in all the areas in which we live—including, I presume, Wales; I am not sure about Scotland, about which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, may wish to say something—there are hundreds upon hundreds of models of procurement that have been adopted and worked on to deliver services in the way that a local authority, body or entity has decided to follow. The Minister will know this better than me, because of his experience. What they will be looking at is whether the Government’s amendments mean that their concerns have been met. That is why I decided to put down my amendment. I cannot debate law as well as many other noble Lords, but if I were someone from the outside looking at this, I would ask whether this means that I can carry on procuring in the way that I have been able to procure previously. That was my concern with the way that the Bill was originally drafted. That is the million-dollar question for the Minister.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I was not going to intervene in this debate, and my questions are effectively procedural. As I understand it, these amendments are to Schedule 2, although according to the Marshalled List, Schedule 2 has already been debated. We also have the report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which made a number of trenchant criticisms of the contents of the Bill, including a provision in Schedule 2. Where and how do the Government respond to the points raised by the committee and where and how should we, as members of this Committee, raise the issues that were raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee? As my noble friend said, we have a mountain of paper here, and quite rightly we have been focused on all these government amendments, but I do not want the issues raised to pass by default. Does the Minister respond and, if so, when?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I would like my noble friend to respond to a point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on Monday, which is pertinent to the remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, just now. I am confused about whether paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 relates to military contracts only. I think that was the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on Monday, and I do not know that we got a satisfactory answer. I am very confused about whether paragraphs 19 and 20 of Schedule 2 should be read together with paragraph 26. I think I am right that, on Monday, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised whether the international agreements under paragraphs 19 and 20 relate to defence contracts only or whether they are more general.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken. Of course, this is Committee in your Lordships’ House, the whole purpose of which is to probe, challenge, ask and seek greater definition. I make absolutely no complaint about that; indeed, I welcome it. The issue is how and when most effectively we can give the appropriate response. I and my officials will always try to do that in the best possible way and the best possible time to enable your Lordships to do your work. That is the aspiration. I have no doubt that I will fall short of that aspiration and that I will be caned for that.
I will speak to Amendment 11A, which was tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, in a moment. First, I have been asked questions on a number of matters, which I will try to address. I fear that the exemption list was drawn up before my time, but I am advised that it was drawn up in consultation with various stakeholders with the appropriate interests covered. Analysis of the exclusions in WTO-Government procurement agreements and responses that the Government received to the initial Green Paper were the leading informatives, as I understand from those who were involved at that stage. However, I will be happy to engage with the noble Lord outside the Committee between now and Report if there is a particular item in Schedule 2, or if he wishes to address it in an amendment on any of those exclusions. That is where we are coming from.
I will deal with a couple of other things because I want to get on to the matters that largely affect local authorities and the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, raised a question—this is also germane to the point made by my noble friend Lady McIntosh—about the nature of the relationship with, say, the Australia agreement, which he cited. I understand that he raised that in a briefing session this morning in relation to postal services. Indeed, that would not be a defence matter. My officials agreed to clarify this. Since it has been raised, this is the point where we are. By the way, no one should Pepper v Hart anything that I am saying at this stage because this is an exploratory Committee stage and it is important both in correspondence around Committee and in engagement that we get to the right point—I totally agree with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, made about the importance of definition, which is absolutely fundamental.
This is a complicated, technical matter, which requires us to understand both the Bill and how the Australia agreement is structured. However, I am advised that we are satisfied that the Bill is not required to cover postal utility activities. To determine whether a utility is covered by the Bill, one has to look at both the entity and the activities that it is carrying out. Utilities are defined as public authorities, public undertakings and private utilities that carry out utility activities. Utility activities are defined as activities of the type set out in Schedule 4—gas and heat, as well as transport, which we discussed briefly on Monday. It is true that the Australia agreement does not define the terms “utilities” or “utility activities”. However, it works on a similar basis. The agreement covers only the utility activities covered in section C of our market access offer and only for the entities set out in section C.
In the Australia agreement, section C of our market access schedule provides that only certain transport services are utility activities and that the only entities that are covered are public utilities. Section C does not include the postal sector or private utilities. Postal services in the Australia agreement are included as services only in section E. This means that those entities only are covered by the Australia agreement in annexes A, B and C of our market access schedule, which does not include utilities in the postal sector that are covered for the postal services in section E that they procure—for example, a local authority procuring mailshot services. It does not mean that entities such as Royal Mail that operate a private postal service are covered. That is the current advice that I have on that matter; I am sure that my officials would be happy to explore it further with the noble Lord.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for that and for answering at this stage a question that I have not yet asked about postal services. Our understanding is that that would be in the group with government Amendment 24 on the expansion of utilities. We will be raising some of these issues, but I take note of what the Minister said. The main thrust of my questions in this group were about the joint groups and the different types of ownership for them, but I am grateful for what the Minister has said so far.
Lord True (Con)
I am sorry, I thought that I heard the noble Lord referring to the Australia trade agreement. It was my understanding that that would be coming later. I was not sure, given that certain things are cropping up in different places. I assure the noble Lord that the matter of the Delegated Powers Committee and the Schedule 2 recommendations will be discussed in group 2, to follow. I was not sure whether we were going to get the Australia agreement later, since the noble Lord had referred to it, so I thought that I had better get the answer in.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I understand that Parcelforce is a trading name of Royal Mail, but is it a commercial or a public enterprise under the definition that my noble friend has just given?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have given the answer that I have been advised to give at this stage. In answer to the further supplementary question that my noble friend has asked, I will ask officials to clarify what I said. I was advised to inform the Committee that it does not mean that entities such as Royal Mail that operate a private postal service are covered. If that needs further clarification, I am sure that we can provide it.
These joint bodies are extraordinarily important. Noble Lords have spoken, particularly of local authorities, with great experience, which I hugely respect. I am second to none in believing that Governments of all colours do not generally do enough to listen to the wisdom of local government. I have said that on the Back Benches and on the Front Bench and under Labour, coalition and Conservative Governments. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, this Government are certainly keen to ensure that local authorities will be able to operate as they did before, which was one of the reasons why this amendment was tabled, as he divined. I pay tribute to the Local Government Association for its consistent engagement. The Bill maintains the position in the current procurement regime, albeit adjusted for the purpose of UK law, by using the terminology of bodies that undertake public functions, which is drawn from the test of average functions of a public nature derived from the Human Rights Act 1998 —a complicated but well-established test, I understand.
I was asked by my noble friend Lady Noakes about decisive influence and dominant influence. I have to be very careful speaking personally as a Minister from the Dispatch Box, but our position is that we believe that the amendments we have tabled are clear and sufficient. However, on my noble friend’s question, the reference to the Companies Act 2006 is used to describe the nature of relationships between those entities that can engage in the exemption. The reference to decisive influence is broad in affecting the decision-making of the contracting authority. I will take away my noble friend’s point and consider it further, because interest was displayed by other Members in the Committee.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am sorry to do this, but may I pick up on the point the Minister was making to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about the letter he will write? The answer to the question that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, posed is quite significant. It would be interesting for the whole Committee to know whether Regulation 12 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 applies in a way that would allow the noble Lord’s example organisation to continue as it is now, when the Procurement Bill becomes an Act. I apologise for intervening a bit late.
Lord True (Con)
Yes, indeed. I totally take that point. It is good practice, and I hope it will be our practice in this Committee, to circulate to all noble Lords who take part. I was not proposing to send a billet-doux to just the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, or my noble friend Lord Moylan and not spread it round. I will address that, but I repeat that it is our expectation and hope that local authorities will be able to do as they did before. That is the fundamental point and I will pursue this in that spirit. In that light, I hope the noble Baroness will be prepared to not move her amendment.
“(1) A contract between a contracting authority and a person that is controlled by—(a) the contracting authority,(b) the contracting authority acting jointly with one or more other contracting authorities,(c) another contracting authority, where that authority also controls the contracting authority referred to in paragraph (a), or(d) another contracting authority acting jointly with one or more other contracting authorities, where the authorities acting jointly also control the contracting authority referred to in paragraph (a).(2) A contracting authority, or a contracting authority acting jointly with one or more other contracting authorities, controls a person if—(a) the contracting authority is a parent undertaking, or the contracting authorities are parent undertakings, in relation to the person,(b) no person other than the authority, or authorities, exerts a decisive influence on the activities of the person (either directly or indirectly),(c) more than 80 per cent of the activities carried out by the person are carried out for or on behalf of—(i) the contracting authority or authorities, or (ii) another person that is, or other persons that are, controlled by the authority or the authorities acting jointly, and(d) in the case of joint control—(i) each of the contracting authorities is represented on the person’s board, or equivalent decision-making body, and(ii) the person does not carry out any activities that are contrary to the interests of one or more of the contracting authorities.(2A) A person is not to be regarded as controlled by a contracting authority, or a contracting authority acting jointly with other contracting authorities, if any person that is not a public authority holds shares in the person.(2B) In sub-paragraph (2)(a)—“parent undertaking” has the meaning given in section 1162 of the Companies Act 2006, save that an “undertaking” includes any person;“parent undertakings” means two or more contracting authorities acting jointly that would, if they were a single undertaking, be a parent undertaking.”
“(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(d)(i), one representative may represent more than one contracting authority.(6) In this paragraph, references to a contracting authority do not include references to a public undertaking or a private utility.”
“(4) In this paragraph, references to a contracting authority do not include references to a public undertaking or a private utility.”
“(2) In this paragraph, the expressions “contract of employment” and “worker’s contract”—(a) in the case of a contract awarded by a transferred Northern Ireland contracting authority or awarded as part of a procurement under a transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangement, have the meanings given in Article 3 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/1919 (N.I. 16));(b) in any other case, have the meanings given in section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.”
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to allow a debate on a recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in respect of Schedule 2. The Committee considers that the power under paragraph 17 “should be narrowed unless the Government can fully justify it”.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the previous discussion has demonstrated the active concerns a lot of members of this Committee have that this Bill should not cramp the ability of local authorities to experiment with forms of local procurement, the encouragement of local enterprise, and so on. I had a message from a county council this morning on precisely that point. We are concerned about this. Perhaps there is enough room below the threshold, but we need to explore that a little more.
These amendments respond to the report on the Bill from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Members of that committee are here, so I shall be brief and defer to their expertise.
The Minister will be well aware that many in the Lords are deeply concerned about the Government’s determined move away from clear, detailed legislation towards skeleton Bills and executive discretion. The perhaps soon to depart Prime Minister campaigned to leave the EU on the promise of restoring parliamentary sovereignty but has worked instead to bypass Parliament wherever he can. The Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency, who, as far as I understand it, has some influence over this Bill, is pre-emptively arguing that the Prime Minister was elected by the people and not Parliament, and therefore does not have to go if he loses the confidence of Parliament. We all recognise that both Houses of Parliament are deficient in a number of ways and in need of reform, but, for the moment, we have the constitution that we have inherited, battered though it is, and the spread of Henry VIII powers across legislation is a breach of that constitution, as the DPRRC notes.
Amendment 18 therefore challenges the delegation of power to Ministers to make exempted contracts for the provision of public transport services. Amendment 21 similarly challenges the degree of autonomy given to Ministers in providing concession contracts for air services. Amendment 28, to the schedule on utility contracts, challenges the width of the powers granted to Ministers to make exemption determinations.
Amendment 31 is more egregious on the same theme. It would give permission for Ministers to specify by regulation which services will be subject to the light-touch regime for contracts and which will be excluded. The DPRRC’s comment on this is that the power
“should be narrowed unless the Government can fully justify it.”
I suspect that the Minister is unable to do that.
Amendment 208 also addresses the remarkably wide freedom given to Ministers with regard to light-touch contracts. Here, it goes into tertiary legislation, allowing Ministers by regulations to
“specify services of a kind specified in regulations of the authority under section 8”.
I hope that members of the Committee understand that; I am not entirely sure that I do.
Clause 86, to which I have tabled a stand part challenge, gives Ministers powers to make regulations about a range of documents on contracts and information about contracts. Clause 109 gives Ministers powers
“to amend this Act in relation to private utilities”,
requiring them to consult
“persons appearing to the authority to represent the views of private utilities, and … such other persons as the authority considers appropriate”—
but not anyone with any standing in terms of public or parliamentary accountability.
Clause 110, which is covered by Amendments 530 and 532, relates entirely to regulatory powers. Our amendments would implement the DPRRC’s recommendations to make pricing determinations for qualifying defence contracts subject to the affirmative procedure and restrict the ministerial freedom to raise financial thresholds above the rate of inflation. On all these clauses, the DPRRC argues that the breadth of ministerial discretion should be narrowed. It comments that, in a number of instances,
“the Government … have chosen this approach for no other reason than that it hasn’t yet developed the underlying policy.”
I ask the Minister to attempt to justify these overextended executive powers or, otherwise, to narrow the powers granted and recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I support everything he said. I am worried about the powers that the Government want to keep for themselves. I apologise to the Committee for not being here earlier; I was having a discussion with Ministers on the future railway structure, on which I believe there will be legislation this autumn. To some extent, that pre-empts what is covered by Amendment 18, which is to do with public passenger transport services. It is not just about trains; it includes buses and probably many other things as well.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I put my name to Amendment 18, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, did so too and that it is being debated with many other amendments about which I have a similar concern. It is right that this is a cross-party challenge to the Bill. It reflects the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, now chaired by my noble friend Lord McLoughlin, and of course previously chaired by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. I do not think that I have ever seen such an excoriating report on the abuse of delegated powers.
This is a hugely important piece of legislation, affecting £300 billion a year of public money and its impact on those who supply it. That is nearly as much as the enormous sums spent and misspent on Covid. We now need much more information on the secondary legislation and regulations to be made under the Bill. Even if this is clarified and information is provided, my noble friend needs to bear in mind that he cannot bind a future Government or Prime Minister and their teams. Frankly, the regulatory and other delegated provisions before us are extremely dangerous and need to be reconsidered in the light of the DPRRC report and of course today’s debate and the answers that we are given. I am just sorry that we are not on the Floor of the House.
I will give a few choice quotations from the report. First, paragraph 20 says that
“in general [the relevant provisions of the Bill] leave the content of such notices, etc to be set out in Regulations”.
This includes notices about awards made without competitive tendering, the exclusion of suppliers and modifications or terminations.
Secondly, paragraph 23 says:
“We are also disappointed that the Government have provided no illustrative regulations. Illustrative regulations would have been very helpful and, without them, scrutiny of clause 86 is considerably hampered.”
This is delightful in its politeness, but it is very strong.
Thirdly, paragraph 33 says:
“The Government have failed to adequately explain”—
split infinitives would not be allowed in my day—
“why Ministers are to be given such a broad power to override the existing statutory bar on public authorities”.
This is an open-ended power to override primary legislation by order. The matters covered include: “conditions of employment” of a contractor’s workforce, “industrial disputes”, countries of origin and—this stuck in the gullet—
“political, industrial or sectarian affiliations or interests of contractors or their directors, partners or employees”.
This is utterly over the top, unless you are Mr Jeremy Corbyn, I suppose.
Finally, paragraph 53 says:
“The Government have failed to provide any justification for leaving entirely to regulations the question of which concession contracts for air services provided by air carriers are to be exempted from the Bill.”
From sitting in the Competitiveness Council of the European Union for several years, I can tell noble Lords that air services are big politically, and decisions need to be properly scrutinised by Parliament and not concluded by officials who tend—in my considerable experience—to exercise the power once matters are put into delegated legislation. There is also a vast shareholder base in aviation that should be quaking when it sees this Bill, if I have understood it correctly.
I apologise to my noble friend the Minister, with whom I have worked so well over the years, but resolving our challenge to these delegated powers is a real test of his mettle and of this Committee’s competence. They mean that the Bill is, in practice, regulatory, not deregulatory as we all hoped. I very much look forward to supporting my noble friend the Minister and others in making some very necessary changes to the Bill.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and after listening to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. They have gone through each of the individual recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee’s report and each of the amendments, which saves me having to quote from them as well, so I will speak in more general terms.
I did not speak on Second Reading, because a quick look at this Bill convinced me that the delegated powers report would be worth waiting for—and what a scorcher it turned out to be. Now that I am no longer committee chairman, I can speak more bluntly than I have in the past, even though I might not now get a phone call from No. 10 asking me to form a Government of national unity tonight. I fully support the concept of the Bill, but it is an appalling mess. I exonerate my noble friend the Minister, who had no part in drafting it, but how on earth can officials and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel—the OPC—spend two years coming up with these shambles where 345 government amendments—my count on Monday—are necessary? However, what concerns me today is not the shambolic drafting but the abuses of parliamentary protocols as evidenced in the Delegated Powers Committee’s report.
Last year, the Delegated Powers Committee and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee published two reports: Democracy Denied? and Government by Diktat. We produced countless examples of legislation presented to the House with very wide regulatory powers granted without any justification for them, but with the usual excuse: “just in case they might be needed one day”. The reports cited “skeleton legislation” and clauses where the policy had not been thought through. In addition, powers were being taken to fill in, not just the details, but the general principles which should have been in the primary legislation and not in secondary legislation.
Then we have the negative procedure applied in completely unacceptable cases where the affirmative should be used, such as increasing penalties or charges, for example. Then, of course, we have the dear old Henry VIII powers attached almost automatically now to almost every Bill without any thought. No, I correct that—the thought among Bill teams and drafters is that the department can change any primary legislation it likes in future without having to go through the hassle of producing new primary legislation and getting approval for it. What a marvellous “Get out of jail free” card this is: change any legislation at the stroke of a Minister’s pen.
In this Bill, the Delegated Powers Committee has drawn attention to all these gross abuses and—let us face it—they are abuses. Just because Governments have got away with treating Parliament with contempt in the past does not mean that this should be the norm. I will quote only one paragraph from the Delegated Powers Committee’s report. Before doing so, I note that the committee is not hostile to this Government or any Government; indeed, it is now chaired by one of the longest-serving Commons Conservative Chief Whips in history, and so it is not a partisan committee. Paragraph 7 says:
“This report identifies multiple failures in the Memorandum to adequately explain and justify very broad delegations of power which enable implementation of significant policy change by delegated legislation. This would give us cause for concern at any time but is particularly disappointing as it comes so soon after the publication of our report, Democracy Denied? The urgent need to rebalance power between Parliament and the Executive, in November 2021, and of revised guidance for departments on the role and requirements of this Committee.”
The new guidance by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was circulated to all departments, and, in the first week of January, I personally wrote to every Minister and every permanent secretary giving them copies of the revised guidance. This is a Cabinet Office Bill, so I want my noble friend the Minister to go back to the Cabinet Office and call in Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary, Alex Chisholm, the Permanent Secretary, and Elizabeth Gardiner, the First Parliamentary Counsel, and ask them why they seem to have deliberately ignored every word of the guidance with which they were issued.
Worse than that, they have reneged on their promises to the committee. In the response to our report, they said that the Government agreed that the statement of principles of parliamentary democracy set out in both our reports should be included in the Cabinet Office’s Guide to Making Legislation. We reported way back last December, so they have had five months to adjust the Bill taking that into account. Why have they not done so?
The Government agreed that the routine use of just-in-case powers was not appropriate, so why include them in the Bill? They agreed that guidance should not be used to create rules that must be followed, should not be relied on for interpretation of legislation, and should describe the law accurately. They said that the Cabinet Office’s Guide to Making Legislation would be strengthened to reflect the committee's revised guidance. Will my noble friend the Minister ask why that has not happened? I am tempted to ask the non-executive board member, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, to maybe conduct an investigation into the Cabinet Office, but I will keep that in reserve.
Of course, the Government justified skeleton legislation, Henry VIII powers and the negative procedure even when there were alternatives that would not subtract from the thrust of the legislation. Not one single item in any of the DPRRC reports would stop any Government of any persuasion driving through their programme. At worst, it would mean a Minister—usually a Lords Minister—perhaps having to do a few more 90-minute SI debates.
I conclude with something the Government did agree on. They welcomed the end-of-Session report that the Delegated Powers Committee said it would produce. The committee has now produced the first end-of-Session report, even though it covers only half or less than half of the last Session, and it makes for some very uncomfortable reading for some Bill teams and OPC drafters. It criticises the quality of delegated powers memoranda by the Ministry of Justice, and two of those by BEIS and the Home Office each. If we cannot trust the delegated powers memoranda, how can we trust the rest of the departments’ assertions?
The report highlights serious deficiencies in the Health and Care Bill, describing it as
“a clear and disturbing illustration of how much disguised legislation a Bill can contain and offends against the democratic principles of parliamentary scrutiny.”
However, by far the most egregious and insidious example was the Subsidy Control Bill, which had a delegated power which enabled the Government to disapply the Bill’s subsidy control requirements by a direction that had to be kept secret from Parliament. Added to which, the delegated powers memorandum had the effrontery, and indeed the honesty, to justify this absence of parliamentary scrutiny on the grounds of
“the potential for non-approval by Parliament”
—in other words, a risk of defeat.
Can noble Lords believe that? Noble Lords who were on the committee can believe it, because they had it removed eventually. Officials drafted provisions to enact a law in secret and not tell Parliament in case Parliament voted against it. We do not have that in this Bill, but I am quoting some general examples to show how appalling some of the general delegations of power have been.
Of course, Ministers have ultimate responsibility, but we all know that Ministers were not responsible for the 345 government amendments in this Bill. Nor are they the ones who have devised and insisted on inserting all these parliamentary abuses into legislation. I suspect that my noble friend the Minister was as shocked as the rest of us when he was handed this Bill and saw the extent of the completely inappropriate delegation of powers.
I want him to go back to the Cabinet Office and tell officials and parliamentary drafters that if they do not want their names on the list of bad boys and girls when the DPRRC publishes the full report at the end of this Session, they had better bring in the changes on Report, as suggested by the Delegated Powers Committee. They should amend the Bill not only to keep their noses clean but because it is the right, democratic thing to do.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, but I have a question for the Minister. As an example of the grouping of paragraphs and sections to which objection is taken, I point out that paragraph 17 of Schedule 2 refers to
“services of a kind specified in regulations made by an appropriate authority.”
The phrase “appropriate authority” occurs in all the paragraphs and measures that are under attack and is defined in Clause 111(1) as meaning
“a Minister of the Crown … the Welsh Ministers, or ... a Northern Ireland department”.
There is no mention of any of the Scottish Ministers.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for tabling these amendments in the first place, and I thank those Members who put their names to them. It is important that we have had the opportunity to debate the report produced by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, a report that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, described as a scorcher. I think we all agree that there is a lot in here of great concern, and it is very important that we have spent this time going through it. I also thank members of the committee for the work they did in going into such detail on this very complex Bill, to draw our attention to their serious concerns and the problems that we need to look at and resolve.
I will not go into a great amount of detail. Other noble Lords have talked about the detail of the report so there is no point in my repeating that. I will just draw the Committee’s attention to a few things. My noble friend Lord Berkeley started the debate by expressing his concerns about the broad range of powers—the Henry VIII powers, as they are described—and other noble Lords have talked about their concerns about them. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, felt that some of them were potentially dangerous. If noble Lords’ concerns are that strong, it is really important that we look at how to address them. She drew attention to a number of particularly damning paragraphs. There was also talk about the fact that a large number of clauses should be subject to the affirmative procedure rather than the negative one, and of course we absolutely support that.
I draw the Grand Committee’s attention to paragraph 60 of the report, which was the one that struck me in the context of the way that a lot of Bills, legislation and policy development have been happening recently. If noble Lords will bear with me, I will read it out. Talking about Clause 109, it says:
“This is, in effect, a skeleton clause as the real operation of the exemption process is to be left to regulations. We are very concerned that the Government appears to have chosen this approach for no other reason than that it hasn’t yet developed the underlying policy.”
That gives me great concern because it seems almost to be becoming the norm, and it is not the right way to go about making regulations and legislation. The DPRRC then talks about its Democracy Denied? report, which the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned, and says that
“we drew attention to the issue of the inclusion of powers in bills which were, in effect, ‘a tool to cover imperfect policy development’. We said this was unacceptable and that we looked to the Government to undertake the systemic reforms necessary to prevent its happening. It is disappointing to find evidence in this Bill that this issue has not been addressed.”
That was the only further concern that I wanted to draw the Committee’s attention to today. A number of us have worked on a lot of Bills now, and there is a worrying lean towards this lack of policy development before Bills are drawn together and published. That is often why the Bills then come into so many difficulties. It would be better if all this was sorted out much earlier, so that we all knew where we were and could understand and better support the Government in producing good legislation. Some very interesting questions have been asked, including a very specific one from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken. I take seriously the gravity of the remarks made. I assure my noble friend Lord Blencathra, whose chairmanship of the committee was distinguished—he can speak even more freely now that he is no longer in that role—that while I did not catch the names of all the individuals that he asked me to refer his remarks to, I will make sure that that is done as he requested.
On the question raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, it is a matter of regret —we discussed this on the first day—but the Scottish Government have declined to be part of this legislation. They do not wish to be. They wish to pursue their own course and obviously that is why they are omitted from the definition of an appropriate authority under the legislation. It would be odd if they were an appropriate authority to alter legislation which they declined to take part in. That is the explanation.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
Of course, it is possible that the Administration in Scotland will change. This Bill will become an Act which will perhaps last longer than the present regime in Scotland. Assuming one has an Administration who are favourable to participating in this system, the question then is why they should not be included, or at least mentioned, in the definition of appropriate authority. It is quite a serious issue, because appropriate authorities is referred to in many places in the Bill, as the noble Lord knows. If, as I think the noble Lord is indicating, this is simply a sort of penalty for not participating in the legislation, it seems unfortunate that that should be set in an Act which will last for, I imagine, many years into the future. Is it not worth rethinking this? Might it not be better to mention the Scottish Ministers and leave it to the future to see whether they actually exercise the power that has been given?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I hear what the noble and learned Lord says. Those remarks might also be addressed to the First Minister in Scotland. I expressed regret—I think it is shared across the Committee—that the Scottish Government have not wished to take part in the constructive way in which the Welsh Administration have. We have had good co-operation with the Welsh Administration, and that has had an impact on the Bill. Clearly, if the policy changes, then a Bill can be amended, but I am about to reply to a series of complaints about the Government taking all sorts of potential regulatory powers to change this, that or the other, and that would be quite a substantial secondary power to take. It is regrettable, but that is the position.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Further to the point from the noble and learned Lord, I am less convinced at the response that this is discretionary as to the choice of Scottish Ministers. I understood that these provisions were for public passenger transport services that do not cross the border into Scotland. Therefore, these are for the provision of public transport services that begin and end in England.
If that is the case, they are within the scope of this legislation. If they are public passenger transport services which begin and end within Scotland, they would be under Scottish legislation. Therefore, this would not apply and the appropriate authority would not be Scottish Ministers. Would it not be better if the Bill simply stated where the public passenger transport services are? The area of concern for me is cross-border public passenger transport services, for which, under the 2016 legislation, there was further ministerial devolution to allow some form of regulations to be passed on cross-border public transport services. I declare an interest because I use them every week.
Lord True (Con)
I hear what the noble Lord says. I come to this House and I am asked to respect the position of the devolved Administrations. The position of the devolved Administration in Scotland is that they do not wish to be part of this legislation, so I am caught. If at a later stage, or even at this stage, the noble Lord wishes to put forward an amendment to change “appropriate authority” to include the Scottish Government, no doubt we can debate that matter, but the position now is the one I set out and I have given the explanation that is the policy decision of the Scottish Administration.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
We are making law so, for the record of the Committee, is the Minister saying that public passenger transport services under paragraph 17 of Schedule 2, for the exempted contracts, are public passenger transport services that begin and end in England? Is that correct?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to raise the issue of cross-border services. We will come to that later in the Bill. I am not excluding discussion of cross-border. It is an overall policy position that I am stating. We will come to the cross-border issue later in the legislation. I do not want the noble Lord to think that we are having a kind of Sicilian motorway approach, where the Mafia money ran out. I fully understand where he is coming from on that. I was really replying on the broader point.
Time runs on and I must get on to the specific and very important points made not only by the Delegated Powers Committee but by noble Lords who have tabled amendments. I will try to persuade the Committee that the amendments are unnecessary and that the strictures of the Delegated Powers Committee were strong. I heard the word “a scorcher”, but perhaps I do not necessarily need that. I heard the remarks from all sides on that. We will carefully consider them, notwithstanding what I say now. Obviously, it believes it is a reasonable position, but we will consider those remarks.
Amendment 18 would remove paragraph 17 of Schedule 2, which has been alluded to. The effect of this would be to remove an exemption for certain public passenger transport services that exists in our current procurement legislation. The exemption exists and it is necessary as procurement for such services is governed by a separate regime operated by the Department for Transport. It is important that the Bill does not impinge on that separate regime and that the exemptions under the Bill fully align to ensure that public passenger transport services are regulated by the correct regime. There is no intention to exempt public passenger transport services beyond those currently exempt and governed by the Department for Transport regime.
Amendment 21, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, seeks to remove a provision that exempts concession contracts for air services provided by a qualifying air carrier. Removing this would bring those contracts within the scope of the Bill, which would be a fundamental change to the existing position.
Air services are separate markets driven and operated by the private commercial sector. The public sector does not generally procure or intervene in these services. Given the distinctive features of the air transport market, and the state’s historical limited intervention in it, it would not be appropriate to bring air transport within the scope of the mainstream procurement rules. However, I assure noble Lords that the power is limited to specifying the meaning of a “qualifying air carrier”, which is, in essence, someone licensed under the existing regime for air carriers. This power is not wide-ranging and is needed only to ensure that the definition refers to the correct regime. Therefore, I ask noble Lords not to press Amendments 18 and 21.
Lord Fox (LD)
I appreciate the comment the Minister has just made. This is a straight question: under what circumstances would these thresholds be changing, other than the GPA change? This would either be with or without inflation—inflation has nothing to do with it; the GPA has so far determined what these thresholds are. I am a little confused about what power the Government were seeking in the first place with this.
Lord True (Con)
I believe that there may be potential, for example, for an evolution in the nature of the regime. However, I will come back to the noble Lord with further examples, if that is helpful. We can add that to the list of matters to take up.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, quite understandably expressed concerns about Clause 109. This is specifically related to private utilities; it provides a power for an appropriate authority to reduce the regulation of private utilities under the Bill to reduce regulation. As the Bill provides at Clauses 81 and 89, contracting authorities owe a duty to treaty state suppliers to comply with a substantial part of the Bill. The power can be exercised to make amendments only where those amendments do not put the UK in breach of its obligations to those suppliers, and this will inherently limit the scope of the amendments we are able to make. For example, private utilities will still be required to publish tender notices and contract award notices.
Private utilities are covered by the Bill where they have been granted a special or exclusive right to carry out a utility activity, where that right substantially limits other entities that have no such rights carrying out those activities. The clause requires the appropriate authority to consult persons representing the views of private utilities and other appropriate persons prior to making regulations. The Government, quite rightly, would have to seek the approval of Parliament under the affirmative procedure for any deregulation measures.
While those are the explanations, I have tried to give the Committee a detailed explanation on each of the amendments of the Government’s position and view. I return to the fundamental point I set out at the outset: we are giving, as I have indicated as we have been going along, proper consideration to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. We intend to return to this on Report, in cognisance and consideration of what noble Lords on all sides have said.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I want to express a concern. Although the Minister’s argument seems to be that the powers are already rather limited and that there are natural limitations—for example, the GPA—I am not convinced that we actually need to put all this into delegated legislation. In some places, we could decide things and make it clear in the Bill. Then, if there is future evolution of the market or the development of technical regimes, as my noble friend suggests, we should come back to the House and look again at legislation in those areas.
Obviously, I come from a business background, and, as I said, the thought that officials can effectively make major changes that will affect the market in which you are operating is actually quite worrying. We had an example of this on Monday. The example we received from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, about
“a tool to cover imperfect policy development”
was a quote from the report in relation to private utilities. Therefore, I did not repeat it, but it is a good example of where there might be a changing market, which might then generate quite substantial uncertainty in the procurement field and be a big problem for our companies.
I took four egregious examples out of a respected cross-party report to try to be constructive, but my noble friend has unfortunately tried to explain why the Bill is as it is, rather than to respond to these individual examples. I really need his response to these examples because I need to know how much to press on things such as notices and concessions when we get to those parts of the Bill. If it is clear that the delegated powers cannot be misused, it makes it a lot easier to agree to other parts of the Bill. I apologise to the Committee for speaking at length, but I feel very strongly about this.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it is Committee and my noble friend and all other noble Lords are entitled to intervene as much as they wish. She makes an important point, and I was just on that paragraph in my speech—it is slightly small compared to the rest of the speech—and was trying to set out the Government’s rationale for why the balance is probably right.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I take the noble Lord back to his response on Amendment 18 in relation to public passenger transport services. He argued, probably rightly, that they are the responsibility of the Department for Transport and should therefore be exempt here. Paragraph 17 of Schedule 2 defines a “contract”, and paragraphs 33, 34 and 35 at the end of the schedule cover “Concession contracts”, which are all exempt. I assume—perhaps the Minister could confirm this—that the exemptions for “air services” and “a qualifying air carrier” come under the definition of “concession”, because the Bill says this, although it does not define what a concession is.
I am concerned that there are examples in this country of a third category: a franchise. I am not sure where that comes into this; I know of one air service that is a PSO and probably a franchise, and, certainly, some bus and train contracts are franchises. If the Minister does not have the answer to that today—it is a little detailed—perhaps he could write to us, because it is quite important. If the Bill is going to exempt all these things, the whole lot needs to be exempted and handed to the Department for Transport. It is no good having concessions exempted and franchises not. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I will have to take counsel and advice on that, and I will certainly come back. As I said, the fundamental position is to try to keep things as they are, exempting passenger transport services that are currently exempt and covered by the Department for Transport. Concession contracts are dealt with slightly differently under the regime—we will discuss that later—but I will come back to the Committee to clarify the points that the noble Lord asked about.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I thank the noble Lord for his explanations; if some of them had been available earlier, it might have been easier to accept some of the Government’s arguments. I find Clause 109 the most difficult: it gives the Minister the power to amend primary legislation without any reference to Parliament. But I note that he said that this will be looked at and perhaps discussed with others between Committee and Report, and I thank him for that constructive approach.
In turn, I am sure that he noted the strong views around the Committee about this particular Bill and the broader issues with skeleton Bills. We will return to this in a number of other areas in the Bill where we want to see spelled out things that we are at the moment expected to take for granted that the Minister will later say something about, provide a strategic policy statement on or whatever. That is simply not enough, so this will be a continuing issue.
In passing, as we keep stubbing our toes against the GPA, I am quite surprised that Jacob Rees-Mogg has not demanded that Britain withdraws from the GPA, because if we are to take back control we had better take it back properly of some of these international obligations, which clearly limit and constrain what we can do in a range of quite often important issues, but perhaps that is an over-partisan remark in Committee on a Bill. We will have to return to this, but I thank the Minister for the constructive way in which he has responded. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I start by clarifying what utilities are covered in the Bill. Utilities are defined in it as public bodies, public undertakings or certain private undertakings that carry out utility activities. Public undertakings differ from public bodies in that they do not have functions of a public nature; their activities are more economic and commercial in nature. While it is no longer one, before the Government sold their shares in 2015 Eurostar International Ltd was a public undertaking.
The Bill covers private utilities only where they have been granted a special or exclusive right to carry out a utility activity. These are rights that have been granted by a statutory, regulatory or administrative provision and that substantially limit other entities from carrying out those activities. Rights are not special or exclusive when granted by following a competitive procedure or where the opportunity was adequately publicised and the rights were granted on the basis of an objective, non-discriminatory criterion.
Private utilities which enjoy “special or exclusive rights” are effectively in a monopoly position and therefore they could, however unlikely it is, engage in preferential treatment that, for example, favours their own affiliates or strategic partners and discriminates against other suppliers bidding for the contracts. The Bill applies to utilities only where they are carrying out the utility activities set out in Schedule 4: specifically, gas and heat, electricity, water, transport services, ports and airports, the extraction of oil and gas, and the exploration for or extraction of coal or other solid fuels.
The two government amendments in this group are minor and technical in nature. Amendment 20 to Schedule 2 is consequential on government Amendment 231, which amends Clause 35(6) to ensure a single definition of utility is applied to the whole Bill. In Schedule 2, paragraph 28(2) is therefore no longer required. The definition at Clause 35(6) is exactly the same as that contained in the deleted sub-paragraph (2).
Amendment 24 amends Clause 5(1) to define a utilities contract as a contract
“wholly or mainly for the purpose of a utility activity”.
The addition of “wholly or” is to reflect the reality that a utility contract can include solely or predominantly utility activities. This amendment to the terminology ensures consistency with the approach to mixed procurement used elsewhere in the Bill; for example, with Clause 8(1) on light touch contracts, where the same principle applies. I beg to move.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful for the Minister’s explanations. Her colleague the noble Lord, Lord True, previewed some clarification regarding the Post Office, so perhaps she was forewarned. I have two questions for clarification, further to what she said.
The more specific question relates to freeports, which I raised in the technical discussion this morning. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond now, but if not I would be happy if she does so in writing. There are a number of areas of government policy—I am not debating the rights and wrongs of this—which have activities linked to the provision of utility services but which are not directly, wholly or mainly a utility service. I am concerned, for example, about whether the more commercial activity of freeports, which are government policy and have the benefit of being linked with a utility but do not provide utility services, may well be exempted. That would not bring about the level of transparency in the thresholds that I believe there should be. I am still scratching my head about the status of freeports.
The element raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord True, on postal services is concerning. I am particularly interested in the status of Post Office Ltd. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, raised Parcelforce. I understand that Royal Mail and Parcelforce have a relationship with Post Office Ltd, and they provide different services. I understand that the Post Office is not considered a Schedule 4 utility, but clarification on whether it is covered under the public undertaking elements would be helpful. I ask because postal business of the Post Office is included under the procurement chapter, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord True, and annexe 16A of the UK-Australia agreement, as are postal services, which relate to letters, parcels, counter services and other such services. The classification under the WTO which the annexe uses links with the pick-up, transport and delivery services of letters, newspapers and journals, whether for domestic or foreign markets. I am not entirely clear about the status of that when it comes to Royal Mail services. They are covered within the procurement chapter of the Australia agreement, but I am not sure of their status in this Bill.
This speaks to the wider point that we are now in the realm of having to look at each of the 24 agreements in the schedule. Any authority or likely bidder for any of these works will have to study all these FTAs and all the procurement chapters, in addition to the EU-UK TCA, this legal framework, and the Scottish and Welsh ones. At the very least, we are now replacing one system with 25—or more likely with 27. That means it is not a more efficient way of covering it.
Finally—I asked earlier, because it is not clear in the impact assessment, and Ministers might write to me on this—now that the Government are clarifying their position in the Bill on those that are covered, not covered and the exemptions, I would like to see an update on the information about the likely number of contracts and the values in all these categories. I would be grateful for that information and for clarification on the Post Office.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I want to raise one narrow aspect; that of Dŵr Cymru, Welsh Water. The position of Welsh Water is somewhat different from that of the other water providers within England and Wales; I think the situation in Scotland is different again. Dŵr Cymru is a not-for-profit company, and the assumption and understanding is that nothing in the Bill undermines the capability of the Welsh Government to award the contract within the service area of Dŵr Cymru to a not-for-profit company of this sort. Quite clearly, that has a different impact than if that market was open for competition on a profit-making basis.
The performance of Dŵr Cymru is generally in most areas regarded as having been very satisfactory. There are ongoing arguments about quality of river water, et cetera, and noble Lords will be aware of those, but with regard to the provision of water, there is no wish—certainly at present, and I cannot foresee one in the near future—for there to be anything that disturbs that apple cart. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give an assurance on the record in this Committee that nothing in the Bill can, in any circumstances, undermine the ability of the Welsh Government to award the franchise for providing water in Wales to a not-for-profit company such as Dŵr Cymru.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, very briefly, I thank the Minister for her clear statement. The subject of utilities has come up both on Monday and today, and we are beginning to get some clarity around how the whole utility story fits together, but anything more she can give us on that would be helpful. This is probably not helpful, but it seems to me to be an analysis of the issue. The majority of the trade deals to date are essentially rollover trade deals, and to paraphrase the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, this legislation is essentially rollover legislation. However, trade deals such as the Australia deal are not rollover trade deals. We are in danger of trying to pour new wine into old skins here.
The issue that my noble friend highlighted here is an example where the new-style trade deal is not easily catered for in the old-style legislation, which is essentially rollover legislation. I am not sure what the solution to that is, other than “more work needed”, but I think—and this is a dispassionate and hopefully helpful observation —we are looking at a new trading position. The Government talk about that all the time, but we are essentially looking at legislation that was dealing with an existing set of trade deals which are, by their nature, different from the new ones. This is what is being thrown up, and we will start to see problems thrown up increasingly.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
To go back to Amendment 20, the noble Baroness gave some useful explanation of the definition of a utility. I want to go on briefly to the example that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioned, which is freeports. That presumably comes under paragraph 5 of Schedule 4, on page 86. It is not clear to me whether any of the activities of a freeport are exempt or not. In other words, the freeport gets a load of money from the Government, but does it have to comply with the procurement regulations and everything else in the Bill? Does it have to be transparent about how it complies, whether it has sent out for three quotes or whatever, and whether the contracts have been awarded fairly? That is one example, and I expect there are many others in other sectors. It would be interesting to know because when we get to Schedule 2, there are so many different definitions in there that it is quite difficult to understand which applies to what. I am sure that, at some stage, the Ministers will try to give us some examples of all these different issues on page 81.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I must say, I find the utilities section of this quite confusing in some areas. The more clarification we can get from the Minister, the better. It is not just this bit; it is the fact that it is cross-referenced a lot right across the Bill and is impacted by so many other pieces of legislation, including internationally.
We talked with officials about the Australia trade agreement this morning; the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised this. I am still slightly confused as to how that all links together. Rather sadly, after the discussion, I went and found the relevant parts and read them. The Bill talks about universal service obligations, postal monopolies, exclusive suppliers and specified collection, transport and delivery services. I know that the Minister is not able to come back to us on this now but I would appreciate some kind of written explanation of how this all works together and what the implications are of having that kind of reference to postal services in a trade agreement. What impact does that have on future procurement legislation? Will the Procurement Bill have an impact on future trade agreements in this area? Personally, I find this quite confusing; it would be extremely helpful to have it laid out in a crystal-clear fashion so that we do not end up with this kind of confusion and the debates we are having.
I will not repeat all the things that noble Lords said when they talked about having more clarification on Schedule 2. I will just briefly come back to cross-referencing throughout the Bill. In the previous debate, we talked about the committee report, which again mentions Schedule 4, the utility activities exposed to competition, the provisions of the WTO agreement—the GPA—and so on. For me, a lot of this is about having a clear understanding of which utilities lie in this group and which lie in that group; which utilities will have to follow certain rules; which will be exempt; and how they will be exempt. I would appreciate proper clarification on all those areas because this is a lot to take in; a lot of it needs to be right as well.
I appreciate that I have asked the Minister to do quite a complicated task but, in Committee and certainly ahead of Report, that sort of information and clarification would be extremely helpful.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank noble Lords. We have listened—I thought that we explained the Australian postal services to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in our debate on a previous group—but obviously further questions still need to be addressed. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, clearly said, the issues of utilities’ groupings and the rules that apply to each group are not yet clear enough. I know that will take extra time for everybody but I suggest that we pull together another meeting purely on utilities and their interaction, particularly with the trade agreements that are in place now and future trade agreements that could be in place.
At the same time, I remember freeports coming up in the first Committee debate. I do not have any further information but we will get that information and discuss it. If required, we will send a letter afterwards confirming everything we have discussed so that noble Lords have that in their packs.
I have good news for the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I can assure him that this Bill will not change anything from the current regime with regard to Welsh water. I will not try to say it in Welsh because I am not very good at it. I hope that this assures him that everything is fine in Wales.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, brought up freeports on the first day of Committee. We will invite him to have a discussion on that.
These were minor and technical amendments that seem to have grown into something much bigger but they serve to clarify the Bill and ensure consistency on the provision of utilities contracts. I therefore hope that noble Lords will support them.
Baroness Noakes
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes what “good reasons” are acceptable for the purposes of not aggregating contracts.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 22 is in a group of rather different amendments, most of which have more meat in them than my amendment. It is a probing amendment to paragraph 4 of Schedule 3, which contains a provision to ensure that contracts are not fragmented in order to escape the value limits that govern some of the procurement rules. The basic rule in paragraph 4 is that the contracting authority has to add up the value of all the contracts if they could reasonably have been supplied under one contract.
However, paragraph 4(2) allows the contracting authority not to do this if it has “good reasons”. Amendment 22 proposes to remove this in order to find out exactly what the Government intend to allow contracting authorities to do and to probe why they have not been more specific in the Bill. At first sight, paragraph 4(2) is a massive let-out clause, enabling authorities to avoid aggregating contracts. I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s explanation. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 81, which we on these Benches regard as particularly important. It would put in the Bill one of the most important decisions to take before embarking on the procurement of public goods and services: make or buy? That is the subject of an entire chapter in the Government’s own Sourcing Playbook. This key decision process is missing from the Bill. We seek to put it in as an essential part of the pre-procurement process. The choice of delivery models should be based on careful and impartial consideration of the different forms of delivery available for each type of work, supply or service.
Conservatives in Government have sometimes acted as though outsourcing to for-profit companies—often large outsourcing companies that have been labelled “strategic suppliers”—is the only model worth considering. Unless the Minister wishes to argue that The Sourcing Playbook and other recent publications on procurement guidelines are no longer operable, it seems entirely appropriate to put in the Bill that the choice between in-house and outsource should first be considered. Later, we will move other amendments on the delivery model choices between for-profit and not-for-profit provision.
We have carefully followed the Government’s own language in these publications in drafting the amendment. The Minister may argue that we should leave the Bill a skeleton as far as possible to allow Ministers as much flexibility as possible; we have heard him press the case for flexibility already. We argue the case for clarity, accountability and future-proofing. The principles of the procurement process must be in the Bill, not left for later in the policy statements issued by changing Ministers as they pass through the relevant office.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, as this is my first intervention, I remind the Committee of my presidency of the Health Care Supply Association. I have Amendments 82, 92 and 141 in this group, none of which have much to do with each other, but that is part of the mysteries and delights of grouping.
Amendment 82 is particularly concerned with the challenges facing charities seeking to obtain contracts from public authorities. I am very grateful to NCVO and Lloyds Bank for their briefing on this matter. While all types and sizes of charities experience challenges relating to the commissioning and procurement of public service contracts, smaller organisations often face considerable barriers. Yet a large proportion of the voluntary sector is actually fundamental to the delivery of public services. There are many examples, but we know, for instance, that the voluntary sector is the leading provider of services—according to research commissioned by DCMS—in relation to homelessness, and there are many other services where we are absolutely reliant on the voluntary sector.
However, there is a real problem in the huge amount of work that needs to be done to assemble information and make bids. Advance notice of tender opportunities is important for charities. We know that many of them have far fewer resources than private companies to support bid-writing, so they need time to plan. They also want to take time to work with service users or other charities to develop an offer, and that cannot be rushed. When commissioning services for people, especially those experiencing a range of intersecting challenges, a market does not often exist, so preliminary market engagement is critical for understanding what people need and how those needs could be met.
All my amendment seeks to do is create a presumption that contracting authorities should have ample notice through a planned procurement notice, unless there is a very good reason not to do so. This would allow the necessary time, particularly for smaller charities, to prepare bids.
My Amendment 92 is about the need for rigour and accountability in procurement. It starts from the requirement set by Her Majesty’s Treasury to ensure that the investment of public money, especially large sums, is done objectively and in a way that those who have to authorise the investment can rely on. It also deals with the principle of transparency and would ensure that business cases are routinely published.
My understanding is that it is already required under Green Book guidance from Her Majesty’s Treasury, particularly for major projects managed in the government portfolio, that at least a summary of the business case has to be published within four months of contract award. The Green Book, which has been regularly updated by the Treasury as circumstances require, describes in great detail the rigorous process that needs to be followed. The principle is that if you do not abide by this, you will not get approval for the expenditure of resources. Much in the Green Book is based on the need for a proper business case and I believe it was also envisaged that the business case would be published.
The problem is that regulation and good practice are too often ignored in the public sector. I think athere is less appetite for proper enforcement of that guidance. All campaigners can do to raise concerns about a particular tender process is go for judicial review, which, as we all know, can be very expensive.
My particular interest is the NHS. When I was a Health Minister, which seems a very long time ago, there were very strict rules about spending and investment by trusts. If public money was sought for a major procurement or programme then a strong authorisation path led from region to department, and often to the Treasury itself. Some of that remains, but what is missing is that the former strategic health authorities ensured that the required processes were followed properly and intervened when they were not. They also ensured that the public were consulted, but much of that has foolishly been thrown away. That means that it has become much harder for the public to hold decision-makers to account.
It is very noticeable that, last month, the Public Accounts Committee published a report on the Department of Health’s 2020-21 annual report. It commented that the department
“has regularly failed to follow public spending rules and across the Departmental Group there is a track record of failing to comply with the requirements of Managing Public Money. The Department is required to obtain approval from the Treasury before committing to expenditure where such authority is needed. The Treasury has confirmed that £1.3 billion of the Department’s spending in 2020–21 did not have HM Treasury consent and was therefore ‘irregular’. The Treasury has stated that ‘in the vast majority of cases’ this was because either the Department and/or the NHS had spent funds without approval or in express breach of conditions.”
If the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was still in the position she held on financial management in the Department of Health, that would not be happening.
My amendment would ensure that there is a proper business case and that it should be publicly available before crucial decisions are taken. If the Minister says that it is already required, the fact is that parts of the public sector are not listening. I hope that this debate will be helpful in ensuring that the Treasury and government departments look at this very closely in the future.
My third amendment follows a briefing from the RNIB and concerns the fact that, in replacing the existing legislation, the Bill overwrites requirements that are of particular significance to 14 million disabled people in the UK because they ensure that publicly procured goods and services are accessible to everyone. It is pretty unclear at the moment how the current Bill will replace that regulatory framework, and my Amendment 141 seeks to re-establish a requirement that contracting authorities have due regard to accessibility criteria for disabled people.
In June last year several organisations, including the RNIB, wrote to the Cabinet Office seeking assurances that accessibility for disabled people would be maintained in public procurement legislation. Responding, the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Agnew—who has certainly shown how you should resign, in style and with full transparency and visibility to your Lordships’ House, although I do not think he quite managed the grace of the noble Lord, Lord True, in his very perceptive remarks yesterday—said that the Government are committed to ensuring that accessibility for disabled people is maintained as part of public procurement legislation, and that the new regime will ensure that specifications take into account accessibility criteria and design for all users. Despite that, the only reference we can find to accessibility is in Clause 87(2), which states that any electronic communications utilised as part of the public procurement exercise must be
“accessible to people with disabilities.”
This is partly probing—finding out the government response to it. If the Minister argues that the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act is sufficient, we will argue that it is not sufficient because we have seen contracting authorities failing to consider their obligations and procuring inaccessible products. This amendment is only a start, but I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to the issue.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, before I speak to my Amendments 84 and 88, I will just say that, while I do not think it is a registrable interest or a conflict of interests, my experience in these things is largely derived from my work, over a number of years now, advising LOW Associates SRL in Brussels, which has a number of contracts with the European Commission and other European agencies. We have participated in procurements on a number of occasions each year in the European context. That gives one quite a lot of experience of the system we are moving from and some of the ways it can be improved. I put that on the record.
My noble friend and other noble Lords may recall that at Second Reading the most important point I made—it is one I will return to on a number of occasions, including when we talk about the procurement objectives and the national procurement policy statement —is that procurement by the public sector is a very large element of economic activity. The way in which it is conducted can have a significant and beneficial impact on productivity in the economy if the issues of innovation are properly incorporated into the consideration of how procurement is undertaken and who the suppliers to public authorities are.
In a sense, the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, is trying to do the same kinds of things in Amendments 85 and 87. We are maybe trying to approach it in slightly different ways. The same will be true in relation to the procurement objectives.
I hope that in responding to this debate my noble friend can at least give us a sense that we can work together to try to ensure that the promotion of innovation is one of the central aspects of how contracting authorities go about their process of delivering best value, and that the broader externalities of procurement, through promoting innovation in the economy, are realised. They are significant.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton—who is contributing remotely to the debates this afternoon—was expecting to speak on this group, but unfortunately, that message did not reach the clerks or the chair. I believe that the noble Baroness is ready to speak now, so with the permission of the Committee, I invite her to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the LGA and as a disabled person. I am speaking to Amendment 141, which would ensure that contracting authorities must follow accessibility principles as defined under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, or UNCRPD.
The Public Contract Regulations 2015 set out the rules for technical specifications in Regulation 42, saying that it must include “accessibility for disabled persons” as core to characteristics including quality, environmental and climate change performance levels, whole-life design, performance and safety—indeed, many of the things that this Bill is covering.
So, in theory, Amendment 141 should not be necessary. However, Regulation 42(9), on the technical specifications, says that:
“Where mandatory accessibility requirements are adopted by a legal act of the EU, technical specifications shall, as far as accessibility criteria for disabled persons or design for all users are concerned, be defined by reference thereto.”
There are three other sets of regulations—the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016, the Concession Contracts Regulations 2016 and the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011—which all also confirm the conformity with the EU procurement directive. I spoke at Second Reading about that directive.
The very helpful briefing from the RNIB sets out the technical concerns about how we need to ensure that accessibility rules are embedded in legislation following Brexit. This amendment is needed because we must have clear rules for accessibility criteria for people with disabilities and the principles of universal design, as defined under the UN CRPD.
This Government repeatedly say that they were proud to get Brexit done. They also say, proudly on their website, that they want
“disabled people to fulfil their potential and play a full role in society.”
In 2017, however, the UN published its Concluding Observations on the Initial Report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which was less than complimentary about the UK Government’s progress in abiding by the CRPD. In paragraphs 6(a), 6(d) and 6(e), the UN refers to:
“The insufficient incorporation and uneven implementation of the Convention across all policy areas and levels within all regions, devolved governments and territories under its jurisdiction and/or control … The existing laws, regulations and practices that discriminate against persons with disabilities … The lack of information on policies, programmes and measures that will be put in place by the State party to protect persons with disabilities from being negatively affected when article 50 of the Treaty on European Union is triggered.”
It goes on to say in paragraph 7(c) that the UK should
“Adopt legally binding instruments to implement the concept of disability, in line with article 1 of the Convention, and ensure that new and existing legislation incorporates the human rights model of disability across all policy areas and all levels and regions of all devolved governments and jurisdictions and/or territories under its control”.
There are 78 paragraphs in this UN report setting out what we must still do to comply with the UN CRPD; the Government are due to report back by 8 July 2023. In other parliamentary debates, Questions, Statements and legislation, Parliament is being told time and again by this Government that they want to meet those requirements because complying with the UN CRPD is an absolute priority.
I give two extremely brief illustrations of the failings, which are obvious to me as a disabled person but may not be to others. They would be resolved with a clear and legally binding requirement for accessibility criteria. The first is a bus driver on a publicly funded route, contracted by a council, who refuses to accept a wheelchair user because that driver still has the power to ignore the law and does not want to ask people to move out of the wheelchair space. The second is that a large number of DWP offices and those of their subcontractors —which are used for the assessment of individuals for their access to benefits, whether specifically disability benefits, universal credit or any other benefit—often have steps or stairs and no lift. There continue to be regular reports in the press of disabled people being marked as “no shows” at interviews when they could not access the building, which then results in them being penalised and not receiving the benefits. That is shameful. It also presumes that there would be no staff with disabilities who need to access the buildings, which is just unacceptable.
That is why we need Amendment 141. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of how this Bill will meet the UN CRPD in relation to all matters on public procurement.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 82, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. As at Second Reading, my contributions in Committee will mainly reflect the interests of small businesses, including in the construction sector, and other smaller providers such as charities and social enterprises; of course, one of the Bill’s aims is to increase access to public contracts for such smaller organisations. I am grateful for the briefings that I have received from the engineering services alliance Actuate UK, from the NCVO and from the Lloyds Bank Foundation.
I will try not to repeat the arguments so strongly made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but small businesses and charities often struggle to compete effectively in competitive tendering processes. They do not have teams with specific bid-writing expertise, so it is often chief executives or managers within the businesses who have to prepare proposals on top of their existing full-time and front-line roles. The process of completing pre-qualification questionnaires and invitations to tender is often onerous and complex, requiring considerable time and resources. Tenders are often launched with little or no warning and with tight timescales. Greater lead-in times and awareness of when tenders will be published would better help small businesses and charities to prepare and subsequently compete for relevant contracts.
The existing wording in Clause 14(1) allows for better practice, confirming that contracting authorities are able to publish a planned procurement notice. But your Lordships will know that being able to do something within legislation does not mean that it actually happens. Amendment 82 seeks to beef up the wording by replacing “may publish” with “must consider publishing” to place a greater onus on contracting authorities to publish a planned procurement notice. I feel that even this requirement is rather a low bar, as well as being extremely difficult to monitor or enforce. My preference might be simply to replace “may publish” with “must publish”.
The amendment also states that a planned procurement notice must be considered whenever “no significant barriers exist” and
“no detriment to service recipients would occur”.
Again, I might have preferred a more positive criterion spelling out that such a notice specifically should be published when this would enable a diversity of suppliers, including of course small businesses and charities, to participate in the contract. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us how the Government plan to ensure that small businesses and charities will receive proper notice of tenders that might be suitable for them, preferably through a requirement for planned procurement notices to be published in most circumstances.
This is just one aspect of ensuring that smaller contractors are involved early enough in the process, not just to be aware of and prepared for tenders for which they might be able and suitable to bid, but also when appropriate to bring their own skills and innovation abilities to influence the shape of the overall bid. Early contractor involvement is something I may come back to later. I welcome the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which also seem to point in this direction. Meanwhile, I am happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his Amendment 82.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of Peers for the Planet and will speak to Amendments 85 and 87 in my name in this group. I also apologise as this is the first time I have spoken on this Bill, having not been present at Second Reading, but I read the debate with great interest.
I have tabled amendments to this Bill with three goals in mind: first, to try to embed a consideration of the climate change crisis facing us and the environmental goals we must meet into primary legislation. It is important that this appears on the face of the Bill rather than in a yet to be approved policy statement to show the long-term leadership and clarity around tackling these issues, given that public procurement is such a huge lever on both these issues. Secondly, I am seeking to put climate and nature-positive procurement processes in from the very outset of preliminary market engagement and embed it throughout the award criteria setting process to appointment. Thirdly, I want to bring greater transparency to the process and visibility so that all can see how this important lever is being deployed.
The Climate Change Committee highlighted in its recent progress report to Parliament the importance of ensuring that all procurement decisions by all government departments are aligned with our net-zero goals. My amendments seek to address this recommendation. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts and ask if he would agree to meet myself and other supportive Peers to discuss whether these amendments might be supported.
Amendments 85 and 87 relate to Part 3 of the Bill, under Clause 15, “Preliminary market engagement”. They aim to bring in an ambition to the new procurement regime to positively reward and incentivise those suppliers who are innovating and providing climate-positive and nature-positive sustainable products and services. I am very grateful for the interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who I think is seeking to achieve a similar goal: to open this market to new entrants and providers. We cannot stay with the status quo; we must see a transition of our economy towards a more sustainable future. This offers government at every level a very important lever. I hope that it would bring economic benefits for business and wider society if we were to do this.
I am very grateful for the cross-party support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Verma, Lady Boycott and Lady Parminter, on these two amendments.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, in supporting Amendments 85 and 87, I declare my interests as someone with small and medium-sized businesses in adult social care; as the chair of a renewable energy company; and as someone with 44 years of experience in the SME sector—taking away the 10 and a half years of my Front-Bench life, which excluded me from my businesses.
I start by supporting the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley. They very much touch on what the SME sector faces constantly: the challenge of being able to enter into procurement. Today, I had a delegation of small and medium-sized manufacturers come to me from Leicester because they are fed up to the back teeth with constantly being outed from the process of some public sector contracts, with which we could reinvigorate our manufacturing sector. Covid taught us a lot about outsourcing. What we want to do is build back our insourcing. It hits all the challenges that we want to get to net zero on.
Listening to their struggles, I know, having come from the textiles industry at the early age of 19, that this country is remarkably good at producing goods if people are given the opportunities. This Bill will be one of those routes in to being able to demonstrate how much this country can focus on supporting industry, making the procurement system a lot easier. I know that, when we have to do this in adult social care, it is a nightmare to get through the processes because we as an independent business are competing with large organisations that are based overseas and have tens of thousands of pounds to put behind writing bid tenders.
I champion small and medium-sized businesses—particularly from the Midlands because that is my place and I will always champion it—but we are constantly missing out on the great talent that we have here. Reducing our carbon footprint because we can produce things here is a no-brainer for me.
I will go back to my script, which I have worked a little bit on. In its guidance on sustainable procurement, the World Bank recognises the role that procurement can play in driving sustainability goals and highlights the value-for-money benefits of sustainable procurement, stating:
“Sustainable procurement is strategic procurement practice at its optimum.”
Taking sustainable procurement considerations into account from the outset of the procurement process is critical. These amendments will help to deliver on that vision and meet the Committee on Climate Change’s recommendation in its progress report to Parliament last week that procurement decisions by all government departments be aligned with the net-zero goals.
In ensuring that contracting authorities design a procurement system that proactively seeks out suppliers who are doing the right thing and providing goods and services that help to deliver a resilient society and tackle climate change and biodiversity loss, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look at these changes and try to incorporate them in the Bill. If we have an opportunity, we should take it now because it will save the planet and will save our own sectors in this country as well.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I am happy to support Amendments 85 and 87 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. As we have heard, procurement is an incredibly powerful tool and, if we do not use it in the right way, we will never get to our net-zero targets.
I thoroughly support the aim to shift the ambition of any new procurement regime to positively reward and incentivise suppliers who are innovating and providing climate-positive, sustainable products. As well as helping to achieve our climate and environmental goals, it will bring economic benefits. I would go further and say that we should not award any contracts to people who do not fulfil these categories from now on.
I note that the Government’s response to the consultation on the procurement Green Paper commented that many respondents had
“provided details of aspects that they would like contracting authorities to take greater account of, for example more focus on social and environmental impact.”
This amendment would help to ensure that contracting authorities always take this goal forward. The net-zero strategy, which many of us have referred to, clearly establishes the strategic importance of net zero at the project design stage. This amendment would make it much easier to draw this golden thread right through the procurement process to the end product.
With that in mind, I conclude that this amendment to incorporate the climate, environment and wider public benefits of procurement at preliminary market engagement when the authority’s procurement exercise is at the design stage is fully in line with policy. It needs only to be reflected in the Bill in the permissive way in which it is expressed in this amendment. I very much hope that the Minister will welcome it.
Before I sit down, I support Amendment 82 from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. As someone who has chaired many charities and tried to work with local authorities about picking up contracts that have lapsed, such as meals on wheels, I can say that you really need to know in advance what money might be available. No one should take the charities sector for granted in this respect.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness. This group of amendments brings together three different but equally important threads that are material to this Bill, each of which deserves a place in these debates on the Bill in its own right.
First, there are the environmental points, which were mentioned a moment ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and noble Lords subsequently added to them. They are fundamental. If it is government policy to aim at challenging targets to save our environment, that must be written into every aspect of public policy. It must be written into this aspect of public policy and others. We should not leave any opportunity going begging. This is an opportunity to have that in a Bill and to make sure that it is clearly understood by all those involved in the various diverse aspects of the procurement system.
Equally important is the question of how we regenerate the economy. Central to that must be the role of SMEs. They are a vital cog in the economy. They are the acorns from which the future will grow. They can also be very compatible with the environmental arguments to which we have referred. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, and my noble friend Lord Aberdare are important. I know that we will return to them on subsequent amendments, but we must not lose sight of them because these elements are vital to regenerating the economy in a sustainable way.
The third aspect, which I want to concentrate on for a moment, is disability. That agenda has been close to my heart for the past 40 or 50 years. The speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, brought it home to us. As long ago as 1981, I had brought to my attention the social definition of disability: that a handicap is a relationship between a disabled person and his or her environment, be that the social environment, the physical environment or the psychological environment, and that we may or may not be able to do anything about the basic disability but we can almost always do something about the environment, be that the physical environment, the social environment or the psychological environment. Therefore, the extent to which a disability leads to a handicap rests with us in society in controlling those three elements. Clearly, that responsibility must run into all aspects of economic life and is therefore relevant to the Procurement Bill before us.
I very much hope that the amendments we have heard about—in particular, Amendment 141 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but others as well—are passed to ensure that this matter is written into the Bill and that we have no misunderstanding. These three elements—the environmental element, the small business and economic regeneration element and the disability element—are central to the procurement system.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I echo all the comments he made. I want to make a brief remark in support of Amendments 85 and 87 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, which I and my colleagues have co-signed, and in support of the point made so powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, about ensuring that there a commitment in the Bill to deliver the net-zero and environmental goals through a commitment to ensuring that “public goods” includes sustainability goals. That is fundamental.
I will add only one point that has not been covered by colleagues. It is that this is not happening at the moment. The National Audit Office and the Environmental Audit Committee in the House of Commons have looked into public procurement by government departments and found there to be a woeful lack of connection with consideration of net zero and our environmental goals, and that is when government departments already have a statement from the Cabinet Office that is meant to guide them towards it. It is not happening, but that is completely separate from the far wider issue of where it is absolutely not happening, which is in public services procurement, where there is no guidance. If we do not have a national public policy statement on that, it will not happen, so it is absolutely fundamental that we get this in the Bill.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, but particularly those tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. In his introduction, he emphasised the importance of rigour, accountability and transparency. I would add advance notice. The Minister who responds may say that it is all in the Treasury Green Book. It probably is, but anybody who has looked at small projects—localism, levelling up, town centres—will know that you have to comply with the Treasury rules, but it is hard to find them, especially for people who do not understand them too easily. My noble friend has put in this amendment and all the other things that go with it. It is really important in a Procurement Bill that people know what to expect and how to do it.
It also needs to be not confidential. I have a couple of examples. The first is an excellent example of the need for a business case. Some noble Lords may know that Cornwall Council was supporting a new stadium for football, rugby and everything else in Truro, which everybody seems to want, and there is private sector involvement. Last week, Cornwall Council decided that it was not going to do this and withdrew from it, saying that there was no proper business case. That was brave, when everybody wants it, but there was no business case. At least it understood what was going on, but that is not the case for an awful lot of other people—I have mentioned the ferry to Scilly before, but will not mention that again—and the other side of it is things such as HS2, where the budget goes up through the roof.
My final question to my noble friend—I know he will do it for Report—and a few other people, concerns how you enforce these things when something goes wrong. That is the biggest problem that we have not solved yet. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I hope the Minister is impressed by the cross-party consensus on a number of things on this issue. At the moment, this is very much a skeleton Bill. The demands to put more in the Bill come from all parts and relate to a number of different clauses. I hope that he will be able to respond outside Committee, between Committee and Report, to consider whether the Government might be able to come back to satisfy some of these requests with appropriate language. As we have already stressed, the language is already there in a number of government publications; it is just not in the Bill. I look forward to his response.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, here we go. This is an important part of the Bill dealing with process, and some things have been incredibly difficult to understand. Now we get to things that we can feel. We are talking about purchasing, buying and procurement. We are saying that if we are going to do that, we have a real opportunity as a Parliament—and the Government have a real opportunity, to be fair, but it is going to be driven by some of the amendments here—to use procurement to produce the country and society that we want. Many Governments and local authorities have failed to use the power of that purchasing to drive social change. That is what these amendments are about. I think it is sometimes important to set the context for the various amendments here. I suspect that to an extent there will be a bit of a clash on that because, to be honest, some of us take a position that the free market should be interfered with more than it is. Others take the view that the free market will sort these things out because it will. That is a view, and I think there will be a clash.
Some of these amendments should be in the Bill. The Government will say what they are seeking to achieve. The amendments in this group on the pre-procurement phase are to legislate to enforce it and to make it a reality rather than an aspiration—something that we think would be a good thing to happen. I wanted to say that. I shall wax lyrical at different times to set the context of amendments because otherwise they get lost. Many of the points that have been made on amendments are very important. If I were the Government, I would make more of them. To be frank, the Government may need a bit of advice at the moment. I would not be the person to give it to them, but if I were doing that I would make more of it as a Government, saying that this is what the Government are seeking to achieve, and they will be driven by people in this Committee, and no doubt elsewhere, to go further.
I have a couple of things specifically on the amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, will be pleased because this is about a word—I warned them. In Clause 14, which is about the pre-procurement phase, the word “may” is used on a number of occasions. We are discussing what should be in planned procurement notices, which is Clause 14, what should be in preliminary market engagement, which is Clause 15, and what should be in preliminary market engagement notices, which is Clause 16. Those clauses do not insist that the notices are published but say that they “may” be published. Why not have “will” or “must”? The word “must” is used in other clauses in this part, so somewhere along the line, whoever drafted the Bill said, “We will have ‘must’, but in these clauses, we will have ‘may.’” I am always told that this does not make any difference and that the intention is to do that, but why leave it to chance when many of the amendments in this group, ably spoken to by different members of the Committee, are dependent upon a planned procurement notice being published, a preliminary market engagement taking place or a preliminary market engagement notice being published? The amendment could be passed, but it would not make any difference because it only “may” be done, not “must” be done. I hope that is as conflated and convoluted as I get and that the Committee takes the point. I think it would be helpful to the Committee to understand why the word “may” is used in certain clauses and not “must”.
All sorts of really good amendments in this group have been presented to us. I want to make a couple of points about them. My noble friend Lord Hunt, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, made a point about the role of charities and small businesses, as did the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Everybody agrees that we have to do more to help small businesses, that we cannot let the big players dominate, that we have to get new entrants and to support them, and asks why we cannot grow business in this area and do more about young people trying to start something. Here is the opportunity. Here is the chance to use procurement to drive the sort of change and make the social difference that we want it to make. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is absolutely right that we should use procurement to do it. Other noble Lords who have spoken have made the same point, so it goes all the way through.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is absolutely right about the delivery model for outsourcing that he talked about. One of the disgraces of the last 20 or 30 years is the way in which some things have been forced to be outsourced. I am not an ideological puritan about this; I understand that sometimes it might be the right thing to do—I have got in trouble with my own party for saying that. It is the compulsion to do it that is the problem; where it defies common sense, that is the problem. In those circumstances, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and those who support him are quite right to address that.
I was also particularly pleased with the noble Lord’s proposed new subsection (1)(c) in Amendment 81, which I thought he might have emphasised. It talks about outsourcing being able to be brought back in where it is not delivering what it said it was going to deliver. That has been the plague of many things: when something is outsourced and it seems that it is impossible to do anything about it. That is what the amendment seeks to do—another noble Lord in the debate made the point about what you do in those circumstances.
I will just say quickly that I support what the noble Baronesses, Lady Worthington, Lady Verma, Lady Boycott and Lady Parminter, and other noble Lords said on climate change and environmental protection. We need to wake up to this. People say that people are not interested in politics, but they are interested in climate change and environmental degradation, and they cannot understand why something is not being done—why billions of pounds are not used to drive change. This is a real opportunity to do that, and I hope that the Government will take it. No doubt the Government will say that they have all sorts of policies around climate change—Acts, regulations and other things—and that of course they support tackling it. Who does not support trying to do something about climate change and environmental degradation? Everyone supports it. But sometimes the actual will is not there to deliver it through practical policy which will make a real difference. That is the point of the amendment before us.
Lastly, on my noble friend Lord Hunt’s point about disability, I cannot remember the figure from the RNIB briefing—I had a quick look but I cannot remember what it was—but millions of people were potentially impacted.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Some 14 million people were potentially impacted according to the briefing that we had on the limitations on access ability and all those sorts of things. That should be a wake-up call to us as well, and again, it is something that we can use. I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt and those who have supported him for bringing that forward.
I will finish there. This is a wake-up call to this Committee. This debate should be in the Chamber. This is a massive debate about billions of pounds which can be used to generate social change and to change the direction of the country in a way that there is probably a consensus about in many ways. Sometimes in Committee we forget how important it is. We are legislating in a way that will have an impact on the lives of millions of people in this country—and people across Europe and so on, without going into it too much. The impact is enormous, and that is what we are doing in this Room, and why we are bothering to stay here on a Thursday night without finishing.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Is it, my Lords? I am that excited and I have been speaking that long—is it still Wednesday?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, if that is an offer to come back tomorrow and carry on, I do not know how popular that will be.
There are many things that I like about the noble Lord opposite. First, he is very likeable and fun to be with. Secondly, he has a long connection with the great city of Nottingham, which he will know is something that I share. Thirdly, there is what Mr Baldwin would call his awful frankness. However, there is something of a philosophical divide that will come through in this discussion. I will reply in detail to the amendments, but what we have heard from the noble Lord is that the Labour Government that he envisages would want to use the powers under this Bill to constrain individual private companies that sought to provide public services to conform to the will of whatever the Labour Party’s wishes in power might be.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Flexibility, I think I understand, means a skeleton Bill. I think we all understand that. It will either be in the strategic policy statement, which we will come to, or it needs to be in the Bill. I think that around the Committee, everyone will feel that more ought to be in the Bill than is there now, so that we all know where we are going. If we are not allowed to have a draft of the strategic policy statement before the Bill finishes its passage, that is really not adequate.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I think the noble Lord makes a slightly different point. It is a point of concern, and we discussed it on the earlier group. I understand that how much is in secondary legislation and so on is a concern to noble Lords. When I talk about flexibility, I am talking about a structure that is simple and clear, and does not say, “Before you apply to procurement, you have to do a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h…”. We could probably use up the whole alphabet with the aspirations that we will hear in this Committee before anyone can get past the starting gate that we are discussing now. One needs to bear in mind the need for that sort of flexibility. That is the relative simplicity I am thinking about. However, time is late and I need to respond, not to the debate launched by the noble Lord opposite, but to the amendments.
My noble friend Lady Noakes came forward with a very thoughtful amendment, as always. There has been an outstanding debate, and I will want to study it in Hansard and reflect on everybody’s contributions. My noble friend had a very specific point in relation to estimation of cost and how services should be aggregated. Her probing amendment seeks to establish where the Government are coming from.
The proposed methodology in the Bill for estimating the value of contracts, which allows some flexibility, is very similar to the long-standing valuation rules in existing regulations and will therefore be helpful to procurers. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 contains an “anti-avoidance” provision that is designed to ensure that contracting authorities do not artificially subdivide procurements in order to evade the rules. This mirrors an analogous concept in the long-standing regulatory scheme but we think that it is presented in a simpler and more user-friendly way. It involves a general rule that contracting authorities should, where possible, seek to aggregate for the purposes of valuation but, as my noble friend said, it also permits exceptions where there are good reasons. Without the “good reasons” exception, the provision becomes something of a blunt instrument.
My noble friend asked for some examples so I will give one: an authority buying its printers from a particular supplier does not necessarily mean that it should buy all its toner, paper and servicing from the same supplier if it believes that it can get a better deal elsewhere. We believe that contracting authorities need to continue to have discretion not to aggregate where they have good reasons not to do so. I will look carefully at my noble friend’s point about the overall estimation of costs but we do not believe that it would be desirable to set out in legislation what constitutes a good reason because this will depend on the circumstances of each case. I request that this amendment be withdrawn.
Amendment 81, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, seeks to add elements from the Government’s Sourcing Playbook as a new clause before Clause 14 to require contracting authorities to conduct a “delivery model assessment” when introducing “significant change” in their business model, helping to inform strategic decisions on insourcing and outsourcing. I agree with the noble Lord that rigorous assessment of contracting authorities’ plans is essential for good delivery. However, again, we have continuously sought throughout the development of the Bill to ensure that it remains flexible and does not unnecessarily stipulate blanket requirements, which tie contracting authorities down to a single process that adds unnecessary burdens or will not necessarily work in all cases. For example, “make or buy” decisions, which the noble Lord asked about, need to be considered carefully—indeed, our commercial guidance in playbooks includes comprehensive guidance on this—but, in our submission, it is not necessary for this to be mandated in legislation. Furthermore, large outsourcing contracts will obviously be scrutinised by departmental, Cabinet Office and Treasury controls to ensure value for money and successful delivery.
So we believe that these things should not be mandated by legislation and that this is already achieved through the development and implementation of the sourcing playbooks, which the noble Lord kindly drew our attention to and actually complimented very much with his desire to put them into primary legislation. I am grateful for his endorsement of those principles.
I turn to Amendment 82, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Aberdare. Some of the underlying arguments on this clause obviously touched on extremely important issues. The amendment proposes to amend Clause 14 to create a presumption that contracting authorities should publish a “planned procurement notice” unless there is good reason not to. Again, I agree that it is vital that the market—particularly certain aspects of it to which the noble Lord and others referred—is given sufficiently early warning of what contracting authorities intend to buy so that suppliers can gear up to deliver. This is particularly important for SMEs and charities, which were referred to by the noble Lord and others.
The Bill makes additional provision to this effect in Part 8. Contracting authorities with an annual procurement spend of more than £100 million will already be required to publish a “pipeline notice”, which will contain information about upcoming procurement with an estimated value of more than £2 million that the contracting authority plans to undertake in the reporting period. This will allow suppliers to see higher-value upcoming procurements and make a decision on whether they wish to bid.
However, contracting authorities should be left to determine where planned procurement notices are useful for lower-value contracts, owing to the potential burden. I will come back to charities. Contracting authorities are incentivised to make use of these notices through a reduction in the tendering period in circumstances in which they are properly issued. They will not necessarily be useful in all circumstances; as such, the Government are currently not of the view that it would be helpful to mandate their use, but I will reflect on what the noble Lord said.
Amendment 84, tabled and interestingly spoken to by my noble friend Lord Lansley, seeks to add to the purposes of “preliminary market engagement” in Clause 15(1). This includes,
“ascertaining how the tender notice may be expressed in terms of outcomes and”
KPIs
“for the purpose of minimising … processes”.
Focusing on the outcomes of the contract, as opposed to being too prescriptive on how these are achieved, is indeed a sensible reason for conducting preliminary engagement—I agree with my noble friend on that. Contracting authorities are encouraged to consider KPIs in their preliminary market engagement. For example, Clause 15(1)(c) includes
“preparing the tender notice and associated tender documents”.
I will look at the Bill against what my noble friend has said, but, as I have said, in some respects the Bill already provides for this and encourages the purpose that he has asked for in terms of Clause 15(1)(c) giving the purpose of preparing the tender notice and documents.
Amendments 85 and 87, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and others, are important. They provide that, when undertaking “preliminary market engagement”, contracting authorities may engage with suppliers in relation to designing a procurement process that will maximise certain public goods and encourage innovation. I very much hear what noble Lords across the Committee have said about innovation, and I will certainly take that thought away. I think there would be a lot of understanding and support in government for that aspiration; innovative new entrant suppliers should be actively sought out.
We wish to promote and encourage contracting authorities to conduct preliminary market engagement. However, this engagement needs to be appropriate and related to the subsequent procurement. Imposing such an obligation on contracting authorities could have the counterproductive effect of disincentivising preliminary market engagement which, I am sure we all agree, would not be desirable.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
Just to clarify, Amendment 85 would not make a mandatory requirement; it simply places it under the “may” condition of Clause 15. Therefore, it does not materially change Clause 15 but just explicitly states that we are seeking this process to draw out innovation.
Lord True (Con)
I take the noble Baroness’s point and understand what she is saying. This takes me back to the opening remarks. We have doubts about the appropriateness of including wider policy objectives, such as those suggested in the noble Baroness’s amendment, in this piece of primary legislation. Each procurement is different, and what is appropriate, for example, for a large-scale infrastructure project, may not be appropriate for a smaller, price-driven transactional arrangement. The strategic priorities that a Government require contracting authorities to have regard to when carrying out their procurement functions are, therefore, better detailed in the national procurement policy statement—which we will debate later in Committee—than in primary legislation.
Amendment 88, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, seeks to require contracting authorities to take into
“account … the size or experience of”
suppliers when determining whether the supplier’s involvement in preliminary market engagement has placed them at an unfair advantage and, therefore, whether they should be excluded from any subsequent procurement. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, my noble friend put forward a thought-provoking point. As I said earlier, I agree with the importance of building capacity among SMEs. We have seen an increase in spending on SMEs in recent years. Figures published last month show that government spending with small businesses rose to a record £19.3 billion in 2020-21—the highest since records began. We hope that the new procurement regime will make it simpler, quicker and cheaper for suppliers, including SMEs, charities and social enterprises, to bid for public sector contracts, and with lower barriers to entry to the market.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for considering my amendment. Does he accept part of my premise, which is that some public authorities are really not doing the right thing at the moment, despite Treasury rules and guidelines? In fact, the qualification the PAC made to the DH report is some evidence of that in relation to the NHS.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I could not possibly be tempted, particularly at 8.04 pm when the Committee needs to finish shortly and I already have a very long response to a large number of amendments. The Bill does have pipeline notices, which I have discussed: I will engage with the noble Lord on that before Report and I welcome that.
Amendment 141 is about a hugely important issue to which so many noble Lords spoke. The noble Baroness seeks to amend Clause 24 to require contracting authorities to take account of accessibility and design for all principles when drawing up their terms of procurement, except in duly justified circumstances. This is an issue of fundamental importance. It is of concern for disabled people, and I know that your Lordships hold concerns about accessibility very close to their hearts; it comes up in every piece of legislation.
As part of our broader goal of a simpler regulatory framework and increased flexibility to design efficient, commercial and market-focused competitions, the Bill does not dictate how terms of procurement including technical specifications are to be drawn up, which is the issue around Clause 24. It simply contains what is prohibited by international agreements and applies to all “terms of a procurement” as defined in Clause 24(5). We believe that this approach is better than the existing approach, as buyers are forced to truly analyse and develop the content of their specifications to address the needs of all those the public contract should support.
The UK has legal obligations, which we readily own and which will dictate how terms of procurement are drawn up, with accessibility covered by Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, as mentioned by the noble Lord opposite. We consider that helps deliver the intended outcomes of both the current duties in this area contained in Regulation 42 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and of this amendment.
I have heard the very strong speeches made by noble Lords on all sides, and I have seen the submissions from the RNIB and others. It is very important that we should have constructive discussion to test whether the Bill delivers the accessibility that your Lordships hope for. The Government remain absolutely committed to ensuring that public procurement drives better outcomes for disabled people. In our contention, there is no dilution of the commitment to accessibility under the Bill. The Government are clear that accessibility criteria should always be taken into account in every procurement, and the existing legislation ensures that that is the case.
However, we will engage further on this and on the other themes and points put forward by so many noble Lords in this wide-ranging debate. In those circumstances, I respectfully request that the amendments are withdrawn and not pressed.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, the only amendment that is going to be withdrawn is my rather small amendment in this group, Amendment 22. My noble friend said that we needed flexibility, and that good reasons were there to allow flexibility. I completely buy the need for flexibility in the procurement rules, but I still wonder whether good reasons without some other constraint around them are sufficient. I was pondering whether the good reasons need to be attached to value for money, or something similar. That may be covered by the interaction with Clause 11, which sets up procurement objectives, but I am probably too tired to work that out in my own mind at the moment. I will consider it further, and my noble friend the Minister, who also said he would consider it further, might like to reflect outside this Committee on how that works out. For this evening, I am sure that everyone will be mightily relieved if I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Procurement Bill [HL]
Monday 11th July 2022
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-IV Fourth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (11 Jul 2022)
Baroness Noakes
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes why light touch contracts are not more narrowly defined in Clause 8.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 207 in my name. My noble friend Lord Lansley has Amendment 35 in this group but is unable to be with us in Committee this week. At his request, with the leave of the Committee, I shall be speaking to his amendments on both Committee days this week.
At Second Reading, I noted that the definition of light-touch contracts is extremely wide since it concerns the supply of services of any kind, provided that they have been specified by regulations under Clause 8(2). It is my understanding that light-touch contracts are currently for health and social care services—indeed, that is implied by the reference to those services in Clause 8(4)(b). The wide scope given by the lack of restriction in Clause 8(2) means that, notwithstanding the “have regards” in Clause 8(4), it would be possible, for example, for the Government to specify legal services, accountancy services or any other kind of services. The “have regards” are simply not an effective curtailment of the very wide power in Clause 8(2).
My Amendment 30 seeks to confine light-touch contracts to health or social care services provided to individuals, on the basis that, it is my understanding, that is how they are used at the moment. However, if the Government believe that there should be a wider concept than that, they should put that in the Bill. Open-ended regulation-making powers should not be necessary and are not desirable.
My noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendment 35 would add another “have regard” to Clause 8(4): whether suppliers of light-touch services consist of small and medium-sized enterprises and few larger enterprises. The other three “have regards” seem to be designed to reflect the current scope of light-touch contracts: they do not generally involve overseas suppliers, they are generally for the benefit of individuals and they involve suppliers that are close to service recipients. Another feature of current service provision is the presence of small and medium-sized service providers in both the private sector and the voluntary sector.
If the supplier market features large suppliers, including overseas ones, there really is no good policy reason for the light-touch regime to be applied; the full-fat version of the procurement rules should be in place for them. A light-touch contract should not become a convenient escape from the procurement regime for contracting authorities. They should be focused on the supplier end of the market, where a lighter regime would be appropriate.
Amendment 207 is rather different. It tries to tease out the Government’s intentions for contracts under Clause 33, which covers the reservation of certain light-touch contracts to public sector mutuals. A qualifying public sector mutual is one that has not been awarded a contract in the previous three years, under Clause 33(5). So if I am a public sector mutual and I am awarded a contract on 1 January 2022, that means that I may be excluded from tenders under subsection (2) for the three years until 31 December 2024, and under subsection (3) a contracting authority must exclude me from tenders assessed under Clause 18 until the same date—that is, the end of 2024.
If my earlier contract is for five years, which is the maximum allowed under Clause 33(1), I think that I would not be excludable from retendering when the contract came up for renewal, because the retendering process would almost certainly have started after the end of December 2024. If, however, my initial contract was for three years, I would almost inevitably be excluded from bidding for its renewal because the retendering process would by definition have to start before the end of December 2024.
My amendment proposes changing the period in subsection (5) from three years to five, but that is for probing purposes. I do not understand whether the Government are trying to allow or prohibit public sector mutuals from carrying out consecutive contracts, if indeed they were awarded them under a competition. It seems bizarre that a shorter contract could prohibit the public sector mutual from retendering while a long one would not.
In addition, I am less than clear on how contract award and commencement dates are supposed to interact, given that a contract could be awarded some considerable time before it is intended to commence. I know that my noble friend the Minister has Amendment 206 to Clause 33, which is not in this group and would slightly alter its wording, but I do not think that that will answer the basic question that I have posed. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 30 but just want to say that I agree with Amendment 33, in which my noble friend Lord Wallace asks why suppliers from outside the UK are likely to want to compete for contracts for the supply of services. Amendments 34 and 35 remind us that there are a wide range of different bodies that need to be able to tender for services, probably mainly local, but they should not be either excluded formally or informally as a result of this Bill.
Returning to Amendment 30, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for her helpful introduction and I want to raise with the Minister matters that we will be returning to in Clauses 41 and 108. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has laid an amendment that includes health and social care services supplied for the benefit of individuals, there are questions that need to be raised. Had we been debating the second group of government amendments today, I would have covered this topic in the Minister’s Amendment 526 as well.
Clause 108 sets out the disapplication for this Bill in relation to procurement by NHS England, but Section 79 of the Health and Care Act talks about
“health care services for the purposes of the health service in England, and … other goods or services that are procured together with those health care services.”
It goes on to define a relevant authority in healthcare services in subsection (7) as
“(a) a combined authority;
(b) an integrated care board;
(c) a local authority in England;
(d) NHS England;
(e) an NHS foundation trust;
(f) an NHS trust established under section 25”.
The problem is that that definition excludes certain parts of health services. For example, an integrated care board will be commissioning, but not procuring directly, some services to primary and secondary care organisations. However, not all NHS organisations are covered by the relevant authority in the healthcare definition. For example, a GP surgery might be a private partnership or a company employing surgery staff including GPs. This might be UK based or even an overseas company, but not a trust or any of the other definitions. The same definition also exists for dentists’ surgeries. I was wondering if the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was thinking that this type of organisation would be covered by her amendment. Most of them are small organisations.
I ask the Minister this question of principle, really as advance warning that we will return to it later in the Bill. Why are health services, clinical and
“other goods or services that are procured together with those health care services”,
going to have a completely different procurement regime entirely delegated to the relevant Secretary of State, who can enact it by SI? That can ignore all the important clauses that we are debating in this Bill—value for money, value for society, transparency and the technical elements critical for anybody wishing to procure goods and services using money from the public purse, except for those parts of the health service that do not fall into that definition in the Health and Care Act, which will have to abide by the Procurement Bill.
Secondly, can the Minister advise on exactly where the dividing line is for those parts of the health service that are commissioned by other parts of it, but do not fall under the definition? It would be perfectly logical to have a contractor team preparing a bid for a contract with a regional consortium that includes a hospital trust and a non-NHS body, perhaps a charity—exactly the sort of small organisation that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, referred to—that worked with patients. It would have to remember, if syringes were included in that PFI contract for the new wing, for example, when the NHS procurement system would therefore be used, that there would be an entirely different set of rules, processes, et cetera, compared with a contract for a hospital trust that covered only non-clinical items, and therefore used the terms in this Bill.
This will be horribly messy. It will not just be confusing for contractors, which will need teams fully au fait with where the dividing line is between the completely different rules that will apply, but I suspect it will be total chaos inside the NHS. Can the Minister explain the thinking behind this and where the differences are? If possible, could we have a meeting with him and other noble Lords interested in the interface between this Bill and the Health and Care Act legislation, and in how it will work in practice?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 33 and 34, but I start by thanking my noble friend Lady Brinton for highlighting the need to make sure that this Bill and the Health and Care Act do not contradict each other. I was struck by a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, at the Second Reading of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill the other week, in which he suggested that the Minister consider whether definitions of freedom of speech in the Online Safety Bill and the higher education Bill were compatible. The noble Lord very much doubted that they were. In spite of the current chaos within the Government, they need to ensure that different Bills going through in the same Session are compatible and do no cut across each other.
Amendments 33 and 34 are concerned with light-touch contracts. Amendment 33 is purely a probing amendment. We wish to understand the circumstances in which suppliers from outside the UK are likely to want to compete for contracts of the sort that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggested would be covered under the light-touch system—primarily, the provision of personal and social services to be delivered on the ground, in local communities, by people with sufficient local knowledge to be effective.
My concern here was heightened by the outsourcing of the initial test and trace contracts to two large companies, one of which has its headquarters in Miami, Florida, and neither of which has any appropriate expertise in local delivery or geography. Not surprisingly, therefore, testing stations were set up in inconvenient places and local volunteers, who offered to assist in large numbers, were often ignored. My colleague, my noble friend Lord Purvis, would have wished to ask whether the new trade agreements the DIT is negotiating would nevertheless open these contracts to overseas companies, including those from non-English speaking countries. Can the Minister therefore explain and justify the paragraph concerned?
Amendment 34 would put in the Bill the importance of local provision of services and the constructive role that non-profit entities can play in the provision of services in which sympathy, personal relationships and concern for welfare above immediate profit are important parts of the motivation for those who work in them and in which volunteers can also contribute to effective supply. My experience here is mainly from the care home sector, although I believe the argument stretches a good deal more widely than that. Private companies, including offshore-based private equity companies, have made excessive profits out of care home provision in a number of cases. Noble Lords will be familiar with Terra Firma, which the Minister will recall is based in the Channel Islands. That is why I have a later amendment that challenges the question of whether companies based in the Crown dependencies and overseas territories should be considered UK suppliers—but there are other examples.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to make my first contribution in this Committee, so I declare my position as vice-president of the Local Government Association. I must also, slightly belatedly, thank the Bill team for last Wednesday morning’s briefing, which was very helpful in trying to come to grips with the complexity of the Bill. There are many people with a great deal more experience than me who are also wrestling with the complexity.
I rise to speak chiefly to Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who has just very ably introduced it. I also support Amendment 33. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, was speaking, I was thinking of the case study of the Dutch firm Randstad and the disaster of the Covid tutoring. That was a very large and important contract that I think the Government would now acknowledge went horribly wrong and should clearly never have been let overseas in the first place. The noble Lord also referred to care homes. Financialisation and hedge fund or overseas ownership of care homes is something I have been very concerned about since a brilliant report, which is highly relevant, from the Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change in 2016. It put that issue on the agenda and it has been focused on since by, for example, the Financial Times.
On Amendment 34, I perhaps come at this from a slightly different philosophical position from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in that I would like to get rid of all financialised provision and see it all in non-profit hands. I believe that is what is appropriate for this. This amendment is probing to ensure that organisations such as local social enterprises, not-for-profit companies and charities are able to apply for contracts. I would like to go stronger on that. I would like to see a preference for those organisations having many of these contracts. I think I am going to anonymise this case study because I have not had the chance to check with the people concerned, but a number of years ago I knew an excellent local rape crisis service that had been providing provision in a city for a number of years. Eventually I found out a month or so after a new contract was supposed to have started that it had been handed to a large national organisation. It was a total mess.
We have seen far too many cases like that where excellent local provision, which may not be expert at putting in tender documents but is expert at providing services, is swept aside under our current arrangements. I mentioned the Financial Times. There is very general agreement across the political spectrum that we need to stop that happening and ensure that good local services and social enterprises are able to continue, have stability, surety and certainty and do not need to put so much of their resources into the endless cycle of bidding and bidding again. I am not sure whether this amendment exactly gets to where I want to go, but it is certainly heading in the right direction. That is why I wished to speak in favour of it.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, good afternoon. When the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, leads a group of amendments, I often end up agreeing with her; it is a bit of a surprise sometimes. Amendment 30, which the noble Baroness has moved, goes to the heart of it, as do all the amendments, because of the lack of clarity about what Clause 8 really means and what is meant by light-touch contracts. It is a really important job of this Committee to try to tease out a little bit more detail.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, probes in her amendment, why are they not more narrowly defined? There is also an argument for asking why they are not more widely defined. I think the noble Baroness—she will no doubt correct me if I am wrong—is seeking to understand the Government’s thinking and how they have arrived at their conclusions. I think that is what all the various amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and so on, are about.
In speaking to these amendments, I too am seeking clarity from the Government on what this clause means. I will start with the most obvious point. I have read the Library briefing, which refers to the Government’s own memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on light-touch contracts, and will quote a couple of things that I think are relevant to all the amendments in this group, including lead Amendment 30 from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes:
“The light touch regime is a facet of the existing rules … and has fewer rules regulating how a procurement is conducted for these contracts. This is reflected in the bill by a series of exceptions of obligations under the procurement regime for the relevant contracts.”
I will be frank: what does that actually mean? Which rules are not applied? There was one set of rules before, under the light-touch regime, which at one point the Government were not going to include in the Bill. That then moved to light-touch contracts, but we are told by the Government that there are fewer rules.
It would be helpful to know what the difference is. What are the fewer rules which the Government have explained to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee? The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made the point that what we are all struggling with is that Clause 8(1) says what “light touch contract” means and then that it will all be done by regulation. In fact, it is a bit like knitting fog to try to understand exactly where we are coming to and what we are doing.
The Government also said in their memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which, again, is relevant to all these amendments:
“Whilst the scope of what is to be included in the power is known, it is not practicable for the bill to include a long list of detailed CPV codes to indicate which categories of contracts may benefit from the light touch regime. In addition, both CPC and CPV codes may evolve over time, which would … require amendment to the bill. The power will be used to ensure that the scope of what is included with the light touch regime does not extend beyond what is permitted for the UK by reference to the GPA and/or other international trade agreements.”
Again, we are trying to understand what that really means for the light-touch regime which the Government are seeking to bring in as a result of Clause 8 and associated regulations. Some clarity on that would help to answer the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about why it is not more narrowly defined and why it is defined in the way it is. That would help us to understand the Government’s thinking behind much of the clause.
The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, gets to the heart of what we are discussing: how the Government have arrived at their position. However, in particular, Amendment 34 from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raises a very important point about ensuring that light-touch contracts will involve various other services and bodies and that they are properly considered for such contracts.
Time and again, at the heart of previous groups, this group, and no doubt groups of amendments to come is a general debate on what a Procurement Bill should or should not include and how far the Government should or should not interfere with the operation of the market. What the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is trying to get at, and what I believe is really important, is some of the ways in which this clause has been put together, so that we understand what exactly a light-touch contract is and the difference between the light-touch regime and the light-touch contracts in this Bill, and the Government’s thinking on what regulations may come forward in due course so that, as a Committee, we can consider whether they have got the balance right and whether this makes sense. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made the point that this clause is wishy-washy—one bit says this and another says that—and the Government’s get-out clause all the time is that it will be sorted out by regulation. This really is not the way forward for primary legislation.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will start with a question from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I will probably not answer it in a way he understands, but I will give it a go and we will probably have more discussions on this as we go forwards.
The services currently identified via these CPV codes, as the noble Lord talked about, are outside the scope of the GPA, albeit within scope of some national treatment provisions in certain international agreements. As such, these could arguably be subject to even less regulation, but we think we have the balance right to ensure competition where possible, value for money, and appropriate transparency and fairness. That is the background to this. The Green Paper proposed removing the separate light-touch provision entirely, but it was clear that this was a popular concept, recognising that these types of services warrant special treatment with a light touch. If they were subject to the full regime, we would be adopting a more stringent approach than that taken by any other European country. That is why we have put them in, and we think that is correct. I am sure we will have more discussions on that.
Before we turn to the amendments, because they were slightly separate, I will answer the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on how this Bill interacts with the Health and Care Act. At Second Reading, concern was raised regarding the interaction between the Health and Care Act 2022 and the Procurement Bill. I hope that my noble friend’s letter of 8 June allays these concerns. To confirm, the intention is that the provisions in the Procurement Bill will be disapplied for a tightly defined subset of healthcare services that will instead fall within the provider selection regime. The provider selection regime has bespoke rules which commissioners of healthcare services in the NHS and local government will follow when procuring healthcare services in their area, and only where delivered directly to patients and service users.
The scope of the provider selection regime will be supported by reference to the common procurement vocabulary—CPV—codes, which will help procurement personnel to determine which regime applies. As the provider selection regime will sit alongside the reforms introduced by the Procurement Bill, DHSC and the Cabinet Office are working together to ensure that the two regimes remain clear and coherent. The Procurement Bill, and therefore the light-touch contract provisions, will continue to apply to healthcare or health-adjacent services that are not delivered to patients but support the infrastructure of the NHS. Light-touch contracts will also continue to include all services procured by authorities other than NHS bodies and local authorities. I hope that helps.
There was another question from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about how the PSR interacts with the new reforms in the Procurement Bill. The PSR will cover the procurement of healthcare services that are delivered to patients and service users, as I have said, and only when they are arranged by relevant healthcare authorities, including NHS bodies and local authorities. The Procurement Bill will not apply to these but will cover all other goods and services.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, could we ask for some clarification on this, perhaps in a letter? Probation services are obviously a personal service that falls outside healthcare. Personal tutoring was raised by my colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. If this is to be a wider sector than purely health and social care, we would like a little more guidance as to how wide it might go.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I understand. We will make sure to get that guidance well before Report.
Amendments 33, 34 and 35, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, relate to Clause 8(4). This subsection identifies features that may constitute light-touch contracts and complements the regulation-making power to determine light-touch contracts in Clause 8(2). The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, included a probing amendment to delete Clause 8(4)(a). However, recognising that Clause 8(4) is an indicative list, the relevance of the provision is to identify that light-touch services are often unlikely to be of cross-border interest. I hope that that makes sense; if not, we can discuss it further.
This is still a useful identifying feature of light-touch contracts and helps readers of the legislation to understand why some contracts have light-touch rules. Set against subsections (4)(b) and (4)(c) of Clause 8, subsection (4)(a) identifies that the services are not exclusively domestic. We are content that Clause 8(4) is appropriate as drafted.
Amendment 34, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, requests an addition to Clause 8(4), which aims to ensure that local authorities, social enterprises, not-for-profit organisations, mutuals and charities are properly considered for such contracts. Similarly, Amendment 35, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has been put forward to include a consideration that
“the suppliers of such services consist of small and medium-sized enterprises and few larger enterprises.”
Clause 8(4) does not dictate how contracting authorities award light-touch contracts. We already have adequate provision in the Bill to support these groups to obtain public contracts—for example, reserved contracts, the introduction of a new user choice direct award ground, and maintaining significant flexibility to tailor award criteria for light-touch contracts. We think that we strike the right balance in the Bill by creating opportunities for these sectors while maintaining fair treatment of all suppliers in the awarding of public contracts.
Amendment 207, proposed by my noble friend Lady Noakes, would make the time limit at Clause 33(5) equal to the maximum duration for such a contract. The intention behind the change is to prevent a public sector mutual from being repeatedly awarded a contract for the same services by the same contracting authority.
It is not considered appropriate to align the time limit with the maximum duration permitted under the clause. It should be noted that there is no obligation on the contracting authority to award contracts that were run for the full five years’ duration allowed, or indeed that use the reserved contracts provision at all. In fact, stakeholder feedback indicated that the existing provision under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 is underutilised due to its tight restrictions.
Public sector mutuals are usually organisations that have spun out from the public sector and most often deliver services to their local communities rather than nationally. It is therefore feasible that a reserved competition may result in a sole compliance tender, especially if the purpose of the contract is to provide services for the single local authority, which is likely often to be the case. If the restriction time limit were to match the maximum duration time limit, this could prevent the reserved competition from resulting in compliant tenders and require a new and unreserved competition to be run, which may not be in the best interests of the public.
The clause currently empowers the contracting authority to manage this risk when considering the procurement strategy, using its knowledge of the market and supported by guidance. If the time limits were to align, it would require more complex drafting of Clause 33 explicitly to enable this risk to be overcome within the time of restrictions. As I have said, if the restriction is too long, it may result in the reserved competition receiving no compliant tenders, given, I repeat, that public sector mutuals are usually organisations that have spun out from the public sector. Therefore, I respectfully request that these amendments are not pressed.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
I am somewhat baffled by subsection (4) of the light-touch contracts clause. The noble Baroness has rejected several suggestions that criteria might be added to it regarding what light-touch contracts might be used for, on the grounds that it already provides sufficient scope. There are three criteria in the clause and all that the clause says is that the authority must consider the extent to which they are met. Does that mean that they are good criteria or bad criteria? If a supplier is from outside the United Kingdom, does that mean that one should favour them or not? I find it completely baffling.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, it is up to the organisation that is procuring. That is exactly what we are saying; we are freeing up that procurement process.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure that we have advanced very much on either of the clauses. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who raised a number of good points about the interaction with NHS contracts, which I had simply not appreciated, not having followed the most recent NHS legislation. I agree with her that the interaction of the two codes is likely to be confusing to all those who come across it and, with respect, I do not think that my noble friend made that any clearer in her answer. Nevertheless, we will come to that later on in the Bill and I am sure that it will be teased out again.
On Clause 8, the main thrust of my amendments was to try to find out what was likely to be covered under light-touch contracts. I am still no clearer at all. I have heard that the “have regards” in subsection (4) are appropriate as drafted but have not heard any argumentation as to why. I have heard quite a lot about how it is really up to the contracting authority to decide what it wants to take account of, and that whether it is good or bad to have overseas suppliers is up to the contracting authority.
I am quite unclear what the Government are intending by this light-touch contract regime. I have no idea at all what they are going to allow to be specified under the regulations, which is what I was trying to tease out by saying that it should be confined to health and social care. That was a placeholder to say, “Tell me what you’re going to put in them”—but I am afraid my noble friend did not tell me what she is going to put in them.
So I am left probably slightly less satisfied with Clause 8 than I was when I tabled my amendments to probe what was in it. I will of course consider very carefully what the Minister has said between now and Report, and we may have further conversations about it, but I politely suggest to her that the Government appear to be in a bit of muddle about what they are expecting from light-touch contracts. Are they simply saying, “We’ll create this power and let contracting authorities tell us what they want to do, and then we’ll have some regulations and do what we like with it”—because that is what the clause allows—or are they intending to restrict the scope in some way and, if so, in what way? That is all still waiting to be teased out, in addition to the issues raised about interaction with the NHS.
I turn to my Amendment 207, which is in connection with Clause 33. I think I heard the Minister say that the Government’s intention was to prevent repeated contracts. That is not necessarily what this measure achieves, except that it tends to prevent a repeated contract if it is of shorter duration. If the initial contract is for three years, they almost certainly do not have a time window to be involved in tendering for a repeat of three years, because of the three-year prohibition—whereas, if they take a contract for five years, that three-year prohibition on retendering will have expired before the retendering comes up again. My noble friend simply did not answer that question, so again I am no clearer about what the Government are really trying to do. Are they trying to stop repeated contracts or allow them? They are allowing them for longer contracts but not for others, which does not seem to make sense.
We have all summer and quite possibly a lot of the autumn between Committee and Report to consider what we need to probe further on Report, but I hope the Minister will be taking back the Hansard of this discussion to her officials and looking at the points that have been raised but not dealt with in her response. However, this is Committee, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Lord Moylan
Member’s explanatory statement
The effect of this amendment would be to limit obligations on contracting authorities to compliance with the procurement objectives in section 11.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 37 I will speak also to Amendment 460 in my name, which is closely linked to it. They work to a similar effect.
The purpose of these amendments is to go back to the question of what we are trying to achieve in this Bill—what its purpose is. I think we all agree that we want honesty, transparency and value for money in public procurement, in broad terms. However, as I said at Second Reading, it seems that what we are achieving is the bureaucratisation of honesty, whereas we should be focusing on the principles. We are creating a great beneficial bonus for lawyers, as was identified by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, earlier in Committee.
The key to real-world management of procurement is flexibility: to be able to respond to circumstances as they change during a tender. The current system, as I said at Second Reading, operates by setting up some conditions at the beginning over which the contracting authority has very great control. However, the system operates with great rigidity after that, so that it is very difficult to respond to changing circumstances in the course of the tender, or to surprising tenders that might be received.
I gave some examples at Second Reading, particularly the great non-existent iconic London bus shelter. I will detain noble Lords with a couple of further examples because I have been contacted since then by a former local government officer, for whom I have great respect, with two examples from the water sector. One related to a contract in which—I cannot supply the names—the officers had set up in advance the very precise and clear criteria by which to analyse the tenders they received for a waste collection contract. When one of the tenderers said “For certain types of waste, we will pay you in order to collect it”—which can make sense for certain recyclers—the whole assessment system effectively collapsed because it had not contemplated that sort of bid. As far as I am aware, everything had to be scrapped and started again, whereas a sensible approach would have allowed it to be flexibly adapted.
The second was a case where the local authority decided to take a relaxed “Let’s see what the market comes up with” approach to the tender—which can be appropriate as well—which was also for a waste collection contract. Unfortunately for the local authority, the cheapest bidder proposed collecting waste from households only once every four weeks—which was why it was the cheapest bidder. Of course, that was neither environmentally nor politically acceptable, but what could the authority do about it at that stage? All it could do was put pressure on the second-lowest bidder, which had sensibly proposed a two-week collection cycle, to cut its price to make it competitive with the four-week people. That duly went through. The two-week collection was awarded the tender, and within a matter of months the contract had effectively collapsed because, of course, the company could not make it work at the price it had been obliged to agree.
So why is there no flexibility in the system once the initial conditions have been set up? The practical reason is that the moment you say, “This is daft. We should be able to do something about it”, the people whom I described in my Second Reading speech as the high priests of procurement will turn up and say, “Ah, but if you do that, a disappointed bidder may sue you for failures in the process.” That is why you are tied at the outset with iron hoops to the process that you have set in motion.
What we need is a Bill that focuses on principles rather than on process. These two amendments do that by preventing disappointed bidders from suing a contracting authority for process faults; they could sue only for breach of the objectives set out in Clause 11. I remind noble Lords that those are to do with: delivering value for money; maximising public benefit; sharing information; acting with integrity and being seen to act with integrity; and equal treatment of tenderers.
It is important to explain that the approach I am proposing is not necessarily tied to Clause 11, because certain noble Lords are proposing that the Bill be augmented with a further set of principles—the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, adds a set of principles to the objectives in Clause 11. My amendment is perfectly compatible with her approach. If the House decides that the objectives for the Bill and the principles underlying it are not sufficiently and adequately expressed in Clause 11 and that further objectives and principles are required, on Report my amendment could be adapted to fit in with those principles. In this particular debate, I am staying neutral on the various proposals for how to develop the principles; I am totally neutral on the noble Baroness’s amendment, because mine would fit with it if that is the direction that the House and the Government wish to take. It is important to bear in mind that I am not tying this explicitly to Clause 11.
It is also important to bear in mind something else that I said. This is not a Bill for combating fraud, corruption or malfeasance in public office. All those things are criminal offences. If a contracting authority commits those offences, it will be prosecuted not under the terms of this Bill but under the relevant provisions of the criminal law—and quite properly. What this Bill does is create a huge bureaucratic minefield for contracting authorities in which disappointed tenderers can sue for some sort of compensation or damages—not that they do so very often, but it is a chilling factor when it comes to the flexibility that contracting authorities should rightly have.
Now, some people would say that this would radically alter the whole approach of the Bill. I think it is a fairly radical alteration of the Bill’s approach, but I speak with some experience when I say that it would also make it a workable Bill. I hope that my noble friend, if he or she is not immediately inclined to agree, will at least explain why this approach does not commend itself to Her Majesty’s Government.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 43 and 51 in this group and comment on the other amendments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for supporting Amendment 43. Amendment 43 would reintroduce the procurement principles that were laid out in the procurement Green Paper and put them in the Bill.
The procurement Green Paper stated that the principles of the new regulatory framework for public procurement should be consistent with the Treasury’s Managing Public Money and the seven principles of public life as set out by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The Green Paper states:
“The Government proposes that the following interdependent principles should be included in the new legislation.”
I shall remind noble Lords of the interdependent principles: they are public good, value for money, transparency, integrity, fair treatment of suppliers and non-discrimination. We absolutely support these principles, as I am sure all noble Lords do, because they are crucial for good business practice. Will the Minister say why these principles are not in the Bill as expected, particularly when we consider that, in the consultation on the Green Paper, the majority of the more than 600 respondents supported the principles for procurement being in the Bill? If we look at the Government’s response to the consultation, they said:
“The Government intends to introduce the proposed principles of public procurement into legislation as described.”
What has changed since then? Why now are those principles not in the Bill?
We believe that these principles are an integral part of procurement and a vital tool for setting out what this legislation wants to achieve and how its success will be judged. In the Bill as currently drafted there is a notable absence of mentions of equality or protected characteristics. The public sector equality duty requires public bodies to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between different people when carrying out their activities. This includes promoting equality and eliminating discrimination through public procurement as well as ensuring that the PSED is adhered to by those with whom public bodies contract.
Furthermore, this is important domestic legislation that asserts that international obligations on procurement in the UK entered into must be compatible with social objectives. We are concerned that the UK has signed a trade agreement with Australia that potentially threatens the inclusion of social criteria in procurement rules. The UK-Australia agreement states that social and labour considerations can be used in the government procurement process only when based on objectively justifiable criteria. This means that social criteria could be challenged by Australian companies via their Government as unjustified. Furthermore, the World Trade Organization’s government procurement agreement that the UK has acceded to does not contain social criteria for procurement. We believe that the current positron needs to be revised and that these principles should be clearly in the Bill.
Moving on to my Amendment 51, it would add proportionality to the procurement objectives. The Procurement Bill covers a wide range of goods, works and services and a range of scales from tens of thousands of pounds to hundreds of millions, but it can be implemented effectively only if proportionality is applied throughout the process. Ensuring the Procurement Bill is proportionate is also key to achieving two of the Government’s key aims in this legislation: to improve value for money and to open up the market to smaller providers, including charities. Proportionality is crucial to the effective procurement of person-centred public services through ensuring that resources are not wasted on overly complex processes when they are not necessary and that the most appropriate provider to run the service can be procured rather than being excluded because of their size or where this is disproportionate to the scale or nature of the contract. Proportionality is referenced in the legislation, but only in specific parts, yet we believe it is relevant right across the entire process.
NCVO, which represents over 17,000 voluntary organisations, charities, community groups and enterprises across England, and the Lloyds Bank Foundation have drawn attention to the fact that this Bill will impact on the services and support that people access. We therefore believe that it is important to ensure that it is appropriate for the commissioning of procurement of people-centred services that are delivered by a range of service providers that also include charities. Charities are often well placed to deliver these services because they are embedded in local communities. They are trusted by local people and often able to reach those whom other services fail to reach.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 44, 56 and 57. I too have gone back to the Green Paper and the Government’s response to that consultation and I remain extremely puzzled that this entire consultation process was undertaken, that the Government responded in their response document rather favourably to it, but that almost none of that is reflected in Part 2 of the Bill. Part 2 declares that it is about principles and objectives, but Clause 12 reserves the detailed definition of those objectives to the Minister—whoever he or she may be when it comes to it—to set out later in a policy statement. This is a skeleton Bill and, reading through several parts of it, and this section in particular, I am reminded that the DPRRC commented that leaving things to regulations often disguises the fact that Ministers have not yet quite made their minds up as to what their policy and intentions will be when it comes to it.
If Ministers continue to turn over as rapidly as they have under the current Government, we might anticipate that, every nine to 12 months, a new Secretary of State will wish to issue a new strategic statement. Clause 12 tells us that the statement will be presented to Parliament after carrying out
“such consultation as the Minister considers appropriate”
and making
“any changes to the statement that appear to the Minister to be necessary in view of responses to the consultation”.
So we are asked to leave all that—the underlying principles of this Bill—to the Minister, whoever she or he may be by the time this becomes law. Much better to start with a parliamentary debate on what the agreed principles for procurement should be, from one Government to another, than to present Parliament with changing Ministers’ changing ideas after lengthy discussions with others outside.
On that topic, can the Minister tell us which Cabinet-level Minister is now responsible for this Bill, or which Commons Minister he is co-operating with in managing it as it moves through the two Houses? That would help the Committee understand how and whether it is likely to progress and what difficulties or changed circumstances the Minister is operating under. I appreciate and almost sympathise with some of the difficulties he may be going through in those circumstances, but if we intend this Bill to last, to provide some stability for non-governmental suppliers and the clients of public services, we need to put agreed principles and objectives in it.
There was much more about principles in the Government’s response to the Green Paper. Can the Minister explain why it is not here? Why did it not appear necessary, in view of the responses to the consultation? Amendments 43, 44 and others insert statements of principles largely drawn from government publications. They are central to the Bill. I hope the Minister will accept that it was a mistake not to include them and that it is not acceptable to Parliament to leave this to a future Minister—or perhaps Government—and that he will return on Report, after consultation, with a form of words on this that can command a cross-party consensus and which reflects the consultation already undertaken. Amendments 43 and 44 offer different, though overlapping, drafts of what it might be appropriate to include in the Bill.
I will speak also to Amendments 56 and 57. Amendment 56 is purely exploratory; we deserve an explanation in clear and simple language of the grounds on which some suppliers are to be treated differently from others. Amendment 57 inserts clearer language on the criteria by which procurement decisions should be judged: value for money, cost, quality and sustainability—as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, pointed out, it is the principles that matter most in setting the tone and culture under which the entire public procurement process will take place. These are important terms, not to be left to the policy statement when it comes but fundamental to the principles under which procurement decisions are taken. They must be in the Bill.
We are all aware of procurement contracts where the cheapest bid has produced unsatisfactory outcomes, where what has been promised has not been produced and where insufficient attention has been paid to quality or sustainability. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, mentioned one, but there are many others. These need to be spelled out for future procurement, with the blessing and approval of Parliament. Parliament has been sidelined under the recent retiring Government; we hope that whoever succeeds our current Prime Minister will treat it with rather more respect and consideration.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 46, which comes from a slightly different angle. In our report AI in the UK: Ready, Willing and Able?, our AI Lords Select Committee, which I chair, expressed its strong belief in the value of procurement by the public sector of AI applications. However, as a recent research post put it:
“Public sector bodies in several countries are using algorithms, AI, and similar methods in their administrative functions that have sometimes led to bad outcomes that could have been avoided.”
The solution is:
“In most parliamentary democracies, a variety of laws and standards for public administration combine to set enough rules to guide their proper use in the public sector.”
The challenge is to work out what is lawful, safe and effective to use.
The Government clearly understand this, yet one of the baffling and disappointing aspects of the Bill is the lack of connection to the many government guidelines applying to the procurement and use of tech, such as artificial intelligence and the use and sharing of data by those contracting with government. It is unbelievable, but it is almost as if the Government wanted to be able to issue guidance on the ethical aspects of AI and data without at the same time being accountable if those guidelines are breached and without any duty to ensure compliance.
There is no shortage of guidance available. In June 2020, the UK Government published guidelines for artificial intelligence procurement, which were developed by the UK Government’s Office for Artificial Intelligence in collaboration with the World Economic Forum, the Government Digital Service, the Government Commercial Function and the Crown Commercial Service. The UK was trumpeted as the first Government to pilot these procurement guidelines. Their purpose is to provide central government departments and other public sector bodies with a set of guiding principles for purchasing AI technology. They also cover guidance on tackling challenges that may occur during the procurement process. In connection with this project, the Office for AI also co-created the AI procurement toolkit, which provides a guide for the public sector globally to rethink the procurement of AI.
As the Government said on launch,
“Public procurement can be an enabler for the adoption of AI and could be used to improve public service delivery. Government’s purchasing power can drive this innovation and spur growth in AI technologies development in the UK.
As AI is an emerging technology, it can be more difficult to establish the best route to market for your requirements, to engage effectively with innovative suppliers or to develop the right AI-specific criteria and terms and conditions that allow effective and ethical deployment of AI technologies.”
The guidelines set out a number of AI-specific considerations within the procurement process:
“Include your procurement within a strategy for AI adoption … Conduct a data assessment before starting your procurement process … Develop a plan for governance and information assurance … Avoid Black Box algorithms and vendor lock in”,
to name just a few. The considerations in the guidelines and the toolkit are extremely useful and reassuring, although not as comprehensive or risk-based as some of us would like, but where does any duty to adhere to the principles reflecting them appear in the Bill?
There are many other sets of guidance applicable to the deployment of data and AI in the public sector, including the Technology Code of Practice, the Data Ethics Framework, the guide to using artificial intelligence in the public sector, the data open standards and the algorithmic transparency standard. There is the Ethics, Transparency and Accountability Framework, and this year we have the Digital, Data and Technology Playbook, which is the government guidance on sourcing and contracting for digital, data and technology projects and programmes. There are others in the health and defence sectors. It seems that all these are meant to be informed by the OECD’s and the G20’s ethical principles, but where is the duty to adhere to them?
It is instructive to read the recent government response to Technology Rules?, the excellent report from the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. That response, despite some fine-sounding phrases about responsible, ethical, legitimate, necessary, proportionate and safe Al, displays a marked reluctance to be subject to specific regulation in this area. Procurement and contract guidelines are practical instruments to ensure that public sector authorities deploy AI-enabled systems that comply with fundamental rights and democratic values, but without any legal duty backing up the various guidelines, how will they add up to a row of beans beyond fine aspirations? It is quite clear that the missing link in the chain is the lack of a legal duty to adhere to these guidelines.
My amendment is formulated in general terms to allow for guidance to change from time to time, but the intention is clear: to make sure that the Government turn aspiration into action and to prompt them to adopt a legal duty and a compliance mechanism, whether centrally via the CDDO, or otherwise.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I am speaking to my Amendments 128 and 130, although the issues raised there have already been addressed by earlier speakers. I fully support the amendments spoken to by the Front Bench and Amendment 57 tabled by the Liberal Democrats.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, who I think is seeking to achieve the same goals as two amendments in this group to which I have attached my name: Amendment 43, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and Amendment 57, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Fox. I will focus on those amendments because I have done my best to get round their technical detail.
Having listened to the powerful introductory speeches that were made, I noted that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, highlighted the issues with the Australian trade deal. It is a pity, therefore, that this Committee is taking place at the same time as the Australian trade deal is being debated in the Chamber; some joined-up thinking might have ensured that people were able to participate in both debates. However, that is perhaps a very large aspiration that we can all work towards.
I want to focus on perhaps the most crucial provision, which is subsection (1)(a) in the new clause proposed in Amendment 43, which refers to,
“promoting the public good, by having regard to the delivery of strategic national priorities including economic, social, environmental and public safety priorities”—
although I think I might prefer the wording “public health”, which is perhaps broader than “public safety”, for reasons that I will come to in a second. That is something that we might consider in future. However, the Government are already signed up to those principles, at least theoretically, in everything that they do because, like the rest of the world, they are signed up to the sustainable development goals. I cite the paper from the Cabinet Office and the FCDO Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals, dated 15 July 2021, which says:
“The UK is committed to the delivery of the sustainable development goals. The most effective way we have to do this is by ensuring that the Goals are fully embedded in planned activity of each Government department”.
Now one might think that making legislation is a planned activity of a government department. However, that is a very centralised view because it refers only to central government spending and is not focused on other spending. Surely, if we are going to deliver the sustainable development goals, they have to be embedded right across the broad breadth of spending. Essentially, Amendment 43 broadens out and attempts to deliver something that the Government are fundamentally, nationally and internationally, signed up to do.
I note further that the Cabinet Office report states that “all signatories” are
“expected to … deliver them domestically.”
However, NGO studies demonstrate that the UK is not on track to deliver a single sustainable development goal. Surely this Procurement Bill is a crucial mechanism for delivering those sustainable development goals of economic, social and environmental advance, meeting people’s basic needs while looking after our natural world and ensuring that we have a natural world for the future. I suggest that Amendment 43, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman—and Amendment 57, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, comes at this in a different way—is absolutely crucial, as it would put the principles of the sustainable development goals, to which the Government are signed up, on the face of the Bill.
Let me also address subsection (2) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 43, which states:
“If a contracting authority considers that it is unable to act in accordance with any of these principles in a particular case, it must—”
essentially, publish a report and take reasonable steps to ensure that it is not discriminating. When I considered signing the amendment, I worried about this because I thought that, surely, these are principles we should be delivering on. However, of course, we all know the practical reality is that many organisations procuring essential services simply do not have enough money to do what they need to do.
This is where we come to the value for money point of Amendment 57. I was thinking of putting this in practical terms, because much of what we are talking about here is technical and abstract. Think of the very common fable in which a poor person, who has only £10 in their pocket, is forced to buy a cheap pair of shoes. Then every three months, he is forced to buy a new cheap pair of shoes. A wealthy person, who has £100 in their pocket, can buy a pair of shoes that lasts for 10 years. So of course, in the end, the poor person ends up spending vastly more on shoes than the wealthy person, because they had no choice. So, given our current situation, maybe we need Part 2, but we have to look at whether this is a bigger, broader problem, beyond even the realms of this Bill. None the less, this group of amendments demonstrates that the Bill is fairly deficient in its current form. This cannot be an area for a framework Bill.
I will briefly mention another issue that is important and I commend the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his amendment. We are seeing increasing levels of automation in many aspects of judgments—the human judgment being taken out and AI and algorithms being put in its place. There is a great deal of evidence demonstrating that the way they are being developed and the data on which they are based often fit the old adage of “garbage in, garbage out”. We need to make sure that any automation of these processes is not discriminatory. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, pointed out that anti-discrimination elements are entirely lacking from any provisions in the Bill at the moment; proposed new subsection (1)(f) provides these as well.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I return to Amendment 37 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. He made the point that the words at the end of Clause 10(1),
“except in accordance with this Act”,
are a hostage to fortune. The words range right across the whole of this complicated Bill and of course a disaffected client will invite his lawyer to search through all the provisions to find some flaw in the way in which the procurement exercise was carried out, which he can then attack.
I wonder whether the words
“in accordance with this Act”
are wider than they need to be. First, Clause 10 contains a prohibition, but Clause 10(2) contains a definition of procurement and Clause 10(3) tells you that
“a contracting authority may only award a public contract in accordance with”
the four matters set out there.
In my mind, that raises the question of whether the words at the end of Clause 10(1) should really be
“except in accordance with this”
section, the purpose of which is to describe the framework or scope of the power, before Clause 11 tells you that that power must be exercised in accordance with the procurement objectives set out there. It would make sense if Clause 10 simply said what may be done in accordance with that section. If I am wrong about that, the Minister might like to reflect on whether the words
“in accordance with this Act”
go further than they need to.
Choice of words, as I say from time to time, is always very important and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raises an important point. What he wishes to put in place at the end of Clause 10(1) is already in Clause 11 and will have to be complied with. I understand that the Minister may be reluctant to go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has invited him to go, but he has raised an important point. That is why I suggest that the word “section” might be a more sensible and less dangerous word to use than “Act”, at the end of Clause 10(1).
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who is always so brief and makes such constructive suggestions. The more I listen, the more I feel that this Bill in many respects strikes the wrong note. It is overregulatory and calls for a rethink, which I hope the Government will be thinking about.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I have listened with great interest to this debate and seen the tension between those who want what they call a flexible and open framework and those who want a more principles-based framework with an understanding of what public procurement is about. We have to be clear that the public procurement is not just about the monetary bottom line; it is about ensuring that social good comes from every pound that the public sector spends. It is not just about ensuring that value for money is the bottom line—the pounds and pence; it is about the environment, the local economy and trying to ensure that people have opportunity, and ladders of opportunity are sown in communities so that people can grow.
I have worked as a public sector employee, I have worked in the private sector on procurement, I procured in the public sector as a health service manager and, like others here, I have been a politician who set the framework for public procurement, particularly when I was the leader of Sheffield City Council. I think that, sometimes when we speak, we are divorced from reality. Most suppliers use a legal challenge not on the process but on the criteria and how those criteria have been judged for the award of a particular contract. I cannot think of any time in my life when I have been involved in procurement that a legal challenge has been brought against an organisation that I either worked for or have been a senior politician in where the criteria have not been the particular legal point on which a supplier challenges; it is not normally the process.
Interestingly, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, gave many examples of why suppliers might not be able to do anything. Nothing in the Bill would stop that; in fact, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has an amendment in a future group that talks about having a more of an outcome approach to procurement, which would allow innovation. It would allow that innovation to be seen as something that it brought into the tendering process right at the beginning by going out to talk to suppliers about what outcomes were required, as the noble Lord suggests. So we have to be careful about how we frame this discussion and about saying that being less clear about principles and what is required will somehow stop legal challenge.
I would argue the other way: if there is no definition in the Bill of such things as value for money, that is a charter for lawyers to start saying, when a contract has been awarded, “What did you mean by value for money?” If over 400 different procurement authorities have a different view of value for money, and I am a supplier looking for a contract in 100 of them and everybody is giving a different definition, then legally there may be more challenges to come. There have to be clear definitions in the Bill of certain aspects, such as what we mean by value for money—or, interestingly, social value. Again, if there is no national definition of that, it is a lawyers’ charter.
The tension between what is in the Bill and having more flexibility has to be thought through. It comes down to what a number of noble Lords have said, namely that this Bill is very confused. It is complex and contradictory. It has not been thought through, particularly the elements which need to be clearly defined so that it does not become a lawyers’ charter. I ask the Minister, in replying, to say what we actually mean by social value. Once this Bill has passed, if I was a supplier, how would I know what value for money was? Will value for money be defined for every contracting authority and understood by every supplier? Or will it be open to local interpretation to determine what social value is? The Bill is contradictory and has some holes, but we should be very careful of saying that being more flexible stops lawyers challenging. Sometimes not having things in the Bill means that lawyers will challenge more.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken. Lest anybody be alarmed by the coughing I have inflicted on the Committee and my not very brilliant voice, I should say that I tested several times over the weekend and this morning for Covid and the results have been negative.
It has been a very interesting debate. I have listened to it very carefully, including the many contradictions within it, which were summed up ably by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. There are differences of opinion. Indeed, one challenge was laid down at the beginning by my noble friend Lord Moylan and spoken to eloquently at the end by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. Of course, we know the other extreme is the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who wished to use the Bill for very extensive potential government intervention.
All of us in this House and in public service care passionately about the principles in which we believe. Those principles differ and that is the nature of the change that can be made when Governments change. The question this Committee is wrestling with, and will I am sure continue to wrestle with through to Report, is the extent to which one encrusts the Bill with the total sum of all the hopes of those contributing to Committee, with some of the attendant risks that have been referred to in relation to litigation; or, at the other extreme, the extent to which one strips it down and concentrates on simplicity. There is an inherent tension, which is expressing itself in a very interesting and informative debate. I can assure noble Lords that, as we go forward, the Government will be listening carefully to both sides of it.
It started with Amendment 37 to Clause 10 and Amendment 460 to Clause 89, tabled by my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Moylan. These seek to limit the scope of remedies for breach of statutory duty under Part 9 to compliance with only the procurement objectives in Clause 11.
A supplier’s ability to properly hold a contracting authority to account is essential for a well-functioning and fair procurement system and helps to ensure that contracting authorities comply with specific requirements under the Bill. Our submission, in presenting this legislation, is that, without such obligations to comply with the detailed provisions of the Bill, many of the important things that it seeks to deliver would fall away. For example, some of the transparency obligations in the Bill are intended to ensure early publication of information in order to support small businesses. If these cannot be enforced, we risk losing that important support mechanism.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Would the Minister give way? That is one definition of local growth: that it has to be a local company that gets the business. Local growth is completely different: it could be subcontracting or the value sustainability that it puts into the economy, which gets to the nub of the problem. Without having clear definitions, we get these kinds of differences. Would the noble Lord agree that his definition of local growth is predicated on who gets the supplier contract but, actually, local growth could be much broader?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I will look carefully at what I have said and what the noble Lord has said. I think I said—and will repeat if I have not said it already—that it is important to have some flexibility, particularly at the lower end of contract letting, precisely to give local authorities and others the freedom of judgment for which the noble Lord asks. The more one codifies these aspects in statute, and tightens the definition, the greater the risk—this is something we have wrestled with in Committee—that one limits the flexibility that the noble Lord seeks for local action.
A formal regulatory evaluation of whether each public contract delivered “social value” and “local economic growth” could also be an unnecessary burden on contracting authorities. I repeat my view that local contract management should be able to judge the effectiveness of all aspects of the contract. The Bill makes provision for the publication of information on the performance of large contracts—currently, those valued at over £2 million—which we consider a reasonable and balanced approach.
The Government do not support the use of a debarment list for any purpose other than to designate suppliers that meet a ground for exclusion and have failed to address their risk. Debarment is a last resort to be used when a supplier poses a significant risk to contracting authorities or the public, following criminal or other serious misconduct. We do not consider it appropriate that failure to meet characteristics such as social value should form the basis of such a punitive sanction.
Amendment 46, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who spoke with, as always, great passion and authority on these subjects, seeks to insert an additional principle on automated decision-making and responsible and ethical use of data when carrying out a procurement. The new data platform will deliver enhanced centralised data on UK public contracts and spending. All data that is published will be freely accessible through the central digital platform. This is in support of the objective set out in Clause 11(1)(c), which expects contracting authorities to have regard to the importance of
“sharing information for the purpose of allowing suppliers and others to understand the authority’s procurement policies and decisions”.
The data displayed in the platform pertains to the public sector’s commercial activity, including tender opportunities, contract awards, spending and so on. The UK’s historic commitments to data protection standards and public trust in personal data use will continue to be at the heart of the regime. The proposals build on the fundamental principles of the UK GDPR, and these will continue to underpin the trustworthy use of data to support our central digital platform.
The noble Lord asked why one would be reluctant to legislate for the ethical use of data and automated decision-making. We are not legislating for specific rules for certain sectors but instead setting the legislative framework for public sector procurement. In the same way that we are not legislating for the standards for construction projects, we are also not legislating for the standards for data projects. The Government already issue extensive guidance––the noble Lord referred to some of it—on best practice where appropriate, and contracting authorities should have that in mind when purchasing AI or data products and services.
The Government are resisting this amendment, as policies are still evolving at government level on ethical use of automated decision-making and data. This is a fast-changing world—as the noble Lord knows better than most—so legislating in the Bill could be a premature fix, as it were. I have already referred to the existing guidelines on responsible use of AI procurement for public sector organisations on how to use data appropriately. These evolving policies should be applied by contracting authorities as appropriate. That said, we are open to more engagement on this topic, and I have listened again very carefully to the points that the noble Lord makes. I can give an undertaking to him, as I did earlier to others, that we will engage with him between now and Report, because he is right that this is an important area. We are just cautious about seeking to fix specific things in legislation at the moment.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering is, regrettably, unable to be here, for reasons referred to earlier in this Committee debate—and I confess I had nothing to do with that. Her amendments are around the subject of acting with integrity and being seen to act with integrity, which my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe also referred to. The integrity objective will oblige contracting authorities to consider how best to prevent fraud and corruption through good management, prevention of misconduct, and control. As well as oversight and control, open competition and the strengthened transparency requirements in the Bill will enhance integrity in public procurement.
It is essential that the procurement regime in the UK commands the trust of suppliers, the public and our international trading partners. While it is important that contracting authorities actually act with integrity—and that is a fundamental point—the objective is drafted as it is due to the importance that those observing procurements can see that contracting authorities are acting with integrity. We will, however, reflect on my absent noble friend’s amendment and the points made in debate, including the direct question that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe asked me, to which I do not have an answer as I stand here, about precedents in legislation—clearly, her question will be in Hansard and requires an answer.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, although I am not a great expert on this subject, it seems that this is a case in which judicial review would be extremely easy because the question of how one justifies it is not spelled out here. Could the Minister perhaps write to us between now and Report about what criteria would then be used to justify the decisions taken? I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that one wants to ensure as far as possible that we do not leave large holes for judicial review to come in.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, obviously I accept that, but we will certainly undertake to provide further information.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, was adumbrating cases where it should be possible to take different issues into account in terms of local activity. I understand the point that noble Lords are making about clarity. Clarity can either be sought through superdefinition, chasing the Snark through the end of the rainbow—sorry, I am mixing my metaphors—or it can be something for which the Government set out a clear framework that ultimately it is open to anyone in a free society to test under the common law. There is a balance to be found here and we will write further.
On Amendment 57, the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, complain that Clause 11 does not define value for money in order to leave a degree of flexibility for different types of organisation with different drivers to place a different emphasis on the concept. That is not unusual in legislation. Value for money as a concept is not uncommon on the statute book without further definition. It has been used in relation to setting high-level objectives for organisations, including the general duties of Ofcom in Section 3 of the Communications Act 2003 and indeed those of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority in Section 4 of the Energy Act.
There are many precedents, I am told, but I have only given two of them where the term is left undefined, and this allows a degree of flexibility. We are happy with the broad interpretation of value for money, but Amendment 58 would have the effect of limiting the scope for future reviews of what value for money means. That is something that future Governments might wish to do. We do not support that position at the moment but, again, I am ready to listen to further discussion in Committee.
Amendments 128 and 130, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, amend the provisions on award criteria. I am grateful to the noble Lord, first for the explanatory statement which sets out that his amendment intends to ensure that value for money does not override other procurement objectives, and secondly for his exposition of it. While it is important to be clear that Clause 22 does not affect the relative weighting of the objectives in Clause 11, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his consideration of this point and respond on that basis.
Public procurement needs to be focused on achieving value for money, and we submit that this is rightly at the top of the list of objectives set out in Clause 11. The noble Lord laid an amendment, the second part of which would in effect—taken literally—relegate or at least abnegate the possibility of placing value for money exclusively at the top. Our submission is that, while value for money will be the highest priority in procurement for the Government and that is reflected in the drafting of the Bill, it does not disapply or override the obligation on contracting authorities to have due regard to the other matters in Clause 11. I have no doubt that this will be probed further, but I hope that this will reassure the noble Lord that the amendment is not only unnecessary but, in its detail, we could not accept it. There is a balance to be sought here, and that balance will be seen differently by successive Administrations in successive places.
There was a very interesting range of amendments put forward in this group. I have listened carefully, and we will engage further on the points raised. I hope on that basis that noble Lords will feel ready to withdraw or not move their amendments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has a difficulty with his throat, and I commiserate with him on that. He also has a difficulty with the Bill. He wants to have a Bill which is highly prescriptive, but his answer to those who wish to amend it is that that would make it too prescriptive. The question is: what are the bounds of prescription, and has he given an adequate defence of them? It may be the heat, but I suspect we are condemned this afternoon to receiving a series of responses from Ministers which are not as adequate and embracing of our original ideas as one might hope.
It has been a very important debate because it is about the principles underlying the Bill. My noble friend said that there was a degree of confusion and contradiction in the debate. There is often confusion in debate when you have a broad range and number of topics to discuss, but I do not think there was any contradiction if one understands that the debate on principles has been taking place on two levels. The first is about what the principles should be—whether they should involve what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has suggested should be incorporated and whether they should involve a certain interpretation of value for money. We all agree that has to be an element of it, but what does that actually mean? That has been the tenor of part of the debate. I have said that I intend to remain neutral in a sense on that question.
The second level on which we have been debating the principles is: on the assumption that we can agree what the principles are, what role do they then play? What purchase or leverage do they give in the procurement process? In particular, should they be a basis on which disappointed contractors should be able to nitpick through this procedural Bill in order to bring complaints when, in my view, it would be better if they were limited to doing that only if the broad principles of the Bill—which we might have agreed on—had been breached? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, clearly grasped that point, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, heartily agreed that we should ensure that there is a degree of flexibility in the tendering process so that unforeseen circumstances that lead to idiotic outcomes can be handled in a sensible way.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe made a similar point, but I am going to quibble with her very slightly, because she used the word “frequent” in reference to frequent legal challenges to procurement processes. In my experience, they are not very frequent, because what happens is that precise attention to the detail of the process is often prioritised over sensible outcomes in order to avoid those legal challenges in the first place. The structure of the approach that we are taking often leads to poor outcomes in procurement terms precisely to avoid legal challenges, but we congratulate ourselves on having gone through a successful procurement even though we have a suit with a pair of trousers with one leg shorter than the other, or something like that.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
On the business of frequent challenge, I think it would be quite useful to have some information before we discuss this again. My experience—I have worked in the industry, although admittedly not as an executive—is that there are quite a lot of challenges, and they absorb a lot of resources. However, if they are rare, that is important as well.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I heartily second that call for information.
To conclude, my noble friend the Minister said that he thought that flexibility in response to the sort of circumstance that I am describing is desirable. To that extent, he agreed in principle with me and with my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and it is for him, as we go forward, to show how he intends to instantiate that in his own amendments, so as to give us that sensible, practical outcome. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to reduce the burden on business of the Bill’s provisions.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 38, on helping small business, would free up procurement for those businesses with a turnover of under £5 million. I am particularly grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady Noakes, and I am glad of the opportunity to endorse her review amendment, Amendment 534, which she will introduce later.
I shall also speak to my Amendment 50, which aims to keep the bureaucratic burdens on small businesses as low as possible, and to Amendments 97 and 100, which seek to exclude small businesses from complex competitive procedures. Finally, I will also speak to Amendments 290 and 295, which seek to exclude SMEs from the bureaucratic burden of cross-compliance in Schedules 6 and 7, which give long lists of reasons for excluding suppliers from bidding.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, in championing small and medium-sized enterprises to get access to many contracts, which needs to happen. There are many amendments to the Bill to this effect, and I hope the Minister will take serious account of making sure that they are not excluded by virtue of the complexity of procurement rules.
I wish to speak briefly to Amendment 534 in this group, which sets out the important principle of ensuring that a Minister carries out reviews of the operation of this Act. Proposed new subsection (2) states:
“‘Procurement rules’ means the requirements related to procurement set out in this Act or issued under the authority of this Act, and the health procurement rules referred to in section 108.”
While I was very grateful to the Minister for her explanations to my question at the end of the first group of amendments, I am afraid that I do not think she answered—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
Lady Brinton, we believe that you are speaking to the wrong group at the moment. Is that correct? I am not sure. We are just clarifying.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
It is the right group, but I have not introduced the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is speaking before all the amendments have been spoken to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
The rules are—I can see the problem—that remote speakers speak before the other amendments. Lady Brinton, it is quite difficult in that the amendment has not yet been spoken to; would you rather proceed, as per the current regulation, or wait and speak at the end of the group?
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
I am used to speaking in this way, if the Committee will bear with me. These are the rules, and I do not believe that I have the luxury of choosing to change them. What I usually do, but did not do earlier when I first spoke this afternoon, is to apologise to anyone where I might have to speak ahead of them speaking to their own amendment. I assure the Grand Committee that this is not of my making. The rules about remote contributions are extremely clear, mainly, I believe, to help those chairing the proceedings. I am happy to continue.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I think the rules are to help those chairing proceedings—that is, Deputy Speakers—but also to help the people who are coping with having to come in remotely. Having said that, we will proceed within the rules, but I promise that I will take this back to the Lord Speaker’s office again at our meeting on Thursday. Lady Brinton, please continue.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
I apologise again to the Committee. I was just quoting the element of Amendment 534 that talks about “procurement rules” as meaning
“the requirements related to procurement set out in this Act or issued under the authority of this Act, and the health procurement rules referred to in section 108.”
While I was very grateful to the Minister for her explanations to my question on the first group of amendments, I am afraid that I do not think she answered the core question about the interface between this Bill and the provisions in Section 79 of the Health and Care Act.
I refer the Minister to his Amendment 528 to Clause 108 of this Bill which, because it was among the government amendments in the second group of amendments, was not moved or debated. It is important, however, because that amendment states
“If the procurement of goods or services by a relevant authority is regulated by health procurement rules, a Minister of the Crown may by regulations make provision for the purpose of disapplying any provision of this Act in relation to such procurement.”
I appreciate that that amendment makes an important link to the Health and Care Act, which both Ministers have pointed out to us that they are trying to do. However, it does not pick up the issues raised by a number of noble Lords, including me, about the problem that provisions in the Health and Care Act do not cover the entire NHS.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—and I look forward to hearing her introduction to her amendment—for picking up my concerns at the end of the first group. Her Amendment 534 would ensure a review by a Minister, including looking at the procurement provisions in the Health and Care Act. That would at least ensure that any emerging tensions and practical problems could be identified and published.
Having raised this, there are two fundamental questions that were not answered by the Minister’s letter, nor by the Minister earlier. First, why are the rules for NHS public spend—which, in 2018-19, was in excess of £70 billion—to be created by a statutory instrument without the same level of public scrutiny that this Bill is receiving and no guarantee of the same protections that this Bill is affording to public money being spent on public contracts? Secondly, I ask again exactly where is the interface between the Bill and the Act, given the gap in the Health and Care Act legislation that is covered by the Procurement Bill? I ask again whether it might be sensible to have a meeting for noble Lords interested in this particular and perhaps esoteric problem. It is vital that public procurement works across the board.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I find myself being drawn into this Bill in all kinds of ways. I apologise for not speaking at Second Reading, but I was not able to do so. I declare interests as the founding chair and current patron of Social Enterprise UK and as a senior associate of Social Business International, which is an organisation concerned with social enterprises that contract with the public sector. Both of those positions are unpaid.
Over the 20-odd years I have been in your Lordships’ House, I have been involved in putting community interest companies on the statute book and, as a Minister, in the right to request for social enterprises and the Public Services (Social Value) Act. I will speak to Amendment 75B in my name but, because this is the first time I have spoken, I will say that there is a suite of amendments to this Bill that are all about social enterprise. They follow the introduction by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, very well, because many of the problems are the same, although there are some huge social enterprises providing public services.
This amendment proposes a new clause for the Bill, which addresses market stewardship. The reason is that we are interested in how you give voice to the social value Act in this space; that is at the heart of this amendment. There is a policy background to this that the Government will recognise. The 2015 review of the social value Act carried out by Lord Young of Graffham found that
“where the Act is being used, it has a positive impact and that the variety … of organisations that support the Act is quite striking.”
In 2018, Her Majesty’s Government announced that all central government contracts would be evaluated on the basis of social value. In December 2020, a new social value model was published by the Cabinet Office, which was to cover all procurement by central government departments and bodies under its responsibility. In June 2021, the new national procurement policy statement required contracting authorities to consider how they could maximise social value in creating new businesses jobs and skills, improving supplier diversity and tackling climate change.
Less than seven months ago, in December 2021, in its response to the consultation in the Green Paper Transforming Public Procurement, the Cabinet Office promised that
“A procurement regime that is simple, flexible and takes greater account of social value can play a big role in contributing to the Government’s levelling-up goals.”
Her Majesty’s Government’s flagship levelling-up White Paper calls for greater use of social value yet, despite all this, social value is nowhere to be seen in this Bill. When it was in the Commons, the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency was directly asked why social value was missing. He refused to even use the phrase “social value”.
That is a considerable disappointment because, over the last decade, a strong cross-party consensus has developed on the need for all public bodies to consider social value when making procurement decisions. Indeed, the social value Act was introduced by a Conservative Member of Parliament, championed in this place by a Liberal Democrat Peer and supported by Labour and the Green Party during its passage.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt, but I am struggling a little as to which amendment the noble Baroness is speaking to. Amendment 75B, which deals with market stewardship, is in this group, but Amendment 75A, which is about social value, is not.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I beg your pardon. I was trying to give the basis as to why this amendment is down and then the other amendments that will be in the groups following this one, but I take the noble Baroness’s point and will just address this amendment.
Social enterprises report higher levels of staff engagement. The Bill does not place any duty on contracting authorities to consider the impact of their decisions on the range of providers, such as social enterprises or SMEs, but there is a risk in ignoring these organisations. There may not be the providers that the public sector needs for the future and this may reduce innovation in our supply chains. That is what this amendment addresses.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 38, 50, 97 and 100 in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and, as she has already said, she has added her name to Amendment 534.
I will come to that in a moment, but I start with Amendment 86 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley. This returns to the question of preliminary market engagement and fostering the involvement of SMEs about which my noble friend spoke on our last Committee day in relation to his Amendment 88. Clause 15(1)(f) makes building capacity among suppliers a permitted purpose for preliminary market engagement. My noble friend’s amendment adds some words of emphasis so that capacity building should be particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises.
I know that noble Lords need no reminding of the importance of SMEs to the UK economy. They account for around 60% of employment and over half of turnover in the UK. Not all small businesses achieve scale and not all want to, but most large and successful businesses were small businesses once. We have a responsibility to ensure that SMEs are given every opportunity to thrive and grow. That is why we should be looking at this Bill on the important area of public procurement and its role in the economy and considering the way that can be used to foster SMEs.
SMEs find engaging with public procurement daunting. They simply do not have the time and resources to get involved in complex tenders, let alone things like dynamic markets. It has to be in the interests of both the individual contracting authorities and the economy as a whole to foster as much competition as possible and to assist SMEs in growing their businesses. Building capacity among SMEs is a good thing to do and this Bill should recognise that. It may occasionally be important to build capacity among larger businesses and my noble friend’s amendment does not preclude this. But large businesses have the kind of resources that make participating in public procurements pretty straightforward. SMEs, not large businesses, should be the focus of policy in this area.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s Amendments 97 and 100 also recognise that getting involved in public sector procurement is hard for SMEs. The complexity of procurement processes makes it quite likely that an SME might not satisfy all the participation criteria and even more likely that they will mess up on an aspect of the procedural requirements. They need to be cut some slack, which is what my noble friend’s amendments would do.
I am, as my noble friend knows, less convinced by her Amendments 290 and 295 because there are some serious issues in Schedules 6 and 7 which rightly debar businesses from public tenders. On the other hand, Schedules 6 and 7 are very heavy-handed and there may well be a case for further discretion to allow some of the matters in those schedules to be disregarded in the case of SMEs.
I now come to Amendment 534 to which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, spoke so eloquently earlier. It is rather different from the other amendments in this group because it requires a report every year. It is relevant to SMEs because the first area of the report is about how procurement rules have impacted the award of contracts to SMEs. I think we are agreed that we want to see awards of contracts to SMEs growing, and that means making it easier to include SMEs in the process and helping them to win.
There have been some changes to the previous EU rules on which this Bill is largely based which could make it easier for SMEs, but I suspect that the overwhelming effect of the procurement rules as we have them in this complex Bill and the secondary legislation that will follow will continue to deter SMEs from participating fully in public procurement. We really ought to be keeping this matter under review. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised the issue of whether the health procurement rules are covered. I drafted the amendment with the intention that it should cover health, but I recognise that this is a very complex area and will need to be teased out later in Committee.
A second area covered by my suggested report is whether there is scope to simplify the rules while remaining consistent with the procurement objectives set out in Clause 11. This will also be relevant to SMEs because I believe the complexity of the public procurement code is a major barrier to entry for small and medium-sized businesses. I am sure that large businesses, large tenderers, are quite comfortable with having barriers to entry for small and medium-sized entities, but government and Parliament should not be comfortable with that, and we should at least be striving for greater simplicity and keeping it under regular review.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness. I support Amendment 38 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and support very strongly the points that she and, more recently, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, have made. They relate to the pressing need to ensure that the burden on small businesses tendering for public contracts is addressed. This issue has arisen under other amendments, and I have no doubt that we need to get this nailed one way or another on Report. It is an important question.
We all draw on our experience. My experience, immediately before coming to the House of Lords after I had left elected politics, was when I chaired the board of Bangor University’s Bangor Business School. It related to the small business sector. These issues arose time after time. Some colleagues may be aware that way back, before entering full-time politics, I was involved in the manufacturing industry. I had two incarnations, the first of which was with large supernational companies, Ford, Mars and Hoover, when I was financial controller. Although those three corporations were not generally involved in public sector contracting, their approach to any question of contractual relationships was highly professional with relevant legal advice in-house and with the resources to buy in specialist advice when needed.
My second incarnation, which I undertook as a serving MP in the 1980s, was to chair a small company from its creation to when, after 11 years, it merged with a larger American-owned company to form a significant new entity employing 200 people at Llanberis in my constituency. We built—the hard way—the acorn from which that grew, raising our own capital locally and starting up by employing just one person full-time, an engineer to build automated diagnostic equipment for the medical sector.
In competing for contracts, we had to beat competitors that were much larger and with far greater resources and in-house expertise. A small company such as ours had a serious uphill struggle to compete on anything like a level playing field. We did so by being fleet of foot, resilient and flexible and by engaging proactively with potential customers. But it is unrealistic to expect SMEs to be in a position to compete on a level playing field with suppliers which have professional resources in depth. The danger is that such SMEs will be scared away from tendering for public sector contracts where the bureaucratic imposition is totally unreasonable for such small-scale operators.
In this context, the amendment is particularly relevant. If our company had not succeeded with the early contracts, we would not have grown to employ some 50 people, as we did at the point when the merger took place. Had we fallen by the wayside in that highly competitive situation, we would not now have the Siemens company that took over our successful company now employing more than 400 people at Llanberis, and with a further expansion a real possibility soon.
I support these amendments because I feel that there needs to be some mechanism written into the Bill to counterbalance the inevitable bureaucratic safety net which public sector bodies build with their procurement procedures. Providing some lower level of bureaucratic imposition on SMEs could make the difference between those companies, on the one hand, being suffocated out of the competitive arena by impositions that they cannot handle and, on the other hand, securing contracts which enable them, in the fullness of time, to grow, given the impact that that might have on our economy.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, many of my amendments and those to which I have added my name relate to the issue of promoting greater access to public procurement for small businesses, but for whatever reason none of them has come up in this group, so I will just make two brief points.
First, I very much support all the amendments in this group. I wonder whether they will successfully address the large-supplier focus of procurement hitherto and whether they will be enough to bring in those much smaller suppliers, many of which could make a real impact on the provision of, for example, personal services at a local level but which are often excluded on the ground of having too small an income or no track record of delivering high-value contracts, even when the contracts that they want to deliver are far lower than that and they have delivered them at that level. So I suppose my question to the Minister is: how will the contracting authorities––local authorities or whatever—be dissuaded from imposing, or persuaded not to impose, thresholds and contract terms that actually deter or prevent some of those smaller enterprises from bidding? We have heard a lot about opening things up to small businesses, but unless you put restraints on the contracting authorities, those opportunities may not work.
Secondly, I very much welcome the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, although it was spoken to first by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. It seems to me that one of the elements that is lacking from the Bill is any indication of how its provisions will be monitored and enforced. How will we know that it is working? I strongly support the review proposed in Amendment 534. Six years seems to be rather a long time to wait, but on the other hand this process will take time to work through.
Beyond that, I hope the Minister says something about how the Government intend to monitor the effect and impact of the Bill, specifically including whether it is actually succeeding in unleashing the energy, dynamism, innovation and entrepreneurship that come from smaller suppliers, and what mechanisms there might be to resolve the issue if it turns out that is not happening. I do not think we can rely on the courts, and certainly these small businesses do not have the will, resources or even time and energy to pursue issues such as this in court. So what mechanisms might the Government be able to use when the system does not seem to be working?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise not solely to demonstrate that there is broad ideological support for small and medium-sized enterprises being given a larger share of the kind of procurement that we are talking about; I do so also because I have attached my name to Amendment 75B in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Hayman.
I am going to attempt not to repeat everything that has been said but I want to pick up something said by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. No one else has drawn attention to the fact that the previous group and this one are related. They have aspects acknowledging that SMEs bring different qualities—particularly quality. The noble Lord suggested that, if we do not put in specific provisions about SMEs, it is inevitable that the big companies will dominate. I say that if we do not put in provisions about social value and quality of services—as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, that is delivered under the Public Services (Social Value) Act—and do not account for those things, it will possibly be even more telling against SMEs than the rules and the points addressed by the amendments.
I am not particularly picking on the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, here as I was going to say this before he spoke, but I have seen from all sides of the Committee a huge focus on productivity improvement and innovation, but we need to be careful about that terminology. Again, this point comes back to the previous group: a lot of what we are talking about here is the provision of care and the caring services, the type of provision that really does not lend itself to the same kind of measurement as how productively you are producing widgets. If a nurse is caring for a dying person, maybe it would be more “productive” if they were caring for two dying people at the same time instead. We really have to ask ourselves about that. I can see some head-shaking happening but a lot of our measures of productivity have been that gross and raw, and have failed to acknowledge issues of quality and service.
We need to acknowledge that there are many elements of our service economy where those measurements would be inappropriate. If you are providing a rape crisis service to people in rape crisis, how do you make that more efficient? What does that actually mean? What does innovation mean in that context? I think we sometimes fall into a narrow, widget-based, economistic way of looking at these issues, and we need to look at them much more broadly.
I am going to finish with something on which I think the noble Baronesses opposite will agree, picking up on the point by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, about 30-day payment terms. Speaking as someone who many years ago used to work for a small independent business that supplied supermarkets on 120 days, which usually meant 150-day payment terms, I think that is crucial. I say to the Minister, if he is responding to this group, that perhaps this is an issue that we could look at in future in the form of a letter. It is crucial for SMEs that it is acknowledged when 30 days or less being part of the procurement process needs to be written into the contract to enable them to bid. That could be an important factor.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating as well as nearly unanimous debate about the importance of small to medium-sized enterprises and the role they can play in innovating, stimulating, changing and helping local economies grow. Part of that will be—I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—through productivity. Productivity and quality in themselves are not too separate things; they can go hand in hand in caring services. I speak as a former health service manager. Productivity is not just about how you apply people; it is how you apply all the resources to get better outcomes for those you serve. Therefore, sometimes there are contradictions and it is hard, but they are not always separate.
I would like to speak to a number of amendments in this suite. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for doing this in a previous life because—I am sure she will understand what I am about to say—every little does help, particularly with small to medium-sized enterprises. A number of the noble Baroness’s amendments are probing for one reason, I think. I am sure that the Minister will come up with specifics in the Bill which will help small to medium-sized enterprises, but I think the general view is that it does not do it. It does not go in depth and give the clarity which I and other noble Lords have said will help to give a level playing field for small to medium-sized enterprises, which is what is required.
In particular, an important amendment spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was on capacity building. In my life of working in local economies, I have seen that the big thing that helps is capacity building for small to medium-sized enterprises. If anything should be on the face of the Bill, capacity building for small to medium-sized enterprises and not-for-profits should be, because they can—with help from the public sector in terms of capacity building—achieve quite a lot.
I have seen that in a number of areas including my own area of Sheffield when I was leader. We had something called “Buy for Sheffield”. It was not an issue of giving special treatment to small to medium-sized enterprises; it actually got ahead and gave a lot of capacity building. Through that capacity building and then through their own innovation, they could go to larger organisations and get part of the supply chain on their own volition rather than what normally happens, which is that the large organisations look for small to medium-sized enterprises down the supply chain because it gets them ticks. It actually meant that innovation came. There is something particularly in Amendment 86.
I am not quite sure why the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, chose £5 million because the average turnover of a small to medium-sized enterprise at present is about £756,000. I think because it is a probing amendment there has to be a cut-off point which says that for companies below a certain turnover there should be a special emphasis within this Bill. I hope that the Minister goes away and reflects on what has been said because it does not seem deep enough, and I am sure we will be coming back to this on Report as an important part of the Bill.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. We have been diametrically opposed on many Bills, but on Amendments 290 and 295 there are elements I would want to see apply to small and medium-sized enterprises. I understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has done that, but there are some really important issues about the probity and capacity of small to medium-sized enterprises as to whether they get the procurement.
Finally, I want to re-emphasise what my noble friend Lady Brinton said. There is a huge contradiction between having a Bill for public procurement and then saying that, by statutory instrument, the Minister can take away that right for the health and social care provision. I was explaining this over dinner on Saturday to a number of friends who were asking me what I was working on in Parliament at the moment. When you explain the Procurement Bill, people glaze over, but when you explain that there is a provision for £70 billion-worth of their taxes to be excluded at the signing of the Minister’s pen, suddenly they become very excited—the glaze stops.
The Minister tried to explain this to my noble friend Lady Brinton; I was more confused after the explanation than before it. She needs to try harder to explain where the contradictions are and how they will be dealt with as a unified Procurement Bill. On the whole, like most noble Lords, I agree with the thrust of these amendments, but Ministers need to go away between now and Report and think carefully. It is clearly not strong enough to give a level playing field to small to medium-sized enterprises.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, this has been another interesting debate, with that clash of views the noble Lord, Lord True, reminded me about over how far the state should interfere with the market. Some think it should interfere more; some think it should interfere less. No doubt, the noble Lord will pursue the Government’s objective of ensuring that we have a social market which operates for the benefit of the many. We look forward to continuing that debate, and I am sure he will respond in due course.
On a serious point, I will start this slightly back to front in terms of the amendments. The really important amendment—apart from my noble friend’s Amendment 75B, which I will speak to in a moment—is Amendment 534, which looks at reviewing the procurement rules to see whether they have made any difference or not. You can argue what those rules should be and how far something should go, and the Government will say, “Of course we will have a review; it is a matter of course. We keep under review all the legislation that is passed and look to see how effective it has been”, but this is really important.
The amendment refers to the awarding of contracts to small and medium-sized businesses. I appreciate that it does not deal with all the various points that have been raised, but the general point of reviewing what takes place and whether what is passed by the Bill has the impact we think it should have—or any impact at all—is an important principle that we should not lose sight of. However, Amendment 534 is much more narrowly drawn than that, and I suggest that six years is too long.
I will try to be reasonably brief in closing the debate, but I thought there were some really interesting suggestions in Amendment 38 from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. They went to the heart of what the Government need to do; there has clearly been a procedural problem, but the Committee is trying to address and support the Government to achieve their own objectives. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, supported the point about 30 days in Clause 63(2). Is it immediate payment or late payment? Is it sufficient? Is it too long or not long enough? It raises the point that there are a whole series of measures about supporting small and medium-sized businesses with public procurement that need to be looked at and addressed. That is one example.
The point that there are thresholds in Schedule 1 and that below-threshold contracts can be reserved for small contracts was really interesting—if I have understood what the noble Baroness said. She raised the possibility of whether there was the opportunity to have a below-threshold business amount. That is quite an interesting concept for the Government to address and look at.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, pointed out, we are trying to look at how we can expand this and ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises—as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, argued—will benefit from the public procurement provisions in the Bill. Everybody wants that, but is it going to happen? Will the measures on public procurement make any difference or not? It is in everybody’s interests that they should.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for a really interesting debate. A lot of what has been said about support for small and medium-sized enterprises, social enterprises and voluntary organisations is something that the Government also support and, through the Bill, have been trying to support even more. After we finish Committee, we need to meet interested noble Lords and talk more about these issues because they are important to the Committee, as I can tell, but also to the Government. I make no promises, but we should be using all the knowledge in the Committee as we discuss it further.
In that context, I will answer a few questions. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that I am sorry if I did not quite get to the interface with the Health and Care Bill. I will try to get a bit further but I am afraid I do not think I can go as far as she wants. All public authorities will be covered by the Procurement Bill in relation to health except those that will come under the regulations made under Clause 108. There should therefore be no gap in procurement regulations between the two. On health issues, regarding entities under health procurement, further work is going on at the moment in both departments, and we will come back to the noble Baroness as things move forward.
I turn to the amendments in this group. I note that other non-government amendments have been tabled, some of which address prompt payment and relate to SMEs but are also about social values, which have been quite a big part of this debate. Those will be covered at a later stage so I will not cover them; my noble friend the Minister will do so, some of them probably in the next group.
Amendment 38 would impact Clause 10, Amendments 97 and 100 would impact Clause 18 and Amendments 290 and 295 would impact Clause 54. Each of these amendments has been proposed by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and I thank her for them. They would enable contracting authorities to exempt businesses, based on their size and turnover, from certain obligations set out in the Bill. Public sector procurers are required to determine the most advantageous offer through fair and open competition, and the Bill sets out that the buyer should contract with the bidder offering the most advantageous tender. We want to focus on getting the best value for the taxpayer by opening competition to all businesses of all sizes.
That is not to say that we are not keen to open public procurement, as I have said, to more SMEs; in fact, quite the opposite. First, we are committed to ensuring that the new procurement regime is simpler, quicker and cheaper for suppliers, which particularly benefits SMEs and social enterprises, ensuring lower barriers for entry to the market. Secondly, bidders will have to submit their core credentials only once to a single platform, making it easier, especially for SMEs, to bid for any public contract. The single transparency platform means that suppliers will be able to seek all opportunities, including a pipeline of future opportunities, in one place.
Thirdly, the Bill will ensure that prompt payment flows down the supply chain, making it more attractive for SMEs to get involved. Fourthly, contracts below the threshold listed in Schedule 1 can be reserved for suppliers based in the UK and/or small suppliers where it is good value for money to do so. Thus, the Bill represents good news for SMEs.
While we share the noble Baroness’s keenness to support SMEs in getting access to public procurements, we cannot do that by simply exempting them from procurement rules altogether, as her amendment to Clause 10 would do.
Amendment 50, also proposed by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, would require the procurement objectives in Clause 11 to make explicit the obligation on contracting authorities to have regard to the importance of keeping the burden on SMEs associated with tendering as low as possible. While we support this goal, there are risks in legislating in such stark terms. Contracting authorities must keep an open and fair playing field for all bidders. While we take steps which facilitate access, in particular for SMEs, it would not be wise to encourage the procurement community to believe that some form of active discrimination in favour of SMEs was appropriate.
That said, we have taken significant actions to level the playing field for SMEs without actively discriminating. Some of these I have mentioned, but I add that we have reformed commercial tools, such as frameworks. This will allow longer-term open frameworks, which will be reopened for new suppliers to join at set points, so SMEs are not locked out, and the new concept of dynamic markets—
Lord Scriven (LD)
Does the Minister accept the feeling around the Committee that, while we accept that things are moving forward, they are not strong enough? On the framework issue, one of the provisions in the Bill is that a fee has to be paid every time is contract is let. That does not help. Once you get into the detail, there are barriers to the progression of SMEs. What we are not asking for is a system which supports only SMEs; we are asking for a more risk-based assessment, based on what the risk is of the procurement amount, to release some of the normal procedures and bureaucracy that is required to give them a view. One of the issues that the Minister can perhaps look at between now and Report is a more risk-based approach to public sector procurement rather than a one-size-fits-all which, on the whole, the Bill still is.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I agree with a lot of that and I think it is something that we will discuss further. I thank the noble Lord for his ideas.
This will allow a longer-term open framework which will be reopened for new suppliers to join at set points, so SMEs are not locked out, and the new concept of dynamic markets which, like the current dynamic purchasing system, will remain always open to new suppliers. All these will provide greater opportunity for SMEs to join and win work.
Amendment 75B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, would insert a clause into the Bill on market stewardship, meaning contracting authorities must consider the impact of procurement on small and medium-sized businesses, social enterprises and voluntary organisations. They would also need to consider how to improve the diversity of their supply chains including, but not limited to, these organisations.
I have previously touched on how the Bill benefits SMEs and would also like to highlight Clauses 32 and 33 to your Lordships, which enable contracting authorities to reserve certain contracts to supported employment providers and public service mutuals. We indeed recognise the importance of diverse supply chains and the benefits to the delivery of public services, and that is why in Clause 63 we require that 30-day payment terms will apply throughout the public sector supply chain, regardless of whether they are written into the contract, ensuring SMEs and other organisations receive prompt payments and the increased liquidity they bring.
Amendment 86, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, would make explicit obligations on contracting authorities to consider small and medium-sized enterprises in preliminary market engagement. Contracting authorities are able, under the new legislation, to design their preliminary market engagement in a way which gives consideration to SMEs, but too many obligations on contracting authorities will discourage them conducting this engagement. I therefore suggest this amendment is not needed.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s Amendment 534 proposes a new clause that seeks to make legislation obliging a Minister of the Crown to carry out regular reviews to consider the Act’s performance in relation to the award of contracts to SMEs. I draw to noble Lords’ attention that the Government do capture SME spend data for those SMEs contracting either directly or in government supply chains.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking everyone in this Room for taking part and for the widespread support for my amendment and for doing something in the Bill for small business.
I was sorry to get such a disappointing reply from the Minister. She repeated the positives that I had already identified and given the Government due credit for, but she did not offer a lot else. She said all bidders must be treated in the same way; I think that is at the heart of the problem. We have to find some way to help SMEs. The Minister mentioned the billions going to SMEs, but that is compared to the £300 billion opportunity. There is a huge opportunity to grow the SME and social enterprise sector in the procurement area and to do it in a way that represents value for money—I am coming from that angle as well.
I also thank my noble friend Lady Noakes, who made a very strong case for a regular, five-yearly review of procurement to be written into the Bill. I remember that we did this in the intellectual property area and it has worked well. She rightly fears that SMEs will be discouraged by the new laws and SIs—there are so many SIs coming through—and that that might heighten the barriers to entry that deter small business from bidding. This was reinforced very strongly by the noble Lords, Lord Wigley, Lord Aberdare and Lord Coaker. The killer line from my noble friend Lady Noakes—I am going to embarrass her—was like something from Oscar Wilde: “SMEs find engaging with public procurement daunting.” It is wonderfully understated, but it summarises the issue beautifully.
My noble friend also persuasively presented the capacity building amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and attracted support for that from across the Committee, both in relation to SMEs and social enterprise. I strongly agree that capacity building is the way to improve productivity in the economy, so it would be great if we could encourage it in some way or another.
We also heard about social value from the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Bennett. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, reminded us that care is covered by this Bill, but I do not agree that you cannot have improved productivity in care. I have noticed how, as in Bupa homes, the distribution of medicines to old people is much improved as a result of private sector innovation in trying to make sure that they are not taking the wrong pills and that the nurses are giving them the right ones. There have been other improvements in the care area, with wheelchairs and so on, as well as the use of internet-enabled things, which can be really helpful. It was great that the noble Baroness reminded us of care even though, as usual, we come at this from slightly different angles. As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, productivity and quality actually go hand in hand with good procurement in care.
It is clear that we need to do more for SMEs and social enterprise, and—not or—we need to put a review clause into the Bill or be assured that there will be a review of it, given its novelty. I very much appreciate the offer of a meeting with those of us who are interested in moving this forward with the Government during the Recess, before we come back to look at this gargantuan Bill again, presumably in October. With the leave of the Committee, I would like to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“Procurement requirements
In carrying out a procurement, a contracting authority must have regard to—(a) the target to reduce the net UK carbon account;(b) the ethical and human rights record of the supplier;(c) the need to maintain data security within the digital platform; and(d) the necessity for transparency and openness.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment specifies a number of overarching requirements that a contracting authority must have regard to when carrying out a procurement.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, all the amendments in this group—which, the Minister will note, come from all the various groups and tendencies in the Lords, including the Conservatives—are concerned to spell out in the Bill in rather more detail the social and economic objectives that public procurement should promote. My name is on Amendments 45 and 59, but there is language in other amendments that I support and which I hope the Minister will accept. The concepts of “public benefit” and “social value” are broad and non-specific. We are asking for rather more spelling out of the kinds of benefit and value that are intended, in order to guide contractors and suppliers as well as Ministers and officials.
All of us on the Committee are conscious of the significant impact that the principles of public procurement can have on the broader UK economy and society. I am struck by the degree of consensus in the Committee around a number of issues. If I may say so, I have never before been so painfully aware of how much I am agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and perhaps I shall ask to sign one of her amendments on Report. That shows a sense of what we are trying to do constructively with the Bill, and let us hope that we continue. I hope the Minister is indeed in a receptive and co-operative mood and will be willing to consult members of this Committee before Report and to return with agreed language that responds to these concerns.
I appreciate that there are some on the hard right of the Conservative Party who do not believe in moving towards net zero or in the concept of social value. Conservative Ministers and Liberal Democrat Ministers co-operated in producing the social value Act of 2012, which remains in force and is highly relevant to the Bill. With respect, there are a minority within the Minister’s own party and a smaller minority within the wider public who resist this. The Minister himself is a self-declared one-nation Tory committed to conserving the nation’s shared values and long-term interests, so let us put some of these shared principles and objectives in the Bill.
Amendment 45 would insert the target of reducing the UK’s net carbon amount. The Minister will note the modesty of that objective since it does not even mention net zero, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, will probably disapprove of my modesty. The ethical and human rights record of suppliers is a live public issue across the parties that will not go away, as the Minister must be aware.
Amendment 59 spells out what is a definition of public benefit that, again, I hope the Minister will agree with and shares. Will he now accept that such a definition ought to be in the Bill?
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 47A in my name and Amendment 52. Basically, we believe that Clause 11 should include specific references to maximising social value as something that a contracting authority must have regard to in line with the social value Act and the national procurement policy strategy. The question to which I would appreciate an answer from the Minister is: why is that not included? In my previous contribution, I went through all the different policy streams—including levelling up—that lead us to the conclusion that social value and support for social enterprises and social businesses are a good, and they are good in procurement. It is therefore a mystery why this has been left out of the Bill. I hope the Minister will agree with that and, if not, explain to me why it is not the case. I hope he will support these amendments and add them in. They are modest amendments, really.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have Amendment 48, but I very much endorse my noble friend Lady Thornton’s remarks on this subject. In the group before last, it was interesting to hear the Minister talk about what I thought was a hierarchy in terms of the balance to be drawn in making judgments about procurement. He put value for money at the highest level. My major problem with that is that my experience in the public sector, mainly in the health service but in other worlds too, is that that is translated into the lowest price.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
No, the noble Lord, Lord True, was interpreting what my noble friend said.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I could get into trouble quoting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, to himself on constitutional issues in the Schools Bill, but surely I can quote the noble Lord, Lord True, to himself. He interpreted my noble friend’s words of wisdom as a dangerous attempt by my party—the Labour Party—to constrain individual private companies that sought to provide public services to conform to the will of whatever its wishes in power might be. If only.
I think my noble friend was really saying—no doubt he will come back if he thinks I have got it wrong—that this Bill presents us with a unique opportunity to influence a huge public spend in the direction of policies that we wish to see implemented. In today’s environment, climate change and sustainability are essential. One way or another, this Bill will leave this House with some form of words on that in it, and I doubt very much whether the Government will be able to take them out, bearing in mind that this is a Lords starter.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 49 and 58 in this group referring to Clause 11 on procurement objectives. I am very grateful for the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Verma, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Parminter, on these amendments.
We have just had a very interesting debate about the need to support small and medium-sized businesses as a more explicit goal within the Bill. I am here on this group of amendments to make the case for more explicit support for future generations. We have a climate crisis on our hands. We are potentially facing temperatures of 43 degrees this weekend. This is not a pleasant situation to be in; it is going to cause people to die. This is not something we should turn away from, and we must future-proof every single piece of legislation that passes through the House during our watch. This Bill offers an opportunity for us to do just that. The Government have not introduced anything in the Bill that goes beyond guidance other than simply the words “public benefit”. This needs to be given much more clarity, and my amendments seek to do that.
It was stated at Second Reading, and I apologise for being unable to attend it, that we need to improve the existing drafting. Therefore, I am looking forward to hearing from the Minister and, I hope, to meeting the Minister as I have to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. It feels that there is a huge amount of cross-party support for being clearer in this Bill about our intentions and that somehow or other we need to see something more explicit in the Bill, so a meeting on this topic would be most welcome.
Amendment 49 seeks to add more specific targets and a list of matters that the contracting authority must have to regard to including the importance of contributing to targets on our carbon budgets, the natural environment, air quality and other matters. I do not think anybody here is wedded to precise wording, and a number of noble Lords have come forward with different wordings in this group. Obviously, this is not an amendment I would seek to make final, but there must be a form of wording we could all agree on.
We have talked at length about the opportunity the £300 billion per year spent on government procurement offers in terms of driving forward the agenda we wish to see and increasing Britain’s productivity, innovation and the diversity of the companies able to engage in the transition we need to see. Business as usual is no longer tenable. We need to drive change, and we know that procurement is a hugely important lever for doing that.
I asked some questions about precisely how much procurement is responsible for driving global carbon emissions, but I am told that that information cannot be given, so we have no way of knowing how well aligned government policy is to the achievement of these broader goal, which is regrettable. We want to see more clarity in the Bill so that we can, over time, know whether procurement is delivering on these multiple goals.
I am sure there will be responses from the Minister that call into question the sense of these amendments and suggest that somehow it would distort the hierarchy. I reassure the Minister that that is not what we are seeking to do. We are not trying to tie the hands but are simply trying to provide the clarity and direction for such an important lever. I am sure we will be told that the next clause on the national procurement policy statement should be relied upon to deliver this clarity. Yet—and we will debate this—there is not a requirement on the Government to produce a statement; it is simply a “may”. Also, there is no fixed timetable I can see about when that will be produced so, really, we have nothing. There are no reassurances at all that this very poorly defined concept of public benefit will be given more flesh and more detail.
There is a precedent for putting something in the Bill. I highlight Section 9 of the Health and Care Act 2022, on which this amendment is modelled, which amended the National Health Service Act 2006 to give similar duties to the NHS to have regard to climate change including in relation to procurement, so it is not incoherent or without precedent to put this in the Bill. It would be more consistent to have it in legislation. If we do not do it, people will say that it was done in the NHS Act and ask why it was not done in the broader framework Bill that came subsequently. There is well-established similar terminology in the Financial Services Act 2001 and the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022, so we must be consistent about the future-proofing of Bills to ensure that we are sending the right signals and bringing about this transition.
I hope I have explained why I think this approach should be taken. I highlight that public benefit being undefined is a problem, which brings me to Amendment 58. Of course it is legitimate for a Government not to seek to define every word in legislation, and some legislation can be unambiguously understood when the words have the ordinary meaning that you would find in a dictionary. The trouble with not defining a term that needs to be understood by all and for that meaning to be as consistently understood as it can be is that it will introduce a level of subjectivity and a lack of clarity. In a search through existing legislation, I have found no use or definition of public benefit, except in relation to charities law, but that cannot easily be read across into procurement decisions. Amendment 58 seeks to remedy that and to define it more clearly. It would include local priority outcomes as well as national ones.
I am sure the Minister will say that the understanding of public benefit will evolve over time and therefore a degree of a flexibility is required, but that is why we have selected only the issues which are enduring and which will be playing out of the long term. We have chosen three national and local priorities. Of course, that does not limit other priorities, but these will be enduring outcomes that will be with us for the long haul and will not change. The need to address the issues that we have highlighted here will get only greater. I think this amendment should be supported; I am not particularly wedded to this way of doing it, but there needs to be something in the Bill to provide the clarity that enables us to future-proof it. We need to take the current crisis and the responsibility we carry for future generations seriously in all legislation we consider, and I therefore look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, this group includes my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendment 53. Like some of the other amendments in this group, it is defines “public benefit” in Clause 11, which the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, has just covered in her speech. My noble friend Lord Lansley regards it as important that there is a definition in the Bill. Public benefit is a very elastic term, which is good in some ways because it allows us to future-proof the use of the language for changes in circumstances, but there should be more guidance in the Bill on the kinds of things that are intended to be encompassed by it.
Clause 11 should be the guiding star for procurement professionals and we owe it to them to make it as clear as possible what is expected from them in applying Clause 11 in their work. I think most people would understand that public benefit includes economic and environment benefits and social value, which is included in my noble friend’s definition, but my noble friend is concerned that innovation and levelling up, which he also includes in his definition, should be mentioned explicitly. They are important topics and central to government policy, and they might not be obvious to procurement officials as coming within the term public benefit. Omitting them from the Bill raises questions about how important the Government think they are. The Minister may well say it will all turn up in the national procurement policy statement, but that is not the same thing. If something is important, it can easily bear repetition.
Other amendments in this group—Amendments 58, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, has spoken, and 59—also seek to define public benefit. They reference innovation but both contain rather long lists. One problem with rather long lists is that they tend to raise questions about what is not included in them, which is why drafting a long list is often a dangerous approach to trying to explain what something means in statute.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to the two amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, which she so ably introduced. I am also speaking to Amendment 59A by my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, who, because of the scheduling announced today, cannot be here.
I support all the amendments in this group, which takes us on to the issue of whether the Bill should bring forward public benefit. If we are to be put into camps then I am certainly in the camp that wants public procurement to be developing social values. Clearly the Minister will argue with us on that, but what I do not think he can argue with is that on some of the issues that we have been talking about in relation to public benefit—I cite specifically net zero and biodiversity loss, which the amendments refer to—are not just issues of social value; they are the Government’s stated objectives. They have legislative targets to meet for both net zero and biodiversity. So the Minister can argue with us if he does not want to use public procurement to deliver social value, which I firmly believe it should, but he cannot argue with the fact that, if his Government have targets, they need to deliver, and they should use every means at their disposal to do so.
I shall give an example of why I say that. The Environment and Climate Change Committee has been holding evidence sessions over the last three months on mobilising behaviour change. We have received evidence from academics, companies, schoolchildren and indeed everyone about how to change behaviour. The Climate Change Committee has said that about 60% of his Government’s targets are going to need people to change their behaviour. We have learned that you can make people change by giving them a bit more money through fiscal incentives or disincentives, and you can change regulations so that companies can or cannot produce certain products, but a critical factor is that we are social animals that want to see what the social norms are. We do not just live our lives in our own little house; we live our lives in schools and hospitals, and if we see menus in those places that may not reflect net-zero values, or we go into council buildings and see that they are not dealing with energy efficiency, that encourages us to think: “Why should I bother changing my lifestyle?”
Unless the Government use every opportunity at their disposal, one of which is procurement, they are not going to meet their own targets. So I argue that even if the Minister differs—as I think he would—from those of us who believe that procurement should deliver social values, it is still the case that the Government cannot meet their own targets unless they use the Bill to maximum effect, and that means putting in it the commitments referred to in this group of amendments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, said, no one is precious about the wording; it is about the intent.
I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, who had to leave early, to express her support for these amendments and to remind the Minister that he mentioned that there would be an opportunity for discussions with colleagues on these matters before Report.
As I said, I will introduce on his behalf—although nowhere near as ably as he would—my noble friend Lord Purvis’s probing amendment to pick up the issue of the use of Fairtrade products in procurement contracts. Here, to be fair, there has been progress in recent years: many central government departments use Fairtrade products, we see many local authorities using Fairtrade products, especially in catering, and indeed even here on the parliamentary estate we use Fairtrade products. So I am not saying there has not been progress in the absence of Bills such as this, but there is much more that can be done. My noble friend’s probing amendment aims to highlight the importance of fair trade in this arena and make sure that the Bill does all that it can to further that important agenda.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise in a very pleasing position for a Green: in a group of amendments addressing climate, biodiversity, social justice and indeed fair trade, to say that almost everything has been said, just not by me.
I am acutely aware of the hour so I am going to be very brief; I seek to add only a couple of points. Amendment 49 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, has full cross-party support; I would have attached my name to it had there been space. It is clearly a crucial amendment.
We have to contrast this Bill with the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill, which I was recently in, half of which is entirely directed at something that is missing in this Bill. I was thinking of the tireless work of the other noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, the one who is not in the Room today, who has worked so hard. I can go back to my first ever time in Committee in this Room almost three years ago now, when we were fighting to get a climate provision into the Pensions Bill. We thought, “One day we’ll get to the stage where we won’t have to fight to get these into every Bill when they should clearly be there.” Sadly, it is clear that, despite the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill, we are not there yet.
The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, about the most recent report from the Climate Change Committee were hugely powerful. We have targets but not policies. How are we going to get those policies unless we have them written explicitly into Bills such as this? I commend the noble Lord’s Amendment 48, which I would have signed had I not missed it, which contains important wording about “cultural well-being”, something that is far too often missed out. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, made a point about culture in the broadest sense. We need to give people a rich life, one that may have less physical stuff in it but is of far better quality. The cultural point really starts to address that, as well as addressing public health and consumption issues.
I am aware of the time so I am going to be really restrained, and I hope I get some brownie points for that. I shall sit down.
Procurement Bill [HL]
Wednesday 13th July 2022
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-IV Fourth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (11 Jul 2022)
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I will just wind up the debate we had on Monday. In this group, I have Amendment 52, which is about adding the improvement of
“economic, social and environmental well-being”
to the procurement objectives. I also put my name to a similar amendment, Amendment 48 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I completely support everything that he said in his introduction; it covered what I would have said in support of my amendment, so there is no point in going over all that again. In fact, we discussed a number of amendments in this group that looked at the economic, social, environmental and cultural benefit and value of the Bill and considered what we mean by “public benefit”. It was a useful debate to explore those potential objectives and what the definition of “public benefit” is. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response to those discussions.
I also supported the amendments laid by my noble friend Lady Thornton, Amendments 47A and 52A. As my noble friend said, we believe that maximising social value is something that contracting authorities should have regard to. This is in line with the social value Act and the national procurement policy strategy, so this should all be put in line together. We also know that the Government are committed to expanding the use of social value within procurement to maximise these areas. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who is not in her place today—
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Oh, the noble Baroness is there; I was looking for her in the place in which she sat on Monday. She moved, just to confuse me. This is the trouble with picking things up later.
The noble Baroness rightly said that meeting net zero is a government-stated objective and we believe, as she does, that this should also be an objective within the Procurement Bill. It could make a genuine difference, should that be something that needs to be taken account of. We also support those noble Lords who said in the debate that this helps to meet the levelling-up agenda as well as achieving net zero.
We know that social value is included in the NPPS—the national procurement policy statement—so I ask the Minister: if it is in the policy statement, why is it not referenced in the Bill? It concerns me that the policy statement can be changed at any point, so not having it in the Bill and just having it in the statement means that it is not absolutely embedded within the legislation. I will briefly mention that, between 2012 and 2020, there was no statutory guidance on social value. This inhibits its development, so we need to ensure that this does not happen in future.
I express strong support for Amendments 49 and 58 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, which are about climate and environmental matters and the importance of having these based within the Bill. She also said that “public benefit” needs further clarity, so I must ask again: does “public benefit” include environmental outcomes? It would be helpful to have further information on this. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, spoke importantly about the fact that using procurement in this way is an opportunity to drive behaviour change, because we are not going to achieve the Government’s net-zero objectives without behaviour change.
Amendment 45 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, specifies a number of overarching requirements that a contracting authority must take due regard of when carrying out procurement. We support the main points that he made—particularly, as well as the carbon account, the ethical and human rights record of the supplier, as he said. I know that we will talk about this in a later debate, but that is important.
Amendment 53 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, introduced, again talked about defining “public benefit”. I think that the Minister can see that this is not party political: right across the Committee there is concern about what “public benefit” means and what it is going to deliver as part of the Procurement Bill. The noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Purvis, also tabled amendments on this issue.
I finish by briefly mentioning an interesting briefing that I had from UKCloud. I do not know if other noble Lords have received it, but it is about the importance of maximising social value through procurement in the world that UKCloud works in—the cloud providers—and how doing so would be consistent with wider net-zero policy aspirations. UKCloud feels that it is important to support businesses in this country that are providing those kinds of platforms and support and that the sector can lead in the provision of clean, green technologies, which can help to digitise and decarbonise users of its services. It also believes that, if the sector got that kind of support from government, UK businesses would have the opportunity to really innovate and become leaders in this field. I found that an interesting briefing. If the Minister has not seen it, I would be happy to share it with him, because it had some interesting thoughts in it. The briefing also said that UKCloud feels that weighting should be given to make sure that cloud providers for the UK Government are paying their taxes in full on all earned income in the UK—that is an important point—and that they should have a clear and measurable track record of investing in local jobs and skills. The briefing has some interesting points about how procurement could help its particular type of business. I finish there and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness and all those who spoke on this group on our previous day in Committee. It was obviously unfortunate that we could not finish this group then, but I am grateful to all noble Lords, including those who were here on Monday who are not able to be here today. It has been an interesting debate and I think that we will wrestle with the philosophy of this as we go forward. I have been interested in the contributions made.
I am constantly asked to define “public benefit”. One of the reasons why we have different political parties in this country and why politics has evolved is that, at different times, different people define it in different ways. The search for a total, accurate, 100% agreed definition that covers every possible eventuality may be an illusion. However, I understand that noble Lords are saying that they feel that there needs to be more clarity. No doubt we will continue this conversation on other amendments to come.
I was interested in this debate. As he knows, I have very considerable affection and enormous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath—it is very easy to say in this House that you have very considerable affection for somebody, because we are such a nice lot; I think generally we do mean it—and his experience. He said something very interesting. Having argued for his amendment, he said that this Bill would finish with something akin to what he wanted in it and that it would do that because it was a Lords starter.
The only way to interpret that is that the noble Lord would advocate using the power of the House of Lords to force the elected Government to include something in a Bill that they did not wish to include, in their judgment and in the judgment of the House of Commons. That is a perfectly legitimate point of view, but I was interested to see that the noble Baroness from the Labour Front Bench had signed that, as she just reminded us, and expressed her support for what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, had said. Perhaps I should take this away and tell my friends that if ever there is a Labour Government, it would be reasonable for the unelected House to hold up Labour legislation indefinitely on a Lords starter in order to force change.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, he really cannot get away with that. There are huge numbers of different amendments, which all have the same intention of trying to implement the Government’s policies on climate change and sustainability, which, as the Committee on Climate Change has said, are absolutely fine. The Government’s problem is that they do not have the policies to implement their own strategy. All I am trying to do is to help them implement their strategy. I do not think that that is a great constitutional abrogation by your Lordships’ House. This is a Lords starter, the Government chose to bring it to the House of Lords, the Parliament Act does not apply and it is quite reasonable for this Committee—of course, I cannot speak for my Front Bench; I am speaking entirely as a lowly Back-Bencher—who is seeking to encourage the Government to recognise that they will lose this in this Committee and that the leverage they have to respond is less than it might be.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I think that was the noble Lord trying to wriggle off the hook but impaling himself back on it at the end of his remarks. We have to make this House work via the usual channels, and it is reasonable for an elected Government in another place to listen respectfully to the other House, which it should—it is our duty to ask the other House to think again on certain things—but there is a point where we do not say that it should be taken to the wire. However, if I am ever a Back-Bencher and there is something from a Labour Government that I do not like, perhaps I will take away the Hunt dictum—one of the advantages of continuing on Wednesday what you did on Monday is that you can read Hansard, and I read carefully what the noble Lord said—and practise what he preaches. Anyway, let us get on with the business at hand. It is an important issue on which the Front Bench opposite might wish to reflect.
Amendment 45, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seeks to ensure that contracting authorities consider a number of additional requirements when carrying out procurements, including reducing net carbon budgets, supplier human rights records, data security in the platform, and transparency. In our view, as I have argued before in Committee, contracting authorities are able to deal with these matters as things stand, and in a way that is more targeted and effective than through inclusion in a broad obligation to “have regard”. In a sense, that is the difference between us. Although the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said that his were modest demands, and deliberately did not include net zero, for example, that is brought in by the analogous amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington.
Contracting authorities will be able to take account of suppliers’ carbon-reduction plans and other environmental objectives where they are relevant to the subject matter of the contract. It is unnecessary and potentially unhelpful to contracting authorities to attempt to impose on them all an obligation to have regard to a range of other factors, including net zero—as mentioned in the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington—in and throughout all of their procurement activities.
In particular, it places unnecessary burdens on them in relation to areas where this is of limited relevance and would open up smaller contractors unnecessarily to the risk of legal challenge. After all, these matters are also covered in another legislation. Contracting authorities will need—this is in the Bill—to consider the ethical and human rights record of the supplier, in some respects, when considering whether a supplier is eligible to participate in the procurement. We will discuss this issue later. The Bill contains effective provision on the exclusion and debarment of those who do not.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Can the Minister please explain why the term social value is not in the Bill?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as I have just said, we believe that the additional objective of maximising social value would be a duplicate, as it is embraced in “public benefit”.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I am sorry, but the Minister has said that there is no definition of public benefit, and that is quite right. However, there is a legal definition of social value. It exists and is on the statute book, so why are the Government not using “social value” in the Bill?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, again, I have set out the argument. The noble Baroness disagrees but I am not going to repeat a third time the reason why we think maximising social value is unnecessary and would be a duplicative addition. Each procurement is different and what is appropriate, for example, for a large-scale infrastructure project is not for smaller transactional procurements.
Furthermore, procurement policy should be aligned with wider government policy and, as such, the publication of a national procurement policy statement is based on the strategic policy priorities relevant at the time. It would not be appropriate, in our submission, to include in the Bill priorities which can and probably will change —we have heard that they will—based on an Administration’s objectives. It is always important that policy priorities are included in individual procurements only where they are relevant to the subject of the contract.
On Monday, for example, noble Lords on all sides gave those of us on the Front Bench, I freely confess, a hard time in discussing the importance of minimising bureaucracy to facilitate SME participation in procurement. I took that away as a powerful call, which I have said we will discuss. As I think I have already indicated outside the Chamber, the Government are keen to meet and consider these points.
The paradox is that seeking to include extraneous requirements, which this and other amendments in the group risk, could make it harder for small businesses to bid for public contracts. One cannot talk the small business game, which noble Lords did strongly and fairly, while adding compliance requirements that make things harder for small businesses and help larger organisations to corner the market.
We think that Amendments 48 and 52 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, are unnecessary and potentially unhelpful to contracting authorities in attempting to impose on them an obligation to have regard to improving the economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being of the relevant area in and throughout all their procurement activities. In particular, they would place unnecessary burdens on them in relation to areas where this is of limited relevance and, again, open them up unnecessarily to the risk of legal challenge.
I wonder whether we would all agree—in fact, I do not have to wonder; I know that we would not all agree—on what carrying out procurement in a “socially responsible way” means. In a sense, that is implicit in the challenge from the noble Baroness opposite. We all might have rather different understandings of what that requires. Imposing a legal obligation of such potential breadth on contracting authorities is, we submit, exposing contracting authorities to unnecessary risk and complexity. Contracting authorities will be able to take account of measures that improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of the relevant area—this may differ from local authority to local authority, for example—where it is relevant to the subject matter of the contract. The Bill already allows this, which is absolutely in line with the Government’s levelling-up agenda.
On Amendments 53 and 58 in the names of my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, as I said in our debate on an earlier group, the term “public benefit” is deliberately undefined; consequently, it is intended to be a flexible concept that gives contracting authorities a degree of discretion. Again, local authorities may have different views from place to place on what the most urgent benefit in their area is. Although all the proposed economic, environmental and social additions, including creating new businesses, jobs and skills, and reducing geographic disparities in the United Kingdom, might be facets of public benefit in different circumstances—I do not challenge that—we do not believe that it would be helpful to elaborate them in the Bill.
It might also be unfair to small contracting authorities to impose an obligation to consider the reduction of geographic disparities in the United Kingdom; they might be more concerned about disparities up the road. Doing so risks excluding other matters that might be more valid in specific circumstances. The Government consider that contracting authorities are better placed to make that decision in the individual circumstances at hand. We want contracting authorities to think about the extent to which public money spent on their specific contracts can deliver greater benefit than it otherwise would. I think that there is agreement in the Committee on that point. As I have said, each procurement is different; for example, what is appropriate in delivering a giant infrastructure project is not appropriate for smaller procurements.
I turn to Amendments 59 and 59A from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the Minister said but I am still puzzled. We are trying to craft a Bill that will have quite a long shelf life over a period when we may have a change of Government or some change in government. The Minister is saying that the catch-all public benefit is the only thing that we should have in the Bill in terms of principles and objectives. I would have thought that the consensus across all our democratic parties on public benefit and social value is a little wider than that and that it would help to provide guidance if that were spelled out rather more in the Bill. Otherwise, the principles and objectives will simply swing from one side to the other when different Governments come.
Everything cannot be left to each changing Minister to define. Surely the concept of public benefit is one that we share, as is the concept of social value. We also share the view that £300 billion-worth of public procurement sets a culture, the core of which I hope that all Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats and Greens share, because that is what we are attempting to get. The Minister is saying that we cannot agree on that. I am aware of some people—the Chicago school of economists and those who follow them—who deny the concept of public benefit altogether and believe that private benefit is the only thing that drives the economy, prosperity and society. I hope that we are not there and are not starting from there.
Lord True (Con)
The noble Lord always slightly loses me when he rides off in his speeches. I have a vision of him lying awake, trying to get to sleep, thinking of these terrible right-wing Conservatives whom he always cites and seeing the worst in everything. I thought that the great tradition of the Liberal party and liberal values, which I was brought up with and adhere to, is to give space to variety and not uniformity; there should be flexibility, with opportunities for local judgments and for contracting authorities to make them. The concept of public benefit is wide and flexible and should be so to give contracting authorities a degree of discretion to consider whether their specific contracts can deliver greater benefits than they otherwise would.
For example, contracting authorities are already able to make it clear in their technical specifications that fair trade options can be included in the products provided to meet the requirements of the contracts, provided that they do not discriminate against other products of other suppliers. The noble Lord objected to the mention of the terrible word “money”, but public procurement needs to have a focus on achieving value for money. The two things are not contradistinctions.
While I would expect contracting authorities to consider these matters where appropriate, it would not be helpful to elaborate them in the Bill, for the reasons that the Government have submitted, as they would not apply to all contracts. The course that the other side is proposing will lead to a uniformity imposed on a diversity, which is the antithesis of local values. I respectfully request that these amendments be withdrawn.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Just before the Minister sits down, I really do not think that that is what we are trying to achieve. It is just to try to bring in a definition of something. If you have an objective laid out, without proper understanding of what the phrase is trying to achieve or what it means, it could be quite confusing. All we are trying to get is some clarity on what is meant by “public benefit” and what the Government are trying to achieve by having it as an objective. I have no problem with there being flexibility around this—that is important in procurement—but, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, we need some sort of guidance. If the Government do not want to put a definition in the Bill, some guidance underpinning it, on what this is looking at and what the Government are trying to achieve, would be extremely helpful.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, in a sense, it depends where the straitjacket applies and where flexibility is enabled. We will come on shortly to debate the national procurement policy strategy and I gleefully anticipate that that will be another zone of contention in our Committee, to which many of your Lordships will want to add more and more things. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was enthusiastic about the national procurement strategy at the opening of our proceedings and it is something that an incoming Government would be able to change and mould. Maximising public benefit is an important objective of the Bill.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I have listened very carefully and have just reread every amendment in this group. Can the Minister point to one amendment that prescribes how the principles in each amendment have to be enacted by each local authority or each purchasing authority? They are broad principles which allow the flexibility that the Minister has just described or relate to issues such as social value, which is already in Clause 11. The amendments are exactly the same regarding social value, the environment and social aspects. Where does the Bill say what that means and where does it not allow discretion?
Lord True (Con)
A considerable number of amendments mandate that contracting authorities must have regard to certain items. Others add to the objectives in Clause 11. It is a difference of interpretation. The Government are in one place. On reflection, I think that perhaps people outside government circles will think that that is not as unwise as it now seems. I again respectfully suggest that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
“(1A) In carrying out a procurement, a contracting authority must take into account the impacts or potential impacts on local good work as a consequence of awarding the procurement contract with particular regard to the evaluation of—(a) the gains or loss of employment in the contracting authority,(b) the terms and conditions of work available, and(c) the quality of work available.”
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I should start by apologising for not being able to be present for Second Reading, but I hope that we can have an interesting niche debate about the importance of good work and good work in respect of government procurement. There are five amendments in my name in this group, and I am delighted that I was joined by my noble friends Lord Hendy and Lady Hayman and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I am grateful to them for their support. Also in this group are some important amendments from my noble friend Lord Hendy.
There are two aspects of regulation as I see it. One is about putting some minimum standards in place, which is what my noble friend’s important amendments are about, and the other is about commissioning better practice and better performance, and that is where my amendments sit.
I should also remind your Lordships that I am the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Future of Work, along with David Davis in the other place. We have been working with the Institute for the Future of Work on this good work agenda and have found from the evidence around good work that the more you can increase the quantity of good work in the economy and society, the better the prospects are for people and the communities in which they live. We therefore remind the Minister and the Committee of the importance of this agenda in terms of levelling up, in particular, but also building security, prosperity and self-respect—there is a virtuous circle in play.
We are also trying to tackle particular problems that the Institute for the Future of Work, for example, uncovered in its report The Amazonian Era. It looks at the supply chain in the logistics sector that starts with the Amazon warehouses and the problems of algorithmic management where people are being managed by machines and are suffering in terms of their mental health, self-respect, security and prosperity as a result. The Committee may be interested to know that President Biden in the United States is currently instigating a whole swathe of work around supply chains for procurement in order to look at this very topic.
In one of the amendments, we define what good work is, but it is important to remember how good work aligns social, economic and health interests. Taking health, for example, the institute’s good work monitor shows a really strong correlation between health outcomes and higher-quality work, especially regarding chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, some cancers, liver disease, drug use and self-harm. All those can be improved by people being able to work in a better environment. This was underscored by the Deaton review for the Institute for Fiscal Studies in May 2019.
There is also a correlation between the pay and benefits that workers receive and the productivity they then generate—hence this is also good for employers. The Resolution Foundation today has published a report showing that UK households are, on average, £8,800 worse off than their equivalents in France and Germany, in large part because of low productivity. This is a British disease that we need to tackle. I suggest that tackling, and incentivising through procurement, a better quality of work is at the heart of what we might want to do. I can also tell the Committee that this is not at the expense of unemployment. There is a very useful correlation showing that good work creates good and higher levels of employment.
I will not run through the principles of good work, as they are set out in one of my amendments. However, in terms of the requirement that we want to put on those entering the process to secure government procurement, there are plenty of indicators to help them demonstrate the quality of the work that they are offering and engaged in. The amendments would essentially ensure that the impacts on access to work and the conditions and quality of work are evaluated at a prequalification stage in procurement. They would thereby deliver strong public benefits. I listened carefully to what the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord True, said in response to the last group of amendments around public benefit. The essential argument was, I think, that it applies differently to different projects, and he therefore wants to keep it loose and flexible.
I say to him that I worry, first, about the possibility of companies that are successful in procurement off-setting one social or public benefit against another. I really do not want to see anyone off-setting the quality of the work against some other social good or public benefit. Secondly, my understanding of how good, successful capitalism works is that business and employers demonstrate four types of value: value to the shareholder; value to the customer, in this case the public purse; value to society, namely public benefit; and employee benefit and value. That is the value mix we are looking to incentivise and get right. In this context and this group of amendments, we are arguing—there is really good evidence to support this—that you can deliver really strong employee benefit and in doing so deliver extremely successful social and public benefit along the way. I seek to get this written into the Bill through these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 186, 292, 297, 315, 319 and 519. I express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and my noble friends Lord Hain and Lord Monks for adding their names. Of course, I support the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Knight, for the reasons he advanced.
All the amendments in this group are designed to utilise the tremendous power of public procurement to improve the lot of Britain’s 32 million-strong workforce. As the Minister reminded us at Second Reading, £300 billion of public contracts is involved, some 13% of GDP. Public contracts involve tens of thousands of employers and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of workers in their execution.
At Second Reading, I tried to make the case for the Bill to restore the fair wages resolution of the House of Commons, which subsisted to protect terms and conditions from 1891 through to 1983. The response of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord True, was:
“To impose your political objectives on a nation, you have to win an election and form a Government.”—[Official Report, 25/5/22; col. 925.]
He made that point earlier this afternoon in different words. It was a powerful point, but we do not think it is sufficiently powerful to answer the amendments proposed.
There are two reasons for this, one ethical and the other legal. I will deal with the ethical issue first. As we know, Clause 11(1) of the Bill includes “maximising public benefit” as one of four objectives to which the contracting bodies must have regard in letting public contracts. Clearly, one way of maximising benefit is to improve or maintain the condition of the working lives of both the workers engaged on public contracts and the many more millions whose employers will be influenced by the terms and conditions set on public contracts.
The other side of that coin is the public benefit in preventing bad employers undercutting good ones in the obtaining of public contracts. Bad employers such as P&O Ferries, which deployed employment practices which the Prime Minister and other Ministers condemned as abominable, should not on any basis be the beneficiaries of public contracts, as I am sure the Minister will agree. Schedules 6 and 7 of the Bill already specify various mandatory and discretionary grounds for excluding potential bidders from public contracts, among which are various forms of abuse of workers. So the principle is established, but the exclusions do not go far enough.
Amendments 186 and 319—one is mandatory and the other discretionary, if your Lordships do not like the idea of mandatory exclusion on this basis—would provide for the possible exclusion of bidders on the basis that the bidder has been found by an employment tribunal or court to have significantly breached the rights of an employee or worker, or that it has admitted that it significantly breached those rights, or that it has made a payment to an employee or worker in respect of a significant breach of their rights. That would catch the P&O Ferries-type employer. Of course, it is necessary to include, as the previous legislation did, a mechanism for self-cleansing so that bidders that are genuinely remorseful and have changed their practice can be included.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise very briefly and with great pleasure to follow the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Knight of Weymouth. I could not possibly repeat large amounts of what they said. I will just add a couple of points.
First, Amendment 186 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and signed by the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Monks, looks at excluding suppliers for other improper behaviour, particularly the mistreatment of workers. This a change to the Bill that I think would be welcomed by many good employers, because it would help them to ensure that they can compete against cowboys and potential cowboys.
It raises a point that I raised in our earlier discussion about supporting small and medium-sized enterprises; there is continuing debate on this issue, which I am sure we will take to Report. In many cases, we have seen that small and medium-sized enterprises, although not all of them are angels, know their workers as individuals. They are very often better employers, whereas large multinational companies treat their employees like blocks of labour to be moved around on a chess board. I would assert that ensuring that bad labour practice is punished would be of benefit to small and medium-sized enterprises, which noble Lords all around the Committee agreed was a good idea.
Moving on to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, particularly Amendment 54 and the linked Amendment 535, it is really useful to put this into context, so I will refer to a UNISON report entitled Outsourcing the Cuts: Pay and Employment Effects of Contracting Out. It focuses on some very detailed case studies and looks at what we have seen, particularly over the past decade: an increased work intensity forced on staff, with greater job insecurity and low or non-existent increases in pay. That has happened right across the UK economy, but it has particularly been the case with outsourced contracts of the kind we are talking about here. As the report says,
“outsourced public servants are at the sharp end of this pressure.”
Those are the circumstances we have been in.
I want to pick up on what the noble Lord, Lord Knight, alluded to: that the quality of life we have in the UK, and the quality of our economy, is acutely related to the nature of that work. Amendment 54 in particular says that the
“contracting authority must take into account the impacts … on local good work”.
We have low productivity; extremely poor public health, both physical and mental; and communities that have truly been hollowed out by low pay, where no one has any money to support local independent businesses. This is a spiral downwards, and we have to get out of that. These amendments are working towards putting in provision to change that. I point to the Government’s levelling-up agenda, which is regionally based, so I believe that they do indeed want to address this.
I will pick up on one practical point and an example of how this might be used. Let us imagine that we have two bids for a contract, one of which is from a company that is trialling—as many now are, and as many have fully implemented—a four-day working week as standard with no loss of pay. I suggest that this amendment says that the impact that could have on the local community must be taken into account. Think of all the extra time people would have for volunteering or for childcare, and the impact that would have on the quality of local life. This would build in things that the Government say are part of their agenda. Perhaps it was more Cameronian, but I think the idea of communities providing local services and volunteering is probably still part of the Government’s agenda. So these amendments would deliver things that the Government say they want to deliver, and I believe they would be truly impressive improvements to the Bill.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendments 54, 104 and 535 and will speak to Amendments 67 and 116, which I have signed, which were all so well introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Knight. I declare an interest as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Future Of Work.
My own interests, and indeed concerns, in this area go back to the House of Lords Select Committee on AI. I chaired this ad hoc inquiry, which produced two reports: AI in the UK: Ready, Willing and Able? and a follow-up report via the Liaison Committee, AI in the UK: No Room for Complacency, which I mentioned in the debate on a previous group.
The issue of the adoption of AI and its relationship to the augmentation of human employment or substitution is key. We were very mindful of the Frey and Osborne predictions in 2013, which estimated that 47% of US jobs are at risk of automation—since watered down—relating to the sheer potential scale of automation over the next few years through the adoption of new technology. The IPPR in 2017 was equally pessimistic. Others, such as the OECD, have been more optimistic about the job-creation potential of these new technologies, but it is notable that the former chief economist of the Bank of England, Andrew Haldane, entered the prediction game not long ago with a rather pessimistic outlook.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this is an important group of amendments, which focus on what we believe work in this country should look like. There are a number of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth, to which I was pleased to add my name. He introduced them in his usual way—eloquently, knowledgably and passionately. I thank him for that.
We believe that a commitment to good work standards in procurement, in response to the new challenges faced in the labour market that noble Lords have talked about, is an extremely important and appropriate part of what we need to be looking at. We know that Scotland introduced a commitment to fair work first and my noble friend Lord Hendy talked about its introduction by the Welsh Government, so this is not new or untried. Other parts of the United Kingdom are looking at how best to achieve this and we think that the Treasury should also be looking at it. It should be not just about procurement but much broader: how do you underpin good work?
My noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth’s amendments clearly recognise that procurement can be a powerful tool to support public policy goals and targets, beyond just ensuring value for money. We have heard about the Institute for the Future of Work and its research that shows that creating and protecting good-quality jobs provides resilience and promotes well-being and prosperity at every level. Again, that supports the Government’s levelling-up agenda. My noble friend Lord Knight also mentioned how it would increase productivity in this country. Surely that is an ambition that the Government and the Minister share. We believe that promoting good work is a public good that advances national, economic, social and health interests and priorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, spoke in support of my noble friend Lord Knight’s amendments. She made a couple of important points about how work intensity has increased while, at the same time, work security has decreased in this country. I agree with her on the issue of outsourced contracts. That is something that we have to look at because, as the noble Baroness rightly said, quality of work is related to quality of life, because we spend so much time at work.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, spoke to a number of amendments and focused particularly on AI, automation, the impact of new technologies and their potential disruption to jobs. There has been some good research on this, which we need to take account of as we develop legislation. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s thoughts on how that could be managed in this Bill or perhaps through other means.
My noble friend Lord Hendy also had a number of amendments in this group and I thank him for his detailed and careful introduction. A lot of this is incredibly important. He spoke about previous and other legislation and how we need to bring it up to date in this Bill. That is incredibly important if we are to get the best legislation that we can. He was quite right when he said that we need to use procurement to improve the lot of Britain’s workforce and ensure that we have high standards.
We all need to pay attention to the point that my noble friend made about P&O Ferries because, as he explained on his Amendment 186, we need some buffer or means to manage bad employers—as you could simply call them—as opposed to good employers. The Government condemned the actions of P&O Ferries, as I am sure the Minister did. If there is anything that we can do with the Procurement Bill to stop that kind of behaviour happening again, we should take clear advantage of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, also supported the amendment.
I am sure that the Minister would support the fact that we are trying to improve the quality and security of the British workforce. I will be interested to hear his thoughts on the debate.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint. The following amendments are concerned with placing additional requirements on contracting authorities so that their procurements create good jobs and opportunities in local areas. I will address the issues in turn.
Amendment 54, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, whom I thank for his extremely interesting opening remarks, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, seeks to include a new procurement objective in Clause 11, requiring contacting authorities to have regard to the importance of local “good work” when carrying out a procurement. We believe this is unnecessary. Under the Bill, contracting authorities will already be able to give more weight to bids that create good-quality jobs and opportunities for our communities, where this is relevant to the contract being procured and is not discriminatory. This is absolutely in line with the Government’s levelling-up objectives and means better value for money.
Additionally, the concept of “good work” includes a wide range of matters, such as union representation and access to facilities for career guidance and training. Including this provision would have the effect of slanting public procurement away from SMEs and VCSEs, which this Government have worked hard to champion in the Bill, and in favour of large employers with significant resources and a highly unionised workforce. That is very much the opposite direction of travel to the policy behind the Bill.
Amendment 67 was tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Knight, Lord Hendy and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cement-Jones, for not only taking us into the future but looking at what is starting now and what has been going on for quite a few years to create a different workforce from the one we have now. He talked about something that we will have to discuss further in both Houses—both the opportunities and the challenges to the workforce that we see today. That is probably not for this Bill, but I can see much further work being done on the issue.
The amendment seeks to include in the national procurement policy statement the creation and protection of “good work”. We have already set out in previous debates the rationale for not including policy priorities in the Bill and why instead the national procurement policy statement is a more appropriate vehicle for this.
Amendment 104, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, seeks to lay out a new rule in the Bill which would allow contracting authorities to request information from a supplier submitting a tender about good work standards and practices. This amendment is not necessary: the Bill already allows contracting authorities to set the criteria against which they wish to assess tenders and it is open to them to include these matters within those criteria. Any bidder will therefore have to submit information setting out how they meet the chosen criteria. Including a specific power for contracting authorities to require such information could call into question the ability of contracting authorities to request other information relevant to the assessment of tenders.
Amendment 116, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Knight, Lord Hendy and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, requires extensive quantities of information about contracting authorities’ good work policies and measures to be included in the tender notice. I have set out already the Government’s objections to including significant requirements on contracting authorities in relation to this and other similar matters. Public procurement needs to be focused on achieving value for money. We do not consider that it would be appropriate to embed obligations on policy objectives such as “good work” in the tender notice or indeed elsewhere throughout primary legislation for public procurement.
Amendments 186, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Hendy, Lord Hain and Lord Monks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and Amendments 315 and 319, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Hendy, Lord Hain, Lord Monks and Lord Woodley, seek to introduce new exclusion grounds in relation to breaches of labour rights. Employers who seriously violate the rights of their workforce are not fit to compete for public contracts. The Bill expands the range of serious labour violations to be considered as part of the mandatory grounds for exclusion, for example the failure to pay the national minimum wage and offences relating to employment agencies.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
Why would breaches of ILO conventions not apply to bidders in this country if they apply to bidders from outside this country?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
As that is a legal question, I shall get a legal answer for the noble Lord, and I will certainly write. I thought I had answered him, but I will make sure that that is clearly written legally.
On the TCA, with respect to Articles 387 and 399 of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, procurement law does not grant rights to workers and, as such, the exclusion grounds are not inconsistent with the UK’s obligations under those articles. The rights protected by these provisions are provided elsewhere in national laws, none of which are affected by the Bill. The exclusion grounds are not intended as a means of enforcing labour rights; rather, exclusion is a mechanism to ensure that contracting authorities do not award contracts to suppliers that pose a risk.
I am confident this will enable contracting authorities effectively to protect the rights of workers delivering public contracts, especially when combined with other changes we are making to strengthen the exclusions regime, such as the inclusion of serious labour misconduct in the absence of a conviction as a discretionary ground for exclusion; requiring assessment of whether the exclusion grounds apply to subsidiaries of the supplier; and extending the current time limit for discretionary exclusion grounds from three years to five years.
Amendments 292 and 297, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Hendy, Lord Hain, Lord Monks and Lord Woodley, remove the requirement for contracting authorities to consider the risk of the circumstances giving rise to an exclusion ground recurring in applying the exclusions regime. Exclusion is not a punishment for past misconduct; that is for the courts to decide. Exclusion is a risk-based measure and, as such, suppliers should be encouraged to clean up their act and given the right to make the case that they have addressed the risk of the misconduct or other issues occurring again. This might be through better training, stronger compliance controls or dismissing the staff involved in any misconduct. It is for contracting authorities to decide whether the evidence they have seen is sufficient to reassure themselves that the issues in question are unlikely to occur again.
Amendment 519, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, proposes to use Clause 104 of the Bill to omit Section 17(5)(a) and (b) from the Local Government Act 1988. It would remove the prohibition on relevant authorities, as detailed in Section 17(5)(a) and (b) of the 1988 Act, to consider in relation to public supply or works contracts the terms and conditions of a contractor’s workers and the employment status of their subcontractors.
The Bill provides for a range of labour violations to be considered as part of the grounds for exclusion, which must be considered for every supplier wishing to participate in each procurement within the scope of the Bill. These matters will be subject to further debate, possibly later today, when the Committee considers the exclusions and debarment regime in the Bill. I am sure my noble friend Lord True will have more to say on that.
The purpose of Clause 104 in the Bill is, first, to ensure that authorities to which Section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988 applies are not prevented by that section from complying with their duties under this Bill; and, secondly, to enable a Minister of the Crown or the Welsh Ministers to make regulations to disapply, when required, a duty under Section 17. The clause ensures that authorities covered by the 1988 Act can take advantage of domestic procurement policies that may be implemented during the life of the Bill.
Clause 104(1), which amends Section 17(11) of the Local Government Act 1988, directly achieves this. However, it amends Section 17 only to the extent necessary to ensure that the relevant authorities are not prevented by virtue of the section from complying with the Bill. It would not be appropriate to use the Bill as a vehicle to make further amendments to the 1988 Act, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy.
Amendment 535, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Hendy, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Bennett, creates the concept of “good work”, relied upon by the other amendments in this group. In the light of my responses on substantive amendments, there is little I can usefully add on this amendment. I therefore respectfully ask that noble Lords do not pursue these amendments.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the response and to those who took part in this relatively short debate. The arguments were well made, and I think the Minister at the Dispatch Box, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, agrees with the basic premise. As ever with these things, I was not surprised but disappointed at the response.
My noble friend Lord Hendy made a really good case about the importance of punishing bad labour practice. Recalling P&O Ferries is important; these cases come along and it always ends up feeling like too little too late. This is an opportunity to act more proactively and actually put something into statute.
On the amendments in my name, I was grateful to hear about the UNISON report, as I was not aware of that. I was grateful to hear that the Labour Administration in Wales are getting on with something like this. It is good to hear, as ever, the insights from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on AI and algorithmic accountability and regulation. I will need to think about that. I was really pleased to hear the Minister say that she thought more needs to be done on that.
In closing, I offer this up to the Minister: before we come to Report, is it worth having a chat? I listened carefully to what she said about the impact on SMEs from the way we frame some of this. If she is interested in having a meeting to discuss how we can achieve something on the good work agenda in this Bill, probably including David Davis, because I think he is minded to table similar amendments when it goes to the other place, we would be delighted to do that. Perhaps, with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, tagging along too, we can start to sketch out what we might be able to do on algorithmic regulation in this Bill or in future legislation. On that basis, I withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Noakes
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the Committee, I will move Amendment 60 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley and speak to Amendments 61, 63 and 64 in his name. As on our previous Committee day, at his request I am handling his amendments this week.
Amendment 60 is one of those favourite Committee amendments that changes “may” to “must”. No Committee can ever get through without at least one of them; there will be some others, I think. The amendment would change “may” to “must” in Clause 12(1) so that it would require the Government to produce a national procurement policy statement. Although it is clearly the Government’s intention to publish a statement, the current wording of Clause 12 leaves it open to them not to do so. That is a serious omission, especially given the introduction of covered procurement, which we will debate on Report. The NPPS will be the only way to ensure that all public procurement is conducted in accordance with the principles and objectives set out in it.
Amendments 63 and 64 would require that the consultation is based on a draft statement. The present drafting would allow a consultation without the benefit of seeing what the Government intended the statement to say. I do not think this is an acceptable or effective consultation process. It makes something of a mockery of consultation, particularly for the first NPPS. I note that Amendment 74 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, also includes proper consultation on a draft.
The other amendment in my noble friend’s name is Amendment 61. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has added her name to it, and I understand that she will also speak to it. That is probably just as well, because I am not much in favour of lists such as the one here, even when they are non-inclusive. The various other amendments in this group show that noble Lords are attracted to attaching other pet causes to the list. I should say, though, that my noble friend Lord Lansley believes that we must ensure that the existing statutory obligations on the environment and social value are included in the priorities in order to reaffirm Parliament’s will, and he has added innovation and competitiveness in UK industry because they are stated Treasury priorities, as set out in the Spring Statement. Lastly, he included
“the minimisation of fraud, corruption, waste or the abuse of public money”,
which should be underlying values in relation to public procurement. He believes that these items should be specifically referenced in the Bill.
I beg to move.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. In the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, I rise to introduce Amendments 65 and 546.
This is an important group of amendments. Although contracting authorities may never bother to read a Bill that we have debated for hours, all of them must have regard to the NPPS, so what is in that document is really important. The amendments in this group look at two particular areas. One is what is put in the Bill about the strategic priorities. The second is the process for parliamentary scrutiny to bring that into being.
Amendments 65 and 546, in my name and the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Worthington, Lady Verma and Lady Young of Old Scone, so they are cross-party amendments, are intended to tease out the strategic priorities that the Government allude to in the opening sentence of the NPPS, as stated in the Bill, because it does not put anything in the Bill.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. Before I speak to Amendment 66, I express my wholehearted support for the amendments so well introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. Of course, this is a place where we see the colours of the Government, because this is how they spend their money. So, this is not about idle words—it is about hard cash and what actually happens on the ground.
Having worked in local government on a London council, I know the power of procurement—it is absolutely massive. The amendment that I am introducing—I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is supporting it—is about how we can ensure the health and sustainability of food and catering services. That priority appears to be currently missing across the NPPS. My amendment sets out in subsection (3A) a range of topics that must be covered in relation to food, including the requirement to set targets on those matters. I know that the targets are a matter for the NPPS, but I have specified a minimum target, which has come from the national food strategy.
In common with other noble Lords, I see this amendment as addressing a key strategic priority, which is both nationally and locally important: that high-priority, cross-cutting topics such as sustainability and the health of our food system must be front and centre in legislation, rather than being left to a policy statement that could be changed unilaterally when we get a change of Government. While I fully accept that you have to have flexibility and be able to change, this argument applies to the technical detail and second- order priorities. It seems reasonable to assume that it is unlikely that considerations such as local and environmentally sustainable sourcing, servings and diets, or the management of resource inputs and waste outputs, will cease to be key national or local priorities, even in the medium to long term. Even were we to fully address them, we would wish to be watchful and continue to prioritise them to ensure that they remain addressed.
I have been pleased to see that the Government agree with me on the importance of this issue, hence the recent public commitment in the government food strategy to consult on extending the government buying standards for food and catering services across the whole of the public sector and the accompanying Defra consultation on how we are going to do it. The government food strategy also agrees that public sector food should be healthier, more sustainable and provided by a range of local suppliers, which will improve accountability and inform future policy changes. It also commits us to requiring public organisations to report on the food that they buy, where they serve it and what they waste. I think that this amendment is wholly uncontroversial. It simply captures the key topics that make up the buying standards.
My amendment sets one minimum target on the face of the Bill in relation to local and sustainable sourcing. The government food strategy has an aspirational target that 50% of food by value should be sustainable or local, but my assumption in setting a target of 30%, rising to 50%, is that the strategy’s target was not intended to mean that 50% of food should be local but unsustainable, with the other 50% being wholly sustainable but from miles away. I have therefore anticipated a degree of overlap from the start, until, over time, both sides meet the 50% criteria.
I do not think that there are any sensible grounds to reject this amendment on the basis that procurement authorities are wholly on top of this agenda and that a statutory footing for food and catering standards, however flexible, is therefore unnecessary. Rather, a considerable amount more might be done to strengthen the oversight of food and catering.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee highlighted a number of issues in its report last year. Monitoring appeared to be almost absent, no penalties were ever applied where standards were visibly not adhered to and an independent survey covered in the Select Committee report found that 60% of secondary schools were not even following the school food standards. Another report found that half of hospitals were not complying with the government buying standards—you can see why that happens when they get paid by Coca-Cola to keep a machine in their lobby, which then becomes part of a hospital’s budget.
Its conclusion was that we do not have a clear picture of how frequently and effectively buying standards are being followed by the public bodies that are mandated to follow the standards. It means that food supply chains cannot normalise around one set of baseline standards. If we put a framework for the food aspects of the NPPS on a statutory footing, it will flow down through all areas of the contracts.
Before leaving this subsection, I draw noble Lords’ attention to what has happened in one particular place in the UK—Preston. Between 2010 and 2016, the council estimated that it lost roughly 60p in every £1 from central government payments. Preston City Council identified the biggest organisations in the city—council, university, police and housing associations—and worked out that they had a combined annual spend of £750 million. In 2012-13, only £1 of every £20 stayed in the local economy. It was reworked so that, by 2017, the six local public bodies spent £38 million in Preston itself and £292 million in the area. It used the social value Act, a 2013 law that requires people who commission public services to think about how they can ensure wider social, economic and environmental gain. Local food obviously creates local jobs in horticulture, which is also set out in the Government’s response to the National Food Strategy. A target on local spend will only help to make this really work.
Proposed new subsection (3B) takes the recommendation of an updated reference diet for the nation, in line with our health and sustainability goals. As Henry Dimbleby explained in the food strategy, this diet, which he recommended to be published by the FSA working with the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, Defra and a range of other consultees, would create a single reference point and a consistent approach across government policies. The NFS observed that
“Dietary guidance in the UK is based on evidence of the health effects of individual nutrients and foods rather than overall diet”.
Therefore, it is not consistent. It continues:
“Our current Eatwell guide, the closest we have to a reference diet, does not take sustainability into account”—
at all. The absence of mandatory dietary guidance for public procurement has been widely cited as one of the reasons—in fact, probably the main reason—for the poor quality of food on offer in public settings. Creating a legal obligation for food procured by the public sector will not only avoid inconsistencies—as in an “eat as I say, not as I do” approach—but allow the Government to lead by example.
The point of all this is that it empowers local communities and farmers, creates jobs and makes children more interested in food. All the way through, it will help to change the health of our nation and put us on a much better footing. If this diet is created in the future, the Minister of the Crown who produces the NPPS would be obliged to have regard to it, which does not tie the Government’s hands or force them to carry out work they do not want to. It merely provides for joined-up governance.
With those remarks, I reiterate my belief that this amendment is completely uncontroversial and ought to meet the Government’s support. I commend it to the Minister and look forward to hearing their views.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I have already spoken to the positive case for the inclusion of climate and nature in the Bill. Amendments 65 and 546, to which I have added my name, would offer the particular benefit of providing additional stability or, if noble Lords wish, discouraging repeated tinkering through the frequent updates of the national procurement policy statement by putting the essentials of the NPPS in the Bill.
I make one other point, which relates to the contrast between the Green Paper and the language on the national procurement policy statement. The Green Paper said, strongly and correctly, that
“money spent through public procurement will be used to deliver government priorities through projects and programmes that generate economic growth, help our communities recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and tackle climate change.”
These have all been mentioned already by noble Lords. Elsewhere,
“government spending must be leveraged to play its part in the UK’s economic recovery, opening up public contracts to more small businesses and social enterprises to innovate in public service delivery, and meeting our net-zero carbon target by 2050.”
The eventual text of the current non-statutory NPPS is perhaps a little more modest in its application: it only requires contracting authorities to have regard to considering contributing to the UK’s climate target—but not to its interim carbon budgets or climate adaptation—and to considering identifying opportunities to enhance biodiversity. There are no specific environmental targets. With such a large annual spend on public procurement, this may be a missed opportunity for the Government to strengthen these provisions by instead requiring contracting authorities to have regard to actively contributing to specific climate and nature targets, rather than just considering contributing to them.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 75A in my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, my noble friend Lady Hayman and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for putting their names to this amendment.
This amendment is consistent with the remarks I have already made in Committee: that there should be specific reference to “social value” as being part of public benefit in order to provide clarity to public bodies, companies and social enterprises; and that social value should be embedded in the procurement process through the appropriate guidance and reporting requirements for public bodies, which this amendment concerns.
This new clause would be added to the Bill mandating the Government to provide “guidance” to the public sector about “how to implement social value”. The Committee is aware that this is of great concern, given that the public policy—the legislative framework—is there for social value, and yet there is no mention of it in the Bill and no mention of how it might be implemented or how it might work with the procurement regime. I hope that we can resolve this matter between now and Report.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I have Amendment 71 in this group, which is a simple probing amendment seeking to understand why the Bill exempts contracting authorities from having regard to the national procurement policy statement for contracts involving frameworks or dynamic markets. I can find no explanation, in the Bill’s Explanatory Notes or elsewhere, why such arrangements should not be covered by the terms of the national policy statement, but perhaps the Minister will be able to give a simple answer.
A large number of construction-related public projects will be procured through frameworks and dynamic market contracts. A framework is an agreement with suppliers to establish terms governing contracts that may be awarded during the life of the agreement. The Government themselves acknowledge in the Cabinet Office’s Construction Playbook that framework agreements, as a means of longer-term strategic collaboration in construction, can provide the best medium through which procurement and contracting can deliver transformational improvements.
Last December, the Cabinet Office also published Constructing the Gold Standard: An Independent Review of Public Sector Construction Frameworks, based on an independent and objective review commissioned from Professor David Mosey of King’s College London. To quote the then Cabinet Office Minister:
“This review recognises the potential of frameworks as a powerful engine-room for implementing Construction Playbook policies that include strategic planning, integrated teams, continuous improvement and the delivery of better, safer, faster and greener project outcomes.”
The review states that the Civil Engineering Contractors Association
“identifies over 1,660 public sector construction frameworks procured between 2015 and 2019 with an aggregate value of up to £220 billion.”
Given that the national procurement policy statement will seek to define strategic priorities and set the parameters for better public procurement in line, I hope, with the gold standard prescribed by the review, why should contracting authorities be exempt from having regard to it in agreeing the terms of frameworks?
A similar question arises in relation to dynamic markets. At Second Reading, the Minister stated:
“The new concept of dynamic markets … is intended to provide greater opportunity for SMEs to join and win work in the course of a contracting period.”—[Official Report, 25/5/22; col. 929.]
Again, it is not clear to me why the terms of the national procurement policy statement should not also apply to dynamic markets—although I am quite prepared to believe that I may be missing something.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have several amendments in this group: Amendments 69, 70, 76 and 79. It was interesting to hear the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, about hospital food. She may not know that I am president of the Hospital Caterers Association. I must come to its rescue: it does a fantastic job, given the budget it is given. What she may not know is that in the Health and Care Act there is a section which mandates Ministers to set standards for hospital food, following the hospital food review. The issue will be whether there is enough resource with which to fund the standards that Ministers will set. As part of this Bill, the noble Baroness might like to look at amending the Health and Care Act to ensure that there is consistency of approach, because she has made a very important point indeed.
We are continuing this debate about the relationship between the Bill and sustainability and environmental outcomes, and the Minister has been responding. His first response was at Second Reading, when he accepted that the Bill does not include any specific provisions on the target to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, but he went on to say that contracting authorities will be required to have regard to national and local priorities, as set out in the national procurement policy statement.
The problem is that the existing national procurement policy statement, published in June last year, is full of ambiguity. If I were a procurement director, I would find it very difficult to find my way through all these objectives, some of which are in a tension with each other. I think the Minister’s response will be, “Ah, but that’s the flexibility we want to give to public bodies to make their decisions themselves”. The problem is that in translating that you still come back to the point that the Government are not, at the end of the day, prepared to use procurement sufficiently to ensure the implementation of their sustainability and environmental policies.
Paragraph 10 of the national procurement policy statement sets out:
“Contracting authorities should have regard to the following national priorities in exercising their functions relating to procurement. The national priorities relate to social value; commercial and procurement delivery; and skills and capability for procurement.”
Additionally:
“All contracting authorities should consider the following national priority outcomes alongside any additional local priorities in their procurement activities: creating new businesses, new jobs and new skills; tackling climate change and reducing waste, and improving supplier diversity, innovation and resilience.”
Paragraph 11states:
“Achieving value for money in public procurement remains focused on securing from contractors the best mix of quality and effectiveness to deliver the requirements of the contract, for the least outlay over the period of use of the goods or services bought. But the Government wants to send a clear message that commercial and procurement teams across the public sector do not have to select the lowest price bid, and that in setting the procurement strategy, drafting the contract terms and evaluating tenders they can and should take a broad view of value or money that includes the improvement of social welfare or wellbeing, referred to in HM Treasury’s Green Book as social value.”
Paragraph 12 states that the award criteria can be incorporated
“for comparing final bids and scoring their relative quality, to encourage ways of working and operational delivery that achieve social, economic and environmental benefits”.
This includes tackling climate change and reducing waste; contributing to the UK Government’s legally binding target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050; reducing waste, improving resource efficiency and contributing to the move towards a circular economy; and identifying and prioritising opportunities in sustainable procurement to deliver additional environmental benefits, for example enhanced biodiversity, through the delivery of the contract.
Paragraph 13 makes it clear:
“Public procurement should be leveraged to support priority national and local outcomes for the public benefit. This Statement sets out the national priorities that all contracting authorities should have regard to in their procurement where it is relevant to the subject matter of the contract and it is proportionate to do so”.
But here is the rub. Paragraph 15 states:
“Taking additional social value benefits into account effectively is a balance with delivery of the core purpose of the contract. Contracting authorities should ensure that they do not ‘gold-plate’ contracts with additional requirements which could be met more easily and for better value outside of the contract compliance process, particularly where legislation has already determined that such provisions do not apply, for example by imposing requirements in the Equality Act 2010 on the private sector that are only meant to apply to the public sector”.
Paragraph 14 says:
“There should be a clear link from the development of strategies and business cases for programmes and projects through to procurement specifications and the assessment of quality when awarding contracts. This is in line with Green Book guidance which makes it clear that the procurement specification should come from the strategic and economic dimensions of a project’s business case, and that commercial experts should be involved in the development of the business case from the start”.
The question I would ask is this: if you were a finance director or a procurement director in the public sector, what would you make of it? One has to see this in the context of having been through a decade—in fact, longer than a decade—of austerity where short-term fixes are much more common than longer-term sustainability investments.
I turn to the NHS, where I have some experience, and where I could certainly point to some really good examples of sustainability policies. In theory the intent in the Bill, as I see it, is to place greater emphasis on wider value than lowest price. But what this ignores, certainly in the NHS context, is the financial and economic reality that exists on a day-by-day basis. In an environment where savings are demanded in-year and budgets set annually, the overpowering financial incentive is to achieve cost improvement programmes. These savings filter down through the NHS financial system and become a target for finance directors and procurement directors who generally report to the finance director. While I am sure that if we had some finance directors in front of us, they would say that they strive to focus on long-term value, this requires a less tangible and measurable saving than the fact that product A costs less than product B.
In an NHS environment that is financially driven, targeted and appraised for striving to deliver savings targets in-year, and where the most measurable saving is lowest price, it is clearly going to be challenging to move away from that. This experience is probably reflected across much of the public sector; indeed, other parts of the public sector would probably say that the NHS has had it easier. Those of us in the NHS would of course say, “That’s because we need more money”, but the fact is that if the NHS is finding it difficult, other sectors are going to find it very difficult indeed.
My amendments are simply aimed at seeing sustainable development principles incorporated within the national procurement policy statement and the Wales procurement policy statement. At the end of the day, there really is an issue here, is there not? Whatever procurement policy is set out, public authorities will have challenging decisions to make. My own view is that, because of the way in which this has been put together, and potential future national procurement policy statements, public bodies are going to be left with very ambiguous statements where they do not quite know what they are expected to do. The Minister says, “Ah, but that’s flexibility”. I say that it undermines the wider goals towards which our procurement policy should be driven.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I apologise; this is my first appearance on this Bill as I missed Second Reading. I rise to support the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. I have put my name to her Amendment 75A; I equally put my name to her Amendments 47A and 52A, which also go to the issues of social value and social enterprise.
I should note that I am a member of the APPG for Social Enterprise. Last year, I chaired an inquiry into the performance of social enterprise during the pandemic; we reported at Christmas last year. The outcome of that was to highlight the remarkable performance of social enterprise during the chronic conditions of the pandemic. However, it also highlighted how little understanding of social enterprise there was in government, particularly in Westminster but also in local government. We discovered that this was not as common Wales or Scotland, because social enterprise and social value are built into the fabric of their public procurement, which is so much better than what we have in England. I just wanted to make that point briefly. Amendment 75A is a means of addressing this issue and ensuring that local government is familiar with the role of social value and the purpose of social enterprise.
Before I sit down, I will just endorse and support Amendment 66 from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I do a lot of work with the South West Food Hub on the absolutely critical need for the procurement of good, healthy, locally sourced food, so I give this amendment my solid support.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, public and parliamentary debate on the national procurement policy statement is a very important aspect of this Bill. So is the relationship between Clauses 11 and 12. The Minister will have noted the consensus view across this Committee that clear principles and objectives should be included in the Bill—that is, primarily in Clause 11. We still hope that we will return on Report with appropriate language to enshrine
“in law the principles of public procurement”;
I have taken that from paragraph 27 of the Government’s response to the Transforming Public Procurement consultation, which they now seem to have forgotten. That document also states that 92% of those consulted were in favour of the proposed legal principles; it is therefore unacceptable that they have disappeared from the Bill as presented to this House. I cannot understand why the Government have abandoned their response, having undertaken an extensive consultation of that nature.
At present, the Bill leaves articulation of the principles of public procurement almost entirely to the Minister in post at the time, with the completed document to be laid before Parliament and subject to the negative procedure if time is found within the 40-day period to debate it. That is clearly inadequate. It stems from a resistance to parliamentary scrutiny and accountability that has been characteristic of the Johnson Government and, in particular, of Jacob Rees-Mogg in his various ministerial roles. However, it is not compatible with the principles of parliamentary sovereignty or the conventions of our unwritten constitution. I will do the Minister the compliment of assuming that he has always been unhappy with this approach to executive sovereignty and will be happier if the next Prime Minister returns to proper constitutional practice.
I have Amendment 75 in this large group, which seeks to ensure that a review of compliance with the national procurement policy statement takes place within three years, noting in particular how far it has in practice protected and promoted the interests of small suppliers, social enterprises and voluntary organisations in that period—a matter that concerns noble Lords across all parties in this Committee. I support the intentions of many of the other amendments in this group, from the insistence of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that such a policy statement must be published on a regular basis to those that insist that it should cover a specific range of issues including social objectives, concern for the environment and measures to combat climate change.
Many of us would consider including climate change and sustainable development concerns as particularly important when some candidates for the leadership of the Conservative Party are playing to climate change deniers on their party’s right. The Minister’s dogged resistance to putting any closer definition of the principles and objectives in the Bill makes the quality and regularity of this statement all the more important.
Good government requires a degree of continuity, not rapid switches of emphasis and guidance every time Ministers or Prime Ministers change. I remind the Minister that under our single-party Conservative Government since 2015 we are now about to embark on the fourth Prime Minister—four Prime Ministers in seven years under the same party. Some major departments of state are now on their eighth or ninth Minister. That is not continuity. Continuity and a degree of consensus are what contractors to government want, and that is more likely to emerge from cross-party debate in Parliament informed by wider public attention and contributions from stakeholders in the sector. That would promote greater stability and continuity both when Governments are in power for extended periods and when Governments change. Stability and a degree of continuity are what contractors want to see in their relations with government.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for my late arrival. I will be brief. Amendment 65 in my name and the consequential Amendment 546 seek to put more detail in the Bill in relation to the national procurement policy statement. I shall not rehearse all the arguments that have been made but simply say that the issues highlighted by Amendment 65 are enduring and long-term goals of government. There is a need to see that they are continuously integrated into government policy-making, as the noble Lord who spoke before me just highlighted. We need to have clarity if we are going to make transitions happen in our economy that make it fit for the future. It is entirely appropriate that the Bill should set out specific guidance for the policy statement on these long-term, transitional issues. All procuring parties need to have clarity of purpose set out for them with no doubt. I agree that the continued resistance to this signals something that we should be very concerned about, because it indicates a degree of deviation from accepted policy in other parts of the Government and across all parties. We would like to see something in the Bill and would very much welcome discussions with the Minister on this topic as there is a strong degree of consensus on this issue.
I also strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which would make it a requirement that the statement be published rather than there being merely a power. It seems entirely correct that that should be changed to make it a duty. I am also in favour of Amendment 66 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. Part of the reason I was late is that I was at a meeting discussing a response to the Government’s food strategy. There are some very important things in that strategy. We need levers with which they can be delivered. You cannot simply make policy statements and expect things to happen. If the Government are seeking greater reliance on British-grown, healthy, nutritious food, the procurement process is the way to do that, and we must see more clarity on that in the Bill. I fully support that amendment.
I also support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. We as a Parliament should be more included in the process through which the policy statement is derived, and I fully support her amendment that seek to improve the process by which we scrutinise and agree the statement.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I have waited until the latter stages of this debate before intervening, for the simple reason that my Amendment 78A deals with totally different subjects from everything else that has been debated. I overwhelmingly agree with the comments made in the general debate, but I will not follow them through at this point.
I will speak briefly to my Amendment 78A, which is included in this rather diverse group. It relates to what I might call the “Welsh clause”—Clause 13. I was glad to hear the comments of the noble Earl a moment ago on the way that policy is being unfolded in Wales. That point has arisen on a number of occasions, in various debates.
We have already heard from the Minister that there has been close co-operation between the Welsh and UK Governments in reaching an agreed approach and wording, reflected in this Bill. That being so, it is surely of fundamental importance that this clause is not distorted or undermined by later legislative steps taken by this or any future UK Government. This amendment, if passed, would require agreement by Senedd Cymru to any proposed changes to this section. That is not an unreasonable proposition, given that the clause relates solely to Wales and is itself predicated on an approach of good will and co-operation. All that is needed by this amendment is a straight majority of Senedd Members present and voting.
In the spirit of co-operation in which Senedd Cymru, the Labour Government and Plaid Cymru have approached this matter, I invite the Minister to accept this amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I agree with him, but I will take us back to the issues that have mostly been covered in this group. There are six amendments to which I have attached my name and I am sure the Committee will be relieved to know that I am not going to speak to them all.
I will speak chiefly to Amendment 61 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, to which I have attached my name. It was very kindly introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, although it was not backed by her. I will now attempt to present the argument in its favour. I stress that the intellectual work on this has been done very much by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, but, when I saw the amendment, I thought it was so important that it needed to be picked up.
The purpose of this amendment is linked to the description of the national procurement policy statement in Clause 12, which is
“setting out the Government’s strategic priorities in relation to procurement.”
Wrestling with all the government amendments and the complexity of this Bill has been challenging for the small Green group, but I understand that there are no government amendments to change “procurement” in Clause 12(1) to the technical term “covered procurement”. It is the Government’s intention that their strategic priorities should apply to all public procurement, including below-threshold procurement, light-touch procurement, international agreement procurement, and defence and security contracts.
As noble Lords have been talking about a lot in this group, the first part of this clause is the achievement of targets set out in the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021. I posit that there are good reasons to put statutory obligations such as these in a list of strategic priorities; if they are not included, they are effectively deprioritised, which would be potentially damaging to the achievement of targets that have been mandated by Parliament, with very strong cross-party support. To pick up the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, these are things that have been agreed but need to be delivered on.
On that point about delivery, I refer to the report two weeks ago from the Committee on Climate Change. In what has to be called the strongest of language, it spoke about “major policy failures” and “scant evidence of delivery”. Through this procurement, we need to see this urgent delivery.
In introducing this group, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggested that this was a list of pet clauses, but the first elements here, on the climate targets and the Environment Act, are clearly not pet clauses. We have covered proposed new paragraph (b) about the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 at length, so I will not go back to that territory. I admit that proposed new paragraph (c) on innovation and competitiveness is not the wording I would have chosen and might perhaps fit in that category, but there is an important fourth point here with proposed new paragraph (d) on
“the minimisation of fraud, corruption, waste or the abuse of public money”.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, this has become a fascinating discussion, particularly when linked to the previous group on Clause 11, as my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire said. I rise to support what I think is the most important amendment in this group: Amendment 60, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. If the wording is “may” rather than “must”, all the subsequent amendments are irrelevant, because the Government do not have to produce a national procurement policy statement.
We need to press the Government further on the framework, beyond the four issues in Clause 11, that needs to be laid down in this statement because very few people, if any—particularly not the Minister—have discussed this from the perspective of business and those who will be making significant investments in contracts to try to ensure that public value is delivered. They take signals over the medium to long term about where to invest. These signals are really important in terms of business planning and those businesses being able to make long-term commitments to the public sector.
Both Ministers keep coming back to saying that things are in different parts of different legislation in different parts of government. We have been told that the whole purpose of this Bill is to make public procurement simple, particularly for small to medium-sized enterprises. I do not know many small to medium-sized enterprises that have a department that can wade through different public sector Bills to work out what the signals are and what the company needs to do to make secure, good bids for public sector procurement. If the Government are minded not to amend Clause 11, they have to write a very detailed outframe of the national procurement policy statement to make those signals so business can make the right decisions—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
Does the noble Lord accept that you need to do that as much for procurement directors as for the businesses? With his experience of the NHS, how does he analyse what the current procurement statement actually means? I think it is very confusing.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I particularly did not use the prism of public sector procurement professions, because I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, had already made the case for the NHS, and others had made it for different government departments and professionals. I was trying to point out that there is a different aspect to this. This is about helping business by making it simpler for it to get involved in procurement, particularly small to medium-sized enterprises. That is the Government’s desired aim. A lack of detail in Clause 11, along with the fact that the national procurement strategy statement may not be done, makes that really difficult for business.
I come back to the view that everything here helps not just procurement professionals and government but businesses, particularly small to medium-sized enterprises, to be successful. It is really important that the Bill contains a co-ordinated and codified approach to the Government’s strategy on public sector procurement, and that it is not left to myriad different policies and Bills, for the sake of business being able to negotiate and navigate what is at the moment the very complicated field of public sector procurement. If the Government do not take up many of the amendments about the environment, food and social value, I assure the Committee that their aim to simplify public sector procurement, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, will not happen.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I just wanted to add something to my amendment; I thank Members of the Committee for their support. I have very little time for Brexit, as probably everybody knows, but when the French attempted to do this, they were stopped under EU rules as it was to do with restrictive trading. Now that we are out of the EU, we have a chance to produce a fantastic procurement Bill that favours small and medium-sized enterprises, local procurement, local health and local sustainability. If we do not take that chance, frankly we will have missed one of the great opportunities that Brexit gave us.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I wish the noble Lord, Lord True, well. I hope that he feels better than he did. I will speak to Amendment 68 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hayman, and Amendment 80 in our names and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I recognise that there has been a plethora of really good amendments that we support; it would be impossible to go through everybody’s amendments, but I am particularly pleased to see those in the names of my noble friends Lady Thornton and Lord Hunt.
I praise the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, again for the brilliance of her “may”s to “must”s and “must”s to “may”s. I feel for her, because I do that sort of thing all the time. The change of one word is astonishingly important. I recognise how difficult it was for her to move the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which changes “may” to “must”, when all of her amendments to later parts of the Bill change “must” to “may”. I can see the split in the Conservatives between those who wish to see greater market involvement, the Minister in the middle with his socialist bent, and the others seeking to restrict the role of the state.
Our amendments, particularly Amendment 68, which builds on Amendment 74 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, are about the process, which is particularly important. But first, to pick up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, Amendment 60 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is crucial, as otherwise the rest of the amendments are pointless. We will have the most brilliant national procurement policy statement that is not published and is not mandatory. I agree with all the points and comments that have been made about environmental principles, the very important points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, about food, what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said about Wales, and all the different things that everyone has mentioned, but the Government are not required to publish the statement.
The first question the Minister needs to answer is: what has happened since June 2021, when the Government published the national procurement policy statement that can be found on their website and the accompanying note that says they will legislate to ensure that when people procure, they must have regard to the statement? The Government stated that they would provide a legislative vehicle that would ensure that the national procurement policy statement was adhered to by business, or whoever the contracting authorities are. Yet, in the Bill, there is a legislative vehicle of sorts, but it is nowhere near what was envisaged in June 2021. Why has BEIS or the Cabinet Office changed its mind between what was going to be required in June 2021 and what is now in this legislation? I am pleased that there is a legislative vehicle, but the changing of “may” to “must” by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is absolutely fundamental and crucial, because it will require all these other things that we have discussed over the past hour—so ably and with great effect, I think—to be in the Bill.
I just say this, because I know that the noble Lord, Lord True, will say that it is a mixture of Lord Coaker the socialist, other liberals, Greens and goodness knows who else—some wet people on his own side and so on. He will say it is completely and utterly ridiculous and dismiss it. However, I am a bit of an anorak and I look at what the Government publish and what you can find if you look on the internet and google things. The Government very helpfully provide all sorts of information. The letter of 7 June that the noble Lord, Lord True, had from the Constitution Committee was published; helpfully, so was his response of 27 June. The serious point that I make is that all the points that have been made in Committee about changing “may” to “must” and the mandatory requirement that many of us think is essential are supported by the Constitution Committee. The Minister will know that, because he was written to on 7 June by its chair, my noble friend Lady Drake.
I will not read the whole of the letter, just the final paragraph:
“The Committee would be grateful for clarification as to why the statement of priorities is not mandatory, given that it is considered important enough to require consultation and Parliamentary approval. Further information you can provide as to the justification for this approach would be welcome.”
In other words, the cross-party Select Committee is saying to the Government that they have got it wrong. In Clause 12(1), it should not be
“A Minister of the Crown may publish a statement”;
it should be that a Minister of the Crown “must” publish a statement. The Select Committee agrees with the amendment that has been tabled, and so I think do a large number of this Committee. The Minister, however, has already made his mind up because, on 27 June, he wrote back to say that the Government do not agree. For the benefit of the Committee, it is important for us to understand why the Minister thinks that the movers of these amendments, such as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and those of us who support them are wrong and why he wrote the letter back on 27 June to the Select Committee chair, my noble friend Lady Drake, explaining why she was wrong. I think that is really important.
Lord True (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. This has been an extremely interesting and thought-provoking debate, and I thank noble Lords for it.
There have been various strands in this debate, one of which is the last one alluded to by the noble Lord. There appears to be a suspicion in some minds about whether this lies in the may/must thing and whether there will be a national procurement policy statement. We have published a draft statement, which I will come back to later in my speech. I will not read any of it out, because the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, was kind enough to read out some of it—although I do not think that he quoted this specific bit—about
“contributing to the UK Government’s legally-binding target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050”.
I know that noble Lords are saying, “Oh well, yes, but, et cetera”—
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
The Minister referred to that document as a “draft statement”. My understanding is that it is a non-statutory document, which is something slightly different. Is it a draft of what we are going to get later this year?
Lord True (Con)
This document was produced at one stage of the process of working towards this procurement legislation to illustrate what the national policy statement might look like. I will come on to the question of consultation because that was a second theme and ask in the debate. It was clear in the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, about how Parliament will be involved in the process and the hope that Parliament will be able to influence the process in an effective way. I have heard that call and will reflect on it.
The third strand takes us back to where we were before. Noble Lords are seeking to put in primary legislation constraints on what a procurement strategy might and should contain. Having been taken to task by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, in the debate on the previous group about being diffident about amendments that say “must have regard to”, all the amendments in this group, bar those that are applying the thing, are “must” amendments. They are a tighter straitjacket on the potential procurement statement than what we had before in terms of what is proposed to go into primary legislation, so I am instinctively less likely to be attracted to them.
For the reasons that we have debated at length—that there is a difference between insight and knowledge, that some people want to tie a lot down in primary legislation and that the Government are arguing for flexibility—we sadly cannot accept any of the amendments in this group. Amendment 60, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley—the may/must amendment—would require the Government to publish a national policy procurement strategy. We have shown, in earnest, what we might move towards, and we have drafted Clause 12.
However, any procurement policy should be aligned with wider government objectives and, as such, the publication of an NPPS is a decision based on the strategic policy priorities relevant to the Government at that time. Our feeling is that we should not seek to bind a future Government—that may be of a very different complexion to ours—to publish a specific document. Therefore, we think that changing the drafting of Clause 12 from “may” to “must” and mandating the statement in this manner would not be appropriate. However, I have listened carefully to what has been said, and it goes into the box of satisfying Parliament that it will have an opportunity to have influence because we are a parliamentary democracy, and Parliament should have influence. That is a fundamental faith that I hope is shared by all of us who have the honour of being Members of Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, raised a point about statutory versus non-statutory. I believe that I said—but somebody behind me said that perhaps I did not—that it was not necessarily statutory but the paving, if you like, was included in statute. The current NPPS is non-statutory. If I gave the opposite impression, that was not my intention, but obviously we are talking about the future here. It is there to show what a statutory NPPS might look like in the eyes of the Government. I hope that I have clarified that.
Similarly, Amendment 546, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Worthington, Lady Young and Lady Parminter, and my noble friend Lady Verma, provides for Clause 12 to be brought into force immediately upon the Act being passed. Again, this amendment seeks to ensure that, in one sense, the things that people want to happen will happen quickly. I hear strongly what my noble friend says about small businesses and the need to reach out and help innovators and the creatives and, on the other hand, to get an NPPS before the public and into operation.
As my noble friend Lady Verma and others will know, it is currently envisaged that there should be a period of six months after the Act is passed before it comes into force, which will allow for consideration and discussion, and for training and learning about implementation. In that light, there are certain difficulties in the proposal to bring the NPPS in on the very first day. I can assure her that the contracting authorities will be required to have regard to the NPPS and embed it in their own organisations. If it is mandated to be on the day the Act is passed, the process may not work as we currently envisage it, but I have heard what has been said in the Committee about the concerns people have on the process and will take that away to colleagues. At the passing of the Act—the point mandated in this amendment—the new regime would be yet to be fully implemented, and we are allowing this period for familiarisation.
The other strand in the debate, as I have alluded to, goes back to our previous group on setting specified strategic priorities in primary legislation. The range of topics we have heard has been very wide—the Government profoundly agree on many of them—and some were very detailed. I know of the passion of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, on food matters and am frankly horrified to hear that Coca-Cola is paying for its product. You would have to pay me to have a tin of Coca-Cola, I can tell you. However, the set of details in the proposal could potentially be quite onerous, and the noble Baroness’s objectives are secured or sought in other legislation and activities. I will come back to this later in my remarks.
The range of amendments in this group shows that there are many different priorities. It is precisely for that reason that we believe the contracting authorities should have a range of flexibility and that some of these matters are potentially better detailed in the NPPS than in primary legislation. But I understand why, through these amendments, noble Lords are trying to express their concern on the matters that they wish to have put in. For example, Amendments 61, 65, 69, 70, 70A and 79, in the names of a number of noble Lords, refer to the climate change proposals and net zero. As I have said, these are in the current non-statutory document. While I recognise the importance of this, it is absolutely correct in our view that public procurement needs to be focused on achieving value for money.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, read out parts of the current draft and said that there is a dichotomy and a balance here. Yes, we admit that there is a dichotomy and a balance to be reached but we maintain that it would not be appropriate to include wider policy objectives in primary legislation. Each procurement is different and, as I have said before, what is appropriate for a large one is not necessarily appropriate for a small one. It is always important that policy priorities are included in individual procurements only where they are relevant to the subject of the contract, in our submission. That is to avoid making procurements unduly complex and difficult, particularly for smaller or new entrants and innovators, to comply with.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I have just one more question. It is about periodicity. From the point of view of a contractor, it would be unwelcome to have too frequent changes in the public policy statement or too long periods in which the statement is not revisited. If I were a contractor, I would want to know when a new statement might be coming.
We have a relatively strong convention that strategic reviews of foreign policy and defence take place every two to four years or at the beginning of each Parliament. Would the Minister consider whether there needs to be something in the Bill to prevent new Ministers, when they come into their department, nine months after their predecessor took office, having their statement instead, which would be quite chaotic; or a Minister who had been there for seven years deciding that he did not want to have anything to do with it? Some encouragement for a regular period of ministerial statements might be a positive aspect for the Bill.
Lord True (Con)
As so often, the noble Lord makes an important point. I was charmed by one aspect of his arguments on continuity, when he complained that the Conservative Party kept changing Prime Ministers. I thought he was one of the main cheerleaders for a change in Prime Minister, so he cannot, in the immortal phrase, have his cake and eat it.
There is a duty in the Bill as drafted for a Minister of the Crown to keep the national procurement policy statement under review. It is not in the Bill—noble Lords have not been particularly receptive to the argument I put forward, although the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has shown his eagerness to get his hands on the levers of power and use them—but the Government’s intention, with great generosity, is that it should be possible for a review of the NPPS to be undertaken in each Parliament. If one made a period of eight years or whatever statutory, then a new or different Government coming in would have to task primary legislation to make that change. That is the kind of structure we have been trying to operate in. Part of the reason the Bill has been framed in the way it has is to leave flexibilities, some of which your Lordships do not like and some of which at least one of your Lordships does.
I turn to Amendment—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
The Government have put some objectives into legislation, such as the climate change targets. What we are saying is, for goodness’ sake, where that happens, link this Bill to the other pieces of legislation. Surely it all fits together then.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
I remember well when we were debating the then Climate Change Bill how important it was to include a list of conditions that needed to be taken into account when setting the climate change budgets, including economic competitiveness and all sorts of other things. All we are asking for here is to have a reciprocating set of policies to ensure that the same things happen the other way around. I do not mean to be provocative, but there is a purpose for having a Government, and it sometimes feels as if the people in government do not really want to be there. If you are in government, you have levers, so use them.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
On a serious note, I add the example of pension schemes. The Government have laid a series of responsibilities on pension schemes to have regard to matters such as climate targets. The Government have accepted the principle of doing it this way and the Minister seems to be ignoring that.
Lord True (Con)
In the real world, we are dealing with a Bill which relates to contracting authorities. The counterparties to contracting authorities are would-be suppliers. The more one lays a duty on contracting authorities to do something, the more a small business which is seeking to enter the procurement process will have to come forward with pages and pages of compliance documents. Noble Lords may think that is not the case. On a personal note, my wife, who is far greater than me, runs a small business. When she started, the compliance requirements were about an inch thick, but now they are much thicker. The danger is always that, in the desire to do good, one ends up creating barriers to entry.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Is it not the case that small and medium-sized enterprises are facing these requirements from other quarters? I am thinking of a meeting I attended of the northern Country Land and Business Association where we heard from the banking sector that no farmer would be able to apply for a loan unless they could show their carbon budget. We have talked about food, as one area. This is going to be the reality of doing business. These will be pre-existing things, so this would simply ensure they are taken into account.
Lord True (Con)
I hear that but I must say this: it is sometimes quite extraordinary to listen to noble Lords. You would not think that it was this Government who amended the Climate Change Act 2008 in 2019 to introduce the target of a reduction of at least 100% in the net UK carbon account by 2050. The other parties had every chance to do that but did absolutely nothing. I am then lectured in this way about the Government not putting in the small print of this particular piece of legislation a target for which, to be fair, this Government legislated and, frankly, this Prime Minister pushed strongly. Procurement Policy Note 06/21 already sets out how to take account of suppliers’ net-zero carbon reduction plans in the procurement of major government contracts. Included as a selection criterion is a requirement for bidding suppliers to provide a carbon reduction confirming their commitment to achieving net zero in the UK by 2050. It is there in that procurement policy note.
Amendment 71 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, would require contracting authorities to have regard to the NPPS in respect of contracts awarded from the framework and/or a dynamic market on every occasion. The NPPS applies to both the setting up of a dynamic market and the awarding of a framework agreement. Contracting authorities will therefore need to apply it when establishing conditions of membership that suppliers need to satisfy in order to participate in a dynamic market; when undertaking a competitive tendering procedure to award a framework; and in setting the contract terms and conditions that apply to the framework. We believe that this is sufficient for the purposes of ensuring that the policy priorities are fully reflected in government contracts, but I will look carefully at the noble Lord’s remarks.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
I thank the Minister for that answer and for getting to it at the third time of asking, by which point I was almost bursting with excitement as to what he was going to say. I am not entirely clear why the Bill seems to take frameworks and dynamic markets out altogether but I will study what the Minister has said and endeavour to understand. I thank him for getting there in the end.
Lord True (Con)
Well, I did try to get there but I had an intervention, then another intervention. It would be discourteous not to respond to—or be provoked by, as some may feel—the odd intervention. Is that not the give and take of debate, which is what our blessed Parliament is all about? If I have given the noble Lord incorrect advice, I will correct it, but what I have read out is the legal advice that I have been given.
Amendment 78A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, provides that a Minister of the Crown may not introduce a Bill in either House of Parliament to amend or omit Clause 13, which relates to the Wales procurement policy statement, unless, as the noble Lord explained, Senedd Cymru has resolved by a majority of those present in voting to approve it. This is an uncongenial part for the noble Lord: the effect of this amendment would be to fetter the power of this and any future Parliament. The Government therefore cannot accept this amendment. However, as I mentioned earlier—he was kind enough to allude to this—we respect the devolution settlement and the competence of Wales on this matter. I have placed that and the degree of co-operation we have with the Welsh Government on the record in Hansard. That due respect for the devolution settlement is something that the Government aspire to see continue in this case, but we cannot accept the lock that he requests in the amendment.
Lord Wigley (PC)
I am grateful for and accept the integrity with which the Minister is putting that forward and the spirit in which he stated the difficulty that there would be with my amendment. None the less, he will be well aware that there are other forms of amendments that could be put forward, possibly on Report, to ensure that there is the necessary consultation and discussion before any changes in legislation take place. That form of words has appeared in other legislation. Could I invite him to consider that between now and Report? I think that that would be a good indication for those in Cardiff.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, obviously my right honourable friend will consider everything in his engagement with the Welsh Government. If the noble Lord wishes to bring forward an amendment, I will also consider and respond to it. By the way, I was not waving at my officials or my absolutely brilliant colleague; one of those wretched moths was just about to fly into my ear and prevent me hearing the noble Lord’s charming and persuasive words.
Further amendments cover compliance, reporting requirements and review. I know that this is an area that the Committee is interested in and will probe as the Bill goes forward. Amendment 75, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, provides for a compliance review within three years, with a particular focus on small businesses and social enterprises. I fully understand the importance of social enterprise. The noble Lord is not in his place any more but I myself created social enterprises when I was the leader of a local authority; I think that their contribution to our national life is immense.
I assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to breaking down barriers for small businesses and new entrants in supply chains. We had a good debate on that on Monday; my noble friend, among others, made very strong points. Our position is that, although we agree that compliance in this respect is important, it would not be appropriate to legislate and place additional burdens on contracting authorities for this. Small businesses and other suppliers will continue to have access to the Public Procurement Review Service, which will form part of the procurement review unit, to raise any concerns that they have in respect of contracting authorities’ compliance with the Bill, including the duty to have regard to the NPPS. The Bill also provides the Minister with the power to investigate these cases. I am sure that this will provide small businesses with good recourse to challenge non-compliance with the NPPS but we have undertaken to give further consideration to and engagement on the interests of that group in relation to small businesses; I will add the noble Lord’s suggestion to that engagement.
Finally, we return to the question of social value, which was addressed in the previous group. Amendment 75A would require the Secretary of State to provide guidance to contracting authorities on how to implement social value in line with the NPPS. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was kind enough to read out the current draft document, where social value is fully represented. As I argued in the debate on the previous group, we believe that this amendment is not necessary. The Government and the Government for Wales will publish procurement policy statements containing their priorities, which all contracting authorities must have regard to when carrying out a procurement or exercising functions related to it. As these priorities may change from one NPPS to another, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to specify on the face of the Bill that guidance on a given issue must always be produced.
Amendment 80, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, concerns the inclusion of a new clause for requiring carbon reduction plans from suppliers for contracts above £5 million. I have already referred to a procurement note but, as I have mentioned, we do not see this type of criterion being suitable for inclusion in the Bill. While central government has policies for this on complex procurements, the amendment would be a burdensome addition to the workloads of contracting authorities across the UK and could potentially inhibit new entrants.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Excuse me for interrupting the Minister but I do not understand what he just said. Amendment 80 would make mandatory what the Government have already said procurement is required to do. Procurement Policy Note 06/21, which the Government have published on their website, is titled:
“Taking account of Carbon Reduction Plans in the procurement of major government contracts”.
All the amendment does is clarify the legal status of 06/21, which is the Government’s own policy. Given the line the Minister has taken, I would be parading 06/21 as a good example of what the Government are doing. That is all this amendment seeks to change in the Procurement Bill. The Minister may need a note on this—I appreciate that—but that was the purpose of this amendment. I wonder whether the Minister could clarify what he has just said in reference to Procurement Policy Note 06/21, which we have included in the explanatory statement as the purpose of Amendment 80.
Lord True (Con)
I deliberately referred to Procurement Policy Note 06/21. It is something that the Government have done; however, the line I am taking and the position of the Government is that we do not wish to encrust the Bill with statutory requirements. I am glad that the noble Lord opposite follows the policy—I reminded him of it as I was going through my speech—but, if I yield one, I will yield 125. It was kind of the noble Lord to say that he was pleased that the Government published Procurement Policy Note 06/21 but I wish he would be satisfied.
I recognise that Amendment 80 replicates the £5-million threshold but we think that taking this policy forward would potentially be a burdensome addition for SMEs, which are required to produce and maintain such documents—not only if they are small SMEs but if they want to be part of a consortium for a larger government procurement project. Despite what the noble Lord said, I do not believe that this changes the overall position of the Government that we should not add to the Bill, to primary legislation, the encrustations that he requests.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am sorry to pursue this. Procurement Policy Note 06/21 helpfully has some frequently asked questions at the end. One asks when it should be applied. It says that the note
“applies to all Central Government Departments”.
What does that mean? Does it apply or not? Is the Minister saying that it applies to them but the Government do not really mean it and departments can choose whether to do it? What is its status? Is it worth the Government putting in their own documents that it
“applies to all Central Government Departments”?
They might as well just say, “Do it if you want”. What is the purpose of publishing it if it is very loose and can apply only if the departments want? I do not know.
Lord True (Con)
That is the point. Currently, 06/21 refers to “Central Government”, as the noble Lord said, but his amendment applies to “all contracting authorities”, as I read it. If that is not the case, I will stand corrected and we will write a letter to explain that it applies to everybody, as he proposes. I am advised that his amendment goes further than the current procurement arrangements but, if that is incorrect, I will write a note.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that. It is helpful. If I get a letter back saying that the amendment goes further than 06/21, with that information, I can change the amendment before Report or be satisfied and not need to. It would be very helpful of the Minister to clarify that in a letter; I wonder whether he might think of sharing that with other Members of the Committee.
Lord True (Con)
Yes, I hope that letters that are sent out are shared with other Members of the Committee and, if not, I will make sure that they are. I would not want to encourage the noble Lord too much in the hope, because the Government’s position is that we do not think it is advantageous to encrust the primary legislation with the range of aspirations that we have heard from many sides in this Committee. The noble Lord can have another try, but I cannot promise that it will be different. But I will write to him and circulate the letter anyway.
I respectfully request that these amendments be withdrawn or not moved.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, we have had a very wide-ranging, and rather long, debate on this group of amendments. I will start with my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendment 61, on the list of strategic priorities. As I predicted, the Minister heard various lists of different kinds of things that noble Lords wanted in the Bill. Let me say that I was wholly convinced by my noble friend’s explanation of why they should be encrusted—as he put it—in the Bill, but I suspect that I am not representative of the Committee in that regard.
In respect of Amendments 63 and 64, my noble friend helpfully said that the Government would share the draft of a national policy statement as part of the consultation process, which I think clarifies that aspect.
I turn to the lead amendment in this group, Amendment 60—the may/must amendment. My noble friend the Minister argued for flexibility for the longer term; other Governments may not want to issue such statements, and I completely accept that. What I did not hear from my noble friend was that this Government commit to publishing a statement under this clause. I would have hoped that, at least from the Dispatch Box, the Minister would commit to publishing the statement, having included Clause 12 in the Bill. He talked about the timetable for the introduction of the Bill and the six months of learning process, but I did not hear what happens to the policy statement. I hope that he might reflect and perhaps give clarity on that in writing or at a later stage.
With that, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the Government have the lead amendment in this group, and I look forward to hearing the comments of fellow members of the Committee. Although there is a large number of government amendments in this group, most of them are consequential, so there are actually seven points in the government amendments, which I will express as briefly as I can.
Amendment 83 to Clause 15 is a consequence of Amendment 93. It clarifies in Clause 18 that the authority’s requirements and award criteria are two separate concepts. The amendments make it clear that, to be awarded a contract, the supplier’s tender must satisfy the contracting authority’s requirements and be the most advantageous in terms of award criteria.
Amendment 94 to Clause 18 is technically a consequence of Amendment 126. Amendment 126 amends Clause 22 to make it clear that the contracting authority may set a number of award criteria against which it will evaluate tenders or may set only one criterion. That has led to consequential Amendment 113 to Clause 19.
Amendments 111 and 114 clarify the drafting to confirm that Clause 19(6) is talking about exclusion by reference to intermediate assessment of tenders in Clause 19(5)(b) and that the timing of assessment may vary.
Amendment 134 confirms that Clause 24 applies to the process to become a member of a dynamic market and a process for the award of a contract under a framework, as well as competitive tendering procedures under Clause 19. This has meant moving the clause to later in the Bill, and it will be under Chapter 6, “General Provision about Award and Procedures”. Amendments 137, 140 and 145A are all consequential.
Amendment 135 simply amends the term “terms of a procurement” to “procurement documents”. I know that noble Lords are rightly concerned about definitions. This is to ensure the clause operates effectively for the award of contracts under frameworks and for applications for membership of a dynamic market. Amendments 136, 138, 139, 142 and 143 are all consequential.
Amendment 145 expands the definition of “procurement documents” in this clause to cover documents used for frameworks and dynamic markets. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Newlove) (Con)
My Lords, I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to speak remotely.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I start with my usual apology that the rules for remote contributors mean that I will be commenting on amendments that have not yet been spoken to by their authors. I have one amendment in this group, Amendment 528C, which has been signed by my noble friend Lord Scriven, to which I will return.
I support Amendments 101A, 528A and 528B which set out the arrangements for procurement, taking into consideration low-income countries and ask that particularly during a public health emergency, not only a pandemic, they should meet certain criteria that are higher than usual.
The World Health Organization’s report, The COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned for the WHO European Region, recommends as its fifth area for action:
“Strengthening procurement systems, supply chains, operational support and logistics”.
The reason why that it is one of the key recommendations is, I am afraid, the chaos that happened in the early months of the pandemic and the frankly shameful behaviour of some of the wealthy countries which disregarded the fact that Covid was a worldwide virus and that all countries needed access to key goods and services to deal with it—whether PPE, kit for testing, or vaccines as they came on stream.
This Committee is not the place to go into the detail of that; I suspect that most Members of your Lordships’ House will have it fresh in their memories from the last two years. However, I hope that the UK pandemic inquiry will look at our Government’s behaviour, including the taking of vaccines from the vaccine fund COVAX, which was designed specifically to support countries that could not afford either the development or the cost of vaccines in those early days, and, in particular, the blocking of a TRIPS waiver for intellectual property, which prevented low-income countries manufacturing their own vaccines. These amendments would ensure that any future Government must reflect carefully on their role in helping low-income countries have fair access to the tools that they need to manage any major future health emergency.
Amendment 528C is a probing amendment that seeks to remove the provisions in Sections 79 and 80 of the Health and Care Act for NHS England to have its procurement rules set by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care using a statutory instrument. On earlier occasions in Committee, I asked Ministers a series of questions to which I really hope we will receive answers today. Prior to this, each response from the Dispatch Box, in essence, laid out the differences between the arrangements under the Bill and those in Sections 79 and 80 of the Health and Care Act, which we know already. I will not repeat the details of the likely problems that this will cause in the complex interface of what is and is not covered by the Health and Care Act; it certainly is not as clear-cut as the sections would imply. Much more fundamentally, the reason I have tabled this amendment is to try to elicit answers to the two following questions.
First, why should a body such as NHS England, which procures contracts for £70 billion a year of taxpayers’ money, have procurement rules that are not consulted on widely or taken through the same scrutiny available under the legislation process that this Bill—for all its failings and problems—must continue to go through? During the passage of the Health and Care Bill, no Minister seemed to be able to explain why, and the same is true for this Bill. The £70 billion was specifically for NHS England. The total NHS departmental spend on health in 2019-20 was in excess of £160 billion, so I suspect that the real clinical and associated spending is significantly higher than the £70 billion I quoted. It is the Government’s largest budget after social protection—that is, benefits and pensions—yet the Health and Care Act sets out a procurement regime that is much less visible and accountable than that proposed by the Government in this Bill.
Secondly, is it appropriate that procurement arrangement processes for such a large amount of taxpayers’ money should be determined by a Secretary of State using Henry VIII powers? Not only is this process much less transparent, and it cannot hold Ministers to account, but the capacity is there for a future Secretary of State to change the procurement process much more quickly than under the processes of this Bill. It was helpful during the passage of the Health and Care Bill that the Government bowed to the strong report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which said that at the very least it must be upgraded to be subject to an affirmative procedure. But frankly, Members’ suspicions were aroused by the original proposals that it should be subject to a negative procedure.
During the passage of the Health and Care Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said:
“We are grateful for the input of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in advising us on this. In summary, these regulations will allow the NHS to procure healthcare services in a way that reflects the reality of those services without unnecessary bureaucracy and with the ultimate goal of providing value for patients, taxpayers and the population in the vital health services they need.”—[Official Report, 3/3/22; col.1028.]
For the last three and a half days, we have been debating in detail unnecessary bureaucracy and the ultimate goal of providing value for taxpayers, clients and the population in the vital public services they need. I am still struggling to understand why the second-largest public spender in this country is able to use this unaccountable and untransparent procedure. I hope that the Minister will specifically explain to the Grand Committee why this route was chosen for the NHS. If the Minister cannot answer this, will he meet those of us who are interested— I have already asked him twice for meetings—so that we can discuss this prior to Report?
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I have Amendments 120 and 129A in this group. I will also speak to Amendment 119 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and my noble friend Lord Best’s Amendment 131. Perhaps Amendments 119 and 120 should have come up on Monday, when we were discussing SMEs.
Amendment 120 seeks to address the barriers faced by smaller providers and charities through specifications that disqualify or discourage them from bidding. These typically stem from process taking precedent over purpose, or from narrow or mistaken interpretations of procurement rules. Lloyds Bank Foundation research has found numerous examples of disproportionate thresholds being imposed—some of which we heard about on Monday—including requiring suppliers to demonstrate income unrelated to the size of the contract being tendered for, requiring evidence of having previously delivered contracts much larger than the one tendered for, or unreasonable insurance requirements.
Excessive requirements at the pre-qualification questionnaire—PQQ—and invitation to tender—ITT—stages can also act as significant barriers. To cite one example: a youth association applying to be added to a framework of suppliers linked to the troubled families initiative had to complete a 49-page PQQ and 99-page full tender. Greater clarity is needed about what a proportionate approach looks like.
My Amendment 120, which the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, has also signed, seeks to add a requirement for contracting authorities to include consideration of the impact of conditions on the ability of a broad range of suppliers, including smaller businesses and charities, to access public contracts as part of their assessment of proportionality. Without this, there is a danger that smaller providers will continue to be disqualified on technicalities or by arbitrary barriers, even where they are well placed to deliver the service or are already doing so.
I have also added my name to Amendment 119 from the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, which would allow for conditions requiring suppliers who seek to participate in a contract to be
“signatories of good standing on the Prompt Payment Code”.
All too often, we hear from small businesses of the Prompt Payment Code being honoured more in the breach than the observance, even by businesses that have signed up to it. Making adherence to the code allowable as a condition of participation seems an eminently sensible way of giving it stronger teeth and I hope that the Minister, who has been so responsive in his willingness to look seriously at many of the good ideas proposed by members of this Committee, will look at this one as well.
Amendment 129A to Clause 22, which is in my name, seeks to ensure that the advantages of flexibility in setting award criteria are not undermined by post-award negotiations or other price and cost uncertainties which could affect, or even invalidate, value-for-money considerations used in awarding contracts. To avoid this, the amendment requires the contract to include
“an objective mechanism for determining price and cost after contract award and before the goods, services or works are supplied.”
Only through such a mechanism for confirming value for money being put in place at the time of a contract’s award is it possible to secure maximum supplier contributions to improving value and reducing risks, including through the early appointment of specialists. This is an aspect of early supply chain involvement and having an objective post-award process to achieve the benefits associated with it.
To give an example, those benefits were illustrated by the innovations, cost savings, reduced carbon emissions and local business opportunities agreed by the Ministry of Justice with the supplier and specialists engaged on its Five Wells prison construction project after their appointment and before commencement of work on site; this project featured as a case study in the Construction Playbook. So I hope that the Minister will consider this amendment carefully as a way of ensuring that value for money commitments are met in the procurement of any goods, services or works.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I have three sentences on my very tiny Amendment 122A. It asks the Minister to explain to the Committee why, on this important clause on award criteria, there is nothing to commit the Government to create additional public value, in line with their specific priorities—whether on P&O or school meals. It genuinely asks the Minister to explain that to the Committee.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lansley has three amendments in this rather diverse group. The first is Amendment 118, which adds another requirement for tender notices under Clause 20. It would require the tender notice to provide a period during which potential suppliers can ask questions and get answers, which would then be shared with all potential suppliers. This procedure is often used in practice and it has advantages for both contracting authorities and potential tenderers, in clearing up any misunderstandings. For potential suppliers, it can clarify whether it is worth the time and effort of tendering. It allows suppliers that are not already familiar with a contracting authority to get up to speed. This would be particularly helpful for SMEs, as it would provide a relatively low-cost way to establish whether bidding for a contract is right for their business.
I have a slight concern that the amendment’s requirement to share answers with “all potential suppliers” might be onerous, but this is a probing amendment and I hope that the Minister responds positively to the idea behind it.
My noble friend’s second amendment is Amendment 123, which amends the provisions of award criteria in Clause 22. Under this amendment, the award criteria must enable innovative solutions to be offered in meeting the purposes of the tender. This returns us to one of my noble friend’s themes for this Bill—namely, that public procurement must foster innovation. It is much easier for a public procurement to specify the detail of what is to be delivered than the objectives or purpose of a contract, but good procurement would positively encourage innovative solutions, because innovation is the key to unlocking value for money for the public sector. I hope the Minister agrees with the aims of this amendment, as well.
Lastly, my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendment 149 seeks to amend Clause 26 by creating another reason for excluding suppliers, where no good reason is offered for a low tender price. The “most advantageous tender” rule in Clause 18 does not require the acceptance of the lowest-priced tender, but that will often be the outcome. This amendment is designed to provide encouragement to contracting authorities to understand why a tender price is abnormally low and to eliminate those that are lowballing on the basis that they gain a contract and then, later, find some way to negotiate up the price. This unfortunately happens in real life, sometimes.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to two amendments in my name. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Verma, Lady Boycott and Lady Parminter. At this stage in Committee, we have had the debate about why we feel this Bill is lacking specificity, does not provide sufficient guidance and is a missed opportunity, so I do not propose to rehearse those arguments. I think that, if the Bill were different, we would not be seeking to amend Clause 22 on award criteria in this way. It is evident that we are trying to convey our concern that we need more guidance on these important long-term targets that need to be embedded in the procurement process.
I ask the Minister whether, under his interpretation of
“the subject-matter of the contract”
in Clause 22(2)(a), a contracting authority can set criteria that specifically relate to the public good that derives from environmental benefits that relate to the things we have put into our amendment. If that is the case, we have a workable solution. If it is not, we need something else in the Bill. To be clear, my question is: in setting award criteria under Clause 22, can a contracting authority put in specific, measurable criteria that relate to the wider public, environmental and social good?
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 124A, which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who is involved in other parliamentary duties at this point. She asked whether I would speak to it on her behalf, and I am pleased to do so.
The amendment specifically relates to the need for all contracting authorities to be required to ensure that the award criteria include environmental impact considerations. This, of course, is a provision which stands in its own right in the general context but also specifically relating to Scotland. It is worth noting that the genesis of this amendment comes from the Law Society of Scotland and, as such, we should take very good note of it. The society emphasises that for Scotland, procurement legislation is devolved, as we know, and that the regulations applicable to Scotland—those which have been transferred into Scots law from EU directives—include the Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2015, the Utilities Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2016 and the Concessions Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2016.
In fact, the Scottish devolution settlement specifies that all procurement matters that are not specifically reserved under Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 are devolved unless, as always, the UK Parliament tries to modify them, subject to the Sewel convention. As we all know, use of the Sewel powers can be extremely controversial at times. The Scottish Government have flagged up their opposition to such intervention by the UK Government in the context of the Bill.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Green Party is a partner in the Scottish Government, procurement regulations in Scotland have a number of environmental considerations built into them and the EU principles largely remain in force. It is not the case that UK contracting authorities with reserved functions will be subject to UK rules. For example, the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011 are UK-wide, as I understand it, and that has a significance in this context.
This amendment seeks to make it a statutory responsibility for contracting authorities, in setting award criteria, to
“take account of the environmental impact of the award”.
This would place a parallel emphasis on environmental impact in the context of English or UK contracts, as is the case in Scotland. As the Law Society of Scotland has stated:
“It is important that the Bill does not lead to confusion in the UK for parties, given that different rules will apply in the UK market”.
Inevitably, given the devolution settlement, there will be occasions when legislation in Scotland and England differs for a variety of reasons relating to different values, circumstances or aspirations, but where there is largely agreement on public policy, as there surely is on the environmental impacts to be taken into account, common sense would dictate that words along the lines of Amendment 124A should be built into the Bill.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 124 and 127 in the name of the my noble friend Lady Worthington. As always, I return to the issue of food: the Committee on Climate Change reported last week that the public sector serves 1.9 billion meals a year. That is an unbelievably big responsibility and impacts on the environment, our health, how people co-operate socially, what we grow and agriculture. If we cannot have principles about the environment, public good and public health within this public procurement then it is really not fit for purpose because this is, I think, a massive area of concern to everyone in this Room.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 528C, which my noble friend Lady Brinton has already spoken to. Like her, I am a little perplexed about the Government’s view, according to the Minister, that public sector procurement should be based on value for money and that there should be a co-ordinated approach to public sector procurement so that businesses understand the rules in which they are working but also have flexibility, yet the health service seems to be excluded from that.
For the convenience and understanding of the Committee, we need to look particularly at Section 79 of the Health and Care Act 2022, which says:
“Regulations may make provision in relation to the processes to be followed and objectives to be pursued by relevant authorities in the procurement of”
services. Relevant authorities in this legislation are: NHS England; NHS England foundation trusts; an NHS trust established under Section 25; interestingly, a combined authority, which is a combination of local authorities; and a local authority in England. A relevant authority is not just an NHS body; it is a relevant authority if it is purchasing or procuring
“(a) health care services for the purposes of the health service in England, and (b) other goods or services that are procured together with those health care services.”
Ministers have said previously from the Dispatch Box that all that the provision applies to is the provision of healthcare services in England. They have not spelt out that it also applies to other goods or services that are procured together with those for healthcare services. If, for example, a care village was being procured where there was predominantly a capital spend on housing and where services for healthcare were to be procured at the same time, which set of procurement rules would apply? Would it be the rules within this Bill, those within the Health and Care Act, or a combination of both?
It is important that Section 79 of the Health and Care Act says that
“Regulations under subsection (1) must, in relation to the procurement of all health care services to which they apply, make provision”
for the following:
“(a) ensuring transparency; (b) ensuring fairness; (c) ensuring that compliance can be verified; (d) managing conflicts of interest.”
There is nothing about value for money, yet the Minister has said repeatedly at the Dispatch Box in this Committee that the Government’s view is that public procurement should be based on value for money. If that is the view of the Government—not of the Cabinet Office, but of the Government—why is value for money not in the Health and Care Act as a factor for public procurement of healthcare provision in England and other goods or services that are procured together?
There is a gaping hole which is not clear. It is so deep that I do not think the Minister can explain the contradiction between this Bill and the Health and Care Act in terms of procurement provision. So, particularly on joint procurement in something like a care village, which provision would apply? If the Minister cannot answer that very clearly from the Dispatch Box, I feel that this is going to come back on Report. Clearly, there is confusion not just in terms of legislation but for those businesses which wish to be part of a contract for a joint provision between health and other services.
My final question is this: why is it that combined authorities in a local authority in England are in the Health and Care Act but it says here that local authorities will be driven by the provisions in this Bill? Which one would a local authority have to adhere to in terms of the confusion that is around it?
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I want to make a point about proportionality. It arises under the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and runs through much of the Bill. In a sense, I am asking a general question but hanging it on the hook of Amendment 120. It is a point of some concern to small organisations; we are talking here about small charities and local voluntary organisations. In much of the debate, people have referred to businesses and enterprises, but this will also apply to local voluntary organisations and charities, which clearly do not have the resources or staffing to deal with the scale in the way that an organisation such as Oxfam, for example, could. They have their local job to do; to a certain extent, spending a lot of time drawing up a bid to provide a service will be a diversion from their work. Proportionality must have a role in assessing a contract. I am intrigued and ask the Minister to give some indication of an overall perspective on proportionality as it affects local organisations, charities and voluntary organisations.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, with apologies for missing some of this debate, I will speak briefly to my Amendment 129, which relates to Clause 22 and the incompatibility of subsections (2) and (5). Clause 22(2) states:
“In setting award criteria, a contracting authority must be satisfied that they … are sufficiently clear, measurable and specific”.
Clause 22(5) then sets out those “clear, measurable and specific” elements. In paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), it is indeed specific: they deal with
“the qualifications, experience, ability, management or organisation of staff”
et cetera. However, over the page, Clause 22(5)(d) sounds as if the drafter was late, tired, exhausted and gave up. It refers to
“price, other costs or value for money in all the circumstances.”
I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is not here to tell us how one might legally interpret “in all the circumstances”.
What we have drafted as an amendment is one that is as specific as paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) on what those circumstances might be. It sets out the standard phrases that have been used in the Government’s previous documents and draft statement. I merely suggest to the Minister and those behind him that paragraph (d) simply is not fit for purpose as it stands. The phrase “in all the circumstances” should not be in a Bill of this sort. It either needs to be cut or to be expanded to the sort of specificity that (a), (b) and (c) include. My amendment suggests what that might be.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords—oh, I have just thrown all my papers on the ground. Actually, I do not need them. I am holding my list of government amendments, which I used to follow the Minister carefully as he went through them all so that I did not miss anything he said.
I sincerely thank the officials, who have spent a long time bearing with me and my noble friend Lord Coaker, going through the government amendments carefully so that we properly understood the implications and which ones were tied together, if you like. Many of the amendments provide helpful clarification, so I put on record my sincere thanks for the officials’ time and patience. It has been very important.
I have a few amendments in this group. The first, Amendment 101A, looks to ensure that contracting authorities consider potential health contractors’ records of ensuring
“affordable access to their products in low and middle-income countries and to the NHS”.
Of course, this is in the light of the pandemic, because it covers consideration being taken in public health emergencies of the international concern around this and the impact on countries that are less well off than us. With these amendments, we want to increase access to vaccines, medicines and diagnostics by attaching conditions to health products and research and development contracts in order to facilitate global manufacturing, because that was clearly a problem recently during the Covid pandemic.
It is also about having assurances that taxpayers’ money is being spent according to socially responsible principles in circumstances like that. If you can attach conditions to public spending on health procurement and R&D to have greater access to health technologies globally, this can help to bring the health crisis to an end sooner. We know that many of the Covid variants came about in countries that have very low vaccination rates. So it is about looking out and upwards for the future.
There is already some precedent for attaching conditions to pandemic tools to improve access. Paragraph 84 of the Government’s 100 Days Mission report says:
“We recommend that governments should build in conditions into their DTV funding arrangements to ensure … access to DTVs at not for profit and scale, which is to be enacted if a PHEIC is declared.”
So we can do this if we want to. The pricing and timing of delivery are important for gaining more equitable distribution.
Many low-income and middle-income countries have been calling for more meaningful control over their pandemic responses. Of course, they cannot really do that if they do not have access and are not then able to manufacture their own vaccines, which is what many of them were calling for. Again, if you remove intellectual property barriers, you can do this, but we need to look carefully at how we would manage that. Perhaps the Procurement Bill is not the right place for this, but it is certainly the right place to have a discussion and debate about it and to look at how we can move things forward.
My other amendments are Amendments 528A and 528B. I am slightly confused about why we are debating these and Amendment 528C of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, at this stage, when the government Amendment 528, to which they relate, does not come up for debate until group 14. It strikes me that we are likely to end up having exactly the same debate all over again. The Minister may not have an explanation for that, but I apologise in advance that we will revisit this.
I will be brief because we will come back to this. As I say, Amendment 528A is again about affordable access for middle-income and low-income countries, and Amendment 528B is about requiring contracting authorities to consider a potential health contractor’s record of ensuring affordable access to its products. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for supporting our amendments. We support Amendment 528C of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, but I am sure that we will have another debate on group 14, as I said.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for another interesting debate that I have enjoyed listening to. Some thoughtful points have been made. I must say at the outset that Ministers are responsible for many things but we are not responsible for groupings. We just get told what we must do. It would have been quite possible, through the usual channels, to agree to de-group those amendments and put them separately but, as we say, “Them’s the breaks”.
Notwithstanding the illogicality that has been pointed out, I will address what is before us. By the way, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for what she said about the official Bill team, who support us all in Committee on the Bill. I fully endorse what she said. Many of them are here to hear it; if they are doing their job, they will probably notice it in Hansard but, none the less, I will make sure that they do.
Amendment 101A, 528A and 528B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and Amendment 528C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, cover health and procurement, as we just discussed. I candidly acknowledge that, sometimes in life, there are minor frustrations. I know that the Committee is understandably wrestling with the issue. My noble friend Lady Scott—I am sorry, I always call her Jane—tried to answer the question asked by the noble Baroness on two occasions but I will come on to say what we have tried to do about this; indeed, I will now read out the answer that I have been given.
These amendments would significantly extend the rules in Clause 18 by imposing additional requirements on authorities to have regard to a range of health sector-specific issues when awarding contracts for the research, development or supply of health services or health products. As we have already touched on at various points in the debate, contracting authorities need to make procurement decisions on a case-by-case basis. It would not be appropriate to include wider policy objectives, such as those suggested, in primary legislation. This could jeopardise the achievement of value for money and make it harder for small businesses to bid for these health services and health products contracts.
Amendment 528C would override the healthcare procurement regulation-making powers set out in the Health and Care Act and make the Bill apply instead to all healthcare purchasing—the challenge set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. The position is that the Department of Health and Social Care is currently preparing regulations, following public consultation, which will implement a new provider selection regime specifically designed for the procurement of healthcare services delivered to individual patients and service users. Obviously, noble Lords will have the proper opportunity to scrutinise and debate the implementation of these powers when they are laid in Parliament, through the affirmative procedure.
On the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, the recent DHSC consultation on proposals for its new provider selection regime acknowledges the need for integrated procurement for health and social care services. Existing procurement legislation recognises and provides for mixed procurement approaches, and relevant details will be included in the DHSC’s forthcoming regulations and guidance. Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise these under the affirmative procedure.
I know that noble Lords have said that they not entirely satisfied with this. It is the situation that clinical services for individual patients are with the health service. My noble friend highlighted—as I said on day three in Committee—that we would write to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on how the interface between the Procurement Bill and the health Act will work in practice, I reassure noble Lords that that is being prepared. We will seek to pick up many of the questions that noble Lords have asked on each day of the debate so far, in this area. That will be put before your Lordships before we get to group 14—I hope it is not group 13—or whenever we get to it. It is being done, but I have heard what noble Lords have said. I can tell the Committee that I am also writing personally to the Secretary of State for Health to seek further clarity on when the regulations will be available for scrutiny. I have heard the requests from your Lordships in this area.
I turn now to Amendment 118 tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, whose appearance varies today—I will not hurt him by saying it is improved today. This amendment would modify Clause 20 to require the tender notice to provide a period during which “suppliers may ask questions” and have the answer provided “to all potential suppliers”. Under the Bill regime, there is nothing preventing potential bidders asking for further information or clarification of matters within the tender notice or associated tender notice documents; in fact, this is standard practice in procurement procedures. There is a risk that including a specific provision to this effect might suggest that questions cannot be asked outside that window. We would not want to suggest that there comes a point at which interested suppliers can no longer ask questions of contracting authorities. With that in mind, I hope I have reassured my noble friend—when he comes to read this section—that the Bill already allows for the circumstances he wishes to see.
Amendment 119 and others relate to the Prompt Payment Code. Amendment 119 seeks to require being a signatory to the Prompt Payment Code to be used as a condition of participation in the award of a public contract. We are committed to ensuring prompt payment to suppliers. However, requiring that every potential bidder becomes a signatory to the Prompt Payment Code to participate in the procurement would be too onerous a requirement. Therefore, while we encourage suppliers to sign up to a Prompt Payment Code, we do not consider it proportionate for us to legislate for it in this Bill.
Amendment 120, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, would extend the consideration of whether conditions are proportionate for the purposes of subsection (1) to include the accessibility of the contract to as broad a range of suppliers as possible. This is an abiding theme in your Lordships’ Committee. The primary purpose of Clause 21 is to ensure that the suppliers that participate in the procurement are capable of delivering the contract, but also that these conditions are restricted to only those which are needed to deliver the contract.
The noble Lord asked what we are doing to stop unreasonable requirements of SMEs and others, and I include in this broad range social enterprises and charities. As I say, the intention of Clause 21 on conditions of participation is to prohibit disproportionate or unreasonable requirements being put on contracts that would end up excluding SMEs. The authority must be satisfied that conditions of participation consider only the legal and financial capacity and technical ability of the supplier to perform the contract in question, and that there are proportionate means of doing so. We will look carefully at the noble Lord’s words. That is the intention behind Clause 21, but we will bear in mind what he said.
On the previous day of Committee, we discussed the importance of creating opportunity for SMEs and others. There was a broad ask from your Lordships. We think the clause as drafted helps with that, as conditions are pared back to focus on delivery. I have already committed to holding an engagement during the Recess about what more we can do to support SMEs. In the meantime, we consider that this amendment is not required, but we will give it some reflection. Is “reflection” a parliamentary word? It sounds like a word that one of the right reverend Prelates might use.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Will the Minister make it clear: when he says SMEs, does that embrace small charities and voluntary organisations, which I know are anxious about their situation under the process?
Lord True (Con)
Yes, my Lords, I believe I did say that. In parliamentary terms, I am reiterating what I said. SMEs cover, for the purpose of this, voluntary organisations, social enterprises and charities. I think I have made clear my profound personal belief that these are part of the vital warp and woof of our society.
Amendment 121, proposed by noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, aims to ensure contracting authorities take reasonable steps to verify that the supplier and any subcontractors are able to deliver the contract. Although we absolutely agree that contracting authorities need to do this in practice, we do not think it is necessary to add this provision into legislation, as the very operation of procurement is geared to this—the setting of conditions of participation, award criteria and evaluation processes, to name a few. While, as part of the Bill, we are improving supply chain visibility, we do not want to overengineer—noble Lords must have heard me say this too many times—legislative requirements for contracting authorities to investigate these matters in every procurement process as a box-ticking exercise.
Amendment 122A, which was proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and supported by others, would give the Minister the ability to exempt contracting authorities from the tests that must be satisfied when setting award criteria in order to allow policy priorities to take precedence to create additional public value. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee might have something to say about such an amendment if it were put forward by a Minister. It sounds very much as if certain rules need not apply in this particular place or contract. It certainly has a whiff of the dispensing power that the Glorious Revolution was designed to do away with, although I know noble Lords will say there is too much Henry VIII in too much legislation. So, in a technical sense it would be a difficult thing to do, but we think it would be undesirable.
We want all award criteria to be clear, measurable, relevant, non-discriminatory and proportionate to avoid unnecessary burdens on suppliers. We believe that this, together with our plans to publish a national procurement policy statement, which we debated earlier, and the requirement for authorities to maximise public benefit, will be sufficient. I have heard scepticism, but we believe that is the case.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Perhaps he would care to consider whether paragraph (c) should be reduced in length, because if my suggestion would be too specific, then paragraph (c) is already much too specific, and we had better cut it down.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
Sorry to interrupt, but just to clarify, it seems to me that the reference to “maximising public benefit” in the Bill is completely and utterly superfluous and has no meaning. The Minister’s response has further confirmed that the only criteria that can really be taken into account are value for money and cost. We will need to return to this at Report, because it now seems very clear that this is not an accident or some kind of desire for flexibility; it is really saying that there is only one thing that counts, and that is cost—and in the short term.
Lord True (Con)
I respectfully disagree with the noble Baroness. It is acknowledged from the other side that value for money is an extremely important criterion. It is one of the things in Clause 11. We have discussed mechanisms and we have had discussions about the national procurement policy statement, wherein, in the draft on the table, lie large numbers of things which the noble Baroness is seeking. It is frankly not the case to say that there is nothing in here other than value for money—that is not the Government’s submission to your Lordships. The Bill takes forward the change from the use of the term “most economically advantageous tender”, MEAT, to “most advantageous tender”, MAT. That is to reinforce the precise message that procurers can take a broader view of value for money than simply lowest price. We believe that the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness is not necessary.
Amendment 129A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, would make it explicit in the Bill that contracting authorities must always include an objective mechanism for determining price or cost after contract award where and to the extent that value for money, but not price or cost, is evaluated when assessing which tender is the most advantageous. We believe that commercial practice and other provisions in the Bill mean that this amendment is unnecessary. It would be highly unusual for contracting authorities not to include an evaluation of price or cost when assessing value for money in their procurements. This is good commercial sense.
Further, contracting authorities are not free to act unbounded. The procurement objectives, including those in Clause 11, will apply. I do not think it is necessary to expressly legislate for it. We will, however, publish guidance to contracting authorities on evaluation. The noble Lord may well ask me when the guidance is to be published. He also asked how we can be sure that that guidance will bite further. It may be that I can come forward with further information after Committee.
I am sorry, I have been given a long speech—
Baroness Noakes (Con)
We would not mind if my noble friend made it shorter.
Lord True (Con)
I would be happy to. There were a lot of amendments. I do not want to break down and not continue, but I have about four more minutes to go. With the Committee’s permission, would my noble friend—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Would my noble friend like me to take over his speech, as he is coughing?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 131, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, would prohibit contracting authorities applying relative assessment methodologies for price, costs or value-for-money award criteria, with the aim of preventing “race to the bottom” behaviour by suppliers and helping contracting authorities achieve safe, quality and value-for-money outcomes.
The objective of the Bill is to make public procurement more flexible for contracting authorities and suppliers, not less. In deciding how to assess tenders, contracting authorities must be able to determine what is important to them and the best means of assessing this. In some cases, price may be more important than others and, in particular, price assessment methodologies may be more appropriate in certain circumstances. I must also stress that contracting authorities will be very aware of the need for safe outcomes and that those cannot be compromised. To reiterate, we will publish guidance on assessment to help contracting authorities decide how best to assess tenders.
Amendment 147, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would require a Minister, within three years of the Bill being enacted, to undertake a review of the impact of the rules on how contracts subject to a competitive procedure must be awarded. In particular, the review must assess the impact of the change from “most economically advantageous tender”, commonly referred to as MEAT, to “most advantageous tender”, commonly referred to as MAT. On the delivery of social value, and whether the needs of service recipients have been met under contracts, the change from MEAT to MAT sends a much clearer message to contract authorities that the contracts do not have to be awarded on the basis of the lowest price. I can assure the noble Lord that the matters he refers to are within the scope of MAT, where they are relevant to the contract being procured.
Amendment 149, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, would make explicit that contracting authorities may exclude a supplier where it has failed to explain satisfactorily why the price or cost proposed in its tender appear to be abnormally low. We discussed this point during a recent SI debate, and I welcome his contribution. I appreciate that tenders may appear abnormally low for a variety of reasons, some of which ought to concern contracting authorities. The Bill’s silence on this point is not intended to discourage authorities seeking to understand the proposed price and cost or interrogating suppliers where they appear to be abnormally low. Authorities are already under an overarching duty to award contracts to the most advantageous tender. This should be sufficient to allow for questions to be asked of suppliers about proposed price and costs, and authorities can structure their evaluation to ensure that tenders can be rejected where the authority has reason to believe a tender is abnormally low.
In summary, this Bill aims to deliver a simpler regulatory framework. It therefore does not include every possible action a contracting authority might wish to take in assessing the validity of tenders or awarding contracts. This approach is better than the existing EU approach, as it offers increased flexibility to design efficient, commercial and market-focused competitions, while reducing burdens for smaller firms. Therefore, I respectfully request that these amendments are not moved.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I think this is a convenient point for the Grand Committee to adjourn on the Bill.
Procurement Bill [HL]
Monday 18th July 2022
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-V Fifth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (14 Jul 2022)
Lord Lansley
Lord Lansley (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for the splendid way in which she addressed my amendments last week, for which I am most grateful.
(a) treat the supplier as an excluded supplier for the purpose of—(i) assessing tenders under section 18 (competitive award), or(ii) awarding a contract under section 40 or 42 (direct award), and(b) exclude the supplier from participating in, or progressing as part of, any competitive tendering procedure.”
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, this group seeks to deal with amendments relating to the process for excluding suppliers and with the debarment list. I recognise that there is considerable interest in this topic. Amendments relating to the grounds for the exclusion of suppliers will be dealt with separately in a later group. I look forward with interest to submissions from noble Lords, but there are a number of government amendments in this group.
Amendment 89 ensures that suppliers which gained an unavoidable unfair advantage through involvement in preliminary market engagement are excluded from the procurement in question.
Amendment 148 is consequential on Amendment 93, which was debated last week. Amendment 93 clarifies that the authority’s requirements and award criteria are two separate concepts.
Amendment 154 broadens the concept of an entity associated with the supplier for the purpose of the exclusion grounds. This concept covers entities which are being relied on to meet the conditions of participation and is expanded by this amendment to also cover entities which may not be involved in the delivery of the contract. An example would be a consortium member providing financial backing to the supplier in order to meet conditions of participation relating to financial capacity. This aligns the concept of associated entities with the existing concept in Clause 21. An exception is made in respect of exclusions for guarantors such as banks, where it would be inappropriate to consider the exclusion grounds.
Amendment 150 is the lead of 21 amendments which all serve to change the term “associated supplier” to “associated person” for the purposes of the exclusions regime. This is consequential on Amendment 154 because the entities being relied upon to meet the conditions of participation may not be involved in the actual delivery of the contract. It is therefore accurate to refer to them as “persons” rather than “suppliers”.
Amendments 151, 159 and 166 require contracting authorities to notify suppliers when they are considered to be excluded or excludable by virtue of an exclusion ground applying to an associated person or subcontractor. These amendments are linked to Amendments 168 and 171, which require ministerial consideration before a supplier is notified and given the opportunity to replace an associated supplier or subcontractor when they are considered by the contracting authority to be a threat to national security.
Amendment 162 requires contracting authorities to ask for details of intended subcontractors and to check whether any intended subcontractors are on the debarment list, as part of determining whether the supplier is excluded or excludable. Amendments 163, 164, 165 and 398 are consequential.
Amendment 169 corrects a drafting error which incorrectly described suppliers subject to the exclusion ground on national security as being “excluded” when they are in fact “excludable”. Amendment 170 is also a technical amendment.
Amendments 175, 182, and 414 clarify what it means to treat a supplier as an excluded supplier in relation to the award of a public contract. They make it clear that contracting authorities are required to disregard tenders from such suppliers and prevent such suppliers from participating in, or progressing as part of, any competitive tendering procedure.
Amendments 176 and 178 provide for the list of improper behaviour at subsection (4) of Clause 30 to be an exhaustive list. It is important to be clear on the circumstances in which a supplier has acted improperly, given that the consequences are exclusion. Amendment 339 removes financial and other resources of suppliers from the list of the matters that contracting authorities may have regard to in setting proportionate requirements for suppliers to provide particular evidence or information as to whether exclusion grounds apply and whether the circumstances giving rise to any application are likely to occur again. Proportionality is sufficiently and more appropriately achieved by having regard to the nature and complexity of the matters being assessed, which is also listed. This amendment aligns with the matters that contracting authorities must have regard to in considering whether a condition of participation is proportionate, as specified in Clause 21.
Amendment 349 is made at the request of Northern Ireland and provides that transferred Northern Ireland authorities should make notification of exclusion to a department in the Northern Ireland Executive that the authority considers most appropriate, rather than a Minister of the Crown. This is necessary to provide information to the relevant department, for example to consider a potential investigation of suppliers under Clause 57. Amendment 352 requires that a Minister of the Crown must consult with the Northern Ireland department that the Minister considers most appropriate —rather than any Northern Ireland department—before entering a supplier’s name on the debarment list or removing an entry from the debarment list following an application for removal under Clause 60.
Amendment 399 extends the circumstances in which there is an implied right for a contracting authority to terminate a contract where a subcontractor—which the supplier did not rely on to meet the conditions of participation—is an excluded or excludable supplier. The amendment includes circumstances where the authority checked the debarment list or asked for information about the subcontractor but did not know that the subcontractor was excluded or excludable prior to award.
Finally, Amendment 402 requires contracting authorities to seek the approval of a Minister of the Crown before terminating a contract on the basis of the discretionary exclusion ground of national security. This is necessary to align with the other circumstances in which ministerial approval must be sought before relying on this particular ground. I beg to move.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
In keeping with the obvious mood of the Committee, I actually do not want to say very much either on this particular group. The interest I had was in the amendment from the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Fox, in this group, on how excluded suppliers demonstrate their reliability following the application of an exclusion order, and the process of self-cleansing. I was particularly interested in what this process of self-cleansing means. I am presuming—from the Minister’s helpful introduction—that the company is excluded for X reason, and is told that in the notice that goes to an excludable supplier, and then it goes back to the Government and says, “We’ve undertaken the process of self-cleansing and therefore the problems that you highlighted with us are no longer applicable”. So, I wondered whether the Minister could say a little bit more about the process of self-cleansing, which was the element that I found a little bit vague, if I am honest, and goes with many of the problems we have: the Minister talks about a “proportionate response” from the Government, and those sorts of phrases, and again we get into the problem of definition.
The other point I will make concerns what the Minister rightly pointed out: Schedules 6 and 7 outline the grounds rather than the process. There are the mandatory grounds in Schedule 6 and the discretionary grounds in Schedule 7, both of which a contracting authority might think applies to it. On the grounds in these schedules, can the Minister give us an example of what the process or timescale will be and an example of how it would work? Presumably the Minister sends this to the contracting authority and says, for example, “We think you should be excluded because of this in Schedule 6”, and if the company says, “No, this isn’t the case”, a discussion takes place. It would be helpful for the Committee to understand this process.
Finally, can the Minister confirm that, as I read it, there is also an appeals process? If the Government decided that a firm or supplier should be excluded, am I right in saying that this decision could be appealed? If it is appealed, who is it appealed to—presumably not the same person who made the decision to exclude them in the first place? I am querying the independence of that appeal process and the amount of time that this would take. A little more detail would be useful on the matter of an “excluded supplier” and an “excludable supplier”.
I do not want to keep the Committee any longer on this group of amendments, because the Minister’s helpful outline clarified some of the points I would have made about why “person” changes to “supplier”. I look forward to the Minister’s response to my questions.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I think that in a test match that is called putting the spinner on early when the batsman is better at fending off fast bowling.
The noble Lord asked a number of questions, which I am not in a position to answer at this juncture. We believe that self-cleansing is an important process because exclusion is a risk-based measure as perceived; it is not a punishment. As such, suppliers should be encouraged to clean up their act and given the right to make the case that they addressed the risk of misconduct, or the other issues, occurring again. It is for contracting authorities to decide whether the evidence they have seen is sufficient to reassure themselves that the issues in question are unlikely to occur again. The noble Lord asked a further question about what happens should there be a difference of judgment. The formal position is that it is for the contracting authorities to decide whether self-cleansing has occurred.
It is not our intention to make the exclusion of suppliers more difficult for contracting authorities, because many noble Lords, on a number of subjects, have asked for the opportunity to exclude suppliers. The Bill seeks to ensure that all the relevant issues can be considered. We believe that suppliers will thereby be encouraged to take as much comprehensive action as possible to avoid recurrence if they seem to fall foul of these risks. I repeat: the decision must be made by the contracting authority, and the burden to present remedial evidence to avoid exclusion is on the supplier. The lack of remedial evidence—or if the remedial evidence is inadequate—may give the contracting authorities sufficient reason to conclude that the issues in question are likely to occur again. However, I will look very carefully at this flighted ball that the noble Lord has sent. We accept the need for guidance on self-cleansing to accompany the legislation, and can assure the noble Lord opposite that this will be published as part of the implementation package for the Bill.
I cannot ask the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, not to move his amendments, as he is not here, but I hope that is something of an answer to the noble Lord, who has amendments in this group.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is quite helpful. Further to that and to make sure I have understood, would an excluded or excludable supplier be put on a debarment list? I refer to Clause 61, which is titled “Debarment decisions: appeals”. Am I reading this right or have I got it wrong?
Lord True (Con)
We will come on to the details of debarment on a later group—on Clause 61, I believe. A supplier may certainly appeal against the decision of a Minister, who ultimately places the debarment list. On the process of self-cleansing, which we were talking about, the contracting authority, not the Government, undertakes exclusion. It will notify the supplier that a ground for exclusion applies; the supplier may then make representations and submit self-cleansing evidence, as I previously discussed. The contracting authority then weighs it up and decides on exclusion.
This is the further wrinkle that I had not answered in saying rather more words than the succinct selection I have been given, but it confirms what I was saying: the supplier may challenge, but through the courts under the remedies regime, if it disputes the contracting authority’s judgment on self-cleansing.
We will come on to debarment decisions and permanent exclusion on amendments after Clause 61, but certainly a supplier may appeal against a ministerial decision.
In moving government Amendment 89 in my name, I request that the other amendments are not moved.
“(1) If a contracting authority carries out preliminary market engagement, the authority must—(a) publish a preliminary market engagement notice before publishing a tender notice, or(b) provide reasons for not doing so in the tender notice.”
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, here I pay the penalty for the discussion we had before the Committee started: there are more government amendments that I must move in this group. I will beg to move a range of amendments today.
Government Amendments 90 and 91 make improvements to preliminary market engagement notices. Together they ensure that, where a contracting authority chooses not to publish a preliminary market engagement notice, a justification must be set out in any subsequent tender notice. I know this will be welcomed, particularly by small businesses, which often rely on early market engagement.
Government Amendment 277 makes provision for contract details notices. It removes a superfluous reference to contracts awarded under this part, which is unnecessary as the definition of a public contract in Clause 2 covers that which needs to be covered.
Government Amendments 278 to 281 correct a timing error in relation to the publication of a contract details notice for a light-touch contract. This will ensure that the contract details notice is published first, within 120 days of entering into the contract. The publication of the contract is required within 180 days of entering into it, allowing time for the contracting authority to make any necessary redactions before publication.
Government Amendments 282 to 286 are at the request of Northern Ireland and exclude transferred Northern Ireland authorities from the obligation to publish contracts above £2 million.
Government Amendment 287 is a minor drafting change, which better reflects the operation of the provisions.
Amendments 355, 356, 357 and 359 make changes to the requirements in Clauses 64 and 65 for contracting authorities to publish information about, respectively, compliance with the prompt payment obligation in Clause 63 and payments made under public contracts. Northern Ireland has chosen to derogate from both those requirements, so these amendments reflect that policy.
Government Amendment 358 makes it clear that the exemption for utilities in Clause 65(4)(a) applies to private utilities only. Government Amendment 403 clarifies that user-choice contracts which are directly awarded are not subject to the requirement to publish a contract termination notice.
Government Amendments 429 and 430 are technical amendments to Clause 79 to reflect consistent drafting practice and the fact that Northern Ireland has chosen to derogate from the below-threshold rules in Part 6 and so does not require the threshold-altering power in subsection (7).
Government Amendments 446 and 447 to Clause 84 also relate to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has chosen to derogate from the requirement for its contracting authorities to publish pipeline notices.
Government Amendment 457 inserts a new clause entitled “Data protection” after Clause 88. This is a now standard legislative provision that reiterates the need for those processing personal data under this Bill to comply with existing data protection legislation. As we discussed on an earlier group, I look forward to engagement with noble Lords opposite on issues of particular concern relating to processing and holding data. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have Amendment 445 in this group. This amendment is concerned with the challenge facing charities seeking to obtain contracts from public authorities. The Bill is ambitious in its aim to simplify procurement rules, which is very welcome, but it is important that it is done in a way which does not make it more difficult for small businesses and particularly charities successfully to bid for contracts.
We know from past experience with current contracting rules and law that charities experience some barriers here. I hope that in our discussions on the Procurement Bill it will be recognised that a large proportion of the voluntary sector is pretty fundamental to the delivery of public services—indeed, in some cases the voluntary sector is the leading provider of such services. For example, according to research commissioned by DCMS, voluntary and charitable organisations and social enterprises won 69% of the total value of contracts awarded for homeless services between April 2016 and March 2020, and 66% of the total value of contracts to support victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse.
We know that the voluntary sector can produce outstanding results; we know about its ability to build trusting and long-term relationships with communities that are often excluded, its focus on prevention, its versatility and its agility. So I welcome the requirement for contracting authorities to publish pipeline notices—the Minister referred to this in relation to one of his amendments today—but, given the utility of such notices for smaller providers and the market diversity and improved services that could be cultivated by giving smaller providers a chance to prepare the bid, we want transparency to be prioritised in the requirements to publish pipeline notices; hence my amendment.
My Amendment 449 is slightly different but it none the less raises issues in relation to the way in which public authorities engage with the private sector—or the independent sector, depending on how you look at it. This amendment arises from concerns that public bodies are failing to act within the spirit if not the letter of the freedom of information legislation in relation to procurement contracts.
I just want to refer the Minister to an openDemocracy report, published last year, which looked at the operation of the Freedom of Information Act in 2020. It found that
“2020 was the worst year on record for Freedom of Information Act transparency … Official statistics published by the Cabinet Office show that just 41% of FOI requests to central government departments and agencies were granted in full in 2020—the lowest proportion since records began in 2005 … The Cabinet Office is blocking requests from MPs about its use of public money to conduct political research … Stonewalling, a brutally effective tactic for evading FOI, is increasingly prevalent … Government departments are cynically exploiting a legal loophole to deny timely access to information in the name of the ‘public interest’ … Government departments are failing to comply with a legal requirement to work constructively with requesters”.
The FoI Act was meant to be a safety net for members of the public so that there would be as much openness as possible. However, there are two obstacles to that happening. The first is the operational aspect of policing the Act through the Information Commissioner. The commissioner has been seriously affected by huge cost-cutting. Last November, Elizabeth Denham, the former commissioner, told the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee that the ICO’s resources were “40% less” than in 2010 while, at the same time, the number of requests had increased by one-third. In its most recent annual report, published in July 2021, the ICO noted that there had been a build-up of the caseload over the financial year.
The other obstacle to the public being able to find out what is going on is the subject of my amendment. One exemption in FoI legislation relates to commercial interests in Section 43(2). This is a qualified exemption subject to the public interest test. Its application ought to be straightforward but, unfortunately, it is used regularly to refuse information in often the most absurd situations. The outgoing commissioner said:
“The reality of the delivery of Government services involves so much of the private sector now. The scope of the Act does not … cover private sector businesses that are delivering public services. I think that is a huge challenge. I have seen statistics that say up to 30% of public services are delivered under private sector contracts, but those bodies are not subject to”
FoI legislation.
I am afraid that the NHS is a frequent offender when it comes to this. We know that, over the years, the Government and the NHS have looked to expand private sector involvement. There is a long-established trend of trying to outsource some NHS functions to private contractors and a recent trend to set up what I can only describe as tax-dodging subcos, as they are called, to avoid VAT payments and reduce staff’s terms and conditions. This is where public health bodies set up their own subsidiary companies and transfer staff over. Basically, they do it to get around VAT payments, but we have also seen them use it to reduce the terms and conditions of the staff who are so employed.
What is so objectionable is that trusts frequently refuse to disclose information about what they are doing. Decisions are made in secret. In one example, an FoI request went in for the business case. In the decision-making record, the request was turned down on the basis of commercial confidentiality. This happens up and down the country. Section 42(2) is also used to refuse to disclose information long after any commercial considerations have gone.
This is a serious issue. As members of the public, we have a right to know when the NHS outsources services. The FoI legislation was never envisaged as getting in the way of transparency in those cases. When you combine it with the enforcement problem that we have, in essence we are seeing the FoI legislation not being effective. I am not sure how hopeful I am, but I am ever hopeful that the Government will see the error of their ways in relation to FoI. It was set up with the best of intentions and its principles still stand today in terms of transparency, but the more we see the public sector using the private sector, the more FoI considerations ought to come into play.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 445, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I shall make a couple of points in addition to what he has said.
Clause 84 requires pipeline notices to be published where the contracting authority expects to pay more than £100 million under relevant contracts in the coming financial year. However, this will be required only for contracts with an estimated value of more than £2 million. This threshold will do very little to improve transparency or, indeed, preparedness and competitiveness for SMEs and charities. According to research by the Federation of Small Businesses, over the past three years almost half—48%—of public sector contracts applied for by SMEs were worth below £25,000 and nine in 10, or 89%, were worth below £100,000.
My second point is that the amendment merely requires contracting authorities to consider publishing a pipeline notice where this would be likely to enable a wider range of providers to participate, thus improving the quality and value for money of services tendered. This would surely be a useful, if relatively mild, way of promoting greater awareness of the importance of engaging more small businesses, charities and social enterprise in public contracts. It deserves support.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 445, which I was also pleased to sign. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made a very good case for why it would be so useful for charities and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, extended that. I wish to extend it further to reinforce the point that the importance of the pipeline notice is that it provides guidance for the authorities to take a risk that, in a sense, goes slightly beyond the principle that no one got fired for choosing IBM. If we are trying to get the best service, we must look for the right opportunities and the right people, not just in the context of charities, or even small businesses. Those especially penalised are microbusinesses, freelancers or even start-ups in the commercial sector, not-for-profits and social enterprises. All are massively disadvantaged by tendering for any contract. Many have more than enough skill to be able to do it, and many of the people who provide the backbone for those areas are people who accomplished it very comfortably in larger companies. The effective use of pipeline notices is a strong signal that the Government expect all contracting authorities to make a judgment that will help all those sorts of businesses and those people who can provide excellent and outstanding service. They deserve the opportunity to do so.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 449A tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I support the two amendments to which my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath has just spoken. Amendment 449A covers much the same ground as his Amendment 449, but it probably goes a bit further in arguing for the need for transparency. It relates to public service contractors and where information about them should be available under FoI.
The Bill’s disclosure provisions are very limited in comparison with what would be available under FoI. Authorities responsible for contracts worth over £200 million would be required to set and publish key performance indicators, but they do not give the same information, there is a delay of probably up to one year in them and they do not help members of the public and others who might be interested in getting the information.
The amendment sets out that the FoI Act should be extended to cover information held by public sector contractors about these contracts. At present, it allows access to such information only if it is held on behalf of the commissioning authority, which normally applies only where the contract specifically entitles the authority to obtain particular information from the contractor. Where it does not, the information held by the contractor is outside the scope of FoI provisions.
There are many examples of this. Some of those cited by my noble friend probably also apply here but I shall mention one or two others. The first is a report on potential fire safety defects at Hereford County Hospital, constructed and managed under a PFI scheme by Mercia Healthcare Ltd under an agreement with the NHS trust. The report was commissioned by Mercia Healthcare from the now-defunct contractor Carillion, which was still operating at the time. The request to the trust for information about this was refused on the grounds that the report was not held by or on behalf of the trust. There are many such examples. I could explain at length some of the contracts that HS2 has got into; I shall not, but the same comments apply. There is a complete lack of transparency about information on that.
The extension to cover information held by contractors about contracts with public authorities has been supported by the Information Commissioner, the Public Accounts Committee, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Justice Committee, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information, set up by the Government to review the FoI Act in 2015, and the Institute for Government. There are many other examples from around the world where transparency is thought necessary and desirable. I believe the UK FoI provisions should be extended to allow access to such information via a request to the public authority responsible for the contract.
While I am on my feet and while we are talking about transparency, I should like to ask the Minister about a Written Statement giving guidance to Ministers participating in government commercial activity. It comes from the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency and says that the Bill we are discussing
“creates a simpler and more flexible commercial system that better meets our country’s needs while remaining compliant with our international obligations. Ministers have the opportunity to participate fully in this system with certain safeguards to protect them from the risk of legal challenge.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/7/22; col. 17WS.]
I could add that it does not protect the taxpayer and does not seem to protect anybody from the Minister making lots of money out of NHS contracts, as we have heard. It is odd that this Statement has come out in the middle of our deliberations on this Bill. Could the Minister explain when we can see the guidance—I have asked the Library and it does not have it yet—and how it fits in with the Bill we are discussing?
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 449 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and Amendment 449A from the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Clement-Jones, which deal with transparency. The Minister will not be surprised that I will use this opportunity to raise the blocking of information about the purchase of Hikvision cameras, which are used all over the United Kingdom; he was good enough to meet me twice to discuss this and I am very grateful to him for the time he gave. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised this in a Motion to Regret debate in February. I raised it at Second Reading, quoting the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, Professor Fraser Sampson, who said he was
“encouraged to see reports … that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has now prohibited any further procurement of Hikvision surveillance technology by his department”.
I asked the Minister at the time whether he would be willing to share his own department’s response to that letter to the Cabinet Secretary from Professor Sampson, and to explain why, if it was the right thing to do in the case of the Department of Health—and I believe it was the right thing to do—to give information to Members of Parliament in parliamentary Questions, which it was, because the Minister answered Questions from me specifically on this on 25 and 26 May, it was not possible on security grounds to give the same answers it was possible to give in connection with the Department of Health.
Even more relevant, in conjunction with these amendments, is the fact that only last week the information requested in a freedom of information request about Hikvision in connection with HS2—which I will come back to—was denied. That raises quite a lot of serious problems, I think, in the minds of any member of the public, let alone parliamentarians anxious to discover the truth about why particular things are being ordered, how much they cost, whether they pose security risks and what the dangers are to the United Kingdom.
I think we have a serious problem in our procurement supply chain when it comes to the problem of Chinese technology companies—blacklisted, I might add, by a Five Eyes ally, the United States, as a threat to national security and yet allowed in the United Kingdom —who are known for their complicity in human rights violations taking place in Xinjiang against Uighurs, and I declare a non-pecuniary interest as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uighurs. When I met the noble Lord to discuss the legislation before us, he noted that there are over 1 million Hikvision and Dahua Technology cameras in the United Kingdom —I repeat, over 1 million. The noble Lord outlined that the Government do indeed have concerns regarding the security of these cameras and their links to the concentration camps in Xinjiang.
Now as many will be aware, a number of civil society organisations, including Free Tibet and Big Brother Watch—through freedom of information requests —have found that a number of government departments, local authorities, NHS trusts, schools, police forces, job centres and prisons use cameras manufactured by Dahua Technology and by Hikvision. What is not clear is the extent of the issue across the public procurement supply chain, and that is why these amendments are so important.
I have asked the Cabinet Office how many departments have cameras manufactured by Dahua Technology and Hikvision and, as I have explained, Ministers—with the exception of the Department of Health—have refused to reply. I welcome the decision made by the former Secretary of State at the Department of Health to commit to removing Hikvision cameras from his department, but when will we have a timetable for other departments to follow suit? How can we justify doing one thing on national security grounds in one department and not elsewhere?
I have asked Ministers how many of these cameras are at UK ports, airports and train stations and, again, I have been rebuffed on the grounds that the Government will not speculate on the security provisions on our transport network. When you apply through freedom of information requests for that information, it is declined. So, sadly, the debate around the use of Hikvision and Dahua in our public procurement supply chain is shrouded in secrecy. I hope Ministers unwilling to be transparent about the issues that we have faced hitherto will see that they are wrong to have been so and will remedy that.
Nowhere is this issue more evident than when I was recently approached by a concerned party who had reported to me that Hikvision may have received a contract from HS2 to install its cameras along the entire length of this new high-speed rail network. Following this information, I submitted a freedom of information request to HS2 asking for information on whether Hikvision has any contracts with HS2, and I was informed that HS2 does not centrally hold information regarding contracts with its suppliers. This is clearly an unacceptable state of affairs. Phase 1 of HS2 is to cost taxpayers—and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I am sure will correct me if I am underestimating this—some £44.6 billion, and that includes substantial procurement contracts. It is well within the public interest to ensure that taxpayers’ money is not going to Chinese technology companies that have been accused of complicity in gross human rights violations and the use of forced labour—slave labour.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Worthington, who cannot be here, to support our Amendment 452, which makes transparency provisions, in particular on issues of climate change. I welcome the Minister’s commitment at Second Reading that the Government
“want to deliver the highest possible standards of transparency in public procurement”.—[Official Report, 25/5/22; col. 856.]
While the Bill does not include a general duty of transparency compared with previous procurement rules, which required that contracting authorities act in a transparent manner, the Government have said:
“Transparency will be fundamental to the new regime. Extended transparency requirements and a single digital platform on which procurement data will be published will mean that decisions and processes can be monitored by anybody that wishes to do so.”
The Bill widens the authorities’ duties to publish notices and information on their procurement activities, and the provisions under Clauses 86 and 88 should improve transparency by making such notices available through a specified online system. This is welcome, but there is no substantive information on what exactly is going to be published. Instead, Clause 86 provides for appropriate authorities, through secondary legislation, to make regulations that will set out how notices and information will be published.
The amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Worthington is intended to clarify what the regulations for the publication of notices, documents and information must contain as a minimum, by ensuring that any regulations include provisions around the availability of notices or information and that these are easily accessible.
Open and accessible procurement data will be crucial in the years ahead to enable modelling of the impacts of public contracts on carbon emissions, particularly when it comes to renewal. Spend Network has started to collect procurement data on every public tender and contract in the world and to map some of this impact on a freely available basis, but it has been hampered by a lack of good-quality inputs. Nevertheless, the data available has confirmed that a 20% reduction of emissions at each contract renewal would
“see the UK government’s contracting still emitting 686,000 tonnes of carbon per month by 2030”,
but that
“poor quality data meant that we were only able to evaluate 40% of the data”.
The recent Written Question to the Minister from my noble friend Lady Worthington highlighted the lack of easily accessible data being kept by departments on both contracts and emissions from those contracts. Will the Minister agree to this simple amendment, which would ensure that there is clarity in the legislation about transparency and accessibility, especially in relation to carbon?
While I am on my feet and we are discussing transparency in contracts, I would like to ask the Minister something that I was asked at the weekend, about the £360 million Palantir contract to manage NHS data. I was contacted by a very worried local NHS manager, who says that a list of 300 redundancies has already been drawn up in the NHS digital department and that this contract with Palantir—a second person has now left the NHS to work for Palantir—is a “done and dusted deal”. I would be incredibly happy if the Minister could give me a small reassurance that I could pass on to my friend, because obviously everyone in his department is really anxious.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for introducing all the government amendments in this group. Again, it is very helpful, as there are quite a few of them, so we appreciate that.
I will speak to my four amendments and offer my support for the others in this group, so ably introduced by noble Lords. My first three are Amendments 455, 458 and 459A, which are on digital registers and digital information. I will speak to those first. Amendment 455 would require the establishment of a digital register of all public procurement for all notices; Amendment 458 would allow the creation of a digital registration system for suppliers; and Amendment 459A would require a contracting authority to publish required procurement documents on a single digital platform. The intended purpose is to allow public spending priorities and the performance of the procurement system to be understood by stakeholders, and therefore allow authorities to plan and deliver procurement in a strategic manner.
The Green Paper Transforming Public Procurement said that a
“lack of standardisation, transparency and interoperability is preventing the UK from harnessing the opportunities that open, common and shared data could bring”,
and that
“a clear digital procurement strategy focused on transparency results in greater participation and increased value for money driven by competition.”
The Cabinet Office Declaration on Government Reform policy paper, published in June last year, also supports this when it says:
“We must do better at making our data available to all so that we can be more effectively held to account.”
It also includes an action to:
“Ensure all data is as open as possible to public and third parties.”
I am sure we would all support that.
We were therefore very pleased to see this ambition reiterated by the Minister at Second Reading when he said:
“I acknowledge that transparency has been a key ask for the House. The House expects that transparency will be improved. We believe that the Bill does this.”—[Official Report, 25/5/22; col. 926.]
We have learned from today’s debate that real transparency is incredibly important to noble Lords, as this Bill progresses. We therefore believe that it is essential to put the Green Paper ambitions into the Bill, both to deliver on this promise effectively and to make sure that it cannot be rolled back or diluted, which is one of our concerns. An unambiguous statement of this commitment would help secure adequate resources, and I am sure the Minister would agree with me on the importance of this.
Looking at Clause 88, on information relating to a procurement, in Part 8 of the Bill—there are number of subsections, so I will not read it all out—I just want to check that I am reading its implications correctly. If I understand it, it creates powers to have a single supplier portal right across government. If this is correct, it is extremely positive, but I would like clarification from the Minister that that is exactly the intention of this clause. If that is the case, it would save a huge amount of time across government and across business, allowing companies to register and update their credentials once to do business with UK government. It would also allow them to establish unique IDs for contracting authorities and, we hope, then move forward in a much more practical and efficient way, which is what we would all like to see. The purpose of my Amendment 455 is to allow the Bill and the Government to articulate this objective much more clearly. I would be grateful if the Minister can clarify this.
The other vital part of the Government’s data ambitions—to bring together all the notices and data around procurement into a single source—should also have the same elevation in the Bill. It is really important that the information can then be fed back into a variety of user-friendly ways to local authorities, major procurement companies and others, so that we can generate data-driven insights and properly track the performance of different companies. Because there is spend, there is live, ongoing and updated data, which will be extremely helpful. There seems to be the ambition behind the UK’s adoption and approval of the open contracting data standard, about which it would again be helpful to get clarification. The purpose of my three amendments on data is to gain clearer provisions in this regard in the Bill, which will be easier to understand for anyone working in the procurement industry or wanting to gain a contract.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also has a number of amendments on data, and I thank him for his support for one of my amendments. I know he will speak to his amendments, but I think we are in the same place on all this. I am extremely grateful for his amendments and will listen carefully to what he has to say when he introduces them.
I turn to my other amendment, Amendment 459, and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for her support for it. Its purpose is to require each ministerial department to calculate the estimated carbon emissions from public contracts entered into and to lay an annual report on this before Parliament. The amendment seeks to look at the impact of the procurement regime from an emissions perspective. Given the weather at the moment, climate change is on everyone’s mind, so I hope the Minister and the Government will think carefully about the areas where we are looking to improve the impact of the Procurement Bill—on climate change, emissions, net zero and so forth.
There is a National Audit Office report on public sector emissions, which is extremely worth looking at. I urge the Minister to have a close look at it to see whether there is any way that its recommendations can also be part of what we are trying to achieve through the Procurement Bill. The main issue is around reporting: although many companies will do it voluntarily, many others do not report at all, so there is no balance in the information that we have. For example, there are no mandatory emissions measurements or reporting requirements for the public sector as a whole. The wider public sector includes local authorities, schools and hospitals, all of which may well have high carbon emissions. Peers for the Planet published a very good report on local authorities and net zero, in which it noted that there was little consistency in local government reporting of emissions. I understand that a lot of this concerns BEIS, but the Procurement Bill provides us with an opportunity to look at whether this is something that would have a positive impact on driving down emissions.
This concludes the introduction of my amendments and I will turn now to those of other noble Lords. Many noble Lords spoke in support of the different amendments on the publication of notices and the concerns around freedom of information. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in particular, made an extremely important speech about his two amendments. He said again that it is a welcome ambition to simplify what we are trying to achieve here with procurement. As I have said, any noble Lord who worked on OJEU will be very grateful for simplification. As was debated last week, it is terribly important that we do not make things more difficult for SMEs, charities, voluntary organisations and, as my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn said, for freelancers, who were often forgotten when we debated this Bill previously. Transparency is clearly very important when looking at those kinds of contracts.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to a number of amendments in this group on behalf of my noble friend Lord Wallace and myself. I must first apologise that there was no presence on the Liberal Democrats Benches at the beginning. I am afraid my colleagues have been in the wars. My noble friend Lord Wallace is at the dentist, my noble friend Lord Fox is suffering from Covid and my noble friend Lord Scriven was delayed for four hours on a train—so it has all been a tale of disaster.
I shall speak first to my noble friend Lord Wallace’s Amendments 450 and 451, which are intended to probe the nature of the exemptions from publishing or disclosing information. It is welcome that centralised investigations by a Minister of the Crown into whether suppliers should be excluded are explicitly allowed under the Bill and that reports from these investigations must be published. However, under the current Bill the grounds for not publishing such reports include national security and the release of sensitive commercial information. Sensitive commercial information is defined under Clause 85 as any information which
“would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person if it were published”.
Given that a debarment investigation, by its very nature, is likely to prejudice the commercial interests of a person in that it will have a significant reputational impact on a company or individual that will affect their commercial relations, this test is too broad and is likely to lead to many debarment investigation reports not being published or to decisions to do so being contested by the company.
Clause 85(2)(b) is likely to lead to more redaction of information than is necessary or in the public interest by putting the onus on the contracting authority to prove there is no chance it will cause any harm to the commercial interests of any person—a standard which is very vague and difficult to enforce. We therefore argue that information in public contracts regarding how public funds are spent should be public by design and redacted only by exception when doing so is in the overriding public interest. Doing so reduces the risk for contracting authorities and will avoid overreaction.
My noble friend’s Amendment 448 has the same intent as Amendment 449A. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, spoke to that amendment extremely cogently and I have signed it. As he said, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 applies to information about a contract held by a public authority but not normally to information held by the contractor. Public access to information about public sector contracts varies from contract to contract, depending on their precise terms and on the willingness of the parties to adopt measures permitting greater access.
Much of the information the public may seek will relate to problems not anticipated at the contract stage or to information which the authority did not consider it needed to monitor in relation to performance under the contract. The Bill provides for only limited disclosure to the public about the performance of a contract. An annual assessment of performance against KPIs will be required for contracts valued at over £2 million, but an authority will not be required to publish more than three KPIs and may not be required to publish any at all if it considers that they would not allow the appropriate assessment of the contract’s performance. The actual information to be published about compliance with KPIs will be left to regulations.
In any event, a 12-month wait for an annual publication is unlikely to satisfy the needs of those concerned about an existing problem, and this amendment, as the noble Lord described, provides that all information relating to a contract with a public authority held by the contractor or a subcontractor will be subject to the FoIA or to the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. As he described, this follows the approach of many countries’ FoI laws: for example, Australia, Germany, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand—I could go on.
Amendment 449 would in effect make this position under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act and the EIR. It would ensure that any information held by a contractor in connection with a public authority contract would be deemed to be held on behalf of the authority and thus be subject to the FoIA and EIR. The public’s right to such information would no longer depend on the precise terms of the contract. We strongly support that amendment.
We also support Amendments 455 and 459A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I have also tabled Amendment 456, which is complementary to Amendment 459A. As the noble Baroness described, Amendment 459A is designed explicitly to frame a duty around transparency in UK procurement beyond publishing the notices themselves as required in the Bill. As she described, this is drawn from the OECD’s recommendation on public procurement and seems to have some purchase with the Cabinet Office. The amendment would help establish how and where the notices should be published. It also says why or what the objective behind publishing the notices is. It is important that the completeness and comprehensiveness of the notices are not changed without accountability.
Amendment 456 goes a bit further and adds specific requirements about the platform’s implementation and would ensure that the information on the digital platform was regularly reviewed for accuracy, timeliness and completeness. A crucial aspect is the need for the contract award notices to be published in a timely fashion. Current legislation requires contract award notices to be published within 30 days, yet research by the Spend Network shows that the mean time to publish contract award notices is over 40 days. Many ministerial departments spending billions of pounds take more than three months to publish notices. The Cabinet Office takes an average of 2.7 months. Vital information is missing from nearly three-quarters of contract award notices, and this is wrong because it denies the public, businesses of all sizes and the media the ability to understand what financial commitments the Government are making and with whom—as with that egregious fast-track PPE contract situation.
We need to ensure that this long-standing problem does not get worse and that the appropriate authority ensures that public sector organisations publish complete, accurate and accessible data under an open licence and that the 30-day threshold set out in Clause 51 is respected in practice. That is what Amendment—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for interrupting him. I am afraid that there is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I am tempted to say to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that he need not sit down since I am about to call him.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Thank you. My Lords, if noble Lords thought that my previous speech took a long time, they will not be happy with the second half of it, which concerns the technical parts. These relate to Amendments 452A, 452B, 519A and 519B, which are technical amendments from the Local Government Association designed to ensure that all notices come within the new digital platform.
Amendments 452A and 452B relate to Clause 86(1) of the Bill, which sets out that appropriate authorities may by regulations make provision about
“the form and content of notices, documents or other information to be published or provided under this Act”
and
“how such notices or documents are, or information is, to be published, provided or revised.”
The amendments would help ensure that future regulations do not contravene the purpose of the single digital platform wherever possible and support the move to progressively streamline the many different publication requirements for procurement information and contract-spend data placed on local government and the public sector as a whole through different pieces of legislation.
Amendment 519A would omit Section 89(4)(b) and 89(5) of the Transport Act 1985. This would remove the requirement for local authorities to issue notices of tender individually to all persons who have given to that authority a written notice indicating that they wish to receive invitations to tender for the provision of local services for that authority’s area. This would bring the requirements to advertise tenders for transport services into line with those set out in the Bill and facilitate the ambition to create a single digital platform where all public tenders are advertised in one place.
Finally, Amendment 519B would amend the Service Subsidy Agreements (Tendering) (England) Regulations 2002 by removing Regulations 4 and 5. Regulation 4 requires local authorities to publish information relating to tender invitations in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the same regulations. Regulation 5 requires local authorities to publish tender information to the general public at times, in places and in a form which are convenient to the public, and to publish notices of tenders in local newspapers. Removing the two regulations would ensure that information about contract pipelines and contract awards for service subsidies will in future be published in the same place and format as information about any other public contract, to improve consistency and accessibility. A service subsidy in this context is where councils subsidise companies operating public passenger transport services to run services on routes which may not otherwise be economically viable, for example bus services in rural areas. I hope that has explained these rather technical amendments and very much hope that the Minister understands the motive behind them.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for not rising sooner; I never know how many spokesmen are going to rise from the various Benches. This has been another interesting and informative debate. It has also been extremely wide-ranging, as has become our custom in this Committee. I will try to answer as many points as possible, but there are things coming from various areas that we will look at carefully. This is your Lordships’ Committee and therefore it is perfectly reasonable for points to be made. My aspiration is to answer, but I may not be able to answer them all.
Before I get on to the main amendments, I will address various things I was asked about. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, asked about the Palantir contract. I am advised that this is a DHSC NHS contract. I am not informed in my department of the details she asked for, but I will ask my officials to follow up and respond to her later.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about a Written Ministerial Statement made last week. The timing of the publication of the participation in government commercial activity guidelines for Ministers referred to in that Statement is not connected to this Bill. The guidance sets out how Ministers can be appropriately involved in commercial activity, including procurements, under the current procurement rules.
I was anticipating in a later group—indeed, there are some relevant amendments—a debate about Hikvision. I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, as well as for the opportunity to speak to him about this matter, which, as he said, has some security considerations. So far as the actuality of what might or could happen is concerned—that is a potential rather than a loaded spin on it—it is ultimately up to contracting authorities to apply the grounds for exclusion under this Bill on a contract-by-contract basis. The national security ground is discretionary, meaning that authorities can take into account a range of factors, including the nature of the contract being tendered. However, the debarment regime will allow for the central consideration of suppliers on the grounds of national security. As the noble Lord knows, the Government’s security group is working with the National Technical Authority and the Government Commercial Function on the government security aspects of this issue.
I appreciate the noble Lord’s impatience, given the sensitivities of the issue. Policy options are being worked out for how to mitigate the security risks posed by this type of equipment; they range from primary legislation to ban certain companies from the government supply chain to issuing more advice and guidance for contracting authorities. The Cabinet Office has also published guidance setting out the steps that all government departments must take to identify and mitigate modern slavery and labour abuse risks throughout the commercial lifecycle, focusing on the areas of highest risk. We may well return to this issue in debate on a later group, but I can assure the noble Lord that the matters he raised are ones that the Government are not minimising but currently considering.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister. Without pre-empting our debate later in the Committee’s proceedings, is he in a position now to respond to the letter to the Cabinet Secretary from Professor Sampson, which I referred to in my remarks earlier? If not, could that correspondence be made available to your Lordships between now and Report?
Also, has the Minister had a chance to look at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee’s report, which called for a total prohibition of Hikvision, and the decision not just of the United States Administration but of the European Parliament to ban Hikvision from their public procurement policies? Given the national security implications, as he said—earlier, I referred specifically to the suggestion that HS2 might procure and use Hikvision cameras on the whole of its new network—does the noble Lord not agree that this is something on which we should shine more light rather more urgently?
Lord True (Con)
Perish the thought that I might comment on the shelf life of HS2, but I do take what the noble Lord says very seriously. The fact is that some of the factors he mentions are taken into consideration. This issue is live. I accept his chiding. I will look carefully at his words and at what he has asked to be published or not published, but I hope that we may get a resolution of this matter, because I understand the demand, the request and the desire for a clear and public solution to the points put forward by the noble Lord. We will see what we can do, if not before the next group then certainly before we come back to this issue on Report.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, before the noble Lord continues, I hope he will go back to the original statement to reflect further on whether this information could be published. This was an open letter from Professor Sampson that was published—it appeared in the national newspapers that the letter had been sent to the Cabinet Secretary—and I would have thought that most of the issues raised in that letter are things to which Members of your Lordships’ House should certainly be privy.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have given further information. The noble Lord referred to a whole range of factors which he asked to be considered and asked me to respond to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report and so on. I said I would reflect on all he has said and come back, but I gather there has been some reflection on this aspect of his menu. We will no doubt maintain this dialogue.
The amendments we were talking about—Amendments 448, 449 and 449A—all relate to freedom of information and seek to bring external suppliers into the scope of the Act. In practice, the Government do not believe that the amendment would add much and could impose burdens on businesses that would make public contracts unattractive. The public authority will already hold all the details of the tendering process and the resulting contracts, and that information can already be requested under the FoI Act. The desire has been expressed in some quarters to reform the FoI Act, but we are looking at the proposals before us.
Furthermore, information held by a supplier or subcontractor on behalf of a contracting authority is already within scope of the Act. The amendments also introduce unhelpful limitations on the ability of contracting authorities to withhold commercially confidential information. This is a point of debate, but the FoI Act sets out the duties on public bodies when they receive requests for information under the Act. Restating the operation of that legislation is not necessary in this Bill. The Bill sets out in detail what information is required to be published and the triggers for publication, as well as requiring contracting authorities to explain why they are withholding any data.
Amendment 449A also seeks to extend the enforcement powers of the Information Commissioner to suppliers and subcontractors and open them up to criminal prosecution. The Information Commissioner already has enforcement powers in relation to public authorities and therefore in relation to the information held by others on their behalf. We believe that transparency is a sanction for authorities that fail to fulfil their obligations to publish as the failure will be obvious to the public. Failure to publish information required by the Act could be subject to judicial review, and there is also potential for a civil claim for breach of statutory duty pursuant to Clause 89 if the supplier can demonstrate that it suffered loss or damage arising from a breach of a publication obligation. Additionally, an appropriate authority has a power under Clauses 96 to 98 to investigate a contracting authority’s compliance with the Act, make recommendations and, if appropriate, provide statutory guidance to share lessons learned as a result of the investigation. Recommendations issued under Clause 97 come with a duty on the contracting authority to have regard to those recommendations when considering how to comply with the Act, and failure to do so would also leave the contracting authority open to judicial review.
Where a contracting authority is required to publish something that includes sensitive commercial information, it may withhold or redact that information only if there is an “overriding public interest” in doing so. Where the commercial confidentiality exemption is used to withhold or redact information, this must be publicly recorded. As such, there will be full transparency about what has been withheld and why, and interested parties can always challenge such decisions by requesting the withheld information under FoI law. This process is subject to the oversight of the Information Commissioner. Interested parties can also complain to the procurement review unit, which we discussed the other day.
Amendments 450 and 451 are from the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Fox. They are absent, and I send them best wishes for their respective aliments. Expertus dico: I have just had an aliment as noble Lords saw in the last Session, and I very much feel for all noble Lords. These amendments would make it harder for contracting authorities to withhold information in instances where there is sensitive commercial content. The overall result could be the inappropriate disclosure of sensitive information or fear of such disclosure, both of which are likely to have a chilling effect on suppliers bidding if they cannot be confident that their commercial secrets will be respected by contracting authorities. This could lead to a reduction in choice, quality and value.
Amendment 452, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Worthington and Lady Boycott, and Amendment 455, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—which I think is intended to address the central digital platform, not the data on the supplier registration system—propose to introduce various requirements about the accessibility of published information and how it is licensed. The Government have already committed to a publicly available digital platform which will allow citizens to understand authorities’ procurement decisions. This data will be freely available. It will remain subject to data protection law and redaction under the exemptions set out in Clause 85.
However, not all information should be published on the central digital platform. For example, some associated tender documents produced under Clause 20 in certain procurement exercises may need to be circulated to only a limited group of suppliers, for instance, where that information is sensitive. As set out in the Green Paper, we will apply the open contracting data standard, and specify this in more detail in secondary legislation. Published data will be covered by open government licence where possible; personal data contained on the platform will be available without any licence.
Amendments 452A and 452B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would amend Clause 86 to ensure that regulations require publication on a single digital platform. These amendments are unnecessary as the Government have already committed to providing this platform.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has tabled Amendment 456, which imposes obligations on an appropriate authority in relation to standards and quality of data on the platform. Clause 86(1)(a) already makes specific provision for regulations to set out both the form and the content of information to be published under the various notices required by the Bill. This power is there to ensure that regulations can establish the very standards and formats that I believe the noble Lord is seeking.
On the noble Lord’s proposed new paragraph (b), a notice is usually a snapshot of a moment in time. Most notices should not be updated after the initial publication and it is the legal responsibility of the contracting authority publishing the information to ensure that it is timely, accurate and complete. The appropriate authority—a Minister of the Crown, a Welsh Minister or a Northern Ireland department—will not be in a position to verify all that information, which is why it is the responsibility of the contracting authority.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for interrupting, but can the Minister therefore explain why these time limits are so regularly and hugely overridden? The research shows, as I mentioned, that the Cabinet Office itself has a delay of 2.7 months compared with its legal obligation of 30 days. How does the Minister explain that, and why is no further action needed in terms of compliance?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, if the Cabinet Office is sinning, I will take the matter away and look into it. I heard what the noble Lord said about time limits, but I do not have a specific response in this area at the moment, and nor can I either confirm or deny the figure he gave. We have undertaken to engage on these issues, and we will find the answers and will look very carefully at what the noble Lord said in his speech—or rather, his two speeches.
Amendment 458, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, relates to the creation of a digital registration system for suppliers. The register of suppliers described in the Green Paper remains a priority, and provision for this register is set out in Clause 88.
Amendment 459, tabled by the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and others seeks to introduce a requirement for government departments to produce reports on carbon emissions relating to procured goods, services and works. I made the Government’s position clear previously that such matters should not be included in the Bill and that remains our position.
I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Clement-Jones, for their Amendment 459A. However, the Government are opposed to this amendment as well. It would create an obligation to have the central digital platform operational within six months of passing the Act. Just to be clear, Clause 86 creates the powers that the Government will use to require publication on the single digital platform. Clause 88 is the basis of the supplier registration system, which is the “tell us once” system through which suppliers will communicate information about themselves to contracting authorities.
I understand from his helpful explanatory statement that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was referring to the former—the single digital platform. We do not wish to commit to such a timetable now, as it might not be necessary or possible to deliver the whole functionality of that platform to that timetable. As the noble Lord knows, there is already a six-month period of pre-implementation built in, but I hear what he says and I think there is broad agreement in the Committee that this development is desirable. I welcome the positive response from the Liberal Democrats and Her Majesty’s Opposition, having had discussions about it, and I will take away what they say.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Can I just say—because sometimes these things pass by and they should be noted—that we are very pleased with that commitment from the Minister and thank him for it?
Lord True (Con)
Right. Unfortunately, the noble Lord will be disappointed by my response to the second part of the amendment, because I have already explained that contracting authorities will not be required to publish all information to the central platform.
I turn finally to Amendments 519A and 519B from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. The Bill exempts contracts for public passenger transport services under paragraph 17 of Schedule 2, as their award is regulated by Department for Transport legislation. We believe that it is more appropriate that the transparency provisions governing these arrangements are kept within their existing legal regime, and local authorities are therefore not placed under an unnecessary burden of trying to comply with two separate regimes simultaneously when placing such contracts. I have, however, asked my officials to engage with the Department for Transport to better understand how we can ensure that both regimes are aligned—I think that was one of the points behind the noble Lord’s remarks.
I thank the noble Lord for his generous remarks. Having been a bit flinty on a number of the others, I will none the less, as ever, study carefully Hansard and your Lordships’ very well-informed submissions. Against that background, I commend the government amendments in my name and respectfully request that other amendments in the group not be pressed.
“(a) satisfies the contracting authority’s requirements, and(b) ”
Baroness Noakes
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes why suppliers which do not satisfy conditions of participation must be excluded from a contract award under clause 18 though such suppliers are not required to be excluded from the tendering process under clause 21(6).
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 107 in this group. The large part of this group is government amendments, but my two small probing amendments have found their way into my noble friend’s rather large group.
Amendment 96 is another “may/must” amendment, which we always enjoy in this Committee. It probes the effect of not satisfying participation conditions on a tender. Clause 21 allows a contracting authority to set conditions of participation in specific areas. Subsection (6) permits but does not require the contracting authority to exclude a supplier which does not satisfy a participation condition from then participating in all or part of the tendering process.
If a contracting authority does not exclude a supplier from the tender process, one might think that such a tender could result in the award of a contract. If that were not the case, I can see no reasonable case for allowing such a tender into the process at all. However, subsection (3)(a) of Clause 18, which deals with contract award, states that
“a contracting authority … must disregard any tender from a supplier that does not satisfy the conditions of participation”.
Hence, we seem to have an Alice in Wonderland world where a supplier which has fallen foul of participation provisions can take part in the tender process, but only on the strict understanding that it cannot win the contract. That does not make any sense to me. My amendment would make the terms of Clause 18 permissive, so that a contract could be awarded. Another solution would be to make exclusion mandatory from the tender as well as from the contract award.
My second amendment in this group, Amendment 107, is a simple probing amendment to ascertain what is meant by Clause 19(3), which deals with competitive tendering procedures. Subsection (3) requires the procedure to be proportionate,
“having regard to the nature, complexity and cost of the contract”,
which seems at first sight entirely sensible and should stop contracting authorities using unnecessarily burdensome procedures. What subsection (3) does not say, however, is how this is to be assessed.
In a rare case of going beyond what is in the Bill, the Explanatory Notes say:
“Subsection (3) requires contracting authorities to ensure that the procedure is not designed in a manner that is unnecessarily complex or burdensome for suppliers”.
This is, in fact, from paragraph 141 of the Explanatory Notes, not paragraph 142 as I set out in my explanatory statement. The Explanatory Notes therefore firmly place the consideration of proportionality in the context of suppliers, but that has not found its way into the text of Clause 19, and that is what my Amendment 107 seeks to change.
In addition, even if subsection (3) could be read as being a supplier-centred proportionality requirement, it does not give any help as to whether the contracting authority has to consider suppliers generally, in an objective way, or whether they should take account of the particular characteristics of likely suppliers. I have in mind in particular that what proportionality might look like to a multi-million-pound contracting business is light years away from its impact on a small or medium-sized enterprise.
I hope my noble friend will agree to make the Bill clearer in this regard, or at least make a clear statement from the Dispatch Box as to how Clause 19(3) is intended to be interpreted. I beg to move.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 105 in the names of my noble friends Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Fox. I will come on to some of the points the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made, but before I start, I apologise for not being here at the start of the Committee. As my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones said, I was on a train for four hours. Actually, you can hear my croakiness: I am the healthiest one on our Front Bench today, so I am here—
Lord Scriven (LD)
Well, the healthiest on the Procurement Bill and constitutional affairs Front-Bench team. I thank the Minister, I think, for passing on his cold of last week to me.
My noble friends’ Amendment 105 is also a probing amendment. Clause 19 uses the word “appropriate”, and this amendment is to see
“under what circumstances it may be considered ‘appropriate’ not to undergo an open tendering procedure.”
There are no criteria or guidelines about what may be appropriate. This is just a probing amendment to see if the Minister can explain why such a wide-ranging word as “appropriate” is in the clause. Who will decide whether it is appropriate, and what guidelines or criteria would the Government expect the authority to seek in determining whether the open tendering procedure should not go ahead?
With Amendment 96, yet again, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, raises some important points in Committee by changing just one word. I particularly point to what she described as the “Alice in Wonderland world”, in which you can be debarred from one part of tendering but not have been given a contract—or the other way round. The noble Baroness’s suggestion to include exclusion from the tendering process in the Bill makes eminent sense or we will be in the position in which people could, by law, tender but would be debarred from getting the contract, even if theirs was potentially the best tender around.
With those comments, I feel that, particularly on Amendment 105 in the name of my noble friends, some clear guidance from the Dispatch Box would be welcome.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for introducing her two amendments. As ever during Committee on this Bill, she has spotted where the nonsense lies and where problems could quite easily be resolved, if her wise words are listened and adhered to.
On her Amendment 96, I know my dear and noble friend Lord Coaker is very disappointed not to be having the must/may discussion with her today and that it has fallen to me, but it is an important point. Different terminology in different parts of the Bill impacts on what is expected. What does that mean? As the noble Baroness clearly demonstrated, if you follow that logically—all the way down the rabbit hole, to carry on the metaphor—it does not make sense any more. I think she has picked up something that could be sorted out straightforwardly and I would be interested to see whether the Minister agrees.
The noble Baroness’s second amendment, Amendment 107, on the lack of assessment and what is in the Explanatory Notes not being sufficient for what we need to know to feel secure about this clause, is again a simple amendment that makes a lot of sense. To me, it strengthens and provides clarity to the Bill. The noble Baroness made the critical point that these kinds of things have a different impact on multinationals from small businesses and, as we have said previously, charities and voluntary organisations. This is important.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, ably introduced the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. I hope the Liberal Democrat Front Bench manages to recover before we come back in September, but I thank the noble Lord for that. They are about terminology —what the words mean and what the impact of that terminology is on the Bill. As the noble Lord pointed out, there are no guidelines and criteria, and nothing specified about what “appropriate” means, nor on whose shoulders it falls to interpret what it means and whether that could be open to challenge. Again, they are small but important amendments and we support them.
There are a number of government amendments in this group. I have read through them and they seem straightforward, but I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s introduction.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I seek to deal with amendments related to competitive procedures. I will start with the government amendments. Amendment 98 ensures that contracting authorities can choose not to assess tenders that do not comply with the procedure. This is different from improper behaviour in a procurement resulting in exclusion, which is addressed in Clause 30. As such, this amendment gives contracting authorities the discretion to exclude for procedural breaches that do not meet the higher threshold for improper behaviour and to ignore an insignificant breach, depending on the context. Government Amendments 99 and 103 are consequential to Amendment 98.
Turning to the Clause 19 amendments, Amendment 106 would replace
“a competitive tendering procedure other than an open procedure”
with “a competitive flexible procedure”, making it much easier to understand the two types of competitive tendering procedure. There are many consequential amendments to update this terminology, including Amendments 108, 109, 115, 132, 133, 155, 156, 157, 161, 188, 189, 192, 195, 199, 202, 213, 221 and 289.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
I apologise for interrupting, but I just want to ask a question in relation to Clause 32. It is about supported employment provision, which has been raised with me by Aspire Community Works, an award-winning community enterprise working to promote social mobility.
Its concern is that the current drafting of the Bill represents a significant reduction in the ability of commissioning authorities to reserve contracts for supported employment, first by restricting them only to competitive flexible procedures—rather than open procedures, as is currently the case—and, secondly, by limiting their use only to supported employment providers rather than enabling other bodies to carry out such work within a supported employment setting—again, as is the case at present.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord True, indicated that the Bill
“continues the existing ability to reserve certain contracts for public service mutuals and for supported employment providers.”—[Official Report, 25/5/22; col. 858.]
This seems inconsistent with the Bill’s inclusion of the two restrictions I have mentioned. Can the Minister tell us, probably not now but subsequently, whether this is an intentional limitation on the use of reserved contracts or simply an oversight in drafting which I hope she will want to correct in view of the Government’s desire to enhance the role of social enterprises and SMEs in the procurement process? I have probably chosen the wrong time to raise this, but the Minister had just mentioned the relevant clause.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
It is certainly not the Government’s intention to exclude those groups of providers. In fact, we want to encourage them and make things easier and more transparent for them. I will take a look at Hansard and discuss the issues in Clause 32 with the team. We will make sure that, perhaps in those groupings throughout the summer period, we discuss these issues further; I will make a note to do that. It is absolutely our intention not to make this more difficult for those groups but to make it easier, so we will look at how we can do that if this clause makes things more difficult.
In Clause 33, Amendments 200 and 201 would clarify that, where a supplier does not qualify for the reserved contract, the contracting authority can exclude that supplier at any point in the procurement process. Amendments 203 and 204 to Clause 33 are simply to improve the drafting, as I said.
Amendment 206 would make it clear that suppliers will fail to be eligible for reserved contracts only where they have signed a “comparable contract”, as defined in subsection (7), within the previous three years, not just because such a contract was awarded to them. It ensures that there is no risk of a supplier being penalised where a contracting authority had decided to award a contract to a supplier but, for whatever reason, the contract did not progress.
I turn next to Clause 34. Amendment 209 clarifies that competitive flexible procedures can allow for the exclusion of a supplier from both participating and progressing in the procedure where the supplier is neither a member of a dynamic market, nor a part of a dynamic market—for example, a category of goods or services. The current provision refers only to “the exclusion of suppliers”, and this change clarifies that this means participation and progression in the procurement by, for example, progressing to the next stage of a multi-stage procurement. Amendments 214 and 215 are consequential to this amendment.
Amendment 262 in Clause 48 changes “virtue of” to “reference to” for ease of reading.
Amendment 341 removes the more general reference to “procurement” in Clause 56, to clarify that notification of exclusion is required in all competitive tendering procedures.
Finally, Amendments 427 and 428 are technical amendments to Clause 78: the first to ensure drafting consistency across the Bill and the second to reflect the fact that Northern Ireland and Wales have derogated from this provision and so do not require the threshold-altering powers in subsection (4).
I turn now to Amendment 96, tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, which questions why a supplier “must” satisfy the conditions of participation in Clause 18(3)(a) to be awarded the contract, while in Clause 21(6) contracting authorities only “may” exclude the supplier from participating or progressing in the competition. I reassure noble Lords that the two clauses work together: suppliers must satisfy the conditions of participation in order to be awarded the ensuing public contract, and that is what is addressed in Clauses 18(3)(a) and 21(2). Clause 21(6) gives the contracting authority the flexibility to decide when to assess the conditions of participation, and at what point to exclude suppliers that have not met them. Having “may” in Clause 21(6) allows the condition to be assessed during the procedure. For example, when it comes to insurance requirements, a company may not have the full cover initially, but it may have the chance to obtain it before that contract is awarded. I hope that this makes it slightly clearer; if not, I am sure that we can discuss it further throughout the summer months.
I now turn to non-government amendments. Amendment 105 to Clause 19 from the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Fox—both of whom I hope will be better very soon—proposes to remove the competitive flexible procedure. The practical reality of procurement is that the open procedure is simply not appropriate in all circumstances. The government procurement agreement contains three procedures: open, selective and limited or direct-award tendering. The open procedure is popular where the requirement is well-defined and straightforward; price is likely to be the key feature. There is no pre-qualification of suppliers, any interested party can submit a tender and they must all be assessed.
We want contracting authorities to use the new competitive flexible procedure, which we could not have had when we were in the EU, to design fit-for-purpose procurements that deliver the best outcomes. This may mean including phases such as a prototype development when seeking innovative solutions. Contracting authorities will use it to limit the field by applying conditions of participation to take forward only those suppliers with the financial and technical capability to deliver the contract. Clause 21(1) requires these to be proportionate so as not to disadvantage smaller suppliers.
The competitive flexible procedure also allows for negotiation and discussion of the requirements, which is particularly important to ensure not only that the best value is obtained but that requirements are clearly understood. The ability to negotiate is severely limited under the current EU-derived rules.
Clause 19(3) requires the contracting authority to ensure that any competitive tendering procedure is proportionate, having regard to the nature, cost and complexity of the contract. Amendment 107 from my noble friend Lady Noakes proposes to make these considerations from the perspective of the supplier. We believe that these assessments are better considered by contracting authorities in the round following pre-market engagement. Otherwise it would be possible for prospective suppliers to challenge and assert that a procedure is not appropriate.
To counterbalance the flexibility given to contracting authorities to design a competitive tendering procedure, we wanted to ensure that procedures do not become overly convoluted or burdensome for suppliers. We believe that Clause 19(3) achieves this, as it will force the contracting authority to consider what is proportionate, without suppliers dictating the specifics of the procedure. I understand that my noble friend Lady Noakes requires more clarity, and I am sure we can do that if that explanation did not provide it.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I want to come back to the Minister’s explanation about the word “appropriate” and it being wide. I understand that there may be reasons why a fully open procurement would not be wanted. Amendment 105 deals with what is appropriate. The Minister raised an issue relating to prototypes. Clause 18(3)(a) states:
“In assessing which tender best satisfies the award criteria, a contracting authority … must disregard any tender from a supplier that soes not satisfy the conditions of participation.”
If it cannot do the prototype, it would be debarred. I think further clarification is required about the Government’s view about an appropriate situation in which a fully open tendering procedure would not be required.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
It is obvious that the noble Lord, and probably all noble Lords, need more clarity about this. I do not have any further clarity at the moment, but we will make sure we provide that because it is obviously an issue of concern.
I have just been handed a note to avoid a Hansard correction. To correct something I said about the consistency of Clause 21, I need to refer to Clauses 18(3)(a) and 21(2), which both make clear that conditions of participation must be satisfied. I believe I said Clause 22(2) rather than Clause 21(2). I clarify that we were talking about Clause 21(2), not Clause 22(2).
The competitive flexible procedure also allows for negotiation and discussion of the requirements, which is particularly important not only to ensure that the best value is obtained but that the requirements are clearly understood. The ability to negotiate is severely limited under the current rules—I think I have got past that, but we will keep going.
Clause 19(3) requires the contracting authority to ensure that any competitive tendering procedure is proportionate, having regard to the nature, cost and complexity of the contract. Amendment 107 from my noble friend Lady Noakes proposes to make these considerations from the perspective of the supplier—we have been through all this, and we have agreed that clarity is what my noble friend Lady Noakes requires. Sorry, I went back in my speech. I was looking back because the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, had asked me to go back. I will now go forward.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I do not think my noble friend the Minister can move her amendments yet; she will move them when they are reached in their proper place on the Marshalled List. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and particularly for the support for my amendments in this group, for which I am grateful.
So far as Amendment 96 is concerned, I was grateful for my noble friend’s explanation, which seemed to make sense. I am content with that. I have no idea what the clarification she was reading into Hansard was about, but I do not suppose it really matters.
Where Amendment 107 is concerned, I am rather less satisfied. I think I agree with my noble friend that clarity is required. My amendment was tabled because the Explanatory Notes went further than the Bill and said that it should be from the suppliers’ perspective. But I think I heard my noble friend say that we do not want contractors challenging the procedures; well, actually, yes, we do, if they are burdensome. If we are trying to set out that the aim is, as correctly stated in the Explanatory Notes, to make sure that these are not burdensome for suppliers, we should facilitate challenge of contracting authorities and not just assume that contracting authorities have a monopoly on wisdom on what is proportionate in this regard. I am not happy with that response today, but we are agreed on clarity, so perhaps we can achieve a route to clarity between now and Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Coaker
“(3A) In the case of a defence and security contract, unless it would leave no tenders that satisfy all other award criteria, a contracting authority must disregard any tender from a supplier that—(a) is not a United Kingdom supplier or treaty state supplier, or(b) intends to sub-contract the performance of all or part of the contract to a supplier that is not a United Kingdom supplier or treaty state supplier.”
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, to her place and I thank her for carrying on the tradition in this Committee of briefing me on some of the points that I may raise in the way that other Ministers in this Committee have done.
For the benefit of the Committee, I start by saying that nothing I am going to say—which in some respects will be quite critical of the Government’s equipment programme—in any way suggests that any Member of this Committee, or anybody making these decisions, is not absolutely concerned with the proper defence of our country. I just wanted to make that clear. I think it is really important to state that we may have a difference of opinion and we may disagree about some of the equipment programmes and some of the decisions that have been made, but I would never question the commitment of any Member of this Committee or any Minister of this Government to defend our country and do their best for the security of our nation—particularly in the current circumstances. I think it is important to start with that, and I am sure that will be met with agreement by all Members of the Committee.
I wish to move my own Amendment 101—I am grateful for my noble friend Lord Hunt’s support for that—and Amendment 485, where, again, I am grateful for the support of my noble friend but also for that of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I will deal quickly with Amendment 101, which I think can be summed up by saying that it is just trying to encourage the Government to look at how we might use more of our defence procurement spending to support British industry and British suppliers. That is the extent of it.
I am sure the Minister will say that the Ministry of Defence does everything it can, that it works according to various international agreements, that it is not always possible to source certain contracts within the UK, et cetera, but many of us looking at contracts wonder why it appears so difficult for us to support British industry, when many countries do not seem to face the same difficulties. Given the freedoms we are now supposed to have, one would perhaps expect that to be easier than it was before.
I will give just one example to make this point. In 2018, the Government announced a £1.5 billion programme for fleet support ships to be built. They said they were going to build them in British yards but, as far as I am aware, not a single screw or bolt has been fastened. It is that sort of thing. When is that going to happen? When are the fleet support ships going to be built in British yards, as they were supposed to be? The Government said they were looking at a high proportion of this being done in the UK, but what does that mean? Some clarity would be helpful for the Committee and for those who read these deliberations on whether it is the Government’s intention to increase the amount of procurement that takes place in UK industry, so we can use our procurement to support that.
Before I move on to Amendment 485, this goes to the heart of what I am saying. Before us is a procurement Bill. It is an important government Bill that seeks to make a difference and use the hundreds of billions of pounds that are spent to deliver certain objectives for the Government. Why will this Bill, as it is drafted, make a difference to the defence equipment budget and programme? We could sit down now. How will this make a practical difference? What is in here? Some of this needs to be put on the record, so I am going to quote the Public Accounts Committee of the other place. It was not clear from the Government’s letter in response to that committee’s report, which said that the Procurement Bill was going to make a great difference, how it is going to do that. That is what I think is really important.
Noble Lords will recognise that Amendment 485 is a proposed new clause to be inserted after Clause 98, so it does not relate specifically to the defence clauses, as such. It relates to Clauses 96, 97 and 98. In other words, the Bill itself allows for procurement investigations, and the recommendations and guidance that follow them. My Amendment 485, supported by my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, goes after that clause because it seeks to insert an audit of the equipment plans, and therefore investigate them and make recommendations. That is the whole point of doing the annual audit.
Why is this so important? I am not going to read all sorts of things, but I will use one or two examples, because this is really serious. The Public Accounts Committee of the other place, in October 2021, produced the report Improving the Performance of Major Defence Equipment Contracts. It said:
“There have been numerous reviews of defence procurement”—
this is why I am saying we all have an interest in this—
“over the past 35 years”.
I am making a defence-equipment point, not a party-political point. The reviews have
“provided the Department with opportunities to take stock and learn from experience. We are therefore extremely disappointed and frustrated by the continued poor track record of the Department and its suppliers—including significant net delays of 21 years across the programmes most recently examined by the National Audit Office—and by wastage of taxpayers’ money running into the billions.”
If you go through this report, you see that it logs detail after detail of problems that the committee believes the Government need to urgently address. The Government’s response is that they are dealing with this, but I think the Committee would want to know how. What are they doing on all of those points?
Using the work of the Defence Select Committee again, it talks about problems in aviation and an inquiry it has just launched. We read in the Sunday Telegraph at the weekend about procurement problems with the type of aircraft purchased for aircraft carriers and whether the F-35B will actually be suitable. It will be suitable in terms of being launched off the aircraft carrier, but will all that have to be changed and will there be another procurement difficulty with that?
The report on the Army’s armoured vehicle capability published a few months ago says:
“This report reveals a woeful story of bureaucratic procrastination, military indecision, financial mismanagement and general ineptitude, which have … bedevilled attempts to properly re-equip the British Army”.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was at a committee meeting in your Lordships’ House last week where this was discussed in the context of the Ajax contract. The Public Accounts Committee published a report on 3 June 2022 which pointed to a £5.5 billion contract with General Dynamics, with an initial order for 589 Ajax armoured fighting vehicles that were supposed to be in service in 2017. But by December 2021, at a cost of £3.2 billion, the department had received 26 vehicles, none of which can be used. Maybe now the Government will have to scrap that and move to a Warrior replacement.
So, all these different things are going on, and, again, the Government say that they have sorted these issues. However, I had a quick look and found The Treatment of Contracted Staff for the MoD’s Ancillary Services, another recent report by the Defence Committee from May of this year, which said:
“Outsourcing ancillary services has become commonplace in the Ministry of Defence … If an activity is not a core part of the MoD it is liable to be outsourced. For example, catering, vehicle maintenance and firefighting are liable to be outsourced. However, despite the billions of pounds spent on outsourcing, this is a relatively unscrutinised area. The MoD’s outsourcing practice is not exemplary. Outsourcing appears to be the default position, with little consideration given to providing services in-house. Contractors drop standards and squeeze employees to raise their profit margin, but the MoD is not always willing to step in and enforce the expected standards. It is an absurd state of affairs that the MoD is not allowed to look at a contractor’s previous performance when assessing their bid—a state of affairs that needs to be rectified immediately.”
Yet when we have asked Ministers about excluded contracts, excluded suppliers and what is going to be looked at, we have been reassured that the Procurement Bill will mean that a contractor’s previous performance will be looked at, and that if its bid is not up to scratch or not what you would expect, that supplier can be excluded. However, we read in a May 2022 report from the Defence Select Committee that the MoD is not allowed to look at a contractor’s previous performance when assessing its bid. So, is the Defence Select Committee wrong, or is the Bill wrong? It would be useful for us to hear from the Minister whether the MoD is allowed to look at a contractor’s previous performance, and whether it has or has not.
I have been speaking for a few minutes and I do not want to speak for any longer than that. I have tried to use contracts run by the Ministry of Defence to give some examples of appalling contract management. I have seen the response that the Government sent back to the committee, which says, “We’re dealing with all of these. We don’t agree with the committee; essentially, it is wrong on some aspects of this, but we agree with it on others. We are doing all sorts to tackle this”.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has made a telling and persuasive case. I hope it will convince the Committee to support the tenor of Amendment 485 in particular; I added my name to it on Friday last. I strongly agree with what the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, are arguing for in that amendment, specifically on the role of the National Audit Office; it is long overdue.
I want to develop the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, a little further for the Committee. Here are some headline points: £4.8 billion has been wasted on cancelled contracts since 2010. Some £5.6 billion has been overspent on MoD projects since 2010, and £71 million spent on unplanned life extensions. Some £2.6 billion has been wasted on write-offs: there are 20 cases of wastage by write-off in the report that was referred to, contributing to some £2.6 billion—or 20% of total wastage—since 2010. Some £64 million has been wasted on admin errors, including £32.6 million in HM Treasury fines almost uniquely imposed on the Ministry of Defence for poor accountancy practices.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to the ongoing International Relations and Defence Select Committee inquiry into future defence policies, not least on procurement; indeed, I mentioned at Second Reading on this Bill. Last week, we heard from Professor John Louth, who was the director of RUSI’s defence, industries and society research programme from 2011 to 2019. Today, he is a private sector consultant. He shared several important insights into the peculiarities and particularities of defence procurement, not least the need to work with significant uncertainty, because of the speed with which technology moves, and how to strike a reasonable balance between insisting on value for money and having appropriate flexibility. The committee also explored associated issues, such as whether there is an optimal balance between indigenous development and off-the-shelf purchases in defence procurement; what considerations would have to be made; how the Government would intervene to prioritise them; how much of our defence capability needs to be supplied by the state itself, and what can and should be sourced from private suppliers; and who the legitimate partners are in the UK’s defence enterprise—manifestly not companies owned or controlled by countries such as Russia or China.
It was clear that there were other factors which distort procurement in the case of defence contracts. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, enjoys the sympathy and understanding of this Committee that it is not an easy world in which to operate. Professor Louth suggested to our Select Committee last week that there had been some successes, mainly around innovation. However, when asked about this Bill, specifically the measures before us now, he said:
“I tried to read as much into the Bill as possible. But it proved hard to identify the end state which the Government was looking for”—
the very point the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, just made. Professor Louth continued:
“Seeing the approach as an attempt to streamline is sensible but we need an Act that identifies the sharing of risk. There are lines and lines of rhetoric; lines and lines of legal reform—some of it incomprehensible even for those of us who are academics.”
He saw the Bill and its provisions as a missed opportunity, saying that
“quite often the private sector does things best and mixing it directly with what the state does would help enormously.”
He pointed to a high degree of private wealth that is funding our defence research and emerging capabilities but said we would get more value for money if a combined commitment was identifiable.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to Ajax. During last week’s Select Committee proceedings, I asked Professor Louth about this, to which he replied,
“Ajax has been a disaster.”
As we heard from the noble Lord, in June the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee warned about the delays to Ajax, a programme which has already been running for 12 years, a point picked up in this admirable amendment about projects that overrun and the costs to the public purse. It said, and I am sure we all agree, that this risks national security and compromises the position of our defences.
Ajax was intended to produce a state-of-the-art reconnaissance vehicle for the Army. It has cost a staggering £3.2 billion to date and yet it has failed so far to deliver a single deployable vehicle—not one. The vehicles were supposed to enter service in 2017, but Ajax has been subject to what the Commons committee describes as “a litany of failures.” The failures included noise and vibration problems that injured soldiers who were testing the vehicles. As the MoD has been unable to say, even now, when Ajax will enter service, perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us whether she has any further information on that, whether the safety issues have been resolved and if it is likely that they will ever be resolved.
Last week, I reminded our Select Committee that the Public Accounts Committee says the programme has been “flawed from the outset”, but also said it was illustrative of a deeper failing, commenting that the MoD had
“once again made fundamental mistakes”
in the planning and management of a major defence programme. Pulling no punches, it accused the Ministry of Defence of “failing to deliver” vehicles which the Armed Forces need to
“better protect the nation and meet … NATO commitments.”
In the current situation, with one eye eastwards on Ukraine, this is a very serious statement by a senior committee of this Parliament.
Meg Hillier, who chairs the Public Accounts Committee, spelled it out in these terms:
“Enough is enough—the MoD must fix or fail this programme, before more risk to our national security and more billions of taxpayers’ money wasted. These repeated failures … are putting strain on older capabilities which are overdue for replacement and are directly threatening the safety of our service people and their ability to protect the nation and meet NATO commitments.”
Some 324 hulls for Ajax-family vehicles have been built, along with 74 turrets, and 26 vehicles have been handed over to the Army for training purposes. The PAC report points to “operational compromises” which the Army has been forced to make, which include the prolonging of the use of ageing Warrior armoured vehicles which came into service back in 1987 and are expensive to maintain.
In total, the contract with General Dynamics is worth £5.5 billion, and the PAC says that it doubts whether the programme can be delivered within existing arrangements. We have a duty to make a forensic examination of what Professor Louth told us in the International Relations and Defence Committee last week has been a “disaster” and what lessons might be applied via this Bill, especially lessons about poor project management and inadequate contract performance, soaring costs and lengthy delays even before contacts were signed.
As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the same issues have been raised again and again in various attempts to reform procurement. This has all been at great cost to the public purse and, as I have argued, at a risk to our national security. This Bill should be much clearer about how it intends to put flesh on the bones of a strategic relationship with industry, focusing on delivery within the budget and on time. What a pity it is that this Bill is not in draft before both Houses, being examined by parliamentarians during pre-legislative scrutiny, rather than being placed in the context of the many other diverse issues that we have been considering.
In conclusion, Ajax was a heroic figure from Homer’s Iliad. Apart from Agamemnon, he was the only principal character who received no substantial assistance from any of the gods—perhaps they will come to the aid of the Minister today. She can at least be heartened that Poseidon struck Ajax with his staff, renewed his strength and joined in Ajax’s prayer to Zeus to remove the fog of battle to see more clearly the light of day. I have no doubt that the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, will do precisely that. I hope we will lift the fog and support these amendments.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 485. I will also speak to Amendment 101, which was not signed by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, although there is clearly some interest in the issue of whether we use British suppliers for defence. There were some reservations from the trade team, the international team and the business team about whether we should be focusing solely on looking at British suppliers for defence contracts.
One particular question I would like the Minister to consider, which may be something on which the Labour Front Bench also has view, links to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about whether it is more appropriate to have bespoke defence contracts or whether sometimes it is better to have off-the-shelf procurement. In that context, I would very much like to hear the Minister’s response to Amendment 101.
The reason for not signing this amendment was not that we do not support British industry; clearly there are a huge number of opportunities in particular where we might be looking for small and medium-sized enterprises to be very closely involved in the delivery of defence contracts. Most of the high-level contracts we have talking about—the catastrophe of Ajax, the major extensions, the cost and time overruns and the failures of defence procurement—are about the high-level programmes, but there will be many subcontracts within them. Trying to support our small and medium-sized enterprises is clearly desirable. If there is a way of doing that, alongside ensuring best value for money, there could be some interest in this amendment. However, it needs a lot more exploration and perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, it would have been better having pre-legislative scrutiny to explore how we look at procurement.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, stole many of my lines, including many of the notes I made during, and the points I raised at, Second Reading, to which the Minister did not have the opportunity to reply, because her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord True, was responding instead. In line with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I am very much looking forward to hearing a series of answers from the Minister which will enable us to understand in what way this Bill is intended to help defence procurement. In many ways, the idea of having a single Bill that deals with all types of procurement is superficially very attractive, yet, as the Grand Committee has already heard, it is not clear in any way, shape or form how this Bill is going to improve defence procurement.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
I am endeavouring, my Lords, not to tip my water down the back of my noble friend’s neck, although he might welcome that refreshment.
First, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I am in no doubt about the genuine interest which your Lordships have in defence. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, articulately expressed that, and I respect that. I thank him for the way in which he expressed his sentiments. I know that he speaks for the other contributors to the debate.
I shall try to address the principal points which have come up, so I want in the first instance to address Amendments 101 and 485 and then proceed to speak to the government amendments in the group, Amendments 520 to 526 inclusive. As I have said, I shall endeavour to address the issues which have been raised.
I turn to Amendments 101 and 485, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and, in relation to Amendment 485, also by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. They relate specifically to defence and security contracts and Ministry of Defence procurement.
Amendment 101 would require a contracting authority to disregard any tender from a supplier which is not a supplier from the United Kingdom or a treaty state or which intends to subcontract the performance of all or part of a contract to such a supplier unless there is no other tender that satisfies all the award criteria. I understand the sentiment behind the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which is laudable, but I will explain why I think this amendment is neither necessary nor indeed desirable.
The Bill already provides a discretion for the contracting authority to exclude from procurements suppliers that are not treaty state suppliers and extends this to the subcontracting of all or part of the performance of the contract to such suppliers. This includes defence and security procurements. It is important to note that, for the majority of defence and security procurement, market access is guaranteed only to suppliers from the United Kingdom, Crown dependencies and British Overseas Territories. For those procurements, a supplier established in another country would not be a “treaty state supplier”.
However, due to the nature of defence procurement and the defence market, a discretion to go outside of UK suppliers or treaty state suppliers is required where doing so would best meet the requirement that the contract is to serve—there may be an immediacy about that—and would offer best value for money. Further, to exclude non-treaty state subcontractors would probably make some defence and security procurement much less effective and, in some cases inoperable, as it would exclude, for example, suppliers from the United States, Australia, France, Sweden or Canada from the supply chain.
I assure noble Lords that industrial consequences and commercial strategies will be given case-by-case consideration—that is already how we conduct business—taking into account various factors, including the markets concerned, the technology we are seeking, our national security requirements and the opportunities to work with international partners, before we decide the correct approach to through-life acquisition of any given capability. Where, for national security reasons, we need industrial capability to be provided onshore or where we need to exclude a particular supplier on national security grounds, we will not hesitate to make that a requirement.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised the specific matter of fleet solid support ships. He will be aware that in the refreshed National Shipbuilding Strategy there is specific reference to the fleet solid support ships. The procurement is in train; the first ship is scheduled to enter into service in 2028 and the last in 2032. I hope that reassures the noble Lord that the matter is under active consideration.
I turn now to Amendment 485. In a sense, this amendment was preceded by a general observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. In essence it was: what difference does this make? That is a fair question and one that deserves an answer. I would say that the Bill provides greater flexibility to the MoD and includes the use of a single system to encourage participation by small and medium-sized enterprises. That is an area not just of significance to the economy but of particular significance to such smaller entrepreneurial organisations. They have sometimes felt out in the cold when major contracts were being awarded by the MoD, principally because, traditionally, the structure was to have a very large primary contractor, with the primary contractor subcontracting various aspects. This is designed to encourage greater participation by small and medium-sized enterprises, which I think is to be applauded.
MoD derogations, and the Bill itself, provide more flexibility to deliver the defence industrial strategy—I will not rehearse that; your Lordships are familiar with it, but I think it is a very positive strategy and one which I think received support from across the Chamber. That strategy replaces the previous defence procurement policy of defaulting to international competition. I know that was of concern to many of your Lordships and, as I say, the strategy has altered that, and I think that is important reassurance on where we are in defence and the greater flexibility we now have. That is why I said earlier that industrial consequences and commercial strategies will be given much more case-by-case consideration, taking into account the various factors which I previously mentioned.
Amendment 485 would require the Ministry of Defence to commission a report from the National Audit Office setting out instances of procurement overspend, withdrawal or scrapping of assets, termination of pre-paid services, cancellation or extensions of contracts, or administrative errors with negative financial impacts. I would suggest the amendment is unnecessary, as what it seeks to achieve is already being delivered through existing processes or initiatives; let me explain what these are.
The National Audit Office already conducts regular audits across defence, which we know to our discomfort because the National Audit Office is an independent entity in that it does not spare its comments when it comes to the MoD, and that is right—that is exactly what it is there to do. In these audits, it regularly includes recommendations for improvement to which we pay very close attention. These include value-for-money studies, such as the yearly audit on the defence equipment plan, regular audits on defence programmes such as Ajax—which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned—and carrier strike, as well as financial audits. As I say, MoD pays close attention to what the NAO says.
The Infrastructure and Projects Authority also publishes an annual report. That tracks progress of projects currently in the Government Major Projects Portfolio and it provides an analysis of how they are performing. The MoD has successfully introduced several initiatives following on from such recommendations to improve capability and deliver and obtain better value for money, including the defence and security industrial strategy, the defence and security 2025 strategy and the introduction of the Single Source Contracts Regulations 2014.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. On the question of the National Audit Office, I was wondering whether the Minister could tell us whether there had been any formal discussions between her department and the NAO about whether something more formalised—as anticipated in the amendment before your Lordships—would be beneficial. If not, might she consider having such a discussion before we return to this issue on Report?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
What I think is important is that we accord the National Audit Office the absolutely critical character of independence, which is necessary for it to do the job it does. I think that part of that independence is that it is quite separate from government departments, and, with the greatest respect, I think that is what the MoD should not be doing. The National Audit Office should be saying, “If we think you’ve got dirt lying under the carpet, we’re going to rip the carpet up and have a look at the dirt”, and I think that is the freedom we expect the National Audit Office to have and that is the freedom it has got. As I say, everyone, I think, will understand that the Ministry of Defence knows well the feeling of being on the receiving end of a National Audit Office report which makes uncomfortable reading.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has spoken about the legislation giving the MoD greater flexibility, but following up from her response to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to what extent does it enhance accountability, which is at the crux of what we have all been asking about?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As the noble Baroness will be aware, the National Audit Office reports not to the MoD; it reports to Parliament. It is a very powerful line of accountability that introduces the legitimacy in any democratic society for elected parliamentarians—or Members of this House—to ask on the basis of a report what the department has been doing. It has never inhibited Members of the other place or Members of this House from doing just that, as your Lordships are very well aware.
The noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Coaker, raised particularly the very legitimate question of what we are doing within the MoD to try to improve our procurement performance. I think your Lordships will understand that, probably more than any other department, the Ministry of Defence carries out massive procurement contracts. Then again, that is a very justifiable reason for asking us to demonstrate that we are doing that effectively and efficiently, being fair to the taxpayer and to our industry partners.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Will the Minister address the point about the treatment of contracted staff for the MoD’s ancillary services? I will just remind her that the Defence Select Committee report published recently says in its summary:
“It is an absurd state of affairs that the MoD is not allowed to look at a contractor’s previous performance when assessing their bid—a state of affairs that needs to be rectified immediately.”
Will the Procurement Bill rectify what the Defence Select Committee says is an appalling state of affairs that the supplier’s previous performance cannot be looked at?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My understanding is that the Government’s response has been framed to that report and is currently under review. I have no more up to date information, but I will write to the noble Lord. The department is under an obligation to respond to that proposal.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The Government cannot answer the point about whether the Procurement Bill will allow the MoD to look at a contractor’s previous performance when assessing its bid—a state of affairs that needs to be rectified immediately. Every time we have talked about what is an excluded supplier or an excludable supplier, we have been told that previous performance is one of the criteria that can be looked at, yet from what the Defence Select Committee said, and the Minister just said, is that it is not clear whether the MoD can do that.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Well, yes, within the law the MoD can, and this Bill provides more flexibility for past performance to be taken into account. However, there are legal constraints which govern how any party entering into a contract can responsibly consider previous conduct. The Bill allows the MoD to exclude a supplier, and there are various grounds in the Bill to clarify when the MoD can make such a decision. Our view is that there is the necessary flexibility within the Bill. The Government will be looking at the observations of the Committee.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
It would be really helpful if the Minister, as she suggested, wrote to me and copied it to noble Lords in the Committee, because she said it was not allowed and then she said it was allowed, but the Defence Select Committee report, which was published just a few weeks ago, said the MoD was not allowed to look at a contractor’s previous performance when assessing its bid. So either the Defence Select Committee is wrong, or the MoD has changed the regulations or the Bill changes the regulations. All I am trying to seek is what the situation actually is.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
What I said to the noble Lord was that, as happens with any committee report, the department is preparing a response to the committee, and that is currently being done. I do not want to pre-empt that, but, when the response has been submitted to the committee, it will for the committee to determine whether it wants to make that response public.
On the issue that is perplexing the noble Lord and causing him anxiety, we believe that the Bill as drafted gives the MoD the power to exclude suppliers if we have reservations.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, when the noble Baroness is writing to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, could she undertake to clarify which point of this Bill deals with the issue, so that Members can look and assess whether we believe it is adequate, or whether a further set of amendments might need to be brought forward on Report?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
There is a part of the Bill that allows the Secretary of State to exclude a supplier; that is a specific provision in the Bill. Where defence and security contracts are concerned, I think these are powerful provisions. I am very happy to take the advice of my officials and see if I can clarify the position further for your Lordships’ Committee.
Moving on, government Amendments 520 to 526, to which I referred earlier, are what I would describe roughly as Schedule 10 amendments. Schedule 10 amends the Defence Reform Act 2014 principally to enable reforms to the Single Source Contract Regulations 2014. The regulations are working well to deliver their objectives of ensuring value for money for the taxpayer and a fair price for industry. That is the balance against which we always have to work. Delivering the Defence and Security Industrial Strategy and building on experience since 2014 means that some reforms are needed. This will ensure that the regulations continue to deliver in traditional defence contracts and can be applied across the breadth of single-source defence work in the future, providing value for money for the taxpayer while ensuring that the UK defence sector remains an attractive place in which to invest.
We are making two government amendments to Schedule 10 which will clarify the wording and deliver the full policy intent. The first relates to paragraphs 3(2) and 3(8) of Schedule 10, where we are increasing the flexibility of the regime by taking a power to enable contracts to be considered in distinct components—this is an important development—allowing different profit rates to be applied to different parts of a contract where that makes sense. Secondly, we are simplifying the contract negotiation process by an amendment to paragraph 8(3)(a) of Schedule 10, which ensures that the contract better reflects the financial risks involved, and in paragraph 8(3)(c) of Schedule 10, taking a power that will clarify how the incentive adjustments should be applied. We are clarifying the wording currently in paragraph 8(3)(c), which will become paragraph 8(3)(ea)—I am sorry that is a little complicated; it is just to achieve accuracy of reference—by government amendment in Committee to ensure that the schedule fully delivers the policy intent.
In short, these government amendments provide improved clarity and greater flexibility in the defence procurement process, and I hope your Lordships will be minded to support them.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that informative reply, and I look forward to the letter to clarify the point that we had some discussion on. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Alton; I knew that he had signed the amendment and forgot to mention it. It is in my notes: “Don’t forget Lord Alton”—and I did. I apologise for that but thank him for his support.
For reasons of allowing us to move on to the next group, which I know a number of noble Lords are waiting to discuss, I would just say that Amendment 101 is almost like an encouraging amendment; it is trying to encourage the Government to do more. I accept what the noble Baroness said with respect to contracts and some of the difficulties that there are—to be fair, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised that as well. The amendment is just an attempt to ask whether we can do a bit more to support our own industry and small and medium-sized enterprises. I know that the noble Baroness agrees with that and will take it on board.
As far as Amendment 485 is concerned, we need to look at what the noble Baroness has said, look again at the Bill and reflect on it. The important part of Amendment 485, as usual, is tucked away. Proposed new subsection (4) says:
“The Secretary of State must commission the National Audit Office to conduct a similar review annually.”
It is that continual microscope that is needed. I accept the point that the National Audit Office can conduct the reports and that it is independent. I accept all those sorts of things; the noble Baroness is right about that. I just think that all of us want to get this right. Therefore, that point about an annual review is particularly important. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.
“(4A) In this Act, a reference to a contracting authority’s requirements is a reference to requirements described in the tender notice or associated tender documents (see section 20(5) and (6)).”
“(a) satisfy the contracting authority’s requirements, and(b) ”
“in each case, at the point of assessment.”
“(5) A tender notice or associated tender document must detail the goods, services or works required by the contracting authority.(6) In detailing its requirements, a contracting authority must be satisfied that they—(a) are sufficiently clear and specific, and(b) do not break the rules on technical specifications in section 24.”
“(ba) take account of the environmental impact of the award,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a contracting authority to be satisfied that the award criteria take account of environmental impact.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, although I am not moving Amendment 124A, I just thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for speaking to the amendment in my absence.
“(A1) This section applies in relation to—(a) a competitive tendering procedure;(b) an award of a public contract in accordance with a framework;(c) a process to become a member of a dynamic market.”
“(b) documents inviting suppliers to participate in a competitive selection process under a framework, including details of the process, any conditions of participation or criteria for the award of the contract;(c) documents inviting suppliers to apply for membership of a dynamic market, including any conditions of membership;”
“(a) notify the supplier of its intention to disregard, and(b) ”
“(a) notify the supplier of its intention, and(b) ”
“(A1) A contracting authority must as part of a competitive tendering procedure—(a) request information about whether a supplier intends to sub-contract the performance of all or part of the public contract, and(b) seek to determine whether any intended sub-contractor is on the debarment list.”
“(a) notify the supplier of its intention, and(b) ”
“(3) The reference in subsection (2) to a contracting authority notifying a supplier of its intention is a reference to notification in accordance with section 26(3), 27(4) or 28(4).”
Lord Mendelsohn
“(d) a supplier is not a signatory of good standing on the Prompt Payment Code.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would strengthen requirements of good practice and simplify checking processes for all contracts either under this Act or in the open market.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I think the phrase in a situation like that is “follow that”; that was an impressive performance by the chair.
In moving Amendment 174, I will speak to Amendment 317 in this rather interesting little group. The amendments I propose relate to the Prompt Payment Code. Amendment 174 aims to ensure that suppliers are signatories to the code and of good standing; and to ensure their exclusion in government procurement if they are not of good standing, not signatories to the code or have been subject to an investigation and not done the right thing having been found wanting.
I suggest these amendments for three reasons. First, the Prompt Payment Code offers a public and obvious ease of reference for any public authority or anyone involved in public procurement, even just checking the process. The real value of what the Government have done in increasing its resourcing and housing it with the Small Business Commissioner is that it makes it much easier to use it as a reference point. Making sure that you have something clear, public, available and transparent is of great use.
Secondly, it is worth acknowledging that the Government have taken steps to try to encourage a more effective Prompt Payment Code by creating a series of initiatives that came into force this year to encourage much stronger compliance with good payment terms. We do not talk just about late payments, of course, because there has been a greater imposition of long payment terms; the Prompt Payment Code has reduced those. Also, it starts to help clarify the problems that are now being felt by many where either an agreed contract is delayed or payments are reduced post hoc, with only one side making that conclusion using the asymmetries of power.
Those initiatives on the Prompt Payment Code have been welcome. In September 2019, the Government made an announcement about the importance of how people pay for government contracts, including how they must pay within the right payment terms and on the right timescale. It is useful that all these initiatives are brought together quite nicely—as I say, they are publicly available—through the code so that we have one reference point.
However, it is important to start introducing these measures together because all of them constantly need strengthening. The Government’s attempt to use their new code to make sure that suppliers cascade the money to all the people who are due has faced difficulties because master contracts are now used so that the main supplier to the Government can say that it discharged its duty easily while all the other payments are held up by people who pay the next layer. Those dates have then been massively extended, as we have seen.
Indeed, it is not as if the Prompt Payment Code is immune to certain problems. For that reason, it is important that the Government show their full commitment to it and use it most effectively to encourage those are not doing the right thing on payment terms. The members of the Prompt Payment Code pay better but the difference between them and those who are not members is widening, although the code has a huge advantage. It is also clear that what was hoped—that the code would be some sort of cultural change or even encourage people to do more of the right thing—is not happening. We are starting to see that the Prompt Payment Code is something that companies find easy to evade. The idea of naming and shaming does not seem to have much significance.
I say this because we have seen a series of substantial, prodigious suppliers to government walk out on the Prompt Payment Code. They include some of Britain’s biggest companies. Tesco left because the code’s definition of a small business did not correspond to how it viewed a small supplier. Recently, in only the past few months, two of the top five Britain-based listed companies—that is, two of our largest companies by market capitalisation—have left the code: Unilever and Diageo. The culture of compliance is not there. We must reinforce the mechanisms that we use to ensure that, across the chain, prompt payment and good payment terms are properly enforced.
We now know the costs of this. We have always talked about the costs and consequences, about the number of businesses that are at stress, but we also now know the benefits. The recent report from the Centre for Economics and Business Research—Cebr—said that, if invoices were paid as they were presented, small businesses would increase their turnover by £40 billion to £60 billion. That shows, as always, the importance of the velocity of cash.
If the Government can play an enhanced role in making sure that payment terms are done properly across any procurement in the public sector, and can encourage the private sector in all of its transactions to do the right thing, this will be extremely useful. Bringing the Prompt Payment Code into the canon of law for public procurement will be a very important and useful step in that regard.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to both of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn. Until he performed his remarkable imitation of a human ping-pong ball, I was all ready to introduce the amendment on his behalf. I am very relieved that he made it back from the Schools Bill just in time and has relieved me of the necessity of saying almost anything at all, other than to give full support to his amendments.
These two amendments would ensure consistency and complementarity between the provisions of this Bill and those of the code, while also having the positive effect of encouraging more potential suppliers of government contracts to sign up to the code and, indeed, to abide by its requirements. I very much support the noble Lord in everything he has said and in saving me the trouble of saying it.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I rise to introduce Amendment 353, tabled in my name and in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, demonstrating cross-party support for this amendment. I also want to underline my gratitude to the Government for seriously engaging with this amendment to the Bill; I know that we share a desire to mitigate the two key risk areas in public procurement which this amendment covers, and I am grateful for their engagement.
Amendment 353 seeks to give the Government two things: first, it seeks to provide the tools to monitor and control the UK’s dependency on authoritarian states; and, secondly, it seeks to ensure a consistent approach to modern slavery across all government procurement. So let us look at how it seeks to monitor and control the UK’s dependency on authoritarian states first. Clause 1 places a burden on the Secretary of State to create regulations that reduce the dependency of public bodies on authoritarian states. There is no agreed definition of what constitutes an authoritarian state in UK law or regulation, therefore Clause 2 adopts the categorisations contained within the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy, allowing for the legislation to adapt to contemporary geopolitical developments in line with the latest iteration of the review. The countries this amendment would currently apply to as threats are Iran, Russia, North Korea, and, as a systemic competitor, China.
It should be noted that Clause 1 applies to all goods and services which originate in whole or in part in one of the named countries. The amendment is constructed to apply not solely to entire products but also to their constituent parts. So, for example, where a solar panel has been constructed in the UK but relies on polysilicon from another region of the world categorised as a threat or a systemic competitor, that solar panel would, therefore, be within scope of these regulations.
Clause 3 sets out what must be included in the regulations. So, proposed subsection (3)(a) provides for an annual review of dependency to be published by the Government, while proposed subsection (3)(b) requires the Government to define “dependency” and to establish acceptable levels of dependency across industries. Proposed subsection (3)(b) also seeks to appreciate that the risks associated with dependency vary across products and industries. For example, reliance on one region for semiconductors presents very different challenges for resilience from reliance on another region for PPE. So proposed subsection (3)(b) allows the Government the flexibility to take these nuances into account.
Yet the risks of economic dependency are not the only relevant matter here. The second part of this amendment, proposed new subsections (4) and (5), addresses a separate issue: the question of modern slavery in the supply chains of publicly procured goods. The presence of modern slavery in supply chains is clearly unacceptable. This has rightly been acknowledged by the Department of Health and Social Care, which has already taken steps in the Health and Care Act to eradicate from its supply chains goods which have been “tainted”—its word—by slavery. Proposed new subsection (4) adopts substantially the same language as Section 81 of the Health and Care Act, passed earlier this year. The requirement to bring regulations to, in the Department of Health and Social Care’s words, “eradicate” from public contracts goods and services “tainted” by slavery now stands as part of that Act.
When the Health and Care Act regulations are drawn up and passed, those procuring health equipment will have to apply different human rights standards from those procuring goods and services on behalf of other departments, as things currently stand. The main intention of this amendment is to ensure that the UK Government speak with one voice and apply these standards across government. It seems odd for us to be unwilling to procure goods from Xinjiang for the NHS but comfortable doing so for Defra. This is about correcting a loophole in the law and seems to be a matter of simple common sense.
In addition, paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of proposed new subsection (5) provide improvements on the current modern slavery framework. I particularly commend to the Minister (5)(d), which will improve standards of disclosure and transparency by requiring firms to provide evidence and trace their full supply chain if necessary. Requiring public disclosure of supply chains will considerably improve compliance when compared with the current audit measurements. This is because it is difficult to conduct a credible audit in an authoritarian state. In this context, it is better to know where companies are sourcing from, rather than have an auditor who has no ability to get accurate information.
In conclusion, the two risk areas of economic dependency and modern-day slavery cut to the heart of our character as a nation. We want to stand as a beacon for liberal, democratic values around the world. To do this, we need to ensure we retain the autonomy to act in line with our values by reducing dependency on authoritarian states. We need to ensure that we are living consistently within our values by ensuring there is no modern slavery in our supply chains. The Department of Health and Social Care has shown the way; this amendment enables the rest of government to come into line.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the speech from the noble Baroness. It was compelling and I hope the Minister will find it so too. I wish to speak to Amendments 184 and 187 in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Hendy, Lady Wheatcroft and Lord Kerslake, to whom I am most grateful. These amendments grant Ministers the power to bar companies which have acted unlawfully or unethically from tendering for public contracts. It is hard to understand why that will not be acceptable to the Government.
The two amendments have the same objective but use different means. Amendment 184 requires a statutory instrument for Ministers to act to bar companies in that way, whereas Amendment 187 enables a quicker route but one that is capable of being challenged if any party considered that the Government had acted unjustifiably. As I say, it is hard to see why the noble Lord, Lord True, would not accept both amendments with acclamation.
It will come as no surprise to either him or many of your Lordships that the particular target I have in mind and which I am angry Ministers have been so shamefully slow and negligent about—despite the generous remarks about me from the noble Lord, Lord True, in the Chamber following a Question I asked, for which I am grateful and thank him—is Bain & Company. I first raised this scandal in your Lordships’ House nearly six months ago and have tried to get the Government to act on it by barring Bain from accessing public contracts.
It is a global brand and presents itself as reputable global consultancy operating right across the world. Bain has its second-largest office here in London, which has been awarded multimillion recent UK government contracts and has influence across our economy, so this company is particular to us. We should take account of the fact that in South Africa Bain purposefully assisted former President Jacob Zuma to organise his decade of barefaced looting and corruption, the company earning fees estimated at £l00 million or 2 billion rand from state institutions.
South Africa’s state capture commission, a judicial inquiry headed by Chief Justice Zondo, which recently concluded its work, and to which I gave written and oral evidence in November 2019, condemned Bain’s deliberate immobilising of the South African Revenue Service—SARS—as “unlawful”. So concerned is the commission with Bain’s illegal behaviour in the South African public sector that it has recommended that law enforcement authorities examine every public sector contract Bain has had, not just the SARS one, with a view to prosecution.
The Zondo report was devastating about Bain’s behaviour. The evidence,
“bears out the pattern of procurement corruption which has dominated the evidence heard by this Commission. These include … the collusion in the award of the contract between Bain and Mr Moyane”—
he was President Zuma’s crony put in to head SARS and effectively dismember it—
“the irregular use of confinement and condonation to avoid open competition, transparency and scrutiny … and the use of consultants to justify changes that were necessary to advance the capture of SARS.”
As expected there has been an upswell of civil society opposition to Bain’s continued presence in that country. Such public pressure recently forced Bain to withdraw from South Africa’s largest business association in disgrace.
These findings and events are devastating indictments of a company which operates at and influences the highest level of civil service and business around the world, including profitably from our own Government’s contracts for many years, and relies on the trust of its clients to deliver social and economic value.
Yet in South Africa, Bain used its expertise not to enhance the functioning of a world-renowned tax authority, as SARS was acknowledged to be, but to disable its ability to collect taxes and pursue tax evaders, some of them former President Zuma’s mates, all in the service of its corrupt paymasters. The very company which possessed the expertise to bolster South Africa’s defences against the ravages of state capture in fact weakened these defences and profited from it, yet this is the very company that works across our government and economy in the UK, influencing our public institutions and impacting millions of British lives.
Bain would have us believe that what happened in South Africa was the work of one rotten apple, but its South African office’s work was endorsed by leaders in London at the time and in its US headquarters in Boston, and many senior people currently working for Bain in London were in the South African business during the corrupt President Zuma era. Some of the very people who broke public procurement rules, colluded with Zuma and committed a “premeditated offensive” against SARS, as an earlier judicial commission described Bain’s actions, are now working in Bain’s London office through which it consults to our public institutions and businesses, including government departments.
We are not only dealing with the matter of to whom we pay taxpayers’ money, although that is a major issue; what should make us shudder is that we allow these people into the inner workings of our public institutions, including government departments. A company has demonstrated a propensity to act selfishly in its own commercial interest at the expense of public good. This is what Bain South Africa did, and it led to the devastation that followed. This is a warning to us all.
Given the scandalous collusion of Bain UK and Bain USA, I am asking that the UK Government and the US Government immediately suspend all public sector contracts with Bain and bar it from entering any new contracts. I wrote to the Prime Minister in February of this year requesting this, which resulted in Cabinet Office officials meeting with Bain. Subsequent to this meeting, the right honourable Jacob Rees-Mogg wrote to me in March this year and was clearly swayed by Bain’s superficial internal changes and repayment of only a tiny fraction of the fees that it had earned from South African public sector contracts in the corrupt Zuma era. Using weasel words, he assured me:
“The Cabinet Office continues to monitor the situation and will engage with Bain & Co again … to determine the most appropriate set of actions.”
To date, I have not heard anything about what has resulted from this monitoring or what set of actions has been determined. It sounds to me like Ministers are shelving any action, which is disgraceful if true, although I am encouraged that Mr Rees-Mogg has now invited me to meet him this Wednesday to discuss these matters.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 353, introduced by my noble friend Lady Stroud.
As many of your Lordships know, the United Kingdom is a signatory to the Council of Europe’s anti-trafficking convention, an international treaty that affects Europe and beyond, with Israel having acceded a short while ago as the second non-member state of the Council of Europe. Last week, on 13 July, its Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings—GRETA —published its annual report for 2021. In December last year, a number of recommendations were adopted, based on the evaluation report produced for the United Kingdom, among other states. Certainly our Modern Slavery Act 2015 has enabled the United Kingdom to take a lead internationally.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on his excellent recent Council of Europe report, Concerted Action Against Human Trafficking and the Smuggling of Migrants. The prospect of concerted action has been assisted, not least by our 2015 Act along with other steps taken by the UK Government to prevent and eradicate human trafficking from businesses and supply chains, including in the public sector.
Migrants and refugees are clearly a particularly vulnerable group of people who fall prey to human traffickers far too often. The Russian war on Ukraine has displaced more than 10 million people, and 5.5 million Ukrainians have been recorded across Europe since 24 February. They constitute a vast group of potential victims, having fled shelling, bombardment and occupation by the Russian army; hence all the more so is there a compelling case for linking human trafficking and modern slavery with making provisions for reducing the dependency of public bodies on goods and services that originate in a country considered by the United Kingdom as either a systemic competitor or a threat.
In that context, with this legislation, Amendment 353 in the names of my noble friend Lady Stroud and others is much to be welcomed. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept it.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I am introducing Amendments 310, 318 and 322. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone.
My amendments follow on a lot from things that have already been mentioned. They are designed to remedy what appears to be a significant inequity in the treatment of environmental offences relative to other offences listed in Schedules 6 and 7, which relate to mandatory and discretionary exclusion grounds. In Schedule 6, there is no mention of mandatory exclusions for environmental offences. Apparently, no environmental offence, however serious or wide-reaching in its impact on people’s health or finances or the wider environment, currently merits mandatory exclusion. In contrast, almost any offence in relation to employment agency law, common law or tax, however minor, triggers mandatory exclusion.
In Schedule 7 there are grounds for discretionary exclusion on environmental misconduct, but let us work through the terms of that exclusion. First, the authority is required to ignore any event predating the coming into force of the schedule. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has tabled an amendment to query that proposal, and I will be interested in the Minister’s response to her. I also note that the reference to an event rather than an offence seems to leave the contracting authority in doubt about whether they must exclude convictions for environmental offences after the date of coming into force where the conduct took place.
Secondly, the contracting authority has to decide whether the conduct caused or had the potential to cause significant harm to the environment. I would be very interested to hear about the breaches which are serious enough to result in convictions for offences—not, as I understand it, simple enforcement notices or civil penalties but actual offences—but do not even have the potential to cause significant harm to the environment. Still, the legislation erects an additional hurdle for contracting authorities with absolutely no clarity about what an insignificant offence looks like or why it is an offence if it is insignificant.
Thirdly, the contracting authority must consider whether the circumstances giving rise to the application of the exclusion are likely to recur. I do not believe that this is the Government’s intention, but if we wanted a regime which gave a surface-level semblance of treating environmental offences seriously in public procurement while making contracting authorities extremely reluctant in practice ever to exclude any supplier on environmental grounds, we have done it really well. However, I believe that that is not the Government’s intention, so I have tabled this amendment to achieve what I believe is needed and meant.
Amendment 310 makes an offence under any provision of environmental law subject to mandatory rather than discretionary exclusion. There is no judgment to be made about the potential for causing significant harm where there has been an environmental offence. An additional effect of this drafting is that the contracting authority would be required to disregard only offences that took place longer ago than the default position—set out in paragraph 42 of Schedule 6—of five years.
Amendment 318 provides a definition of environmental law, which is currently missing from the Bill. It is taken from last year’s Environment Act, Amendment 322 removes the existing discretionary exclusions in Schedule 7, as previously described. This is a modest proposal. It would mean that contracting authorities would receive clarity that convictions for offences against a defined range of environmental law in the past five years would always be grounds for mandatory exclusion. However, contractors would not necessarily be excluded out of hand. Contracting authorities would still have to give consideration to the likelihood of the circumstances occurring again or, if the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Fox, are accepted, the contractor would need to demonstrate this to everyone’s satisfaction.
Neither do the amendments I am speaking to create new burdens on contracting authorities; they merely replace an unclear discretionary exclusion with a clearer one. Authorities which intended never to give a moment’s consideration to contractors’ environmental records—which is what happens now—or to the possibility of excluding firms in any circumstances would now need to do a small amount of work in identifying whether convictions had taken place. I assume that the noble Lord, Lord True, would welcome that increased diligence and consideration. However, contracting authorities which did take their responsibilities seriously would now not need to worry about venturing out on an unguided journey into deciding whether a breach was significant. This seems far closer to the vision of procurement set out in the procurement Green Paper, which referred to the environment as one of the Government’s strategic policy priorities and specifically referenced a supplier’s plans for achieving environmental targets across its operations as an example that the switch to considering bids on the basis of most advantageous tender would deliver. It is also closer to the Bill’s Explanatory Notes, which refer to simplifying the procurement process and making it more transparent. Finally, it is closer to the vision that the noble Lord, Lord True, set out at Second Reading, which was quicker and simpler and better meets the needs of the UK.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Boycott and to associate myself with the remarks she has just made, and also with the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who made an important contribution to the proceedings of the Committee this afternoon. We will all be interested to hear how his meeting with the right honourable Jacob Rees-Mogg goes on Wednesday.
I shall speak to Amendments 331 and 353. Amendment 331 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lords, Lord Coaker, Lord Bethell and Lord Fox, deals with serious human rights abuses. When the Minister responds I hope he will bear in mind the very helpful conversations he and I had when he agreed to meet me to discuss modern-day slavery and genocide. I should mention that I am a trustee of the anti-modern-day-slavery charity the Arise Foundation and a patron of Coalition for Genocide Response.
It concerns me that the word “genocide” has been put in a list that simply states that
“‘serious human rights abuses’ includes, but is not limited to”,
and then sets out a list from (a) to (f). It is not that any of these things are minor questions. Winston Churchill said that the horrors committed during the Nazi regime constituted a crime that had no name. It took Raphael Lemkin, the Jewish Polish lawyer, to create the name “genocide” to describe what had been done. Indeed, the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide came from that. Your Lordships will recall that the amendments to earlier legislation I moved specifically on the procurement of technology via Huawei and later on the Health and Care Bill, which the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, referred to, were careful to set aside the word “genocide” from other questions.
I have one specific and, I hope, helpful remark to make to the noble Baroness and others, which is that if this amendment is to be pursued later, perhaps these questions can be separated, because there are many people who would be willing to vote on genocide not only in your Lordships’ House but in another place but who would not be willing to support something that was simply a list of serious human rights violations. I think that some further thought should be given to that.
On Amendment 353 on supply chain resilience against economic coercion and slavery, I shall try to be brief because I set out some of the arguments about this in our earlier debate about Hikvision and the role that companies such as that have played throughout procurement processes. They are surely what the Bill is dealing with, yet they operate with impunity from their base inside the People’s Republic of China and have been directly associated with the enormities that have been committed in Xinjiang, where it is estimated that more than 1 million Uighurs are held in concentration camps. All of us have read appalling accounts of their treatment, and anything we can do at any stage, we should try to do. I know that the noble Lord, Lord True, is sympathetic to this argument.
Therefore, let me briefly set out some of the arguments that have perhaps been put to him by officials or others who would oppose the excellent amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, which is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and me. First, will this not have a chilling effect on government procurement? Yes, there will be a chilling effect on government procurement of slave-made goods—and so there should be. Businesses that do not rely on slavery for sourcing have absolutely nothing to fear. The amendment sets the bar low but establishes certain minimum standards. It is noteworthy that the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act goes much further than this proposal—I drew it to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord True, during our discussions—and there has been no “chilling effect” documented in the USA. I will add that that legislation enjoyed significant bipartisan and bicameral support in the United States.
Secondly, will this not discourage competition and therefore crush markets? No. On the contrary, the amendment will incentivise business to raise its human rights game and encourage competition among entities which meet basic human rights standards. We should be using our purchasing power, this phenomenal amount of money, more than £300 billion, to nudge the business world. This amendment helps us to achieve that. It removes disadvantage for lawful performers, and that is something we should all welcome.
Thirdly, is this not just another anti-China amendment? No. The amendment does not even mention China. Forced labour is a global issue, whether it is exploitation in Brazilian mines or Malaysian tech factories or indeed Uighur slave labour. It is morally imperative that taxpayers’ money does not fund slavery, wherever it is and wherever it is practised.
Fourthly, does this not turn civil servants into police for business supply chains? Civil servants already assess those bidding for government contracts against certain criteria, and that is exactly how it should be. All the amendment seeks to do is to make the criteria more robust. Civil servants generally do not have the resources to inspect supply chains. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, probably knows better than any other noble Lord in this Committee, assessing what is going on in a supply chain is an extraordinarily complex, time-consuming and resource-ridden process. The amendment recognises that, and seeks instead to provide civil servants with more tools to ensure better anti-slavery standards around disclosure and transparency of sourcing inputs.
I wonder whether the noble Lord has had it put to him that we are presuming the guilt of businesses by blacklisting entire countries or areas. No, the amendment does not presume that a business operating in a particular area is de facto guilty of perpetrating slavery, although this is the assumption of the United States legislation, which imposes a rebuttable presumption. I admit that that is something that I personally favour, but it is not what is in the amendment. In the United States, that targets goods produced in the Uighur region because it is assumed that they are tainted.
I was struck that the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, referred to that word when discussing earlier legislation the House passed, the Health and Care Act, which includes the word “tainted”. I think the Minister will forgive me for saying that that legislation was strengthened by civil servants from his department, who gave advice to the Department of Health. It would be absurd to have legislation that applies purely to the National Health Service, despite the fact that we spent £10 billion on PPE, but does not apply to other departments. You cannot have legislation, especially a procurement Bill, which is weaker than legislation already on the statute book. The amendment merely requires that the origins of goods and their constituent parts are disclosed.
What difference will this really make? Do we need more regulation? The Health and Care Bill was amended precisely because there was acceptance—the Government knew—that the existing regulation was not strong enough. It is to the credit of Sajid Javid that he recognised that and did something about it. The Government are widely suspected of procuring goods and services that may be tainted with slavery. In 2020, the Daily Telegraph reported that, for one contract alone, £150 million of PPE originated in factories in the Uighur region with a documented slavery problem. If stronger standards are good enough for the Department of Health and Social Care, they are surely strong enough for the whole of government, and this Bill gives us the opportunity to do something about it.
Finally, it is often said, “Not this Bill, not this time. There is a modern slavery Bill coming; why can we not just wait for that?” The amendment before your Lordships addresses government procurement and this is the Procurement Bill. It is entirely appropriate that an amendment seeking to improve certain standards regarding government procurement should be debated during the passage of this Bill. Moreover, we do not know what is likely to be in the modern slavery Bill; we were told a lot about it during the course of the Nationality and Borders Bill, which pre-empted its provisions then, but we still do not know what will be in it—and, after all, we are in the midst of a change of Government.
Engagement with the Government and this Secretary of State has been good and, as I finish, I pay tribute again to the noble Lord, Lord True, for his patience in putting up with representations constantly being made to him on this subject. But there is no guarantee that will continue. While Ministers smile on these efforts, we are keen to make the progress we can now, while Ministers such as the noble Lord are in place.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have two small amendments in this group, Amendments 330 and 332. I must say that this group contains far too many issues to be debated effectively. My own are minor, so I did not degroup them, but I hope that in future other noble Lords will exercise their right to degroup so that we have sensible groupings to enable a proper Committee debate. I will probably get into trouble with my Chief Whip for encouraging noble Lords in this direction, because I think there is a view that large groupings are more efficient. However, I do not believe that; I believe in effective scrutiny in your Lordships’ House.
Amendment 330 probes the relationship between the mandatory exclusion of suppliers for improper behaviour in Clause 30 and the discretionary exclusion found in paragraph 14 of Schedule 7. I do not understand why the Bill has to have improper behaviour as an exclusion ground dealt with in two places. The definition of “improper behaviour” is virtually identical in each case, and they certainly seem to be aimed at the same behaviour. The processes are very similar, with rights given to suppliers in both cases, and they are both aimed at exclusion decisions. There are wording differences between the two parts of the Bill, but I cannot see anything of substance involved. It just looks as if two parliamentary draftsmen have been involved in different bits of the Bill and they have not known what was going on in the other bit.
Schedule 7 requires only that the decision-maker—which is usually the contracting authority, as in Clause 30—“considers” that there is improper behaviour, while Clause 30 requires a determination. However, in this context, I cannot believe that that is a distinction with any real difference attached to it. The main difference of substance is that Clause 30 results in mandatory exclusion, while paragraph 14 of Schedule 7 does not necessarily lead to exclusion. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can explain the subtleties of why improper behaviour has been dealt with in this way. My own view is that it would be easier to understand if Clause 30 were placed in the Schedules 6 and 7 structure of the Bill, since it deals with exclusion, and could have options of mandatory or discretionary exclusion. I certainly look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say on that.
Amendment 332 is slightly different; it concerns paragraph 16 of Schedule 7, which itself sets out exclusions from the discretionary exclusions in Schedule 7. Under paragraph 16(4), there are four exclusions from some of the Schedule 7 things which have happened before the schedule came into force. It is my understanding that the existing procurement rules already contain three of the grounds for exclusion. So it does not seem logical that, when we shift to this new Procurement Bill, we disregard things that happened in the past that were exclusion grounds because they happened before the Act came into force—it seems to be an unnecessary discontinuity.
I believe that the new ground is “national security”, under paragraph 16(4)(d). For that, it is probably reasonable to disregard behaviour that occurred prior to the Act coming into force. I invite my noble friend the Minister to explain the logic behind paragraph 16(4).
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
I will speak to Amendment 353, to which I am a co-signatory, and in passing to Amendment 331. Perhaps surprisingly, my first comment will be to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. As we were listening to the various interventions and the introduction of various amendments, my sense was that we were trying to debate too many things in one group. In particular, when I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, I thought that hers were very interesting amendments but that they were not really related to some of the issues associated with modern slavery, genocide and human rights that we were thinking about. I would also like to the irritate the Whips by suggesting that a little more degrouping might be beneficial in future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, introduced Amendment 353 in considerable detail, and my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, then elaborated on it further. At this point, I do not want to go into further detail but to press the Minister on whether the Government would not see that it is appropriate to extend what the Department of Health and Social Care has done with the Health and Social Care Act to ensure that there is transparency in supply chains and that we do everything possible to ensure that genocide and modern slavery are excluded. Other noble Lords have provided the reasons why that is so important. I would hope to give the Minister plenty of time in which to respond.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I have listened to the debate and rise to address the Question that Schedules 6 and 7 be agreed. I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Moylan, although he cannot be here today.
As the Committee knows, I speak from the perspective of someone who has worked in business and as a company secretary and a chair of the compliance committee in a British multinational business employing half a million people in several regions of the world, as well as in smaller for-profit and not-for-profit operations. I have also worked in government as a civil servant and a Minister. I worry intensely about the perverse effects of these provisions. My fear is that they will exclude good, dynamic and honest operators from contracts and serving the public good through procurement. Some firms and social enterprises could be put out of business. Many others, especially SMEs, will be persuaded to have nothing to do with procurement; and of course this Bill is immensely wide-ranging and covers at least £300 billion-worth of UK value added, including most utilities, which I have argued against.
The lists in Schedules 6 and 7 are very wide. Some exclusions are entirely new compared to the EU law they replace. Others have been promoted from the discretionary category to become mandatory. The new mandatory exclusions include corporate manslaughter, theft and fraud, and failure to co-operate. Schedule 6 also brings into the Bill offences in areas including money laundering and competition law, which are dealt with perfectly well in existing and separate regulations. There have also been several extensions to the grounds for discretionary exclusions; for example, a breach of contract, poor performance and “acting improperly in procurement”—goodness knows what that means.
I ask the Minister to think again about every new item and consider whether this gold-plating is justified, as I think it may be in the case, for example, of national security, assuming that is not covered in other regulations. Each and every firm and social enterprise will be involved in more red tape in having to verify compliance with every item across their organisation.
Clause 54, defining excluded suppliers, is key, so I want to play devil’s advocate. First, it gives contracting authorities a lot of discretion, so they can be difficult if they want to favour a particular bidder. Secondly, a mandatory exclusion applies to a supplier or an associated supplier, so compliance checks have to be spread into the nooks and crannies of their supply chains, over which prime suppliers have no direct control—that will help the French, by the way, who have more integrated supply chains. Finally, if there is a contravention such as a tragic manslaughter on a major building project, a theft or a fraud, a single conviction for modern slavery, or a tax or cartel offence a firm is pushed into settling by the regulators, that firm will then have to operate a tick-box system across all its operations to demonstrate in the words of Clause 54 that the circumstances giving rise to the application of the exclusion are not “likely to occur again”. How will they be able to do that?
Of course, I am against most of the evils listed in the schedules, but they do not need to be in this statute. In trying to do the job of the policemen, we risk seriously undermining the procurement sector and choking it with red tape. If we want to nationalise procurement, we should be more honest about it.
For large companies in many climes, compliance with these two schedules will be a nightmare, so they could decide not to bid and stick to non-public sector activities. Firms focused on procurement alone will be in constant fear of a contravention which will write off the value of their company, as they would be excluded from bidding in future, although officials reassured me that they would be allowed in again after five years.
This is not the public sector; a company cannot hang around for five years without any new business. I know from my own experience that small firms may be put off completely. We will see the loss of small suppliers to prisons, local authorities, transport systems and even defence, as we have already seen in the City and in housing because of complex regulation in financial services and delays in planning. Small firms do not have the risk capital needed to operate in such high-risk environments. This negative behavioural change is not costed in the impact assessment, although there is a brief non-monetised discussion on page 36. My concerns about Schedules 6 and 7 are not discussed at all; more unscrutinised guidance is suggested as the answer.
I feel that this is cross-compliance of the worst sort. It is inconsistent with a productive economy, and the people who will flourish will be lawyers and their counterparts in the public sector trying to apply these complex, wide-ranging regulations. I think that the schedules will have chilling effect. I ask my noble friend the Minister to look at both schedules again in the light of my comments on practicality, and devise arrangements that will avoid the perverse effects I have outlined.
As regards the other amendments, as I think I am speaking last, we had a good debate on small business last week, for which the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, was sadly absent. I think we all agreed that it is an area that needs to be looked at again. However, for the reasons I have stated, I am a little nervous about a further exclusion to achieve the noble Lord’s objective, as proposed in Amendment 174, but we must come back to this issue.
As to further extending exclusions by SI, as proposed in Amendment 184, this is far too wide-ranging and vague, and could be abused. It could also cast yet a further chill on procurement by honest and good organisations and lead to retaliation against our own UK exporters. The more political we make procurement, the less vibrant the sector will be, hitting our growth and productivity, which already sadly lags behind that of many other countries. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hain, can find another way forward at his prospective meeting with the Minister of State.
My questions about compliance and resources also apply to Amendment 353, however well intentioned. I worry a bit that we are over-influenced by our experience on PPE, which was poor. However, we are now looking forward, of course, not backward. I am sorry to be critical.
In conclusion, there are many problems with this Bill. The easiest and best thing would be for it to be withdrawn, to look at the various points that have been made in recent days, and for the new Government to think again. In the meantime, I stand by the points that I have made as a practitioner.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
I just want to respond to my noble friend’s comments about Amendment 353 and underline a comment that my noble friend Lord Alton made. Actually, this is something that has already been done in the United States of America; there is already an Act that has been passed there. There has no chilling effect at all on government procurement. In fact, their Act is significantly stronger than anything we are proposing here. I ask my noble friend to be mindful of that. Companies are appreciating more and more being able to be confident and to tell their customers that they are in fact free of slavery in their supply chains.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The point is well made. I would be interested to know how long that Act has been in operation in the United States. One of the concerns I have had, looking at these various provisions in all their complexity, is that we are actually continuing relatively new EU requirements; they came into our law between 2014 and 2016 with a directive and a number of regulations. I am not clear to what extent they have been reviewed to be effective. You need them to be fair and effective, and you need to consider the people who are excluded as well as those who happily champion them—as one does if one works for a big multinational; I have worked for one. My comments are intended to encourage the Committee to look at the detail to ensure that perverse effects are minimised and excluded where they can be.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating discussion on a number of amendments that are grouped around what I would call value-based procurement. The values should allow £300 billion of taxpayers’ money to be used to create good business and a solid foundation. We wish to see public money spent in a way that is based on the values we hold as a nation, not just in the UK but elsewhere.
It was interesting listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who just said very distinctly that a value-based approach could have the effect of destroying competitiveness and productivity for certain companies and exclude them. All the businesses I have worked with—big ones, small ones, social enterprises, small and medium-sized enterprises—want a nudge from government at times to be able to do the right things. When the Government nudge in their procurement, they send a signal to the market that enables business to make decisions based on things other than the bottom line. I tend to find that that is a useful thing for them, rather than a negative thing. Therefore, I think that value-based procurement is really important.
I start by speaking to Amendment 331, signed by my noble friend Lord Fox—as you can see, I am struggling so I will not go on at great length, like the Minister did last week. Clause 59 creates a centralised debarment list that allows Ministers to prohibit suppliers from contracting with public bodies if they fall under the certain exclusionary grounds in Schedules 6 and 7. However, a supplier’s involvement with serious human rights abuses is not listed even as a discretionary ground for exclusion. I am sure that that is an omission by the Government and not a deliberate exclusion. Human rights abuses should be on the face of the Bill as a reason for debarment. You can argue whether it should be mandatory or discretionary—personally, I would like it to be mandatory—but it has to be at least discretionary. The purpose of this amendment is to allow Ministers to debar companies that have proven involvement with serious human rights abuses. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said about listing genocide there.
I have a particular interest in Gulf states, particularly human rights abuses in Bahrain. I could keep the Committee for hours on the significant human rights abuses in that country. A number of companies in the UK, both large and small, trade with some of the organisations that are directly linked to human rights abuses in Bahrain. However, under this Bill on public sector procurement, there would be no way of debarring them, even though these companies are sponsoring or are directly involved in working with organisations that are implicated in death, torture and the deprivation of liberty—for at least 20 years, in some cases. So I ask the Minister: why is this exclusion there? Has there been an oversight in not having human rights abuses on the face of the Bill?
I come to a couple of the other amendments that noble Lords have addressed. Amendments 174 and 179 on payment are really interesting and quite important, because cash flow is king, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. Within the Bill are assumptions about 30-day payments to public sector organisations. There is an implied assumption in the Bill that the same subcontracting arrangements will take place between the major contractor and the subcontractor, but there is no mechanism for sanctions if that does not happen. That is why I think Amendments 174 and 179 are an interesting way of saying that there will be sanctions, in debarring people from getting public sector contracts.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I will try to be reasonably brief in summing up some of the points made. I start by welcoming my noble friend’s Amendment 174 about late payment. It is a point he has made continually and this important amendment should not get lost in these great debates about serious international issues. His point about trying to support small and medium-sized businesses through dealing with late payments deals with the point that my noble friend Lady Hayman and I are also trying to deal with in Amendment 179. I would not want that to get lost.
In speaking to Amendment 329, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hayman, and Amendment 331, in my name and those of my noble friend Lady Hayman, and the noble Lords, Lord Bethell and Lord Fox, I want to wrestle with whether the group is too big or not. At its heart it has the discussion and debate we have had through the Committee—and no doubt will have again on Report, when there will be votes on it—which is on what the Government are trying to achieve through their procurement policy. We are saying that, as well as being efficient, effective, value for money and all those things, there are certain social, economic and other objectives that the Government should also pursue. When we look at this group of amendments, which is about exclusion grounds, a whole range of different issues can be raised to say that, if a firm or supplier does this, it should be excluded from consideration when the contracting authority comes to make its procurement decisions.
Maybe the Government will say that these amendments are not necessary and that they do not want to add them to the Bill. A question then arises for the Minister—I do not believe he believes in accepting serious human rights abuses. If that is not going to be put in the Procurement Bill, how will the Government pursue their objective of trying to do something about serious human rights abuses through the Bill or will they not? Will they just leave it to the market to do?
That is the point of Amendment 331, which my noble friend Lady Hayman, the noble Lords, Lord Bethell and Lord Fox, and I have put down. We have listed just some of the grounds, and we think that, if a supplier is guilty of those human rights abuses as listed in the amendment, and others, the contracting authority should not procure from them. If that is not the right way of going about it, how will the Government ensure that contracting authorities do not purchase from those who have been guilty of serious human rights abuses such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, forced sterilisation and so on? I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that perhaps genocide needs taking from that; that may be helpful and is obviously something that can be looked at.
It is not just us in this Committee; the Foreign Affairs Committee has also said that the Government and the contracting authority need to take these things into account when it comes to purchasing. The Government’s response to the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report, published in November, says:
“The forthcoming Public Procurement Bill will further strengthen the ability of public sector bodies to disqualify suppliers from bidding for contracts where they have a history of misconduct, including forced labour or modern slavery.”
There is a lot of pressure from lots of different bodies to do something about this.
I thought my noble friend Lord Hain made a brilliant speech on his Amendments 184 and 187. He talked about Bain with respect to South Africa. If his amendments are not the right way of going about things, what will the Government do about it? These are the Committee’s questions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, made a very important point about environmental considerations in Amendment 310 and so on. The Government will say, “We are very concerned about the environment; we agree with the thrust of the amendment.” If that is true, and the amendment is not going to be accepted and go into the Bill, how will that aim be achieved? That is certainly the frustration that I feel, and I want the Minister to answer on how it will be achieved if this is not in the Bill.
I come to Amendment 353 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and me. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, also came in on that. I thank him for his kind remarks about my report at the Council of Europe; I appreciated that. That amendment is, again, about supply chains and how we ensure that contracting authorities do not contract with those who have modern slavery, exploitation and all those things that we would object to within their supply chains. If the Government do not agree with Amendment 353 and think it is unnecessary, how are they going to achieve what that amendment seeks to achieve? That is an important question for the Government to answer.
In other words, why are all the amendments in this group unnecessary? Why do they not matter? Why are they irrelevant? Why do we not need them in the Bill? How will the Government achieve all these objectives if they are going to say that all these amendments are not acceptable?
On the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, made—she also picked up one or two of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made—Schedules 6 and 7 are massive. To be frank about it, whatever the rights and wrongs of those schedules, they have huge implications. All I want to ask the Minister is: how have the lists in Schedules 6 and 7 both been arrived at?
You could pick up a number of examples. Why, for example, does Schedule 7(15) set out a discretionary ground for exclusion for threats to national security? I find that quite difficult to understand. No doubt there is a good reason for it but you would have thought that a national security threat would be a mandatory ground for exclusion. The reason is probably in there somewhere but I could not find it. If you look at Schedule 7, there is a whole list of slavery and trafficking offences that are discretionary. It might be that they should be so but you would have to do a lot to convince the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and me—let alone the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud—that they should be discretionary.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, noted, whatever the rights and wrongs of these schedules and whether they should be there or not, how have the lists been arrived at? The purpose of Committee is to try to understand what the Government are doing so that, on Report, we can make our minds up on whether amendments that can be voted on should be taken forward.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for taking up the point about the extent of the schedules and the shared detail that people who are procuring—they are sometimes quite small organisations —will have to comply with. We have also heard that there will be guidance, so not only do you have the nightmare of a complicated Bill with rules that are different from the EU ones that, with great difficulty, people have become used to; you also have extra guidance that I do not suppose will be scrutinised by Parliament. That creates further difficulties for the people on the receiving end who are trying to do a good job. I emphasise that I am as keen as anybody to have companies doing the right thing but we have to find a way of getting this through, in not too complex a fashion, so that this can go forward smoothly.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is a point well made. Indeed, the whole issue of the increase in the use of regulations by the Government is something that various Select Committees and other committees have commented on. It is a real difficulty because you do not know what the regulations will be. The legislation just gives the power to the Secretary of State to make regulations; you then wonder what they will be.
If I understood her amendment right, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked why some provisions in the schedules, perhaps really important ones, do not apply if a supplier contravenes them before the Bill becomes an Act. It strikes me that the self-cleansing we talked about earlier would have to be pretty dramatic if, on 26 February 2023, a firm was found guilty of breaking some of the mandatory conditions laid out in Schedule 6 then, on 3 March, it said it had dealt with those but you could not take into account the five days before when it had broken a lot of the conditions because it was before the Bill become an Act. Is that really what the Government intend? I am not sure because, when I read it, I could not quite make this out. I think that the point of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is to try to understand exactly what the Government are getting at. What does “before” mean? There are a range of things in that.
The central point I want to make in speaking to our various amendments is that, if all these things are unnecessary around all these things that are really important, how are the Government going to achieve these objectives, many of which are part of their own policies? Many of us wish to see the Procurement Bill used as the vehicle to achieve that but the Government are resisting, and will resist, that. How will they be achieved if not through this Bill?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, there is a wide gamut of public policy that enables a Government to achieve the objectives on which they stood for office; that is a broader philosophical argument. I am not certain whether the noble Lord opposite wishes to have more in Schedules 6 and 7—he has certainly mentioned one aspect—or whether he makes a plea that something should be taken out. If the Labour Party wants to make a submission to change things and excise individual aspects of Schedules 6 and 7, no doubt we will look at that as our discussion advances in Committee.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
As it is still Committee, can I just ask a question about tax and competition offences? I am not clear whether those are forward-looking or backward-looking, so if you are a company that, for example, has had a competition or a cartel offence—a minor offence in a subsidiary—are you saying that those groups will be on a debarment list and can no longer be engaged? Similarly, if somebody has had a tax argument, which people have had in the past, and that has been settled—I think there have been some big brands in the past, not that I have been involved, that have had such settlements—are we somehow now saying that those are pariahs, and they are not allowed to engage in procurement for the future? I would just like to be clear about this because my worry is about the perverse effects of this debarment list you are going to have.
Lord True (Con)
My noble friend makes an important point. There are elements in here which are looking back and there are elements which are about the present. Legal issues are raised here, and it is important that I come to my noble friend and the Committee with a very specific definition and response to her question in relation to tax and finances.
Amendments 174 and 317 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and Amendment 179 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, seek to bring matters related to prompt payment performance into scope of the supplier exclusion regime. Prompt payment is important; it is lifeblood, in many cases, to small enterprises. The Government are committed to ensuring prompt payment of suppliers, and there are a number of ways in which the Bill does this. For example, 30-day payment terms will apply throughout the public sector supply chain, regardless of whether they are expressly written into the contract. In addition, payment performance can be assessed as part of the award criteria, providing it is proportionate and relevant to the contract.
The Government encourage suppliers to sign up to the Prompt Payment Code. However, we submit that requiring every potential bidder to become a signatory to the Prompt Payment Code is too onerous on some suppliers and would discourage them from bidding, undermining the ability of contracting authorities to achieve value for money.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, with support from others, proposed Amendments 184 and 187, which seek powers for Ministers to exclude suppliers which have acted in any way unlawfully or unethically. The noble Lord was abundantly clear about what he had in mind when he spoke to his amendments, although he did not stop there; he made broader points about multinational behaviour which I also listened to and took in. We believe that, in the way the proposal is drafted, the threshold is too low for such a serious measure of acting in any way unlawfully or unethically. Exclusion should be reserved for suppliers which pose a serious risk to contracting authorities or the public. We believe that it is also appropriate that the decision to exclude suppliers falls in general to the contracting authority running a procurement.
However, the exclusion grounds cover unethical conduct. Any serious breach of ethical or professional standards applicable to a supplier is deemed to be professional misconduct, whether or not those standards are mandatory. The noble Lord will be pleased to know that professional misconduct is a ground where a debarment case could be made, as drafted in Schedule 7, paragraph 12(1), although I make it clear that I am not commenting on any individual case. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, told the Committee, I understand that he is meeting my right honourable friend the Minister to discuss this issue. The review led by Cabinet Office officials into the case that he asked for—and indeed the Prime Minister instructed to be done—is now complete and is currently being considered by the Minister. Unfortunately, I cannot say any more at this stage.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister. I will not detain the Committee, except to say that I find it hard to understand that a company that has clearly acted unlawfully, let alone unethically, in another country simply lines up with the rest for government tenders. I do not understand how that is consistent with honest business practice, let alone honest government practice.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord made a strong case on this before. He has repeated it in a shorter version. I have told the Committee that the review has been conducted, as he—and the Prime Minister—asked. That is now complete, so let us see what happens. I cannot give any more detail because I simply do not know it as I stand here. The new debarment list will allow Ministers to debar suppliers in the most serious cases and therefore there is no need to make the additional provision.
Amendments 310, 318 and 322 tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Young, seek to add conviction of any environmental offence as a ground for mandatory exclusion. The mandatory grounds for exclusion are by nature a blunt instrument. They require the supplier to face exclusion from every public contract for five years, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe pointed out, unless and until the risk of the issues reoccurring has been addressed. For this reason, they are reserved for the most serious forms of misconduct.
The inclusion of environmental offences in the discretionary ground reflects the fact that, for offences where a range of misconduct may be involved, it may be appropriate to take into account factors such as the nature of the contract being tendered or the level of environmental harm caused, before deciding to exclude a supplier. There is guidance from the Environment Agency on what constitutes environmental harm.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, proposed Amendment 329, which seeks to introduce a discretionary exclusion ground where a supplier’s tender violates applicable obligations in the fields of environmental, social and labour law. I have already explained why we elected to narrow the exclusion ground relating to breaches of such law.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I have listened very carefully to the description the noble Lord has given. Exactly the same kind of provisions exist in states which do torture, where there are no laws or treaties that those states uphold. So, what is the difference between modern slavery and torture when they take place in a state where the laws and the regime that rules that state do not protect its citizens from either?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I referred to the position where there may be no relevant national laws. The Government’s submission is that this Bill greatly strengthens the defences we have against modern slavery and the vile abuse of individuals in these circumstances. As I said, this will apply whether or not there has been a conviction or a breach of an international treaty.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
On modern slavery, the Minister is surely saying that there has to have been a conviction for somebody to be on the debarred list. The first person prosecuted under the Modern Slavery Act—I almost hesitate to say this—was Sainsbury, so they had a case against them. Sorry, I am just trying to understand this; is the Minister saying that they would therefore be on the debarment list? I do not think that is the intention.
Lord True (Con)
No: I said that the current rules are too weak. They do require the supplier to have been convicted. I am saying that we are moving beyond that to a different evidential base and test. I recognise the strength of feeling among noble Lords on this issue. I commit to engaging further with my noble friend and other Members of the Committee on this prior to Report. On that basis, I respectfully request that these amendments are not pursued.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, that was the very definition of a wide-ranging debate. I do not want to delay the Committee for too long, but I must just say that I appreciate the difficult hand that the Minister is having to play at this stage. I reflect on the fact that I have been in this House for just over eight years, and during that time, there is not a single piece of legislation I have been involved with that has been delivered with the intention that the Ministers wanted. All have failed for one reason or the other, and all are coming up for some form of revision at different points. It seems to me that yet again we have a problem in drafting and delivery that will bedevil this Bill as it goes on.
I also have to say that I do not really think it is that radical a Bill. As the chairman of a public limited company, I think that the Government, who have been pressing the corporate sector to take ESG and other matters more seriously, have been leap-frogged by the private sector and are quite behind. There can be a better process in thinking this through to delivery—one that either takes a different form of comply or explain, or other sorts of things—but the Bill is starting to get to the point where it does not really address the issues or create good behaviour. In the end, we are going to end up with an overreliance on decisions made by people who I suspect have not really seen how these things work in real life. So, while I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, I think it is important to understand that over time we may live to regret quite a few of the provisions we have put in this Bill.
(a) treat the supplier as an excluded supplier for the purpose of assessing tenders under section 18, and(b) exclude the supplier from participating in, or progressing as part of, any competitive tendering procedure.”
Procurement Bill [HL]
Monday 24th October 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-VII Seventh marshalled list for Grand Committee - (24 Oct 2022)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock)
If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 30: Excluding suppliers for improper behaviour
Amendment 177
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“(aa) failing, in the case of a supplier with two or more enterprises that are resident for tax purposes in two different jurisdictions with a group turnover of more than €750m, to provide a copy of a tax report which meets the requirements of the Global Reporting Initiative Tax Standard;(ab) failing, in the case of a supplier that is currently under investigation for tax offences in the United Kingdom or abroad, or where the company has reached a settlement with a tax authority following an investigation for a tax offence, to disclose details of the investigation;(ac) failing, in the case of a supplier which has a group turnover of less than €750m, to disclose that the supplier—(i) is based in a tax haven, or(ii) is a subsidiary of a person based in a tax haven, or(iii) has a subsidiary based in a tax haven.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that a supplier must be treated as an excluded supplier if it does not: report its economic activities in each country where they operate and the taxes paid in each country; report details of any tax investigations; and report where it is based in a tax haven or is a subsidiary of a person based in a tax haven.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 180. It seems a long time since we were in Grand Committee debating the Bill: quite a lot of things have happened since. I am sure the Committee would wish me to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to her position. I wish her a degree of permanence—at least until the next election. Of course, she still has some amendments in her name to come. I know we may have debated them, but it is her opportunity to re-educate her department and come back with rather more robust responses than she received from the noble Lord, Lord True, although I express my thanks to the noble Lord for his stewardship of the Bill and his willingness to engage in debate with your Lordships on this important legislation.
I move on to my amendment. A few months ago, the Centre for International Corporate Tax Responsibility and Research and TaxWatch published a report on Amazon’s most profitable segment, its cloud computing business, which they argue is increasingly indirectly supported by taxpayers through hundreds of billions of dollars and pounds in government contracts around the world. In the UK, it said that Amazon’s cloud computing business won almost £600 million in government contracts between 2018 and 2021. It also highlighted that in 2020 Amazon signed a master agreement which allows it to treat all UK central government agencies as one client, which will further increase the volume of its UK contracts.
Despite Amazon collecting public money through large and rapidly growing government IT contracts, the tax payments of this company remain opaque. Indeed, a 2021 research report into Amazon’s tax practice shows that only a fraction of the company’s UK sales are accounted for in its UK accounts. Sales in the UK and elsewhere appear to be channelled through subsidiaries in Luxembourg and, although Amazon says that UK revenues recognised in Luxembourg are reported to HMRC, there is no public accountability as Luxembourg accounts do not disclose how much tax, if any, the company is paying in the UK. Amazon’s practices are replicated by many multinational companies, and the aim of my amendment is to press the Government to use the Bill to start to take some action. The Bill offers a chance to ensure an increase in transparency around the tax affairs of potential suppliers of government contracts. It also offers the opportunity to ensure the exclusion of companies that have engaged or are engaging in egregious tax abuse.
Tax non-compliance has been a potential ground for exclusion from government contracts for some time. In 2013, the Cabinet Office issued Action Note 06/13, which sought to ensure that companies bidding for government contracts declared any tax non-compliance in the procurement process, but this has had no effect whatever. Following FOIs to more than 40 government departments by the think tank TaxWatch, not a single incidence of the supplier being excluded was reported. It was also clear that very little compliance monitoring was occurring. The majority of departments responded saying that there were no incidents reported, but not every department even provided that response; some said they were unable to answer as it would take too long to respond. Will the Minister tell me why departments are so weak in holding these companies to account?
The Bill currently includes misconduct in relation to tax as a mandatory exclusion ground in Schedule 6, Part 2, but mandatory exclusion grounds do not mean that the supplier must be excluded from a procurement competition. A supplier becomes an excluded supplier only if it qualifies for a mandatory exclusion ground and
“the circumstances giving rise to the application of the exclusion ground are likely to occur again”.
The legislation also covers participation in defeated avoidance schemes. The mandatory exclusion ground covering defeated tax avoidance schemes includes instances where a tax return has been amended due to the participation of the taxpayer in a tax avoidance scheme and where the taxpayer has reached a settlement with HMRC, in which case there is no need for the person to receive an adverse judgment in a tax tribunal. When it comes to individuals and companies that have engaged in tax avoidance, the provisions of the Bill are wide-ranging but mandatory exclusion grounds apply only where there has been an assessment by HMRC. That assessment is final, meaning that any appeal rights have been exhausted.
We know that tax litigation is often complex and sometimes takes an exceptionally long time to wind its way through the justice system. When it comes to large companies, including the multinationals, it is common practice for the tax authority to settle tax disputes without penalties being charged.
We know that major companies—Amazon, Google and General Electric—have been investigated in recent years by authorities around the world for committing serious tax offences, but in each instance they have settled rather than admitting guilt and receiving full penalties. As such, none of these companies is barred from procuring government contracts and, with that, taxpayer money. The exact terms of these settlements are not always available to the public. Often settlements between major corporations and tax authorities involve an adjustment to tax liability without an admission by the company engaged in any wrongdoing; the dispute is simply characterised as a difference of opinion over a tax treatment. One way to strengthen the Bill would be to require a company to disclose whether it was currently under investigation for tax offences in the UK or abroad, or where the company had reached a settlement with a tax authority following an investigation for a tax offence.
The Global Reporting Initiative tax standard is a finance reporting standard that provides enhanced public transparency for companies and their tax payments. In particular, it provides for companies to report their economic activities in each country where they operate and the taxes paid in each country—country-by-country reporting. This is a transparency mechanism for revealing corporate tax avoidance. This often involves a company moving profits from higher-tax countries into tax havens. If a company is engaged in profit shifting, that will appear in country-by-country reporting by a company showing very high profits in low-tax countries where the company has little economic activity, and low profits in higher-tax countries where much more activity takes place. For example, Amazon does not provide a breakdown in its accounts of revenues, profits and tax payments in non-US markets by jurisdiction, making it difficult for investors, the public and tax authorities around the world to evaluate whether Amazon is engaged in responsible tax practices.
The implementation of the GRI would allow for some necessary scrutiny. A group of Amazon investors put forward a shareholder resolution at the Amazon AGM in May 2022 calling for greater transparency in the company’s tax affairs and to make disclosures in line with the GRI. That resolution was defeated but was backed by 21% of independent shareholders. Country-by-country reporting is mandatory for multinationals engaged in the extractive and logging industries under rules implemented by several legislatures around the world. Country-by-country reporting is mandatory in the banking sector under EU legislation. Numerous multinational organisations now voluntarily report using the GRI tax standard. My amendment would require all large companies bidding for government contracts to produce a copy of reporting under the GRI tax standard. In addition, the supplier should report details of any tax investigations and report where it is based in a tax haven or is a subsidiary of a person based in a tax haven.
My second amendment would provide for a Minister to lay regulations listing those jurisdictions that are considered to be providing a tax haven to suppliers. Clearly my amendments are not the whole answer to the issue of tax shifting by multinational companies, but using the Bill would be one of the stepping stones that we could take to a much fairer tax situation in this country. I hope the Government will be sympathetic. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I rise as a cipher for my noble friend Lord Wallace, who has tabled a number of amendments in this group. He is unable to attend this and the next day in Committee, so I will be deputising for him.
I too welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to her new role, and congratulate her on getting to complete this Bill, which must be regarded as the plum legislative job available—so I say “well done” to her. During a debate on the economy a couple of weeks ago, she said from the Dispatch Box that she was very keen on “simplification” and cited simplifying procurement as being in her sights—now, here she is. However, before her well-deserved promotion, on the third day in Committee on 11 July, “Back-Bench Lucy” was more strident. She said:
“The more I listen, the more I feel that this Bill in many respects strikes the wrong note. It is overregulatory and calls for a rethink, which I hope the Government will be thinking about.”—[Official Report, 11/7/22; col. GC 359.]
On those grounds, I suggest that she should exercise her new power, withdraw this poorly drafted Bill and come back with one more in keeping with simplification and with her aversion to overregulation.
In the absence of any enthusiasm from the Minister for doing that, I speak to Amendments 306, 307, 308, 320 and 328, tabled by my noble friend Lord Wallace, some of which I have signed; I do not support all of the others. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for their support for Amendment 320.
An effective debarment and exclusion regime protects the public purse from rogue actors and drives up corporate government standards. Exclusion and debarment from procurement are potent anti-fraud and anti-corruption tools. The issue of companies with long records of corruption winning public contracts in this country is appalling. Nearly a quarter of local councils experienced fraud or corruption in 2017-18. Fraud costs the public purse up to 5% of government spending overall. I thank Spotlight on Corruption for these numbers.
The UK’s record on excluding these types of companies from participating in public procurement is not good, at best. The list of companies either from the UK or operating here that have been shown to have engaged in serious corporate misconduct is unfortunately lengthy and well publicised; yet, under the existing debarment regime, it has been, in practice, all but impossible to apply a discretionary exclusion in the absence of a conviction. There has been very little use of exclusion in the UK to date under current EU-based rules, and the Procurement Bill is an opportunity to address the weaknesses in those rules that have prevented exclusion from being used effectively to protect the integrity of the public purse. I am sure that the Minister would approve of replacing an EU law with a better UK law—these are suggestions for how to make it better.
This Bill as formulated contains some significant issues and crucial gaps that could seriously undermine the effectiveness of the debarment register and exclusion regime. There is a risk that the register will stand empty for many years, which would undermine the reputation of the register and the UK’s anti-corruption efforts in general. It is therefore crucial to get this right at this critical stage of the Bill’s development.
Amendment 306 seeks to make criminal offences for sanctions evasion grounds for exclusion from public procurement. The Bill currently contains no references to criminal offences for sanctions evasion. Given the Government’s current policy of imposing sanctions to ensure its foreign policy goals in relation to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and their ambition to use sanctions to achieve important foreign policy goals to be a force for good globally, this is a major omission. Incorporating criminal offences for sanctions evasions in the Bill would make companies across the UK take their obligations to comply more seriously. This amendment redresses this omission.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I, too, welcome my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe to her new position. As she knows, she and I share many views on the Bill; indeed, we supported each other’s amendments. I fully endorse the quotation read out earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Fox; I hope that my noble friend will stick to it.
Amendment 534 is in my name; my noble friend had added her name to it, and it was debated during an earlier sitting of the Committee. It asked for a report on procurement rules, specifically around simplification and SMEs. My noble friend will be aware that, obviously, it has not yet been moved because it is low down on the list. While she has now removed her name, about which I am distraught, I hope that, when we get to that part of the Marshalled List, we might have a more favourable response from the Government Benches.
I have three amendments in this group: Amendments 323, 326 and 327. They are probing amendments relating to some of the discretionary grounds for exclusion in Schedule 7. The mandatory exclusion grounds in Schedule 6 are all based on objective facts—mainly whether various offences have been committed. The discretionary grounds in Schedule 7 are a mix of subjective and objective tests. My amendments are designed to probe this. I could have tabled more amendments to the schedule, because other paragraphs in it also use subjective tests, but I chose paragraphs 8, 9 and 11 as examples of the issue that I wished to debate.
In each of these paragraphs, the test is whether a decision-maker considers that a supplier has done something. To take the example of paragraph 8, the ground is that the decision-maker considers that the supplier or a connected person has infringed a bit of UK competition law, or an overseas equivalent. I do not understand why all these matters covered by the paragraphs cannot be dealt with by objective tests, as are used in Schedule 6. Surely an infringement of competition law can be objectively determined and ought not to be left to the opinion of a procurement official. Can the Minister explain why the Bill uses subjective tests rather than objective ones for these paragraphs?
My amendments are rather more modest than replacing these provisions with objective tests but they seek to strengthen the nature of the subjective test from “considers” to “is confident”. I chose that wording to align with what is in the Explanatory Notes, which explain the paragraphs in Schedule 7. I suggest that, if a subjective test is to be used in Schedule 7, the hurdle should be set at a fairly high level. My amendment might not be the right one but it is there to probe the language of the Bill. I am aware that Clause 55 gives some opportunity for suppliers to push back on decisions by contracting authorities but, at the end of the day, judicial review is the only real remedy available to a supplier who feels that they have been badly treated by the terms of this Bill. As we know, judicial review is a very unwieldy remedy and, frankly, is not available at all for SMEs in practical terms.
I also note that, in paragraph 15, which deals with national security, the decision-maker has to determine whether there is a threat to national security. When my noble friend winds up, would she please explain the difference between “determines”, which is used in paragraph 15, and “considers”, which is used throughout the rest of the schedule?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise with great pleasure, following the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, to agree with everything that all of them said. I am going to be quite brief but I have three points to make. I will speak chiefly to Amendment 177, to which I have attached my name—as have the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Hendy—but I also want to comment on a couple of other amendments in this group.
I join others in welcoming the Minister to her new post. Is it not good to have some certainty in politics? At least we have the certainty that the Procurement Bill will come round again, whatever else we might be doing or facing in other parts of the Westminster system.
There is a phrase about the certainty of death and taxes, except of course we know that taxes are not a certainty for many of the companies now operating in the UK or collecting many government contracts. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, referred to one of those companies in particular—a company that I describe as the great parasite. It does not pay its workers very well, which relates to another amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy—we will get to that later—and it pays little or no tax in the UK.
There is a specific point to be made here. I am sure the Government would say that they want to see government and official money being spent well. However, the Tax Justice Network has noted, in looking at definitions of tax havens, that another term for them is secrecy jurisdictions. When companies operate out of tax havens, it is extremely difficult to see what is happening with their money and how they are operating; of course, they are not paying for the facilities and services they need to run their business and make their profits. In thinking about the great parasite, the example I often give when talking to schools, colleges and community groups is this: “Imagine the road outside. Think of all the lorries that have been carrying Amazon parcels up and down it today. Who is paying for that road? All of us in this room are, but Amazon is not”. If the Government are concerned about value for money and transparency in government procurement, Amendment 177 and the associated Amendment 180 are absolutely essential additions to this Bill.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I also start by welcoming the Minister to her new role. I thank her and her officials for having a useful meeting with us ahead of today. Let me say how pleased we are to have a Minister who is genuinely interested in this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, talked about the Minister’s previous involvement; I am sure that her knowledge and interest will lead us into a better place.
I will start with the two amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Amendments 177 and 180, to which we offer our strong support. Clearly, all of us should embrace anything we can do to tackle tax abuse and tax avoidance. I hope the new Government—we are looking forward to hearing what they have to say—will prioritise this area.
My noble friend talked about Amazon, the lack of accountability and the kind of poor practice that is replicated by many companies, and gave a thorough explanation of why the legislation in front of us could be used to make a difference to cases of tax avoidance and abuse. I hope the Minister listened to those concerns seriously and considers whether this Bill is an appropriate vehicle to address them.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, introduced a number of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, to which I have added my name. I will not go into them in detail, only to say that we support incorporating evasion of criminal sanctions into the Bill. The failure to prevent bribery offences has been incredibly disappointing, and the Bill could be used to tighten that up and make more progress. Also clearly disappointing are the very few convictions there have been under the Proceeds of Crime Act. How can we use this Bill to make a difference in these areas where there is still concern? I am sure all noble Lords agree that we need to ensure proper and effective enforcement to curb any serious wrongdoings in these areas.
Briefly on Amendments 323, 326 and 327, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, she clearly introduced something that I had not really considered until I read these amendments. Again, “considered” is the important word here. She is absolutely right that you need to think about the strength of a subjective test and how it would be interpreted. I completely agree with her; we need to understand this better. I would be interested to hear from the Minister on this, because the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is correct that judicial review is simply not a practical option for SMEs; it just is not. How will this be interpreted and managed through the Bill? I look forward to the Minister’s responses.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their kind welcome on my appointment as Minister of State at the Cabinet Office. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about my predecessor, my noble friend Lord True, and his willingness to engage—a model I will try to follow. I am very much in listening mode today, as we are still in Committee, working on the Bill.
I am poacher turned gamekeeper, and that can be a good qualification. As noble Lords know, I have consistently taken a keen interest in the Bill, although from a slightly different perspective. I will not delay you with a long introduction, but I am pleased that the Bill consolidates 350 EU regulations. That is simplification at a stroke: it streamlines public procurement and reduces burdens on business, and it turns EU-based law into UK law, which is why we can be confident of its progress.
In particular, it will benefit SMEs, for which we must do our best to offer a level playing field, so that they can increase their share of the £300 billion spent by public authorities each year. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, will agree with that. I am also looking forward, if I get the chance, to rolling out training on the Bill—simple, clear, comprehensive training in central and local government, and elsewhere. That will answer some of the concerns that I and others across the House have had on the Bill.
I thank noble Lords for their contributions on the grounds for financial exclusion and will try to respond constructively. I begin with Amendments 177 and 180 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Hain. These seek to ensure that the suppliers who fail to provide contracting authorities with various details in relation to their tax affairs when bidding for contracts must be excluded from procurements. I should start by making it quite clear that the Government expect businesses to take all necessary steps to comply with their tax obligations.
However, noble Lords will know that the basis on which contracts must be awarded under the Bill is by reference to award criteria that relate to the contract being tendered, not to other matters such as where a supplier pays tax. This is the right principle to deliver value for money for the taxpayer and ensures that suppliers are not required to provide swathes of information that is irrelevant to the contract. This principle is also a feature of the UK’s international obligations, notably under the WTO government procurement agreement. It is for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to enforce the law on tax and, indeed, UK-based multinational enterprises are required to make an annual country-by-country report to HMRC. I note what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about Amazon.
The grounds for exclusion in the Bill focus on criminal convictions and other serious misconduct that raises a risk to public contracts, including, importantly, in relation to tax. But investigation does not mean guilt in this country. Exclusion is not a substitute for a judicial process. It is important to let due process run its course before subjecting suppliers to mandatory exclusions.
However, we have broadened the scope of the current regime with the mandatory exclusion grounds related to tax in Schedule 6, which cover all tax evasion offences and involvement in abusive tax arrangements. This is a significant broadening from the current regime, which is limited to where there has been a breach of tax obligations and lets suppliers off where they have repaid or committed to repay unpaid tax. I am confident that these grounds are sufficient to protect contracting authorities and taxpayers.
Lord Fox (LD)
During that spirited defence of the need to keep things open for international companies to be able to bid, the Minister used the phrase “value for money”. Can she define the Government’s view of how they calculate value for money?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
If I may, I will think about the answer, make some progress, and come back to that on a future occasion.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Well, I think that “value for money” is a clear term, but I am listening seriously to the point that the noble Lord is making in this context. Value for money is about quality and quantity; indeed, it is about many things, as I know, having been on the buyer side in real life as well as on the selling side. As for what the definitions are in the Bill, I am not sure.
I come back to the important points from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on the subject of tax. It was clear from feedback on the Green Paper that the existing tax exclusion ground is one that many authorities are struggling to apply. By reframing the ground in terms of UK offences and regulatory decisions, we believe that it should be easier for UK contracting authorities to apply this. I also add—because I remember it well from the time that I served in David Cameron’s Government—that the UK has tried to lead the way internationally in making sure that multinational companies pay their share. Strong HMRC compliance action has secured and protected over £250 billion for public services since 2010 that would otherwise have gone unpaid, including £3 billion from those trying to hide money abroad. This is work that goes on—and work to which HMRC is devoted, as I remember well.
The noble Lord also raised tax havens. The Bill will deliver unprecedented levels of transparency in procurement, including—this point needs to be made—with respect to the beneficial ownership of suppliers. All suppliers will be expected to declare their beneficial owners when bidding for contracts. Failure to provide accurate details of beneficial ownership when asked will now be a mandatory ground for exclusion.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I try to wake up early, as noble Lords know. Value for money is not defined in Clause 11(1)(a), to leave a degree of flexibility for future refinement. In practice, we will use the HMT definition, which is currently,
“the optimal whole-life blend of economy, efficiency and effectiveness that achieves the intended outcome of the business case.”
It is quite a nice mixture—economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister, but the question I was rather clumsily trying to ask was whether we extract from the cost the amount of money we expect to take in tax or merely use the cost as a flat sum. In other words, with a British company paying full British tax versus one of the companies described by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which pays no tax, does the overall cost of that service become less for the one paying tax? It seems the Minister’s answer is that the tax take is not included in the calculation of value for money.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think we have made a bit of progress; I will not go down that rabbit hole or we will not make enough progress.
If I might, I turn to Amendments 306, 307, 308 and 320 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Wallace, Lord Fox and Lord Hain. They would introduce new mandatory exclusion grounds in relation to offences of sanctions evasion, money laundering and failure to prevent bribery, and new discretionary exclusion grounds in relation to various financial and economic misconduct when the contracting authority has sufficient evidence in the absence of a conviction.
The mandatory grounds for exclusion cover the types of misconduct which raise only the most serious risks for contracting authorities. We have already strengthened the mandatory grounds significantly in comparison to the EU regime, but they cannot and should not cover every offence. On sanctions, the types of freezing orders referred to in the amendment are unlikely to be relevant to public contracts. On bribery and money laundering, we have included a range of mandatory exclusion grounds covering the most serious offences. This expands the scope of the offences covered in the EU regime to cover blackmail as well as bribery. However, I reassure noble Lords that the offences in question which are not listed as mandatory exclusion grounds are likely to be subject to discretionary exclusion, under the ground of professional misconduct. This will depend on the circumstances, but if the ground is met, contracting authorities could exclude the supplier.
As to the amendment to include financial and economic misconduct as a new discretionary exclusion ground, we have already explained to this Committee that the exclusion regime is not a substitute for a judicial process. I am not prepared to require contracting authorities to weigh up complex evidence of financial and economic misconduct in which they have no relevant experience. That is a key issue with the ambitious proposals described by the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Amendments 323, 326 and 327, tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, concern the discretionary exclusion grounds for potential competition infringements and the test for when these apply. These exclusion grounds recognise that there may sometimes be evidence of competition infringements in the absence of a regulatory decision or ruling. It is critical that suppliers known to have been involved in collusion, bid-rigging and anti-competitive behaviour are held to account, given the fundamental importance of fair and open competition to procurement.
However, I reassure the Committee that these grounds should not be used to exclude suppliers merely because they are under investigation by the CMA or another regulator; there must be sufficient evidence that a breach of competition rules has occurred. I think my noble friend pointed out that the language used in the Explanatory Notes differs from that in the Bill. I am advised that this does not reflect a difference of policy or meaning. Authorities must “consider” that the conduct specified has occurred before determining that the exclusion ground applies. She went on to ask about why there were subjective tests in the discretionary grounds. I have to say that I had some difficulty in exactly following her logic in all this, and we may need to discuss these points further after Committee. The answer is because exclusion is a risk-based measure and a last resort, and suppliers are protected by a right to challenge the exclusion decisions because of the nature of those decisions.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
A moment ago my noble friend said, in respect of the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that she did not want decision- makers trying to weigh up complex financial matters, but she somehow seems quite happy to have decision-makers weighing up equally complex matters scattered throughout Schedule 7 and in the discretionary exclusion grounds. I struggle to see the intellectual cohesion in the Government’s position.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her further comments, which I will consider carefully. I myself feel strongly, as someone who has witnessed small construction companies being investigated by a competition authority that at the end of the day have been found completely innocent, that it would be difficult if they were not able to continue to engage in procurement during a long period of investigation. However, as she explained, we need to get right how we deal with the discretionary grounds and ensure that there is enough certainty so that authorities do not spend too much time going round in circles. We need to reflect further on the points that she has made. I think I slightly misunderstood the purport of her original amendment, so I look forward to discussing that with her. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his intervention.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister for her response. The notion of, in a sense, using professional misconduct as the catch-all for everything else is something that we could pursue after Committee. It may be something that requires some definition or clarification, either within the legislation or from the Dispatch Box on Report. If that is going to be the way that the Bill operates, some clearer idea as to how it would work would help to ameliorate some of the fears that have been expressed around the Bill.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
We have to get the right result but we also have to avoid a chilling effect. That is my basic approach to this.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
A chilling effect on corruption is obviously positive but a chilling effect on people being prepared to engage in government procurement is not, particularly smaller suppliers, which might be put off by some of these rules. That is why we brought in Schedule 6, which will bring a certain clarity. There may be some further discussions to be had on Schedule 7 and exactly how it works.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I too welcome the Minister to her position. My question relates to a later group in which I have an amendment. Given that the Bill will allow for there to be no discrimination against any treaty-state supplier, how will a contracting body or procurement body operate under Schedule 7 for any of the suppliers from any of the countries with which we have a trade agreement? This comes back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. It is not simply the case that businesses are going to have to work through Schedule 7 to satisfy all the grounds for this; they are going to have to do it with every single country with which we have an FTA for the suppliers coming from them. How is that making the job easier?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
As the noble Lord said, we will come on to discuss those aspects, and I will try to answer that question when we get there. I have probably said enough on that.
Amendment 328 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Fox, provides for a new discretionary exclusion ground in relation to deferred prosecution agreements. This issue was explored in the Green Paper. Due consideration was given to feedback from the public consultation, as well as discussions with the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service. The Government’s response to the Green Paper set out the rationale for their decision not to include a separate exclusion ground on deferred prosecution agreements. In brief, the actions taken and commitments made by suppliers as part of the DPA typically constitute good evidence of self-cleaning. Reaching a DPA requires a supplier to accept culpability for the offence, co-operate with the relevant authorities and make reparations. Prosecuting authorities typically will not consider a DPA appropriate unless the supplier has already made reforms, such as proactive changes to corporate structures or the replacement of personnel.
DPAs will involve judicially approved terms that the supplier must commit to—for example, on actions to improve compliance and audit functions within the company, and external reviews to test those improvements to ensure that further misconduct does not occur. Non-compliance with a DPA is unlikely to be something that contracting authorities are equipped to assess. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, will understand and accept that.
Compliance is for either the Serious Fraud Office or the Crown Prosecution Service to assess, depending on which is the owner of the DPA in question. If a supplier fails to comply with a DPA, there are a number of options open to the enforcing body, including the prosecution of the supplier for the original criminal misconduct, but that cannot be part of procurement law, or for enforcement by the many differently sized authorities engaged in buying goods or services in the public sector.
Finally, Amendment 443 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, seeks to remove
“a British Overseas Territory or a Crown Dependency”
from the definition of a UK supplier. The Bill confers rights on UK suppliers in a number of places, including, in Clauses 18 and 19, an entitlement to be considered as part of a competitive tender, or, in Clause 89, to access remedies. They are also used as the basis for an assessment of no less favourable treatment in the non-discrimination provisions, in Clause 82(2). This amendment would remove this guaranteed access to the UK’s procurement markets from suppliers from Gibraltar, which is the only overseas territory or Crown dependency whose suppliers currently enjoy access under the existing procurement regime.
Although overseas territories and Crown dependencies are not part of the UK constitutionally, they do not become party to treaties in their own right. The UK must extend the territorial scope of its ratification of treaties to include them. As such, overseas territories and Crown dependencies are unable to secure rights to markets in the United Kingdom in the same way as other states. That is a long way of saying that in view of the special nature of the trading relationship between the UK and overseas territories and Crown dependencies, it is right to include them in the definition of a UK supplier.
This discussion has been useful and illuminating to me. I respectfully request that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. I particularly welcomed her comments on SMEs and training rollout. I really agree about the importance of investment in training as the Bill is enacted. However, I remain concerned about the Government’s approach, which seems supine in many respects when dealing with these multinational companies.
Only this afternoon at Oral Questions, we had a fascinating exchange about the remarkable decision to award Fujitsu a £48 million contract to upgrade the police national computer, given the role of that company in developing Horizon software for the Post Office. We were told by a Minister that in effect, there was no alternative because of the continuing arrangements with that company. Listening to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about performance issues, corruption, competition infringements, which were added to by my noble friend, and the issues on tax, essentially the Minister has an ideological objection to the use of contracts to further government policy outside the narrow procurement interest. This is where I fundamentally disagree with her.
It is not good enough simply to say that it is down to HMRC. Procurement can be used to enhance policy in a number of areas. Many of these multinational companies are taking this country for a ride. We need to see tougher action. Having said that, I hope that we can continue to debate this important issue. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
(a) treat the supplier as an excluded supplier for the purpose of assessing tenders under section 18, and(b) exclude the supplier from participating in, or progressing as part of, any competitive tendering procedure.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Excluding supplier for involvement in forced organ harvesting
(1) Subsection (2) applies if a contracting authority determines that a supplier is located in a country categorised by a Minister of the Crown as at high risk of forced organ harvesting.(2) The contracting authority must treat the supplier as an excluded supplier in relation to the award of a public contract involving— (a) any device or equipment intended for use in organ transplant medicine or activities relating to human tissue, or(b) any service or goods relating to organ transplant medicine or activities involving human tissue.(3) A Minister of the Crown must by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision for the listing of countries considered to be at high risk of forced organ harvesting.(4) A country is at high risk where—(a) the country has high levels, or is suspected of having high levels, of forced organ harvesting or trafficking in persons for purposes of the removal of organs; or(b) the government of the country is directly or indirectly seen as supporting or indirectly supporting forced organ harvesting or trafficking in persons for purposes of the removal of organs.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment is designed to exclude suppliers located in a country at high risk of forced organ harvesting from being awarded a public contract involving any device or equipment intended for use in organ transplant medicine or activities relating to human tissue or any service or goods relating to organ transplant medicine or activities involving human tissue.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, in a sense, this amendment is very different from my first two. None the less, we are seeking here to use procurement legislation to advance government policy in relation to the awful practice of forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience in China. The practice was found by the China Tribunal—as advised by Edward Fitzgerald KC, who provided expert legal opinion to it—to be a crime against humanity and part of a possible genocide against Falun Gong.
Forced organ harvesting in China involves the removal of organs from a living prisoner of conscience for the purpose of transportation, killing the victim in the process. It is state sanctioned and widespread throughout China, with the Chinese Communist Party targeting individuals because of their religious and spiritual beliefs or ethnicity. The victims are known primarily to be Falun Gong practitioners, but more recent evidence indicates that Uighur Muslims are also targeted on a massive scale. Further to that, there are several lines of evidence showing that Tibetan and house Christians are likely victims of forced organ harvesting.
Regarding Uighurs and other minorities, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights published its report on Xinjiang in August, stating:
“Allegations of patterns of torture or ill-treatment, including forced medical treatment and adverse conditions of detention, are credible, as are allegations of individual incidents of sexual and gender-based violence.”
It also stated that the treatment of Uighurs and others in Xinjiang by the Chinese Communist Party
“may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity.”
That is a most important and profound statement, made only three months ago.
Both Uighur and Falun Gong practitioners are arbitrarily arrested, detained in camps and tortured. They face sexual violence, disappear while in detention and are murdered for their organs, on a vast scale. A study published in April this year in the American Journal of Transplantation investigated whether Chinese transplant surgeons established first that the prisoners are dead, before procuring their hearts and lungs, or whether the cause of death was the organ procurement itself. The study was based on the dead donor rule—the most fundamental ethical rule in organ transplantation. It states that organ procurement must not commence until the donor is formally pronounced dead; the procurement of organs must not cause the donor’s death.
The paper, entitled Execution by Organ Procurement: Breaching the Dead Donor Rule in China, was written by Matthew Robertson and Dr Jacob Lavee. Dr Lavee is a transplant surgeon and the founder and a former director of the heart surgery unit at the Sheba Medical Center in Israel. In 2005, a patient told him that his insurance company had scheduled a heart transplant operation for him that would take place in two weeks. The patient flew to China and received the heart as arranged. That would be impossible unless the time of death of the donor was known in advance. Following this incident, Dr Lavee spearheaded the organ transplantation law in Israel, the first of its kind in the world, which prevented insurance companies from reimbursing expenses associated with illicitly obtained organs. Along with a range of reforms encouraging domestic donation, this stopped the China-to-Israel organ-trafficking pipeline in its tracks.
During this recent research, Robertson and Lavee found, in 71 different Chinese medical studies published between 1980 and 2015, sourced from 56 hospitals in 33 cities, that brain death could not properly have been declared. Therefore, the removal of the heart during organ procurement must have been the cause of the donor’s death. The authors state in a recent article in the Tablet,
“the act of execution was joined with the act of heart removal, and was carried out by surgeons on the operating table.”
Just think of that.
My amendment is designed to exclude suppliers located in a country at high risk of forced organ harvesting from being awarded a public contract involving any device or equipment intended for use in organ transplant medicine or activities relating to human tissue or any service or goods relating to organ transplant medicine or activities involving human tissue. Essentially, it would prevent any service or goods that may have been involved in or developed off the back of the forced organ harvesting trade from entering the UK. This includes organ transplant training, such as the training of Chinese organ transplant services, related education and research, as well as organ transplantation equipment.
I have been very encouraged by the Government’s recent willingness to legislate on this issue, such as through my amendment to the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill last year, which included consent provisions for imported human tissue for use in medicines; and the amendments to the Health and Care Bill in April this year, prohibiting the commercialisation of organ tourism. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, have been huge supporters of this approach and I am glad to see them here today.
These legislative steps have set a good precedent, both in our country and as a signal globally. I emphasise to the Minister that passing amendments such as this into British law is significant internationally. Other countries observe what is happening, and we are part of a global movement to try to get action to stop this reprehensible behaviour.
I am grateful to the Government for their sympathy for our approach, but I want to go further. In April this year, it was stated in a ground-breaking business and human rights legal advisory, written by international law firm Global Rights Compliance, entitled Do No Harm: Mitigating Human Rights Risks when Interacting with International Medical Institutions & Professionals in Transplantation Medicine, that
“medical professionals and institutions who have collaborations with Chinese medical institutions involved in forced organ harvesting face a risk of being charged with complicity in international crimes, including crimes against humanity.”
It goes on to explain that
“aiding and abetting ‘consists of practical assistance, encouragement, or moral support which has a substantial effect on the perpetration of the crime’.”
Prestigious medical institutions, such as the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, are now taking action. In April this year, the society issued a policy that it would no longer accept submissions to its journal or for presentations at its conference related to transplantation and involving either organs or tissue from human donors in the People’s Republic of China. My forced organ harvesting amendment to the Procurement Bill is critical to protect our UK medical professionals and institutions from complicity. I beg to move.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in what was a powerful, disturbing and very thoughtful speech. I think all of us who are privileged to be in the Committee today are indebted to him for that and the way he introduced this group of amendments, to which I am a signatory, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff. She sends her apologies for not being able to be physically present today, but she strongly supports the amendment, as does the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro. It is worth bearing in mind that both of those noble Lords have held very high office in the medical institutions in this country and it is good that their names are attached either to the amendment or to the arguments that go with it.
I declare interests as vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uyghurs, who the noble Lord referred to, and on Hong Kong, as patron of Hong Kong Watch and as a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. This amendment deals with a gruesome and barbaric lethal practice that has been prevalent in China. Last Thursday, here in the Moses Room, a debate was held on the International Relations and Defence Select Committee report on China, trade and security. The noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, was present throughout proceedings and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was present and contributed to those proceedings, during the course of which a number of us referred to the levels of trade and, inter alia, the level of procurement that is carried out with China by the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, pointed out that we have a £40 billion deficit in trade with the People’s Republic of China. That would be reason enough for considering, in the context of resilience and dependency, why procurement policies with a country designated by the Government as recently as last month as “a threat” to the United Kingdom should be radically readdressed. During the debate last Thursday in the Moses Room, I referred to earlier debates in this Committee on the Bill specifically about Hikvision. It is worth recalling that the noble Lord, Lord True, was gracious enough to have several meetings in his office to discuss this, as well as dealing with it at that stage. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, well enough—I congratulate her, as others have done, on her appointment as Minister—to know that she will take this as seriously as he did.
The company Hikvision is responsible for the surveillance cameras in Xinjiang referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. But these cameras were purchased through our procurement policies by great departments of state and are used in local government and by public authorities up and down the length and breadth of this country. These cameras are used to impose the surveillance state on the Uighur Muslims referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
At the conclusion of our debate last Thursday, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, promised he would write to me in response to my question specifically about whether, during the next set of proceedings on the Bill—therefore, on Report—the amendments that many of us argued for at earlier stages will be agreed by the Government. I hope that the noble Baroness’s officials will talk to his officials before he writes that letter, so that we genuinely get joined-up government on this.
I hope they will also look at the Biden Administration’s legislation on goods made by slave labour, something that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I have raised in other legislation and that we both, as well as other members of the Committee, feel very strongly about. They should also look at legislation the Biden Administration introduced called the CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, which draw together the prioritisations of investing in domestic industry, tackling climate change and reducing dependency on authoritarian regimes. All those things should be done in the context of this Bill.
In parentheses, I remind the Committee that we bought 1 billion—not 1 million, but 1 billion—lateral flow tests from the People’s Republic of China and 24 billion items of personal protective equipment where China was recorded as the country of origin. The cost to the United Kingdom was a staggering £10.9 billion—about the equivalent of our now reduced overseas aid and development budget. This is British taxpayers’ money pouring through our procurements into the pockets of a country that stands accused of the appalling barbarism identified in Amendment 185, and indeed of genocide.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I am a co-signatory on this amendment and, from the Lib Dem Benches, we strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his endeavours to combat the appalling issue of forced organ transplantation. He has made a strong and comprehensive case, as did the noble Lord, Lord Alton—as ever. Like them, I am glad that Ministers have been responsive over the past few years in relation to these appalling practices. I hope that this continues. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, the amendment is designed to exclude suppliers located in a country
“at high risk of forced organ harvesting”
from being awarded a public contract involving
“any device or equipment intended for use in organ transplant medicine”
or in related regard—for example, research.
As the Minister will know, this House has a very well-informed and cross-party approach to combating forced organ transplantation. She will be aware of the significance of such obvious and lengthy cross-party working. I assume that this might rightly be in red on the risk register for the Bill. I have noticed that that might be the case.
I recall a few years ago that a Peer, who is a current government Minister, was praising the Chinese for the speed and apparent efficiency of their transplant programme. I am certain that they would not have expressed that view had they known what we know now. That is surely thanks to the assiduous work of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Alton, and others. They, in turn, have been supported by the meticulous examination of the evidence by the China and the Uighur tribunals, both headed by Sir Geoffrey Nice, former prosecutor in the Balkans war-crimes tribunals. They shone a light on the terrible practice of forced organ harvesting. I noted that they found—as others have noted—that victims in China were targeted because of their religion, beliefs or ethnicity.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has just said, the China tribunal concluded that forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale; and that commission of crimes against humanity against the Falun Gong and the Uighurs have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Noble Lords have also heard the view from the United Nations; securing that was very difficult to achieve. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, as ever, calls some of the individuals concerned into our view, so we cannot say that we did not know.
The medical profession has been accused in the past of turning a blind eye to such practices. The BMJ criticised the transplant community for failing to implement high ethical standards. I note, however, that, in the BMA’s briefing for the Bill, it states that,
“upholding ethical procurement standards is essential.”
It refers to the procurement of medical equipment, including PPE, from the regions in which labour abuses have been alleged. It states that it would support
“any amendments to strengthen the legislation to help ensure ethical procurement and transparency throughout the supply chains of health-related goods.”
That would certainly apply to this amendment. In addition, as we have heard, the UK enjoys a global reputation for high-quality medical research. It is something that the Government emphasise as being key to the United Kingdom’s future. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has indicated, it is thus vital that we protect medical researchers from inadvertent involvement.
During the summer, in the then Conservative leadership debates, Rishi Sunak was asked about dealings with China. It is good that he acknowledged the potential human rights challenge. However, he also said that he sought to have a constructive engagement. This amendment would close a loophole, given that he has now been chosen by the Conservatives to be the country’s newest Prime Minister. It will help to ensure that the Government do indeed properly pay attention to human rights, which the new Prime Minister said was an aim of his.
In regard to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in relation to the hospital in China, will the Minister say whether UK Export Finance funds were given in this case? If she cannot tell me now, can she write to me? In summary, I commend this amendment to the Committee, and I hope that we will see progress and engagement with the Government.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise; I will see how long my voice lasts—not long, I imagine some people hope, but we will see how it goes.
I too congratulate the Minister on her promotion. She has already learned some of the tricks of the ministerial trade: she has gone through what she has previously said and asked her civil servants to have a look and see what she could say back if anyone raised it, which relates to what she opened with about simplification.
The serious point is that the fact that she has questioned the Bill will make her a very good Minister. That does not mean undermining the Bill, but you have to have a Minister who challenges it and listens to what people say, otherwise the whole process is pointless. From that point of view, we are all reassured by her appointment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 185 would require the Minister to publish in regulations a list of countries considered to be at high risk of performing forced organ harvesting. It would also require contracting authorities to exclude suppliers from those countries from certain procurements.
Clearly, I appreciate the seriousness of the issue of organ harvesting; I agree that it is a difficult matter for the Government. This is an abhorrent practice, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which is all the more egregious when sponsored by the state. It is an issue that has been frequently debated in recent years; I recognise the dedication with which it has been pursued by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, with the support today of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro. It is understandable that they take opportunities such as today to draw attention to the awful things that are happening and the scale of the issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is right to record that the Government are taking action to address this issue on a number of fronts. The Health and Care Bill was amended during its passage through Parliament to prohibit commercial organ tourism and send an unambiguous signal that complicity in the abuses associated with the overseas organ trade will not be tolerated. Equally importantly, the Government continue to monitor and review evidence relating to reports of forced organ harvesting in China, and they maintain a dialogue with leading NGOs and international partners on the issue. This includes Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Ministers writing to the World Health Organization in Geneva to encourage it to give careful consideration to the findings of the China Tribunal on organ harvesting, published in March 2020.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I was talking about the international angle and the importance of doing things internationally. I am particularly grateful for the reminder of the need to discuss these issues with my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park. I will also talk to the FCDO, DHSC and DIT about the UK-China hospital partnership and whether there has been any use of UK Export Finance. I have not been briefed on the issue, but I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who is not in his place, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, if they are content.
Turning to the main issue, I must resist this amendment on a number of counts, which I will explain. First, it treats suppliers as excluded simply for being located in a country at high risk of organ harvesting. This is guilt by association. It would undermine the principle, which runs throughout the exclusions regime, that suppliers can be excluded only where the supplier or a connected person has committed relevant misconduct. This is really important to ensure fairness and proportionality in exclusion decisions. The amendment could also have perverse effects—for example, preventing the NHS procuring life-saving devices in a country, even though they have nothing to do with organ harvesting or people trafficking.
Finally, there is already a provision in the Bill which would allow for the exclusion of suppliers who participate in forced organ harvesting. The Bill is clear that any serious breach of ethical or professional standards applicable to the supplier would meet the discretionary exclusion ground for professional misconduct. It is almost certain that involvement in these practices by suppliers of goods or services related to transplant medicine or human tissue would constitute a breach under the detailed standards set by health sector institutions.
The exclusion ground of professional misconduct is intended precisely to cover all the particular ethical issues that arise in different industries and sectors. That is of course an exclusion we agreed earlier, which merited further discussion. The grounds for exclusion cannot and should not list every issue within a particular industry. I should repeat that the exclusion and debarment regime in the Bill represents a significant overhaul and enhancement of the EU system; we should not forget that.
Finally, to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I have already promised, in his absence, to write on the subject of the hospital, but I am also of course aware of the concerns regarding Hikvision.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I apologise to the noble Baroness; I got trapped in the Chamber when the doors were locked at the end of the Division—it serves me right. Some people may wish it had been permanent. I am grateful to the noble Baroness and look forward to reading her reply in Hansard.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I look forward to getting delayed in the Lobby in the next Division.
I am aware of the concerns regarding Hikvision and other Chinese technology companies; we take these concerns extremely seriously, as the noble Lord knows. We are taking action in the Bill to introduce a new ground for exclusion, specifically to address situations where a supplier poses a threat to national security. The new exclusion ground allows a contracting authority to reject bids from suppliers that the authority considers pose a threat to the national security of the United Kingdom.
It is the long-standing policy of successive British Governments that judgment as to whether genocide has occurred is for a competent national or international court. It is not for the contracting authorities. Genocide is a crime and, like other crimes, whether it has occurred should be decided after consideration of all the evidence available in the context of a credible judicial process.
This has been an important debate. I have learned a lot but, for today, I respectfully request that this amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify a little her argument as to why organ trafficking—which is prohibited under the UK’s statute book—cannot be mentioned in Schedule 6 under the mandatory exclusion grounds. Under labour market, slavery and human trafficking offences, there is a fairly comprehensive list of UK domestic offences that are mandatory grounds. I do not see why that list cannot be added to, as I cannot see where the ethical grounds are included within Schedule 6 on the mandatory grounds.
Can the Minister also clarify why, in Schedule 7, on discretionary grounds, those offences are included for prevention orders? The Government seem to be suggesting that for a company that is subject to prevention orders for these heinous crimes—or could be subject to them, if it were a foreign supplier—this is simply discretionary. A contracting body would have to make a judgment itself as to what it considers would be the likelihood of a supplier meeting the threshold for a prevention order, rather than an offence. That does make any sense to me. I would be grateful if the Minister could address those two points.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I will need to take the noble Lord’s first point away and look at it. His explicit point is that there is a bit of legislation, so why do we not refer to it? His second point is tied up with how this discretionary schedule works and how we define “professional misconduct”, which, in our interpretation, includes ethical issues. I thank him for raising these issues again.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I would be grateful if the Minister were willing to consider this. It is not about the ethical point. It comes under paragraph 1 of Schedule 7, which is headed “Labour market misconduct”. Sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) specifically refer to slavery and trafficking prevention orders and trafficking and exploitation prevention orders. If a supplier is considered to be acting in a way that would satisfy a prevention order in the UK, it would be a discretionary exclusion ground rather than what I consider it should be: a mandatory exclusion ground. I am happy for the Minister to reflect on it and write if she cannot answer today.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Clearly, I have learned during this debate. I will obviously have to learn a little more about how we have tackled this issue. As was said right at the beginning of the debate, there is clearly some difficulty around the principle of how much detail to include and how many things to cross-reference in the Bill but, in the light of the noble Lord’s helpful clarification, I will go away, look at the various areas and come back to him.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and my noble friend Lord Coaker for their profound speeches. Of course, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, who cannot be here today.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, put a number of pertinent questions to the Minister, not just about the UK-China hospital partnership but more generally about the principles behind our trade with China. I must say that I find government policy inconsistent and incomprehensible. The new Administration, if I can call them that, need to get a grip on what exactly our relationship with China ought to be in terms of diplomacy, trade and strategic investment. Over the past few years, it has seemed completely all over the place.
There is an argument—my noble friend Lord Coaker referred to it—about the principle of how much we should use procurement legislation for wider, desirable policy aims. I believe passionately that it is right to use a Procurement Bill to try to influence this abhorrent practice. I am grateful to the Minister because she gave a careful response and appreciated the seriousness of this abhorrent practice, which we are doing our best to help eradicate. She also acknowledged the changes made in legislation in the past few years. However, she was critical of the amendment’s wording; she has quickly taken on the mantle of ministerial office again, by finding all amendments that do not emanate from her own department technically deficient.
The Minister’s key point around what is wrong with the amendment is that it is guilt by exclusion. I understand that but I believe that the amendment is tightly drawn. It is not just about excluding suppliers
“located in a country categorised … as at high risk of forced organ harvesting.”
It would exclude only in the event of
“a public contract involving … any device or equipment intended for use in organ transplant medicine or activities relating to”
that. That is tightly drawn and entirely justifiable.
The Minister also said that these practices would be covered by the exclusion grounds in the Bill. We have now had a debate on that; I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised some important questions. I accept that one can look to general provisions in a Bill and say, “Well, those cover it”, but I believe that there is sometimes a strong place for explicit provision on a practice that we find abhorrent. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to discuss this with us between Committee and Report because I am convinced; I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Coaker for his pertinent comment that we will come back to this on Report. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, we have a change of horse. By way of a health warning, my remarks do include mention of a considerable number of amendments. However, as a reassurance, and in the interests of brevity and the current buzzword—simplification—my speech is somewhat shorter now than it was at the beginning of the day.
A number of amendments are needed in Committee to ensure that the Bill functions appropriately. Clauses 34 to 39 introduce the new concept of dynamic markets and the new utilities dynamic markets. Existing dynamic purchasing systems are limited to providing commonly used goods and services that are generally available on the market, and therefore their scope is constrained. Examples of existing dynamic purchasing systems include Crown Commercial Services artificial intelligence, which enables public sector bodies to access services including machine learning and augmented decision-making. The new dynamic markets can be used for all procurements rather than just commonly used purchases. Dynamic markets will always remain open for new suppliers to join. This provides a great opportunity for all types of suppliers, including SMEs, to pre-qualify for work.
Amendments 210 to 212 and 217 to 219 would clarify that references to membership of a dynamic market in this context relate to membership of an appropriate dynamic market, or an appropriate part of such a dynamic market. This is defined in Amendment 222 as a dynamic market, or part thereof, that permits the award of the contract by the contracting authority.
Amendment 220 clarifies that a contracting authority must consider applications for membership of the dynamic market from suppliers that have asked to participate in a competition reserved for members of the dynamic market before excluding such suppliers from the competition. This is in addition to considering applications from suppliers that have submitted a tender as part of the competition.
Amendment 222 contains various definitions relevant to these amendments, including a new explanation of when a dynamic market is appropriate, as mentioned previously. It also contains the exemption from Clause 34 for concession contracts other than those that are also utilities contracts, which was previously in Clause 35.
Amendments 223 to 227, 229 to 231 and 233 are tidying-up amendments. Amendments 223, 230 and 233 would delete provisions that are now set out elsewhere.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, as I was saying, Amendments 223 to 227, 229 to 231 and 233 are tidying-up amendments. Amendments 223, 230 and 233 delete provisions that are now set out elsewhere. Amendment 224 clarifies that only contracting authorities may award public contracts using dynamic markets, while Amendment 225 reflects the terminology of “participation in”, rather than “membership of”, a dynamic market. Amendment 226 includes a new definition of “utilities dynamic market” to make it clear that this is a subcategory of dynamic markets rather than a distinct concept. Amendment 227 deletes the previous definition of a utilities dynamic market and deletes Clause 35(3), which will not be needed if proposed new Clause 1, which was discussed on the first day of Committee, is agreed on Report. Amendment 229 is a grammatical change, and Amendment 231 ensures that the definition of “utility” applies across the whole Bill, not just to this clause.
Amendment 234 includes proposed new subsections (1A), (1B) and (1C) in Clause 36, relating to conditions for membership of a dynamic market. These provisions apply the same restrictions to these conditions as apply to conditions of participation in a competitive tendering procedure, as set out in Clause 21.
Amendment 235 clarifies that the contracting authority that established a particular dynamic market, as opposed to any other contracting authority, must publish a notice when the dynamic market ceases or changes—for example, when new suppliers are added.
Amendment 288 allows for a minimum 10-day tendering period for the submission of tenders in competitive tendering procedures for the award of contracts under dynamic markets. This shorter period is a significant efficiency offered by dynamic markets. It compares to the usual tender return of 35 days, which applies in a normal procedure unless tender documents are provided at the outset and/or tenders are accepted electronically, both of which reduce the return by five days.
Amendment 345 extends the requirement on contracting authorities to notify the relevant appropriate authority where a supplier is excluded from a dynamic market because it has fallen foul of a mandatory or discretionary exclusion ground. Amendments 346 to 348 are consequential on this amendment.
In respect of the last two amendments, Amendment 541 corrects the clause reference in the list of defined terms to align with the amendments proposed to Clause 35, while Amendment 545 includes in this list a cross-reference to the newly defined term “utilities dynamic market”.
With that, I beg to move the first of these government amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Viscount set out so speedily, this new concept of dynamic markets is so new that a lot of it did not even make it into the original Bill; it had to be brought in as amendments. Thereby hangs a concern—not with the concept of a dynamic market, which I will come to shortly, but with how this is being put together, the sum of the parts and how it will work. It is difficult to see exactly how this will work in practice from the noble Viscount’s presentation that we just heard, the Bill itself and the original White Paper. That is my concern.
It would be helpful if the noble Viscount came back to us in writing with a simple message as to how this will work. How, for example, does it welcome innovation rather than shut it out? I will give an example. Whether a dynamic is based around process rather than outcome makes a difference, so how will these rules manage dynamic markets that actually deliver constant innovation? How will they be refreshed? How will the system work so that, rather than having the power of incumbency, if you like, which is often what happens with procurement, power will be pushed around to allow innovation, new entrants and new people to work within this dynamic?
We can call something dynamic but how is it dynamic on an ongoing basis if I use this market to buy things or services on a daily basis? Essentially, that is my concern: all these amendments are tinkering around technically with process but, because of the way this has been put together in pieces, will it actually work? Can the Minister come back with some assurance as to how this is supposed to work? How will it be constantly renewed? How will he ensure that it is open to new entrants throughout the life of that dynamic? How will individuals know that they are able to keep entering that market? Tenders will not be going out, so what is the process? If I have a small or medium-sized business, how do I find out about dynamic markets that might suit my product or service set? I am concerned about those kinds of mechanisms and processes.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I had not intended to intervene but I am getting a bit confused here. In the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, Regulation 34 describes a dynamic purchasing system. First, I am trying to understand the difference between the dynamic purchasing system that existed in the regulations we are replacing and this apparently entirely new dynamic market; I am not quite clear what it is. Secondly, the dynamic purchasing system in the regulations is an entirely electronic system. This one is not necessarily so.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I hope it is but it does not say so, whereas the 2015 regulations make it clear that it is. I wonder whether this will be an entirely electronic system.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I shall be extremely brief as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has already covered a lot of the concerns that your Lordships feel. Following on from that, we need some clarification around the issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, just said, of whether it is or is not entirely electronic. How is that going to operate? What are the conditions of membership? We need some clarification on the detail of how the dynamic markets are going to work. Perhaps the Ministers opposite could write to the Committee with some clarification about the operation of the system ahead of Report. That would be very helpful.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate the comments made by the three Peers who have spoken. It might be appropriate for me to write a letter to clarify the detail, which I appreciate came across as rather technical—though not too rushed, I hope. I appreciate the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman; I will attempt to answer some of them.
Let me start by saying that the expression “dynamic market” is not just a name change. The dynamic market will have a wider remit than the current dynamic purchasing systems. Importantly, dynamic markets can be used for all procurements rather than just commonly used goods and services. That is the first change. The Bill also provides much greater clarity on how dynamic markets can be established and contracts awarded to suppliers—this is on-the-ground information—and on how contracts can be awarded to suppliers that are members of the dynamic market, as well as increased transparency over their operation. I hope that helps to some extent.
I shall go further in answer to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. The benefit of frameworks is that, once set up, they can be a fast, efficient, compliant and easy-to-use procurement route for both the contracting authority and the suppliers. Again, once the framework is set up, there is a significant reduction in the procurement timescale from six to nine months to as little as four to six weeks, leading to reduced procurement costs. Obviously, that is beneficial for both the public sector and the suppliers.
With this, there are pre-agreed terms and conditions, meaning that contracting authorities can simply call off the framework to meet their requirements. They are usually set up with ceiling prices that can be further reduced by competition at the call-off stage. So the benefit of the dynamic market is that it remains open to all suppliers, which benefits SMEs in particular as they will not be locked out for long periods of time.
On how dynamic markets actually help companies—let us say SMEs, which I think was the gist of the noble Lord’s question—it may be that I need to provide more information, but here we are. The new dynamic markets will be open to new suppliers joining throughout their life, ensuring that no one is locked out from the market for long stretches of time. That will be beneficial to SMEs in particular, which can decide to apply to a dynamic market at any time via a process that will be much simpler and quicker than tendering for a framework.
I believe it will be best if I set out all this information and more in a letter. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment. Actually, these are government amendments, are they not?
“(6) A dynamic market or part of a dynamic market is “appropriate” for the purposes of this section if its terms permit the award of the contract by the contracting authority.(7) This section does not apply in relation to the award of a concession contract, unless the concession contract is also a utilities contract.(8) In this Act—“dynamic market” means arrangements established under section 35(1);references to a contract being awarded by reference to suppliers’ membership of a dynamic market are references to a contract being awarded in reliance on this section;references to suppliers’ membership of a dynamic market are references to suppliers’ participation in arrangements established under section 35(1).”
“(1A) In this Act a “utilities dynamic market” means a dynamic market established only for the purpose of the award of utilities contracts by utilities.”
“(1A) A condition set under subsection (1)(b) may relate to suppliers’ qualifications, experience or technical ability, but may not—(a) require suppliers to have been awarded a contract by a particular contracting authority,(b) break the rules on technical specifications in section 24, or(c) require particular qualifications without allowing for their equivalents.(1B) When considering whether a condition is proportionate for the purposes of subsection (1) a contracting authority must have regard to the nature, complexity and cost of contracts to be awarded by reference to suppliers’ membership of the market.(1C) A condition of membership may require the provision of evidence that is verifiable by a person other than the supplier.”
Lord Clement-Jones
“(c) if the contract is not included in a framework agreement.”
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I would be very happy if the Minister introduced my amendment, but in moving it I will also speak to Amendment 243A and Clause 40 stand part. My noble friend Lord Fox will speak to other Liberal Democrat amendments in this group that are in the names of my noble friends Lord Wallace and Lady Brinton. I know that my noble friend Lord Fox has congratulated the Minister already but it is the first time that I have spoken since I saw her on the Back Benches in our previous proceedings. I must congratulate her on her seamless move to the Front Bench—again.
Given the controversy surrounding these direct contracts, the removal of Clause 40 on direct awards would, pending greater transparency and equity for SMEs, be the preferable course. But these are specific amendments to Clauses 40 and 42, which would prevent direct awards being used within framework agreements and instead open all such awards to competition. This issue is seen all the time within the G-cloud framework; it prevents proper competition from British SMEs and simply reinforces the dominance of certain key foreign players in the market. These amendments would provide the opportunity to redress the balance and help support UK SMEs.
We will debate the role of frameworks later, but these amendments seek to highlight the blurring of direct award rules by smuggling in large, uncontested contracts within framework agreements. The notion that there is a ceiling above which such awards must be competed for, and below which they can be awarded directly, is theoretically sound if it is rigorously adhered to. We on these Benches would argue that the threshold of £250,000 is too high and that a figure of £100,000 would be more appropriate. I seek the Minister’s view on thresholds and how they are arrived at. However, thresholds are pointless if they are ignored or bypassed, which is what seems to be happening.
One very good example of where this system has completely gone off the rails is cloud computing. This important service is central to the Government’s digital plans. It seems that rarely is the ongoing cloud service bid seen as a separate service; rather, it is wrapped in a package being competed for through a framework agreement by the consulting giants. These consultants always seem to partner with one or other of the dominant, non-UK cloud services companies.
This has gradually led to a disproportionate level of awards to these companies. For example, in 2012-17, one company, Amazon Web Services, was awarded £25.5 million-worth of contracts from a total market worth £381.7 million—a market share of 7%. By 2018-22, its market share had ballooned to just a shade under 40%. In the current financial year alone, 2022-23, AWS has seen £87.7 million-worth of contracts from a total market of £137.6 million—a market share of 64%. The US federal Government estimate that the UK public cloud market was worth $12 billion in 2020 and growing, so AWS can expect a healthy $5 billion-plus, with Microsoft Azure not far behind. Almost none of this would have been opened up to competition.
Of course, in the UK, a company is deemed to have monopoly power if it holds more than 25% of the market. At the same time, the SME share of the market has fallen from more than 50% to just 20% in the last five years, and barely 10% this year. It simply reinforces the dominance of certain key foreign “hyperscalers” in this market. To be clear, it seems that these services are available from UK-based suppliers. We are not asking for preferential access for these UK suppliers, just that they are not locked out by the use of framework agreements in this way and the awards of direct contracts under them.
The Government talk about building a UK digital future, yet they systematically underwrite the development of non-UK businesses by ignoring their own rules. The Procurement Bill is supposedly designed, according to the Queen’s Speech, so that
“Public sector procurement will be simplified to provide new opportunities for small businesses.”
On top of this, the Crown Commercial Service’s own guidance on direct awards suggests that the procedure is suitable only for low-value, low-volume commodity products. In the case of AWS, some of the contracts, such as the Home Office contract, top £100 million in value, so they cannot be considered low-volume or low-value, nor can cloud hosting be considered a commodity, given the proprietary nature of the service and the consequences of that.
If the Government are true to their word, they will accept these amendments to ensure that the balance is redressed and UK SMEs are given a chance to compete on a level playing field. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 236 in this group. It probes the relationship between direct contract awards and framework contracts.
Direct awards are allowed under Clause 40 if they satisfy one of the justifications in Schedule 5, paragraph 8 of which allows them if they are similar to existing contracts for goods and services that have been entered into in the previous five years and in which the initial tender set out the intention to use the direct award justification. My amendment would change those five years to four years, specifically to probe the differences between a repeat direct award under Clause 40 and an award under a framework contract, as covered in Chapter 4 of Part 3.
Clause 45 says that a framework contract has a maximum duration of four years other than for defence and utilities contracts. Doubtless this is my ignorance speaking but I hope that my noble friend the Minister can explain to me the rationale for allowing five years for direct awards under Chapter 3 as opposed to four years for framework contracts under Chapter 4. My question is pretty simple: is there a substantive distinction between direct awards and awards under framework contracts, where the justification for the direct award is in paragraph 8 of Schedule 5?
It seems to me that this is another example of how the designers of this new procurement system have lost sight of simplicity and underlying principles in designing the system. However, there may be a good reason for that, of course; I look forward to my noble friend the Minister explaining it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly on Amendment 240 in particular, to which I would have attached my name had I noticed it in time. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. What he set out in terms of the problems of framework agreements are the kind of things we often encounter in the pages of Private Eye; it really is time that we saw some action on this issue.
Amendment 240
“is intended to prevent the future use of ‘VIP lanes’ for public contracts.”
I rather suspect that the nation out there, which is exhausted by politics, is probably not glued to your Lordships’ Grand Committee on the Procurement Bill this evening. I looked up the schedule: people are probably watching either “The Simpsons” or “Britain’s Parking Hell”. However, I know from what I get in my mailbag and what I see on social media that what happened during Covid with VIP lanes is a huge, continuing concern among large numbers of the British public. It was only last month that the Government were forced to admit that 50 firms had been put into the priority lane for test and trace contracts, worth billions. They included Immensa, a firm that was subsequently at the heart of more than 43,000 false negative results and had been incorporated only in May 2020. This came after the Good Law Project successfully challenged the Government’s VIP lane for personal protective equipment contracts.
So we have a situation where people are now looking at politics and saying, “We want to see things done differently”. This small, modest amendment would set a marker for achieving that; I feel that it deserves more attention both in this Room and outside it.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I have a few amendments in this group. The first is Amendment 235A, which was brought forward as a probing amendment so that we could consider the direct award of contracts in special circumstances. It is important that the Government both put on the record why there is a need for direct awards and explain properly the limited circumstances in which they can be used, so that things are completely clear. I also point out that, in certain scenarios, a contracting authority might be able to make a modification to an existing contract without following a competitive tendering procedure; in reality, that would have the effect of making a direct award. We need a bit of clarification around some of these issues.
The Bill introduces some changes that we would support in this area, including, for example, that the contracting authority would be obliged to publish a transparency notice in advance of making a direct award. We would very much support that. It is also interesting that Ministers will be empowered to designate specific contracts or categories of contracts that can be awarded directly in certain identified areas, such as in protecting life and for public security. It is good that we have a bit more meat on the bone in this area and on the issue around transparency.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as we have heard, Clause 41 covers the very important issue of direct awards that may be awarded to protect life.
The Covid pandemic tested our current systems but, in one particular area, the Government have now admitted that they created a VIP lane, under which at least 50 contracts for test and trace were expedited. Many other contracts for PPE and other core Covid contracts also circumvented the usual public procurement routes in the VIP lane, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Hayman, mentioned. That is why my noble friends Lord Wallace and Lady Brinton have tabled Amendments 238 to 241. I have already explained that my noble friend Lord Wallace cannot be here, and my noble friend Lady Brinton is participating in the Chamber.
These amendments say that regardless of the emergency, the principles of transparency, integrity, fairness and non-discrimination must be at the heart of any contract process. These are the diagnostics of a good, well-managed company. If these are not pursued, it is very unlikely that quality and delivery will be good; and that is what we have found—delivery was poor. The VIP lane was a particularly egregious mechanism that the Government used to encourage contractors to come forward to supply goods at short notice, irrespective of those qualities that I have just listed. Billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money was used to provide contracts, including, as we have heard, to firms that had no experience of test and trace or the provision of PPE. This is not just a waste of money: one test and trace firm’s testing kits gave many thousands of erroneous false-negative results, which meant that people believed that they did not have Covid and went around the country infecting people accidentally, causing illness and possibly death. We do not know how many or how much.
PPE kit worth billions has already been and is being incinerated by the NHS, because it did not meet the required safety standards. It could not meet the quality standard, because it did not have the management controls and processes, nor the integrity, to meet it; it was not checked, because of the fast-track process. One common element is that it was parliamentarians—virtually all Conservatives—who introduced the companies that received this preferential treatment over and above existing, experienced suppliers and experts. There are many examples of this. Worse, the BMA reports that thousands of doctors ended up buying their own PPE, because they knew that the stuff that the Government were providing them with was substandard.
From our Front Benches and in private meetings with Ministers, despite repeated questioning, it was almost impossible to get answers about these appalling processes. Two years later, the truth is really beginning to emerge. Friends of Conservative parliamentarians were given unfair advantage in obtaining contracts, as we just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. That is bad enough, but the waste from those contracts is a stain on this Government’s procurement activities. It must never happen again.
Amendment 240 makes it plain that provision must not confer any preferential treatment on suppliers connected to or recommended by Members of the House of Commons or House of Lords. If the Minister resists this amendment, these Benches will also oppose that Clause 41 stands part of the Bill. As currently written, it does not prevent the procurement processes from this debacle happening again.
Can the Minister answer the following questions? Does she believe that Clause 41, in its current form, protects against abuse of a future emergency process similar to the VIP lane that this Government used, which has proven to be untransparent and to favour colleagues of parliamentarians? In other words, does Clause 41 stop this happening again? Does she recognise that now is the time to say that this must never happen again? And does she recognise that these amendments are a mechanism to ensure that we do not get a repeat of this?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, this is a rather confusing group, so I will start by speaking to the two government amendments. Amendment 237 removes duplication of the direct award ground, which is adequately covered in Clause 41; and Amendment 245 requires appropriate assessment prior to the direct award of whether a supplier previously submitted an unsuitable tender.
Looking at the group in the round, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised Amendment 235A, so that we could rightly debate the direct award of contracts; and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in his absence, gave notice of his intention to object to Clauses 40 and 41—I think because he wants to understand what is happening and wants answers to some of the questions that have been put by the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Clause 40 permits a direct award to a supplier, other than an excluded supplier, if a justification in Schedule 5 is met. This is based on the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Government Procurement grounds for limited tendering and is similar to the current law. We have been commended by external stakeholders for bringing clarity to the justifications and reducing the risk of unintended use of these provisions. As the noble Baroness said, publication of transparency notices is an extremely important development.
Just to let noble Lords know, I will deal with standstill provisions in the next group so, in the interests of time, will not cover them in this group. But I will deal here, a little later, with sunset clauses, which the noble Baroness also raised.
I was very interested to hear the explanation for Amendments 235ZA and 243A from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. He made a lot of points that I was not aware of, which I will study, in relation to the important areas of cloud computing and UK businesses. But I make clear that existing frameworks allow contracting authorities to buy cloud-based services separately, rather than in a package. In this way, SMEs are encouraged to provide services directly to the public sector, which is something that we are keen that they do.
Frameworks are of course created following a competition and they create a period of uncertainty on contractual terms, albeit they allow a closed list for contracts to be awarded, so it makes sense that they are for a limited duration—I think that is what the noble Lord was asking about. This should not lock out competitors for too long. Directly awarded contracts have a shorter duration for a different rationale: they allow contracting authorities to put alternative arrangements in place. That is the rationale, and we worry that the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would add more time as an unnecessary burden on contracting authorities by mandating them to check for and use available framework agreements, even where these might not be appropriate. Requiring them to keep within existing arrangements can actually stifle innovation and new entrants, particularly where the prototype in development ground is being used. The framework formalities, which may include a requirement for competitive process, may be impractical in cases such as those of extreme urgency.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, before the Minister finishes, I have two points. On the big question, I asked whether she thought that Clause 41 would prevent the VIP lane problems resurfacing or coming back. It would be good to get an answer to that, either now or later. In the Minister’s response on Amendment 239, I thought I heard her say that provisions in other parts of the Bill around operating ethically are, in spirit, reflected in Clause 41. “In spirit” is a very difficult concept to understand in law. I hope we can find a way of perhaps stiffening the spirit and making it actual. If there is a read-across, we need to find a way—either at the Dispatch Box, in some Pepper v Hart way, or within the words—to ensure that what the Minister says, which I take to be in good faith, is usable in the outside world once the Bill becomes an Act.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Perhaps I might add that what the Minister said makes a lot of sense and is helpful, but one of the problems we have is that we do not know how effective it is going to be and whether it would work until we get into that situation again. Is there any ability to build in a review once the system has been tested, perhaps against a major public problem like we had with Covid-19?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think our intention is to try to get rid of the VIP lanes. I will take the point away but there is a committee sitting—it will unfortunately sit for a long time, no doubt—that is looking at a lot of these important issues, and at some of these lessons. It is doing things in phases, so hopefully we will begin to get some output soon. We have had the Boardman review and, as the Committee can hear, we have tried in this Bill to learn from that and not to have a preferential system. The point about non-discrimination and such things is in the same spirit. I will take away the point about spirit and what we are doing here, but we have some good things in the Bill. I have listened to what the Committee has said but also tried to convince your Lordships about what we are trying to do.
I am advised that Clause 41 would prevent VIP lanes, as regulators will set out in advance what direct awards are permitted and Parliament would not approve anything too wide-ranging—I am sure that is true. The other point is that the Bill’s provisions on conflicts, which I am sure we will come on to debate further, also help against VIP lanes. We have quite a lot of things going on here; obviously, I am worried about piling it on. Everybody is concerned, so they all come in with different suggestions for trying to improve things. But if you pile those one on the other, you end up with rules that are too burdensome and do not work too well.
On the issue of a review, I think my noble friend Lady Noakes referred to some sort of review clause at an earlier juncture. “Review” is something that one tends to write into Bills where you have a problem. Perhaps we can discuss this further before Report to see whether a review is the right thing or whether enough is going on to try to ensure that we are in a good place on the Covid front. I respectfully request that the various amendments are withdrawn, and I would like to move the government amendments in my name.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, I remind the Committee that, where amendments are grouped, only the first amendment is moved. The others must be moved or not moved as they are reached on the Marshalled List.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it falls to me as the mover of the lead amendment to respond to the Minister. Clearly, there was quite a lot in what she said and we will need to brood over Hansard when the time comes because there are a large number of issues here. I recognise the Minister’s track record on SMEs but I am somewhat amazed that the Government have been commended on bringing greater clarity, as she put it, because our intention was to provide much greater clarity—and, indeed, equity—in all of this for SMEs. In terms of the addition of more time, burden and so on, I believe the Minister would normally think that we should go the extra mile for SMEs in these circumstances.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Certainly. We have discussed SMEs before; we have gone away to have a look at that issue. I recently held a round table with SMEs. Basically, they were positive about the Bill. Clearly, we have to see through and teach them about the new proposals. The basic point is that there are fewer different ways forward. I was quite surprised that that was the case but clearly there is complexity, and we have got to make sure that the Bill is in the right form.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I think it partly depends on the market that is covered by particular SMEs. I could probably produce a range of SMEs that are not quite as pleased with their lot. Of course, that is partly the theme that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and I have been talking about in terms of the UK cloud market.
I appreciate the fact that—stop press—it appears that the intention of Clause 41 is to prevent VIP lanes, because, let us face it, that is lesson number one from Covid. I hope that that is correct, but no doubt we will read carefully how and in what respect it gets rid of VIP lanes.
More broadly, virtually everyone who contributed to this debate wants to see a much clearer set of underlying principles—the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was clear on this—around how direct awards relate to framework agreements. I do not believe that we have seen that yet. Assurance from a Minister is one thing but seeing it in black and white in the legislation is another. I thought that the phrase “safe from challenge”, used by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was exactly right. We have seen only too clearly what happens when there is no clarity; the Randox contract was an absolutely classic example of that. All of us hope that that will not happen again and hope to see a competitive market for our SMEs. However, I think we will probably have to return to this issue on Report.
In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
(b) submitted an unsuitable tender or request in response to the invitation referred to in subsection (1)(a).”
Lord Aberdare
“(2) A “framework” is a contract between one or more contracting authorities and one or more suppliers that provides for the future award of contracts by a contracting authority to the supplier or suppliers, including through a multi-party framework alliance.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that sections 44, 45, 46 and 47 governing ‘Award under Frameworks’ include the practices of leading public sector framework providers such as Crown Commercial Service whose framework contracts for goods, services and works include multi-party instruments known as ‘framework alliances’ that are entered into by multiple contracting authorities.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I start by joining the chorus of welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, in her new ministerial post. It brings back happy memories since it was almost exactly seven years ago in this Room that I proposed an amendment to the then Enterprise Bill concerning the pernicious practice of cash retentions, to which the noble Baroness gave a positive commitment in response. I am delighted to be trying my luck again today.
Amendment 245A would simply extend the scope of Clauses 44 to 47 to cater for framework alliances. These are multiparty framework contracts entered into by multiple contracting authorities, which are increasingly being used by leading framework providers such as the Crown Commercial Service. Framework alliances are recognised and supported by the Construction Playbook, as well as by Constructing the Gold Standard: An Independent Review of Public Sector Construction Frameworks by Professor David Mosey, published by the Cabinet Office last December, whose recommendations are strongly endorsed in the 2022 version of the Construction Playbook.
The use of UK public sector framework alliances has been shown to deliver greater value, reduce risks and other improved outcomes as well as enhanced opportunities for small businesses. They have been adopted for UK public sector procurements of goods, services and works worth a total of more than £90 billion. They include important joint systems of supply chain collaboration and joint risk management that are well in advance of those adopted in jurisdictions outside the UK.
Amendment 245A would merely adjust the wording of Clause 44(2) to ensure that the definition of frameworks includes such multiparty framework alliances. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that these alliances will be covered by the provisions of this chapter of the Bill, even if not in the exact form of my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 247, 248 and 249 in this group. This is my first chance to make what I regard as a substantive contribution and to welcome my noble friend to her Front-Bench responsibilities. Speaking as a poacher these several years, our loss is the Government’s gain—and hopefully the Committee’s gain, too; as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, quite rightly said, the fact that my noble friend has already evidenced interest in the Bill is a positive signal to start off with.
I will not go on at great length. I declare an interest in that my wife’s company, with which I work, has been involved in a number of framework contracts. They are all in Brussels and nothing to do with the UK Government. They relate to the European Commission, to NATO and so on.
Without going on at length about framework contracts, everybody can see why they might be a useful thing for contracting authorities to use. They enable them to establish a group of suppliers who have the necessary credentials, capacity and so on, and they are then able to call them off at relatively short notice for these purposes. Everybody can understand that. The problem is that this is not always how they are used. What often happens is that you end up with something that is a speculative framework; we have experienced a number of occasions where no subsequent work has been offered under that framework, so all the original work in relation to that framework was nugatory. Sometimes, the frameworks need subsequent further competitions and a range of suppliers that have all been included in the framework. The subsequent competitions are, frankly, no less onerous than the original competition would have been, the only difference often being that they are done at much shorter notice than the original tenders were required to be. That can impose all kinds of difficulties, especially on SMEs. I declare an interest: our company is an SME in the European procurement context.
So why these amendments? My amendments—particularly, for this purpose, Amendments 247 and 248 —are about at least trying to intrude the idea that the original framework competition ought to rank suppliers. Then, the suppliers who are ranked have some idea of how this is going to work. I have seen the positive benefit of that since, from time to time, we have engaged in this and it has become clear that the contracting authority is going to have what it describes as a cascade. A cascade outcome for a framework competition leaves suppliers in a much clearer position as to their future potential work because you learn that, if a requirement is likely to come forward, it is going to be offered to the number one supplier first. If they do not want to take it, it will cascade down, so you do not have to engage in a lot of additional activity.
I saw no evidence that this description of frameworks entertains cascade-style framework competitions. I thought it should so I tried to write something that did not mandate a cascade, but at least allowed for that possibility. Happily, one of the things that I also thought that cascade help you to do is focus more on the original framework competition as a basis for the subsequent selection of suppliers. That is why, when my noble friend comes to introduce Amendment 246, I will be particularly glad to see proposed new subsection (3G), which says that the competitive selection process that might be undertaken subsequent to the framework for the selection of suppliers should be
“only be by reference to one or more of the award criteria against which tenders were assessed in awarding the framework.”
It therefore entrenches the original framework competition in terms of the way in which subsequent contracts are to be offered.
The point of my Amendment 247 is to introduce that concept of the ranking of suppliers for the cascade. It would therefore move the reference to an objective mechanism for supplier selection under Amendment 248 into the subsequent subsection. Amendment 248 would also address another concern I had: when a contracting authority is making an award of a contract using a framework, it often has a wider range of potential suppliers with different capacities and so on. If there is going to be a supplier selection, it should always give suppliers an opportunity at least to tell the contracting authority what their credentials, capacity, quality and potential value may be. It may exclude value if they say they can only use the price that has already been supplied, for example for staff and so on, but none the less, credentials and capacity to meet a specific requirement should always be something that suppliers are given an opportunity to show. I am not sure that, without this measure, an objective mechanism for supplier selection actually means that. I do not know what “objective mechanism” means in this context. I am hoping that Amendment 246 gets us to a much better place. If it entails any kind of competition, that has to be done by reference to the original award criteria.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I apologise to the Committee for being late; I have literally just got off an aeroplane. Like others, I welcome the Minister to her place. I will welcome some of the acrobatics she may have to do on Report now that she is sitting there rather than next to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, as she was earlier in these Committee proceedings.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has just spoken a lot of sense. I declare my interest as someone who advises a company that works with frameworks. I have seen some games played with frameworks, though not by the company I advise, with frameworks used for a number of purposes completely alien to why the original contract framework was set. It debars competition and innovation, particularly when the public body decides that it wants something completely tangential to the original framework contract and the original purpose, and allows a company to continue building its commercial relationship with that public sector body without necessarily having the core competences required. It then goes into a lot of partnerships with adjunct companies that have no relationship back to the original company when the framework was initially set.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in trying to work out, in his Amendment 249, what the fee purpose is in terms of companies going around the framework. I particularly agree with him on the issue of small and medium-sized enterprises. I think this would be a block in that field for SMEs in particular. Could the Minister explain a little more about the reason for the fee, how it will allow competition and how it will not debar SMEs in particular from this type of framework agreement if it is to continue?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, we are getting into some detail now. That is the purpose of Committee and it is very constructive and informative. I very much agreed with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, about framework alliances and whether Clauses 44 to 47 include such alliances. If they do not, why not? The noble Lord’s point requires a simple answer: yes, they do, or no, they do not. He has asked an important question about the inclusion of framework alliances.
Similarly, I thought the points of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, were really well made. Amendments 247, 248 and 249 have been put down specifically to ask the Minister whether the Government’s new subsection (3G) answers some of those points. That is the sort of detail we need to get into, as the cascade principle is really important. I think the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, also supported that.
I have a couple of specific points on the importance of transparency and openness, which we are all striving for. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked the Minister about what “value for money” means; that could almost be taken as a trick remark but it is crucial, as these sorts of definitions are really important. Therefore, can the Minister say what “proportionate” means in government Amendment 246? One person’s “proportionate” would be to allow people to get through without proper checks. However, without “proportionate”, the burden on some businesses and suppliers would be completely unacceptable—just too much and unrealistic. It would be helpful for the Committee to understand the use of “proportionate” in new subsections (3A) and (3D) and “may not” in new subsection (3C).
Government Amendment 246 talks about proportionate means of ensuring that suppliers have the relevant
“qualifications, experience or technical ability”
to perform a contract. It would be helpful if the Minister said a bit more about what that means.
More generally, since we are discussing Clauses 44 to 47, can the Minister explain why so many respondents to the Government’s consultation opposed open frameworks? Some 27% of the respondents did so. Is that a high negative response? I am not sure whether it is high or low, but it struck me as quite a lot. The Government did not agree with that view and ploughed on with Clause 47.
On Clause 45(3), can the Minister explain what sort of reasons there could be for a framework to exceed the normal eight years for a defence and security contract and four years for other frameworks? The Government seem to believe there might be a necessity to clarify that through their own Amendment 251, which seeks to clarify some of that but also reflects a concern about the number of years that could apply to a contract. That would be helpful.
Our limited discussion on the use of frameworks has been very important; it has sought to get into some of the details, which are what mean they do or do not work well—sometimes on the basis of what a particular word means. Like many noble Lords, I read the assessment in preparing for this Committee; you can see the point the noble Lord, Lord Fox, made in our earlier debate about a cry for clarity on what the Government are seeking to achieve. What different words mean is crucial. Building on the noble Lord’s plea to know what “value for money” means, a little more about what “proportionate”, et cetera, means in the context of government Amendment 246 would be helpful. The Minister may need a little more time to reflect on that but, if you are seeking a contract under a framework, the word “proportionate” will mean everything—or nothing. It would be very helpful if the Minister could clarify that.
With that, I think the Government have taken some very important steps forward under these clauses.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Scriven, and my noble friend Lord Lansley, for their kind words.
I will start with the government amendments, because even though this will not be in strict order, it will help to answer the other points that have been raised. Frameworks are a well-established commercial purchasing tool, used widely across the public sector. Having looked at some of the public responses, that percentage figure that was quoted is not worrying. Key is whether this is a sensible provision and whether we are reforming them in the correct way. The Bill makes a number of improvements to the effectiveness of frameworks, to increase flexibility, provide value for money, et cetera.
I am glad that the noble Lord referred to government Amendment 246 because it is quite a substantial and important amendment among the hundreds that I apologise for having tabled in Committee. It allows contracting authorities to set conditions of participation in a competitive selection process for the award of a contract under a framework. New subsections (3A) to (3F) impose restrictions on the use of such conditions to those which apply to conditions of participation in a competitive tendering procedure under Clause 21. These include limiting the conditions in various ways, for example, to those which are a proportionate means of ensuring that suppliers have the relevant qualifications, experience and technical ability to perform the contract, of ensuring that the conditions do not break the rules on technical specifications, and of requiring that equivalents must be allowed where particular qualifications are required. The question on proportionality is a good one. I do not have as good an answer for the noble Lord as I would like, so I will write to him on that point.
My noble friend Lord Lansley commended new subsection (3G). This restricts the basis on which proposals received as part of a competitive selection process under a framework can be assessed to all or some of the award criteria against which tenders the frameworks were assessed. This is to ensure that suppliers that have already been admitted to a framework do not have to meet entirely different criteria later. New subsection (3H) allows for the award criteria to be refined.
Government Amendments 251 to 255, and 258 to 260, relate to rules for frameworks for the future award of contracts. The remaining government amendments in this group deal variously with light-touch contracts, ensuring open frameworks work as intended, and with minor tidying-up changes.
Turning to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, the thing that we worked on together when I was last a Minister is still unresolved, so I feel a sense of guilt.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I agree with the objective behind the noble Lord’s Amendment 245A. There is a need for this Bill to ensure that multiple contracting authorities may join to award a framework. Frameworks can result in significant savings, financially and in time, and they say that time is money. This is particularly the case where they are put in place for the benefit of more than one contracting authority, for example by centralised procurement authorities.
To that end, Clause 10 provides for contracting authorities to carry out procurements jointly and for centralised procurement authorities to put in place arrangements for the benefit of other contracting authorities. This enables them to delegate their obligations to run lawful procurements to centralised procurement authorities, in their capacity as specialists, or to jointly procure with them and remain responsible, together with their procurement partners, for the award of any resulting contract. The noble Lord will wish to look carefully at that, but I do not think that his amendment is necessary.
Amendments 247 and 248, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, seek to add additional requirements for the award of contracts under frameworks, without a further competitive process. The first of these, a system based on the suppliers’ ranking in the competition for the award of the framework—the noble Lord talked of a cascade; we have talked of ranking—is certainly one mechanism by which contracts can be awarded under a framework without a competition. However, this is only one selection mechanism, and there are others. They might include a “taxi rank” system, where the next supplier on the list gets the work, or the supplier chosen could simply be the cheapest for that good or service, which contracting authorities might consider to be more appropriate for their requirements on that occasion. There is nothing in the Bill preventing contracting authorities from including rankings in a framework, but there is no need to require this for all frameworks.
The second requirement is to allow for the provision of additional information by suppliers in order to make an award without a competition. In this connection, I draw noble Lords’ attention to Clause 44(6), which allows contracting authorities to ask for additional information to ensure that call off competitions are effective. Sorry, that is a bit repetitive. This seems preferable to receiving large amounts of potentially unnecessary or irrelevant information and adding burdens to the award process, which we are all keen to avoid.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her response. I am encouraged that she agrees with the objective that framework allowances will be covered by the Bill. I will look at what she said and how she says that they will be covered, but my main objective with this rather simple amendment was to ensure that allowances were covered.
The noble Lords, Lord Lansley, Lord Scriven and Lord Coaker, raised a number of much more substantive amendments. I do not really feel able to respond on their behalf, but I was glad that the Minister said she would come back on the issue of proportionality, which is particularly important. I am sure the other noble Lords will look carefully at the issues of fees, cascading and so forth. I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(3A) A competitive selection process may provide for conditions of participation only if the contracting authority is satisfied that the conditions are a proportionate means of ensuring that suppliers party to the framework have—(a) the legal and financial capacity to perform the contract, or(b) the technical ability to perform the contract. (3B) In this section, a “condition of participation” means a condition that a supplier must satisfy in order to be awarded a public contract in accordance with the framework.(3C) A condition set under subsection (3A)(b) may relate to suppliers’ qualifications, experience or technical ability, but may not—(a) require suppliers to have been awarded a contract under the framework or by a particular contracting authority,(b) break the rules on technical specifications in section 24, or(c) require particular qualifications without allowing for their equivalents.(3D) When considering whether a condition is proportionate for the purposes of subsection (3A), a contracting authority must have regard to the nature, complexity and cost of the public contract.(3E) A condition of participation may require the provision of evidence that is verifiable by a person other than the supplier.(3F) If a supplier does not satisfy a condition of participation, the contracting authority may exclude the supplier from participating in, or progressing as part of, the competitive selection process.(3G) A competitive selection process may provide for the assessment of proposals, but only by reference to one or more of the award criteria against which tenders were assessed in awarding the framework.(3H) The award criteria may be refined for the purposes of subsection (3G).”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(9) Subsections (3) to (5) do not apply to a framework that is a light touch contract (see section 8(5)).”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(c) a framework that is a light touch contract (see section 8(5)).”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(2A) An open framework may provide that, if a framework expires in accordance with subsection (2)(b) while a process for the award of a contract in accordance with the framework is ongoing, the contracting authority may continue the process and award the contract as though the framework had not expired.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, this group deals with Parts 9 and 10 of the Bill. Providing suppliers with an effective remedy is not only required by the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Government Procurement, the GPA—a very important international agreement—but a critical aspect to any well-functioning and accountable procurement regime. It gives the market confidence to invest resources participating in government procurement, knowing that public contracts will be awarded fairly and transparently.
As such, in most cases, suppliers have 30 days from the point at which a breach should have been discovered to raise a claim, and in the majority of procurements a standstill period will apply. The standstill period of eight working days is a short pause between the point when the contract award decision is notified to bidders and the final contract conclusion. It allows bidders to consider the assessment summary, which includes evaluation feedback.
If a claim is filed at court during the standstill period, an automatic suspension will apply, preventing signature of the contract until the legal claim is resolved or the suspension is lifted on application of the contracting authority. If the standstill passes without challenge, it protects against the contract being set aside after it goes live. Clearly, we do not want court proceedings to be the only way to motivate contracting authorities’ compliance with the new Act, which is why we have introduced the procurement oversight regime in Part 10, which will enable an appropriate authority to investigate non-compliance, make recommendations and issue guidance across all contracting authorities, as a result of the investigations. This will encourage the consistency and continuous improvement we all want to see.
Government Amendments 263 and 266 correct the reference to the contract award notice in Clause 49(1)(b) and (4) respectively.
Amendments 265, 267, 393 and 394 make it clear that any time a contracting authority chooses to enter into a standstill period, which is known as a voluntary standstill period in circumstances where the Bill does not mandate a standstill period, it must match the mandatory standstill period and be for a minimum of eight working days.
Amendment 461 clarifies that failure to have regard to the national or Welsh procurement policy statements is not enforceable via Part 9.
Amendments 464 to 469 make some textual amendments and make it clear that the automatic suspension applies only when a claim has been notified during the standstill period.
The structure and drafting of Clause 95 will be amended by Amendments 470 to 476 to make the intent of the clause easier to interpret.
There are various amendments related to oversight functions. Amendment 481 to Clause 96 makes a straightforward clarification to the meaning of “section 97 recommendation”. Amendments 483 and 484 reflect the principle that an appropriate authority may issue guidance to contracting authorities only in line with restrictions on relevant authorities in Clauses 99 to 101. Amendments 501 and 502 amend Clause 101 to reflect agreements with devolved authorities that, where appropriate, UK government Ministers can issue guidance under Clause 98 to all contracting authorities, including devolved and transferred authorities, to maximise joint working and efficiency.
I pause at this point so that my noble friend Lady Noakes and others can speak to their amendments.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have several amendments in this group. The first is Amendment 264, a probing amendment to find out why standstill periods, which are generally required by Clause 49, are not required for light-touch contracts or those awarded in dynamic markets. My amendment would achieve this by deleting paragraphs (d) and (e) from Clause 49(3).
As my noble friend just explained, the standstill period is a short pause after the publication of the contract award notice in order to allow an agreed bidder the opportunity to complain about a contract before the contract is finalised. This is a sensible part of the framework because challenging a contract after it has commenced is much less effective and is best avoided. The purpose of my amendment is to ask my noble friend to say what public policy grounds would deprive unsuccessful bidders of the opportunity to challenge contract awards under the light-touch or dynamic market regimes. What specifically are the features of those regimes that are suitable to override the rights of unsuccessful bidders, compared with other contracts?
My next amendments, Amendments 477 to 480, would have the effect of ensuring that procurement oversight extends to all procurement covered by the Bill. Clause 96 allows for investigations into compliance with the Bill, but excludes government departments, Welsh Ministers, Northern Ireland departments and utilities from its scope. My simple question to my noble friend is: why? She cannot possibly tell me that these contracting authorities are such paragons of virtue when it comes to procurement that they would always comply with the Bill. Government departments do not have a perfect track record on procurement and, in my view, ought to be capable of being investigated.
My final amendment in this group, Amendment 482, concerns the recommendations that can be made following a Clause 96 investigation. Clause 97(3) says that these recommendations “must not relate to” how to comply with the procurement objectives set out in Clause 11; must not recommend how the contracting authority should have regard to the Section 12 national procurement policy statement; and must not say how the authority should
“exercise a discretion in relation to a particular procurement.”
I can just about understand the last one, because recommendations should not interfere with
“discretion in relation to a particular procurement”,
but I do not understand why recommendations have to steer clear of procurement objectives or the NPPS. What is the point of making recommendations if the heart of the procurement rules, to be found in Clauses 11 and 12, are off limits? For example, is value for money off limits in an investigation because it is an objective within Clause 11? I cannot understand why that should be excluded. My amendment is to delete subsection (3) on a probing basis, to give my noble friend the opportunity to explain what all this is about.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I speak in place of my noble friend Lord Wallace on Amendments 349A, 349B and 353A, all of which refer to and reflect on the procurement review unit. On page 13 of Transforming Public Procurement: Government Response to Consultation, at points 46 to 49, the Government say:
“We have revised the proposals for this new unit. It will be known as the Procurement Review Unit (PRU), sitting within the Cabinet Office and will be made up of a small team of civil servants.”
They go on to detail quite fully what the PRU is—I will come back to its role and autonomy in a minute—but where is it in the Bill? Amendment 349A seeks to replace “An appropriate authority” with the promised “Procurement Review Unit”. Amendment 349B would give a role for the procurement review unit to advise. More specifically, in Amendment 353A we seek the insertion of the nature of the procurement review unit.
All these amendments are trying to probe where the Government got to between the consultation and the drafting of this legislation, and why in effect there is no PRU in the Bill. What happened to it and who has got it? When the Minister no doubt notices and reinserts it on our behalf, what will its role and its level of autonomy be? How many teeth are the Government prepared to give this PRU, and will it essentially have those teeth drawn? Essentially, where is it?
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 477A and 486A in my name. I thank my noble friend Lady Hayman, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, who is not able to be with us today, for their support.
The amendment addresses procurement investigations. It would add, at the end of line 28 on page 60,
“and the implementation of social value”.
It would require the new procurement investigations authority to be able to investigate the implementation of social value. There are regular reports of public bodies that have secured promised social-value outcomes from contractors—apprenticeships, jobs created, investment in local infrastructure and so on—but these are not delivered. As social value is weighted in tenders, organisations can win tenders to deliver social value but may not always deliver the social value that they have promised.
The amendment would give the new procurement investigations authority the ability to investigate whether public bodies were securing social-value commitments that had been promised and to be able to report on that to Parliament. Currently there is no part of government that is bound to collect information on the implementation of social value. Indeed, the Cabinet Office had started to do this for central government through the social value model, but that is not comprehensive. Social value is just as much value as financial value, and the new procurement investigations authority should take social value seriously. This would have the added benefit of increasing awareness of the importance of social value in the public sector.
Amendment 486A would add a new clause. Because social enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises often complain about barriers to accessing contracts in the public sector, which this Committee has discussed at some length, the proposed new clause would seek to ensure that the new procurement investigations authority would have expertise from the social enterprise sector and the SME sector so that they could ensure that contracting authorities were carrying out procurement exercises in a way that was fair to the sector.
Despite the Government’s commitment to expanding the role of social enterprises, voluntary organisations and SMEs in winning public sector contracts, that has not taken place. Research by DCMS estimates that only 5% of contracts are being won by voluntary sector or social enterprise organisations. Only one in five pounds of public procurement, 21%, is going to SMEs despite a 33% target. The amendment would give the new procurement investigations authority the expertise to be able to investigate whether contracting authorities were doing what they could to help SMEs and social enterprises to win contracts fairly.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on the issues that she raises. When the Government and Whitehall look through the prism of public sector procurement, that tends to lead to a very centralist approach that is about value for money, not for the taxpayer but for government departments. Sometimes things are not exactly in line with each other. There are many areas up and down this country where social value could really be added to if the Government, through primary legislation, understood what social value was and therefore ensured that in the Bill, when every single public sector procurement body in the land was awarding and using criteria to judge a contract and a supplier’s tender, that became vital.
The second issue on that refers back to something I think my noble friend Lord Fox said earlier, although I was not in the Committee at the time. The definition of such issues regarding social value are vital, because social value means many things to many different people. It is not to put contractors into a straitjacket. They can still innovate as long as there is a definition and a framework of what social value means. It is vital that the Government understand that it needs to be there as a guide for contractors, not as a straitjacket.
Also based on what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, the voices of the third sector, or the charity sector, and small to medium-sized enterprises need to be central to how procurement and social value are aligned within the Bill and public sector procurement. I remember being leader of Sheffield City Council. The thing that amazed me was the innovation and what happened if we brought the voice of the charity sector and small to medium-sized enterprises into how we were working. We did not call it social value then; it was to improve our place. It was place-based procurement at the time. They could change the dial completely about how procurement was done. We therefore had a view across the authority about how it was done based on some of the words, concepts and ideas that charities and small to medium-sized enterprises had. Those became a policy driver for procurement. It is therefore vital that the Government think carefully about the concept of social value, and what it means in the framework in the Bill, rather than just being loose words which many people define differently, or this will end up not having the maximum value in communities up and down the land.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, this has been another interesting debate. This group is on oversight and remedies. If you are going to have something worth legislating for, it has to have some sort of oversight and remedy. In other words, you have to see whether you are achieving what you wanted to and, if not, know what you going to do about it. It is therefore an important section, but to do that you have to have the right fundamentals in the Bill to have oversight and remedy.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Thornton’s amendment. She has been consistent throughout this Committee in trying to ensure that the Bill reflects the importance of social value. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, supported that in his remarks. I know my noble friend will continue to argue for it, and we will support her should she wish to take it further on Report. It is really important, and I thank her for that.
As we are coming to the end of our remarks, I shall say that I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on Amendment 353A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on what has happened to the procurement review unit. It was in a Green Paper and it seemed to be universally applauded—except, obviously, somewhere in government, so it was struck out. It would be interesting to know why it was struck out. Everybody supported it, except the Government, so why were they wrong and the Government right? Sometimes I find it baffling to understand why something is done. A procurement review unit seems essential to review what you are seeking to achieve. It is not a weakness but a strength. Those are my remarks about that.
I have to say this openly to the Committee: I am devastated that I did not notice the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes: Amendment 477. Honestly, it is absolutely brilliant. The noble Lord, Lord True, has been promoted for being a socialist in charge of the Bill; the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, is on her way; and now we have this from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. Clause 96 is quite astonishing. I reread it to make sure; when I read it before, it completely passed me by. I will read it out, because people will not understand if they read Hansard without also reading this. Clause 96(1) says:
“An appropriate authority may investigate a relevant contracting authority’s compliance with requirements of this Act.”
So, we have a really important government Bill that will become law, and then, in subsection (5):
“In this section—‘procurement investigation’ means an investigation under subsection (1)”—
which I have just read out—
“‘relevant contracting authority’ means a contracting authority”,
as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, points out,
“other than … a Minister of the Crown or a government department”
and various others. Why would the Government set up something that is desperately important—in other words, a procurement unit—which makes purchases of hundreds of billions of pounds, but their own Bill says they will not investigate them?
Amendment 477 is brilliant and, as I say, I am devastated that I did not think of it or notice it. Fair play—I am very fair. More seriously, the amendment points out something that fundamentally seems to be a flaw in the way the Bill is drafted. Otherwise, there must be some incredible explanation or reason that I cannot think of—I do not know if anyone else on the Committee can think of any.
To finish, oversight and remedies are an extremely important part of any Bill, because that is how you ensure that what you seek to achieve is achieved and that you are held accountable. The amendments seek to answer those questions. Unless the Minister is able to respond in a way that persuades us, I think there are certainly one or two issues that we must come back to. With that I will sit down. It is a brilliant amendment, honestly.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank noble Lords for an interesting debate on these non-government amendments. I do not think that I have a perfect reply to my noble friend Lady Noakes’s three questions. We are due to meet to discuss various aspects of the Bill and I would like to explore her questions further, and then perhaps I can write to the Committee when it is clear to me what the right replies to those questions are.
I will attempt to comment on the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has just talked about, on why government departments do not have the same obligation to have regard to recommendations under Clause 97. It is a simple question, and our response is that it is not necessary to include government departments in Clause 96 and 97, because the appropriate authorities have sufficient influence over contracting authorities to ensure that any recommendations that result from an investigation are duly taken into consideration. To confirm, investigations, findings and progress reports may be published by the relevant authority acting as a further incentive. It is simply unnecessary to provide statutory powers in respect of government departments, whereas due to the different relationship with non-central contracting authorities, statutory powers were required to ensure appropriate engagements for these purposes. As noble Lords will know, we have quite a well-developed procurement operation now, right at the heart of Government, sitting in the Cabinet Office, which I think is an improvement. That is why it is not provided for in the Bill.
Just before I leave voluntary standstills, let me say that I will make sure we come back properly on the exchange we had earlier. We want to maintain voluntary standstills for dynamic markets—they are intended to be quick to use, agile and efficient, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Lansley—and for light-touch contracts, which are often for time-sensitive services such as the provision of health and social care. We do not want to make the light-touch contract rules stricter in this regard than current legislation, as we think that could lead to some problems.
Amendments 349A, 349B and 353A were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and others. They seek to legislate for the procurement review unit with a new clause. The procurement review unit, which is very important, is not specifically referenced in the Bill as it will be exercising statutory and non-statutory powers on behalf of Ministers. The proposed new clauses would therefore conflict with existing provisions. Furthermore, considering the importance and potential implications of the decisions the PRU will support the Minister of the day in making—the proper statutory process—we believe it would be inappropriate to delegate that ultimate responsibility to unelected officials below ministerial level.
The PRU will work on behalf of the Minister of the day in two key areas. The first area is debarments. Clauses 56 to 61 set out the process for the establishment of a debarment list of excluded and excludable suppliers; this has already been debated. Under these clauses, it is envisaged that the PRU will investigate whether a supplier is subject to an exclusion ground and whether the issues in question are likely to arise again. The PRU will issue advice to the relevant Minister, usually the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who will take the final decision whether to add the supplier to the debarment list.
The second area is improving compliance with the Bill. Clauses 96 to 98 provide the framework and statutory powers required for carrying out procurement oversight. The PRU will exercise these oversight functions on behalf of the Minister and make proposals regarding any investigations, recommendations and statutory guidance it considers appropriate for the Minister’s ultimate approval.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I will have a little more to say about this later on, so why not let me finish? If I do not answer the noble Lord’s questions, we will try to get at what is needed.
Amendments 477 to 480 seek to examine why government departments have been excluded from the appropriate authority’s investigatory powers. The definition of “relevant contracting authority” in Clause 96 is in recognition of existing governance. Ministers already have the authority to investigate government departments without the need for statutory powers; I think I have said that already. There are also established routes for co-operation with investigations.
Amendment 477A was tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton—it is good to see her in the Committee—Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon. Amendment 482 was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. These amendments would expand the scope of the statutory oversight powers beyond compliance with the Bill, straying into areas of policy. The scope of the statutory powers provided by these clauses has been carefully drafted to maintain the boundary between law, which must be adhered to, and policy, where some leeway is allowed in terms of its implementation.
Expanding Clause 96 and/or the Section 97 recommendations to include social value, as well as considering how contracting authorities have chosen to meet obligations to have regard to policy and principles, would blur that boundary and start to erode the autonomy of contracting authorities, which we recognise are best placed to make policy implementation decisions that are appropriate for their business. It would also move the statutory regime away from objective and measurable concerns into more subjective areas of debate, which could impact the effectiveness of the oversight system. We believe that the scope of Clauses 96 to 98 creates a proportionate, effective and compelling incentive for improvement. It is worth noting, however, that the drafting of Clauses 96 and 97 does not prevent the Minister from making observations regarding a contracting authority’s policy implementation. Policy guidance can indeed continue to be provided to contracting authorities.
Non-statutory procurement policy notes, which we have discussed before, are currently released to guide contracting authorities. In the new regime, under Clause 98, statutory guidance, which may be published as a result of investigations, can also address matters of policy. Contracting authorities will be required to have regard to any guidance released under Clause 98; I think this helps to deal with the social value issue. The removal of Clause 97(3) would result in the appropriate authority having the power to intervene in specific procurements.
The restriction in Clause 97(3)(c) ensures probity of the procurement by, for example, preventing a Minister of the Crown from using Section 97 to exert influence over which supplier is awarded the contract. That is an important point. To remove this restriction would be concerning to contracting authorities and suppliers alike.
Finally in this group, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, tabled Amendment 486A. This seeks to stipulate that the expertise of SMEs, voluntary organisations and social enterprises is accessible to an appropriate authority that is conducting investigations under Clause 96. The PRU will be managed and delivered by a small, experienced team of civil servants based in the Cabinet Office, supported by a panel of experts, which can be consulted regarding investigations and any resultant Section 97 recommendations and guidance under Section 98. The Cabinet Office aspires to provide perspectives from procurement experts from across the Civil Service, local authorities and various types of private organisations, including SMEs and VCSEs, to benefit the oversight regime.
However, it should be recognised that having a panel which includes external procurement professionals is dependent on the availability of suitably qualified individuals and the ability to manage any potential conflicts of interest. I am therefore unwilling to make a legislative commitment of the kind proposed. However, the establishment of the panel will be transparent, and appropriate documentation will be published in due course, including on the process for appointing members. It seems to me that this is an important error, which is why I make that point.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Can the Minister clarify whether it is the Government’s intention that the PRU will be an appropriate authority, so that panel members themselves will have legal powers under Section 96? If not, I am really confused as to what legal powers the panel will have when it comes to calling for documents, and what duty will be on other contracting authorities to provide the panel with any information at all. At the moment, it does not look as if the panel is considered to be an appropriate authority, so it will not have any other legal powers under Part 10.
Lord Fox (LD)
Following on from that, if the Secretary of State can give and the Secretary of State can take away, and we have no sense that this panel will endure past the next government reshuffle—which could be any time now—without having it in either primary or secondary legislation, what status does this have at all other than the good will of the then Secretary of State?
I refer again to the Government’s response to the consultation: the role of the PRU was very specific. It was aimed to deliver the same service as the public procurement review service—and perhaps the Minister could tell us whether that is being disbanded and folded into the PRU; will it still exist or what? The response stated that
“the PRU’s main focus will be on addressing systemic or institutional breaches of the procurement regulations”.
The Minister has narrowed that down to debarments and compliance. It seems there really has been a declawing and a removing of this body from any statutory basis. As my noble friend points out, it is not very clear which the appropriate authority would be in those circumstances.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I might as well intervene now too, because the question I would really like to ask the Minister—and it is very nice to see her back in her place, as she was the Minister responsible for putting equal pay on the statute book, and I hope her progressive instincts there might be followed through in this piece of legislation—is about social value. How do we deliver social value if there is absolutely no way of examining it, monitoring it and enforcing where it is not being delivered?
Lord Scriven (LD)
Following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has said, and from what the Minister said about how this could not be in the Bill because it is a policy initiative, the procurement objective in Clause 11(1)(b) is “maximising public benefit”, which is a policy issue. All the noble Baroness is trying to do is ensure that social value is looked at by the appropriate authorities. Actually, it is more defined and specific in law, because there is a social value Act but no public benefit Act. The Minister’s answer that it is just a policy issue really does not stack up.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
We do have a social value Act; I think the answer is—subject to correction—that social value features in the NPPS, the policy guidance note, and that failure to have regard to the NPPS is challengeable via judicial review rather than by suppliers for breach of statutory duty under Part 9 of the Bill. That is more appropriate as the NPPS will inform procurement strategy, and failure to comply should not result in suppliers being able to seek compensation from the public purse in respect of an individual procurement. There is quite a lot of complication in that area, but that is the approach. There is a social value Act, but obviously I will listen to what has been said today.
To return to the PRU, the unit will exercise powers on behalf of an appropriate authority. The panel will consult the PRU when appropriate and, if the Government set up a panel, as Governments often do—we have various panels in different departments that I have been involved with, and in my experience they tend to endure; certainly this one will be useful—the PRU will make recommendations to the Minister, who is the appropriate authority and will make the final decisions. That seems to be the right approach constitutionally.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful for that response. To be clear, will the panel be the investigating body?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
No. The PRU, a Civil Service unit, will be the investigating body, which will consist of experienced people of the right kind. The panel will advise that body.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful, but Clause 96 says the “appropriate authority may investigate”. The Minister has been referring in this short debate to “investigations” with regard to the panel. I am grateful that she has clarified that it will simply be an advisory group, not an investigatory group, and will not itself have the legal powers to seek documents. I am therefore not entirely sure what the PRU will do other than what existing civil servants do, which is to advise Ministers.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
We have put together this whole new system of procurement, which includes various checks and balances. Panel members will be available for the procurement review unit to help regarding investigations and the unit’s work. Their reports and recommendations will help with moving forward on procurement and the complexities of this change of the law. Their advice can be published, and we will be able to reference the assistance that the panel has provided. That is the approach that we are proposing following a process of consultation. The PRU is central. I am sure we will revert to this issue.
Lord Fox (LD)
The Minister will have got the message that there is deep disquiet about how this will be structured and will operate. If the Minister has time, can she reflect on Hansard and write a letter before Report setting out how this unit will be set up and what its roles, on a statutory or non-statutory basis, will be? That would be very helpful.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Of course, I will write setting out how this will work. I ask the Committee to look at it constructively in the light of what we are trying to achieve across a very wide area of procurement. I go back to where we started in Committee, as this is probably the final amendment this evening, and say that there is also a process of cultural change, training and so on that will be going on, which is an important complement to the investigatory powers that we are looking at in this amendment.
I respectfully ask noble Lords not to move their amendments.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(5) A voluntary standstill period may not be less than a period of eight working days beginning with the day on which the contract award notice is published.”
Procurement Bill [HL]
Wednesday 26th October 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-VII(a) Amendment for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Seventh Marshalled List) - (25 Oct 2022)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
I advise the Grand Committee that, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, which is likely, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 50: Key performance indicators
Amendment 268
Lord Lansley
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, this is quite a large group, led by Amendment 268, and it encompasses a number of issues all of which relate to the structure of contracts and how contracting authorities enter into agreements with their suppliers. I will not attempt to speak to anything other than my five amendments, save to say that the first, Amendment 268, originally went alongside Amendment 269, which has subsequently been withdrawn but was in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. Were it still there, I would have said that I have some sympathy with what she says, as there can be circumstances in which a contract, in effect, looks for one item of delivery. Therefore, in my view, one quantified key performance indicator may be appropriate and the requirement to have at least three would be unnecessary. The point is that contracts should have key performance indicators.
My point in Amendment 268, which starts this group so I am able to move it, is to replace the reference to “key performance indicators” with “quantifiable measures”. I entirely admit that we know where we are with KPIs, everybody has them and so on. The trouble is that KPIs can be non-quantifiable and qualitative. That is not what we are looking for here. There is a risk that, if we are not precise about it, they will not be quantifiable, and quantifiable is what we are looking for. I do not think key performance indicators should be subjective; they should be objective and demonstrably proven. Suppliers have a significant benefit where that is the case.
That is Amendment 268, and it is more or less probing. Many of my amendments in this group are intended to ask my noble friend and the department whether they will take account of these points in the way they draft the national procurement policy statement in the guidance that follows.
Amendment 270 also relates to key performance indicators and is linked to a point we discussed on Monday, which is that the structure of the relationship and contract entered into with suppliers should relate to the original tender and the specifications in it. The amendment says that the key performance indicators “must relate” to the tender. Likewise, I hope that my noble friend will say that the Government understand that and that that is their intention. Otherwise, we run the risk that people will enter a competitive selection process, win that process and negotiate a contract but, suddenly, the contract asks them to do things that were not in the original specification. That should not be the case.
My third amendment in this group is Amendment 364. As one reads the Bill, one may come across something and think, “How does that work?” This relates to changes in the contract and the definition in Clause 69 of “substantial modification”. The first definition is that the term of the contract is increased or decreased
“by more than 10 per cent”.
Most contracts are expressed in terms of months and years, and 10% is an awkward measure: “10% of an 18-month contract is 1.8 months—let’s work that out in days”. Can we not write this is in a slightly simpler way? One-sixth has the benefit, in my view, of making a substantial modification slightly more than 10%— 16% or thereabouts—but the point is that it is readily transferrable into months and years, particularly months. So, if a contract for 18 months is modified by more than three months, you know where you stand; it is dead simple. The purpose of the amendment is to suggest that it could be done a little more simply.
My final two amendments are Amendments 397 and 400, which relate to the termination of a contract and to Clause 72. The clause states:
“every public contract … can, if a termination ground applies, be terminated by the contracting authority”,
and a list is then given of the termination grounds. I do not know whether this has been left out deliberately, or because it does not appear in the public contract regulations, or because it is intended to be part of general terms and conditions anyway and therefore does not need to be specified in legislation. But force majeure is, I think, a termination ground for a contract, so I am not sure why it is not mentioned. The point is that it should be mentioned—and if it is, there is a problem with it.
I declare an interest, and in doing so revert to what I was saying earlier about the European Commission. This issue arose for us—my wife’s company—during the pandemic. We were contracted to supply a number of events and when the pandemic hit, or shortly thereafter, some of them had to be cancelled. Members will not be surprised to hear that, under those circumstances, a significant amount of expenditure had been incurred, including cash expenditure on locations, suppliers, venues and so on. The term of the force majeure written into the European Commission’s standard contract was that, at the point at which force majeure is notified, payment for the services provided is required. As noble Lords can imagine, initially, they said, “Well, you haven’t provided those services. Those events haven’t happened and we won’t be having them.” I will not bore noble Lords with all the detail, but the net result was that we lost money. We did not lose as much as we had feared because we had a negotiation, but, according to the letter of the contract, they could have said, “You’ve spent tens of thousands of euros on events that will not now take place, but because they are not taking place, you’re at risk and you will meet the cost.” This a very large public authority expecting an SME to take the hit. We did discuss it and they did come round, but I do not think that that arrangement is sensible.
I cannot imagine that our experience is in any sense unusual. During the pandemic, thousands of businesses must have had exactly the same kind of force majeure complication. In public contracts, the force majeure contract should say what I suggest in the amendment: that, under those circumstances, when the termination ground is notified, there should be a requirement to meet the expenditure
“necessarily incurred in relation to the contract”
up to that point.
I will be happy if my noble friend the Minister is able to say, as with the other amendments, that these are interesting points and she will take them away and look at how the guidance or the statement might reflect them for the future. I beg to move Amendment 268.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, my speech is a good way of following the excellent introduction to this group of amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I start by thanking my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock for putting her name to Amendment 276A and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for putting their names to both Amendments 269A and 276A.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, Amendment 269A is dealing with the key performance indicators, and it adds a line that I hope the Minister will find useful:
“including at least one indicator in relation to social value.”
This would mean that all public sector contracts over £2 million would have to include a key performance indicator on social value. This would ensure that social values are included in all public sector contracts over £2 million and would send a clear signal to the private sector in particular. It would also ensure—similar to Amendment 477A, which we discussed on Monday—that contracts with social value commitments are monitored effectively and transparently.
Amendment 276A concerns transparency and “open book accounting”. It would insert a proposed new clause that I hope the Minister will see as helpful, given that she has spoken already in Committee about transparency and its importance in the spending of public funding. It says:
“All suppliers bidding for public contracts must declare the expected profit and surplus they expect to generate through the contract.”
In childcare, for example, the top 10 providers have made £300 million in profit, despite the standards of care falling and local authority budgets being under such pressure. We know this because the newspapers have reported on the conditions in which we have found cared-for children. During Covid, when we had PPE, a number of companies were making significant profits from these contracts without the need to report to the contract what margin they were prepared to make. I believe that this prevented the state adequately protecting our public money.
This amendment would mean that, on all government contracts, the supplier would have to report what profit or surplus they were expected to generate from the contract and then report back each financial year on how much profit or surplus they had generated—although I do not believe that this would solve the problem of people charging the state too much money for goods and services, and there is still a risk that companies could cost-shift artificially to reduce their declared profits. This may well leave the taxpayer in a better position to understand the true costs of contracts and would advantage providers such as social enterprises and SMEs, which are more likely to be investing the money received from contracts back into their businesses than extracting public money as profit. That is an important point because charities and social enterprises are bound by their rules to complete their accounting in two or three ways, which would include the social value of the contracts they are fulfilling.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 271 in this group. At the request of my noble friend Lord Moylan, and with the leave of the Committee, I will also speak to Amendment 486 as my noble friend is unable to join us today.
This Bill is of course about the procurement process, rather than contract management, but Clause 50 wisely requires the setting and publication of performance indicators, which are a key element of contract management. I was always taught that what gets measured gets managed. I cannot envisage a situation where contracts could be managed without some form of measurement that could be converted into performance indicators. Amendment 271 in my name leaves out Clause 50(2), because that allows the contracting authority not to set performance indicators if it considers that
“performance under the contract could not appropriately be assessed by reference to key performance indicators.”
Clause 50(2) is fundamentally unsound because it is tantamount to saying that the contracting authority cannot manage its contract.
There are some kinds of contract—for example, the delivery of health and social care services—where measurement may rely on subjective judgments by the service recipient, but they too can be converted into indicators. I disagree with my noble friend Lord Lansley, who seemed not to like subjective performance indicators; I think they are a perfectly good part of any framework of contract management. Light-touch contracts are of course not covered by Clause 50, and that covers quite a lot of the contracts involving health and social care.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I shall speak to Amendment 272 in the name of my noble friend Lord Wallace, to which I have added my name. The Bill includes key objectives, which involve delivering value for money, maximising public benefit, sharing information and acting with integrity. Amendment 272 would ensure that the public benefit included explicit economic, environmental and social factor indicators as part of a list of KPIs. Following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has just said, I would say that the situation is slightly different—it is not just that what is monitored gets managed; what is monitored gets done. That is the issue: it sends a clear signal to those providing the service that the contracting authority sees those issues as an important and vital part of any contract that is let. Amendment 272 would add to the KPIs that anything done as part of the contract should bring about sustainable local improvements in the environmental, social and economic parts of the contract.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the Division Bell, the concept of Amendment 272 is to ensure that the KPIs support in more detail the public benefit test. There will be economic, social and environmental factors that provide sustainable local improvement. The reason for this is that many times when a provider goes in and provides a service—I speak as a former leader of a council and I have seen it in some of the work I do in public sector reform—the public good that happens, whether it be social or environmental, lasts only while that provider is there: that is, the jobs are dependent on that provider providing that service, or are adjacent to or an adjunct to the work it is providing. This amendment tries to ensure that when public sector contracting authorities are writing their KPIs, they have a view that they should be economic, social or environmental but also sustainable—that is, when the contract ends or the contractor leaves, the things it has put in place are sustainable, rather than being for just a limited period. That is reason behind Amendment 272.
I shall take a little time to speak to Amendment 353AA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, to which my noble friend Lord Fox has added his name, which is about the public sector interest test being applied when a service is at present provided by a public sector body and is being outsourced. I want to be clear that this amendment does not stop outsourcing. I do not subscribe to the view that public is good and private is bad, or vice versa. In a mixed market you can get good and bad in both providers. This amendment stops the sometimes very narrow view of public sector contracting authorities that they will outsource without thinking about the wider implications for citizens and the economy of the area.
Let us look at some of the issues in this amendment. Paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of the proposed new clause refers to
“implications for other public services and public sector budgets”.
I have seen outsourcing in social services that has no assessment of what it will mean for working with the NHS. A contract that is purely for one part of what the citizen goes through could fragment the citizen journey or the service.
The other issue is the effect on employment conditions. If, for example, the contract is on lowest price, particularly in a deprived area, it could have the disastrous result, which I have seen, of reducing wage rates, which works against the wider public benefit of increasing prosperity and having better jobs in the area.
While the amendment would not preclude outsourcing, it is important for the wider public benefit test and for ensuring that services, which in many cases join up with another part of the organisation or a different organisation, think through the implications for that service and the citizen’s journey through the service being provided, whether by a public provider or private provider, if part of it is going to be outsourced. I therefore commend this amendment, which, if accepted, would not preclude outsourcing. It would simply get public sector bodies to think more widely about why outsourcing needs to take place.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 370ZA and 370ZB are tabled my name and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for their support which is much appreciated.
The thinking behind these amendments relates to the plight of the wholesale sector, which supplies food and drink to critical public service infrastructure on which we all depend, including schools, hospitals and care homes. According to the briefing I have received from the Federation of Wholesale Distributors, wholesalers are struggling to fulfil these contracts due to unfavourable contractual terms, which are resulting in these businesses making significant losses. That does not bode well for the future viability of the sector. They are facing rising costs and food inflation, which we know has hit 15.1% as of August 2022— this week it looked as though it could be higher still. It leaves the wholesalers unable to negotiate any price increases; or the smaller price increases they have negotiated on certain contracts have been well below inflation. This is an unsustainable circumstance going forward.
Given the situation where price reviews occur only every six months or, in some cases, only once a year, this gives wholesalers very little room for manoeuvre to negotiate price increases. This means that wholesalers are not making a profit on the product and service they provide to their customers. This is affecting the quality of the products they are able to serve to children and the most vulnerable, and the viability of providing catering services in the long term. They would argue that the quality of catering services is of paramount importance, as we have seen with Jamie Oliver’s campaign in hospitals and during the pandemic.
I support the fact that the Government’s food strategy is seeking to drive up standards of public sector food by requiring caterers to use more organic and locally sourced foods. This is not sustainable, however, without funding that matches inflation—it is just not viable going forward. In the federation’s view, small and medium-sized enterprises will be the most affected of all businesses. Without quarterly price reviews, the trend will continue towards market consolidation and homogenisation, driving standardisation not the localisation of publicly produced foods.
I expressed my disappointment previously that the public procurement contracts we signed up to under the European Union conditions have been replaced by the GPA; this is something we need to look at on an ongoing basis. Of course, it is right that the Procurement Bill aims effectively to open up public procurement to new entrants such as small businesses and social enterprises, so that they can compete for and win more public contracts. It is just the case that SMEs are more acutely affected by price increases. They are smaller in scale, less resilient and need to pass the increases on in real time. They do not have the capacity to absorb those increases and, as such, are more vulnerable to these pressures if price increases are not passed on. We can therefore envisage a situation where SMEs are either closing down or being sold to larger national conglomerates. If these conditions continue, the sector believes that this will undo competition and the diverse market that brings a number of benefits to the public sector.
To ensure that the targets in the Procurement Bill are met, to encourage more SMEs to supply contracts and to ensure the continued supply of public sector food—which I think the Committee would sign up to—I ask my noble friend the Minister to consider publishing guidance to instate quarterly price reviews to allow contract price increases more regularly than once a year or every six months, and only if a certain threshold is met—for example, inflation over 5%. This is what I have set out in Amendment 370ZA to Clause 69 and in Amendment 370B to Schedule 8, regarding a review when inflation is 5% or more.
The quarterly price reviews would allow contract price increases more regularly, as I have stated, than either once a year or once every six months, if the threshold is met. I propose that that threshold should be over 5%. I remind the Committee that we have seen record increases in the price of staple goods such as milk, dairy, bread and even pasta, and some of the cheaper products that these public sector wholesalers would seek to provide in the context of the contracts we are discussing this afternoon.
I put on record that public sector caterers are struggling to meet the food standards, being forced to reduce portion sizes and using less UK-grown and produced product, which is against both my better judgment and the Government’s aims. I would like to see the quality of the food used to service public sector contracts improve, under the amendments I have spoken to. Without these amendments, standards will continue to decline to mitigate the rising costs if the Government do not step in to support the industry. A number of wholesalers rely on profitable contracts subsidising loss-making contracts at the moment. However, with the ever-decreasing level of profitable contracts, the balance is tipping towards overall loss-making, which is unsustainable in the long term.
Other advantages of these amendments are that they would enable meeting the government targets which would otherwise not be met in the current climate, and would enable those in this sector to bid for more contracts, which would impact the supply of food and drink to public service infrastructure. Some 95% of wholesalers have said that the current climate and rising costs mean they are unlikely to bid for new contracts, especially ones with unfavourable terms, such as the long pricing review.
I ask my noble friend to respond to these issues to help SMEs and secure more bids for future contracts, in particular by a three-monthly review and a 5% review of inflation. The level of food inflation is pushing up the level of inflation across the piece. We are woefully short on food self-sufficiency, particularly fruit and vegetables. I hold the Minister’s feet to the fire, because we heard from her colleague the Minister for Agriculture in this place, my noble friend Lord Benyon, that the Government are seeking to do something to help produce more fruit and vegetables locally, even to increase production such that we can export. Nowhere is that more important than in the delivery of public sector contracts.
I really regret that we are going backwards, having left the European Union, and are relying on more imported and more expensive food. We should be sourcing more food, whether it is meat, bread or dairy—milk and butter—as all these staples have been hugely impacted by inflation. I urge my noble friend to look favourably on these two amendments.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, this is my first opportunity to welcome the Minister back to her place and to say what a pleasure it is to see her here. We who have experienced time with her have always been impressed by her courtesy and the seriousness with which she takes these deliberations. I am returning to a theme we first discussed during the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill in 2014. As they say, some songs are so good, they may be old but are worth repeating. I hope she will forgive me for coming back to some of the issues we had then, of which, during her time on the Back Benches, she has been a doughty supporter. I am conscious that there is an awful lot to respond to in this group of varying themes. I look forward to seeing her do so with aplomb.
When I saw the amendments tabled here, I had a moment of undiluted joy when I noticed that Amendment 356A in my name suddenly had the addition of “g” before it. I initially thought that, in the chaos of the last few months, I had been called into government service unbeknown to me and without the benefit of a phone call. Having realised that that was probably not the case, I then thought that I had won the lottery—that, for once, one of my amendments was so good that the Government had finally adopted it and were prepared to champion it. Of course, it is a printing error.
I return to some of the things we talked about before, such as how we can align this Bill with the Prompt Payment Code and the Late Payment of Commercial Debts Regulations, for example. Genuine progress has been made in trying to deal with the curse of late payments, which affects small, medium and even large businesses, to try to improve their payment terms and to make sure that the Government play their part where they can, both as an agency of regulation and a procurer.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, after that introduction I am not sure that I need to say much at all, but I will speak to Amendment 361A, in my name, and briefly in support of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, to which I have added my name, and to his Amendment 356A.
Amendment 361A is another of my probing amendments seeking to reinforce SME involvement in public procurement. It would give the public sector contracting authority the specific right to make a payment directly to a subcontractor when payment from a tier 1 contractor to that subcontractor for an undisputed invoice takes more than 30 days. The contracting authority would also have the right to offset any such payment it has made from moneys owed to, or already paid to, the tier 1 supplier. The aim is to provide the contracting authority with the flexibility to support the financial viability of the supply chain while avoiding unnecessary delays. The amendment creates a right, not an obligation, so the subcontractor cannot insist on such a direct payment. A previously existing and regularly used right would be restored.
During the 1970s and 1980s, when the UK economy last experienced high levels of inflation, public sector clients would often name a specific subcontractor to be used when tier 1 contractors were choosing subcontractors. They also had the right, when the subcontractor was not paid, to step in and pay the subcontractor directly to ensure that the delivery of the contract was not compromised and value for money was preserved. This was accompanied by a corresponding right to reclaim any such payment from the tier 1 main contractor. It was widely used in construction, where the public sector accounted for some 40% of demand in both construction and maintenance of public assets. Of course, this option is particularly important to encourage more SMEs to participate in public procurements. The fact that they can be paid directly by the client if there are problems or delays in payment by the main contractor can significantly boost their confidence in engaging in the procurement process.
There was a similar right introduced by the European Union through article 71.7 of EU directive 2014/24 on public procurement. I do not know why this directive was not transposed into UK law, nor why this direct payment practice, which the UK Government had, after all, pioneered and used themselves for decades, has not been readopted. Now, more than ever, with a volatile economic environment and high rates of insolvency among construction subcontractors, such a right could play an important part in building trust and liquidity in the SME supply chain. There is nothing stopping a client, whether public sector or commercial, from using direct payment, if this is allowed by the contract, but nor is there anything encouraging or motivating them to do so. This amendment would make clear the ability for direct payment to be used where necessary and would drive a fairer payment culture and greater transparency across the supply chain. I hope that the Minister will consider accepting the amendment, or at least undertaking some work to assess the impact of spelling out the possibility of direct payment as an option.
I have also added my name to Amendments 353B, 370A and 430A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, which would represent another valuable step towards improving payment terms and practices for public contracts. I have very little to add to what he has so powerfully said. I understand that the role of the Small Business Commissioner as currently set out in legislation might make it difficult for her to be given the additional responsibilities implied by these amendments. However, I understand that the public procurement review service within the Cabinet Office operates a similar function in relation to public bodies, so perhaps an alternative approach for the Minister to consider would be to require unresolved payment disputes to be referred to them. If the Minister can come up with a better approach to resolving payment disputes in a timely way and ensuring that smaller suppliers receive the funds due to them, I would welcome that with enthusiasm equal to that which I have for the noble Lord’s amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, has also tabled Amendment 356A, relating to the BEIS payment performance reporting scheme, which I had not spotted to add my name to. It seems extraordinary that, whereas several thousand of the largest private contractors report every six months to their suppliers on a public database, public sector contracting authorities also report but only on their own individual website. There is no single place where individual small suppliers can understand the rather unimpressive payment behaviour that the noble Lord described of public sector clients, without going through an unbelievable search of numerous databases. I hope that the Minister will support the idea of bringing all this information together in one location and looking at some sort of enforcement mechanism for this reporting, along the lines of the “what get measured gets managed” quote that we have heard a number of times.
Most of the amendments that I have tabled or spoken to in Committee have related to achieving the Bill’s aim of increasing the number of small businesses participating in the public procurement process, particularly in the construction sector. During earlier sessions in Committee, Ministers told us several times that there will be meetings before Report to discuss what more the Government can do to promote the involvement of SMEs and of the voluntary and community sector. Indeed, the offer of such meetings was welcomed by the noble Baroness who is now herself the Minister. Can she confirm that such meetings are still planned and when they are expected to take place? We have heard a great deal in Committee about the need to increase the involvement of SMEs in public procurement. It would be good to review the overall approach that the Bill takes and how it will seek and indeed achieve this worthy result.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, pointed out, this is a wide range of varying amendments on a scale that, I suggest, is suboptimal for the proper scrutiny of this Bill. Frankly, it is symptomatic of the whole nature of this Bill and the way in which we are expected to scrutinise it. That said, because there are so many different things in here, there is a danger of some of the gems getting buried. I am going to burnish just a few of them but I hope that the Minister will be able to look back through the Marshalled List and Hansard to make sure that they are not overlooked, even if she is unable to comment fully on the whole range of amendments.
Those of us who can remember the beginning of this group will remember that we were talking about KPIs. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and my noble friend Lord Scriven, talked about them, as will I when I speak to Amendments 275A and 276ZA—I have never seen a “ZA” before—in my name.
Amendment 275A would remove the power granted by the Bill to the appropriate authority—otherwise known as the Secretary of State, as far as I understand it—to change the threshold at which KPIs may be published. At the moment, the threshold is set at £2 million. If my noble friend Lord Scriven, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, were successful in changing the KPI regime and making it rigorous, the Secretary of State could at a stroke remove a large proportion, if not all, of public procurement from that KPI obligation simply by arbitrarily lifting the threshold. This is a process that should not be left to the Secretary of State alone; that is what Amendment 275A refers to.
Furthermore, Amendment 276ZA would ensure that the regulations could be used only to reduce the threshold, not increase it. I must say, it is ingenious; I would not have thought of it on my own account. These are well-worded and reasoned amendments. I am sure that, if the Minister were not at the Dispatch Box, the Back-Bench version of her would have been making this speech because these amendments are of course hers. When she was promoted, she swiftly withdrew them. Because I agree with them and think that they are good amendments—I did not do this simply to have some fun; these are important issues—I put them back in for your Lordships to consider. The threshold at which the KPIs are published is absolutely central to whether we have a KPI system that works. It is important that Parliament is left with the right to do that.
I shall speak to another gem: Amendment 272 in the names of my noble friends Lord Wallace and Lord Scriven and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I will not speak at length. In previous debates, Ministers have argued against adding principles and things to this Bill, but central to the Green Paper was a section on the principles of public procurement. The Government accept that there should be principles here and have advanced some, so putting into the Bill the principle that procurement should help local communities with the deployment of sustainable local improvement would seem to be central to what this Government want to do, especially given their stated aim of bringing local communities and the quality of life in them up.
I also associate myself with my noble friend Lord Scriven’s speech on Amendment 353AA; it sounds more like a battery than an amendment. I look forward to his further speech on that.
Finally, I want to say a word in favour of the amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Aberdare, which seek to address further the pernicious practice of late payment. This is the Procurement Bill and it is about public procurement. It is unthinkable to me that this Bill and the Act that will follow do not have something to say about late payment and something to improve this activity. Whether it will be along the lines of the noble Lords’ proposal, I do not know, but these are important points. This seems to be a genuine opportunity for the Minister. This is a cross-party concern. I am sure that the Minister, working with others, can come back on Report with something that will further stiffen the process. I suggest that the process of publishing, as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, would be a very good way of starting so that we can at least see where the poor behaviour lies.
I hope that, in the post-Committee quiet, the Minister can scrutinise where we are with all these amendments and come forward on Report with some sensible improvements based on them.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate that I hope has been helpful to the Minister. I have three amendments in this group. Amendment 273 requires that one KPI is compliant with the carbon-reduction plan. Tied into that is Amendment 274, which requires that, where public contracts in scope of the KPIs fall below the threshold for mandatory carbon-reduction plans, at least one KPI should assess the supplier’s performance against climate or environmental considerations.
As I said on Monday, the transparency requirements are very welcome. We believe they could provide the opportunity for contracting authorities and their suppliers to demonstrate that they are having regard to climate change and are managing the risks through regular environmental reporting as a KPI. However, those requirements are not set out in the Bill but will be left to secondary legislation. For example, they do not impose requirements in relation to the environmental commitments made by the supplier awarded the contract or for the regular reporting on whether the commitments have actually been met. We feel that that needs to be strengthened, which is why we have tabled the two amendments on this area.
My Amendment 353AA would create the process to ensure that contracting authorities safeguard the public interest. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his support. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, gave a detailed explanation of the importance of this, so there is no need for me to go into any further detail. Looking at the public interest and the wider potential impacts of any contracts that are supplied is something that we need to be extremely aware of and cautious about.
I turn to other amendments in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made some important points here; we are very sympathetic to them and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts. These seem to be straightforward areas where the Bill could be improved. In particular, the noble Lord explained how the time modifications, going from one-10th to one-sixth, made sense and would make life a lot easier for people. Again, these are sensible amendments so it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s response.
My noble friend Lady Thornton has tabled some amendments around KPIs and social value, and we strongly support both of them. I am sure the Committee is aware that social value is included in the national procurement policy statement, but there is no reference to social value in the Bill itself, as has been said on a number of occasions when we have debated this in Committee. We have been told by officials—and by previous Ministers before the noble Baroness—that social value is integrated into the concept of public benefit, but we believe that “public benefit” is just too vague a concept and it is just not clear where social value sits within this framework. My noble friend raises an important point with her amendments, and I hope the Government will start to take this issue more seriously.
As usual, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, put her finger on an area that needs proper clarification. I am sure the Minister will have listened very carefully to everything she said.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, introduced some of the Liberal Democrat amendments by talking about the importance of sustainable local improvements and, again, the wider public benefit: what is this, what does it mean and what will we get out of it in the Bill? Again, a lot of what he was saying—and what the amendments from the Liberal Democrats are doing—is very similar to, and ties in with, the amendments we have put down: they look at the environmental and social value impacts and how we can build these into the Bill to make important improvements.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, made some important and specific points with her amendments, and I was happy to add my name to them. They draw attention to a really important issue, which has been missed out and is extremely pertinent at the moment when we consider current concerns over inflation—particularly food price inflation, as she mentioned—and the rise in prices more generally. Public sector catering businesses were really badly hit during the pandemic and are still struggling, so we need to pay proper attention to her amendments. If we are genuine about supporting SMEs, this is an area where they really need some strong support from the Government at the moment.
I commend my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn for his work on tackling the issue of late payment. His dogged approach to this has achieved much, but there is still much more to achieve. His amendments are very important and helpful; again, they are about helping SMEs, something the Minister has said time and again she wants to do.
As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked, why is there nothing on late payments, or the issues he raised in particular, in the Bill? This is a real opportunity to do that. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, raised similar issues around small and medium-sized businesses and the kind of support they need for procurement if they are to be able to make the most of the contracts that are out there for them. I totally agree with him on the issues around SMEs and the construction sector: it can be very difficult for SMEs to break into that sector, and very difficult for them to manage their cash flows if they start having issues around late payment, which unfortunately happens all too often. In addition, we would strongly support his request for picking up the meeting idea to see whether we can make some progress on this matter between Committee and Report.
To summarise, the Bill needs to ensure that it specifies that KPIs are flexible, proportionate, realistic, agreed properly with the provider and informed by engagement with the people accessing any services. These are helpful amendments, seeking to achieve many of these aims. I hope that the Minister is sympathetic to much that has been proposed and I look forward to her response.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to be debating this group, which deals with prompt payment of suppliers throughout the supply chain, an important innovation in the Bill to deal with a long-standing problem. I am slightly perplexed by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, because one of the advantages of the Bill is that we are making progress on prompt payment and adding rules in relation to the indirect suppliers, which is a considerable breakthrough.
There are a number of government amendments. Amendments 354 and 434 confirm the start of the period during which payment must be made following receipt of an invoice. Amendment 361 signposts the reader to an electronic invoicing provision in Clause 63. Amendments 360, 362, 363, 431 and 432 align wording with equivalent provisions elsewhere. Amendment 433 corrects the territorial application of this regulation-making power in Clause 80.
I now turn to government amendments to Clauses 69 and 70 and Schedule 8 on contract modification. Amendments 365 to 371 to Clause 69, “Modifying a public contract”, have been made to correct technical errors and make the clause clearer. Many of the amendments to Clause 70—I reference Amendments 390, 391 and 392A—arise as a consequence of the decision to divide this clause to make it simpler for contracting authorities to understand their publishing obligations.
Amendment 372 has been made to ensure that contract change notices are published when a contract is transferred to a new third party under paragraph 9 of Schedule 8. Amendments 373 and 374 clarify the anti-avoidance provisions. Amendment 375 creates a new paragraph (b), which reduces the burden of publication. Amendment 376 sets out certain contracts that are exempt from the obligation to publish contract change notices. Amendments 377, 381 and 385 are consequential. Amendments 378, 380 and 383 have been made to ensure that the clause will work effectively for Wales and Northern Ireland. Amendment 384 and 389 provide that certain other contracts are exempt from the requirement to publish details of a qualifying modification.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Amendment 392 makes it clear that the power to change the percentage thresholds in Clause 70 applies to Welsh Ministers as well as a Minister of the Crown.
I apologise in advance for the length of my reply to the substantive points in this important group. I turn first to key performance indicators in Clause 50. My noble friend Lord Lansley’s first amendment would require contracting authorities to set at least three KPIs that are “quantifiable measures” as well as
“such further factors and measures as the contracting authority considers justified in relation to the requirements and value of the contract”.
The very nature of a KPI means that it has to be quantifiable; otherwise, performance cannot be effectively measured. In addition, the Bill already requires contracting authorities to set “at least three” KPIs, but they can set more where they consider it justified. His second amendment relates to where the KPIs are derived from. It proposes that they be tied to the specifications of the tender rather than to the contract itself. Forcing KPIs to be tied to the specifications of the tender means performance is not measured effectively. They need to relate to the final agreement, not to a previous document that may have been changed during the competitive tendering procedure. However, I can assure my noble friend that further regulation and guidance will describe the best way to set and monitor KPIs.
Amendment 269A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, Amendment 272, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Scriven, and Amendments 273 and 274, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, would require KPIs to relate to wider policy matters, such as social value, carbon reduction and, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, mentioned in his intervention, sustainable local improvement. As stated a number of times in Committee already, and for good reason, procurement policy is not fixed and evolves as new strategic priorities emerge, such as our action to address climate change in procurement in recent years. Policy matters such as these should therefore not be included in the Bill and are better addressed in the national procurement policy statement.
Amendment 271, proposed by my noble friend Lady Noakes, suggests that Clause 50(2) should be removed. This provision confers a discretion on the contracting authority not to publish KPIs if the contract in question could not be appropriately assessed by reference to KPIs. Subsection (2) serves a vital purpose. It is not appropriate to measure all contracts by reference to KPIs—for example, a goods contract for an order of IT hardware or office furniture. We therefore need to confer a discretion on contracting authorities, rather than create a legal obligation that cannot be met in every case and which, in some instances, would add legal and administrative burdens with limited additional benefit that would be hard to justify. Moreover, the discretion in subsection (2) not to publish KPIs can be exercised only when appropriate. The transparency obligation in Clause 51 should, I believe, help to prevent any abuse of the provision. In addition, the Freedom of Information Act, which was mentioned in the discussion, allows stakeholders to exercise scrutiny over the form of KPIs that contracting authorities write into their contracts. It is not in their interest to avoid these requirements as the information will become public in any event.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his Amendments 275A and 276ZA and his thinking on KPIs, although I must confess to having a sense of déjà vu. The balance of benefit against burden is an important matter that we must look at in this Bill, and one that merits investigation by us all. I am therefore grateful for the opportunity to set out our position on this.
The power in Clause 50(4) allows amendment of the £2 million threshold in subsection (1) above which KPIs must be set and reported on. The two proposed amendments probe that power in different ways. The first amendment seeks to remove the ability to amend the threshold in its entirety and the second limits the power to reducing the threshold.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I am confused by that answer; I do not understand, in practice, what the Minister has just said. There could be at least two public bodies involved in an individual’s care, through social care and the NHS. Can the Minister clarify a little better how the public interest is served when one public body decides to outsource, having an impact on another public body which has no control or say over the contract that has been let, when the client the contract could serve impacts on both bodies?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I was trying to make sure that the noble Lord knew that I had listened to his point. There is a point about what is covered by the Bill and what is not, so perhaps I will reflect a little further on how we achieve the best outcome in the sort of circumstances he describes.
Moving on, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for his kind words. I look back with great pleasure on the work we did together on those Bills. I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, that he has made a huge contribution in this area. To some extent, his dogged determination has been rewarded with this Bill, which, I think, as I said right at the beginning, makes something of a breakthrough. That is why I am glad now to be the Minister and to make sure that that breakthrough is reflected in a larger share of procurement for SMEs, with payment being more consistently speedy. It is clear that, in a lot of areas, payment is quite good.
The noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Mendelsohn, have tabled Amendments 353B, 370A and 430A. They would create a process for resolving payment disputes that would mandate escalation to the Small Business Commissioner, who we remember so well, for arbitration and resolution. Going back, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, wanted me to be the commissioner, but it never happened. The amendments would also require the automatic payment of late payment interest in the event of a contracting authority being found to be in violation of the payment provisions of this Bill.
I believe that this Bill represents a big step forward in tackling late payment, as I have said. However, I believe that these amendments could introduce unwelcome complexity into the system for government suppliers and remove the parties’ ability to be flexible in matters of dispute resolution by tailoring dispute resolution and escalation procedures to particular contracts. There are now—this is an important point—a range of existing mechanisms in place to deal with late payment. Suppliers, including those in public sector supply chains, can raise payment delays with the Public Procurement Review Service, which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, kindly drew to our attention and which will work to unblock any overdue payments. It is a well-established service. It has been successful in releasing more than £9 million of late payments to date and has grown in confidence since we passed the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. I assure noble Lords that the PPRS will continue to carry out this function under the new regime to unlock contract-specific instances of late payment.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
I have just two things to say very briefly. First, I did say that I thought the noble Baroness would be a brilliant Small Business Commissioner, but I think that she is a brilliant Minister.
I did not put the Public Procurement Review Service in my speech because I have issues with it. It has unlocked £9.4 million. When I first read its work in 2020, it said £8 million. I thought that meant £8 million in that year, but £9.4 million is the entire sum that it has unlocked since it was set up in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. Last year, its achievement was £1.4 million. It has dealt with 400 cases and has, it says, been 100% successful. However, it is also reported elsewhere that it has dealt with more than 1,900 cases, most of which involved suppliers that gave up on it during the course of its process. Let me retell the numbers: 23,000 invoices in one local authority alone. The Minister can tell me that 400 cases over an eight-year performance is good, but I am not so sure. I appreciate that there is a vehicle—again, I am not picky about which one it is—but one cannot say that that performance is making any meaningful impact. That is why I would be grateful if the Minister could look at that in more detail.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I will certainly look at the figures, which I am very interested in, but this Bill obviously represents something of a step change. The key thing is how we can make it work effectively. I also highlight that suppliers already have the ability to claim interest on late payment under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998, which has been referenced. A reference to it in our Bill therefore seems unnecessary.
The proposed amendment would also significantly alter the remit of the Small Business Commissioner. Under current legislation, a small business may complain only about a large business. As such, it would not be appropriate to reference the Small Business Commissioner in this context; it is a slightly different type of system.
The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, has also tabled Amendment 356A, which would place a duty on contracting authorities to report payment performance under regulations made under Section 3 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. These regulations currently place a duty on the UK’s largest companies to report on a half-yearly basis on their payment practices, policies and performance. We are thinking about what we can do to open up more contractual opportunities to SMEs and will come back to that on Report. We recognise the need for alignment with the private sector so that we can have a bit more comparison of performance.
However, we do not, for example, want to constrain the Government in the future from pursuing the reporting of higher payment standards for the public sector should we wish to do that, nor can we add new requirements to the private sector without some form of consultation, especially at this difficult time. I am happy to look at the possibilities on publishing payment performance information for private companies alongside those in the public sector and at trying to make the results more easily comparable. It may take a little time, but I hope that noble Lords will find that assurance helpful. We will see what we can do.
Turning to Amendment 361A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, this amendment would enable contracting authorities to pay subcontractors in their supply chain directly where a prime contractor does not pay within agreed terms. The contracting authority would then be able to reclaim the outstanding amounts from the prime contractor, either by discounting the sum owed or by reclaiming the money as a debt. This amendment would, of course, utilise public money as a method of resolving such disputes. Where insufficient money remained, this would introduce risk and liquidity pressure to public sector accounts, with financial implications that are extremely difficult to countenance, especially in current circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, asked whether we could introduce the “step-in” right, as suggested by Amendment 361A, as a right rather than an obligation. This could lead to confusion for contracting authorities about when they should step in. It would also expose them to unnecessary challenge when they decided not to step in. However, suppliers in public sector supply chains can, as we have noted, use the Public Procurement Review Service to help unlock late payments where existing contractual routes fail. Further, there are some other mechanisms available, for example, project bank accounts, which may work in some cases and allow protected sums to be distributed to those in the supply chain.
Turning to contract modifications, my noble friend Lord Lansley has tabled Amendment 364 to substitute a 10% term threshold with a threshold of one-sixth of the contract term. Noble Lords will wish to note that the Bill does not say that contracting authorities cannot extend a contract’s duration by more than 10%. They can do so, but they must use other grounds within the contract modification rules. They are set out in Clause 69 and Schedule 8. These other grounds, in the majority of cases, will oblige them to publish a contract change notice, which will set out why they are making that modification.
We do not think that contracting authorities should be given greater leeway by increasing the 10% to one-sixth. Under the current regime, we have seen contracting authorities extend contracts by substantial periods time and time again without the public or the market being aware of the situation and therefore able to challenge it. We hope Clause 69(3)(a) will change that behaviour.
Amendment 370ZA, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, proposes that we insert a provision in the Bill that contract reviews should be held by both parties every three months. The Procurement Bill covers a huge variety of contracts—that is one of the challenges—and suppliers and contracting authorities are in frequent contact. A legal obligation that contract reviews must be held every three months is overly prescriptive. Contracts are kept under review by contracting authorities and suppliers as appropriate. One size does not fit all.
I see from Amendment 370B that the proposition that contract reviews should be held every three months has arisen from current concerns over inflation. Prices may be index-linked, and contracts may contain review clauses related to inflation. In those circumstances, modifications under the ground of Schedule 8(1) are already permitted.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh raised an important point relating to the context of rising food prices, caused, ultimately, by the situation in Ukraine. Complex public contracts, including large outsourcing contracts which cover food provision for public bodies, generally do account for inflation. Obviously, coming from a farming and retail background, I understand some of the issues that my noble friend described. I particularly agree about the importance of SMEs, as we all say again and again, and trying to get them a bigger share of procurement. However, her approach is too prescriptive and could lead to yet more inflation, and would put costs on the public sector at a particularly difficult time.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I feel obliged to pursue this issue just a little further. When I spoke to the amendment, I referenced the imbalance of power between contracting authorities and small and medium-sized enterprises, which was its focus. I understand the points that my noble friend is making about when there are parties on either side of the transaction with equal bargaining power, but it does not work like that when there is unequal bargaining power. I am not suggesting that Amendment 486 is a perfect answer to that, but I do not think my noble friend has addressed the point as it applies to SMEs. I know that is a theme that has run throughout our consideration of the Bill, but I want to record that I do not regard her response to my amendment as really getting to the heart of the problem.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her intervention. I agree that we need to try to get at the issue of the balance of power; indeed, we were discussing it at my briefing meeting. I think it may be worth having a further discussion with the Government Office for Technology Transfer, because it needs to understand the importance of these small companies to innovation and how the kinds of decisions that they make on rights and intellectual property can make an important difference. I am grateful to her for raising that further point.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I listened very carefully to what the Minister said to our noble friend and to her response to my two little amendments. I am struggling to understand how she believes that Amendments 370ZA and 370B would transfer cost to the public sector. I know from her time on the Back Benches how much my noble friend likes impact assessments, so I refer to page 44 of the impact assessment, which states strongly that this is to encourage SMEs. I hoped that I had made the case—as did a number of others, including my noble friend Lady Noakes—for how SMEs should be benefiting from this, but, in two specific areas that I set out, SMEs are actually being handicapped by the current provisions under the Bill.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I will certainly look carefully at Hansard. I think my noble friend was basically talking about an inflation adjustment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Five per cent, plus the three-month review.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
And a three-month review. The point about inflation is that if you build it in—this is a wider economic point—and then it goes up further, you can get an inflationary spiral. We have to try to find a way for people to come together and think about how we can best handle that, and I think the current system does that well. That is certainly my own experience, having been involved in procurement on both sides of the divide.
You can write in three-monthly reviews, but the difficulty is that this is an all-embracing Act and putting that into the Bill could lead to a lot of extra meetings and reviews that might not fit in with simplicity. But obviously this is Committee and we will be reflecting further on the right thing to do. I thank my noble friend for, as always, pursuing her point with such clarity and doggedness.
Finally, this is not in my script but I would like to confirm that I and the team are looking back at the undertakings made on earlier days in Committee to make sure that balls are not dropped. I confirm that we will be arranging meetings on the SME angle, even though I am not able to champion them. I have already had a round table with SMEs and the official team to see what can be done. I do not want to overpromise, but we want to do our best. I respectfully request that the various non-government amendments be respectively withdrawn or not moved.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Thank you. That was a long group so the reply was necessarily substantial, and we are most grateful for that. I was happy to have the confirmation that KPIs must be quantifiable. I am still slightly uncertain whether 10% works very easily—maybe it would have been easier to express it as one month in a year or something like that to deal with time—but still I am grateful.
If the question of force majeure is taken up through the general terms and conditions, I just ask that it requires the system, as it were, to say that we have standard terms and conditions and, as a result of some of the debates on the Bill, we also need to look at our general terms and conditions, and how things are to be expressed in future. As far as Amendment 268 is concerned, I was grateful for the Minister’s response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(a) if the contract is a light touch contract, before the end of the period of 180 days beginning with the day on which the contract is entered into;(b) otherwise, before the end of the period of 90 days beginning with the day on which the contract is entered into.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“The contract being awarded is being awarded by reference to suppliers’ membership of a dynamic market | 10 days” |
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“4A_ An offence at common law of conspiracy to defraud.”
“8A_ An offence under Article 172 or 172A of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)) (taking vehicle without authority etc).”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“28(1) An offence under the law of any part of the United Kingdom consisting of being knowingly concerned in, or in taking steps with a view to, the fraudulent evasion of a tax.(2) In this paragraph,“tax” means a tax imposed under the law of any part of the United Kingdom, including national insurance contributions under—(a) Part 1 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, or(b) Part 1 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
(2) In this paragraph—“defeat” means that—(a) Condition A in paragraph 5 of Schedule 16 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017, or(b) Condition B in paragraph 6 of that Schedule,is met in respect of the arrangements (where “T” in those paragraphs is taken to mean the supplier or connected person entering into the arrangements);“notifiable tax arrangements” means tax arrangements in respect of which a reference number—(a) has been notified to the supplier or connected person under section 311A, 312 or 312ZA of the Finance Act 2004 (disclosure of tax avoidance schemes) or paragraph 22A, 23 or 23A of Schedule 17 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017 (disclosure of tax avoidance schemes: VAT and other indirect taxes), and(b) has not been withdrawn;“tax arrangements” has the meaning given in paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 16 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(iv) has rejected an application from a supplier for membership of a dynamic market on the basis that the supplier is an excluded or excludable supplier (see section 36), or(v) has removed an excluded or excludable supplier from a dynamic market under section 37, and”
“(aa) if the contracting authority is a transferred Northern Ireland authority, the Northern Ireland department that the contracting authority considers it most appropriate to notify;”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(b) a reference to a contracting authority receiving an invoice includes a reference to an invoice being delivered to an address specified in the contract for the purpose.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(4A) In this section, a reference to a modification changing the scope of a contract is a reference to a modification providing for the supply of goods, services or works of a kind not already provided for in the contract.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“unless the modification is a permitted modification under paragraph 9 of Schedule 8 (novation or assignment on corporate restructuring).”
(b) the modification.”
“(za) is a defence and security contract,(zb) is a light touch contract,(zc) was awarded by a private utility,”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(za) is a defence and security contract,(zb) is a light touch contract,(zc) was awarded by a private utility,”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(12) A Minister of the Crown or the Welsh Ministers may by regulations amend this section for the purpose of changing the percentage thresholds.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(2) A voluntary standstill period may not be less than a period of eight working days beginning with the day on which the contract change notice is published.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(b) subsection (3A), (3B) or (3C) applies.(3A) This subsection applies if, before awarding the public contract, the contracting authority did not know the supplier intended to sub-contract the performance of all or part of the contract.(3B) This subsection applies if—(a) the sub-contractor is an excluded or excludable supplier under section 54(1)(b) or (2)(b) (the debarment list), and(b) before awarding the contract the contracting authority—(i) sought to determine whether that was the case in accordance with section 28(A1)(b), but(ii) did not know that it was.(3C) This subsection applies if—(a) the sub-contractor is an excluded or excludable supplier under section 54(1)(a) or (2)(a),(b) the contracting authority requested information about the sub- contractor under section 28(1), and(c) before awarding the contract, the contracting authority did not know that the sub-contractor was an excluded or excludable supplier.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Terminating public contracts: national security
A contracting authority may not terminate a contract by reference to the implied term in section 72 on the basis of the discretionary exclusion ground in paragraph 15 of Schedule 7 (threat to national security) unless—(a) the authority has notified a Minister of the Crown of its intention, and(b) the Minister considers that—(i) the supplier or sub-contractor is an excludable supplier by reference to paragraph 15 of Schedule 7 , and(ii) the contract should be terminated.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
(b) in relation to a contract awarded under section 40 by reference to paragraph 16 of Schedule 5 (direct award: user choice contracts).”
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
Finally, we come to Amendment 404.
Lord Scriven
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe what actions a contracting authority must take about, and to what extent they must investigate, conflicts of interest and potential conflicts of interest.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I have never heard such a reception before speaking. I congratulate the Deputy Chairman of Committees on the professionalism with which she handled that. Many noble Lords will know that we sometimes get through less business in a dinner hour, so well done. On a serious note, when we canter through a Bill in that way on the seventh day in Committee, it shows the lack of scrutiny it is getting.
I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Wallace on Amendment 404, and in moving that amendment I will also speak to Amendments 407, 409, 410, 412, 413, 421, 422 and 423. This group deals with conflicts of interest in public procurement, and getting the process and the management of those conflicts correct is absolutely vital to upholding the public’s trust in the use of their taxes when contracts are being laid. It has to be said that the new conflicts of interest provisions in Part 5 are a step forward. They impose some positive obligations on authorities to identify conflicts and give them a duty to mitigate them, including by conducting a conflict assessment. The provisions also ensure that conflicts can pertain to Ministers, not just officials taking procurement decisions. This is especially important given the issues with the VIP lane during the Covid procurement.
However, these new provisions do not go anywhere near as far as did the review by Sir Nigel Boardman, which the Government asked for and which was published in May 2021, in that they do not require a centralised register of conflicts that authorities can consult. Nor does the Bill contain sanctions for non-compliance with these measures. A central plank of the Boardman proposals, that suppliers should also be required to make conflict of interest declarations themselves, is also not included in the Bill. Boardman recommended that when there are direct awards with no competition, additional disclosure of conflicts at a more senior level should be required. Again, that is missing from the Bill.
The Boardman review gave 12 recommendations on conflicts of interest and bias. The amendments I referred to earlier try to put in the Bill the recommendations that the Boardman review gave. What is the point of doing the most detailed review asked for by government about conflicts of interest, based on recent history, if it is totally ignored when a Bill on procurement is written and when Part 5, on conflicts of interest, seems to ignore them altogether?
I will not go through all 12 recommendations, but some of them are quite important. Recommendation 18 says:
“Cabinet Office should strengthen its model for the management of actual and perceived conflicts of interest in procurements, following the ‘identify, prevent, rectify’ sequence.”
That is completely missing from the Bill. The Minister may say that some guidance will come out on that from the Cabinet Office. The difference is that this is primary legislation. If an expert has recommended that this should be the prescribed way that the Government do things on procurement to improve it around conflicts of interest, why is the “identify, prevent, rectify” sequence not identified in the Bill?
Recommendation 20 indicates:
“Declarations of interests should be recorded and logged alongside the departmental gift register and, where appropriate, this and other, relevant information should be made available to those responsible for procurement and contract management.”
I ask the Minister where, or if, a central register of conflicts of interest will be made available so that all public sector bodies that are procuring can have access to it. Remember, it is not just government departments at Whitehall that we are talking about: the Bill relates to all public sector bodies apart from the NHS which, even if it is procuring outside this, should have access to conflicts of interest on a central register.
The Boardman review also goes on to suggest the types of people who should be required to declare conflicts of interest; it goes much wider than the Bill. Recommendation 23 says:
“All guidance should make it clear that the requirement to declare and record actual or perceived conflicts of interest applies to all officials or those working on behalf of Cabinet Office equally, including civil servants, contractors, consultants, special advisers, and other political appointees.”
Where do they sit in the Bill? It is not just individuals whose job it is to procure; there are others who will have potential conflicts of interest that need to be made public, and people need to be aware of them.
Recommendation 24 says:
“There should be a clear process for managing risk regarding conflicts of interest.”
Where in the Bill are the process for managing conflicts of interest and the sanctions? What are the sanctions? Will they be left to each individual contracting body, or is there a central view of what the sanctions for dealing with conflicts of interest should be?
Recommendation 28 of the Boardman review says:
“Suppliers should be required to follow similar processes regarding declarations of actual or perceived conflicts of interest at the outset of a procurement, with appropriate sanctions for non-compliance.”
Where in the Bill is such provision? How will the conflicts, or potential conflicts, of interest of those looking to supply be dealt with?
I wish to speak to other amendments in this group that talk about not just direct employees. For example, Amendment 423 says that people who have left public service but are then employed or subcontracted by or give paid advice to a company should not be allowed to do so for a period of six months. That is not just for government but for all public sector bodies. If that is not in the Bill, it will be left to individual councils or individual procurement bodies to make their own rules and there will not be a uniform approach across the public sector. Is it the Government’s view that there should not be a uniform approach across the public sector for conflicts of interest for people who leave the public sector and are going to be employed, subcontracted or paid to give advice, or should it be down to each individual contracting authority outside of government departments to make up their own view? If so, how will suppliers be able to understand that individuals are complying, based on the complexity that will require?
Amendment 422 is a probing amendment to understand how the Government anticipate managing conflicts of interest and to make sure, again, that that is standardised across the public sector, not just what happens under the procurement rules for government departments.
There are a number of issues here, and I know that my noble friend Lady Brinton will raise the NHS and Palantir, where senior officials who were working on a multimillion-pound procurement for IT left the Department of Health and subsequently went to work for a company that was bidding for that particular contract.
These are serious amendments, which, as the new Prime Minister said on the steps of Downing Street yesterday, seek to rebuild trust. Rebuilding trust to ensure that taxpayers’ money is used appropriately and no one is getting an unfair advantage means that we have to have a standardised system to deal with conflicts of interest across the public sector, for all bodies, and a system of managing those in a way that is appropriate. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer those questions. I beg to move Amendment 404.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Scriven. I have signed Amendment 423, but I support all his amendments and those of my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire in this group.
My noble friend Lord Scriven has set the scene for the reason why these amendments are needed, with the background of the Boardman recommendations. I want to give one example of how the culture has allowed one particular firm to get its feet very firmly under the NHS desk over the last three years—it is now a bit more than three years—and why, had stronger conflict of interest arrangements been in place that did not permit very senior staff to go and work for someone who is about to bid for NHS contracts, in line with these amendments, we would have benefited.
In April 2020, the United States tech firm Palantir was awarded a contract for an NHS Covid datastore under the Crown Commercial Services G-Cloud 11 Framework. This meant that it did not need to be publicly tendered or the results published. During 2020, campaigning organisations Foxglove and openDemocracy, as well as a number of parliamentarians in both Houses, including my noble friend Lord Scriven and me in the Lords, raised repeated concerns about the contract. It then emerged that part of the cost-effectiveness of this contract was that Palantir bid very low in return for access to every patient’s medical and personal data held on the Covid datastore. No permission had been asked for or given by any individual about this highly confidential data, and of course it breached GDPR—that is not formally within the scope of this Bill.
The first contract, from April 2020, was for three months, and the value of that contract in return for the data was £1—not £1 million but £1. A further continuation contract for a further four months was for £1 million, and in December 2020, a two-year contract was issued, again under the same arrangements, for £23 million. As details started to emerge, and after the public outcry, the contract was ceased in April 2021—not least because Foxglove and openDemocracy had initiated a court case against the Department of Health and Social Care.
What has emerged is that, in 2019, a number of private meetings were held between senior NHS managers and senior managers of Palantir, described by the NHS managers as very positive—I bet they were. A November 2021 National Audit Office report on government contracts during the Covid pandemic found that a lack of transparency and adequate documentation was very evident.
During 2020, Palantir did not just have contracts with the NHS, it had contracts worth £46 million with UK government or public bodies. Palantir, which in conjunction with Cambridge Analytica provided data support for Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential election campaign and for the Vote Leave campaign, is known for working below the radar. I am very mindful of the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, made earlier about people gaming the system.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendments 415 and 419 in this group. In addition, I will speak to Amendment 417, which is in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan but originated as an amendment tabled by my noble friend the Minister.
Amendments 415 and 419 are somewhat narrower than the other amendments in the group, which the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has spoken to. They simply probe how the Bill has been drafted in relation to the term “conflict of interest”. Under Clause 75 contracting authorities have a duty to mitigate conflicts of interest, and under Clause 76 they are required to carry out conflict assessments. In each case, the clauses define the term “conflict of interest” by reference to Clause 74. Under Clause 74(2), a conflict of interest exists if someone has a conflict of interest—hence the Bill basically says that the definition of a conflict of interest is that it is a conflict of interest, which is not entirely helpful.
While “interest” is defined in Clause 74, “conflict” is not. Clause 74 says who might have a conflict but not what a conflict actually is. Is it an objective test or can conflicts include subjective perception? Does it have to be an actual conflict or just a possible one? Clause 74 is no help whatever. Clauses 75 and 76 have tried to define “conflict of interest” by reference to Clause 74, but in doing so they have merely highlighted that there is no definition in that clause. I have not attempted to define the term myself as my amendments today are obviously probing ones, but some attention needs to be paid to the drafting.
Amendment 417 would delete Clause 76(4), which deals with conflict of interest assessments. Subsection (4) takes the contracting authorities into the realms of fantasy. They have to think about what they know that might cause “a reasonable person” wrongly to think that there are actual or potential conflicts of interest. It is often hard enough to identify the range of potential conflicts of interest; getting into the territory of trying to work out what a so-called “reasonable person” might wrongly think is a potential conflict of interest is mind-blowing.
Having worked out what this reasonable person wrongly thinks, the contracting authority must take steps to demonstrate that the imagined wrong thought by the imagined reasonable person does not in fact exist. This is beyond parody. For good measure, there is no definition of “reasonable person”. We do not know whether this reasonable person is assumed to have any knowledge of public procurement or the workings of contracting authorities. Those of us who live in the world of politics know that otherwise reasonable people often believe extraordinary things and their capacity for thinking extraordinary things wrongly is infinite.
I very much look forward to hearing how my noble friend the Minister will defend subsection (4).
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and congratulate her on the first half of her contribution, which clearly identified a crucial problem that has undoubtedly been missed by numerous other eyes.
However, I entirely disagree with the second part of her contribution, which referred to Clause 76(4). I do not often find myself in the position of defending what is potentially the Government’s position—perhaps I am about to pre-empt entirely what the Minister is about to say—but subsection (4) says:
“If a contracting authority is aware of circumstances”.
It does not say, “We expect the contracting authority to be clairvoyant and know of every single circumstance where a reasonable person might”. We all know this. Think about local councils. Having been a local journalist on another continent, I think of a case where a large city authority kept commissioning a certain architect to do a whole series of projects. That ended up raising considerable public concern. If that is happening, noble Lords can see why it would make sense to pre-empt the explanation of why there is no conflict of interest and therefore no problem here. It is also worth pointing out that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said that this was a subjective judgment that would affect the letting of the contract. In fact, it would not; it just says that there must be details of the steps included. So I would defend Clause 76(4), if the Government feel that it needs to be defended.
Before I get to what I chiefly want to say, I want to apologise briefly. I attached my name to a number of amendments in the previous group; I meant to be here to speak to them but events unfortunately intervened and I could not be. I still stand behind them.
Coming to this group, I have attached my name to a number of amendments in various combinations of the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, clearly outlined—I will not go over the same ground—the Boardman review reported in May 2021, which has allowed plenty of time for this issue to be included in this Bill, despite all the hurry and rush that we know there has been around it. I would also point out something that the noble Lord did not say: when the Boardman report came out, the Government said, “We accept all of these recommendations”. If the Government have accepted them, they should surely be incorporated in this Bill.
I want to pick up on one amendment that I did not sign, although I would have had I noticed it: Amendment 413 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that
“a donation or loan of more than £7,500 to any political party in a calendar year”
should be declared. We are talking about transparency and trust. This is obviously a practical, simple step that would not be very hard to implement and would be well worth while.
Amendments 421 to 423 are about preventing undue influence. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I shall concentrate on Amendment 423. There is huge public concern about the revolving door, and I note that my honourable friend in the other place, Caroline Lucas, has done a huge amount of work, dating back in Hansard to at least 2013, on the revolving door in the defence and energy sectors.
That concern is not restricted to the Green Party. I was just looking through some of the reports. In 2011, Transparency International UK issued a press release headed
“Revolving door between Government and business is ‘spinning out of control’”.
If it was spinning out of control in 2011, we are at jet engine speeds by this stage. In 2016, the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, in a report entitled Redefining Corruption, said that the public want a ban on the revolving door. This amendment provides much less than a ban; it is a modest six months, and I am not altogether sure that it should not be longer, but there is certainly great public concern about this. In 2017, the Committee on Standards in Public Life expressed concern about the revolving door.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, set out one disturbing case. Here is another. In 2020, We Own It highlighted the interaction between Serco and NHS Test and Trace, and the degree to which there has been a revolving door between Serco and the senior Civil Service, to the point where a former head of public affairs of Serco became a Health Minister—I am not sure how many Health Ministers back, but at some point, anyway.
Finally, we should not forget the Greensill scandal. Just look at the mess that arose in part because of a revolving door—indeed, in some cases people were stuck in the same door at the same time, apparently representing both private interests and public, government interests. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments noted that there were thousands of potential cases, but initially looked at only 108. There is lots of discussion about limits to that committee’s power; it cannot possibly cover this issue. We must start from the other side of the contracts.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I will be relatively brief, because I sense that some of the drive and energy has gone out of the Committee.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Noble Lords have more energy than me, then.
Having said that, we are discussing incredibly important issues. In his opening remarks about Part 5, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, was absolutely right. To be fair to the Government, Part 5 is undoubtedly a step forward and an improvement. For that reason, they are to be commended.
The amendments before us seek to improve what the Government have done and take it forward, and to provide clarity where it is lacking, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has done. These amendments are particularly good in challenging the Government to go further in achieving their objectives, but also asking whether they are sure they have defined things as well as they might have done.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, we come to Part 5 of the Bill on conflicts of interest, where the Government have sought to give greater clarity on these obligations, partly in the light of the difficult experience during Covid-19.
On the one hand, it is critical that the public and businesses trust our approach in procurement. They must trust that we are acting with integrity—an important word today—spending public money responsibly and that suppliers will be treated fairly. The Bill is a step forward, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has been kind enough to acknowledge. On the other hand, we must not have a process which overall has a chilling effect because good honest suppliers who do not understand the arrangements are needlessly put off participating in procurement.
I turn to the various amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and spoken to with great passion by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven: Amendments 404, 407, 409, 410, 412, 413, 421, 422 and 423.
The Cabinet Office commissioned Sir Nigel Boardman to review communications procurement in the department. His first report was published in December 2020 and focused on Covid-19 and the difficulties then. A major public inquiry is now on the way, and of course we need to learn the lessons of that. However, his recommendations in that report have been substantially implemented by the department. For example, Procurement Policy Note 04/21 includes comprehensive guidance for authorities on how to ensure that conflicts are managed appropriately.
Before I comment on the individual amendments, I will try to reply to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. I emphasise that the Boardman recommendations have not been ignored. The Cabinet Office has implemented them in its commercial operations. It is not appropriate to put every recommendation into legislation, which of course applies for many different types of contracting authority and procurement —large and small. Our provisions allow for a framework in which authorities can implement best practice in accordance with their governance structures.
The noble Lord raised the subject of sanctions. Boardman’s recommendation 26 highlighted that there needed to be sanctions and that these should be made clear in policy and guidance. The Procurement Bill is not the place to detail every possible sanction for every breach. Disciplinary action should be for each authority to enforce as well. If a supplier believes there to be a breach, the Bill provides appropriate remedies in Part 9.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, also questioned the recommendations on direct award. As mentioned on Monday, we have introduced a new requirement that contracting authorities must now publish a transparency note before they award a direct award contract. This obviously did not happen during Covid and is a major safeguard.
Amendment 404 would require contracting authorities to take all steps to identify conflicts. This risks creating an impossible threshold for authorities to meet. It could always be argued that more steps should have been taken.
On Amendments 407 and 409, we agree that the Bill’s current scope of those “acting in relation” to the procurement is the right one. We have set out more detail on different groups of individuals involved in commercial guidance, as obviously there are broader groups now involved, in the Procurement Policy Note 04/21, which is the right place for that information. Amendment 410 would add obligations on suppliers relating to conflicts. Suppliers of course also have a role in mitigating conflicts, and this can be seen in Clause 75(2).
The Bill has generally sought to avoid regulatory obligations on suppliers, and such prescriptions are better placed in guidance than in legislation. This ensures that a proportionate approach can be applied by both smaller local councils and large central government departments. The purpose of Amendment 412 is to broaden the evaluation of conflicts. We do not think that this is needed, as the Bill already includes the principle of integrity, in Clause 11.
Amendment 413 requires that suppliers declare, during the procurement process, whether they have given a donation or loan of more than £7,500 to a political party in a calendar year. This was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. UK electoral law already sets out a stringent regime of donation controls, which I am very familiar with. Donations from the same source that amount to over £7,500 in one calendar year are included. Donation reports are published online by the Electoral Commission for public scrutiny, providing an appropriate level of transparency. We do not see the need to add this to the Bill.
Amendments 421 and 423 concern former Ministers and civil servants. We certainly want to avoid the risks of individuals leaving the public sector and exploiting privileged access to contacts in government or sensitive information. To mitigate these risks, the Civil Service Management Code includes business appointment rules, which apply to all civil servants who intend to take up an appointment after leaving the Civil Service. They replace requirements on former civil servants which include standing aside from involvement in certain activities: for example, commercial dealings with their former department or involvement in particular areas of their new employer’s business.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. I absolutely accept the point about the change to civil servants’ arrangements. The example that I gave is outside the Civil Service, as would be many other contracts issued through this Bill when it becomes an Act. Can she assure me that every member of staff in any body or agency would be covered in the same way?
Lord Scriven (LD)
Before the Minister answers that, a number of times in my intervention I highlighted that there must be a standardisation not only for the Civil Service. Billions of pounds of procurement is carried out by non-central government departments. The rules need to be clear and uniform across the procurement process for the whole public sector, not just for government departments. That is a key issue and why many of these provisions need to be in the Bill, so that they are applicable to all public sector procurement bodies.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. I will not continue with the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, as it sounds as though the Committee is familiar with that. Having experienced it, I would say that it is quite effective.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
To take us back 30 seconds, to Amendment 413, about political donations over £7,500, I take the Minister’s point that yes, that register exists, but this amendment requires the supplier to take reasonable steps to make the declaration. If the supplier is not required to do that in their bid application, does that mean that every commissioning authority must add to their list of things to do, “Go and check the donations register every quarter to see what is happening”? Would not structuring it in this way make it much easier for the commissioning body?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I will start by trying to answer the point that the Civil Service has rules and this Bill is far wider in its application, which we accept. If we are too prescriptive in listing every relevant person in legislation, we may miss persons who should be considered. We think guidance provides a comprehensive list; Peers should see the guidance for commercial professionals in PPN 04/21, for example. As we have discussed in relation to other parts of the Bill, we have to have a combination of the Bill and guidance.
Lord Scriven (LD)
But this is the whole point of the Boardman review. By not having clear legislation and rules which are applicable across the public sector, we end up with things happening because they fall through the gaps. People in local government, for example, may not be aware of some of the guidance given to departments by central government, because it is not given to local government. It may be given to the ministry, but it does not necessarily filter down.
That is why we should have a standardised approach—which is not chilling. Then, regardless of whether you are in a local authority, the NHS, a central government body or an arm’s-length body, these are the rules on dealing with conflicts of interest. All that these amendments seek to put on the face the Bill is consistency across procurement in the public sector.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
To come back to how you do it, you can do things in guidance as well as in the Bill. I take the noble Lord’s point that consistency would be helpful, but I have explained that there can be difficulties. I will just add that transparency will be a fundamental pillar of the new regime, which I think we all support. Extended transparency requirements, a single digital platform and so on will mean that decisions and processes can be much more closely monitored in future.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
Could my noble friend help me on the legal effect of the Civil Service management rules? It is my understanding that they cannot actually be enforced in a court of law because it would act as a restraint on the individual’s ability to earn a living. So the rules might exist and there might be advisory bodies et cetera, but it has always been my understanding that they cannot actually be enforced in a court of law. I am not trying to speak for the amendment, but the advantage of it is that it creates a statutory basis for it to have legal effect.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, if I might try to assist, employment tribunals in the private sector have taken the view that you can have fairly tight, limited terms. I am sure that one of the reasons my noble friends Lord Wallace and Lord Scriven chose six months was that that is the sort of term that is acceptable.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I will look into the point about the Civil Service, but certainly people are very careful about the Civil Service rules when they leave. I say that as someone who left many years ago. The rules are observed by civil servants on the whole and we try to emphasise that. As has been said, what we are trying to do here is have a regime that covers not only the Civil Service but elsewhere. However, as always, my noble friend Lady Noakes has bowled a good ball, so I will look into that.
I turn now to Amendment 422, which proposes to introduce a power specifying how conflicts of interest are to be managed on a day-to-day basis. The Bill covers the plethora of organisations which make up the public sector and gives clear obligations on all contracting authorities to identify and mitigate their conflicts. It would not be wise to start dictating the implementation of such a process for each and every authority, so we do not think the power is right.
My noble friend Lady Noakes has spoken to Amendments 415 and 419 on the definition of a conflict of interest, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, came in helpfully too. I recognise that Clause 74 does not explicitly define “conflict of interest” as it does “Minister”, for example. However, Clause 74(2), combined with the definitions, does give conflict of interest a meaning, so it is correct to say elsewhere, as in Clause 75(5), that conflict of interest has the meaning given by Clause 74.
By inference, then, a conflict of interest is where a personal, professional or financial interest of a relevant person, as set out in Clause 74, could conflict with the integrity of the procurement. Essentially, this is where there is a risk that someone from the contracting authority, who is involved in the procurement, could benefit from taking a decision that might not be in the best interests of the contracting authority itself.
Finally, there is Amendment 417, which would remove Clause 76(4). I reassure my noble friend that the purpose of Clause 76(4) is to help, not hinder, contracting authorities. A perceived conflict, as provided for in Clause 76(4), is where a person might wrongly believe there to be a conflict when in fact no actual or potential conflict arises. We must obviously make sure that the public and suppliers are confident that the public sector is conducting its procurements in a fair and open way. We therefore need to consider what others may perceive about the procurement process. I have asked officials to look at the precise wording in Clause 76(4) to ensure that this is properly expressed and is not misleading. I hope that at this late hour my contributions have helped noble Lords to understand the balance that we are trying to draw and what we are trying to achieve. I respectfully request that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I thank the Minister. The Committee will have to give her 10 out of 10 for trying to explain, but we might not give as high a score on being convinced that she has alleviated some of our concerns.
Many noble Lords who have spoken on this group have tried to explain that the balance seems wrong. That is the issue in terms of conflicts of interest. The puzzling thing for all of us is that the Government agreed and accepted the Boardman recommendations, and some of them need to be in the Bill. Like other noble Lords, I accept that not all of them need to be, but some do.
These clauses have been written in haste. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, gave a definition. Clause 75(2) states:
“Reasonable steps may include requiring a supplier to take reasonable steps.”
So a reasonable step is a reasonable step. Unless the Government come back on Report with some serious amendments to this, I think we on these Benches will want to consult His Majesty’s loyal Opposition to see how we can strengthen this. As other noble Lords have said, this is really important in terms of the public’s perception and their trust that their taxes are being used in a way where no one gets an unfair advantage. That is what these amendments are about.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Clearly, trust is important and we are trying to do the right thing here. We are also trying to have a balance so that the interest provisions do not have a chilling effect. I said that right at the beginning. In any event, we are planning to have further meetings between now and Report, and it is something we should add to the agenda.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I hope the Minister has heard what I said; this is about getting the balance right. Certain things probably need to change and others might be referred to in guidance. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
(a) treat the supplier as an excluded supplier for the purpose of—(i) assessing tenders under section 18 (competitive award), or(ii) awarding a contract under section 40 or 42 (direct award), and(b) exclude the supplier from participating in, or progressing as part of, any competitive tendering procedure.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(b) a reference to a contracting authority receiving an invoice includes a reference to an invoice being delivered to an address specified in the contract for the purpose.”
Lord Lansley
“(3A) Regulations may only be made under this section in relation to international agreements which have been laid before Parliament under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.”
Lord Lansley (Con)
The lead Amendment 436 in this small group is in my name. These three clauses are about putting into the Bill a list of who the treaty state suppliers are. They introduce Schedule 9, which sets out that long list of countries with which we have international trade agreements that give rise to access to procurement opportunities for them here and us there.
Turning to Amendment 436, I do not disagree with the Government wanting to use secondary legislation to implement international trade agreements’ procurement requirements. I think that is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, because there will be a string of them, and amendments to them; changes to the general procurement agreement; and new agreements being entered into—all of which would lead to a tedious amount of primary legislation. Therefore, having secondary instruments is perfectly reasonable. As we will see later in the Bill, that the secondary instruments are subject to the affirmative procedure is also important.
We have to understand—I speak as a member of the International Agreements Committee—that there is a relationship between these processes and the scrutiny by Parliament. Essentially, treaties are laid under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. We then have a period of time in which to report to the House. I think our normal expectation is that the House would have an opportunity to look at any issues raised by the International Agreements Committee, in our case, either for information or for debate, before the point at which it is likely to have to decide whether there would be any reason to object to a draft of a statutory instrument of this kind. That would not be the case if the relevant agreement were not laid under CRaG. Noble Lords might say, “Surely they all are”, and indeed the reply from the Minister might be that they all will be. That would be a very useful thing for the Minister to say—I am not trying to lead the witness in advance—because they are not always.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord’s endeavours. He and I have debated with Ministers on many occasions the interaction between the CRaG process, our international negotiations and the regrettable times when there has been, to some extent, circumvention of that approach. Therefore, I am glad he has put forward his amendment to seek clarification, as he outlined.
I have Amendment 441 in this group, which is a probing amendment to test a little further the Government’s thinking about the interaction with treaty state suppliers. It is my understanding that the countries in the schedule are only those with which we have an agreement where there is a procurement chapter or some procurement elements. It has not entirely been spelt out; I will be grateful if the Minister can confirm that this is the case.
When I looked through those countries, I noticed that there is not a single country from Africa in any of these arrangements. It may be that none of the EPAs we have rolled over have procurement chapters. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked a question, and I ask the Minister whether that is the case. For example, in the SADC agreement, we have a chapter for co-operation which may lead to formal procurement agreements. I will be grateful if the Minister can simply clarify the reasons why those countries are in Schedule 9 and others were left out. It may lead to a couple of jarring interactions on the approach, but I am sure the Minister will be able to clarify that point.
My second question relates to our debates on the interaction between the UK system now, including guidance, and treaty state supplying nations. In a debate on Monday, I asked questions relating to exclusions. For example, on human trafficking and slave labour, why is it only a discretionary ground if a supplier would have met a threshold of having a prevention order, whereas if they had met the threshold of a conviction, it would be a mandatory exclusion ground? We in the All-Party Group on Human Trafficking and Modern Slavey have lobbied hard to ensure that, where there are serious allegations of modern slavery, forced labour or human trafficking, there are mechanisms that UK purchasing bodies and supply chains can automatically trigger. This could bring in some grey areas. I do not believe that is the Government’s intention, but it could be an unintended consequence, especially when it comes to very large frameworks and supply chains within those countries.
I will give an example regarding one of the countries in this list, Colombia. We have debated the human rights situation in Colombia with regard to the agreement we have signed. The EU paused the agreement, but the UK did not. There are very few mechanisms in this Bill where we can use the rest of the text of the Colombia agreement on human rights as a triggering mechanism when we procure from organisations or state enterprises in Colombia.
This is just my ignorance, so the Minister might be able to clarify this: are state-owned enterprises in treaty state countries treated the same as private sector companies? I assume they would be, but it opens up a different area of concern for me.
The second linked area is on human rights elements. We have an agreement, and are looking for future agreements, with Israel. The Minister will know that, under the European agreement that we have rolled over, there had been a clear dividing line when it came to the illegal occupation of Palestine. As I understand the Bill, when it comes to technology companies or other companies, it will be very hard for contracting bodies in the UK to consider whether services provided will meet the equivalent criteria for goods imports for those within the Occupied Territories. I would be happy if the Minister would write to me on that specifically, rather than give me a response at this moment.
There is a wider concern regarding this Bill when it comes to how a contracting authority would consider fair competition in procurement. On the Australia agreement, we debated whether produce that came from Australia that was manufactured or reared in different ways and on industrial scales provided unfair competition for UK suppliers. Australia also uses pesticides that are banned in the UK. There is an interesting clause in the Australia agreement that allows for those contracting bodies to
“take into account environmental, social and labour considerations throughout the procurement procedure”.
My amendment lifts text from the Australia agreement and suggests that this should be uniform across all agreements, if that is what the Government consider a gold-standard agreement, as they told us it was. The Australia agreement is broadly in line with what we inherited in the European directive, which had the requirement to take into account social criteria and environmental and labour factors. We have adopted that for the TCA, but it is absent for other treaty state suppliers.
For example, our agreement with Japan has no social or labour considerations in the procurement chapter in Article 10.9. I do not know why—that is a separate issue; we have debated the Japan agreement—but I have not been able to find any consistency in any of the treaty state suppliers. I understand that this Bill will then provide that consistency, and it will either be above or below treaty obligations, which I find curious. For example, unless my amendment is accepted by the Government and the Bill is changed, our legal requirements will be less than our treaty obligations in our Australia agreement. I do not know how that is going to operate when it comes to legal challenges.
It is also potentially the case that there will be inconsistency in application. I simply do not know how contracting bodies are going to navigate their way around this, especially as the Minister says so much is going to rely on guidance. In many of the areas, when it comes to the previous group that we were debating on conflict of interest and on other requirements in the Bill, a contracting authority will have to satisfy itself that the treaty supplier meets all of the criteria in this Bill. I do not know how it will do that when it comes to taking into consideration the other ethical factors or conflicts of interest—what are they going to ask a treaty supplier from Colombia, for example, unless there is some stronger mechanism?
The Minister might also help me with something that has been puzzling me. I do not know why, when it comes to operating no discrimination in relation to treaty state suppliers, that does not apply to Scotland. For Scotland, the Bill provides only that there “may” be regulations which mean that there cannot be discrimination. With the Government’s amendment requiring consistency with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, which means that there cannot be any internal discrimination, I do not how that is going to interact. The Bill currently allows Scottish Ministers, for example, to say that they will be able to discriminate against certain treaty state suppliers on the basis, perhaps, of the overall human rights record of that treaty state—of which Colombia or Israel may be an example. I do not know, so I am hoping that the Minister might be able to help me with that.
Finally, I am not sure how investigations will be carried out when it comes to treaty state suppliers. Of all the areas we discussed previously regarding the grounds for the investigations by the PRU, which the Minister said will be a non-statutory element that will pursue these, I do not know what powers the PRU will have to secure information from treaty state suppliers. There is no mechanism under this Bill, and unless the provision of information is provided for, as happened in the Australia agreement, I do not know how the PRU will get that information. On all those areas, I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me, because at the moment I am fearful that there is a rather high level of opaqueness.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 443A, in my name, to Clause 83. The amendment is, very simply, to leave out
“A Minister of the Crown”,
and its purpose is to remove the power from Ministers of the Crown to make regulations under Clause 83. It may be the case, because this relates especially to the situation in Scotland, that my noble friend the Minister is not able to reply this evening, so I would be very grateful if she could write to me, and I can then share that with the Law Society of Scotland, which has raised this matter with me.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, being aware of the hour, I will be extremely brief, but I just want to express support particularly for Amendment 441, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I think we have to look at this in the context of, as the Committee may be aware, the current movement in relation to the Energy Charter Treaty and the way in which increasing numbers of states—most recently France but also the Netherlands, Spain, Poland and Italy—have found that this treaty that they entered into years ago has really restricted their ability to act on the kind of environmental, social and labour matters identified here. It is really important that we do not bring in new laws that create further restrictions.
On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, there has been lots of criticism of the CRaG process and that it was essentially designed for long ago when trade treaties were something very different from what they are today. Just to illustrate that point, this morning I was with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for a visit of Canadian lawmakers. We learnt then, very interestingly, that Canada had wanted to include the issue of frozen pensions—the fact that the UK does not uprate its pensions for people in Canada while it does so for people in the United States. That is the kind of way in which trade deals can become far more complicated today. Unfortunately, on the account we heard this morning, the UK Government refused to countenance this being included in the trade deal, but it is really important that we see how broad trade deals can be today and that they have the maximum democratic scrutiny. That is what I think this amendment seeks to achieve.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 436, from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and to my noble friend’s Amendment 441. It is a pleasure to follow both of them.
I want to talk a bit about some of the problems that we face inside our own government structures and Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and I spent quite a bit of time earlier this year on the Health and Care Act. Indeed, there was a section in there about healthcare arrangements with other countries. But that was the end of a story, and at each stage from 2014 onwards we kept finding people trying to relax the EU directive on procurement rules, which we had to abide by then, in order to enlarge the gift that we could give under a treaty. For health, this is an extremely important matter.
The EU procurement directive, which governs all public sector procurement in member states, defines fair process and standards to ensure that all businesses, including the NHS, have fair competition for contracts. It also, incidentally, prevents conflicts of interest through robust exclusion rounds and protects against creeping privatisation. It is that latter point that is really important in particular for the NHS, but there are other sectors of the public realm where that matters too.
On 18 November 2014, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Livingston of Parkhead, whether the EU procurement directive protected the NHS. He replied:
“Commissioner de Gucht has been very clear:
‘Public services are always exempted ... The argument is abused in your country for political reasons.’”
The noble Lord, Lord Livingston, went on to say:
“That is pretty clear. The US has also made it entirely clear. Its chief negotiator—
this was in relation to TTIP—
said that it was not seeking for public services to be incorporated. No one on either side is seeking to have the NHS treated in a different way … trade agreements to date have always protected public services.”—[Official Report, 18/11/14; col. 374.]
Again in 2018, I raised these points with the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, in a debate and he said:
“I can tell them that we have implemented our obligations under the EU directive. The Government are absolutely committed that the NHS is, and always will be, a public service, free at the point of need”—
and the current Government repeat that point.
“It is not for sale to the private sector, whether overseas or here. That will be in our gift and we will not put that on the table for trade partners, whatever they say they want.”—[Official Report, 29/3/18; col. 947.]
That was very helpful because it came in advance of President Trump’s attempt to broaden what could be in a possible trade agreement, which would definitely have included health. Those of us who are concerned about these matters therefore relaxed a bit, until the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill came before your Lordships’ House, which was intended to replicate the reciprocal healthcare arrangements that we used to have under EHIC. The problem was that it had a clause that also gave rights under international trade agreements for health services to be part of those trade agreements, with no reference back to Parliament. It was an expedited process but, during the passage of that Bill, we managed to revert to it being just about reciprocal healthcare arrangements in the European Economic Area and Switzerland.
However, this year, we went through exactly the same process again when the Health and Care Bill was introduced, as it contained a much looser series of clauses that would have allowed health to become part of trade agreements. During the Bill’s passage, a cross-party group of Peers fought very hard and were really grateful that the Government recognised the risk that they were putting the NHS under and conceded. Now, the provisions under the Health and Care Act are the equivalent of EHIC but for other countries.
I wanted to raise these points because it seems to me that we must have Parliament’s involvement before things are signed and sealed. We also need to let those people who are negotiating our trade agreements understand where some of the clear red lines remain across Parliament—and certainly across this nation—for certain public services, including the NHS.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I shall be very brief, as time is ticking away. I start by saying that we completely support Amendment 436 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. It is really important to get proper reassurance and clarification in this area, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give that to us today.
We also absolutely support what Amendment 441, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is trying to do. Environmental, social and labour conditions are incredibly important when looking at who you are procuring with. The noble Lord introduced it very thoroughly, so I will not go into any further detail, but he is absolutely right that we need clarification on this.
One thing I have found with this Bill is that different bits are cross-referenced all the way through and, on occasion, I have got somewhat confused, to say the least. This might not be important at all but I ask for some clarification. Schedule 9 is on the various parties with which we have trade agreements, and we have been talking about trafficking, slavery, exploitation and so on, which are all mentioned in Schedule 7. We welcome the fact that Schedule 7 covers all these areas, but paragraph 2 of that schedule says that engaging in conduct overseas that would result in an order specified in paragraph 1—trafficking, exploitation, modern slavery and so on—if it occurred in the UK constitutes a discretionary ground for exclusion from procurement. Does that conduct overseas, as referred to in Schedule 7, cover anything that happens with procurement coming out of a trade agreement? That is what I do not understand. If it does, it alters what we have just been talking about. If it does, how does that operate and how is it enforced? Who manages it? If it does not, how do we address that when we are negotiating trade agreements in order to achieve the outcomes that we would all like to see? It may be that the Minister does not know and needs to talk to officials, but that is something on which I would like clarification.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, this group seeks to deal with amendments relating to treaty state suppliers. There are three minor government amendments either to improve the drafting or to ensure the proper functioning of the clauses, Amendments 438, 440 and 442. As the time is late, I will not go into detail, but I am happy to explain them to noble Lords on another occasion if they wish.
Amendment 436, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, proposes that regulations could be made only in relation to agreements that had been laid before Parliament under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. The use of regulations in the Procurement Bill in relation to implementing international agreements is limited to two circumstances. The first is to give effect to the procurement aspects of new trade agreements. For these, the Committee will know that treaties requiring ratification follow the established domestic scrutiny process set out in the CRaG Act. However, not all agreements will necessarily require ratification, and the amendment would place the implementation of such agreements outside the scope of this power. For the agreements that fall within the Act, the Committee will be aware that the Government have previously made commitments in our response to the International Agreements Committee, of which my noble friend is a prominent member, concerning the submission of international agreements to Parliament for scrutiny.
The second set of circumstances is to give effect to any changes to trade agreements over their lifetime. These are envisaged to be small technical changes, such as updating schedules following machinery-of-government changes or modifications to market schedules. In such circumstances, those more administrative matters may not trigger the CRaG procedures and, as such, the amendment would prevent them being implemented using this power. Any such updates and modifications would therefore require new primary legislation to implement, at a huge cost in time and resources. However, I reassure noble Lords that the Government intend to keep the relevant Select Committees aware of any changes during the life cycle of a free trade agreement.
Amendment 441, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Wallace, seeks to provide that a contracting authority does not discriminate against a treaty state supplier if it takes into account environmental, social and labour considerations and indicates in the notice of intended procurement or tender documentation how such considerations are defined. The impact of this would be that a contracting authority could, within the rules, apply environmental, social and labour considerations in a way that breached a treaty state supplier’s entitlement to no less favourable treatment, and that would risk breaching our international obligations. For example, if a contract can be delivered remotely from an overseas base, our obligations to ensure no less favourable treatment for treaty state suppliers mean that it would not be appropriate for a contracting authority to require socioeconomic or environmental criteria that could not be performed from overseas. However, I assure the Committee that the Bill as drafted allows contracting authorities to include social, environment and labour considerations when setting award criteria, as long as they are non-discriminatory.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful for that response. I struggle with the first part of what the Minister said because I lifted the wording from Articles 16 and 17 of the Australia agreement. If we have those obligations with Australia, how are we not able to provide that with all the other treaty state suppliers in the schedule where we do not have that language? Japan is lower than that, for example. I am struggling to understand why that would be the case. If she is reassuring me that the power provided by my amendment is already within the Bill, she has basically contradicted her own argument that we are not providing that to all the other countries. I do not understand.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The noble Lord’s question was why social considerations are not in the Japan agreement but they are in the Australia agreement. The answer is that every trade deal is unique. The noble Lord is trying to apply one principle to all trade deals.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
That is what the Government are doing. All the other requirements in the Bill are not in the trade agreements with other countries. That is the point that I was making. The Government are introducing a whole set of requirements under the Bill that are not in treaty obligations. I am just trying to say that it would be better if this were consistent.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The honest truth is that we seem to have a bit of a disagreement on this; maybe a bilateral discussion would be helpful. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, also raised a question on which we should have a further discussion; I will write to him on that on the points he was raising. We had advice from the people involved in trade agreements in preparing our response.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am very grateful for that offer. I am very happy for it to be multilateral rather than bilateral if that assists the Committee. If the Minister wants to make officials available for the discussion, I will be happy with that, or she may want to write to me in advance of that. It will be helpful if she is able to write to Members before we have a discussion, so that we get a bit more information from the Government first. I will then be more than happy to have the discussions with her about this before Report.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
That would be helpful. We can certainly look at Hansard and write a letter, but we should get together in the next 10 days or so to try to sort this out, because it is complicated—that was clear from being at the briefing.
The noble Lord asked one or two questions which I can clarify. Schedule 9 lists countries, states or regions with which we have an agreement that covers procurement —obviously, that is the purpose of that schedule. All the agreements in that schedule are binding; in contrast, obviously MoUs are not legally binding. On the Colombia agreement, any human rights obligations in the Andean trade agreement will have been reviewed by the CRaG process before it came into force—I think that was probably accepted—and the procurement chapter in trade agreements must be complied with unless these agreements are breached and coverage withdrawn.
Following that agreement with the noble Lord, I move on to Amendment 443A, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, which proposes to remove the power of a Minister of the Crown to make regulations under Clause 83. Under current drafting, either a Minister of the Crown or a Scottish Minister is entitled to make regulations to ensure that treaty state suppliers are not discriminated against in Scotland in relation to devolved procurement. The use of these concurrent powers would allow either the Minister of the Crown or a Scottish Minister to legislate with respect to devolved procurements in Scotland in order to implement new and existing international trade agreements. Similarly, concurrent powers were used in Section 2 of the Trade Act 2021. Of course, the power would not prevent Scottish Ministers legislating in respect of devolved procurements. However, in the event that they chose not to do so or if they wished, perhaps for reasons of efficiency, to allow a single set of regulations to implement a new trade agreement, this power would allow a Minister of the Crown to pass the necessary legislation. I should say that we continue to engage with the Scottish Government on this and other matters; your Lordships will have seen that the new Prime Minister has indeed spoken to the First Minister since his appointment.
I think we have probably debated this as much as we can this evening.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Can the Minister clarify the question around Schedule 7 or will we perhaps discuss that when we get together at the meeting?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think the greatest brains behind me have not managed to answer the noble Baroness’s question—she has bowled another good ball. Perhaps we can add that to the list for our discussions.
With that, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, only 110 amendments to go, so, with the benefit of that promise of further discussions, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 436.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(3A) In this section, a reference to a supplier’s association with a state includes a reference to the fact that the state is the place of origin of goods, services or works supplied by the supplier.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
(b) a transferred Northern Ireland authority.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Data protection
(1) This Act does not authorise or require a disclosure of information that would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether a disclosure would do so, take into account the powers conferred and the duties imposed by and under this Act).(2) In this section “the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(4A) A contracting authority’s duty to comply with section 12(9) or 13(8) (requirement to have regard to procurement policy statements) is not enforceable in civil proceedings under this Part.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(6) See sections 49 and 71 for provision about standstill periods.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(A1) A supplier must commence any specified set-aside proceedings before the earlier of—(a) the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which the supplier first knew, or ought to have known, about the circumstances giving rise to the claim;(b) the end of the period of six months beginning with the day the contract was entered into or modified.”
“(a) in the case of specified set-aside proceedings, the end of the period referred to in subsection (A1)(b), and(b) in any case,”
“(7) In this section, “specified set-aside proceedings” means proceedings under section 93(2) to—(a) set aside a public contract in circumstances where the contracting authority did not publish a contract details notice in respect of the contract in accordance with section 51, or(b) set aside a modification of a contract.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
““section 97 recommendation” has the meaning given in section 97”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(3) In subsection (2), the reference to relevant guidance is a reference to guidance that could, in light of Part 11, be addressed to the contracting authority.”
Lord Wigley
Lord Wigley (PC)
I congratulate the Deputy Chairman of Committees on that “Just a Minute” miracle. I will speak to Amendment 491 standing in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.
We return to the question of the relationship of Wales to the rest of the provisions of the Bill, which we touched on way back in May or June. It was certainly a very long time ago. A certain amount of water has gone down the river since then, but none the less, the representations made by the Welsh Government to the UK Government at that time, as well as to those of us serving on this Committee, are still matters that need to be finally aired before we move out of Committee.
I note, as it is relevant to Amendment 491, that the Government did not move Amendment 490. If I am right in my understanding of that, the content which Amendment 491 seeks to amend is not changed. Amendment 491 therefore stands in relation to the Bill as it was originally formulated. I am grateful for that clarification.
The Welsh and UK Governments have, by and large, worked very closely together on the Bill, and there has been quite a close meeting of minds and a considerable amount of harmony. However, there is one matter which the Welsh Government have raised with us. The Minister concerned is seeking an amendment to the definition of the WCAs, with a view to ensuring that the clauses work more fairly in relation to some cross-border procurements—single procurements which relate to both Wales and England. The Minister in Cardiff wrote to the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency on 18 May, raising this question, and discussions thereafter took place. None the less, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no amendment to the Bill that has met the question about procurement relating solely to Wales or of whether it should read, in the words of Amendment 491, “wholly or mainly”.
We are talking about the awarding of
“a contract for the purpose of exercising a function wholly in relation to Wales”.
The question is whether we put in “wholly or mainly” relating to Wales. That amendment is needed for the Bill to work effectively. One only has to think of certain of the procurements that the Welsh Government, or an agency on their behalf, are making, which may be having an effect both in Wales and over the border. One thinks of procurement in relation to water and rivers, for example, where the river runs from Wales to England. Quite clearly, in making a procurement one cannot be absolutely certain whether the product or service that is being procured relates solely to Wales, or to Wales and England. One thinks of certain aspects of the health services along the borders where that again will arise.
It seems sensible to put in the words “or mainly” to ensure that the Welsh Government, or anyone else who is concerned with this, do not get caught in a tangle about what is covered by the Bill and what is not.
Given that there has been such a close working relationship between the Welsh and UK Governments on this matter, I am surprised that there has not been a meeting of minds. If there has been some non-legislative agreement that has covered this, that we may not know about in this Committee, I would be glad if that was pointed out. I am not speaking to the other amendments in this group because they do not seem to be dealing with the same point. I would be glad to have the Minister’s response in relation to Amendment 491. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, these are different subjects, and before we turn to how regulations are to be agreed, I will turn to Amendment 527. It might be helpful if colleagues, if they have a moment, look at Schedule 11. Clause 107 sets out in Schedule 11 the repeals of legislation resulting from this legislation. The third item under “Primary legislation” says:
“An Act of Parliament resulting from the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill that was introduced into the House of Commons on 11 May 2022.”
My amendment relates to whether it would be appropriate for the whole of that piece of legislation to be repealed if it were amended in the other place or in this House. As it stands at the moment, the Bill implements the procurement chapters of the two agreements. They will be implemented by their being added to Schedule 9. That is absolutely fine—it is not the issue. The issue is if the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill is amended. It was not amended in Committee in the other place, but there is an amendment down on Report in the other place in the name of Nick Thomas-Symonds, for the Official Opposition, which adds a clause that says:
“The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters within twelve months of the coming into force of Regulations made under section 1 of this Act and every three years thereafter.”
It probably will not be passed, but let us say for the sake of argument that an impact assessment was passed here—or an impact assessment or report on the impact was required here in relation to the Australia and New Zealand trade agreements more generally—into the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act. I think either House would then expect it to happen. However, it would probably not happen because the Procurement Bill will become the Procurement Act, and when it comes into force it would repeal the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act and all that is in it, regardless of whether it has been amended.
The point of my Amendment 527 is to repeal the provisions of the Act resulting from the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill in so far as they were included in the Bill at its introduction. Therefore, if there is an amendment, it would not be repealed by virtue of this provision. That is the question. We are at the stage of having further conversations, and I would be very happy to have further conversations with my noble friends about this matter before we get to Report.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
I will speak reasonably briefly to Amendment 491 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, to which I have added my name. I thank the noble Lord for outlining the reasons for this amendment so clearly. I reiterate my thanks to the Cabinet Office and its civil servants, which I expressed earlier in Committee, for their constructive and positive engagements with Welsh officials. I know they have worked closely to ensure that Welsh policy objectives have been included in the Bill.
The issues that Amendment 491 highlights arise in Clause 99 and have been the subject of discussion between the two parties for some time. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I understand that the Welsh Minister for Finance and Local Government wrote to the Minister for Brexit Opportunities on 18 May to ask the UK Government to consider an amendment to the Bill to address her concerns. I hope that in the intervening five months, some agreement has been reached between the two parties.
As the noble Lord pointed out, this is a probing amendment designed to tease out, first, the problems that arise from the definition of Welsh contracting authorities and, secondly, the issue of ensuring that both clauses work more fairly in relation to some cross-border procurements. The definition of Welsh contracting authorities initially proposed by the UK Government was that of a “devolved Welsh authority”, as defined in the Government of Wales Act 2006. However, as the Welsh Government have pointed out, that does not accurately reflect all the contracting authorities in Wales that should be on the list of Welsh contracting authorities. Clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill now set out a broader definition of a devolved Welsh authority. However, there is still a concern that the breadth of contracting authorities that are not DWAs within the GoWA definition, but are to be treated as DWAs for the purpose of the Bill when they carry out a cross-border procurement, does not go far enough.
My real concern is about Clause 99(3)(b)(i), which provides for those contracting authorities that are to be treated as DWAs for the purpose of the Bill and bound by the Welsh rules where the authority is awarding a contract for the purpose of exercising a function wholly in relation to Wales—the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, raised—but not for any other procurements, including cross-border ones. That word, “wholly”, means that the Welsh Government play no part in this. Ultimately, this means that, even if 90% of a cross-border procurement is for use in Wales, the English elements of the rules would apply. To me, that smacks a little of the lion wanting to take the lion’s share.
We on these Benches agree with the fairer and more pragmatic approach suggested by the Welsh Government: to follow Regulation 4 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 for mixed procurements. This would allow for cross-border contracts to be procured depending on the main geographical location of the contract; on which financial value was the highest; or on where the majority of the services, goods or works were being delivered. The Welsh Government have suggested that, where more than half of the procurements are to be delivered in Wales, the Welsh procurement rules should apply. They contend that, in the event of a 50/50 split, the English rules should apply. The insertion of the words “or mainly” following “wholly” in Clause 99(3)(b)(i) would achieve this end.
These proposals by the Welsh Government seem reasonable and fair. They would redress the balance between the two parties on cross-border procurement, and are supported by the Lib Dem Benches. I look forward to the Minister updating us on where officials are with these issues and hope that the spirit of positivity and co-operation that has characterised the negotiations on this Bill extends to the issues in Clause 99.
Lord Fox (LD)
Coming from Herefordshire as I do, I comment on matters Welsh with great trepidation. I commend the two previous speakers on this amendment. If the Minister could see common sense in what they have said and sort out the situation, that would leave the Welsh Government in a very comfortable place. I do not like to speak for the Welsh Government but that is my understanding of it.
Amendment 527 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, looks as if it ought to have been in the previous group. It sounded like he was describing the special case of the problem set out by my noble friend Lord Purvis; it therefore seems to me that he should be part of that future meeting. Indeed, that special case should be covered in the Minister’s letter before we have the meeting so that we can take it forward. That would be the sensible way.
Two amendments have my name on them: Amendments 529 and 531. The Minister will be glad to hear that I am not going to speak at length on either except to say that they are on a subject she has spoken to, as I noted on Monday when I welcomed her to her new role, because the Executive taking power over the legislature is something on which she has spoken many times. I have spoken about it at length during the passage of lots of other Bills because it is something we get time and again.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I will be brief. First, let me say that we absolutely support Amendment 491, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which raises a very real concern. It strikes me that his amendment is quite simple and practical, and would easily resolve the concerns that the Welsh Government have here. It does not seem that it would be onerous for the Government here in Westminster so I hope that there will be some real consideration of it ahead of Report.
We also support the two amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Again, it seems that this is the right way to go about making legislation, and we support them.
When I was looking at Amendment 527 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I had a vague thought that this had been discussed before, but Second Reading seems such a long time ago now. I picked up my scribbled-on copy of the Bill and looked at the relevant bit. I had highlighted it and written, “See Lord Lansley, Second Reading”, so it clearly had an impact on me. It struck me what he said at that stage; thinking about it since, I completely understand where he was coming from and believe that he is correct in what he says. This is something that needs sorting out. Otherwise, we are going to end up in a bit of a pickle, to be honest. Again, it would be good if this could be ironed out before we get to Report.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I should say at the outset that it appears from the debate and earlier conversations we have had in Committee that this is rather a work in progress. Conversations with the Welsh Government continue and we appreciate the collaborative nature of those discussions. I just thought I would put that on the record before I start on the formal part of my speaking notes.
This group seeks to deal with amendments relating to regulations. First, I will briefly address the government amendments in this group. There are three of them: Amendments 496, 518 and 533, all of which are minor technical amendments to optimise precision in meaning or cross-referencing to other legislation.
Amendment 491, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, seeks to extend further the competence granted under the Bill to Welsh Ministers to exercise powers in respect of certain Welsh authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, mentioned the example of rivers; I note that housing associations could be another, as they may be funded by the Welsh Government but operate across borders. We are cognisant of the various issues this could give rise to.
Clause 99(3) already sets out that, in addition to the authorities whose procurement is within devolved competence under the Government of Wales Act, certain cross-border bodies exercising functions predominantly in Wales should fall under the regulatory control of the Welsh Government when—and only when—they are awarding a contract wholly in relation to Wales. This is an extension of the position in the Government of Wales Act.
This amendment would further extend regulatory control to cover cross-border bodies in respect of contracts for the purpose of exercising a function mainly in respect of Wales, as well as wholly. Noble Lords will be aware that we have worked very closely with the Welsh Government throughout the development of this Bill. The position on cross-border bodies was developed at the request of the Welsh Government to accommodate a small number of Welsh authorities which carry out limited operations in England. It is not unreasonable to provide that where a cross-border body carries out a procurement which extends across borders the rules for reserved procurements should apply. However, I reassure noble Lords that we will continue to work through all outstanding issues in discussion with the Welsh Government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, went further on the Bill seemingly allowing English procurement rules to take precedence over Welsh laws. That is not the intention of the Bill. These are not English rules but UK rules, and it is not unreasonable, as I have said, to provide that where a procurement by a cross-border body extends across borders, reserved rules apply. In this Bill, we feel that we have gone beyond the position settled in the Government of Wales Act 2006 and reinforced in the Wales Act 2017, where competence for procurement was specifically addressed. This Bill confers greater powers on the Welsh Ministers. As I have said, conversations continue between the two Governments and I am sure that we will find a resolution.
Amendment 527 limits the repeal of the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill to those provisions in the Bill at its introduction, so does not apply to any amendments made to that legislation during its parliamentary passage. My noble friend Lord Lansley has already drawn the Committee’s attention to an amendment on Report in the other place. Any amendments made by the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill will be in relation to the existing procurement regulations to ensure that they are compliant with the Australia and New Zealand free trade agreements. That will allow the UK to bring those agreements into force before the regime established under this Bill comes into force.
When this Bill comes into force it will ensure our continued compliance with these and other trade agreements. At that point, the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act will no longer be necessary and can be repealed. This does not in any way diminish the merits of debating the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill or the importance of any regulations made under it, which will ensure compliance with the procurement provisions of those free trade agreements until this Bill comes into force.
We do not believe that the amendment of this provision is currently necessary, but if amendments are adopted in the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill, we will reconsider the position. We have all agreed that we will add that to the list of discussion topics with the noble Lords opposite as well.
Finally, Amendments 529 and 531, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Fox, would have the effect of requiring the super-affirmative procedure to be used for the first set of regulations under Clause 110(4)(a) to 110(4)(r). The super-affirmative procedure has its place, but it must be used in appropriate and proportionate circumstances. It is not appropriate or proportionate for this exceptional procedure in this case. These regulations are uncontroversial. While I recognise that some are Henry VIII powers, they address matters that are predominantly administrative by nature. They are not sufficiently controversial or significant to merit the disproportionate use of parliamentary time inherent in the super-affirmative procedure. An example would be specifying the content of particular forms that needed to be filled out which contracting authorities must complete, and when authorities provide information to the marketplace about contractual requirements.
Finally, I remind noble Lords that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not suggest any need for the super-affirmative procedure, which should give some reassurance. I therefore respectfully request that these amendments be withdrawn.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her response to this debate. I am sure that my Liberal Democrat friends will be happy with the assurances that they have been given of further discussion on the other amendments. On the basis of the commitment given by the Minister to seek an agreement with the Welsh Government on this matter, and that discussions are still ongoing, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 491.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(7) For the purposes of subsection (6), a part of a contract is to be treated distinctly if—(a) single source contract regulations contain provision to that effect, or(b) the parties to the contract agree that it should.”
“(ea) in new step 3, before “Any increase” insert “In specifying provisions of the contract or component, the Secretary of State must comply with any requirements imposed by the regulations, and”;”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, this final group deals with amendments on VAT. The Government’s Amendment 536 simply broadens the notion of amounts payable to include amounts that have already been paid, as contracting authorities may be required to take into account expected or completed payments.
I turn to Amendments 537 and 538. With the agreement of the Committee—I have agreed this with my noble friend Lady Noakes, whose amendments they are—I will reply to her later.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My gift to the Committee is not to make an extended speech on the subject of value added tax. I know that many noble Lords would like to hear that, but we have expedited procedure and my noble friend the Minister will respond instead.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes, who, as usual, has come to the rescue. She raised the question of whether VAT should be taken into account when calculating the value of a concession contract. I confirm that, when a contracting authority values a concession contract, it should calculate the maximum amount the supplier could expect to receive. I thank my noble friend for raising whether this policy intent is adequately covered in the current drafting of Clause 111 and will give this careful consideration ahead of Report.
My noble friend Lady Noakes also asks why the formulation
“any amount referable to VAT”
has been used in Clause 111(2). Amendment 538 proposes to remove the words
“a reference to any amount referable to”.
As I understand it, the amendment does not aim to change the effect of the clause. Rather, the intent is to rationalise the drafting. I assure noble Lords that the proposed edits have been carefully considered and the existing wording is thought to be better suited to achieving the desired policy outcome.
I therefore respectfully request that these amendments be withdrawn. I will move the other government amendments in my name but, before I sit down, I thank our Deputy Chair of Committees and the Committee for their patience and good humour with the large number of government amendments. We will try to keep up our good record of government engagement and do better on the number of amendments.
Lord Fox (LD)
I would just like to congratulate the Minister on the smooth transition from Back-Bench jabs to Front-Bench defence. We look forward to seeing the reprinted version of the Bill so that we can start to track where all these amendments have gone and what they do. We also look forward to the meetings we will be having to sort these matters out.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
requirements | section 18” |
“utilities dynamic market Utility | section 35 section 35” |
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Newlove) (Con)
My Lords, that concludes the Committee’s proceedings on the Bill.
Procurement Bill [HL]
Monday 28th November 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 63-II Second marshalled list for Report - (28 Nov 2022)
16:53 - Division on Amendment 3 (to Amendment 2) - Ayes: 196 / Noes: 183 - Amendment 3 (to Amendment 2) agreed.
19:44 - Division on Amendment 46 - Ayes: 163 / Noes: 162 - Amendment 46 agreed.
19:57 - Division on Amendment 47 - Ayes: 165 / Noes: 150 - Amendment 47 agreed.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Procurement and covered procurement
(1) In this Act—(a) “procurement” means the award, entry into and management of a contract;(b) “covered procurement” means the award, entry into and management of a public contract.(2) In this Act, a reference to a procurement or covered procurement includes a reference to—(a) any step taken for the purpose of awarding, entering into or managing the contract;(b) a part of the procurement;(c) termination of the procurement before award.(3) In this Act, a reference to a contracting authority carrying out a procurement or covered procurement is a reference to a contracting authority carrying out a procurement or covered procurement—(a) on its own behalf, including where it acts jointly with or through another person other than a centralised procurement authority, and(b) if the contracting authority is a centralised procurement authority—(i) for or on behalf of another contracting authority, or(ii) for the purpose of the supply of goods, services or works to another contracting authority.(4) In this Act, “centralised procurement authority” means a contracting authority that is in the business of carrying out procurement for or on behalf of, or for the purpose of the supply of goods, services or works to, other contracting authorities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would distinguish between “procurements” and “covered procurements”, the latter relating specifically to public contracts, so that provision in the Bill can be more clearly applied to one or the other, and consolidate certain definitions previously found elsewhere.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, as we begin Report, I start by thanking noble Lords for their contributions in Committee, and for the lively debate there. For those in the House coming to it fresh today, I say that this is an important Bill which follows two years of hard work and preparation, which I have the honour of taking over from my noble friend Lord True, who now leads this House.
Each year, £300 billion is spent on public procurement and we seek to make it quicker, simpler, more transparent and better able to meet the UK’s needs than the current patchwork of former EU rules, while remaining compliant with our international obligations. There will be a central Cabinet Office online platform to bring in new players, to improve value for money and to accelerate spending with SMEs. There will also be a comprehensive training programme for those involved in all the new rules and conventions—for example, on managing conflicts of interest. It is, however, a very technical Bill, and I am sorry that we had to withdraw a number of government amendments tabled in Committee to allow further discussion. This was largely successful, so we will come first to a number of amendments in my name, most of which were withdrawn on day one in Committee. As we go through, there will be further technical amendments and other amendments to respond to points made in Committee, notably to stimulate economic growth and to reduce burdens on SMEs. I thank noble Lords for their patience with the sheer number of amendments.
Amendment 1 and the amendments consequential on it introduce new technical definitions of “procurement” and “covered procurement”. I know these concepts caused some concern in Committee, so I will try to clarify matters. “Covered procurement” means those procurements that are covered by the vast majority of the provisions in the Bill. They are mostly procurements by contracting authorities, above the relevant thresholds for goods, services and works, which are not exempted from the Bill. These are the procurements which most of us will have had in mind during our deliberations in Committee.
However, the Bill also covers some aspects of procurements which go beyond this, which is why we have a wider definition of “procurement”, meaning any procurement. That allows the Bill to make some limited provision in relation to matters such as below-threshold procurements—for example, in Part 6—and notably to comply with international rules or certain treaties. I understand that the term “covered procurement” may seem unusual, but it is one included in our international procurement agreements, including the GPA—the WTO agreement on government procurement—and familiar to the procurement community.
Amendment 1, and a number of other government amendments, streamline fundamental concepts that are relied on throughout the Bill and will improve the readability and consistency of the legislation. Amendments 2, 5 and 6 recast the definition of “contracting authorities” to ensure that the right bodies are covered. We are committed to a definition that is broadly consistent in effect with both the existing regulatory scheme and with our international commitments under free trade agreements. Feedback from our ongoing dialogue with stakeholders has indicated that the effect of certain wording differences could lead to some bodies being incorrectly brought within, or excluded from, the scope of the rules. I am grateful for these views, particularly those from the Local Government Association, as they will help to ensure correct application. I am also grateful for its constructive approach to the Bill, which represents a big change for its members, and we appreciated its input.
The amended definition removes the reference to
“functions of a public nature”,
as this does not align with the existing definition. It makes clear that the notion of contracting authority oversight can include oversight by more than one authority. Lastly, it ensures that certain bodies that are publicly owned but operate commercially can operate outside the procurement regime.
Amendment 187 ensures that educational establishments are fully and appropriately excluded from the rules on below-threshold contracts, as well as those relating to implied payment terms in public contracts, payment compliance notices and reporting on payments made under public contracts. This mirrors the approach taken in the current procurement rules and ensures that burdens on low-value contracts in the education area are applied in a proportionate fashion. Amendments 98 to 102, 117, 119, 191, 193, 197, 201 and 202 are consequential.
Amendments 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 provide direction to contracting authorities when a mixed contract involves two or more different elements which could each classify it as a “special regime” contract. We expect that such situations will be rare, but could arise occasionally. Our amendments clarify which regime will apply to their mixed contracts in such circumstances by discouraging unrelated requirements being combined in one procurement. I hope that sentence is clear. More importantly, we must also ensure that the rules concerning mixed contracts are compliant with our international trade agreement obligations.
This group also includes other minor changes, including Amendment 7, which ensures that thresholds are applied properly to frameworks, and Amendment 8, which ensures that frameworks for the future award of exempted contracts only are also exempt. Frameworks involving a mixture of elements covered by both the Bill and the forthcoming healthcare procurement regulations will be subject to the same basic tests as set out in Clauses 4 and 9 on mixed contracts, which determine which rules will apply. This is important to prevent abuse of the exemption provisions; it also includes Amendment 185, which corrects a mistaken reference to a power for Northern Ireland departments, which unfortunately does not exist.
Amendment 170 is a technical adjustment to Clause 111 to make it clear that any regulations made to disapply the Bill to procurements in scope of the forthcoming healthcare procurement regulations can be made whether or not the procurement regulations are yet in force. Finally, Amendments 194, 195 and 196 amend the index of defined expressions in Clause 115.
I thank noble Lords for their patience, and will turn to the amendments tabled by other noble Lords when I have heard from them. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 3 and 173. I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord True, for responding to my questions, in private meetings but also at previous stages of the Bill, about why the NHS is treated differently from every other part of the public procurement sector covered by the Bill. The problem is that I have not yet heard a clear answer to that; nor, indeed, did those noble Lords who took part in the Health and Care Act during its time here get a clear answer from the Health Minister as to why this was proposed. More recently, in Committee, the Minister said that it was because only clinical services would be covered by these special arrangements for the NHS. I will come in a minute to the reasons for my concerns that that is not the case, but I start by saying very simply that Amendment 3 puts the NHS in the Bill, in the definition of a public body that has to observe the details of regulation under the Bill.
Moving on to the practical problems, the key issue is what is said in the National Health Service Act 2006 and the Health and Care Act 2022, which attempts to amend it. The specific amendment has not been enacted yet, but we can all assume, with the permission of the House, that it is this Bill that is holding that up. The Health and Care Act adds new Section 12ZB to the National Health Service Act, which says:
“Regulations may make provision in relation to the processes to be followed and objectives to be pursued … in the procurement of (a) health care services … and (b) other goods or services”.
The problem is that the new section goes on to say:
“Regulations under subsection (1) must, in relation to the procurement of all health care services … make provision for the purposes of ensuring transparency; ensuring fairness; ensuring that compliance can be verified; managing conflicts of interest”.
That is a very different bar of compliance than the Government want to see for every other part of the public sector covered by the Bill. At the strategic level, it will be enormously helpful to understand why the Government feel it is appropriate for the NHS not to be included, but my practical problem is that we have relied somewhat on the assurances of Ministers at the Dispatch Box that only clinical services would be caught by the new SIs under the Health and Care Act and the NHS Act 2006. I have just read out the parts that show that is absolutely not the case. In fact, there is a catch-all in “other goods or services”. So, while we spent a little time in Committee trying to discuss where the boundaries are, it seems to me that there are no such boundaries, and that leaves me very greatly concerned about how this will work in practice.
I have tabled Amendment 173 because if Amendment 3 is carried, Clause 111 is not needed. There is also an argument that if, for any reason, Amendment 3 is not carried, Amendment 173 will stand in its own right, but the two are inextricably linked. These two amendments are saying that the NHS should be covered in the Bill. I end by saying to the Minister that, despite the many amendments from noble Lords all around the House, I think everyone agrees that the Bill is better than the procurement arrangements we have had in the past, particularly in attempting to get transparency and accountability. The problem is that the arrangements for the NHS are not visible; they are SIs at the discretion of any Secretary of State for Health, and we have not even seen those in draft yet. I hope the Minister can give me some very clear reassurances or explanations, otherwise I may have to test the opinion of the House later.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 3 and 17 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. In so doing, I echo what she said about how this Bill is better than the place we started from. Having spoken at Second Reading and in Committee and attended the meeting that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, kindly organised so that we could learn more about the intricacies and granular detail of the Bill, I commend the Government for what they are trying to do. Although, I will give some painful examples to the House in support of what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, just said, I totally exempt the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord True, with whom I had a number of meetings in the run-up to the presentation of this Bill in the House. They have both been exemplary as Ministers.
The noble Baroness and I have been in correspondence over the weekend about some of the points I am about to raise. The reforms outlined by the Government are based on what I think are laudable principles of public procurement set out in the Green Paper. They are value for money, public good, transparency, integrity, equal treatment and non-discrimination. I urge noble Lords to keep them in mind as I proceed through my remarks.
Ministers have told us that streamlined new procedures will mean better commercial outcomes that deliver more value for money for taxpayers. This amendment would ensure that those public interest principles also extend to the National Health Service, as I believe they should. The NHS should not be regarded as a side issue or of little consequence, as it were. It should be within the same remit. In the year before Covid—2018-19—the DHSC spent around £70 billion on procurement in England, up from £68.3 billion in the previous year. Spending on health is far and away the most significant area of government procurement spending. It is more than three times defence spending. Around £18 billion is spent on medicine and, coming to a point that the noble Baroness made in her remarks a few moments ago, nearly £6 billion per year is spent on hospital consumables, which include gloves and syringes.
During Covid, vast sums were spent on procuring PPE. I have made a point regularly in your Lordships’ House, as other noble Lords have done, particularly from the Opposition Front Bench, about the kind of PPE that we have been buying from overseas, especially from the People’s Republic of China. The House of Commons Library, in a note published earlier this year, said that current estimates of the total cost of Covid to the Government range from about £310 billion to £410 billion, the equivalent of about £4,600 to about £6,100 per person in the United Kingdom. The portion of this spent by the Department of Health was put at £75.3 billion. Gross spending on public sector procurement increased by £53 billion, or 17%, between 2019 and 2021. Most of this increase was due to a £43 billion increase in health spending—a rise of 44%—and it is estimated that contracts for £14.6 billion were awarded for PPE.
I understand the argument that the Government have made on a number of occasions about the urgency of the public health crisis and that many public procurement procedures were expedited. In some cases, those procedures resulted in suppliers being chosen without the contract being put out to tender or otherwise advertised. I hope that part of the purpose of the Bill is that we have better procedures in place should another pandemic occur. Concern about how this was done led to a debate in the Commons on 21 June 2021 on a petition calling for a public inquiry into government contracts granted during Covid-19. Since the Minister will have seen the outrage in the Commons last week about profiteering from unusable PPE and widespread concern about politically connected companies benefiting from government contracts, I hope she will feel able today to respond to specific questions, some of which I asked in your Lordships’ House in January and March this year, during Committee and Report on the Health and Care Bill, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton referred. I refer the House to col. 635 on 1 January and col. 1032 on 3 March.
Even before that, on 13 December 2021, I asked
“whether any … person, or … organisation, will be censured for defaults involving the 47 VIP public contracts for facemasks and surgical gowns; and what steps they have taken in connection with defaults associated with their contract with PPE MedPro.”
I referred the House to a report in the Daily Telegraph which stated:
“Ministers handed almost £150m to Chinese firms with links to alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang amid a race to PPE after Covid hit.
The Health Department paid £122m to Winner Medical, which uses cotton produced by a supplier that works in the controversial region”.
That is in Xinjiang, where it is said that a million Muslims are incarcerated and where the former Prime Minister, Liz Truss, said that a genocide is under way. It continued:
“Another £19m contract went to pharmaceutical firm China Meheco and £16.5m was paid to Sinopharm, both of which have been linked to labour programmes in the province.”
In Committee I specifically asked about a Guardian report concerning Medpro, and on 19 January I was repeatedly told that details about PPE contracts are “considered commercially sensitive”. I have never been able to understand—this goes right to the heart of the noble Baroness’s amendment—why the Treasury could account for the £4.3 billion lost in fraud under the Covid support scheme but was unable to justify or identify the loss on PPE.
Even worse, I was told, “we have no plans to censure a single individual or organisation”. In January I asked why not, and I ask the same question again today. In January I was told that the Government are seeking to recover moneys paid to PPE Medpro in relation to a contract for the provision of gowns. It would be helpful for the House to know more about the remit of the public inquiry into Covid 19, chaired by my noble and learned friend Lady Hallett, and whether it will deal in detail with procurement under the terms of reference, especially in the sections dedicated to preparedness and our economic response.
Perhaps the noble Baroness could establish whether it will examine the concerns raised by the National Audit Office: first, the potential unequal treatment of suppliers in procurement processes; secondly, poor procurement practice due to procuring at speed—for example, retrospective contract awards, a lack of documentation on key procurement decisions and a lack of documentation on the management of potential conflicts of interest; and thirdly, lack of transparency over what contracts were awarded and how. We must not allow the concerns raised by the National Audit Office to happen all over again, and these amendments help us to do that.
But there are continuing challenges which need a response too. I was shocked to learn that we bought £1 billion-worth of lateral flow tests from the People’s Republic of China and spent around £10 billion of taxpayers’ money in the PRC on over 20 million items of PPE. Some 24.1 billion items have a country of origin recorded as China, including 10.7 billion gloves. This raises a lot of questions about dependency—lessons which you might have thought we had learned after Germany’s experiences with Putin—but it also raises questions about national resilience. Why could things such as this not have been manufactured here? Indeed, companies in this country that tried to get contracts, and which are capable of manufacturing these things, have told me that they could not even get into the competitive system because we suspended it. If nothing else, this begs a lot of questions about why such things could not be made in the UK.
I was also shocked to learn—I repeat this because I thought it almost unbelievable until I saw it revealed in a parliamentary reply in another place—that we have a further 120 million items of PPE that are still in China, and which it is costing taxpayers some £770 million each and every single day to keep there. I repeat: £770,000 each and every day to keep them—
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
The millions and the thousands can multiply very rapidly in this debate. I apologise, but I think you get the point. It is over £20 million in the course of a year—£770,000 each and every single day.
I gave the noble Baroness notice of my intention to ask about this. Who authorised those acquisitions? Who decided that they should stay there? How much has it cost to date to store these items? How much has been budgeted to keep them in store at that cost of £770,000 every day, and for how long will they be stored? How much of the PPE that has been bought has proved to be defective and unusable? I would also like to know, first, how the Government intend to report the money returned to public funds by defaulting PPE suppliers through the actions of the faulty contract PPE recovery unit. Secondly, individual settlements are protected by commercial secrecy, so how will Parliament and the public be notified about money returned to public funds by defaulting PPE suppliers through the actions of the faulty contract PPE recovery unit? Thirdly, how do the Government intend to provide transparency and accountability in relation to money returned to public funds by defaulting PPE suppliers through the actions of the faulty contract PPE recovery unit?
It is clear that the NHS should be subject to far greater scrutiny, transparency and accountability. For all those reasons, I support Amendments 3 and 173 spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which include the NHS in the definitions of a public authority for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton. When he speaks about the frailty of the NHS supply chain—I must declare my past presidency of the Health Care Supply Association—I am sure he is absolutely right to put these penetrating questions to the Minister.
I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 171 and 172, but I also want to speak to Amendments 3 and 173 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. She has rightly pointed to the potential confusion between two pieces of legislation in relation to the National Health Service and the procurement regime that it is to adopt in the future. The difficulty is compounded because, of course, we have not seen the draft regulations in relation to Clause 111, nor have we seen the draft regulations in relation to the amendment made in the Health and Care Act 2022 to the National Health Service Act 2006, after Section 12ZA. The 2022 Act gave huge powers to Ministers to establish their own procurement regime through regulations.
Clearly, there is every potential for confusion as to how these two sets of legislation are to work together, particularly if only NHS clinical services are to be covered by the disapplication in the Bill. That leaves a lot of questions for those working in the health and social care sectors as to how they are to operate the new processes. Given the nature of NHS commissioning and services, there are big questions about what happens if a contract incorporates clinical and non-clinical services. Under which set of regulations is procurement to be undertaken? Large hospital contracts—PFI contracts—often contain a mixture of clinical and non-clinical services, and the terms of the contract can sometimes last for 20 or more years.
Indeed, the more fundamental question is how we define “clinical services”. Some hospitals contract with private sector operators to provide, say, laboratory services the staff of which are employed by the private sector contractor. I would have called those clinical services; they are clearly directly related to clinical outcomes for patients. I am not at all sure how that is going to be covered by the two separate pieces of legislation. Of course, the NHS Confederation, which represents the bodies that operate the health service at the moment, including integrated care systems and NHS trusts, is obviously concerned about the confusion and potential distinction between the two sets of legislation.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendments 4 and 190 in this group. Some questions have been raised by the Benches opposite about whether I was here for the commencement of the debate. I assure the House that I heard every word of the Minister’s opening remarks from my place and I am not usually regarded as invisible in your Lordships’ House.
Before I get to my amendments, let me say that I have much sympathy with the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I think we have to stop the culture of exceptionalism for the NHS and bring it within the ordinary rules; other noble Lords have said why that is. We should allow an exception only if there is a very good case for it so I will be listening very carefully to what my noble friend the Minister has to say about that when she concludes this debate.
My amendments each cover a distinct issue. I will start with Amendment 190 because that is the easier of them. Noble Lords may have noticed that my noble friend the Minister has added her name to Amendment 190 and I am grateful for the Government’s support in dealing with a technical issue that I raised in Committee following the eagle-eyed scrutiny of the Bill by Professor Sanchez-Graells of the Centre for Global Law and Innovation at the University of Bristol.
The Bill had defined how to value contracts including VAT when the contracting authority paid for the goods or services that it was procuring but failed to deal with the converse situation when it received money, which can arise under a concession contract. Amendment 190 puts this right and so sums receivable under contracts will be valued including the related value added tax. I look forward to moving this amendment formally in due course.
Amendment 4 is an amendment to government Amendment 2. Amendment 2 has virtually rewritten most of Clause 1 but my amendment would have also been proposed in relation to the text of the Bill as introduced. It is about control and how to define it, which I raised in a couple of amendments in Committee.
A public authority is defined in the amended Clause 1(2) proposed by Amendment 2 as including a person who is
“subject to public authority oversight”,
which is in turn defined in amended Clause 1(3) as being
“subject to the management or control of … one or more public authorities, or … a board more than half of the members of which are appointed by one or more public authorities.”
Thus, if a board is involved, control is determined by the fact of appointments rather than the capacity to appoint members of the board. That is an unusual concept for those of us steeped in company or tax law.
The Clause 1 approach to control is in contrast to its use in determining whether vertical arrangements exist in order to qualify as an exempted contract under Schedule 2. The Schedule 2 definition has its own problems, which I spoke about in Committee, but its core concept is to use the Companies Act 2006 definition of control, which is based on capacity to control. I believe that the issues with Clause 1 and Schedule 2 were not satisfactorily dealt with when I raised these points in Committee, so I have returned to them today, to highlight that the Bill is not internally coherent in its approach to determining whether organisation A controls organisation B.
My solution is to import the Schedule 2 definition into Clause 1, save for paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 2. I personally think that sub-paragraph (3) is very odd in the context of Schedule 2, but it certainly does not belong to the approach for control in Clause 1. I have no intention of dividing the House on this matter and I am by no means confident of my drafting, but I believe that the Government should look again at the robustness and coherence of the approaches they have taken in the Bill.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I have no amendment in this group, but I want to refer to government Amendment 34. I entirely agree with the proposition that the Bill enables public procurement to be put on a better path than it has been in the past. Many of those working in procurement across the public services have welcomed the Bill. As it happens, they also welcome the scrutiny we are giving it, because it is leading to improvements to the Bill. I did not attempt to count the number of government amendments we dealt with in Committee, but they were in the hundreds. In addition to those, I calculate that we have 153 government amendments on Report, so if it takes us a while, it is not our fault. None the less, it is a good job and it is right that we should do it. That is why I raise the following question on government Amendment 34.
My noble friend will recall that these amendments were not moved in Committee because there was some difficulty about what “covered procurement” was relative to “procurement”. At the time, I supported the Government’s amendments, because it seemed right to ensure that the broader scope of the Bill and the regulatory requirements encompassed within it should be applied to larger procurements and not smaller ones. I now support the insertion of “covered” before “procurement” in all the government amendments—except Amendment 34. Why do I single it out? Including “covered” means that procurements which are above the threshold and not exempt are subject to the Bill and the full range of its requirements—see Schedule 1 for the thresholds and Schedule 2 for the exemptions. Clause 2 makes it clear that public contracts are those that are above the threshold and not exempt. Okay, fine: “covered procurement” makes a distinction between those that are exempt and of lesser value and those that are of a higher value and included.
Clause 11 relates to procurement objectives. Procurement objectives are statements, not least by Parliament as well as by the Government, about what those who are engaged in procurement should regard as their responsibility. The essence of Clause 11 is that:
“In carrying out a procurement, a contracting authority must have regard to … delivering value for money … maximising public benefit … sharing information”—
so that people can understand the authority’s procurement policies and decisions—and
“acting, and being seen to act, with integrity.”
In my submission, these are not regulatory requirements; they are the basis on which contracting authorities should be behaving. We will come on to debate Clause 11 and will deal with its proposals then. But it seems to me that, however we end up stating in Clause 11 that these are procurement objectives for contracting authorities, they should apply to all contracting authorities and to all their procurements.
Interestingly, the Government resist this on grounds of flexibility. I am not sure in this context what that means: flexibility not to have value for money; flexibility not to act with integrity? But the Government have not disapplied the operation of Clause 12 and the national procurement policy statement. The Government want to have the power to apply the statement to all procurements, so we do not get “covered” in front of procurement in Clause 12(1) but we do get “covered” in relation to procurement in Clause 11. This must be wrong. It must clearly be right that not only the procurement statement but the objectives on which it must be based must apply to all procurements.
So I put it to my noble friend that this is not a technical amendment. There may be many that are technical amendments, but this is a substantive amendment that has an unhappy consequence that it would disapply the procurement objectives to a significant number of the lower-value procurement activities in the public sector. So when we reach government Amendment 34, I invite my noble friend not to move it. I hope that she will at the very least do that on the grounds that this should be revisited before Third Reading.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise briefly having attached my name to Amendment 173 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. I attempted to attach my name to Amendment 3, but somehow that transferred to government Amendment 2, which I am guessing everyone has already worked out was a mistake—part of the general confusion we have with this Bill. Perhaps it is just, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, outlined, that the flood of government amendments has overwhelmed the administration of Report.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, have already set out the issues very clearly. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, gave us a masterclass, having made himself an absolute expert on the issues of procurement, particularly around Covid. I want to add one extra balancing thought to that. The issues of privatisation and contracts do not apply only to the procurement of materials; they apply to the procurement of services, including the clinical services to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred. It is important that this does not get lost.
I will refer to a study published in the Lancet public health journal by academics from the University of Oxford in June. It showed that outsourcing since 2012 had been associated with a drop in care quality and higher rates of treatable mortality. This is peer-reviewed research published in a very respected journal that shows that privatisation has had and is having a disastrous effect. To quote the authors of that study:
“Our findings suggest that further privatisation of the NHS might lead to worse population health outcomes.”
I think it would be unrealistic to expect the public to engage with the details of the kind of debate we are having this afternoon, but it is important, and I have no doubt at all that the public is gravely concerned to see that we have maximum transparency. Indeed, I think there is strong public support for reversing the privatisation of the NHS—but, wherever we are letting contracts for the NHS, we must have maximum transparency and clarity about the manner in which that is done.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I have a very specific point to raise by way of reassurance. It is clear from the debate so far that these are complex areas that are particularly complicated because of the interaction between this Bill and the previous Health and Social Care Act; I wish my noble friend the Minister well in disentangling that and making it all clear to your Lordships.
My concern is around the provisions as they affect public service mutuals. This programme has always had cross-party support. It began under the Labour Government in the Tony Blair years, specifically in the NHS. It was then taken up enthusiastically by the coalition Government. I led the programme with the support of Liberal Democrat colleagues, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. This was a programme where, in particular services right across the public sector, groups of public sector workers were able to spin themselves out of the public sector and form themselves into employee-owned and employee-led entities. They then provided that service, whatever it was, to what was in effect the contracting authority under a negotiated contract.
Technically, this is procurement and, in good practice, should be subjected to a competitive tender. Indeed, we had some difficulty with the then EU public procurement regime that made it legally impossible to do this. I was able to negotiate with Commissioner Barnier a change to the EU procurement directives, which enabled a mutual to spin itself out without a competitive process for a relatively limited period before being subjected to a retendering process.
This was a very benign programme. Mutuals that spun themselves out demonstrated almost overnight a dramatic improvement in productivity—something close to 4% annually. More than 100 of them spun out. The largest number came from the health and social care sector. They did not have to do this but nearly all of them—certainly all the ones from the health and social care sector—chose to be a not-for-profit, social enterprise.
They brought together four powerful elements. The first was entrepreneurial leadership. The second was an empowered and liberated workforce. The third was commercial discipline, in the sense that they would all talk about themselves as a business even if they were a not-for-profit; that commercial discipline was crucial. The fourth element was the public service ethos. Bringing all that together created a powerful alchemy that delivered improvements in efficiency. Costs were able to be reduced, there was a reduced fee basis through the life of a contract and quality improved.
Staff satisfaction also improved enormously. Whenever I visited these mutuals, I always asked people whether they would go back and work for the NHS, the council, the Government or wherever they had come from. I never heard anyone say anything other than an immediate “No”. When asked why, they would all say something like, “Because now we can do things. We’re freed from bureaucracy. We’re freed from constraints. We can make things happen quickly”.
So my question for my noble friend the Minister, to be answered whenever she is able to do so, is whether she can provide some reassurance that the arrangements in the complex interaction between this excellent Procurement Bill and the Health and Social Care Act will, if the Government wish to accelerate this programme again, allow such arrangements to be negotiated directly between the contracting authority and the emerging spun-out entity without the need to go through a competitive process.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we will return to the question of not-for-profits, mutuals and social enterprises in group 6, when we have Amendments 41 and 123 in my name and the name of my noble friend Lord Fox. I very much hope that we will have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Maude, on that. There was, in the Green Paper where we started this process, a very strong emphasis on the useful role that non-profits and social enterprises would have. That has disappeared from the face of the Bill. We wish to make sure that it reappears.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and her predecessor for their engagement with us and other noble Lords on this Bill as it made its progress through your Lordships’ House. I join with other noble Lords in saying to the Minister that we all believe, from where I am speaking, that this is a great improvement, and the Bill will make a big difference; we are generally very supportive of it. It is important, as other noble Lords have done, to start with those remarks to set the context for this discussion and those which will follow.
I do not want to speak for very long, but I will start with Amendment 3, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I very much support the amendment, which seeks to put on the face of the Bill—for the avoidance of doubt, for the avoidance of the sort of discussion that we are having here this evening and for the avoidance of the sort of discussions that will go on, as to which set of regulations procurement for the NHS comes under—that procurement includes the NHS in Clause 1. The important point, following the excellent speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, was set out in my noble friend Lord Hunt’s question to the Minister, which encapsulated the problem that we are going to have under two sets of regulations.
I thought that my noble friend put the argument very well in his question—and I am going to repeat it—about the sort of thing that will happen without clarification of where we are with respect to procurement. What happens if a procurement contains both clinical and non-clinical parts and services? Which Act and which regulations regime would apply? That encapsulates the problem in one, because the answer is that it will not be clear at all if we carry on with the current two-system regulatory regimes that will operate for the NHS. I am always very practical about these things and, of course, noble Lords will have seen as well that there is actually a clause—Clause 111—that makes it perfectly clear that there is a power for Ministers to disapply, through regulations, this Act in relation to procurement by the NHS in England. Therefore, on the one hand we have the health Act of 2022; on the other hand, we have a Bill going through that, in some sense, is supposed to include the NHS but, in other senses, is not supposed to do so. We do not know where the boundary is going to come between clinical services and goods and services, so there is a whole realm of difficulty and problems.
I said at the beginning of my speech that all of us are supportive of the Bill, but we need to resolve these difficulties. We cannot just say, “Well, the regulations will sort it out”, or “Good sense or common sense will deal with it.” There is a real legislative problem that we should try to resolve before we pass the legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, pointed this out in a couple of important technical amendments. As always, we are thankful to the noble Baroness for trying to improve the Bill and to make suggestions, one of which, I understand, the Government have accepted. That is the sort of spirit in which we take the Bill forward.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister is listening carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, my noble friend Lord Hunt, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, have said. We all noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, was not a supporter of Amendment 2. We say that loudly and clearly so that her future in the Green Party is assured, but Amendment 3 is what the noble Baroness put in, and for some reason it appeared under Amendment 2. We are all very clear which amendment the noble Baroness supports.
The comments made in the short speech by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on government Amendment 34, are extremely important, showing how one word here or there can fundamentally change the Bill. He is quite right to point out that Clause 11 refers not to thresholds but to objectives. What is procurement trying to achieve? As the noble Lord outlined, by inserting “covered”, the Government imply that it is only covered procurement that takes account of the various points that are listed in the Bill. The noble Lord read out four, but I choose just one, to show how important it is that the Government listen to what he has said and think again about moving their Amendment 34. It is acting and being seen to act with integrity. The one thing that you would expect any procurement process to act under, whatever the threshold, whatever the regulations, whatever law it comes under, whether it is for £10 or £10 million, is integrity. Yet as it reads now, the only procurement that this clause will relate to as an objective, if the government amendment is agreed to, is covered procurement. That was the crucial point that the noble Lord made—as an objective. It is not an objective. It is closer to being law, that you are supposed to act openly, honestly and transparently. However, leaving that aside, it is an extremely important point that the noble Lord has made. In full support of what he has said, I hope that the Government have listened to his very well-made points, particularly when he went on to relate them to Clause 12, which seems to be the opposite of that. That point was well made.
The government amendments before us in many ways improve the Bill. I thank the Minister for listening to what was said to her and for trying extremely hard to table amendments that have improved many parts of the Bill. There are important tweaks that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has pointed out. There is a fundamental point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. However, the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and supported by many noble Lords, point to a fundamental choice for us. We must resolve this issue about procurement and the NHS. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out some of the difficulties that have arisen, but for all of us, clarity, certainty and clearness in legislation is crucial, particularly when it comes to procurement. We have the opportunity to sort this out. I hope that noble Lords will support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, should she put it to the vote.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 3, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, of Kenardington, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, of Hunters Bar, would, as the noble Baroness said, explicitly name the NHS in the definition of a contracting authority. We are also debating Amendment 173, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, added her name, and Amendments 171 and 172, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, spoke so eloquently.
There is a concern, which I understand after several meetings with those involved, about the interplay in health between this Bill and the arrangements across the NHS in the light of the Health and Social Care Act. I very much enjoyed the meetings that I had with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and thank her and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for their kind comments on the Bill more generally, as well as my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Lansley. It has been a pleasure to work on this Bill across the House. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his comments, although we are no longer working together from the Back Benches.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Like most noble Lords, probably, I have listened to what has just been said and am more confused now than when the Minister started. I ask a very simple question: if the Bill applied to NHS procurement, as it does to the rest of the public sector, would it not harmonise the procurement of NHS provision, whether clinical or non-clinical, including social care? That would make it simpler, not just for the procurement body but for organisations that might wish to tender for NHS clinical services.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
That is a point, but I did try to explain in my introduction that there was concern during the passage of the Health and Care Act, to which I was not party, that the NHS arrangements—I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is nodding her head. Perhaps she is nodding it negatively.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
The important thing the House needs to hear is that during the passage of the Health and Care Act, Members from all sides of your Lordships’ House asked repeatedly why special arrangements were being made for NHS procurement when we knew that there was a Procurement Bill coming down the line and had not seen any detail of it. That is the question we are all waiting to hear the answer to.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think I have been clear on the background to why it is different. I have also promised that regulations and guidance are being put together and will make very clear the differences: where the NHS rules need to apply and where the Procurement Bill needs to apply. That is the way in which these Bills have been constructed together. There are reasons. Especially on small NHS contracts involving social care, clinical services and so on, it clearly makes a great deal of sense to have a separate regime.
I am sure we will come back to that at the end, but out of courtesy I turn to the other amendments. Amendment 4, tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, proposes to rework the notion of control in the definition of a contracting authority in amended Clause 1(3)(b), to be consistent with the notion of a controlled person in Schedule 2. We have looked at this again in dialogue with the concerned stakeholders, notably the Local Government Association.
The meaning of control in Clause 1 is different from that in Schedule 2, and they need to be kept separate. The use of “control” in Clause 1, which sets out the contracting authority definition, is intended to ensure that contracting authorities that have a board where public authorities appoint more than half the members are themselves considered to be contracting authorities. This might include, for example, some centralised procurement authorities.
By contrast, the “controlled person” for the purposes of Schedule 2 is much narrower and intentionally very limited as it is intended to capture only a narrow group of entities, closely owned and controlled by contracting authorities. It requires that the controlling contracting authority is a “parent”, within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006. Although this might cover some of the same ground as majority board appointments, the concept used in Clause 1, it is not the same thing, and the text of the amendment can be satisfied in other ways. There is also a secondary activity threshold, which means that 80% of the activities carried out by the controlled person must be on behalf of its controlling authority. I am afraid that neither factor is appropriate to the contracting authority definition and their inclusion would have the effect of taking many organisations outside the scope of the contracting authority definition.
I recognise that, as my noble friend said, consistency is often desirable, but these terms achieve different aims. It is important that the Procurement Bill covers, as closely as possible, the same scope of bodies as in the existing procurement regulations, both for certainty and continuity for our authorities and to ensure compliance with the definition of a contracting authority in our free trade agreements.
I should, in passing, thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for her Amendment 190, which reflects discussion in Committee and which the Government are glad to support.
Moving on, I come to some of the very wide points made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, although it is possible that some of these will come up again later on Report. It may be disappointing to the noble Lord, but we cannot go into the detail of individual contracts. Where a contract has been found to have underperformed or the PPE provided was not up to standard, the Department of Health and Social Care is working to reach a successful outcome—this includes mediation—for the taxpayer.
Offers for the supply of PPE came from a wide range of people from within government and outside. No matter where they came from, offers went through a robust process of checks and controls led by officials. This included price and quality checks as well as due diligence and credibility. As for Medpro, this is a live issue; we are currently engaged in a mediation process with PPE Medpro and I am therefore unable to comment on the specifics of this contract.
More positively, however, the Covid inquiry will cover procurement and the distribution of key equipment and supplies, including PPE and ventilators. In my view, that is quite right. It will also identify the lessons to be learned from all this and inform preparation for future pandemics across the UK.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I thank the Minister; that is a helpful reply and I am indebted to her. She has referred us to later amendments—I think she is referring to the amendment tabled by her noble friend Lady Stroud in the 10th group, on modern day slavery, which I am supporting—but a number of my questions go much wider than that. I would be appreciative if, between now and our discussion on Wednesday, she could give further consideration to what she can answer, some of which is not covered specifically by the point she has just made about confidentiality. Could she touch on what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is saying now about how the NHS should be caught under the same terms as everything else that she has been arguing? Our failure to do this has been highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and others, and demonstrates an inconsistency in how we handle these things.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I understand. I have tried to answer, although I am obviously somewhat limited by confidentiality. I would also draw the noble Lord’s attention to the Boardman report, of which he is well aware. Nigel Boardman went through the Covid processes and his comments were, on the whole, accepted. As I said, I will look at what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said and see whether there is anything useful to add before we meet again on Wednesday.
I turn to my Amendment 34 and the comments made by my noble friend Lord Lansley, of Orwell, with whom I have had useful meetings. He is concerned that the procurement objectives in Clause 11 should apply to all procurement, not just to covered procurement. I am afraid I do not agree, as he and I have discussed. This is too wide-ranging and the Clause 11 objectives will not be relevant to the award of all types of non-covered procurement. The concept of procurement is crafted very widely and captures all contracts. For example, it is difficult to see how a contracting authority would be able to apply principles such as having regard to the importance of transparency or the wider public benefit in relation to employment contracts or leasehold agreements exempted under Schedule 2 to the Bill. In addition, it is difficult to see how a contracting authority could have regard to the importance of transparency in a procurement exempted on national security grounds.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My noble friend used the important word “security” in relation to security contracts, but surely Clause 11 and the procurement objectives apply to security contracts that exceed the threshold set in Schedule 1. In what sense is it inappropriate for the objectives or principles set out in Clause 11 to be applied simply because those thresholds fall below about £5 million?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I should reflect further on this. Clearly, some parts of the Bill are carved out. We have discussed this in relation to the NHS and we will discuss it on Wednesday in relation to the Ministry of Defence. We have to be very careful about national security—there is agreement on that across the House. I have been advised that the sheer breadth of Clause 11 would have a damaging effect if we apply this right across the board on procurement, and I am disturbed about that. I am happy to look at that further and talk further to my noble friend Lord Lansley.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We would all be grateful if the noble Baroness reflected further on Clause 11 and government Amendment 34, as she said.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I turn finally to my noble friend Lord Maude, who brought in the importance of social enterprises in the health area, which I was extremely keen to hear about and would like to discuss with him further. It seemed to me, when reflecting on what he said, that the greater flexibility to award contracts—which was behind the Health and Social Care Act and the PSR regulations that were being brought forward—was an argument in favour of the approach that we have set out and for some different arrangements in the NHS. I find myself in the slightly awkward position of trying to defend these different arrangements for the NHS because I am worried about the implications for things similar to those that my noble friend raised.
I think that I have dealt with all these comments. I will reflect further on Amendment 34. It is a bit difficult not to move it—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, it would be perfectly acceptable to come back to that at Third Reading. I think that the House would accept that.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am a little rusty, so I was just trying to understand what the possibilities were. I thank noble Lords for clarifying that we have some time to reflect on this; it is extremely helpful. I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments. I will move the government amendments in my name when we reach them, other than Amendment 34.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
(b) in the case of a utilities contract, a public authority, public undertaking or private utility,other than an excluded authority.(2) In this Act—“public authority” means a person that is—(a) wholly or mainly funded out of public funds, or(b) subject to public authority oversight,and does not operate on a commercial basis (but see subsection (8A));“public undertaking” means a person that—(a) is subject to public authority oversight, and(b) operates on a commercial basis;“private utility” means a person that—(a) is not a public authority or public undertaking, and(b) carries out a utility activity.(3) A person is subject to public authority oversight if the person is subject to the management or control of—(a) one or more public authorities, or(b) a board more than half of the members of which are appointed by one or more public authorities.(4) The following are examples of factors to be taken into account in determining whether a person operates on a commercial basis— (a) whether the person operates on the basis that its losses would be borne, or its continued operation secured, by a public authority (whether directly or indirectly);(b) whether the person contracts on terms more favourable than those that might reasonably have been available to it had it not been associated with a public authority;(c) whether the person operates on a market that is subject to fair and effective competition.(5) The following authorities are excluded authorities—(a) a devolved Scottish authority;(b) the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters;(c) the Advanced Research and Invention Agency;(d) any person that is subject to public authority oversight—(i) only by reference to a devolved Scottish authority, or(ii) by reference to an authority mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would change the definition of contracting authority to better deal with the difference between a public authority and public undertaking and to exclude certain bodies which, despite their relationship with public authorities, operate on a commercial basis.
Baroness Brinton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment includes the NHS in the definition of a public authority for the purposes of this Act.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s response, and I thank my noble friend Lord Scriven for signing my amendment, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for intending to do so. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Coaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and others who have spoken in support of it.
I am really grateful to the Minister for trying to explain why there would be less confusion if we had the arrangements currently being proposed under the Health and Care Act in relation to the National Health Service Act 2006 and those in the Procurement Bill. She said that Parliament had debated this only very recently, but I have covered that by saying that, when the then Health and Care Bill went through, we did not know what was being proposed in the Procurement Bill. The details of the Procurement Bill are so much more detailed than was intended or understood during the debate on the Health and Care Bill, so that is a problem.
I am astonished at the idea that accepting my Amendment 3 would create undue bureaucracy; the exact converse is true on all the points the Minister made. When you actually look at Section 12ZB, which will be inserted into the National Health Service Act 2006 after the passage of this Bill, you see that it does not make this clear in its reference to clinical services, which is not legally defined. It not only talks about “health care services” without defining what a healthcare service is, but goes on to say,
“and other goods or services that are procured together with”
them. The mini-debate we had a few minutes about how that would be decided and managed between the Cabinet Office and the Department of Health seems as though it would create a phenomenal amount of bureaucracy and the chance for people to abuse the system.
The Minister said that the arrangement would mean that the Department of Health could ensure that the provision in the Health and Care Act would not be used by the NHS to avoid the more stringent terms in this Bill. However, that seems to be exact reason why the NHS should abide by those stringent terms. For that reason, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(8A) For the purposes of this Act, a person that operates on a commercial basis but is, as a controlled person, awarded an exempted contract by a public authority in reliance on paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 (vertical arrangements) is to be treated as a public authority in relation to any relevant sub-contract.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that bodies that are awarded contracts by virtue of being controlled by public authorities are treated as public authorities (and therefore as contracting authorities) in relation to contracts awarded for the purpose of performing that contract.
““relevant sub-contract” means a contract substantially for the purpose of performing (or contributing to the performance of) all or any part of the exempted contract;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is connected to the Government amendment to add subsection (8A) and would define “relevant sub-contract”.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(2) In this Schedule—(a) a reference to a contract for the supply of goods, services or works to a particular kind of authority includes a reference to a framework for the future award of such contracts;(b) a reference to a works contract includes a reference to a framework for the future award of works contracts.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that frameworks are properly taken into account in applying the thresholds in Schedule 1.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
(b) a framework for the future award of contracts only of a kind listed in this Schedule.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that frameworks only for exempted contracts are exempted contracts.
Baroness Noakes
“(3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply to contracts of a kind described in paragraph 2 (vertical arrangements) or paragraph 3 (horizontal arrangements).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment disapplies the reasonableness test in sub-paragraph 2 to vertical and horizontal contracts so as to preserve the rules which currently apply to public service collaborations.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 9 amends Schedule 2 in relation to exempted contracts. Specifically, it seeks to modify how vertical contracts and horizontal arrangements are allowed to qualify as exempt contracts. I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for adding his name to the amendment. I should explain that this amendment is in splendid isolation in a group all of its own because I thought that the previous group, which took rather a long time, covered rather too many matters and that the issue I am going to raise would have got lost in it. I apologise for pulling it out separately.
I was prompted to table the amendment by a briefing from the Local Government Association. From our proceedings in Committee, I think that I am in the minority among those who have been following this Bill in that I do not have an association with the Local Government Association to declare because I am not a vice-president or one of those things. However, I did recognise that the point raised by the Local Government Association was important and valid, and that is why I have tabled this amendment, and indeed amendments in two other groups that we will consider on Report.
Before I started on this Procurement Bill, I had little technical knowledge of the vast edifice of EU procurement rules, and I had never heard of the Teckal exemption or, indeed, the Hamburg exemption, which deal with vertical and horizontal arrangements respectively. Those arrangements allow contracts within or between local authorities to be exempt from procurement rules. I now know that these exemptions from the need to engage in competitive procurement processes are important for well-established ways of delivering local authority services. I am generally a competition fanatic, but I can see eminent sense in allowing local authorities to organise themselves internally or in collaboration with other local authorities in a way that delivers services to their local communities without dragging in the full force public procurement rules.
The problem lies in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1, which states that a contract cannot be exempt if the relevant goods or services
“could reasonably be supplied under a separate contract”.
I am advised that this test is not currently part of establishing whether the Teckal or Hamburg exemptions apply under the existing body of procurement law under the EU, so it appears that, in reformulating EU rules for the purposes of the UK in this Bill, we seem to have opened up a new source of challenge for local authorities that want to use the vertical or horizontal arrangements. I cannot see why the Government would want to create by this Bill new barriers for local authorities in areas where services have been delivered successfully over a long period. So my Amendment 9 seeks to exclude the application of sub-paragraph (2) to vertical contracts and horizontal arrangements under paragraphs 2 and 3 of the schedule. It would leave the reasonableness test in place for all the other contracts dealt with in Schedule 2 but would allow local authorities to continue with their internal structures and their cross-authority collaboration arrangements unhindered. I beg to move.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to have added my name to this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I would like to start by thanking my noble friend the Minister for all the hard work she has done to bring us this far, and for her sympathetic approach to the House. I would also like to thank her for something that I had not expected to see on the part of the Government. The process of drafting legislation is normally arcane and obscure—it is carried out by civil servants and parliamentary draftsmen before anything ever reaches us. But in this case, in this rare Bill, we have actually seen the legislation being drafted, and redrafted, and redrafted further, time and time again, as it progresses with literally hundreds of government amendments. It has been very difficult to follow what is going on, but illuminating as to how laws are actually made—something which I think Bismarck said the public “should never see”, if that is helpful advice to my noble friend.
In Committee, I gave an example of how the Teckal exemption works and how I had experienced it myself during my many years in local government. The Teckal exemption is the EU legal name for the vertical exemption, where local authorities or public bodies come together in order to establish a subsidiary, controlled entity; and there are rules and limits as to what it can do outside—percentages of work and effort and so on—that show whether it qualifies for that exemption so that the local authorities in question do not have to tender it publicly.
There are further examples that I did not mention in relation to horizontal relations between public bodies and local authorities. I find myself, quite by chance, sitting within a foot or two of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, who had the privilege and honour of being the leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council in the past, when I had a modest role to play at an adjacent local authority. One of the things we did was to come together to share many of our services, between ourselves and in some cases with a third local authority.
That was an example of horizontal collaboration so that, for example, highway services, library services and things of that sort became shared. I simply say to my noble friend that I think this collaboration would be ruled out under the reasonableness test. Let us say that you are a local authority wishing to share services—or contract services, in some cases—with the local authority to your west. It is, of course, reasonable that the local authority to your east—assuming that you are not entirely surrounded by one local authority—could equally well provide those services. This is not simply about the private sector being an alternative to collaboration; it would be reasonable for another local authority to provide those services rather than this one. If that was the case, you would be stymied; you would not be able to do it without having a tendering process.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I have just a couple of points to make before I speak to Amendment 9. First, I join the chorus of welcome for the collaborative spirit that the Minister has managed to engender among noble Lords working on the Bill. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—who I see has slipped out—and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, both mentioned the fog of uncertainty created by the number of government amendments. I have a small mea culpa as to why some of those have been carried over on Report. Those of your Lordships who were in Grand Committee will remember the outrage caused by 340-odd government amendments landing without an explanation. That caused me to push them back, so I am afraid that I am responsible for their reappearance. However, that did what we wanted it to do: it gave us time to understand and follow those amendments. I think this amendment arises from the perspective we have had in that time.
Two things have happened which I never thought would: first, I find myself in almost complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan; and, secondly, he appears to be calling for the emulation of the EU in British law. When we get to the retained EU law revocation Bill, I am sure he can join me to make similar entreaties from his position at the back of the Chamber. Joking aside, the point here is whether this was deliberate or an accident; we are waiting to hear from the Minister on that. This issue reflects a number of debates, certainly the one we have had on Amendment 34—which I trust will come back at Third Reading rather than being agreed here—and one that we will have in a later group in which the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, has highlighted another issue.
More generally, whatever happens to the Bill on Report, there is a real need for people to sit down with cold towels on their heads and go through the Bill line by line one more time before we get to Third Reading. Because there have been so many amendments, it has been almost impossible to follow properly what is happening. We have all done our best, and the Minister has worked like a Trojan—as have your Lordships—but I think that there is a strong call for further work to be done once we get through Report stage on Wednesday evening.
With that, I support the attempts of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in Amendment 9 to get some clarity on this, and I support the spirit of her speech.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I rise because I was named by my noble friend Lord Moylan, and because this is a subject that I feel very passionately about, as someone who spent 16 years as a councillor and six years as a council leader. Indeed, I am very proud of the work we did to collaborate. It is something that came to me a little late in my local government career, because I used to believe in two things: competition and fear—that is, fear of failure—but collaboration is also important in local government.
My noble friend Lord Moylan pointed to the vision we had in west London to come together to collaborate to drive down costs. In fact, when it came to library services, it was very much in the back offices that we could make savings so that libraries could stay open and the public could be served by excellent libraries. We worked very carefully across a whole range of areas, such as highways and helping children across west London who needed safeguarding and support to find potential parents who could look after them, in a way that would not have been possible without collaboration.
I am also a huge fan of mutualisation. I know that is coming up in group 6, but I want to say that as someone who was a pathfinder of the work that my noble friend Lord Maude brought forward. The organisation that was spun out of the council to provide school support services exists today and is trading very well with officers I had as senior officers in Hammersmith and Fulham. They preferred a life outside the council. I pay tribute to that movement. It had real vision behind it. It did not involve competition and was really about empowering people to provide the services that they were already providing in a better and more comprehensive way. I think that was a tremendous pathfinder and I only wish that it could have been rolled out more widely across local government and the public sector.
I probably should have declared my business interests as set out in the register before starting to speak. However, I can honestly tell noble Lords that I have absolutely nothing to do with public procurement in my business life because today it takes a long time. It is really difficult and the barriers to entry are very great. I am sure the purpose of this Procurement Bill is to make sure that public procurement works for the benefit of those services and we can use competition in a sensible way and it can be streamlined. I think the purpose of the amendment from my noble friend Lady Noakes is to ensure that, where local trading companies exist, they will not fall foul of the reasonableness test and things have to be put out to competition. In fact, as a council leader I bought a communications service from the City of Westminster because of the expertise it had in comms. That was an expertise that existed only in Westminster City Council, and I did not think that that needed to go out to competition. So I think we need to be sensible.
As a true loyalist, I support the Government if they can point out how a reasonable test can work to ensure that there is not unnecessary tendering in this instance. Provided I get those reassurances, I am happy to support the Minister in her endeavours to ensure that we sort out these areas and preserve areas such as local authority trading companies that provide an important part of services in local government.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for her introduction to her amendment which was very clearly laid out. Again, I would like to join with other noble Lords who talked about the number of government amendments, not just here but in Committee. People who were here on the first day will probably remember that I was a little bit cross about it. But in response, the Minister has really grappled with our concerns in the lead-up to Report and I appreciate the time that she has spent doing that.
I will be brief. I will just say that we strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, with her amendment. She clearly laid out why this is important for local authorities and by including her amendment you increase the efficiency of the public sector when it is structuring the way it delivers its services, much of which do not need to include the procurement laws that we see before us. All I would say is that it is important that we can ensure that local authorities and other public sectors bodies within this area can continue to deliver better public services and make savings, as the noble Lord just mentioned, by collaboration, working together and sharing services. That makes eminent sense, and I would hope that the Minister will be able to reflect on that.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 9 tabled by the noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Moylan—whom I am very glad to see back in this place—seeks to preserve the rules which currently apply to public service collaborations at paragraph 2 and 3 of Schedule 2. It was also very good to hear from my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh with his extensive local government experience.
I agree that the Bill needs to preserve these rules but believe that we have already done so. Paragraph 1(2)—to which the noble Baroness referred—says that a contract is not exempted if the main purpose of the contract could reasonably be supplied under a different contract, and that contract would not itself be an exempted contract. This provision serves to close a loophole where contracts that are mixed—that is that they contain both exempted activities and not exempted activities—might be inappropriately exempted from the regime.
However, unlike the exemptions for specific activities, all types of goods, services and works contracts are capable of being exempted under the vertical and horizontal exemptions, so the second part of the test at Schedule 2(1)(2)(b) is not met. The contract would remain exempt.
While I believe that we have preserved the rules, the Bill needs to be better understood by users and stakeholders. My noble friend Lord Greenhalgh also made some good points about unnecessary tendering. I met the Local Government Association, as I was concerned about this provision, and my officials are engaging with it following its representations to reach a common understanding. They will come back to me with an amendment that could be put forward in the House of Commons to clarify this provision, should one prove necessary. It will take a bit of time. Accordingly, I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and those noble Lords who supported this amendment. I was delighted to hear what the Minister had to say, which was in the spirit of the quest for a good procurement system for this country that has permeated the way we have operated on this Bill to date. I am sure that the discussions with the Local Government Association will prove fruitful. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
(2) In this paragraph, “the public service obligations regulations” has the meaning given by section 136(11) of the Railways Act 1993.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would specify what public passenger transport services are within scope of this exemption.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, the next group covers a number of government amendments concerning our agreeing to implement the recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report on the Bill, published on 14 June 2022. This report was gratefully received, and the Government wish to thank the committee for its contributions. The Government have also tabled amendments to implement other recommendations from the DPRRC, which we will discuss when we debate amendments relating to utilities.
There are a number of places in the Bill where we apply financial thresholds which trigger obligations on a contracting authority. Amendments 175 to 178, 181 and 182 relate to the publication of contracts, the publication of information about payments, the requirement for pipeline notices and obligations relating to notices to be published in relation to below-threshold contracts. As drafted, these thresholds are to be amended by way of secondary legislation subject to the negative procedure.
However, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that where these thresholds are increased above inflation, they should be subject to the affirmative procedure. This is to ensure greater scrutiny where there is a change in transparency. This amendment actually goes further than the report’s recommendation. It ensures that where these thresholds need to be changed for any reason, the affirmative procedure should apply. We consider that the same rationale applies in relation to the threshold for publication of KPIs, which was not mentioned in the report, and will bring forward an amendment to achieve this as soon as parliamentary time allows.
The one exception is Clause 80, which, in relation to below-threshold contracts, prohibits the prior exclusion of suppliers on the basis of suitability. In this case, it is reasonable to maintain the use of the negative procedure, given that the thresholds applicable to this clause are aligned to the government procurement agreement thresholds which are also amended by the negative procedure.
Amendment 10 addresses the DPRRC’s concern that the power to define public passenger transport services as exempt under Schedule 2(17) gives a wide discretion to Ministers. This amendment removes the power entirely and defines the services to be exempt by reference to the “public service obligations regulations”, which are defined by reference to Section 136(11) of the Railways Act 1993.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, we should all be grateful to the DPRRC for its vigilance and thoroughness in scrutinising legislation and this is no exception. A familiar sequence is nearly complete: first, the Government present a Bill threatening to take constitutional liberties to take on board powers for the Executive that should be with Parliament; next, the DPRRC highlights these grabs for power in a hard-hitting report; then one of us presents these issues in Committee via a series of amendments; and, we hope, finally, on Report, the Government accede to almost all the DPRRC’s concerns, although they often keep one or two extra powers in their back pocket, just in case they need them later.
And so it is today with the arrival of this sequence of amendments and we should note how many there are, which indicates how much the Government were planning to take on board. The music of this dance is beginning to fade and sufficient has been done by the Government for us to move on, but I feel sure that the yen for power snatching by the Executive continues and it is already focused on other Bills. I wish it was not.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has just said. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report was particularly damning and some of the language that it used about the Procurement Bill was, frankly, very surprising. It would be churlish now not to thank the Government for listening to what that committee said and for bringing forward the amendments that the Minister outlined for us. We welcome the change of heart on the part of the Government and hope that they will learn from what has taken place and make sure that we do not have a blanket change, which was what happened here. Normally, there would be two or three arguments about negative to affirmative; this is like a blanket change of heart on the part of the Government, but it is very much to be welcomed.
I wish to highlight government Amendment 165. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was particularly exercised by the fact that the Government were seeking to change primary legislation in the Defence Reform Act through the negative resolution procedure. It was particularly concerned that the Government were seeking to do that, notwithstanding its other concerns. The Government have re-established an important principle that primary legislation should be treated with the respect that it deserves. I am pleased that the Government have put forward Amendment 165 to ensure that, at the very least, primary legislation in that respect is changed through the affirmative resolution procedure. We welcome the changes the Government have made and think they will be helpful as we make progress, not only in this Chamber but in the other place.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
It remains for me to thank both noble Lords for their support for these government amendments and their helpful comments. I take on board the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about the Defence Reform Act and the comments of the DPRRC in that regard. We will, obviously, be saying more on defence procurement on Wednesday.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt. I want to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was particularly helpful when I met her and said that she would look to bring about this change. I apologise for not mentioning her.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I will make sure that those thanks are passed on.
“32A_ A contract for the supply of goods, services or works wholly or mainly for the purpose of an activity that would be a utility activity if it were not specified in Part 2 of Schedule 4.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that exemptions to the scope of utilities contracts under Part 2 of Schedule 4 apply to exempt those contracts from the Bill where entered into by public authorities.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
My Lords, this next group refers to utilities. Amendments 11, 13, 14, 17, 20, 21, 22, 169, 174, 180 and 184 relate to an exemption for utility activities exposed to competition. The amendments to Clause 5 and Schedule 4, and a consequential amendment to Schedule 2, are again in response to the concern of the DPRRC that the power to establish a procedure to exempt utilities subject to competition from the Bill amounted to a skeleton clause. The Government will replace this power with one that requires the exemptions to be made by secondary legislation under an affirmative procedure. This will afford Parliament greater scrutiny to review each exemption. The test to be satisfied for an exemption remains that there is fair and effective competition in the relevant utility market, and that entry to that market is unrestricted.
Noble Lords should note that Amendment 22 adds Part 2 to Schedule 4, which sets out the utility activities which are exempt from procurement regulations. These reflect exemptions that exist under the current regime, which are preserved by Amendment 169 in order that they are available under the Scottish procurement regulations.
Amendments 174, 180 and 184 ensure that the affirmative procedure applies to an exercise of the power.
Amendments 15 and 16 ensure that the definition of private utilities and contracting authority interact as intended and that a private utility is only a contracting authority in respect of the utility activities for which the utility has a special or exclusive right.
Amendments 18 and 19 revise the description of a utility activity in the transport sector in paragraph 4 of Schedule 4.
Amendments 56, 71 and 200 speed up procurements and reduce the burden for utilities using a utilities dynamic market—a UDM—by only requiring utilities to provide tender notices of upcoming procurements to suppliers on a UDM or appropriate part of a UDM, instead of having to publish notices. In practice, this means utilities can, for example, provide the tender notice to suppliers on the UDM as part of the associated tender documents as each procurement under the UDM is commenced.
In order to take advantage of this flexibility, the notice setting up the UDM must meet minimum information requirements, which will be set out in regulations under Clause 88. Utilities must specify in the UDM notice that only members of the UDM will be provided with tender notices. The notice setting up the UDM will be published continuously and will remain open so new members can join at any time. If accepted, they would then be entitled to receive tender notices.
Amendment 77 to Clause 48 will allow private utilities to adopt a voluntary standstill period to direct award contracts instead of a mandatory one. This means private utilities will take a risk-based decision on whether to apply a standstill period to a direct award procurement. It is in keeping with only regulating private utilities’ procurement to the extent necessary under our international obligations. I will turn to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley in my closing speech, having heard the points he raises. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend, not least because she referred to Amendment 169 in her helpful introduction to these amendments on utilities. Happily, we have reached the end of the Bill quite early on; that amendment relates to the very last page—page 118—where, in the present draft of the Bill, Commission decisions relating to public contract regulations, utilities and so on were to be repealed. Her explanation is interesting, in that it retains these European Commission decisions as retained EU law for the benefit of the Scottish regime. I am slightly perplexed as to why they were to be repealed in the first place since, presumably, the Scottish regime would have required them for this purpose regardless. However, that is just a question and it is only a matter of curiosity that I ask it.
My Amendment 23 is an amendment to government Amendment 22. As my noble friend made clear, the DPRRC said that this was a skeleton clause and was particularly unhelpful because it disguised the fact that policy had not been developed. I do not know whether that is the case or not; the point is that Ministers have come forward with a proposal for how these exemption decisions should work in relation to utility activities. I remind noble Lords that there are activities, and there are utility activities. The effect of Schedule 2 is to make it clear that certain activities should not be regarded as utility activities because they are in fair and effective competition and there are no restrictions on entry to that market. The decisions that were made were about electricity, gas and oil extraction, production and generation.
That being the case, the policy decisions in government Amendments 17 and 22, which my noble friend has explained, have the effect in Amendment 22 of saying, “These are the existing exemption decisions”. Government Amendment 17 says that, in future, Ministers can add to them or subtract from them by regulation. The point of my Amendment 23 is to ask, “When Ministers were reaching a view as to how these exemption decisions should be made in future, why did they not look at the Competition and Markets Authority, which we have as our own creature for the making of competition-related decisions, and put to it the job of determining whether a given activity in the utilities sector—actually, it would also be true in other sectors if exemption decisions were sought—is in fair and effective competition and there are no restrictions to the market?”
If my noble friend says, “Ah, but when Ministers make regulations, they will of course take advice from the Competition and Markets Authority”, I will be very happy. If she does not say that, however, I will be nervous, because what is the point of having the Competition and Markets Authority able to make such decisions in lieu of what used to be the European Commission’s responsibility if Ministers are going to pre-empt it themselves? I hope that she will be able to give me that reassurance about the use of the CMA for making competition-related decisions.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Government for tabling a lot of the amendments, which have helped to bring clarification around utilities; quite a bit of confusion was expressed in Committee. I also remind the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who is not currently in her place, that she did say that we should be extremely careful about regulating private utilities in Committee. These amendments seriously have her stamp on them; I thank her for that. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made some important points. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, listened carefully and can give the reassurances that he requested.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I have indeed listened carefully throughout the passage of the Bill and in our discussions with many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Lansley—as has my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Amendment 23 from my noble friend Lord Lansley has been tabled to reintroduce the test on whether a utility activity is operating under competitive conditions. I reassure Peers that this competition test has not been removed from the Bill but would be moved from Schedule 4 to the main body of the Bill by government Amendment 17. This amendment would insert after Clause 5(5) a provision that allows an appropriate authority to make changes to the list of exempted utilities by regulations, provided that it is satisfied that the activity is subject to fair and effective competition and entry to the relevant market is unrestricted. Any changes to the list in paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 will be brought about by this power; Amendment 23 is therefore not needed. Similarly, we have addressed the first part of my noble friend’s amendment with government Amendments 13 and 14 to Clause 5.
With regard to my noble friend’s point about the Competition and Markets Authority, we have engaged with the CMA in preparation for our provisions in this area; we will continue to engage with it and other relevant government and regulatory bodies. However, the important thing is that Parliament is able to scrutinise the exemptions. It is not necessary to prescribe the internal processes leading up to making an exemption. Parliament will have the opportunity to ask what process and engagement has taken place for each exemption when regulations are introduced; that is why we changed the nature of the power so that regulations under the affirmative procedure are required any time an appropriate authority wishes to make or amend an exemption.
I therefore hope that my noble friend Lord Lansley will feel able not to move his amendment and that noble Lords will support the government amendments.
(a) confers an exclusive right to operate a relevant scheduled air service for a period of four years or a series of periods falling within a period of four years, and(b) imposes minimum service requirements in respect of that service during those periods.(2) In this paragraph—“air service” means a flight, or a series of flights, carrying passengers or cargo (including mail);“airport” means any area especially adapted for air services;“relevant scheduled air service” means an air service that—(a) operates between two airports within the United Kingdom or within the United Kingdom and Gibraltar, and(b) the Secretary of State considers to be necessary in order to maintain sufficient transport links between the areas served by the airports.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would more precisely define the concession contracts subject to this exemption.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Government amendment to paragraphs 7 and 8 of Schedule 4 and the insertion of a new Part of Schedule 4.
“(aa) is not specified in Part 2 of Schedule 4,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Government amendments to paragraphs 7 and 8 of Schedule 4 and the insertion of a new Part of Schedule 4.
(c) in the case of an activity carried out by a person that is not a public authority or public undertaking, is carried out pursuant to a special or exclusive right.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that a private utility is only a contracting authority in respect of the utility activities for which the utility has a special or exclusive right.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Government amendment to subsection (2) inserting new paragraph (c).
“(5A) An appropriate authority may by regulations amend Part 2 of Schedule 4 for the purpose of—(a) specifying an activity, or(b) removing an activity.(5B) Regulations under subsection (5A) may not specify an activity unless the authority is satisfied that—(a) the activity is carried out on a market that is subject to fair and effective competition, and(b) entry to that market is unrestricted.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow an appropriate authority to amend Part 2 of Schedule 4, which sets out activities which are not to fall within the definition of utility activity.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that networks are to be available to the general public to fall within this utility activity.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the definition of “network”.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and the Government amendments to Clause 5, would replace a process for exempting activities from being utility activities with those exempted activities being specified in a new Part 2 of Schedule 4.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would be consequential on the division of Schedule 4 into two Parts.
“PART 2ACTIVITIES THAT ARE NOT UTILITY ACTIVITIES10_ Generation of electricity in England, Scotland or Wales.11_ Production of electricity in England, Scotland or Wales.12_ Wholesale or retail sale of electricity in England, Scotland or Wales. 13_ Wholesale or retail sale of gas in England, Scotland or Wales.14_ Exploration for oil in England, Scotland or Wales.15_ Exploration for natural gas in England, Scotland or Wales.16_ Production of oil in England, Scotland or Wales.17_ Production of natural gas in England, Scotland or Wales.18_ Development of infrastructure for production of oil in England, Scotland or Wales.19_ Development of infrastructure for production of natural gas in England, Scotland or Wales.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would expressly set out the activities that are not to be utility activities under the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the other Government amendments to this clause would ensure that one contract cannot benefit from the exceptions applicable to more than one special regime in circumstances where the contract could reasonably be split into more than one contract falling within different regimes.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would do the same as the Government amendment to subsection (1) of this Clause, but for frameworks.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Government amendments to subsections (1) and (2) of this clause, and ensures that a contract falling within more than one special regime but that is capable of being a defence and security contract would still be categorised as a defence and security contract.
“and a reference to a special regime contract of a particular kind is a reference to a special regime contract of a kind described in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would define concepts inserted by the Government amendments to subsections (1) and (2) of this clause.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the other Government amendments to this clause and would ensure that the proposition in subsection (3) does not apply when determining whether a contract is a public contract under clause 2 and Schedule 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that a contracting authority may not enter into a public contract unless it is awarded in accordance with the procedures for awarding a public contract in the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the definitions contained in subsections (4) and (5) being moved to new clause before clause 1.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“Procurement principles
(1) In carrying out a procurement, a contracting authority must pursue the following principles—(a) promoting the public good, by having regard to the delivery of strategic national priorities including economic, social, environmental and public safety priorities,(b) value for money, by having regard to the optimal whole-life blend of economy, efficiency and effectiveness that achieves the intended outcome of the business case, (c) transparency, by acting openly to underpin accountability for public money, anti-corruption and the effectiveness of procurements,(d) integrity, by providing good management, preventing misconduct, and control in order to prevent fraud and corruption,(e) fair treatment of suppliers, by ensuring that decision-making is impartial and without conflict of interest, and(f) non-discrimination, by ensuring that decision-making is not discriminatory.(2) If a contracting authority considers that it is unable to act in accordance with any of these principles in a particular case, it must—(a) take all reasonable steps to ensure it does not put a supplier at an unfair advantage or disadvantage, and(b) publish a report within 90 days setting out the principles with which it could not act in accordance and its reasons.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require contracting authorities to pursue a series of principles when carrying out procurements.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group. First, Amendment 33 refers back to the principles that we debated at length in Committee; they were originally in the Government’s Green Paper and were consulted on. Our concern is that those principles were then left out of the Bill even though the objectives were included, so my amendment
“would require contracting authorities to pursue a series of principles when carrying out procurements.”
Amendments 35 and 36 in my name look to
“require social and public value to be considered in the procurement objectives.”
We believe that social and public value are important requirements for any contracting authority to consider, so I have asked for that to be put through to the procurement objectives. This would encourage anyone contracting, for example, to work with local suppliers; to encourage contractors to reduce their CO2 emissions; to encourage the hiring of more apprentices; and to encourage greater diversity. If you are going to deliver the levelling up that the Government are so keen on and achieve net zero, it is important to include these principles.
We know that social value is included in the national procurement policy statement but it is not referred to in the Bill itself. We also know that public benefit is mentioned in the Bill, but that is a pretty vague concept. It is not clear to us how social value would sit within that framework.
I also have Amendment 46. We debated at length in Committee the national procurement policy statement. Many concerns were raised about the Government expecting Members to take at face value the fact that certain things can be included in the NPPS, but, of course, we have absolutely no guarantees other than that the Government are saying that they will be. Clearly, once the Bill becomes an Act, we will need to see a new NPPS, so we believe that the Bill should include the set of principles that need to be within that NPPS so we can have confidence that it will deliver what it needs to do.
My Amendment 48 aims to subject the NPPS statement and amendments to the affirmative procedure so that the existing one will remain in force if, for any reason, a new statement is rejected. We think this is an important fallback position.
Finally, my Amendment 96 creates a process to ensure contracting authorities safeguard the public interest when considering whether to outsource or recontract services. This is something that has been raised with us by a number of different contracting authorities that want that flexibility.
There are a number of other amendments in this group which we support, and I will just draw attention to a few. My noble friend Lord Hunt has an amendment on adding accessibility to the objectives. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, has an important amendment on defining public benefit. We know how strongly she feels about the environment and, again, we have debated that at length. It is really important that we do not lose that in the further discussions. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has a number of amendments that we support, and we look forward to hearing his introduction to them.
Finally, it is really important there is clarity around principles and objectives as this Bill goes through the process of becoming an Act. Good sentiment from the Government and the Minister are not sufficient to ensure that we actually have good procurement at the end of the day. That is what we want to see. I beg to move.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 42 in my name in this group and in support of Amendments 46 and 47. I will keep my comments brief. We had a very good debate in Committee about what should go into the Bill in relation to the principles that will guide procurement. In my amendment, I sought to be as precise as possible and selected two specific issues relating to climate change and biodiversity loss. The reason for that is that it has been pointed out to me that society’s priorities shift over time and primary legislation should be regarded as very serious: you therefore should not put a long shopping list of things into it. However, on these two issues, I cannot imagine a time henceforth when we will not be concerned about the impacts of climate change or biodiversity loss. The Government have a huge lever for change to drive investments into solutions. It would be a great shame if we were not to make it very clear in the Bill that this lever is something that we are willing and want to use.
The more the public purse can create markets and drive investment, the more we can rely on the private sector to come forward with innovation. It will bring down the cost over time. If we do not use public procurement, we will be expecting more from our private sector, and it will debatable whether it will be able to enter into markets that are highly mature and overcapitalised. We are not talking about a level playing field here. If you want private solutions to come in, you have to support them either through government policy, through taxation or through procurement. This Bill is a huge lever that I hope we will pull.
Although I would be delighted to test the will of the House of Amendment 42, it is actually more important that we put these principles in on the operational aspects of this Bill, in which case Amendments 46 and 47, which relate to national policy planning guidance, are hugely important, and I support both of those amendments. I look forward to hearing those who speak to them and to the Government’s response.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. I signed her Amendment 42 and I thoroughly agree with it. Indeed, I agree with all the points she made, including—I am grateful to her for saying it—the importance of focusing on the national procurement policy statement. In a sense, while it would be helpful for Clause 11 on procurement objectives to clarify what is meant by “public benefit”, there is always a risk that we either have a broad-ranging—no disrespect to it—but perfectly understandable series of statements, as in Amendment 33 moved by the noble Baroness opposite, or, as with Amendment 42, by narrowing it down, we somehow make people imagine that we have excluded these other terribly important objectives. My noble friend would doubtless say that the more we put into the procurement objectives, the more difficult it will be for contracting authorities to comply with competing considerations and so on. There is a lack of flexibility in that.
I thoroughly agree, therefore, with the proposition that we need to focus on the national procurement policy statement. The Government will publish that. As we know from other contexts, that is what the contracting authorities are going to look at. We know that the NPPS will include the Government’s strategic priorities, but we do not know what those are. The question then immediately emerges: is it proper for Parliament to have a view about that, or should we just say, “When the time comes, the Government will say what their strategic priorities are, and that’s good enough for us”?
Amendment 47 is limited in precisely the way the noble Baroness who signed the amendment said. It does not tell the Government to have a long list of strategic priorities. They may have their own strategic priorities but, during the Committee debates, noble Lords who were there will recall that there were some clear strategic priorities which the Committee wanted to see reflected in the Government’s statement. They included, perhaps most prominently, the environmental issues. One way of doing it which should cause the Government the least possible vexation is to do it by specific reference to the existing statutory targets set out in the Climate Change Act and the Environment Act—that is, to make it clear that they must ask contracting authorities to do the things that they are statutorily obliged to do in any case. They might say that that is unnecessary: actually it is not, because we all know that when these are reflected properly in the strategic priorities of the NPPS, the authorities will do it. If they are not reflected in the strategic priorities in the NPPS, they might be on statute but the authorities may well not do it. We have to make sure that they do it.
Turning to the second strategic priority in Amendment 47—requirements set out in the Public Services (Social Value) Act—I am glad that my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham is in his place, because he will know that reflecting the strategic priority on that social value legislation is precisely one of the mechanisms for ensuring that social enterprises are given the priority they deserve. For example—I hesitate, in speaking to my noble friend, to cite this—but the European Commission document Buying for Social Impact, published in 2018, had a range of examples from across Europe, one of which was from Scotland. The Scottish example said that one of the implications of buying for social impact has been the use of not-for-profit and social enterprises in respect of public procurement. It is therefore a very effective way of bringing that to the forefront.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as set out in the register. I am co-owner of a company that provides advice to Governments outside the UK on issues of public sector reform, including procurement—a subject that is not dear to very many people’s hearts but is to mine. I am delighted to have the chance to speak on this important group of amendments.
I assume that it is accepted everywhere that the primary purpose of good procurement law and practice is to ensure that the goods and services being procured provide excellent value and the best quality for the money. That trade-off between the two should always be primary. The various objectives and principles that are adumbrated in the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Worthington, are all excellent. I mean no offence when I say that they are motherhood and apple pie. No one would be against any of them, they are good things. The question is the extent to wish you should build into law the obligation for these to be taken into account in the ways laid out in the various amendments.
My noble friend Lord Lansley referred to the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, which I was very glad about as I was the Minister responsible for it. It was a Private Member’s Bill in the other place, but I was very happy that the Government supported it and saw it into law. It was very much a permissive Act. The objective was to make it clear that procurements were not to be just an arithmetic exercise looking at the pure financial value of bids but that you could look at wider social value.
However, when the coalition Government was formed in 2010 and we started to look at how procurement was being done, procurement policy was being used as a sort of Christmas tree on which many different policies were being hung. My recollection is that there were something like 11 different policies. All of them were very good. None of them was something we did not want to take seriously or thought did not matter. There were environmental and social policies, and others concerning training and apprenticeships; a whole range of interesting and good objectives. I have to say that we fairly ruthlessly stripped them out because, like now, the Government had a significant budget deficit and it is essential that primacy must be given to value for money. So we stripped them out, but that was not in any way to suggest that those factors could not be put into a request for proposal—RFP—or tender document, in the way that a number of your Lordships want to see happen on a routine basis.
The key to this is bespoking. There will be many cases where the inclusion of wider requirements makes sense and will not skew or bias a particular procurement in a way that damages its value for money—but there will be some where this is damaging, and this must be addressed close to the chalkface by those who are doing the procurement. As I said at Second Reading, the key is practices, and getting experts in procurement involved at an early stage so that the procurements can be devised in a way that supports the policy objective. Too often that does not happen. The problem with introducing broad, overarching requirements or even policy statements into the approach is that these get baked in at the policy development stage of a project, and that can then jeopardise and get in the way of the project’s effective implementation.
This leads to a broader point. It is essential that those charged with implementation of projects, programmes and policies—implementation professionals with the necessary expertise in procurement, project management, IT and digital, financial management and HR—are involved at the policy development stage. Far too often, that does not happen. That is the stage when advice can be taken and a procurement devised and formulated in such a way that these desirable other policy objectives can be addressed, but in a way that is proportionate and appropriate in the circumstances.
It seems to me that that is the reason for having that flexibility. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said that the words of Ministers can be warm, encouraging and good, but there is nothing like having good, strong law to bake it in. The problem is that this can be counterproductive. We all know the reality, and it is clear from this debate that procurement is difficult, complex and technical. If it is so for those of us who are here making the law, then it is pretty difficult, complex and technical for those trying to bid for contracts from the public sector. The more complexity and legal rigidity we build in at this stage, the greater the ability of the established universe of vendors and suppliers to freeze out newer, smaller ventures from effectively bidding for and winning these important contracts.
When procurement law becomes too rigid and prescriptive, frankly, it can enable established vendors to present some of the characteristics of an oligopoly. We saw this 15 years ago, particularly in the world of public sector IT contracts. It is really important that we bear this in mind.
A little later, in group 6, we will debate the government amendment that rightly requires contracting authorities to take account of the needs of SMEs, which I wholly welcome. In an earlier debate, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, mentioned the desirability of including the needs of social enterprise, to which I am very sympathetic, for all the reasons we discussed earlier.
However, the fact is that, the more prescription and rigidity in the law, the greater the scope for the big beasts in the supplier market to use their financial muscle and heft to squeeze out the smaller vendors through judicial review in the courts. Some of them are very trigger-happy in this respect. It is often the smaller, newer vendors who bring the most dynamism and innovation and are most able to bring quality and good value to the needs of delivering services and providing goods for citizens.
While recognising the good values and intentions that lie behind this desire to load all these additional factors on to procurement law and make them explicit, my counsel is that we should tread with very great caution. I do not find myself able to support these amendments.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I will offer a few general observations. I do not have any amendments in this group, and I will echo some of what my noble friend Lord Maude has just said.
I will make four points. First, I see little point in duplicating in this Bill what is already on the statute book. We have already referred to the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012. This deals with social value and does not need to be repeated in the Bill. That applies to other matters as well.
Secondly, lists of noble Lords’ favourite topics, such as climate change and innovation, run the risk of accelerating the Bill’s obsolescence. This is the case even if lists are drafted in a non-exhaustive form. The list itself provides context for interpreting the statute at a later stage. Those interpreting the legislation will look at what Parliament’s intention was when we passed it. The sorts of things we put in now will help determine the framework within which that judgment is made.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, I must make this point. Had we taken climate change and biodiversity loss seriously 30 years ago, we would not be in the situation we are in today. We are not seeing the investments we need into clean alternatives; nor have we developed the technologies from which other countries could benefit, and which would benefit our companies through their exportation around the world in order to solve this problem.
Climate change is not going anywhere: we will be debating it for the rest of this century. It seems absolutely incredible that we will not be considering it in 30 years’ time. It will be far more urgent then than it is now. We are already 30 years too late.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I add my support to the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. There is disunity in Horsham tonight: I disagree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham. I went to school in Horsham and was on the council there. However, I take a different view from the noble Lord about the role of procurement.
He talks about procurement’s sole purpose being good value. He went on to say that it is “motherhood and apple pie” to have value-driven public procurement policy, but I argue that it is not. That is the point of procurement: to marry good value with being value-led. Why be in government if you are not using all the levers at your disposal—regulation, fiscal incentives and disincentives, and procurement, with its massive spend—to deliver the values your Government want to deliver?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I remind the House that noble Lords may speak only once on Report.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
I will be very brief, as I do not want to prolong the discussion. In Committee, the Government made it clear that they would seriously consider the use of the national procurement policy statement as a vehicle to deliver the value-driven approach and support environmental and climate goals. The noble Lord, Lord True, said that they would reflect on that. Well, there has been no reflection. That is why it is so important—vital—that both the Labour Front Bench and the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, have come forward with two amendments today that will raise the importance and central role of the environment and climate change in the national procurement policy statement. I hope they test the opinion of the House on that, given that there is clearly a disagreement.
I support the point from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about Parliament having a say on this and a draft procurement policy statement being put forward. If the Government will not accept that, they need to explain to the House tonight why, if it was good enough for the Environment Act and the environmental principles policy statement, it is not good enough on this occasion.
I strongly believe that we should support the amendments, which make sure that procurement delivers values as well as good value.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, much has been made of the importance of social and environmental goals in public procurement. Of course, as many noble Lords have said, these goals have their place—but they should not be the driving force behind a procurement system, forcing it to run slowly and inefficiently and increasing cost to the public purse while disincentivising innovation and the participation of small businesses.
The Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put in place a robust procurement system that encourages procurers to focus on outcomes that deliver productivity improvements and innovation, reduce the cost to the public purse, and drive efficiency. It should do away with unnecessary and excessive procedural requirements that make it much more difficult for smaller businesses to compete and grow.
We should not lose sight of the fact that there is already much flexibility in the Bill, which is good news for delivery on social and environmental principles. This flexibility is evident in the Bill from the very outset, with the objective to maximise the public benefit and to allow economic, social and environmental matters to be considered. When it comes to awarding contracts, Clause 22 allows for a broad range of award criteria to be included in procurements where they are relevant, including those relating to social and environmental aims.
The Bill also includes a facility for a specific expression of government policy in the form of the national procurement policy statement and the Wales procurement policy statement. These can be used to create obligations to consider social and environmental goals of the day, such as net zero, without compromising the importance of maintaining an efficient and workable procurement regime. That is why I agree with my noble friend the Minister that we must avoid at all costs the inclusion of broad and unfocused obligations in relation to social and environmental matters.
Amendments to the Bill that would place requirements on contracting authorities always to have to include social and environmental benefits when awarding their contracts would slow down the procurement regime and increase risk. They would also significantly disincentivise small and medium-sized enterprises, which do not have the back-office capability to maintain huge reams of social and environmental policies and practices.
In summary, I am heartened that the approach the Government are already taking in the Bill will allow contracting authorities the flexibility to deliver procurement outcomes that address these important social and environmental objectives on a case-by-case basis while retaining value for money at the forefront. With this Bill, we are leaving behind a slow and bureaucratic procurement system that is unnecessarily restrictive in nature. Let us not change one set of restrictive procurement practices for another.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to Amendments 58 and 82 in my name, I reiterate my support for the opportunity that the Bill offers to reduce burdens on business, especially small businesses, by simplifying the UK regulation of public procurement. I also welcome the Bill’s objective of promoting an open and accessible business culture and practices.
That said, we must be careful that important safeguards currently in place in public procurement are not mistakenly, unwittingly or lightly discarded, hence these two simple and straightforward amendments, Amendments 58 and 82, which align with the Bill’s overall objective. In speaking to them, I declare an interest as chair of the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, UKAS. As the national accreditation body for the UK, appointed in statute, UKAS is the sole body recognised by government for the accreditation of organisations providing testing, inspection and certification services, collectively referred to as conformity assessment bodies. In short, we check the checkers, against internationally recognised standards.
The current procurement legislation, the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, stipulates that where conformity assessment is required by a contracting authority as part of a public procurement exercise, that conformity assessment must be accredited. This requirement for accreditation occurs either where the technical specification in the procurement mandates conformity assessment, such as testing or certification, or where an economic operator—a supplier—is required to hold certification as part of its proof of technical competence or management capacity.
The requirement for accreditation within current public procurement legislation is there for a purpose. It provides critical safeguards. It means that the competence, integrity and impartiality of a body delivering a test, inspection or certification must have been verified against international standards, on an ongoing basis, by an independent third party—in other words, by the nationally appointed accreditation body. The removal of these safeguards, which would disappear as the Bill is drafted, could have unintended and damaging consequences. For example, a contracting authority could require products to be tested to a specified standard but, without the safeguard of accreditation, any test certificate would have to be accepted. There would be no assurance of the quality or rigour of either the test or the tester. We saw what happened during the Covid pandemic with the profusion of substandard products that had false or inadequate certificates.
The NHS, when procuring PPE or anything else where it is critical that a product conforms with a specified standard, needs to be able to rely on a robust certification process. Likewise, a contracting authority could require a supplier to have a certificate for its management system, environmental management system, information security system or anti-bribery management system. If the certifier does not need to be accredited to perform that certification, the contracting authority cannot be certain that the relevant certificate is from a body whose technical competence, capabilities and impartiality have been verified by a third party against internationally recognised standards, but the contracting authority would none the less be obliged to accept the certificate.
Hence the serious concerns about the Bill that have been expressed to UKAS by public sector procurers such as the Ministry of Defence. Noble Lords will understand that the MoD—apart from being one of the United Kingdom’s largest public sector procurers—is uneasy at the prospect of purchasing goods and services from companies whose management system certificates have been issued by bodies that might not have been accredited to perform those assessments. In case anyone is wondering, several certification bodies in the market are not accredited to or compliant with international standards. It is important to guard against the unintended consequences of encouraging the proliferation of non-compliant conformity assessment and accreditation practice and all the risk that involves. It is equally important to avoid undermining certification bodies that operate as nationally accredited entities.
The safeguards proposed by these two straightforward amendments are rooted in the United Kingdom’s national quality infrastructure, which in turn reflects global best practice. They also align with the WTO’s Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and the Government’s commitment to international regulatory co-operation. Furthermore, they would bring the Bill into line with existing government policy on national accreditation.
In closing, I add that the drafting of these two amendments is also aimed at minimising trade barriers by recognising accreditation from any national accreditation body that is a signatory to the global mutual recognition agreements.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this is a very important group of amendments. We have had many speakers, so I will be concise. My noble friend Lady Parminter has already made some important points on our part. I will not repeat her comments, but we regard the issue of economic, social and environmental benefits to be paramount and we do not subscribe to the idea that it should not be in some way guided by the legislation or the operational part of the legislation.
I have listened carefully to the other speeches. I am minded to side with the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, of using the NPPS as the vehicle through which this aim and principle is achieved. I hope that we shall be able to support both him and the noble Baroness in His Majesty’s Opposition if they decide to press their amendments. Amendments 35 and 46 bear my name; clearly, I stand by them and the speeches that others have made.
There are two other areas on which I want to speak very briefly. Not least, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was unable to be here, but I know that he and my noble friend Lady Brinton have tabled Amendments 38 and 83, which reflect on accessibility. The previous legislation had prior regulations about accessibility and the fact that public procurement should ensure accessibility to all people. It has been lost in the drafting of this Bill. It is not clear to me whether that is a deliberate or accidental dropping of something, so it will be very useful to hear from the Minister what the Government’s thinking was on this. If it was deliberate, I would urge them to think again; if it was accidental, there is time to put it right.
Finally, I would like to make a pitch to support the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, who has unearthed something that must be another unintended consequence of this legislation. I cannot believe that this was deliberately put in place by the Government. His Amendments 58 and 82 are an important way of righting that situation. I hope, again, that the Minister will think again.
In conclusion, we on these Benches absolutely believe that there should be a public purpose to procurement. We feel that the legislators have a role, as well as the very important role outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Maude, for the professionals, when it comes to implementing that policy. It is really important that we seek to achieve public good through the £300 billion of procurement that this country makes.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, we have had an extremely interesting debate—a shorter one than I was expecting—and I am grateful for all the contributions.
I will start by saying that, while I understand that noble Lords rightly wish to pursue their particular interests, many of which I agree with, we have to bear in mind that procurement is, above all, an economic activity. That does not mean that we cannot take other things into account, but no amount of environmental or social benefit could make a procurement satisfactory if it failed to deliver economically on its intended purpose. We need to avoid the Christmas tree that my noble friend Lord Maude referred to. Of course, the NPPS allows for the inclusion of these sorts of policies—including net zero, as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said—but that does not mean to say that we want to put them on the face of the Bill.
In my view, value for money comes first, especially given the financial difficulties that we now face, but it is important to recognise that, as a result of Clause 18, contracting authorities will be working to a new definition, which nobody has mentioned, of “most advantageous tender” rather than “most economically advantageous tender”—that is, MAT not MEAT—so the days of focusing on price alone, not quality or wider matters such as generating UK employment opportunities, are over. Specific policies could also be put into bespoke tender documents, as my noble friend explained.
Secondly, my experience of many Bills is that it is unwise to attempt to define everything in detail at a particular point in time. As the years pass, relative priorities change. Who would have thought two years ago that inflation, the price of energy and the consequences of war would feature so highly on the national agenda? There will no doubt be other surprises—as, indeed, has been the scale of climate change; 20 or 30 years ago, most of us did not realise what would happen.
Thirdly, productivity growth is worryingly low in this country. It is essential that this Bill and the £300 billion of public procurement each year provides a boost and that small businesses are able to secure a share of that, as my noble friend Lord Lindsay’s comments implied. Innovation and competition have an important part to play here—I know that my noble friend Lord Lansley feels that strongly; they are two very important objectives. Procurement should be an enabler of innovation rather than increasing barriers to entry for competition, as my noble friend Lord Maude said.
Against this background, I come to Amendment 33, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. This seeks to restate the six principles consulted on in the Green Paper. In addition to the 619 responses we received, we have carried out extensive consultation with interested groups, as the noble Baroness will know. As a result, our principles were refined and then translated into the objectives and specific obligations that now exist in the Bill. The language of a Green Paper is not the language of legislation, and we have reflected the principles in a way designed to help contracting authorities understand how they will implement them. That goes for value for money, public good, transparency and integrity.
The public consultation indicated that “fair treatment” was too subjective for contracting authorities to determine by objective standards, so we introduced the concept of “treating suppliers the same” in Clause 11(2); and “non-discrimination” has been converted from an objective to a hard-edged obligation in Clauses 83 to 85. We believe that the combination of the objectives and specific legal obligations in the Bill deals with procurement principles in a more effective and practical way.
Amendment 35 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, changes the recognised concept of “value for money” in the procurement objectives into a more amorphous one, which includes the concepts of “social value” and “equity”. I have a number of concerns with what that amendment does. First, it moves contracting authorities away from the well-known concept of “value for money” and creates a new, and perhaps confusing, duty. Contracting authorities will not know this new duty and it will take time, resources and probably a number of costly legal challenges—a bugbear of procurement—to work that out. It is also an unfair burden to place on them in this new regime; we need to minimise legal doubt wherever we can.
It is also worth reminding noble Lords that the current national procurement policy statement already includes social value as one of its key themes. I am also concerned by the assumption that an obligation to have regard to some degree of social value must ensure some degree of equity in procurements. I do not think I am alone in being unclear on what “equity” is supposed to mean in this context, and doubtful that the simple existence of “social value” would deliver it.
Amendments 36 and 42, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Worthington and Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, seek to define “public benefit” to include various social and economic matters. The public benefit objective in Clause 11(1)(b) is deliberately undefined, so it is a flexible concept that gives contracting authorities a wide degree of discretion. These amendments seek to define “public benefit” in a much narrower way, limited only to economic, social and environmental benefits.
As I said at the beginning, we have lost sight of the need for our procurement spend also to be used to increase productivity, drive efficiency and stimulate growth. So let us keep the Bill as clear and simple as we can so that we do not swamp contractors and SMEs in paperwork. Let us instead ensure that we have an appropriate national procurement policy statement that can evolve as times change.
Amendments 38 and 83, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, but spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, require contracting authorities to have regard, when carrying out a procurement, to the accessibility of what is being procured for disabled people. I reassure noble Lords that we share the same intent. However, amendments to the Bill are not required: there is no need to change the Bill because, although disability accessibility is of great importance, it is already catered for in the public sector equality duty in the Equality Act 2010. It is appropriate that these matters are considered at the point that contracting authorities draw up technical specifications, and they must apply the requirements of existing law. My officials, however, would certainly welcome further engagement with bodies representing disabled people as the technical specifications and guidance are developed.
Lord Fox (LD)
The noble Baroness is right that the public sector equality duty is in the Equality Act, but the current system, which we will lose when the Bill comes into force, incorporates both the PSED and provisions under secondary legislation, such as the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. Therefore, when those regulations were laid, there was a tacit acceptance that the PSED alone was insufficient. If the Minister does not accept the amendments, will she bring forward other provisions in another way to backfill what is clearly being lost as we move from one set of rules to the other?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My attitude to this is clear, and I have offered to engage on the subsidiary detail of the transformation that we are planning with the Bill.
I turn to the important matter of the national procurement policy statement, which sets out strategic priorities for procurement. Amendment 43—I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I do not mention their names in relation to every amendment they have tabled—would require the Government to publish a national procurement policy statement, rather than just allowing them to do so. This is the so-called move from “may” to “must”. Amendment 44 then requires a statement to be published within 12 months of the relevant section coming into force.
I think the clause is right as it is. Think of how much more important issues such as supply chain resilience have become since the outbreak of Covid and the conflict in Ukraine. The current approach enables the Government to react nimbly to changes in priority, which my noble friend Lady Noakes thought was important, and they can issue a new statement as appropriate. However, importantly, I can assure noble Lords that this Government will publish such a statement when the Bill takes effect; indeed, they have already done so in draft. The Bill will put the new statement on a statutory footing. Importantly, the clause provides that, once the statement is published, contracting authorities must have regard to it when carrying out their procurement activity. The amendment as drafted requires a Minister to publish a statement. However, a Minister would be unable to fulfil this requirement were Parliament to vote against it, perversely meaning that the amendment would potentially prevent a Minister discharging the statutory duty. I would therefore prefer to avoid the formula proposed in Amendment 43.
Amendment 46 proposes that, prior to publishing a statement, the Minister must give due regard to a number of specified principles, most of which represent elements core to the procurement regime. This is evident from the drafting of the Bill overall: for example, value for money, integrity and maximising public benefit are set out clearly, and transparency is a specific requirement running throughout the Bill. There is a lot in common here with what I said at the beginning so I will not repeat that.
Amendment 47, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, would require the inclusion of specific priorities in the national procurement policy statement relating to the achievement of targets and requirements set under the Climate Change Act and other legislation, as well as promoting innovation and minimising the incidence of fraud. As discussed in Committee, the range of topics suggested by noble Lords during the process demonstrates that stakeholders have different priorities for procurement. These matters are already well covered in our statute book. It is important that policy priorities are addressed in a targeted way and that our regime does not contribute to a deterioration in productivity. That said, noble Lords will be reassured to know that many of these themes—net zero, social value and innovation—feature in the current non-statutory statement that we have already published.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I must say that I am pretty disappointed with the Minister’s response to my amendments, particularly to those on the NPPS. I give notice that I intend to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 46, when we reach it. I also let the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, know that, if he chooses to test the opinion of the House on his Amendment 47, we will support him. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 33.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, earlier today, we discussed government Amendment 34 on covered procurement, and, as promised, I have reflected on the contributions made by noble Lords. They will have noted that I left the Bill to my noble friend Lady Bloomfield for a while for this very purpose. I have looked at the implications of not proceeding with this amendment with my experts, and I still intend to move it. It is the Government’s view that, if it is not agreed, the objectives will still have to be considered for all procurements, including exempted procurements under Schedule 2, which would create the perverse situation I mentioned of needing to consider transparency in those exempted security contracts or—to give another example—contracts with law firms, which would include legally privileged information, and that would not be appropriate. It will also extend to small, low-value contracts, including those let by small authorities such as parish councils.
For these reasons, and those I set out earlier, I move Amendment 34. Should your Lordships disagree, the House can make its view known.
Lord Lansley (Con)
If that is the argument, why will the national procurement policy statement be applied to all procurements and not just covered procurements?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
As we have discussed, the national procurement policy statement is wide-ranging. In the Bill, we have tried to set up a framework and lots of rules for contracting authorities to try to ensure that they are adopting procedures that will improve and simplify procurement, which, as we all agree in this House, is not in the state it needs to be in. We believe that not moving Amendment 34—that is, not restricting procurement in certain respects—will lead to a great deal more difficulty for contracting authorities, particularly in these exempt areas. We have looked at the exemptions carefully and, contrary to what I think my noble friend thinks, individual procurements would have to be considered in a much more detailed way as a result of the perverse effect without this amendment.
As I said, should your Lordships disagree, the House can make its view known, should it wish. I beg to move Amendment 34.
“(e) in relation to the procurement of food and drink, achieving a target of procuring 50% of products and ingredients locally.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, it gives me pleasure to speak to Amendments 37 and 53 in this group. Before I address them, I associate myself with government Amendment 57, on the needs of SMEs. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for meeting me last week to discuss these issues. I am also grateful that she listened in Committee; that is why we see government Amendment 57 in this group.
Before I address Amendments 37 and 53, which raise farming issues, I pay tribute to the late Lord Plumb of Coleshill, whose memorial service was held today. He was a great British patriot and a lifelong European who lived all his life to promote farming at every level and in every position he held. He will be much missed.
Amendment 37 seeks to address an issue that a number of us tried to raise. I recall an amendment I tabled when the Trade Act was going through Parliament, both in Committee and on Report, in which I tried to write into the Bill that, now we had left the European Union, we were told that there would be a great Brexit dividend allowing us to open up public procurement—particularly at local authority level for our schools, hospitals, prisons and defence establishment—and allowing much more locally produced food to be taken at that level. So a number of us, myself in particular, were extremely disappointed to learn that, although we were leaving the European Union and the threshold of €136,000—up until which, I presume, locally produced food could be sourced for local authorities and local establishments—we were nevertheless still bound by the global procurement agreement, which, curiously, comes in at about the same level, $135,000. So in fact, there is no flexibility at all, and a number of us feel disappointed and that we were perhaps misled.
Amendment 37 seeks to add to Clause 11 the procurement objective of,
“in relation to the procurement of food and drink, achieving a target of procuring 50% of products and ingredients locally.”
Furthermore, Amendment 53 follows directly from the conversation I had with my noble friend last week. In it, I try to set down what locally sourced food would be:
“(1) Any public contracting authority catering services must take responsible steps to ensure that at least 50 per cent of food and drink is procured locally.
(2) For the purposes of this Part, “locally” refers to products that have been grown, raised or made within 30 miles of the point of provision, or in the same county.”
Noble Lords who followed the leadership contest closely may remember that we found a great advocate in none other than my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, who committed to these two provisions and expressed the distinct desire that they be enshrined in law. I am very grateful to him that there is an opportunity in the Bill to have this written into legislation. I quote from the letter he wrote at the time, as a leadership candidate, to the NFU:
“As you know, I represent a large number of farmers in my own constituency. I know that times are tough at the moment; the rise in global gas prices has led to a dramatic increase in input costs including manufactured fertiliser, livestock feed, fuel and energy. I want to help; I hope that by bringing forward 50% of the BPS payment we have given farmers some confidence, but I am very willing to listen if there are other measures that we should be taking.”
He went on to say:
“I will also introduce a new target for public sector organisations to buy 50% of their food locally, to back British farmers and improve sustainability.”
In my right honourable friend’s constituency is probably the largest garrison in the country, at Catterick barracks. I had the good fortune to represent the neighbouring seat—originally, the Vale of York and then Thirsk and Malton. I can testify to the number of defence establishments there and the large number of rural schools in that constituency. There was a large prison in York, and other public procurement establishments that would benefit from this provision.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it may aid the House if I set out the government amendments in this group. I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and will respond to her when I have heard other contributions. I share her tribute to Lord Plumb, whom I dealt with in all the stages of my career—at Defra, in Europe and in this House—and I am only sorry that government business prevented me from celebrating with others his wonderful life and success today.
There are a number of amendments in my name relating to SMEs. They are important government amendments to help SMEs to win a bigger share of the £300 billion procurement pie. I know that this issue is close to the hearts of noble Lords from across the House. Throughout Committee, noble Lords questioned whether the Bill had gone far enough in removing barriers to SMEs accessing public procurement. It has certainly been a top priority for me since I was lucky enough to become a Cabinet Office Minister. It is right that we support this vital sector of our economy. At the start of 2022, there were 5.5 million small businesses, accounting for 99% of all businesses in the UK, with over 16 million employees and a turnover of over £2 trillion. We must do more to champion these entrepreneurs.
The new measures that I am announcing today complement the existing provisions in the Bill, which make it easier for businesses to enter public sector supply chains and benefit SMEs. They include greater visibility of upcoming public sector opportunities and preliminary market engagement; developing a supplier registration system, meaning that suppliers need to submit their credentials only once; improvements to commercial tools, such as the introduction of dynamic markets and open frameworks; and, crucially, requiring that 30-day payment terms will apply throughout the public sector supply chain.
I am glad to be moving amendments in three areas to add to this momentum. First, we have introduced a new duty for contracting authorities to have regard to the participation of SMEs. It sends a very clear signal that the Government are open for business to this sector. For the first time, SMEs will be on the face of the Bill, which means that authorities have a responsibility to consider them and the barriers they face. To put this in practical terms, contracting authorities will, for example, need to specifically consider through an SME lens whether the requirements they are asking for are proportionate to the contract. Are the bidding times realistic when some businesses do not have a dedicated bidding team? Have they provided clear pipelines of opportunity? Is there a diverse representation of businesses in pre-market engagement?
Secondly, we have further stripped out unnecessary barriers which SMEs face. I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for highlighting ideas in Committee. I particularly appreciated the point that he raised, that we need to
“release some of the normal procedures and bureaucracy”.—[Official Report, 11/7/22; col. GC 385.]
As a result, we have banned authorities requiring the provision of audited accounts to test the financial standing of bidders to bid in procurements, to compete for contracts under frameworks and to join dynamic markets, except in so far as that is required under the Companies Act. This ensures that start-ups and SMEs which are not legally required to file audited accounts due to their size or age will not be shut out of procurements, provided that they can demonstrate their financial capacity by another reliable means.
Thirdly, we are going further to reduce unnecessary costs on businesses by preventing contracting authorities from requiring insurance relating to the performance of the contract, to be in place prior to the award. We know from feedback that this acts as an obstacle to participation.
Following Committee, I have reflected on the points raised by noble Lords during the debates and would like to thank many of them for follow-up discussions on this topic. I have also met trade associations such as the Federation of Small Businesses and the Business Services Association at a recent round table. We hope that the amendments will give SMEs a better chance of winning public sector contracts and allow the public sector wider access to the first-class skills, innovation and ideas that many agile, creative smaller firms offer. In turn, this will allow us to improve and enable the transformation of procurement services. These are all captured in Amendments 40, 122, 57, 70 and 74. Amendments 75, 76, 134, 140, 179, 183, 186, 188, 192 and 203 are consequential amendments, including splitting Clause 43 into two to avoid it becoming unwieldy.
I have also tabled Amendment 55, which requires a contracting authority to provide sufficient information in the tender notice or associated documents to enable suppliers to prepare tenders. It facilitates a clear trigger for the start of the tendering period identified in Clause 51. As the time available for bid preparation is so important, we consider that small suppliers will welcome this practical clarification. Amendments 40 and 122 in my name create new obligations on contracting authorities to consider the removal or reduction of barriers in procurement to small and medium-sized enterprises. We need to make sure that small and medium-sized companies do better in the procurement world.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I rise to speak to Amendments 41 and 123, which are amendments to government amendments. We welcome Amendment 40 but, as the noble Lords, Lord Maude and Lord Lansley, have said, we need in the Bill to make sure that, as well as SMEs, social enterprises, mutuals and non-profits are eased and get around some of the barriers otherwise placed in their way. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a sufficiently strong assurance that this is what is intended for it not to be necessary to divide the House on this issue, and perhaps even to come back at Third Reading with an adjustment to the current Amendment 40.
In the Green Paper that started this process, the importance of social enterprise, mutuals and non-profits was clearly marked; it has now disappeared altogether. Many of us are conscious that there are those on the libertarian right who think that every form of economic activity should be in the pursuit of profit and that the idea that you can do anything without wanting to make a profit is absurd and against free market principles. The libertarian right in the United States, which clings to such theological doctrines, has begun to infiltrate parts of the Conservative Party and, I am told, was a visible presence at the Conservative Party conference—but I am confident that real Conservatives do not share that absurd theological view. They recognise that there are many areas, particularly in personal services and care, where the different approach that comes from mutuals and non-profits makes a considerable amount of difference. There have been a number of scandals in care homes run for profit in recent years. I speak with passion on this subject because I have had a relative in a charitable care home who was wonderfully well treated in the last few years of her life.
I hope that the Minister will be prepared to recognise that the importance of social enterprise and non-profits needs to be here, and that she will give absolute assurance that this is what the Government intend, and that they do not intend to leave them with the barriers that the Government intend to remove for SMEs.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, my principal interest in the Bill has been whether it would achieve its stated objective of giving small and medium-sized enterprises a better chance to compete for and win public contracts, including SMEs providing specialist services in the construction sector, such as those represented by the Actuate UK engineering services alliance. So I very much support the government amendments in this group that seek to reinforce that objective, notably Amendment 40, explicitly requiring contracting authorities to take account of barriers faced by small firms and Amendments 57, 73 and 74, preventing unreasonable requirements for participation, such as providing audited annual accounts even for firms that do not otherwise need to produce them, or having insurance already in place before the award of a contract.
Other issues of importance to SMEs covered in Committee related to improving payment practices for public contracts and resolving payment disputes. However, since these are not specifically addressed in the amendments in this group, it might be more appropriate to raise them when we discuss the procurement review unit on Wednesday. However, I add my support to Amendment 41 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Fox, adding social enterprises and not-for-profit companies to the beneficiaries of Amendment 40.
On that subject, I also thank the Minister for her recent letter confirming the Government’s commitment to resolving a concern I raised in Committee about whether the drafting of Clause 31, concerning reserved contracts to supported employment providers, actually delivers the Government’s intention to implement an approach fully equivalent to that currently in place. I know that community enterprises that use such reserved contracts are much reassured by the commitment given by the Minister and I look forward to the letter she has promised to confirm that the issue has been resolved, and how.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for taking up the issue of SMEs, following not least the points she herself made in Committee. We thoroughly agreed with her and I think there was much consensus. I have two amendments in this group, which are by way of probing the issues a little. The first is Amendment 54. The two government amendments on SMEs relate, interestingly, to covered procurements in the first instance and then to below-threshold procurements separately. To that extent, putting it in the Bill and applying it to broader procurement seems to work in this case.
Amendment 54 would specifically include a reference to the capability of small and medium-sized enterprises in relation to preliminary market engagement, which may well be a place where SMEs in particular need to be supported, because they often do not necessarily have all the credentials and capabilities to hand. The second is an amendment to government Amendment 188, which defines “small and medium-sized enterprises” in thoroughly familiar terms to all of us who deal with these things. I tabled my amendment because the origin of the definition is essentially in European Commission regulations.
The reason that the Commission, in addition to the head-count calculation, adds turnover or revenue requirements is that SMEs have to be assessed by reference to that for the purposes of state aid and subsidy control. In this instance, subsidy control or state aid is not relevant, so, when it comes down to capability, the only issue that really matters is head count. Indeed, the Commission itself, in the regulation it put forward, makes it very clear that head count is the “main criterion”. I think it would be better to rest only on that, rather than to include the necessity for contracting authorities to look at turnover or revenue.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I support government Amendment 40. This is very worthwhile. I am also very sympathetic to Amendment 41, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. The reality is that not-for-profits, social enterprises and mutuals, when they come to retender or bid for different contracts, because a number of mutuals we supported have grown, both by expanding into different areas for the same group of clients but also by expanding into different geographical areas for different public authorities—and this is very worthwhile—but they are subject to very much the same kinds of constraints that the conventional procurement we inherited in 2010 imposed on SMEs.
I take slight issue with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. I do not actually believe that there is a conflict between this approach—working to remove barriers to SMEs, social enterprises and so on participating in, bidding for and winning government and public sector contracts—and achieving better value and supporting the aims of the free market. When we went down the path, in the coalition Government, of setting an aspiration of 25% by value, at that stage, of public procurement going to SMEs, the immediate response from the conventional wisdom was, “Oh, that means you’re going to abandon best value; you’re going to have to effectively subsidise SMEs”. Precisely the reverse was the case. Opening up procurement got rid of some ridiculous requirements that were not necessary at all but were imposed by safety-first procurers: for example, that bidders should have to show three years’ audited accounts and that there should be turnover thresholds, performance bonds and requirements to show that they had in place the insurance to cover the contract value before they even bid.
The combination of all these things meant that many SMEs and start-ups and some of the most innovative, competitive and dynamic potential suppliers were simply not able to get into the marketplace at all. So there is no conflict between value for money and opening up to smaller businesses: the two objectives go absolutely hand in hand. So I strongly support the amendment the Minister has brought forward, but I urge her to look sympathetically at Amendment 41, because social enterprises, not-for-profits, mutuals and so on suffer from exactly the same disadvantages and obstacles as there were in old-fashioned procurement and it is important, I believe, that they should be included in the same bracket.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 164 in this group, to which my noble friend Lord Moylan has added his name. Before turning to that, I echo what other noble Lords have said in thanking my noble friend the Minister for her amendments on SMEs. I am very glad that she has taken into the Cabinet Office the evident passion she demonstrated for the cause of SMEs when she took part in Committee on the Bill. Of course, there is no one silver bullet that is going to solve all the problems of SMEs engaging in public procurement, but I believe that most of the amendments before us here will contribute to an important advance in that area.
I have a concern about Amendment 134, which is one of my noble friend’s amendments. It keeps the new Clause 11 duty out of the enforcement clause, Clause 92. That is a pity, because it means that SMEs, which think that that duty is not being complied with, will have to fall back on judicial review—and, as we know, judicial review is not a practical remedy available to SMEs. I regret that. I similarly regret Amendment 140 in relation to procurement oversight recommendations, and I hope that the Government will have an opportunity to think again about both those areas when the Bill moves to the other place.
My Amendment 164 is aimed at the same target as Amendment 163 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who was not in her place when the debate started earlier this evening. I was expecting the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, to explain the amendment, and then I was going to come in behind it. They are both sourced from an amendment suggested by the Local Government Association. It concerns Section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988 and the exclusion of non-commercial interests that is required by that section. Clause 107 allows regulations under this Bill to disapply that duty for below-threshold contracts. The issue raised by the Local Government Association was that that should not be just permissive but should be an absolute requirement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, tabled an amendment in the form originally suggested by the Local Government Association. I have been around a little longer than the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and have debated may/must amendments in relation to whether regulations should be obligatory or permissive. It is a good technique for discussing issues in Committee, but when we get to the sharp end of the business of legislation, the Government always resist a regulation-making power being obligatory—and for good reason, because it ties the hands of today’s Government and any future Governments. I accept that, and I am sure that the Opposition Benches who may want one day to be making legislation of their own would accept that as well. So I retabled the concept of the amendment by inserting below-threshold contracts into the list of things that could be done with this power, in the hope not that my noble friend would accept the amendment but that she would give a clear commitment at the Dispatch Box today to use the regulation-making power at the appropriate time to ensure that below-threshold contracts are excluded from the ambit of Section 17, as I mentioned. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 162A, which rather neatly follows the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, because it deals with Section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988. Its intention is to remove the prohibition in that provision which prevents local authorities taking into account the terms and conditions of the staff of the supplier, or their legal status. The thought behind this is that public authorities should take into account the terms and conditions and the legal status of those who carry out the work under these public contracts. The restriction applies to local government only and not to other public authorities.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak on Amendment 73 as my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones is detained in Grand Committee. This amendment requires direct-award contracts included in a framework agreement to be retendered 18 months after the award. This amendment takes a different route from the one we discussed in Committee, but the aim is the same: to prevent direct contracts being used within framework agreements to restrict competition from British SMEs and reinforce the dominance of certain key foreign players in the market. The Minister will remember that we used cloud computing as a major example of where the system has gone off the rails. The SME share of the market has fallen from more than 50% to just 20% in the past five years. In this respect, there is little sign that the Procurement Bill is in reality designed to provide new opportunities to prevent this slide towards—shall we call it “oligopoly”, to coin a phrase that was used by the noble Lord, Lord Maude, in a different context?
Rather than preventing such awards, as we attempted last time, we have instead put down an amendment to time-limit the awards. This would introduce a duty to retender, after 18 months, direct contracts awarded as part of a framework agreement under Clauses 38 and 41. This would provide the opportunity to redress the balance and help support UK SMEs. In Grand Committee, the Minister said that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones had made a lot of points that she was not aware of and promised to study in relation to the important areas of cloud computing and UK businesses. She also emphasised some of the advantages of framework agreements. We are not arguing with that, but that is not the point. This is about detriment to SMEs through the use of direct contracts which are hidden within framework agreements. The problem can be cured. The Minister also said in relation to these agreements that it makes sense for them to be time-limited. I hope she has studied the words of my noble friend and has something to offer that limits the duration of direct contracts that are made within framework agreements.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I have just a few brief remarks on this group. Before I come on to the main point that I want to make, I shall say that I think Amendment 37, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about local produce and the local procurement of foodstuffs is something that is growing in importance. All of us know in our own communities that people individually are doing that, as well as local businesses. I think that before long the 50% target she put in her amendment will grow. I think it is an important amendment. Given the other things being talked about, it should not be lost in the general debate.
I thank the Minister for government Amendment 40, which goes to the heart of the discussion in this group, which is about encouraging small and medium-sized enterprises in the procurement process to do better than they are present, and the responsibility of contracting authorities to achieve that. The real question for the Minister—and, frankly, if there are changes of Minister in future—is how we will ensure that that happens, because successive Governments have tried to encourage small and medium-sized enterprises, and it has not been as successful as we wanted. The question is about how we make this procurement system work in a way that benefits small and medium-sized businesses in the way that we would all want.
I am very supportive of Amendment 41, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, which talks about the barriers faced by social enterprises and not-for-profit companies in competing for procurement. I think that is something that will become increasingly important.
I know my noble friend Lord Hendy will speak about his later amendment in more depth. His amendment in this group, Amendment 162A, allows procurement to take into account the terms and conditions of staff and the legal status of subcontractors. I think it is an extremely important area, and I thank my noble friend for raising it because all of us would wish to see that people are paid properly for the work they do and that nobody is undercut in the winning of various contracts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, pointed to Amendment 163 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and her supportive Amendment 164, which she ably put forward. She made some important points which we can look at in due course and to which I hope the Minister will respond.
However, I go back to where I started: the key amendment in this group is government Amendment 40. We are grateful that it has been brought forward and hope that it will encourage greater success for small and medium-sized enterprises in the procurement business in this country. The key for us is to make sure that this time it works and that we do not have another government amendment in two years’ time trying to achieve the same.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is right that the challenge is to make the shift to SMEs a reality. I will take that away as my homework. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, especially the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who progressed matters with me and saved me from a further group of amendments.
I was also very interested in the real-life experience of my noble friend Lord Maude as to the difficulties of getting potential small suppliers to apply for government contracts, because in my experience SMEs can represent very good value for money. They do not have the same costs and scale of central services that some of the bigger operators have, and that can feed through into great prices and great service.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am extremely grateful, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for saying that the way forward is obviously to procure more food locally, and to my noble friend for pointing out that Section 17 of the Local Government Act will in fact be lifted. That is good news. It is pleasing to see that her work has formed a coalition of support for Amendment 40, and I congratulate her on that. I am not suggesting that olives should be grown in this country any time soon, but she will probably be aware that we are only 16% self-sufficient in fruit and vegetables in this country. It is wrong that we should be so dependent on foreign imports. It is a matter of personal regret to me that the scheme that was intended to bring Ukrainian women in to pick fruit and vegetables this year never appeared to come into force, so I hope we can look at that in future years. With those few remarks and the assurances she has given, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 37.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(4) In carrying out a covered procurement, a contracting authority must—(a) have regard to the fact that small and medium-sized enterprises may face particular barriers to participation, and(b) consider whether such barriers can be removed or reduced.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a contracting authority, in carrying out a covered procurement, to have regard to the particular barriers to participation in public procurement that small and medium-sized enterprises may have, and whether they can be removed or reduced.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“(aa) give due regard to the following principles—(i) promoting the public good, by having regard to the delivery of strategic national priorities including economic, social, environmental and public safety priorities,(ii) value for money, by having regard to the optimal whole-life blend of economy, efficiency and effectiveness that achieves the intended outcome of the business case,(iii) transparency, by acting openly to underpin accountability for public money, anti-corruption and the effectiveness of procurements,(iv) integrity, by providing good management, preventing misconduct, and exercising control in order to prevent fraud and corruption, (v) fair treatment of suppliers, by ensuring that decision-making is impartial and without conflict of interest, and(vi) non-discrimination, by ensuring that decision-making is not discriminatory,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a Minister to consider a set of principles before publishing the national procurement policy statement.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I would like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 46.
Lord Lansley
“(3A) The strategic priorities to be included in the statement must include, but are not limited to—(a) achieving targets set under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021,(b) meeting requirements set out in the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012,(c) promoting innovation amongst potential suppliers, and(d) minimising the incidence of fraud, waste or abuse of public money.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require that the priorities listed in the amendment are among the strategic priorities in relation to procurement included in the National Procurement Policy Statement.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 46 does not in any sense pre-empt Amendment 47, since Amendment 47 adds specific text to the Bill relating to the Environment Act, the Climate Change Act, the Public Services (Social Value) Act, and the promotion of innovation and the minimisation of fraud, waste and abuse of public money. It does so, as my noble friend said in the group we have just discussed, by putting it in the Bill and what is currently in the national procurement policy statement does not suffice. I move Amendment 47 and beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
(a) information sufficient to allow suppliers to prepare such a tender, and(b) in particular, details of”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that a contracting authority provides sufficient information to suppliers before the beginning of a tendering period.
“(7) See section (Qualifying utilities dynamic market notices: no duty to publish a tender notice) for an exception to the duty in subsection (1) for contracts awarded by reference to suppliers’ membership of certain utilities dynamic markets.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Government’s new clause on qualifying utilities dynamic market notices.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(2A) A condition set under subsection (1)(a) may not—(a) require the submission of audited annual accounts, except from suppliers who are, or were, required to have the accounts audited in accordance with Part 16 of the Companies Act 2006 or an overseas equivalent;(b) require insurance relating to the performance of the contract to be in place before the award of the contract.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent contracting authorities from requiring audited accounts from suppliers that do not otherwise prepare audited accounts (for example, small companies), or insurance to be in place before award.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the other Government amendment to this Clause would ensure that the House authorities are not required to seek the approval of a Minister of the Crown to exclude a supplier on the basis of national security.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to introduce a number of government amendments. These include several technical amendments, so I will be brief.
Amendments 59, 60, 108 and 109 exempt the corporate officers of Parliament from the requirement to seek agreement from a Minister of the Crown before excluding a supplier or terminating a contract under the national security exclusion ground. Amendment 85 ensures that the mandatory exclusion grounds capture all Scots law offences equivalent to the already specified English and Welsh offences.
Amendments 86 and 87 refer to the relevant sections in the Theft Act to align with other legislation on economic crimes. Amendment 88 amends the transitional regime for mandatory exclusions to ensure that the correct time period is applied for the mandatory exclusion ground for conspiracy to defraud. Amendment 90 simplifies the exclusion grounds for suppliers which are insolvent or bankrupt. Amendments 92 and 93 amend the rules on how far in the past events can be taken into account as discretionary exclusion grounds in relation to breach of contract and poor performance.
I will turn to the amendments tabled by other noble Lords when I close. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 89 in my name. I feel that the time pressure has lifted, so perhaps I can make a nice long speech to your Lordships now. Amendment 89 is intended to allow Ministers and contracting authorities to exclude businesses from procurement where there is evidence of financial and economic criminal activity, such as fraud, money laundering, bribery or sanctions evasions, but there has not yet been a conviction by a court.
This follows the debate we had in Grand Committee on Amendment 320, when the Minister made some cogent points about the problems of excluding organisations that had not been convicted—that point was understood. However, given the length of time involved in carrying out investigations and then securing the resulting enforcement action, we remain concerned that there is a real possibility that unsuitable suppliers may be awarded procurement contracts while they are awaiting the full length of the process.
It was therefore with some interest that my attention was drawn to the Government’s Review into the Risks of Fraud and Corruption in Local Government Procurement. This review looked into the risks of fraud and corruption in local government procurement—not surprising; that is what it was supposed to do—and made the recommendation that the exclusions regime for public procurement should be examined to see
“if more could be done to allow procurers to exclude bidders from the process (with reasonable cause and without the requirement to disclose), for example when there are known concerns with law enforcement that have not yet resulted in a prosecution”.
We believe that the Bill provides an opportunity for the Government to fulfil this recommendation, and suggest that the process of studying how to do that, recommended in that report, could happen. I should be grateful if the Minister would bring forward some sort of government process to have that assessment. If this is not the Government’s intention, she needs to explain to your Lordships’ House why she is prepared to recommend one process for local authorities through a report that had ministerial backing while ignoring the actual issue in the appropriate legislation, which is the Bill. This was the subject of a letter that I wrote to the Minister many days ago and I am still waiting for the reply.
It is in everyone’s interest to ensure that the contracting authority can act when it has evidence of financial or economic offences, but formal conviction is outstanding. We understand the problems, but the Government themselves have identified this as an issue with local authorities. The exclusion regime is not just a deterrent for bad actors; it is also supposed to prevent them getting the contracts in the first place.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 91A follows the theme of my earlier Amendment 162A. The thrust of this amendment is that in determining whether to let a public contract to a bidder, a public authority should have the power to take into consideration the conduct of the potential supplier vis-à-vis its staff.
The Government are to be praised for accepting that public procurement is a useful tool to maintain and raise standards, hence the emphasis on public good, even without the benefit of Amendment 46. Clause 29, for example, excludes those guilty of improper behaviour of various kinds. Schedule 6 provides that there are mandatory exclusions, among other things, for suppliers who have been convicted of various offences: corporate manslaughter, homicide, terrorism, theft, fraud, bribery, organised crime, tax offences, and cartel offences.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a short debate, but this group contains some very important amendments that the Minister should consider carefully.
I turn first to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. He introduced it extremely clearly and explained why he considered it necessary. He made an important point: if you give a contract to somebody who, not a very long time afterwards, is found guilty of the offences outlined in the noble Lord’s amendment, what recourse is there for other people who have bid for that contract and behaved perfectly properly? We know that contracts are often given for a number of years, so this is likely not to be something that happens once in a blue moon; it could become a problem. If the Minister is not inclined to accept the noble Lord’s amendment, I ask her to take his concerns back to her department to see whether there is another way to have some kind of recourse or review if such a situation were to arise.
My noble friend Lord Hendy’s amendment is incredibly important because, as he rightly said in introducing it, we have Clause 29, which looks at excluding suppliers for improper behaviour—he listed many of the improper behaviours that are included in this—but what is not included is what happens if the rights of an employee or worker are breached. Surely the rights of those who work on contracts and work for people should be fully supported by the Government. We have laws on employment rights for a purpose. Surely, in looking at procurement and who to give what are often extremely lucrative contracts to, this Bill should consider employees’ rights and ensure that companies that have behaved improperly by breaching employment rights are excluded.
This seems a very straightforward amendment to add to the Bill. It would give employees more confidence and would give people who are looking to employ people confidence that they are treating their workforce in the way the law of our country dictates. I urge the Minister to support this amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for Amendment 89 on financial and economic misconduct. The amendment would permit the exclusion of suppliers where there is evidence of certain economic and financial offences. Of course, suppliers who commit fraud, bribery and money laundering and have failed to self-clean have no place winning government contracts. There are already mandatory grounds for exclusion that cover the most serious offences of this nature, as set out in Schedule 6. It is worth noting that the scope of economic and financial offences covered is significantly wider than in the EU regime that it replaces, including a broader range of theft, fraud and money laundering offences.
However, the mandatory grounds in Schedule 6 rightly require the supplier or a connected person to have been convicted. By providing for exclusion without the requirement for a conviction, the amendment would require authorities to make a judgment as to whether there is sufficient evidence that offences have been committed in order to apply the ground. They would need to make this judgment at a point when the investigating authorities have not reached a view, which would be very difficult. The exclusions regime requires all grounds to be considered in respect of every bidder in a procurement, so authorities would have no choice about whether to consider these matters.
I thank the noble Lord for drawing our attention to the review of finance and corruption in local government. The recommendation in that review was that we consider whether this proposal is feasible. We have given it careful consideration but are not taking it forward, for the reasons I have already touched on. However, I would add that the very fact pointed out by the noble Lord—that investigations by the authorities into these matters, which can apply to many different areas of regulation, often take considerable time—speaks to the complexity of making these judgments within the contracting authorities. There is no reason to think that they would find this any easier than the relevant and proper authorities. In fact, they would find it harder, so it would be a new burden on those investigating suppliers—it could be a significant one—and on suppliers themselves, which I am unwilling to impose.
I turn now to Amendment 91A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, which introduces a discretionary exclusion for “significant” breaches of workers’ rights. I pay tribute to the noble Lord’s work in this area. In my view, the exclusion grounds already cover the most serious breaches of workers’ rights, so the mandatory grounds in Schedule 6 include slavery and human trafficking offences, offences relating to employment agencies and gangmasters, and refusal or wilful neglect to pay the national minimum wage. These are based on the serious labour offences within the purview of the director of labour market enforcement.
The amendment begs the question of what constitutes a “significant” breach. Unless there is a settled consensus on this point, which I am not aware of, it will be difficult for both suppliers and contracting authorities to interpret. We should remember that suppliers will need to self-declare whether they are subject to any of the grounds, and that contracting authorities will need to consider whether suppliers meet the grounds in each procurement that they run. That is quite wide-ranging in relation to employment rights. Questions of whether a breach is significant, and, indeed, whether it relates to rights derived from statute, common law or international obligations, will consume a disproportionate amount of time and resources. I do not doubt that there are a number of behaviours in different areas which the exclusion grounds we have set out might or might not cover; but the purpose of the exclusions regime is to protect against suppliers that may be fundamentally unfit to compete for public contracts. It is not a means to enforce employment rights, or a lever to incentivise certain behaviours.
What we have introduced in this Bill is a much tougher regime of debarment, with central resources devoted to assessing suppliers and deciding centrally on debarment. This is tough for direct and indirect suppliers, as one bad apple in a company can cause them to be debarred—a very strong incentive to ensure that bad behaviour does not occur in the first place, of course; or, where it does, to take remedial action. However, expanding the exclusion grounds, as proposed in this amendment, will have a chilling effect on engagement in procurement, as I explained from a business perspective before I became a Minister and turned into the gamekeeper. We must be fair and remember that we have an interest in more competitive markets that improve value for money, innovation and productivity. I am grateful to those who have spoken for raising these issues. However, I believe we have done enough in Schedule 6, and I respectfully ask the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Hendy, not to press their amendments, given the lateness of the hour.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, raised a new point about the carry-on consequences of the issues we have discussed in this group. I am not sure that we can do anything about that, but I will certainly have a look at that as the Bill progresses. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(4) In this section, a “relevant contracting authority” means a contracting authority other than—(a) a Minister of the Crown or a government department,(b) the Corporate Officer of the House of Commons, or(c) the Corporate Officer of the House of Lords.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the other Government amendment to this Clause would ensure that the House authorities are not required to seek the approval of a Minister of the Crown to exclude a supplier on the basis of national security.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the Government amendment to subsection (1)(b) of this clause would clarify that it is improper behaviour relating to the award of a particular contract that is relevant in deciding whether to exclude someone from competing for that contract, and would reflect the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the Government amendment to subsection (1)(a) of this clause would clarify that it is improper behaviour relating to the award of a particular contract that is relevant in deciding whether to exclude someone from competing for that contract, and would reflect the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that documents establishing or modifying a dynamic market are not subject to any requirements applicable to contracts under the Bill.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(1A) A condition set under subsection (1)(a) may not— (a) require the submission of audited annual accounts, except from suppliers who are, or were, required to have the accounts audited in accordance with Part 16 of the Companies Act 2006 or an overseas equivalent;(b) require insurance relating to the performance of a contract to be in place before the award of the contract.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent contracting authorities from requiring audited accounts from suppliers that do not otherwise prepare audited accounts (for example, small companies), or insurance to be in place before award.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Qualifying utilities dynamic market notices: no duty to publish a tender notice
(1) The duty to publish a tender notice in section 20(1) does not apply in relation to the award of a contract by reference to suppliers’ membership of—(a) a utilities dynamic market established by reference to a qualifying utilities dynamic market notice, or(b) a part of such a market.(2) A contracting authority must instead provide a tender notice to members of the market, or part of the market, for the purposes set out in section 20(1). (3) A contracting authority may also provide a tender notice to suppliers that have applied for membership of the market, or part of the market, but have yet to be accepted or rejected.(4) The reference in section 20(5) to a tender notice or associated tender documents includes a reference to a qualifying utilities dynamic market notice.(5) Section 33(4) (duty to consider applications for membership) does not apply in relation to the award of a contract by reference to suppliers’ membership of—(a) a utilities dynamic market established by reference to a qualifying utilities dynamic market notice, or(b) a part of such a market.(6) In this section, “a qualifying utilities dynamic market notice” means a dynamic market notice under section 38(2) (dynamic market notices) that—(a) relates to the establishment of a utilities dynamic market, and(b) sets out—(i) that only members of the market will be notified of a future intention to award a contract by reference to suppliers’ membership of the market, and(ii) any other information specified in regulations under section 88.(7) In this Act, a reference to publication of a tender notice includes a reference to provision of a tender notice under subsection (2) or (3).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would relieve a utility that establishes a dynamic market by reference to a qualifying utilities dynamic market notice from the obligation to publish a tender notice.
Procurement Bill [HL]
Wednesday 30th November 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 63-II Second marshalled list for Report - (28 Nov 2022)
17:09 - Division on Amendment 72 - Ayes: 201 / Noes: 220 - Amendment 72 disagreed.
18:46 - Division on Amendment 91 - Ayes: 191 / Noes: 169 - Amendment 91 agreed.
18:59 - Division on Amendment 94 - Ayes: 178 / Noes: 158 - Amendment 94 agreed.
Lord Scriven
“(3A) Provision under subsection (1) must not confer any preferential treatment on suppliers connected to or recommended by members of the House of Commons or members of the House of Lords.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to prevent the future use of “VIP lanes” for public contracts.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I will also support Amendment 113 in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Fox, which I have put my name to.
Imagine this House’s response to a public sector procurement Bill or statutory instrument that came before your Lordships’ House with the following provisions. The Government could, without reference to anyone, set up a new procurement channel that was mainly for people who knew Members of the Houses of Parliament, and particularly government Ministers. The companies offering the items would not have to be trading, or could just have a few weeks’ incorporation, and would still be included in the special channel. Normal scrutiny and due diligence would not be required of such contacts. These contacts would have preferential treatment over existing and trusted suppliers. They would be 10 times more likely to get a contract, many running into multi-millions of pounds, than other companies not in that special channel, many of which would have had a trading history of years of supplying relevant, safe and reliable goods and services. In addition, those on the special channel would be able to make three times the normal profit margin before the usual and rigorous value-for-money checks were carried out.
Quite rightly, we would be outraged and would see that as unethical and an unacceptable way to spend billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. I hope that a fatal Motion would be put so that such provisions were stopped in their tracks. However, that is exactly what happened with the VIP channel set up for PPE in 2020. The findings of the National Audit Office and other reports that have been investigating the VIP channel paint a picture that is not acceptable and should never be part of an ethical public sector procurement process. The National Audit Office reported that companies referred to the VIP channel lane by Ministers, senior MPs and Peers had a success rate for gaining PPE contracts 10 times greater than other companies, many of which had a history of supplying reliable PPE in the other procurement routes. Parliamentary Questions show that 41 out of 111 contracts awarded through the high-priority lane by May 2020 had not gone through the formal eight-stage due diligence process.
If speed is required in public sector procurement, the normal rules of probity and ethical standards cannot and must not be ditched. We know that it leads to some with access to government Ministers’ personal WhatsApp contacts, telephone numbers or email addresses ending up making many billions of pounds for nothing more than having those contacts, and the door is open to the public sector market with the ability to supply goods and services. It is reported that some individuals have made over £29 million in personal gain from a company that was not even incorporated when they were lobbying government Ministers to get in the VIP lane, and indeed, when they eventually landed a multi-million-pound contract, they provided some goods and services that were not fit for purpose and could have put our NHS staff at risk had they been used.
Amendment 72 prevents another VIP lane from being set up that creates special and lucrative routes to market for those with privileged access to Members of the Houses of Parliament, and particularly to those in the Government. It will still allow the Government to procure in an emergency but would ensure that one route to getting to market exists—one doorway, with the same due diligence and rules applied regardless of who made the recommendation of the individual or company, rather than a fast-track and light-touch scheme for those who have a contact who is a senior politician or government Minister.
Without this simple amendment, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent another unethical procurement scandal that could set up a VIP lane and become another get-rich-quick scheme for some who have personal access to government Ministers and senior politicians. As the National Audit Office said, contracts awarded by the department through the parallel channel made up only 3.6% of all contracts awarded but accounted for 52% of expected contract value.
With this in mind, I ask the Minister: what in this Bill would prevent another VIP channel from being set up that is predominantly populated on contracts from senior politicians and government Ministers? I look forward, as I am sure many noble Lords do, to hearing what the Minister has to say to reassure the House that the Bill has provisions that will prevent the kind of scandal that the country saw with the VIP lane set up. It was mainly populated by those who had contact with senior politicians and government Ministers, who made millions of pounds in personal gain for those contracts while going through a regime of much lighter touch than that for those not in the VIP lane. If the Minister cannot convince the House that provisions in this Bill will prevent this from happening again, I am minded to test the opinion of the House.
As a matter of objective, Clause 11 is meant to ensure that, in carrying out public sector procurement, bodies are
“acting, and being seen to act, with integrity”.
Amendment 72 will do exactly that, and ensure probity and integrity, so that never again will taxpayers see their money used in such a cavalier and unethical way as they did with the PPE VIP channel. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 97 for two reasons. First, it is to ask for an assurance from the Minister that the procurement review unit will be set up, and secondly, it is to put down a strong marker on the reasons that the Minister’s department presented for attempting to exclude my amendment as constitutionally improper.
The Minister will recall that, in the responses to the Green Paper, there was a warm and widespread welcome to the proposal that an autonomous unit should be set up within the Cabinet Office to oversee contracting authority compliance with the new procurement rules and so help to realise the benefits intended from the transformation of public procurement legislation. In turn, the Government’s response gave a clear commitment to set up what it now labelled the procurement review unit. This is not in the Bill, however. Therefore, will the Minister Pepper v Hart that commitment, so to speak, by stating in the House that this remains the Government’s clear intention, and that during the passage of the Bill an effective PRU will be established, along the lines indicated by the Government’s response to the consultation?
On the second issue, the slide presentation to the briefing given to Peers on the PRU between Committee and Report, which I was unfortunately unable to attend, stated that the principle of indivisibility of the Crown means providing statutory powers to Ministers whereby they can direct action to be taken by central government departments—in other words, another part of the Crown—and is not usually provided for in legislation. To do so also risks fettering the non-statutory powers Ministers already hold.
I had not previously heard the principle of the indivisibility of the Crown, nor that this principle inhibited Parliament from including specific instructions to Ministers in legislation. It is, after all, an assertion of prerogative—executive sovereignty against parliamentary sovereignty—although oddly qualified by including the adjective “usually” in its attempted exclusion of legislation.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly on Amendment 97, which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, has just introduced, concerning the procurement review unit. I am grateful to the Minister for organising a very helpful meeting recently outlining the Government’s thinking on the role of the PRU. This is not envisaged as a statutory body, so does not currently feature in the Bill, but it will have some important functions relating to SME engagement in public procurement, such as fostering much-needed culture change in the construction sector and promoting SME access through means such as training, transparency and, above all, better payment practices for public contracts.
These include making 30-day payment terms apply throughout the public sector supply chain, with the 30-day period measured from when an invoice is first received rather than when it is deemed valid. Contracting authorities will be required to publish their payment performance every six months. The payment performance review scheme, PPRS, run by the Cabinet Office, which has been underresourced in the past, will be given extra capacity, staffing and weight. The current system, based on reporting the volume of invoices paid within 30 days, can allow late payment of large sums to be drowned out by a high volume of lower-value instant payments. To give a truer picture, I hope the Minister might consider requiring the value of payments made within 30 days to be reported, as well as the volume.
The PRU will also carry out proactive spot checks to assess compliance with payment terms throughout the supply chain. The Minister might explore the possibility of using technology to track payment times, which might ultimately lead to more real-time transparency of payment performance. I understand that many construction firms already use technology to produce their payment reports.
These are all very welcome aspects of the Government’s plans for the procurement review unit. I hope the Minister will put them formally on record in her response, thereby averting, or at least reducing, the need for Amendment 97 to include the PRU in the Bill.
I end by congratulating the Minister on her piece in the Times on Monday confirming her commitment to making it easier for small firms to compete for and win public sector contracts. I hope the Times readership will actively support us in holding her and the Government to that commitment.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I can be brief. I thoroughly support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said to us in moving his amendment. I do not need to repeat arguments that I placed before your Lordships earlier this week on Monday, in December last year, and then again in January and March this year, and even in the Question that we had just before our proceedings on PPE, which continues to be stored in the People’s Republic of China at a cost to us of some £770,000 every day.
I am extremely grateful that the Minister responded so quickly after our debate on Monday with a letter that I received this morning. For the purposes of the record, I will read out one paragraph. She wrote:
“You made a number of points about PPE contracts which have been found to have underperformed. I also understand you have asked written questions … on these matters. I appreciate your desire for more information on this and I will be writing to the Secretary of State highlighting both your views and those expressed by others in the House.”
That is a very welcome response and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for going to that trouble.
I have sent a copy of our Hansard from Monday to my noble and learned friend Lady Hallett, who is chairing the public inquiry to which the Minister referred during our debate on Monday. The Minister said that lessons would be learned, and that the Covid inquiry would
“cover procurement and the distribution of key equipment and supplies, including PPE”.—[Official Report, 28/11/22; col. 1593.]
I am grateful to her for that.
I have only one other point. On Monday, I raised the issue of repayments. That is not something that can wait for the several years it might take the public inquiry to make its recommendations. I refer the Minister to my two questions about defaulting PPE suppliers and the actions that will be taken through the faulty contract PPE recovery unit. I also asked about individual settlements, which, as she said, are protected by commercial secrecy. I asked
“how will Parliament and the public be notified about money returned to public funds by defaulting PPE suppliers through the actions of the faulty contract PPE recovery unit?”—[Official Report, 28/11/22; col. 1581.]
How will that work? Can the Minister illuminate us a little further? If she cannot, would she be prepared to put pen to paper in a follow-up letter to me as a result of today’s debate? I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for giving us the opportunity to explore this issue further.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who raised such important points about payment terms for small and medium-sized enterprises. That is a long- term issue that has not been addressed. There is a real opportunity here, as the noble Lord outlined.
I will speak briefly to Amendment 72, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, who so comprehensively introduced it, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I confess that I attached my name to it at the absolute last minute because I expected a rush of Members from around your Lordships’ House doing so. I thought it was important to demonstrate that there was a breadth of support.
I should perhaps warn the Minister that that support appeared to come from the Government Front Bench earlier, when the noble Lord, Lord Markham, responding to the PPE Urgent Question repeat from the other place, said that the earlier procurement
“should not have been on the basis of referrals”.
It would appear that this amendment delivers exactly what the noble Lord said should happen in future. That is a very interesting reflection of what is happening in your Lordships’ House.
Briefly, we know that the Government would like to treat all this as ancient history, but I and, I am sure, other Members of your Lordships’ House have seen that for members of the public this is still a source of very deep anger and concern. This morning I was on Radio 5 Live’s politicians’ panel and a caller raised this issue, albeit in the context of Matt Hancock’s appearance on “I’m a Celebrity”.
There were a couple of powerful letters in the Guardian this week. I do not know either of the correspondents. Dr Tristram Wyatt noted that in 1919, after the First World War, the President of the Board of Trade introduced a profiteering Bill to ensure that profiteering by suppliers would never happen again. In the same paper Dr Jeremy Oliver questioned why all these PPE contracts were not let on a full cost plus margin basis. This is of great concern to the public. I am hearing from all quarters again and again that people are simply saying, “Never again.” What happened in the Covid-19 pandemic with the VIP channel must not be allowed to happen again. This clear, simple amendment delivers just that.
I will also briefly express concern about government Amendment 116. We had an extensive discussion about this in Committee, which I will not revisit, but this appears to be a significant weakening of the protection of public concern about potential conflicts of interest. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of that.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to strongly support Amendment 72. There is absolutely no need for a VIP channel or similar. Surely, it just encouraged opportunistic entrepreneurs—to be charitable —rather than genuine experienced manufacturers. Will the Government publish a list of all MPs and Peers who used the VIP channel and on whose behalf they were lobbied?
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I rise to strike a jarring note, although I do not intend to wander into the potentially treacherous waters of the divisibility or otherwise of the Crown. I think the Government have rather got it right on these amendments and noble Lords are barking up the wrong tree.
As I said in Committee and at Second Reading, noble Lords in some cases appeared to have misconceived this Bill throughout as if it were an enforcement measure against criminal or quasi-criminal activity, but it is not and it has never been intended as such; nor does it have that effect.
We come to an amendment that says explicitly that no preferential treatment may be conferred on
“suppliers connected to or recommended by members of the House of Commons or members of the House of Lords”.
To the extent that that is already a criminal act, and corruption is involved, criminal proceedings would be the right thing to undertake and not proceedings under this Bill, which is essentially administrative in character and carries no punitive clauses. The remedy for breaches under this Bill in most cases is for a supplier to sue for damages and the fact that they have been treated badly or unfairly. This is not a Bill intended to combat corruption.
If noble Lords feel it is required to explicitly exclude Members of this House and of another place, why is it not required to explicitly exclude giving preferential treatment to your first cousins, or your family in a broader sense, or your best friends, or people you were at school with, or all sorts of other persons who perhaps should be listed on the face of the Bill?
I briefly come to the procurement review unit—
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Does the noble Lord not agree that Clause 40 allows the Government to set up such a preferential channel?
Lord Moylan (Con)
I think it has been agreed by all Members of the House that in certain emergency circumstances the Government need to be able to take action outside the normal procurement channels. If Clause 40 has that effect, that is fine, but Clause 40 also allows channels to be set up that include someone with whom you were at school, with whom you are best friends, who was your best man, who attended your wedding or whatever. How would we know? These things cannot be set out comprehensively in the Bill. This is a classic case of shutting a stable door after the horse has bolted.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate that covered a wide range of interests. It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the case he made in favour of Amendment 72 was strong and subtle because by acknowledging the role that Clause 40 plays in this Bill, he also acknowledges the need for Amendment 72.
The noble Lord mentioned Amendment 113. The purpose of having the list in it is to make it clear that in the past, NHS staff have not been included and there are very real examples of problems in this area. Its purpose was to draw your Lordships’ attention to the need to include that cadre of people, who are making very large public procurements, in the realm of this Bill. He will be no doubt delighted to know that it is unlikely that I will press the amendment to a vote.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, ably and clearly laid out why he has tabled his amendment and the concerns in this area. They partly remain from the debate we had in Committee, but they have also been raised on a number of further occasions, including earlier today. We have heard why people are concerned and why they think this amendment is needed. There are concerns around the VIP lanes and the way that different contracts were awarded during the Covid pandemic.
Listening to the debate today, earlier debates and other discussions, including in the media, as the noble Baroness said, it is clear that we have a real problem with a loss of trust in the procurement system, particularly government contracts. For me, this Bill is an opportunity to restore that trust. The Minister will no doubt say that the Government have listened and heard what was said, and the VIP lanes will not happen again. I trust what the Minister says, and we know that other people have said the same, but my concern is that if you do not close loopholes in legislation, they are still there for others to exploit. In my opinion, this opens a loophole because it makes it possible to hand out contracts in the way it was done before.
It is incredibly important that we retain the ability to procure when the usual channels need to be speeded up, for example, or if there is a need to do things in a slightly different way. Importantly, this clause allows that, but at the same time we must not allow this loophole to exist going forward. That is why we support this amendment and if the noble Lord wishes to press it to a Division, he will have our full support.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who has been extremely clear in putting across the concerns all the way through the progress of this Bill, made some really important points about late payments. Again, I know the Minister is keen to do what she can to resolve that problem, so I look forward to her response.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate and thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for his general point about the purpose and effect of the Bill; it was a point well made. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, that we need to restore trust in procurement. I will come on in a minute to explain what we are doing to avoid a repetition of the VIP lane problems.
I shall speak first to the government amendments. The Bill strengthens existing obligations on conflicts of interest, and I think everyone will agree that it is crucial that the requirements are clear. I am therefore tabling Amendment 116 to Clause 78(4), which will avoid a contracting authority being required to address all circumstances that a reasonable person “might” consider a conflict, a potentially impossible feat. Instead, the Bill will require the authority to address those circumstances the authority believes “likely” to cause a reasonable person to consider there to be a conflict.
I do not accept that this is a problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, spoke on this issue, and it is always good to have her challenge. This amendment narrows the scope of the obligation, but in a way that makes it deliverable. Sensible, practical ways of doing things are an issue that I have been concerned about, and when I get feedback on these points, we try to make changes.
Part 10 of the Bill allows Ministers to undertake investigations of contracting authorities’ compliance with the Act and issue recommendations that contracting authorities must have regard to when considering how to comply. Without government Amendment 139, Ministers could investigate the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the devolved Administration equivalents, which we believe would create a constitutional impropriety.
Government Amendment 153 ensures that a Minister of the Crown may issue statutory guidance, as a result of a procurement investigation, to Northern Ireland departments only with the consent of a Northern Ireland department, in order to be consistent with the requirement for consent from Welsh Ministers.
The Bill has improved obligations regarding conflicts of interest that apply to all procurement procedures, including direct award. I accept that concern remains over conflicts of interest in Covid procurement, partly because of the history we have all been debating, and these are being addressed by the Government. The concerns expressed from a public procurement perspective are around failings in due diligence and contract management. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, eloquently raised some of these issues on Monday, and I am very glad he found our letter useful. That letter is of course in the Lords Library.
I reassure noble Lords that the Department of Health and Social Care is continuing to investigate contracts and to work through resolution processes with companies that provided PPE which cannot be used. There is a confidentiality issue, as we have heard several times, but I appreciate that there is a desire for more specific information on this. That is why I will be raising it with Health Ministers, as the noble Lord has mentioned. However, I hope I can also reassure the Committee in relation to this group of amendments.
Amendment 72, a key amendment in this group, has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, to help prevent the future use of parliamentary VIP lanes for public contracts. I do not believe the amendment is right or necessary, as I will explain. The Bill contains safeguards ensuring that if a conflict of interest puts a supplier at an unfair advantage, and if steps to mitigate cannot avoid that advantage, the supplier must be excluded. That is laid out clearly in Clause 77(3). Noble Lords should note that this is not at the contracting authority’s discretion; it “must” exclude in those circumstances.
The noble Lord asked what we are doing to prevent VIP lanes in future. Perhaps it is worth reiterating two or three points for the convenience of the Committee. Yes, we will be preventing VIP lanes in future. Our direct award provisions have clear and narrow parameters for use. They include new transparency obligations, requiring contracting authorities to publish a notice before making a direct award, and retain obligations to publish contract details once awarded. So we are getting sunlight and transparency.
Conflicts provisions also make a clear requirement in relation to conflicts assessments which are applicable to direct award. If a situation like Covid-19 were to occur again—I heartily hope it will not—pursuant to Clause 40, the Government could set out in advance what types of direct awards were required to address the situation, meaning advance transparency to the market and suppliers. Finally, the equal treatment obligation in Clauses 2 and 3 will ensure that VIP lanes cannot happen again.
The conflicts of interest provisions in the Bill are intentionally broad to capture any person who influences a decision made by or on behalf of a contracting authority, and cover direct and indirect interests. Furthermore, outside the Procurement Bill, the ministerial and Civil Service codes provide that conflicts of interest must be avoided in the exercise of official duties. Elected officials in local government also need to adhere to the rules around keeping a register of interests—as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, this is also in relation to such things as corruption. As we know, parliamentarians also have to register all their interests.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I meant a noble friend. We intend to issue guidance recommending that contracting authorities include provisions allowing spot checks on the payment performance of supply chain members through their terms and conditions. This does not need to be done in legislation; we are currently exploring options to include it in the model government contract and terms and conditions. As I have made clear throughout, digital tech is integral to these reforms, as the noble Lord said, and we will use it.
I apologise for speaking like this, but I feel passionately that we have learned from the past and that it is important not to overreact to past problems. I have felt this in many areas that I have dealt with in my long life. I respectfully request that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment and the other noble Lords do not move theirs.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which is a continuation of what we have spoken about in Committee and on Report. It is about ensuring that, if the Bill—which concerns spending billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money—is to go through, trust, fairness and integrity are central to everything that happens and every penny of taxpayers’ money spent. Every amendment in this group is about that.
I have listened intently and diligently to what the Minister said on my Amendment 72, but the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, made a very important point. In answer to my noble friend Lord Fox, Clause 40 gives exactly the same powers that previous Ministers have had through statutory instruments, and this will get us to the same potential mess that the VIP lanes got us to with PPE. I note everything that the Minister said, but Clause 40 could do away with nearly everything in the Bill because it gives the Government unfettered discretion to set up a fast-track lane, as we have seen before. Giving that amount of power to a Minister in a time of crisis, when all power reverts to the Minister and those who are close can have privileged access to contracts, as we have seen, means that I wish to test the opinion of the House on this occasion.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(5A) A condition set under subsection (4)(a) may not—(a) require the submission of audited annual accounts, except from suppliers who are, or were, required to have the accounts audited in accordance with Part 16 of the Companies Act 2006 or an overseas equivalent; (b) require insurance relating to the performance of the contract to be in place before the award of the contract.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent contracting authorities from requiring audited accounts from suppliers that do not otherwise prepare audited accounts (for example, small companies), or insurance to be in place before award.
“(11A) In this section, a “competitive selection process” means a competitive selection process for the award of a public contract in accordance with a framework.(11B) This section does not apply to a framework that is a light touch contract.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add a definition and exception as a preliminary step to dividing Clause 43.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a motion to divide Clause 43 into two Clauses and make it easier to follow.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(ba) awarded under section 39 or 41 (direct award and switching to direct award) by a private utility;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that a private utility would not have to wait until the expiry of a mandatory standstill period before directly awarding a contract.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that a contracting authority is only required to set key performance indicators for a public contract if the contract’s value is more than £5 million.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, forgive me; I thought I could move this amendment formally too. I try to find a sensible and reliable pathway through, as your Lordships know. I look forward to debating this group, which discusses the single digital platform and transparency.
Transparency has been central to the development of this Bill, and it should be noted that there is a significant extension to transparency under the regime. The publication of documents and notices that follow the award stage will allow interested parties to see how contracts are being implemented. While we have stated publicly that it was always the Government’s intention to create a central digital platform to host this data, we acknowledge the concerns raised by noble Lords during Committee around the importance of the online platform. Amendment 129 therefore creates a new duty requiring a Minister of the Crown to provide an online system for the purpose of publishing notices, documents and other information under this Act.
In addition, the duty requires that the platform has to be accessible to people with disabilities—a point we were debating on Monday—and provide access to procurement information that is published under the Act, free of charge. This means everyone will have access to public procurement data and can track contracts as they progress through the commercial lifecycle from tender to award and delivery. Citizens will be able to scrutinise contracting authority decisions; suppliers will be able to identify new opportunities to bid and collaborate; and buyers will be able to analyse the market and benchmark their performance against others, for example on their spend with SMEs.
In addition to the principal amendment, Amendment 132 is a technical amendment which removes an existing statutory power as this platform is expected to be delivered through common law powers. Since becoming the Minister responsible for this Bill, I have been keen to ensure that it strikes the right balance between transparency and not imposing undue burdens on contracting authorities. Contracting authorities will continue to be bound by the obligation to publish opportunities for all advertised procurements that are above a threshold of £12,000 for central government authorities or £30,000 for others. This will ensure that there is a high degree of transparency for SMEs, so that they can bid.
However, at the other end of the commercial process, the Bill introduces additional transparency requirements after the award of the contract. I have reflected on these, and Amendments 78, 80 and 104 all seek to raise the original threshold for the publication of contract key performance indicators, public contracts and modifications to a public contract from £2 million to £5 million. This will reduce the administrative requirements for contracting authorities while ensuring transparency of the public sector’s larger contracts. I am pleased to say that these amendments have been welcomed by the Local Government Association in the briefing note it published on 25 November.
I will turn to the other amendments tabled in this group in closing, having heard the points raised by noble Lords. Meanwhile, I beg to move Amendment 78.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 130 to government Amendment 129. Many of us will be pleased that the Minister has decided to put the new online system for procurement information on the face of the Bill. At the same time, however, we need some assurance that it will be fit for purpose and achieve the objectives set for it, otherwise the Government seem to have carte blanche to construct whatever system they see fit to inflict on the vendor community, without any required standards or reporting duty. Let us face it: even the modest database under the Subsidy Control Act is subject to a form of reporting duty, and this system will be of far greater significance.
The amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Fox is designed to provide assurance but in very simple terms. There would be the requirement for a report, first, on the performance standards expected and, secondly, on the standards achieved in the relevant period, including metrics on satisfaction and the accessibility experience of stakeholders. This is a modest proposal; how can the Minister possibly argue against it?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I support the single digital platform which is now covered by government Amendment 129 in this group, but I have one caveat. The benefits of the platform, in terms of efficiency—having all the procurement details in one place—will be undermined if contracting authorities are required also to publish tender information in other ways. That is what lies behind my Amendments 166 and 168 in this group. Like some of the amendments I spoke to on our first day in Committee, these have been suggested by the Local Government Association. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moylan for adding his name to them.
These amendments propose two additional repeals within Schedule 11, the repeal schedule. Subsections (4)(b) and (5) of Section 89 of the Transport Act 1985 require local authorities to issue notices of tender individually to anyone who has given written notice that they wish to be notified. Amendment 166 would repeal that, because it should no longer be necessary. Amendment 168 would repeal Regulations 4 and 5 of the Service Subsidy Agreements (Tendering) (England) Regulations 2002 so that information on tenders will no longer be required, for example, to be published locally, including in local newspapers.
I hope my noble friend will see these two amendments as supporting the importance of the digital platform. I also hope that she will be able to assure the House that the Government will ensure that later legislation will not be allowed to undermine the platform by adding new and additional requirements, once it is up and running.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I suggested earlier that the Government might explore the greater use of technology to track payment times. I also very much support the proposals in government Amendment 129 regarding a single digital platform for publishing notices, documents and other information, and I wonder if it might in due course be extended to provide a mechanism for monitoring and tracking payment performance.
While I am on my feet, I thank my new noble friend the Minister for her kind words earlier. I also point out to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that I was not earlier proposing an amendment to the Bill for improving payment practice, but merely speaking in support of the Government’s plans for the procurement review unit and seeking confirmation of those plans on the record. I am sorry that he is unfortunately not in his place here for me to draw that to his attention.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I have some amendments following on from the government amendments. They are simple probing amendments on the figure that the Government have come up with in their amendments. Amendment 79 seeks to delete from Clause 49 the figure of “£2” and insert “£3”. All I am doing here and in my further two amendments is trying to probe where the figure that the Government put into their amendments came from. I appreciate that in her introduction the Minister said that a lot of this was based on reducing admin requirements and addressing concerns raised by the Local Government Association, for example, but it seems quite a big jump. We are seeking to understand why the threshold has jumped from £2 million to £5 million. If the Minister could give some explanation as to where the figure came from, we would be very grateful.
I welcome government Amendment 129 on setting up the online system. That was raised by a number of noble Lords and discussed at length in Committee, so it is good that the Government have acted and produced this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised the important point that anything that is introduced has to be seen to be fit for purpose, so again it would be very helpful if the Minister could provide noble Lords with assurance as to how the system will work. If there is no annual report on the operation of the system, what is the overview process? How is it being assessed and monitored to ensure that it is fit for purpose?
I shall comment very briefly on the two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. She introduced them clearly and succinctly, as she always does, for which I am very grateful. I am aware that the LGA had concerns about these areas, as it raised them with us, so I thank her for tabling the amendments. They address a very legitimate concern, so I hope the Minister has listened and will revisit this area of the Bill.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 79, 81 and 105 have been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to amend to £3 million the financial threshold above which contracting authorities would be required to publish contracts and contract modifications, and set and publish KPIs. The government amendments raise these thresholds to £5 million. The intention of this is to reduce the administrative burden on contracting authorities, while still providing increased transparency on larger contracts. Redacting contracts for publication where they contain commercially sensitive information is particularly burdensome for smaller contracting authorities, requiring detailed and costly checking by legal teams that they may not have or expensive legal advisers.
Where does the figure come from? I do not know exactly; that is the honest answer. I was offered options of £50 million, £10 million and £5 million. I chose £5 million because that is quoted in the Sourcing Playbook, which seemed a reasonable point. I believe that a threshold of £5 million balances the benefits of transparency with the costs and burdens of implementation.
The higher threshold in the government amendment has been welcomed by the Local Government Association. We want the arrangements to work, so we will monitor them carefully. We have powers to change the thresholds if we need to do so—for example, to bring in extra contracts as the system grows and matures—and if analysis of the new data gathered allows us to better understand how to ensure that the obligations are effective and proportionate; or, to go the other way, if we end up with a lot of difficulties. It seems a reasonable approach.
Amendment 130 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Clement Jones and Lord Fox, seeks to require the Minister of the Crown to report annually on performance standards and feedback on the online system, including stakeholder satisfaction and accessibility. The data on the platform will be available in real time, and interested parties—of which there will be many—will be able to access information by using the tools available on the platform and by downloading the data for external analysis, such as statistics on the publication of notices and the progress of contracts. The platform will be accessible, as I have said, and will comply with the relevant legislation, including the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No. 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018, on which I am not, I fear, an expert. The Government are continuously monitoring the existing online platform that supports noticing under the current regulations and will continue to do so under the new regime and make changes as they are needed, so we are not inclined, on this occasion, to write in a review clause.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
What mechanism will there be for feedback from vendors and so on?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
We have talked several times about the PRU and the role it will have in looking systematically at things. It seems to me that one of the main sources of information for it will be this online system. It has the merit of largely being an all-singing and all-dancing system. I will come on to my noble friend Lady Noakes’s amendment in a minute. I think, therefore, that this is going to work well, but if the noble Lord discovers in the fullness of time that it is not doing so, I am sure he will come back and ask the Cabinet Office what it is up to.
Amendments 166 and 168 in the names of my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Moylan have been tabled to remove provisions in two pieces of transport legislation, both relating to contracts for subsidised public passenger transport services. The first repeals two subsections from Section 89 of the Transport Act 1985—that is a long time ago—dealing with the obligation to invite tenders for such contracts. This change would remove the requirement to issue invitations to tender individually to anyone who has given a written notice requesting this. The second amendment revokes two regulations from the Service Subsidy Agreements (Tendering) (England) Regulations 2002, dealing with information to be published regarding accepted tenders and where no tenders are accepted. These amendments were raised in Committee and, while both rightly seek to reduce the burden on contracting authorities, there are further considerations for the Department for Transport.
Not all transport is covered by the Bill, and we have carved out certain public passenger transport services under Schedule 2. The Department for Transport is reviewing procurements that fall under this separate regime as part of its review of retained EU law and its legislation more widely. It is important that what we do in our schedules does not impinge on that review. We are therefore unable to accept my noble friend Lady Noakes’s repeals today, but I have asked my officials to work with the Department for Transport to see whether it is possible to sort this out and bring forward a government amendment in the Commons to address her concerns. In the light of those various assurances, I respectfully request that noble Lords do not press their amendments.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that a contracting authority is only required to publish a public contract if the contract’s value is more than £5 million.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that additional relevant Scots common law offences are contained in the mandatory exclusion ground in paragraph 4.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that the offence of theft is covered under the mandatory exclusion ground in paragraph 6.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that the offence of theft is covered under the mandatory exclusion ground in paragraph 7.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the new mandatory exclusion ground inserted in Committee (conspiracy to defraud) is reflected in paragraph 43(3).
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the discretionary exclusion ground relating to a supplier being unable to pay their debts.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Involvement in forced organ harvesting
15A (1) A discretionary exclusion ground applies to a supplier if a decision-maker determines that the supplier or a connected person has been, or is, involved in—(a) forced organ harvesting,(b) unethical activities relating to human tissue, including anything which involves the commission of an offence under sections 32 (prohibition of commercial dealings in human material for transplantation), 32A (offences under section 32 committed outside UK) or 33 (restriction on transplants involving a live donor) of the Human Tissue Act 2004, or under sections 20 (prohibition of commercial dealings in parts of a human body for transplantation) or 20A (offences under section 20 committed outside UK) of the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006, or(c) dealing in any device or equipment or services relating to conduct mentioned in paragraphs (a) or (b).(2) “Forced organ harvesting” means killing a person without their consent so that their organs may be removed and transplanted into another person.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is designed to give a discretionary power to exclude suppliers from being awarded a public contract who have participated in forced organ harvesting or unethical activities relating to human tissue, including where they are involved in providing a service or goods relating to such activities.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 91 I will support all the other amendments in this group.
In the Prime Minister’s speech to the Lord Mayor’s Banquet two days ago, he said that China posed a
“systemic challenge to our values and interests … a challenge that grows more acute as it moves towards even greater authoritarianism.”
I want briefly to draw the House’s attention to one aspect of that country’s behaviour in relation to the appalling forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience and to ask the Government to accept my very modest amendment as a small but important measure towards, I hope, ending this practice. This would give a discretionary power to exclude suppliers from being awarded a public contract who have participated in forced organ harvesting or unethical activities relating to human tissue, including where they are involved in providing a service or goods relating to such activities.
Forced organ harvesting in China is the removal of organs from a living prisoner of conscience for the purpose of transplantation, killing the victim in the process. It is state-sanctioned and widespread throughout China, with the Chinese Communist Party targeting individuals because of their religion, spiritual beliefs or ethnicity. The victims are known to be primarily Falun Gong practitioners and Uighur Muslims. There are also several lines of evidence to show that Tibetans and house Christians are likely victims of forced organ harvesting.
With regard to the Uighurs and other minorities in Xinjiang, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights published its report into Xinjiang in August this year, which stated:
“Allegations of patterns of torture or ill-treatment, including forced medical treatment and adverse conditions of detention, are credible, as are allegations of individual incidents of sexual and gender-based violence.”
Both Uighurs and Falun Gong practitioners are arbitrarily arrested, detained in camps, tortured, face sexual violence, disappear while in detention and are murdered on a vast scale for their organs.
The evidence is now explicit. In April this year, a paper by Matthew Robertson and Dr Jacob Lavee was published in the American Journal of Transplantation titled “Execution by Organ Procurement: Breaching the Dead Donor Rule in China”, which was cited in the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China Annual Report 2022. Their paper found that, in 71 different Chinese medical studies published between 1980 and 2015 and sourced to 56 hospitals in 33 cities, brain death could not have properly been declared, and therefore the removal of the heart during organ procurement must have been the cause of the donor’s death. The authors state in a recent article in the Tablet that
“the act of execution was joined with the act of heart removal, and was carried out by surgeons on the operating table.”
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, as in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has made a very eloquent, powerful and compelling case for supporting this modest Amendment 91. I am happy to be a signatory to this amendment again.
In Committee, the noble Lord and I, with the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked the Government about a hospital being built in China in connection with a British company. I thank the Minister for the parliamentary reply about that hospital, which she gave me on 29 November. But I am concerned to learn that the company involved, International Hospitals Group, has a continuing hospital partnership in the People’s Republic of China.
I draw the House’s attention to the words of the British Medical Association, which describes China as a country where there is
“evidence of medical involvement in the Chinese state’s genocide against Uyghur people”,
and the statement of the China Tribunal, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, which describes the “significant scale” of enforced organ harvesting throughout China, all of which should surely encourage us to think very seriously about what more we can do, as we did on the Health and Care Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said. All of us who heard the arguments then went into the Lobbies to support him, and I hope that if it becomes necessary—which I hope it will not—we will do the same tonight.
I am also a signatory to Amendment 141, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. This is an argument, again, that we have had in previous legislation—again in the health Bill—about the use of slave labour in Xinjiang. I draw attention to my being vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uyghurs. It is an issue that I have raised again and again, and mentioned here again during debates on this Bill on Monday last. I will not try to curtain-raise for the noble Baroness—she is more than capable of doing that for herself.
My purpose, therefore, in rising, is to specifically draw attention to and speak to the cross-party Amendment 94, which is in my name and, not for the first time, in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra —to use a phrase the Minister used earlier on. I do so because the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is my noble friend in so many respects, and we have joined common forces. Old Chief Whips should stand together on such matters, and I am always pleased to be in the same Lobby as the noble Lord. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who has been so formidable, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who again has been formidable on these issues throughout, are also signatories to this amendment.
The amendment would require the Government to set out a timetable. In a way, we have already been given half a cake, and I want again to be grateful to the noble Baroness. She was able to say to me that she accepts the substance of our case, but what she has not been able to accept—I hope we will convince her to do so this evening—is that there should be a timetable determining when we will prevent further surveillance cameras entering the United Kingdom and being placed often in very sensitive positions, as I will describe. This amendment would remove them from the Government’s procurement supply chain where there is established evidence that the supplier has been involved in modern slavery, genocide or crimes against humanity.
It is particularly topical, as we read reports today of the use of surveillance technology in arresting, imprisoning and re-educating protesters caught up in the wave of unrest in China. There are reports in British and American newspapers today about how surveillance technology—some of the very things we are debating in this amendment—has been used to arrest young people, who then have the whole of their personal histories seen through the devices that they own. Some of their friends have been arrested as a result of access to that information and been arraigned in police stations.
As a result of the hangover from the Government’s so-called “golden era” of relations with the PRC, which the Prime Minister said in his Mansion House speech on Monday was over, we have allowed our surveillance and technology supply chain to be dominated by Chinese surveillance companies with credible links to the genocide taking place in the Uighur region. I am not using that word in a rhetorical way. It was a word used by the former Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister, Liz Truss; it was her word that “genocide” was under way in Xinjiang. It is a word that Secretary of State Blinken has used in describing events there, and many others have, too.
Both Hikvision and Dahua Technology, two of the companies in question, have been blacklisted in the USA for their links to the internment camps in Xinjiang and their role working hand-in-glove with the CCP to construct the largest authoritarian surveillance state, which has surpassed even George Orwell’s wildest dreams. There is little distinction between these Chinese technology companies and the state that they serve. They not only work on behalf of the PRC but receive generous state subsidies to do so, which allows them to undercut their rivals and dominate the domestic UK market.
It is therefore little surprise that the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has attacked any notion of the United Kingdom Government banning the use of Hikvision and Dahua cameras as “unreasonable suppression” of Chinese companies. I appreciate the engagement from Ministers on this topic, from the noble Baroness but also the noble Lord, Lord True, who met with me privately on this matter on a couple of occasions. During one of those meetings, we were told that there are now 1 million—I repeat, 1 million—Hikvision cameras in the United Kingdom alone.
The announcement last week, then, by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that the Government are following the example of the Department of Health and Social Care in banning Hikvision cameras from sensitive areas and removing existing cameras from the network, which mirrors the action from the US that I have just referred to, and has just finalised a permanent ban on the sale and import of Hikvision and Dahua Technology cameras, is a welcome one. This is an issue which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I have raised on the Floor of the House in regret Motions, in months gone by and in previous debates.
Now that the Government have finally recognised the security and human rights concerns of having Hikvision and Dahua cameras in government departments, the question arises: will they commit to a plan for their removal from the public sector supply chain in its entirety? That is what the amendment is about. As the Government will note, successive freedom of information requests from IPVM, Big Brother Watch and Free Tibet, and Parliamentary Questions, have revealed that Hikvision and Dahua are deeply entrenched in our public sector supply chain. Local councils, NHS trusts, schools, prisons, jobcentres and our railway network all have Hikvision and Dahua cameras in their supply chain and their physical infrastructure.
Do we really want the prying eyes of an authoritarian state that has been accused of genocide, and which, as the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, said just last month, is the
“biggest state based threat to our economic security”,
in our schools, hospitals, and local council buildings? Similarly, how can the Government justify public contracts and taxpayers’ money going into companies where there are credible links of complicity in genocide and the internment camps in Xinjiang? This requires more than “robust pragmatism”, whatever that may mean.
The Government urgently need to come forward with a strategy to remove Hikvision and Dahua Technology cameras from the whole of the procurement supply chain. In the words of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, Fraser Sampson, whom I met last month, these cameras are built on “digital asbestos”. We need a serious government-led plan for their removal. That might take several years. It is the same issue that we had to face with Huawei. We should also develop technology to mitigate the risks these cameras pose in the meantime. We can do that by looking at issues such as connectivity through software, which Canadians are developing at the present time, which might not require the physical removal of all cameras.
Such a plan could emulate a similar timetable that Ministers set out in the then Telecoms (Security) Bill—to which I moved amendments—for the removal of Huawei from the UK’s 5G network. This would include setting a hard date to phase out and remove Hikvision and Dahua technology and hardware from the procurement supply chain; looking at provision and support that can be offered to cash-strapped local authorities to help with the removal; and considering following the USA in banning the sale and import of these cameras in the United Kingdom.
I welcome the leadership that Ministers have shown recently in banning the use of Hikvision and Dahua cameras in government departments, but I urge them to consider applying that same leadership to the rest of the procurement supply chain. The Government are no longer saying that they are unaware of the security and ethical concerns of using these cameras and they cannot wish away the existence of these cameras in the wider procurement supply chain. We need an urgent timetable and a plan to remove Hikvision and Dahua from the UK supply chain in its entirety. I hope the Minister will further consider accepting the entirety of this amendment so that such a timetable and plan will be put in place.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 141, which is in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Coaker, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, demonstrating cross-party support for it. I add my support to the other amendments in this group.
I also underline my gratitude to the Government and my noble friend the Minister for seriously engaging with the amendment over the summer. I know that we share a desire to mitigate the two key risk areas in public procurement that the amendment covers: first, the possible UK dependency on authoritarian states; and, secondly, the risk of modern slavery in government supply chains. I covered these areas in Committee, so I will keep my comments brief and seek to address any concerns that my noble friend might have raised.
To recap, proposed new subsection (1) would place a burden on the Secretary of State to create regulations that reduce public bodies’ dependency on authoritarian states. As we know, there is no agreed definition of what constitutes an “authoritarian state” in UK law or regulation. Therefore, proposed new subsection (2) would adopt the categorisation contained in the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy, allowing the legislation to adapt to contemporary geopolitical developments in line with the latest iteration of the review. The countries the amendment would currently apply to as “threats” are Iran, Russia and North Korea, and, as a “systemic competitor”, China. As we have heard, this perspective on China was reiterated by the Prime Minister only this week.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the cross-party amendment in my name, alongside those of the noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Coaker and Lord Fox. I fully support the strong case that my noble friend Lord Alton has made regarding the links between Chinese surveillance camera suppliers Hikvision and Dahua Technology and the gross human rights violations taking place in Xinjiang. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Stroud on an excellent speech setting out all the answers to the questions the Government have posed as to why our amendment would not be acceptable. She made a compelling case.
I also congratulate my friend the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who, for the last few years, has been nibbling at the heels of government Ministers in every department and moving these similar amendments dealing with genocide in Xinjiang province. We did it on the Trade Bill, the NHS procurement Bill, an education Bill and others. Of course, in some cases there had to be a compromise amendment in the Commons. Eventually, a few months later, the Government would then announce their own initiative going partly along the road the noble Lord suggested. I care to bet that even if we lose the vote in this House tonight, or if we win tonight but it is removed in the Commons, in six months the Government will come along and suggest something partly along the lines of his amendment.
Rather than go over his arguments again, I will use my remarks to discuss the security concerns regarding the prolific use of Hikvision and Dahua cameras in the UK procurement supply chain. Those concerns are not isolated. Our closest partners—real strategic partners, including the USA, Australia and the EU—have expressed their own worries about the use of Chinese technology suppliers, particularly in sensitive areas such as government buildings and the European Parliament.
The USA has taken swift and strict action to blacklist the sale and import of Hikvision and Dahua cameras, has ordered their removal from government buildings and is actively considering placing them on a sanctions list, which would have a substantial impact on the ability of the companies to operate worldwide. The US Department of Homeland Security warned as early as 2017 about the potential for a back door into Hikvision camera software that it deemed “remotely exploitable”—a view subsequently backed up by security researchers, who warned in September 2021 that Hikvision cameras have the
“highest level of critical vulnerability”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned, the Government’s own Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, Professor Fraser Sampson, has repeatedly warned us that Hikvision and Dahua cannot be trusted as procurement suppliers. Not only have they refused his requests to publish further information about legitimate human rights and security concerns, but Professor Sampson rightly points out that we require considerable caution when it comes to involving foreign suppliers of surveillance technology.
After all, Hikvision and Dahua cannot be considered to be anything like normal private business companies operating in a free-market economy. Both not only receive generous subsidies from the Chinese state but under Article 7 of China’s national intelligence law they are expected to work hand in glove with the state. This law requires that:
“Any organisation and citizen shall, in accordance with the law, support, provide assistance, and cooperate in national intelligence work, and guard the secrecy of any national intelligence work that they are aware of.”
That is the obligation on Hikvision and Dahua. In effect, these companies are not only required by China’s national intelligence law to help assist with national intelligence work, but they are bound to secrecy not to reveal the extent of their collaboration with Chinese intelligence services.
I fully welcome the announcement last week by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that he has instructed government departments to remove Hikvision and Dahua technology cameras from sensitive areas
“in the light of the threat to the UK”.
Now that the Government have admitted the security threat posed by these companies’ cameras in government departments, I hope that Ministers will be honest about the threat they pose to our procurement supply chain generally.
After all, how can it be consistent for the Government to direct departments to remove these cameras on security grounds but not offer similar guidance and a timetable for local authorities, NHS trusts, schools, our transport network and all other vital infrastructure to follow suit? Surely, the threat of authoritarian state-sponsored snooping from a Government many consider to be a systemic threat, alongside Russia, requires swift action.
The cross-party amendment in my name and that of other noble Lords would give Ministers a mandate to publish a timetable for the removal of Hikvision and Dahua cameras and technology from the whole procurement supply chain. It would allow the Government to consider a timetable similar to the one we currently have in place for the removal of Huawei from our 5G telecommunications network, and it would signal to the public at large that the Government take the security threat posed by Chinese technology companies very seriously indeed.
I fully support what the Prime Minister said in his speech on Monday evening. He said that the
“so-called golden era is over”
with the PRC and that the UK must focus on dramatically improving our national resilience and economic security. In my opinion, there never was a golden era, at least, not for the UK. But, of course, China had one—a massive trade surplus, infiltration and theft of our commercial secrets on a massive scale, our political and business elites kowtowing to any Chinese demands and our universities grubbing for Chinese money at the expense of freedom for their students.
In January 2021, the Foreign Office in a Written Answer to me called China a “strategic partner”. Can you believe it: China called a strategic partner by the Foreign Office, in the same category as the US and our loyal NATO allies? Perhaps that is all I have come to expect of the Foreign Office. While I acknowledge the speech of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in part, perhaps the Foreign Office has struck again and inserted those words—that China will be treated with “robust pragmatism”. What on earth does that weaselly phrase mean? My noble friend the Minister—the Lady in red—with her tremendous intellect will no doubt be able to give us a definition. In fact, I reckon she could probably give us 10 different definitions of “robust pragmatism”. But let me give you mine. The pragmatic part is that we will continue buying billions of pounds-worth of goods from China because it is cheaper, more convenient and easier than starting to onshore them. The robust bit is that we will criticise them a bit when we hand over the cheque: “Naughty, naughty Communist Party of China. We deplore some of the things you are doing in parts of China.” Of course, we will not mention what is really happening—slavery and genocide—because that would be too robust.
In conclusion, let us implement the Government’s new policy on China tonight. Let us be robust and pragmatic, pass this new clause and start with a commitment from the Government to remove Hikvision and Dahua cameras from the whole of the UK procurement supply chain. It is the only way to give credibility to the Prime Minister’s speech on Monday night.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as other speakers have alluded to, we have been in this place before, but the things we hear are no less shocking or important for us to debate. I am speaking to Amendments 91, 95 and 141 and, as stated, my name is on Amendment 94.
It is worth thinking about how we got to where we are, as alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in his stirring speech: we bought on price. We ended up with Huawei because we bought on price and eroded our own switchgear industry. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, about resilience in our supply chain, we narrowed our options by simply buying on price.
The point of the amendments, whether together, separately or blended, is to put values into the purchasing process as well as price. All the way through the debate, in different ways, the purpose of what we have heard from colleagues is to put values into what we do. Public purchasing is not just about price; it is about extending the values of this country across what we do. Unless we are doing that, we are spending the money badly. We may be spending it cheaply in the short term but it becomes very expensive in the long term, not necessarily for the citizens of this country but for those of the country from which we purchase. That is why I am supporting the amendments.
I have some technical observations. We have talked about potential back doors in technology. During the early days when the Government were trying to make Huawei work, there was a group of people—in Banbury, I think—who spent their time looking closely at Huawei’s technology in order to determine how dangerous or otherwise it was to the UK. If they are not still there, we need that group of people doing that not just with surveillance cameras but with network routers and all the other technology that supports networks in everyone’s homes in this country. We need to have a strong feeling of the security danger right across our information networks. The people who were doing that originally should be reformed. I understand that they are not the Minister’s group and that they probably come under the Home Office or indeed DCMS, but I hope she can carry that message from here.
To respond to the first part of the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, on supply chain resilience, the Bill will provide a very good database from which to do the sort of analysis she is talking about, so that we can determine just how resilient the supply chain is. How dependent are we on two or three suppliers? I hope, whether or not the noble Baroness’s amendment is accepted or voted through, that that is what the Government are doing. Are the Government going to use that sort of information, which will be much more readily available from the digital platform, to understand our resilience or otherwise? If they are, where in government will that be done and by whom, and who will be accountable for doing it? We will have the means to do it, whereas before it was almost impossible without a tremendous amount of work to establish who was buying what from where. Now we will have that information to hand.
These are three really important amendments. If their proposers choose to move them, we on these Benches will certainly support them.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, often in this House there are important occasions when there are really good debates. On this set of amendments, we have heard some brilliant speeches from all who have spoken: the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra, Lord Alton and Lord Fox, and my noble friend Lord Hunt. Why have these speeches been so good? Because, as the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Blencathra, have just said, this is the chance for this Chamber to put in the Bill the procurement policies we want this country and this Government to pursue. It is a chance, through those policies, to stand up for what we regard as the international values that are important to us. That is why it is important that it goes into the Bill.
We have had this debate all the way through considering the Bill—at Second Reading, in Committee and now on Report. Time and again, we have said it is important that this country stands up and says, “This is what we think the £300 billion or so we spend on procurement should do to bring about the sort of community we want”, not only domestically but internationally. That is why it is so important. Each noble Lord who has spoken has been so inspiring, because they are speaking from the heart.
The Minister will not disagree with many of the values that have been stated. The disagreement comes in our wanting to see them in the Bill, so that it makes a statement of intent for our country. The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, said of her Amendment 141, to which I am pleased to have put my name, that the Government are concerned about it having a chilling effect. I hope it does have a chilling effect on those who seek to use procurement to deliver policies and values that we do not support, as it is quite astonishing.
I will spend a couple of minutes on my noble friend Lord Hunt’s Amendment 91. I know we want to get to a vote, but sometimes it is worth stating what is important in this great democratic Chamber. Let me read out what he wants to be in the Bill through his proposed new sub-paragraph (2), which I fully support. Why would we not state, regarding procurement, that forced organ harvesting—this is what we seek to oppose; the amendment also mentions human tissue—
“means killing a person without their consent so that their organs may be removed and transplanted into another person”?
I understand that thousands of occurrences of such organ harvesting are alleged to have taken place. Nobody in this House is in favour of that, but my noble friend Lord Hunt’s amendment says that that should be in the Bill as a statement of what we want our procurement to achieve. I fully support my noble friend, who deserves the thanks of the House for bringing forward that amendment, which is supported by many others, including my noble friend Lady Hayman and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover.
The same is true of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, against modern slavery. Nobody here is in favour of modern slavery or human trafficking, but we know that procurement policy should seek that objective. It should be laid out and pursued as something we stand up for, as an international example to countries across the world. That is inspiring. It is worthwhile and important for us to do. The Government will say that it is unnecessary—“Of course we are against modern slavery and human trafficking”—but I say we should put it in the Bill as this amendment, along with others, would do.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, gave a fantastic speech. He got excited and emotional; sometimes we should do that—with logic, which is extremely important—and wake up to these things. Sometimes we need to get emotional. The sorts of policies and decisions that we debate in this Chamber affect millions of people in our country but hundreds of millions across the world. They are worth getting emotional and upset about, because they make a difference. It is not playing tennis on a Sunday; it is about international law and what makes a difference to huge numbers of people’s lives.
As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, the Government themselves have said that there is concern about the security of the country in relation to the use of these surveillance cameras, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned. The Government say that government departments should not use Hikvision or Dahua cameras and take them out, so they admit that there is a security risk and say that something should be done about it. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, what about all the other cameras within local authorities, such as street cameras and cameras in hospitals? Do they not pose a security risk? If they do in a government department, I cannot see why they do not when they are outside one but happen to be run by Westminster council. This is ludicrous and illogical, and the Government need to take account of it.
That is why Amendment 94 of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is so important. It says that we need a timeline to ensure
“the removal of physical technology … from the Government’s procurement supply chain”
because this will tackle modern slavery, genocide and crimes against humanity. Everybody in your Lordships’ House agrees with that; no one is opposed it. The Government will say that it is unnecessary and we do not have to do this because they will, of course, have no procurement policy that does not take all these things into account.
We will certainly support my noble friend Lord Hunt, should he push his amendment to a vote, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Alton—we will see where we get to with others. But the difference between us and the Government is that sometimes you need to say what you mean. Legislatively, we should say that we, as a UK Government and Parliament, believe these things are so important that they should be put in the Bill, that we hold to these international values, and that we will set an example for other countries to do the same and that our procurement policy will reflect this. That is our opportunity in these votes.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the debate on this issue, and I hope that the House will forgive me if I take a little time to address the important matters that have been raised. As always, there has been much emotion, and there have been some strong speeches, for which I am grateful. However, I need to take the House back to the Bill.
On Amendment 91, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on forced organ harvesting, I pay tribute, as I have done before, to the tenacity with which the noble Lord has pursued this important issue. It is right that this abhorrent practice is exposed and confronted. The Government have taken action, both at home and abroad, to make clear that complicity in the abuses associated with the overseas organ trade will not be tolerated. As the noble Lord said, the Health and Care Act made it an offence to travel outside the UK to purchase an organ, and the Government have urged the World Health Organization to consider the findings of the China Tribunal on organ harvesting. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that the hospital he referred to in China will not carry out organ transplants. Moreover, it did not receive any government funding.
However, I am afraid it remains the case that the Procurement Bill is not the right place to take action on this issue. Every exclusion ground, whether mandatory or discretionary, must be considered for every supplier on every procurement—that is thousands of contracts every year. Each additional ground will add a burden for contracting authorities that, however marginal, will add up to a significant amount of time and money overall. I am reminded of my noble friend Lord Maude’s comments on Monday about the risk of trying to include too many wider public policy objectives in the Bill. If we add this, what else do we need to add? This is why I have sought to limit the grounds, particularly those that, like this one, require an assessment of factual circumstances, to those where there is a major and particular risk to public procurement. I am not aware of any evidence that any supplier to the UK public sector has been involved in forced organ harvesting.
Moreover, the scope of the proposed exclusion ground is very broad, covering not just organ harvesting but also any
“unethical activities relating to human tissue”.
The third limb of the amendment permits exclusion simply for
“dealing in any device or equipment or services relating to conduct”
covered by the first two limbs. This would seem to extend so broadly as to cover even the use of ordinary surgical equipment, where the supplier might have had no prior knowledge that it was previously used for the prohibited purposes. For these reasons, I am concerned that this ground would be extremely difficult for contracting authorities to apply in practice. While I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I cannot see a way of including organ harvesting in the Bill, although I am glad that we have focused on it this evening.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, if it is helpful to the noble Baroness, I say that, because of the time and because we did have a preliminary debate about this in Committee, it would not be my intention to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 95. I am quite happy for her to write to me with any remarks that she might have liked to have made.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think that would be extremely helpful. I am grateful to the noble Lord.
I turn finally to Amendment 141 tabled by my noble friend Lady Stroud and others. I am grateful to her for tabling it and for the debate today. The amendment covers two distinct issues: supply chain resilience and modern slavery. I congratulate her and others on all they have done in recent years to promote awareness and encourage change on these important issues—a great deal has changed in the last 15 years. I am also grateful to her for a very useful meeting on the amendment, to help me understand how it might work in practice. While I admire her campaigning on modern slavery, discussion revealed the impracticality of some of the details of her amendment, as I shall try to explain.
The Government have publicly stated the importance of strong and resilient supply chains to our economic and national security. The Ukraine war and the shortages and economic challenges it has precipitated have really brought that home, and the decision announced last week in relation to ownership of the Newport microchip plant demonstrates how seriously these issues are being taken. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, our plan for transparency and the new online platform will help us to assess the risk. Through our trade agreements and market access work, we support British businesses and contracting authorities to build more diverse and resilient supply chains.
Supply chain resilience considerations are now embedded in the work of every government department. A global supply chains directorate has also been established in the Department for International Trade to strengthen the supply of critical goods to the UK. I will be happy to facilitate a meeting with the Minister responsible, so that my noble friend can bring her knowledge and challenge to that important work: I believe that would be helpful in progressing matters, having spoken to her about these issues. Strong and resilient supply chains have a diverse base, which relies on an effective trading system. I know this from my own practical experience of diversifying retail supply from China to Vietnam, Bangladesh and Ethiopia. As far as possible, this means promoting a market-led approach to supply chain resilience and encouraging a range of import sources.
From time to time, there can be a crisis or an issue, such as modern slavery, in any market and with almost any supplier, so we need options. The appropriate proportion of supply from an overseas market can go up or down, but the proposal in the amendment to set dependency thresholds across all categories of public procurement would be a major exercise and a market-distorting measure.
While I welcome recent trends towards western manufacturing in certain strategic industries, such as battery technology, the UK continues to trade with China to support British jobs and growth in non-strategic areas and keep inflation down—which noble Lords do not seem to be worrying about—but I emphasise that we will uphold our values and ensure that our national security, freedom and democracy are protected as we work with allies to hold China to its international commitments.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
Before the noble Baroness leaves that point, it is important to put on the record that we currently have a trade deficit with the People’s Republic of China of £40 billion. Dependency, resilience, and the destruction of our own manufacturing base because we are outcompeted through the use of slave labour and goods that are priced much more cheaply than people on a living wage can produce in the United Kingdom—these are issues that the Government need to take rather more seriously than she has just done.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I do take these issues seriously and I commented on diversification, which I have personally been involved in. It is because there is a large amount of trade with China that this cannot be changed overnight—and there might not be a case to do so in non-strategic areas. Inflation is very important and the opening up of Asia has historically been helpful in this country. The Prime Minister said in his speech that we must be realistic and clear about China, but that obviously does not mean we should abandon our values.
It goes without saying that practices such as slavery and human trafficking have no place in government supply chains. We have shown our determination to address modern slavery in many ways, including in the Bill. I draw my noble friend’s attention to the fact that under Clause 27, contracting authorities must ask suppliers to provide details of their intended supply chain for the contract. Authorities can consider whether a subcontractor is subject to a ground for exclusion such as modern slavery. If they conclude that this is the case and that it has failed to self-clean, the lead supplier itself is liable to be excluded from the procurement if it does not take the opportunity to remove the subcontractor from its supply chain. However, we must recognise the complexity of the issue.
My noble friend’s amendment says that
“The Secretary of State must … make provision”
in procurements and contracts to eradicate slavery and human trafficking, and that this is to be done by secondary legislation, but I fear that the amendment fails to reflect the sheer complexity of the matter. Regulations cannot specify precisely which award criteria might be appropriate to address the risk of slavery and human trafficking in every different procurement: this depends on the nature of the particular contract being tendered, including what is being purchased and the likely nature and location of supply chains. The right vehicle to help contracting authorities address slavery and human trafficking risks is in guidance, and there is already comprehensive guidance setting out the action that departments must take. This is 46 pages long and includes sections on managing risks in new procurements, assessing existing contracts, taking action when victims of modern slavery are identified, supply chain mapping, useful tools, training and questions to ask.
My noble friend will know that I have committed to put the matters addressed in the guidance on a statutory footing as part of the national procurement policy statement, provided for under Clause 12 of the Bill. This would mean that all contracted authorities would have to have regard to that guidance, which I think the noble Baroness can see is a significant step forward.
Finally, I note that the draft provisions in the amendment go significantly beyond the language in the Health and Care Act with which it was my noble friend’s stated intention to bring the Bill into alignment. Amendment 141 also creates a strong expectation that the Minister will make regulations, and that they will cover the matters referred to in the amendment, so it is effectively a must.
I know that people are looking forward to getting to the end of this debate, so I will not go through the problems with proposed new subsection (5)(d) to (f), but I will ask noble Lords to note that this will be burdensome to contracting authorities as well as small businesses. I know that my noble friend does not much care about the latter, but there might be wider concern about the gumming-up of contracting authorities in this matter when we have already made arrangements in the Bill to give modern slavery much more focus, and have added that to the relevant schedules.
We believe that proposed new subsection (5)(f), for example, is disproportionate and contrary to the open principles of our procurement regime, as well as to the interests of efficiency, value for money and common sense. Moreover, countries and regions that pose risks change over time, and that is another reason to use guidance, and not this Bill, on this matter.
Finally, I say to my noble friend Lord Blencathra that we should remember that the new regime will give broader exclusion powers to contracting authorities—he referenced Huawei—which will have primary responsibility for applying the exclusions regime.
In closing, I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to withdraw his amendment, but I emphasise the progress that this Bill has made, and I therefore find some of the comments on this group a little disappointing.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Just before the Minister sits down, so we understand, because some may want to press this to a Division, I ask: what would the Government’s intent be if this Bill was to pass with a debarment list, particularly with regard to companies that the Government no longer wish to deploy their surveillance equipment in the UK? Would such companies go on the debarment list, or would it just be down to guidance to determine whether such equipment is purchased by non-central government bodies?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
If the noble Lord looks at Schedule 6, which is the criteria for the debarment list, he will see that it includes modern slavery and security, so there is no reason why those could not be used in an appropriate way. I hope that helps.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My question was: is it the Government’s intention to use the debarment list for these types of companies, or is it still going to be down to guidance?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
They are mandatory grounds for exclusion, so if you find that you have a security issue—as we obviously found in relation to Hikvision—those become mandatory exclusions. On modern slavery, again, they are mandatory exclusions. Clearly, if a company is able to self-clean and has shown that it has changed the arrangements, it will not necessarily stay on the debarment list. I do not want to mislead the noble Lord.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this excellent debate has been both moving and profound, because it has dealt with horrific human rights abuses in China but has also attempted to develop an argument about our strategic relationship with that nation.
The Minister said that she was disappointed by some of the remarks. She gave us a full reply, which I am very grateful for, but I too was rather disappointed by her response. Essentially, she said that our concerns are legitimate but that this Bill is not the right place for them to be expressed. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and my noble friend Lord Coaker both suggested, this is a Procurement Bill, setting the regime for government procurement for a number of years ahead. Where better to place values—not just the issue of the lowest common denominator price—than in this Bill, which sets the parameters under which billions of pounds are going to be spent by government and government agencies over the next decade?
The arguments that the Minister put forward were technical, and the Government could have come back and tabled their own amendments, which might have met the technical issues she faces. However, ultimately, the Government have set their face against expressing some profound values in this legislation, but I think that we should do so. I would like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 91.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(da) paragraph 13(4) (adverse information about supplier published by contracting authority), where the information is published in relation to a breach of contract;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the discretionary exclusion ground in paragraph 13(4) (publishing of adverse information) is reflected in paragraph 16(3), so far as that ground is triggered by the publishing of information in relation to a breach of contract by a supplier.
“(ca) paragraph 13(4) (adverse information about supplier published by contracting authority), where the information is not published in relation to a breach of contract;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the discretionary exclusion ground in paragraph 13(4) (publishing of adverse information) is reflected in paragraph 16(4), so far as that ground is not triggered by the publishing of information in relation to a breach of contract by a supplier.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
“Timeline for removal of suppliers
(1) Within 6 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a timeline for the removal of physical technology or surveillance equipment from the Government’s procurement supply chain where the Secretary of State is satisfied there is established evidence that a provider has been involved in—(a) modern slavery,(b) genocide, or(c) crimes against humanity.(2) The Secretary of State must lay the timeline before Parliament.”
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the new definition of “school” inserted by the Government amendment to clause 114.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the new definition of “school” inserted by the Government amendment to clause 114.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the new definition of “school” inserted by the Government amendment to clause 114.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
(d) awarded by a transferred Northern Ireland authority, unless it is awarded as part of a procurement under a reserved procurement arrangement or devolved Welsh procurement arrangement, or(e) awarded as part of a procurement under a transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangement.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would exclude transferred Northern Ireland authorities and procurements by a school (as defined in the Government amendments to clause 114) from the duty to publish information under this clause.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the new definition of “school” inserted by the Government amendment to clause 114.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that a contracting authority is only required to publish a modification of a public contract if the contract’s value is (or becomes as a result of the modification) more than £5 million.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the other Government amendment to this clause would ensure that the House authorities are not required to seek the approval of a Minister of the Crown to terminate a contract with a supplier on the basis of national security.
“(2) In this section, a “relevant contracting authority” means a contracting authority other than—(a) a Minister of the Crown or a government department,(b) the Corporate Officer of the House of Commons, or(c) the Corporate Officer of the House of Lords.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the other Government amendment to this clause would ensure that the House authorities are not required to seek the approval of a Minister of the Crown to terminate a contract with a supplier on the basis of national security.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that the obligation to publish information about mitigating perceived conflicts of interest applies only in respect of those the contracting authority considers are likely to arise.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the new definition of “school” inserted by the Government amendment to clause 114.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
“(ai) by a school,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the new definition of “school” inserted by the Government amendment to clause 114.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Regulated below-threshold contracts: duty to consider small and medium-sized enterprises
(1) Before inviting the submission of tenders in relation to the award of a regulated below-threshold contract, a contracting authority must—(a) have regard to the fact that small and medium-sized enterprises may face particular barriers in competing for a contract, and (b) consider whether such barriers can be removed or reduced.(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to the award of a contract in accordance with a framework.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require a contracting authority, before inviting the submission of tenders for a regulated below-threshold contract (other than under a framework), to have regard to the particular barriers to competing for a contract that small and medium-sized enterprises may have, and remove or reduce them where possible.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1 - there, “procurement” includes below-threshold procurement and international organisation procurement.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1 - there, “procurement” includes below-threshold procurement and international organisation procurement.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Lord Fox
“(3A) A contracting authority does not discriminate if it takes into account environmental, social and labour considerations and indicates in the notice of intended procurement or tender documentation how such considerations are defined.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows a contracting authority to take into account environmental, social and labour conditions where a treaty state supplier may be a supplier for a procurement.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 127 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Purvis, who is unfortunately unable to come today due to other constraints. My noble friend wanted me to thank the Minister and her officials for the meetings that they have had, which he found helpful but, needless to say, some questions lingered. I will go through those questions and I hope that, from the Dispatch Box, the Minister will be able to satisfy me in lieu of my noble friend. Perhaps she is lucky that he is somewhere else and I am here.
First, if there was an agreement on a specific need for social, labour and environmental conditions, as long as they are non-discriminatory, in the Australia agreement, why can this not be common across the Bill to make it clear that authorities can write these factors into programmes? Secondly, if we have signed what we signed with Australia—which we have—can we do the same with all other treaty suppliers in the schedule, even if it is not stated in the respective treaties? In other words, there is a carryover to the treaty suppliers in the schedules. We believe that officials have suggested that this is the case, but can the Minister clarify this point?
As so much of our procurement is with the EU, would it not be better if we worked harder to get the same language in our regulations as it has in its regulations, where it does not compromise the Government’s principles, so that procuring bodies have a simple and straightforward approach to this?
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who has asked some interesting questions to which I will be interested to hear the answers. I suspect the answer is that if a contracting authority has a requirement and sets out various specifications in its award criteria, it would be able to carry on as long as it does not discriminate between potential suppliers from other treaty states.
Lord Fox (LD)
With respect, I am not sure that Pepper v Hart works for the noble Lord saying that. We are looking to see what the Minister has to say on this. The noble Lord is very kindly helping on that.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Anyway, I am on my feet not to try to answer the noble Lord’s question but to explain Amendment 167. Those present in Committee will recall that debate. There was some degree of uncertainty. Again, I appreciate my noble friend’s time and attention on the issue in the conversations we have had about it.
I will just explain the amendment’s purpose. Under Section 8 and Schedule 9, there is a process for the future whereby procurement-related chapters in future free trade agreements can be added to the Schedule 9 list and, by extension, give access to UK public procurement opportunities by statutory instrument. I agree with that. Because the Bill will achieve that effect, in the Government’s view it can repeal the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill, because the purpose of that Bill is to bring into effect the procurement chapters of the Australia and New Zealand free trade agreements. That will no longer be necessary once this Bill has added them to Schedule 9 and it comes into force.
There are two issues. The first is timing. It was clearly the Government’s expectation that the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill would have proceeded more rapidly through the other place—that it would be here and be concluded well before this Bill completes its passage into law, and that the sequencing would therefore work very straightforwardly. That might still be true, although the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill completed Committee in the other place but has not yet been timetabled for Report. It is going more slowly than was originally intended. As I think noble Lords said in our debate on Monday, perhaps the Minister could attempt to explain the delays in the legislative process. Oh no, it was at Questions: my noble friend Lord Markham was not at liberty to explain the delays in the Government’s legislative programme, which was very sensible on his part. We cannot be sure that the Bills will be that way round but, in any case, it is more likely that the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill will proceed before this Bill completes its passage. Let us hope that is the case.
The second and, in my view, more important question then comes into play. What if the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill were to be amended? For example, there is an Opposition amendment tabled for Report in the other place, the effect of which would be to include impact assessments for a number of years on the Australia and New Zealand trade agreements—so, in fact, it is not restricted to the question of procurement but is about the overall impact of the two FTAs.
The effect of this Bill, as it is drafted in Schedule 11 on page 117 at the back of the Bill, would be to repeal it anyway. We would be in the unhappy position, if we carried on as we are, that we might amend the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill and then find that that amendment, whatever merit it may have, would be repealed by virtue of the Procurement Act in due course. This is not a satisfactory outcome. Will the Minister tell us that the Government are now aware of this potential problem, subject to the passage of events and that, if it should turn out that the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill is amended, the Government will commit to facilitating that any such amendment is not repealed by virtue of the provisions in the Procurement Act?
My amendment would avoid that possibility, because it would repeal only those provisions that were in the Bill when it was introduced on 11 May this year. If the Government cannot accept that, I hope that my noble friend will at least say that the Government will facilitate whatever measure is necessary—because whichever is the second Bill can change the first Bill, because Parliament cannot bind itself. So, almost by definition, the Government will have a mechanism—if they are willing to use it—to put things right using the second Bill. I hope my noble friend will give that reassurance.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, both the amendments in this group ask for clarification and information from the Minister on the exact status of the trade agreements and how they are going to operate. I think the loophole that the noble Lord is trying to close is something that we need to think about very seriously, because we do not want to have trade agreements that then start to unravel. That is one of the big concerns around this.
In Committee, we had a quite extensive debate around this. I asked the Minister a specific question on Schedule 7 and I thank her for her detailed response, which I think it is worth drawing to the attention of the House. Schedule 7 says that a discretionary exclusion ground applies to a supplier whether the conduct occurred in or outside the United Kingdom. The question I wanted confirmed was whether Schedule 7 covered procurement opportunities that came through trade agreements.
The response from the Minister was that the conduct overseas, as referred to in Schedule 7, does cover anything that happens within procurement coming out of a trade agreement. I was very grateful for her clarification on this and thought that I should draw it to the attention of the House. It is a very helpful clarification of the remit of the Procurement Bill as far as trade agreements are concerned. However, it would be helpful if the Minister was able to provide reassurance, explanation and clarification on the questions raised by the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Lansley, so that we all know exactly where we are, particularly around the Australia and New Zealand trade agreement.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for repeating the advice we received on the application of Schedule 7 so that it sits on the face of Hansard. I hope the other things I have to say will help with her general understanding of the interplay between the trade and procurement Bills under consideration.
I will start by responding to my noble friend Lord Lansley. I understand the point he makes in his Amendment 167: in the coming months there may be important amendments to the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill that will be designed to survive into the new regime. However, I respectfully suggest that an open-ended preservation of unspecified parts of that Bill, as his amendment proposes, is not the right way to deliver what is needed.
As he knows, I also think it would be a legislatively curious way of going about things. I have been consistent in saying that when we are certain of the amendments needed as a result of that other Bill, we will consider the provisions in the Procurement Bill and the best way to retain any such obligations. As I understand it, the timing should allow for this. Thanks to the eloquence of my noble friend Lord Lansley, we are well aware of the problem. Of course, the Government will have due respect for the expressed will of your Lordships’ House.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about contracting authorities. My response is that they just need to follow the provisions in the Bill. That will mean they are compliant with the trade agreements. I hope this gives the noble Lord some reassurance: they do not need to familiarise themselves with each individual agreement when they are engaged in procurement. If he finds that confusing, I am sure we can talk further on another occasion.
Amendment 127, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Fox, has the effect that a contracting authority cannot be considered to discriminate
“if it takes into account environmental, social and labour considerations”
in dealing with a treaty state supplier. To accept this would create the opportunity for UK contracting authorities to actively discriminate against overseas suppliers. That could place the UK in breach of our international trade agreements, including the GPA. I am sure noble Lords will agree that that would not be acceptable, but I hope they will take some comfort from the fact that the Procurement Bill already achieves the main objective of this amendment. It includes flexibility to structure procurements in a way that furthers these ends. For example, Clause 22 is drafted widely enough that these matters can be used by contracting authorities as part of the basis for determining a winning bid, as long as it is non-discriminatory.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who I think is not in his place, is a great expert in this area. He was concerned that some trade agreements refer to environmental and social criteria and some do not. I can reassure noble Lords that, where a trade agreement does not expressly permit these criteria, it does not mean that a contracting authority in the UK cannot take them into account. The Bill and the UK’s international commitments allow contracting authorities to continue to apply these criteria as they have for many years.
Lord Fox (LD)
I think the Minister has just confirmed the point I was making. On that basis, contracting authorities need to have knowledge of what is in each different agreement in order to start to discriminate in the way she has just described. If it is in some trade agreements and not in others, surely there will be different options. As the Minister said, my noble friend Lord Purvis is our expert on this. He was concerned about this, and therefore I think I am concerned about it.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think the point I made is that contracting authorities need to follow the provisions of the Bill and then they will be compliant with the trade agreements. I think the whole point is that we are trying not to require them to familiarise themselves with every trade agreement, and my advice is that that works. The time is late. I hope I have managed at least to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and I respectfully urge the noble Lord, Lord Fox, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Fox (LD)
As noble Lords can see by the vexed look across my brow, I am both out of my depth and no comprende. On that basis, that is two good reasons to step back. I think probably there is another conversation when the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is back in the country to go over this because I trust his instincts on these things. On that basis—
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I should perhaps make it clear that I do not think this is something we would expect to come back at Third Reading, but of course there will be further discussions in another place.
Lord Fox (LD)
That is completely understood. I do not think we will be bringing back an amendment. Do not worry. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 127.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(4) A Minister of the Crown must make arrangements to establish and operate an online system for the purpose of publishing notices, documents and other information under this Act.(5) An online system established or operated under subsection (4) must—(a) make notices, documents and other information published under this Act available free of charge, and(b) be accessible to people with disabilities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a Minister of the Crown to set up an online system for the publication of notices, documents and other information under the Bill.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove an unnecessary power to establish and operate an online system, since it can be done using common law powers.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that the duty to have regard to barriers facing small and medium-sized enterprises inserted by the Government amendment to Clause 11 is not enforceable under Part 9.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1 - there, “procurement” includes below-threshold procurement and international organisation procurement.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the other Government amendment to this subsection and would ensure that the duty is enforceable in relation to covered procurements.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Government amendments to this clause.
Lord Coaker
“Audit of Ministry of Defence procurement
(1) Within one month of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must commission the National Audit Office to produce and publish a report setting out any instances of Ministry of Defence procurement in the period of 5 years ending with the day on which this Act is passed that have resulted in— (a) overspend on initially planned budgets,(b) assets being withdrawn or scrapped or prepaid services terminated,(c) a contract being cancelled,(d) a contract being extended beyond the initially agreed timescale, or(e) administrative errors which have had a negative financial impact.(2) The National Audit Office report must include recommendations on how better management of contracts can reduce the loss of public money.(3) Within three months of the publication of the report, the Secretary of State must report to Parliament on whether its recommendations have been accepted or rejected, with reasoning in either case.(4) The Secretary of State must commission the National Audit Office to conduct a similar review annually.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require an annual audit of Ministry of Defence procurement to be commissioned by the Secretary of State.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I say from the outset that this is a probing amendment to give us the opportunity once again to talk about defence equipment, and I am pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, here. I was minded when I saw her rushing in to do what somebody did to me once. They moved the amendment formally so I had to start responding when I did not have the breath to do it, but I will not do that, partly because I respect her too much.
I am grateful for the support for the amendment from my noble friend Lady Hayman and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. As I say, it is a probing amendment to once again ask about defence procurement. We all have an interest in ensuring that defence equipment is procured efficiently and effectively, because that contributes to the defence of our nation, which is important to each and every one of us.
In particular, I just wanted to ask the noble Baroness a couple of general points and then a couple of specifics. We could have a debate for hours on this, but I do not think that is appropriate at the moment, given that it is a probing amendment. She will know that, in November 2021, the Public Accounts Committee published a report which had significant challenges for the Government. It talked about delays in the Government’s defence equipment procurement programme and a net delay of 21 years across the programme. The committee’s report also said that:
“the Department failed to assure us it is taking these matters sufficiently seriously”.
They are the Public Accounts Committee’s words, not mine. The committee called for more transparency and openness, and said that an urgent rethink was needed and that there was waste running into billions of pounds.
As a starting point, can the noble Baroness update us all on the progress the Government have made in the year since the Public Accounts Committee’s report into defence equipment spending in the other place in November 2021 and where we are now with that? That is particularly opportune because yesterday the Government published the Defence Equipment Plan 2022 to 2032, which I read with interest. While staying on the generalities, I ask: what did the Ministry of Defence mean when it said in the plan’s executive summary:
“The publication of this report comes at a decisive point for Defence and a period of rising inflation for the country. Although these pressures will have an eventual and significant effect on Defence spending, their full likely impact is not contained in this report”?
The report starts by saying that it does not include the impact of the current inflation level, even while saying that it will have a decisive impact. Frankly, I found that quite bemusing. I would be grateful for clarification from the Minister on what inflation figure was used. If I have read the report right, it was the inflation figure for March 2022. I might be wrong, so I stand to be corrected on that. We know that the current inflation figure is 11.1% and it is not clear whether that is going to go up or down—we hope that it will go down—but how can anyone publish a defence equipment plan, laying out the cost of equipment they hope to purchase, if they do not know what the monetary impact is going to be but they state that it will have a decisive impact? Clarity on that would be extremely helpful for your Lordships’ House.
As I say, those are some of the generalities that I wanted to raise. The whole point of an audit, as we have laid out, is to try to get some clarity and understanding of what is going on. The point of my amendment is that it looks at the next five years. The equipment plan looks at the next 10 years, so the Government’s projected assumptions about inflation are pretty important regarding what they can and cannot afford during that time.
Since we are looking into the future, what is the future of Ajax? The Ajax programme began in March 2010, intended to transform the Army’s surveillance and reconnaissance capability. To say it has gone badly wrong does not really do it justice. The department has a £5.5 billion fixed-price contract with General Dynamics, which was supposed to be for an initial 589 Ajax armoured vehicles. Those Ajaxes were supposed to come into service in 2017. They subsequently missed the revised target of 2021. By December 2021, the department had paid General Dynamics £3.2 billion but had received only 26 out of the 589 vehicles, none of which it can use on the battlefield, so the programme is in absolute turmoil. What is the current situation, and what now is the projection for the numbers of Ajaxes that are finally going to be operational? When will that happen? Given that the Government have put a ceiling on the project of £5.5 billion and have already spent £3.5 billion or so but received only 29 vehicles, what is the future of that programme? What is happening?
Will the Minister take this opportunity to update the Chamber on the important question of the current situation with regard to the “Prince of Wales” aircraft carrier? We are all very proud of our two aircraft carriers and want them to be successful. The “Queen Elizabeth” is performing majestically and fantastically for us and we are very proud of that, but obviously there have been problems with the “Prince of Wales”, which has only recently been completed. What is the projection for when it will be fixed and engineered back? What will the cost of that be, and is it factored into the various budgets?
You can see the difficulty with equipment; just the other day, the Defence Secretary said that the Royal Navy’s new submarine-hunting frigate would be hit by a year’s delay costing £233 million. There are numerous examples that we could look at beyond the couple I have used but, on the general point of my amendment, I want to know from the Minister where the Government are on their response to the Public Accounts Committee report from the other place, published a year ago, and what on earth that sentence in the executive summary of the equipment plan for 2022 to 2032 means, in which the Government say, astonishingly, that inflation is not costed in even though it will have a decisive impact on that plan. We would like some answers to that.
This is said from a position of wanting the defence equipment plan to work and deliver all the requirements of our fantastic, brilliant Armed Forces. To do that, we need certainty. I know the Minister will say, quite rightly, that there are fantastic examples of equipment that has been produced for our Armed Forces. That is true, but budgets continually overrun by billions of pounds and delays happen. Most importantly, have the Government responded—and if not, how will they respond—to the Public Accounts Committee report from a year ago?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I had to be absent for two and a half weeks in late October and early November and my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham kindly and generously substituted for me. I now find myself in the same position, as unfortunately she is unwell.
Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I remembered that I used to work on defence procurement when I was at Chatham House in the 1980s. It is depressing how few of the issues have fundamentally changed since then. It is part of the culture of our Armed Forces, and one or two former members of the Armed Forces who sit on the Labour Benches, that they like their toys to be of the best US complexity standard and as big and expensive as possible, and they want to change the specification several times while they are being developed. That is how one ends up with two very large aircraft carriers that we are not at all sure we ever wanted.
I sympathise with the MoD on the difficulties of procurement, but I suggest to the Minister that, as we absorb the very considerable implications of the Ukraine conflict for the sort of kit one needs and the sort of wars we may be fighting, it would be very helpful if the MoD took into account those in both Houses who are interested and briefed us as it went along. We are now discovering that a lot of cheap weapons, sometimes commercially acquired, can be as effective—or sometimes more effective—than very expensive ones. The last time I spoke to a group of former members of the Armed Forces, I asked a former colonel of an armoured regiment what he thought about the future of tank warfare. He replied: “You’d never get me inside one of those things again”. Our assumptions about the nature of warfare are changing.
This raises large questions for the MoD. We know that there are always tremendous problems with how much you need in reserve, and we are now discovering that we are running short of resupplies for Ukraine. I discovered the other year that the Liberal Government of 1895 fell on the issue of inadequate supplies of cordite for the Armed Forces, so here again, things are not entirely new. I see that the Clerk of the Parliaments remembers that occasion very well.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, is right to remind us not just of events in Victorian Britain but of what is happening at the moment and the impact that events in Ukraine and elsewhere will have on our procurement programmes.
I serve on your Lordships’ International Relations and Defence Committee. As the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie—it is wonderful to see her in her place—knows, throughout the whole of this year we have been conducting an inquiry into procurement and defence priorities, which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, touched on. We began it before the second invasion of Ukraine in February. From my discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who pressed this issue in Committee, I know how important this is, for all the reasons he described. He has a great sense of patriotism and cares for our Armed Forces, and I strongly associate myself with him and the desire for a probing amendment to test some of these questions.
One reason why I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, will be able to reply in terms to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on Ajax especially, is that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who is chair of our Select Committee, was here during his speech—she was unable to stay—and said that I can tell the House that she strongly agrees with the questions he put. She hopes that the noble Baroness will be able to answer them because they will be part of the terms of our committee’s report, which we have to complete before the House rises for the Christmas Recess at the end of December. So it is important that, if the noble Baroness is not able to answer those probing questions this evening, we are given answers in due course.
One of the witnesses to the Select Committee inquiry was Professor John Louth, who was the director of defence, industries and society research at RUSI from 2011 to 2019. When we asked him directly about the way in which we should go about defence procurement, I asked him specifically about the Bill and whether it would be welcome. He said:
“I have tried to read as much of this as possible … It is hard to identify the end state that the Government are looking for”.
He said that there are
“lines and lines of rhetoric and legalistic reform”,
some of which is incomprehensible even for those of us who are academics.
I asked him specifically about Ajax, which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has been raising, and he replied that it has been a “disaster”. As we have heard, it was intended to be a state-of-the-art reconnaissance vehicle for the Army, and it has cost a staggering £3.2 billion to date, yet so far not a single deployable vehicle has been delivered—not one. It was of course supposed to enter service in 2017, but it has been subject to what the Commons committee called a “litany of failures”, including noise and vibration problems that injured the soldiers testing the vehicles. Can the Minister tell us whether those safety issues have been resolved, or whether they are ever likely to be?
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, reminded us that the House of Lords Select Committee said the programme had been “flawed from the outset” and also that it was illustrative of a deeper failing, commenting that the Ministry of Defence
“once again made fundamental mistakes in its planning and management of a major defence programme.”
Pulling no punches, the Public Accounts Committee accused the department of failing to deliver vehicles which the Armed Forces need
“to better protect the nation and to meet our NATO commitments”.
In the current situation, with one eye eastwards to Ukraine, that is a very serious statement by a senior committee of Parliament—and this Bill, of course, is a Bill that will go down to the other place. It will go as a pristine Bill from the House of Lords, but the other place will be able to amend it, and I have no doubt that people from the Public Accounts Committee will want the answers that the noble Lord has gently been asking for this evening.
I will end by quoting Meg Hillier, who chaired the committee inquiry. She said:
“Enough is enough—the MoD must fix or fail this programme, before more risk to our national security and more billions of taxpayers’ money is wasted. These repeated failures … are putting strain on older capabilities which are overdue for replacement and are directly threatening the safety of our service people and their ability to protect the nation and meet NATO commitments.”
That is good enough reason alone, surely, for the Minister to give the House a comprehensive reply.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, I first thank noble Lords for their contributions. I understand fully that the proposed amendment is well intended, and I accept it in that spirit. I think it has certain implicit difficulties, which I shall move on to. I would never object to the Opposition Benches holding the Government’s feet to the fire—that is what the Opposition are there to do—but I hope they will be patient with me as I seek to explain why the precise terms of the amendment confront the MoD with difficulty.
The proposed amendment would require the Ministry of Defence to commission and publish a report from the National Audit Office, setting out instances of procurement overspend, withdrawal or scrapping of assets, termination of prepaid services, cancellations or extensions of contracts, or administrative errors with negative financial impacts. The reason the MoD rejects the amendment is not because it is not in sympathy with what I have identified as a well-intended sentiment expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, but quite simply because existing processes already ensure robust scrutiny and accountability of Ministry of Defence procurements.
Before I move on to that more detailed exposition, let me deal with a very specific point the noble Lord raised about the defence equipment plan which was published yesterday. He is more ahead than I am because I have been preparing for this. I have referred it to my officials, and I am told that it is difficult to calculate an accurate figure of inflation at the moment, due to volatility. That is an inadequate response to give the noble Lord from the Dispatch Box, so I offer to write to him. We will do further research in the department, and I shall endeavour to expand on what these particular difficulties are.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is totally acceptable, and I am very appreciative of it. The reason I asked was because the National Audit Office, commenting on the 2022-23 equipment plan, said it was already out of date because of inflation, Ukraine, the economic situation, et cetera. So I very much appreciate the offer from the noble Baroness to write and put that in context for us. I think it would be helpful if that was put in the Library for other Members as well.
Lord Fox (LD)
I join the noble Lord in welcoming that and also ask that the Minister includes currency because, while inflation is important, currency is actually more important in some cases. It is absolutely clear that a lot of these purchases are made in dollars and the dollar/pound rate will determine quite substantially the rising costs of equipment.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I hear both noble Lords. To put a little context around this, the MoD has not been sitting in some splendid ivory tower in isolation as volatile economic circumstances swirled around us. Actually, we have built protective measures into many of our contracts to deal with inflationary pressures—or, indeed, to deal with the currency fluctuations mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I appreciate that more detail is sought and I shall certainly look at that, with my officials, and endeavour to return to both noble Lords with some more information.
I was going to explain in more detail what we already do and how the National Audit Office already plays a role in all this. The National Audit Office is independent—we should remember that—and it already conducts a yearly audit on the defence equipment plan and undertakes regular audits of defence programmes. Further scrutiny of the performance of defence programmes is undertaken by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which tracks the progress of projects currently in the government major projects portfolio, not just that of the MoD. The details of these are published in its annual report. As an independent statutory body, the National Audit Office decides, independently of government, where to focus its resources and determines what projects and public bodies it audits and when.
It is important to emphasise that the Government do not direct the NAO; nor should we, because an essential feature of the importance and value of the NAO is that independence. Although it may not intend to do so, I argue that the amendment would interfere with that statutory independence. In addition, it would force the NAO to use its limited resources on a specific examination each year, irrespective of changing priorities: something might be significant one year and of far less concern the following year. It might even not reflect the continuing value of such an examination to Parliament: this is where we have to be very careful.
To reassure noble Lords, as I indicated, the Ministry of Defence continues to take steps to control the rise in the price of defence goods and services over time, including through improving the communication of longer-term priorities and requirements, including, as noble Lords will be aware, through the publication of pipelines. That is an extremely important development and signals likely demand to industry far better. It lets industry reflect on preparedness, instead of what was before probably a rather stop-start process, with industry asking, “Do you need anything?” and us suddenly announcing, “Yes, we do,” and everybody trying to create the thing from new.
The Ministry of Defence is utilising a new approach to industrial strategy. This strengthens supply chains and is driving pace and agility into the acquisition system through a range of transformation initiatives. The department has implemented steps to estimate project costs more accurately, including improving our risk forecasts through the use of reference class forecasts; that is, trying to use procurement as it happens, to inform us—what can be learned from the process? We have risk-costing pilots and we use the analysis of systematic, strategic or operational problems to inform us how the contract is proceeding. The MoD is also driving evaluation into programmes through the use of monitoring and evaluation frameworks and creating a process to capture and share lessons learned.
An important area, perhaps not widely understood, is that the MoD, like everyone else, can be hit by the quality and quantity of skills. That may be a significant impediment to us. Improvements are being delivered through the improved provision of training, initiatives to recruit and retain staff, and audits to identify and fill skills gaps.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said that not much has changed. I think he started with the 1980s, then we seemed to regress further, into the Victorian age, when I am not sure we would recognise very much of what our procurement contracts are delivering. I respectfully disagree with him because, in addition to what I have previously mentioned, including the investment appraisal process, we have made other big changes. For example, all category A procurements, which are valued at £400 million or above, go through an extensive internal MoD process before they even get to the Cabinet Office, the Treasury or the Minister of Defence for approval.
Costs are now independently assured by the cost assurance and analysis team, tender and contract documentation is independently assured through the progressive assurance team, and direct award contracts are reviewed and monitored by the single-source adviser team. If that sounds like just verbiage, let me say that behind that are highly trained expert people who are there to identify the shoals, the reefs and the rocks, bring them to our attention, and make sure that we are not inadvertently drawn into areas of contract weakness where in the past we might very well have gone.
We are content that there are sufficient checks and balances in place to ensure that we achieve best value for money, learning from previous procurements. There are some good examples, and I was very struck by visiting Babcock at Rosyth, where it is building a Type 31 frigate. That really proceeded on a new basis of approach—it was born out of the national shipbuilding strategy. That programme was established in 2017, and following competition a contract was awarded to Babcock in November 2019 for the design and build of the five ships; it is currently under way, with the first ship scheduled for float-off in 2023. With barely three years passed since contract-award, the Type 31 build at Rosyth is well under way, with the first grand block now assembled in the Venturer assembly hall. The build programme is set to meet its deadlines of delivering all five ships off-contract by the end of 2028, and the build contract is on course to deliver the five ships at an average cost of £250 million per ship.
I use that as an example because it seems to me, having seen it at first hand, a very modern illustration of where we have moved to. When I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that I do not agree with his characterisation, I also try to illustrate that argument by pointing out that there are different practices at play, informed—I fully admit—by a number of sources like the national shipbuilding strategy, which was an innovative change of direction for how we procure ships within the UK. But we have also had a very good example with the Poseidon aircraft programme operating out of RAF Lossiemouth in the north of Scotland on the Moray coast. It is an absolutely fantastic facility. That fleet comprises nine aircraft, which were all achieved on time, within budget, and to a challenging timeline.
It is very easy to be sceptical, and I fully understand why your Lordships rightly have been sceptical of some pretty poor experiences in the past, but all that I am pointing out is that we have moved on to a better way of doing things, and I hope that your Lordships understand from what I have been explaining and describing that there is a far better structure within the MoD to deal with these complex procurement contracts. These defence contracts are often complex, they are required quite often at speed to meet emerging threats, and are often needed to provide much-needed support to our Armed Forces, to ensure that we maintain operational advantage and to reduce the risk to our nation.
The noble Lords, Lord Coaker, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and Lord Alton, all raised the issue of Ajax, and I think I have said before from this Dispatch Box that it was certainly not one of our proudest moments. Intrinsically, it is actually a very good vehicle, and it will provide an important capability. Following agreement from the Ajax safety panel, work has led to resuming the user-validation trials which were paused earlier this year. Results from these trials are being analysed to ascertain whether it is possible to deliver a safe system of work under which to conduct reliability-growth trails. Your Lordships are aware that there were issues with vibration and hearing, and the one thing that we were very clear about was that we were not going to put people at risk; my former colleague as Minister for Defence Procurement, Jeremy Quin, was absolutely insistent. That is why, despite the embarrassment, we paused what was happening until we had a better understanding of what was going wrong; but I make it clear that the MoD will not accept a vehicle until it can be used safely for its intended purpose.
Your Lordships will be aware that Clive Sheldon KC is leading the Ajax lessons learned review, which is looking at ways in which the Ministry of Defence can best deliver major contracts more effectively in future. That is an important review and we await his analysis, conclusions and recommendations, but I emphasise that any delay to Ajax will not affect our commitments to NATO. That is an important point to observe.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about the “Prince of Wales” carrier. Rosyth on the Forth is where good things happen: as well as building the Type 31, that is where the Prince of Wales carrier is currently reposing. She is a state-of-the-art aircraft carrier. She has already proved her capabilities in a number of exercises, but there was an issue concerning the propulsion shaft and investigations are now under way. She is a huge vessel, and it was necessary to take her into dock to have the facilities properly to examine what was going wrong. Timelines for the repair of the shaft are being investigated and further updates will be provided in due course. We want her to return to operations as soon as possible. My understanding is that we have brought forward some routine maintenance anyway, so that can be attended to while she is at Rosyth. I have no more specific information at this time, but I expect we will get a further report when more is known about the underlying condition and how long it will take to rectify.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised the Type 26, which is a first-class ship. I have visited the programme in the yard at Govan being operated by British Aerospace. It is a fantastic piece of maritime equipment and it will be pivotal for the Royal Navy. It is proceeding very well. We have just awarded the batch 22 contract to the yard because we were absolutely satisfied about the professionalism, commitment and effectiveness of what British Aerospace was doing with the first batch. It is true that there has been a delay, but there are two reasons for that. Covid was one factor; it has created delays for our defence industry partners and their supply chain. I understand that there were also issues with locating the necessary corps of skills, but it now seems well under control and we hope that the new timeline can be adhered to. British Aerospace is certainly very keen to demonstrate that and to commit to making it happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, raised the issue of levels of munitions. He is quite right that particular demands have fallen on that area due to the conflict in Ukraine. Those of us who listened to the extraordinary, courageous address by Madam Zelenska yesterday—I was among those privileged to be there—could not help but feel huge admiration for her, her husband and the people of Ukraine, as well as a sense of pride that we have been able to come to their assistance. We have been able not just to support them in what they have been looking for but, I hope, to give them the reassurance of optimism and hope for the future; Madam Zelenska referred to that. I reassure your Lordships that, in our supply of anything we have provided to the Ukrainian armed forces, we have never compromised our own levels of stocks in relation to meeting our national security obligations.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to someone—that sounds rather disrespectful; it was someone very eminent—who used to be in RUSI who had certain challenges with the Bill. As a former lawyer, I would say in response that I think the Bill is a welcome clarification and consolidation of procurement law in the United Kingdom. For the MoD, there has been carefully researched tailoring of the Bill to meet the unique requirements of defence. Our industry partners have been positive, so I think the Bill has the potential to introduce far greater clarity to industry—both primes and smaller contractors—and give them a much clearer sense of how they engage, what they can do and what the rules are. That is absolutely to be commended.
In conclusion, I am under no illusions about the challenges the MoD faces in relation to large-scale procurement. We recognise these challenges, and that is why we continue constantly to explore additional actions to mitigate the effects of cost escalation and cost growth. I hope I have been able to explain in sufficient detail what we do already—particularly the very specific character of the National Audit Office, which is independent of government—to enable your Lordships to understand why the MoD is unable to accept this amendment, while it does identify with the sentiment with which it was put forward. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her reply and her offer of a letter. I stress how important that letter is, given the quote I am about to read, which summarises the National Audit Office’s assessment of the equipment plan that the Government published:
“The equipment plan is based on data submitted by the end of March this year and does not take account of the impact of exchange rate changes, rampant inflation, fuel costs and the Russian invasion of the Ukraine.”
It would be helpful to your Lordships’ House if the noble Baroness would respond in a letter and put it in the Library. It would be very useful to hear what the Government are saying about the National Audit Office’s comments.
I know that there are problems with Ajax; we look forward to continuing discussions on that. We have raised a number of other difficulties. I think all noble Lords here recognised that there are significant successes alongside that and we should recognise those—I certainly do. We all want our Armed Forces to succeed. The noble Baroness is quite right to remind us of the support we have given to Ukraine and the bravery of the Ukrainian people. We are right to recognise that once again this evening. With those brief comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(ca) the Corporate Officer of the House of Commons;(cb) the Corporate Officer of the House of Lords;(cc) the Senedd Commission;(cd) the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add the listed bodies as contracting authorities not subject to procurement investigations.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(ba) comply with section (Regulated below-threshold contracts: duty to consider small and medium-sized enterprises) (regulated below-threshold contracts: duty to consider SMEs);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that the duty to have regard to barriers facing small and medium-sized enterprises inserted by the Government amendment to Clause 80 may not be the subject of a “section 100 recommendation”.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
“Supply chain resilience against economic coercion and slavery
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for reducing the dependency of public bodies upon goods and services which originate in whole or in part in a country considered by the United Kingdom as either a systemic competitor or a threat.(2) A country is “considered by the United Kingdom as either a systemic competitor or a threat” if it was defined as such in the latest Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy.(3) The regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, include—(a) provision for an annual review of the dependency of public bodies upon countries which are considered by the United Kingdom as systemic competitors or threats;(b) provision for the setting of acceptable dependency thresholds across all categories of public procurement.(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for eradicating from all public contracts goods or services that are tainted by slavery and human trafficking.(5) The regulations under subsection (4) may, in particular, include—(a) provision in connection with the processes to be followed by public bodies in the procurement of goods or services for the purposes of public contracts; (b) provision as to steps that must be taken by public bodies for assessing and addressing the risk of slavery and human trafficking taking place in relation to people involved in public bodies’ supply chains;(c) provision as to matters for which provision must be made in contracts for goods or services entered into by public bodies;(d) provision as to the standards of disclosure and transparency required for all contractors or prospective contractors, which must, at a minimum, include publication and verification of information about the country of origin of all sourcing inputs in their supply chain;(e) provision for the public disclosure of the names of contractors or prospective contractors whose supply chains are considered tainted by slavery and human trafficking;(f) provision for the publication and dissemination of a risk register detailing areas from which goods cannot be sourced without unreasonable risk of slavery and human trafficking being present in supply chains.(6) In this section—“public body” means a body exercising functions of a public nature;“slavery and human trafficking” has the meaning given by section 54(12) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015;goods or services are “tainted” by slavery and human trafficking if slavery and human trafficking take place in relation to anyone involved in the supply chain for providing those goods or services.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment seeks to improve the UK’s supply chain resilience against dependency and human rights abuse by creating a double regulation making power: to enable the Government to develop a plan to address dependency throughout public procurement; and to bring the human rights standards of wider public procurement in line with the procurement standards of the Department of Health and Social Care.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
With the leave of the House, I shall speak for a moment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and as one of the four sponsors of the amendment, to say how encouraged we were by the offer made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for a meeting with the sponsors of the amendment. Given that this Bill is not in ping-pong but will be going to another place for further consideration, it is now the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, not to move the amendment and to return to this question once we have had the opportunity of meeting the Minister and, in due course, returning to the issues we explored during the debate this evening.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
(a) a reserved procurement arrangement, or(b) a transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangement.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
(a) a reserved procurement arrangement, or(b) a transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangement.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
(a) a reserved procurement arrangement, or(b) a devolved Welsh procurement arrangement.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
“(4A) A Minister of the Crown may not publish guidance under section 101 for the purpose of regulating a Northern Ireland department without the consent of a Northern Ireland department, unless the guidance relates to procurement under—(a) a reserved procurement arrangement, or(b) a devolved Welsh procurement arrangement.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that a Minister of the Crown could not issue guidance for the purposes of regulating a Northern Ireland department without the consent of a Northern Ireland department unless it relates to procurement under a reserved procurement arrangement or a devolved Welsh procurement arrangement.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“6A_(1) Section 42 (single source contract regulations: general) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (4)(b), omit the second “or”.(3) After subsection (4)(b) insert—“(ba) provision made by virtue of section 15(2)(b) (pricing of contracts), whether alone or with other provision, or”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to an exercise of powers under the new provision in section 15 of the Defence Reform Act 2014 inserted by paragraph 3(3) of this Schedule.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would preserve the Commission Decisions.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I am about to call Amendment 170. If this is agreed, I cannot call Amendments 171 or 172.
Clause 111: Power to disapply this Act in relation to procurement by NHS in England
Amendment 170
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(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 subsection (1)—“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;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that the power to exclude certain procurement relating to health services may only be excluded from the scope of the Bill if it is the subject of provision under the National Health Service Act 2006.
Baroness Brinton
“Application of this Act to procurement by NHS England
(1) Omit sections 79 and 80 of the Health and Care Act 2022.(2) For the avoidance of doubt, the provisions of this Act apply to procurement by NHS England.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to probe the difference between procurement under this Act and procurement by NHS England under the Health and Care Act 2022.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(za) section 5 (utilities contracts)”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to an exercise of the powers inserted by the Government amendment to Clause 5.
“(ca) section 50 (publication of contracts);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to an exercise of powers under Clause 50.
“(ea) section 65(3)(a) (information about payments: financial thresholds);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to an exercise of powers under Clause 65.
“(fa) section 81 (regulated below-threshold contracts: notices);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to an exercise of powers under Clause 81.
“(ha) section 86 (pipeline notices);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to an exercise of powers under Clause 86.
“(na) section 114 (interpretation);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to an exercise of the powers inserted by the Government amendment to Clause 114.
“(za) section 5 (utilities contracts)”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to an exercise of the powers inserted by the Government amendment to Clause 5.
“(ca) section 65(3)(a) (information about payments: financial thresholds);(cb) section 70 (contract change notices and publication of modifications);(cc) section 81 (regulated below-threshold contracts: notices);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to an exercise of powers under Clause 65, 70 or 81.
“(da) section 86 (pipeline notices);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to an exercise of powers under Clause 86.
“(ha) section 114 (interpretation);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to an exercise of the powers inserted by the Government amendment to Clause 114.
“(za) section 5 (utilities contracts);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to an exercise of the powers inserted by the Government amendment to Clause 5.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on a Northern Ireland department not having the power to make regulations under clause 64 and would remove the power of a Northern Ireland department to amend the thresholds in that clause.
“(ga) section 114 (interpretation);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to an exercise of the powers inserted by the Government amendment to Clause 114.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
““pupil referral unit” means—(a) in England, a pupil referral unit within the meaning given by section 19 of the Education Act 1996;(b) in Wales, a pupil referral unit within the meaning given by section 19A of the Education Act 1996;“school” means—(a) the governing body of a maintained school (see section 19(1) of the Education Act 2002);(b) the proprietor, within the meaning given by section 579(1) of the Education Act 1996, of an Academy within the meaning given by that section;(c) the proprietor, within the meaning given by section 579(1) of the Education Act 1996, of a school that has been approved under section 342 of that Act;(d) the governing body, within the meaning given by section 90 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, of an institution within the further education sector within the meaning given by section 91 of that Act;(e) the Board of Governors of a grant-aided school within the meaning given by Article 2(2) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (S.I. 1986/594 (N.I. 3));”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would create a new definition of “school” for the purposes of excluding them from certain obligations under the Bill.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
““small and medium-sized enterprises” means suppliers that—(a) have fewer than 250 staff, and(b) have a turnover of an amount less than or equal to £44 million, or a balance sheet total of an amount less than or equal to £38 million;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would insert a definition of “small and medium-sized enterprises” for the purposes of the Government amendment to Clause 11 and the Government’s new clause after Clause 80 inserting duties in relation to those enterprises.
Baroness Noakes
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that references to amounts received, receivable or to be received in the Bill include references to those amounts referable to VAT.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(3) In this Act, a reference to a contract awarded by a school includes a reference to a contract awarded wholly for the purposes of supplying goods, services or works to a pupil referral unit.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the new definition of “school” for the purposes of the Bill inserted into this Clause would apply such that references to contracts awarded by a school are read as references to contracts awarded for the purposes of pupil referral units.
“(3) An appropriate authority may by regulations change the definition of “small and medium-sized enterprises”.(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may amend this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to more precisely define “small and medium-sized enterprises”.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the new definition of “school” inserted by the Government amendment to Clause 114.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
“competitive flexible procedure competitive tendering procedure | section19 section 19” |
This amendment would add definitions to the index of defined expressions.
“convertible contract covered procurement debarment list | section 69 section (Procurement and covered procurement) section 54” |
This amendment would add definitions to the index of defined expressions.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the new definition of “school” inserted for the purposes of the Bill by the Government amendment to clause 114.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the change in terminology in new clause before clause 1.
“publication of a tender notice | section (Qualifying utilities dynamic markets notices: no duty to publish a tender notice)” |
“school | section 114” |
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the new definition of “school” inserted for the purposes of the Bill by the Government amendment to Clause 114.
“small and medium-sized enterprises | section 114” |
This amendment is consequential on the Government amendment to Clause 114 inserting a definition of “small and medium-sized enterprises”.
Procurement Bill [HL]
Tuesday 13th December 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 75(a) Amendment for Third Reading - (8 Dec 2022)
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the Bill be now read a third time.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, before the Procurement Bill is read a third time, I will deal with the legislative consent aspects. Most of the provisions apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland only, and a few also apply to Scotland. Throughout the preparation and passage of the Bill, we have been working closely with each of the devolved Administrations. As noble Lords will know, there are provisions in the Bill which engage the legislative consent process in the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Currently, the devolved Administrations have not granted a legislative consent Motion; however, we are engaging constructively with officials and Ministers on addressing outstanding points, and I reassure noble Lords that the Government will continue with this engagement as the Bill is introduced into the House of Commons. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would correct the cross-reference so it refers to the definition of “centralised procurement authority”.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I will move a minor technical amendment to Clause 110 in my name. I know how keenly noble Lords have scrutinised the Bill, and I am therefore confident that they will have noticed that, in the definition of “equivalent body” in Clause 110(6), the very incongruous words, “[subsection removed]”, appear in square brackets. I am informed that this cannot be amended administratively to make the appropriate cross-reference. Therefore, in the interests of sending the Bill to the other place in a form which can be understood, I have tabled an amendment to insert the missing cross-reference, which is to Clause 1(4). I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister because I have been worrying myself to death about this issue and clearly welcome her amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, having taken over this crucial Bill from the now Leader of the House, I have had the pleasure of hearing a range of informed contributions from across the House on it. Noble Lords have offered a rich and stimulating debate in Committee and on Report, and I thank them for engaging constructively with what has at times been a challenging piece of legislation. As ever, I thank noble Lords for their forbearance with what I fear may be a record number of government amendments tabled in the Lords to help the Bill function optimally.
My objective in leading this Bill has been to ensure that it encourages a more open, effective and transparent public procurement while encouraging economic growth. One in every £3 of public money—some £300 billion a year—is spent on public procurement, yet at present we must wrestle with over 350 different procurement regulations across four different regimes. Noble Lords know my passion for paring back needless bureaucracy, in particular removing barriers for SMEs, and I know they have welcomed the new provisions I instigated to require contracting authorities to think about SMEs routinely. We have also put provisions in the Bill for the new single central online platform, which will underpin the new system and achieve a real step change in transparency.
This simplification of regulations is not at the expense of stringent, well-thought-out measures ensuring that procurement is done safely and appropriately in the relevant sector. Noble Lords will be aware of the national procurement policy statement, the procurement review unit and the debarment list. All these measures will make public procurement safe and ethical and take into account wider factors that I know many noble Lords right across the House care deeply about. These reforms are intended to provide a shift towards a modern and flexible procurement regime and deliver better outcomes for taxpayers, service users and the businesses and social enterprises involved.
Before I conclude, I would like to make noble Lords aware of an error on my part during the second day of Report, which I must correct. Amid the highly technical debate, I wrongly said that the national security exclusion ground was mandatory. In fact, it is discretionary. This is because it is desirable to have flexibility for contracting authorities considering exclusion on this ground, depending on the specific circumstances involved—for example, the nature of the threat to national security and/or the risk to the contract being tendered.
In concluding, I thank my noble friends Lady Bloomfield and Lady Goldie for their support on this Bill. I also extend particular thanks to my noble friends on the Back Benches for their contributions, challenge and support. I am very grateful to noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite and on the Cross Benches for their time and constructive engagement from the day I took the Bill over from my noble friend the Leader of the House. Finally, I thank the officials who have worked on the Bill, particularly Sam Rowbury, Ed Green, the previous Bill manager Phillip Dunkley and the current Bill manager Katrina Gajewska, as well as the wider official team, others supporting noble Lords across the House and my private office. I wish the Bill a safe passage through the other place.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister pointed out, this is a really important Bill. It will guide an estimated £300 billion of public procurement, hopefully making it safe while driving some of the things we want to happen. I thank the Minister. She had an interesting start on this Bill; she too was a Back-Bencher and tabled several critical amendments early on, and was then suddenly propelled to the Front Bench. I think we benefited from that change of perspective—that is not to criticise her predecessor.
It is appropriate that we should bookend this Bill with another amendment, because it has been a story of amendments. We should thank the Bill team, who worked through the night at the start of this in Committee in July, explaining and setting out what the hundreds of amendments were there to do. But because there were so many amendments and clearly there was so much work to do, the Bill leaves us with still more work and scrutiny required, if it is going to achieve the things that we all want it to achieve—that is, to have a transparent process that helps our small, medium and social enterprises to flourish in the public procurement system. When it goes to the other place, I hope that those further changes can be made to make sure that it delivers that, and in an ethical way.
I thank the Minister, her predecessor and her Whips in this. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for what has been a very constructive and co-operative process. I also thank my colleagues. I will name them, because they have worked very hard: my noble friends Lady Brinton, Lady Humphreys, Lady Northover, Lady Parminter, Lord Purvis, Lord Scriven, Lady Smith, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Wallace. That list reflects the fact that the Bill touches so much of public life. Finally, I thank Elizabeth Plummer in our Whips’ office, without whom life would have been extraordinarily confusing for us on these Benches. That said, we wish the Bill well and beg that the MPs continue to work on it on our behalf.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I have something to add before the thanks are completed. The Minister was good enough to express her thanks to the Cross Benches, and I draw the attention of the House to the all-party amendments which were included in the Bill. I begin by thanking her. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, just said, it was unusual for a poacher to be turned gamekeeper in the course of the proceedings of the Bill and she did it with great aplomb and showed all the characteristics that we have come to associate with her, in the way that she dealt with constructive attempts to improve the Bill as it proceeded through Committee and Report.
As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, the Bill has enjoyed support from around the entire House and, of course, whatever form a Bill is in, we will all always want to try to add to it, if we are able to do so. I was therefore very grateful to the House for including the cross-party amendment I moved on the removal of surveillance equipment. I also supported the all-party amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who is here, on the use of forced organ harvesting. Those two amendments are now in the Bill as it goes to another place. Unlike on ping-pong, this is a pristine Bill going to the other place. I hope that Ministers will engage with those amendments and not simply try to remove them.
There were two other amendments. The Minister will recall that the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, moved an all-party amendment which was not taken to a vote. We had a discussion during Report about how that could be taken to the Minister who might deal with the Bill when it reached the House of Commons. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, will be able to draw that to the attention of the House of Commons Minister and suggest that such a meeting should now take place.
With those remarks, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and his noble friends, but also the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and her noble friends—the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in particular—and those on the Cross Benches who supported the amendments that we brought forward.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I think I am the sole surviving Member of the Committee here today who contributed. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister and the Bill team on getting the Bill thus far. I am obviously immensely disappointed not to have succeeded in my attempt to source more local food in our procurement contracts, but I hope that this can be redressed in the other place.
My noble friend alluded to something that is a source of great concern to me. I have in my possession the memorandum from the Scottish Government, which expressed their concern and inability to add their consent to the Bill. Does she not share my concern that it would be very regrettable if the Scottish Government felt obliged to carry out their own Bill in this area, because of their concern about the continued ability to carry out cross-border procurement? Could this still be addressed in the other place before the Bill reaches Royal Assent?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will be very surprised to know that I thank my noble friend Lord Coaker for supporting me and sticking with the Bill all the way through. It has been a long haul, and I think we are all pleased we are at Third Reading.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord True. At the beginning of the Bill, he gave me an awful lot of time, as did his officials, when we had some serious concerns. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned, we had a bit of a sticky start. The officials worked incredibly hard to get us to a position where we could properly debate the issues in Committee; at the beginning, we were not in that position, unfortunately. We all congratulated the noble Lord, Lord True, on his promotion, but we were also delighted as a Committee when the noble Baroness took over this Bill, because she was genuinely interested in what we were debating and genuinely understood what we were trying to achieve. I think she worked very hard and brought in some important improvements to the Bill, having listened to Committee. I thank her for her time, efforts and energy in helping us all to come out with a Bill that was better than what we had at the start.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and other Members who took part for the constructive work we did going forward on the Bill. It is much appreciated. I think all Members of the Committee would agree that the Bill we have sent to the other place is in a much better state than it was when we received it. I thank everybody very much for their hard work. I hope the other place considers our amendments seriously—I think they make the Bill better—and perhaps brings some further improvements that we can look at when it arrives back. It has been a pleasure to work on the Bill, but I am pleased we are now moving on.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I would like to briefly thank all those who have spoken. I agree with them on almost everything, and I also agree that we should commend my noble friend Lord True, now the Leader of the House, perhaps partly because of his achievements in this area. It has been a great pleasure to become a gamekeeper for the Government rather than be a poacher for the Back Benches. My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering raised the devolved issues; of course, we hope that these things can be amicably resolved in the other place. Procurement is a devolved issue—the Scottish Government have not joined the UK Government’s Bill and will be maintaining their own legislation. Contracting authorities in Scotland will therefore not be bound by the Bill other than to enable their use of frameworks, dynamic markets and joint procurement. They are operating their own regulations, having transposed the EU directives into their own statute book. There are some outstanding issues, particularly with the Scottish Government. We are pursuing those, and I hope they will be resolved before we see the Bill again.
Procurement Bill [Lords]
Monday 9th January 2023
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 75(a) Amendment for Third Reading - (8 Dec 2022)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
At some £300 billion, public procurement accounts for around a third of all public expenditure every year. By improving the way we procure, we can save the taxpayer money, drive innovation and resilience, and deliver benefits across every region of the country. We have an opportunity, post our departure from the European Union, to create our own regulations that can help to drive transparency, prosperity and growth. The Procurement Bill seizes that opportunity and reflects three years of policy development, public consultation and detailed intensive engagement. This has included local government, the education and health sectors, businesses of all sizes, and the social enterprise sector, among others.
To ensure that the new regime is truly world leading, the Bill will fundamentally improve the UK’s public procurement regime, driving a relentless focus on value for money. It will create a simpler, more flexible commercial system that better meets our country’s needs.
John Spellar
The Minister is starting out with the message that the Government are somehow able to do this because of Brexit, but it was nothing to do with European regulation that the Ministry of Defence decided to contract for naval vessels from other countries. In doing that, it was no way acting like any other European country. It was a Whitehall choice and a ministerial choice. The Government had the choice, and they should stop using this as a smokescreen.
Jeremy Quin
I referred to the right hon. Gentleman as my right hon. Friend because he is so familiar from my appearances at the Dispatch Box in my Ministry of Defence role, and it is lovely to hear the same lines being produced again. I am no longer in that role and I am not here to speak for the Ministry of Defence, but I think he must be referring to the fleet solid support ship programme—a prospect that will rejuvenate Harland & Wolff and really get Appledore working again. I believe that it will deliver 1,500 jobs to the UK shipbuilding industry, helping to recreate the skills that were so foolishly lost in the last round. The decisions that were made under the last Labour Government in 2005 left us with fewer yards than we would all like, and I think it was a positive decision from the Ministry of Defence to award the FSS contract as it did. I wish Harland & Wolff and the rest of the British designers the very best with it.
John Spellar
But is the Minister clear, now that he has left the Ministry of Defence, that the contract is not with Harland & Wolff, but with the Spanish shipbuilder Navantia and a British shell company set up only last June? There is no assurance that this work will go to British yards.
Jeremy Quin
The right hon. Member refers to Team Resolute, and I am delighted that it won the tender. The majority of that work will be undertaken in British yards—[Interruption.] We could continue to make this a discussion on defence procurement, but I think the rest of the House wants to discuss the Bill before us, as I certainly do.
Bill Esterson
The Minister says that he is here to talk about a modern procurement system for the UK, but The Guardian is saying today that a Conservative peer who advised the Government during the pandemic helped a company to secure a £50-million contract after being introduced to the firm by another peer with financial interests in that company. Can the Minister tell us exactly which clause in the Bill he is putting forward today would have prevented that extreme example of cronyism from happening?
Jeremy Quin
Alas, it is a great loss to me, but I have not read The Guardian today and I am not in a position to comment in detail on what the hon. Gentleman has said. If he goes through the Bill in detail, as I and other Members have, he will find the parts that refer to declarations of conflicts of interest. These are issues that we will be significantly improving through the Bill to ensure that there can be no doubt that integrity lies at the heart of our procurements. That has always been the case, but it will be even more entrenched as a result of the provisions of this Bill.
Jeremy Quin
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress. If I give two chances to every Member, we will be here for a much longer time.
There are currently hundreds of procurement regulations spread over four different regimes for different types of procurement. We will consolidate them into a single regime. This will remove duplication and create one rulebook that everyone can understand and use, with sectoral differences only where absolutely necessary, such as for reasons of defence or national security.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Which line in the Bill will prevent, say, a future landlord who has a close relationship with a future Minister from securing a contract worth millions of pounds for personal protective equipment, or prevent someone who produces underwear, who happens to be in the other place, from securing a contract via a conversation via a VIP lane? Which line in this Bill will close that down?
Jeremy Quin
If the hon. Gentleman has not read the Bill, I recommend that he does so. There is a lot of it, but it is a good read and he will find it has a range of measures to ensure transparency at the heart of our procurement. I do not accept the premise of his question—if his question has a premise—that previous procurements were incorrectly awarded; far from it. If he wants to see a Bill that enhances transparency, that ensures there are always proper procedures in place to address conflicts of interest and that ensures the best propositions win tenders, he will support the Bill this evening, as I hope the rest of the House will.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Perhaps I could mention something that is in the Bill, rather than not in the Bill.
I welcome the Bill, and particularly how it will benefit our small and medium-sized enterprises and the local sustainability of good-quality British products, but clause 65 was helpfully added by the noble Lord Alton and a cross-party alliance in the other House to make sure that we do not procure from countries found guilty of genocide or human rights abuses, particularly China. Can the Minister confirm that the Government not only support clause 65 but will extend it beyond just surveillance technology? We should not procure goods and services from countries found guilty of genocide or human rights abuses, such as China in Xinjiang, as verified by a vote in this House. We should just not deal with them.
Jeremy Quin
It is a pleasure to respond to a question about a clause in the Bill, for which I thank my hon. Friend. We are thinking through the Lords amendments, and there will be further time to discuss them in Committee. Anything that is added to the Bill must be deliverable and workable. I stress that the Bill already contains much-enhanced provisions to ensure we can prevent inappropriate suppliers from coming into our production chain, not just as primes at the top level but right through the supply chain. For example, we will be able to debar companies for misconduct or illegality. We are taking far more powers than we had under the old EU regime, which should be welcomed by all Members of this House.
Bob Seely
My right hon. Friend was making a point about ethics, so I will make a point about dependency. Do the Government accept that they have purchasing power to reduce our dependency on authoritarian states, and do they accept there are lessons to be learned from the Ukrainian war, our economic and energy dependence on Russia and our economic dependence on China? Will they accept an amendment, tabled by me or by others, so that, as well as having ethics at the heart of this Bill, we can discuss how to reduce our dependency on states that seek to harm us, be it Russia, China, North Korea or Iran, etc.?
Jeremy Quin
I would welcome the opportunity to speak to my hon. Friend about any amendment he might table, and we would, of course, look at it seriously. I recognise the general point that this country has realised, as have all our friends, through covid and subsequently that it is incredibly important to understand our supply chains and to understand where our procurement comes from. The Bill will help us do that by enabling us to look through the entire supply chain—not just the top level, but deep inside—to make certain that we are able to stop suppliers that are effectively in misconduct, and to make certain that resilience is part of our thought process in procurement. I believe all those valuable assets are incorporated in this Bill, but I am more than happy to have further discussions with my hon. Friend.
I hope the House will forgive me if I make a little progress. Running through this Bill is a theme of greater transparency. Through the Bill, we will deliver world-leading standards of transparency in public procurement. It covers contracts awarded across the public sector, including by central and local government, arm’s length bodies, education authorities and health authorities. It also covers contracts awarded by publicly funded housing associations and by companies in the water, energy and transport sectors.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Minister is being generous in giving way. Can he indicate whether the Government will accept the amendments made in the other place requiring contracting authorities to maximise environmental benefits when awarding contracts, and particularly to ensure compliance with the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Acts? Does he accept that that should not be optional, as the climate emergency is so urgent that it ought to be required by this Bill?
Jeremy Quin
That urgency is why we have published procurement policy notes on our commitment to net zero, just as we have published them on social value. We are keen for the Bill’s wording not to be very prescriptive, because the Government will have to announce procurement policies from time to time. I totally accept that there is a case for ensuring that our net zero commitments are met, but putting them in the Bill, which would create a big, laborious process for SMEs and procurers, be they local councils or central Government, is not the right way forward.
This Bill sets out a strong framework that gives us far more powers, but it is then open to the Government to set out, through a national procurement policy statement, the focus on social value or environmental concerns. I hope the hon. Lady accepts that the procurement policy notes we have already published show our commitment to doing just that.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Minister is being incredibly kind in giving way, and I recognise his generosity.
What measures in the Bill will protect the supply chain from collapse, as we saw with Carillion? Project bank accounts, which are already used across Government, would protect the supply chain. Thousands of small businesses went out of business or lost hundreds of thousands of pounds during Carillion’s collapse, so will the Minister introduce something like that? There is also a question about protections for retention money, so will that be included?
Jeremy Quin
That is a matter not so much for the Bill as for the operation of commercial practice. The outsourcing playbook has been used effectively since Carillion, and we have since seen other examples of public suppliers getting into difficulty. They are carefully monitored across Government. We will not always spot everything, but there is close working across Government to monitor our suppliers and to ensure that we can act, and act swiftly, where a supplier falls into problems.
Debbie Abrahams
National Highways, for example, uses project bank accounts to protect its supply chain as a matter of course, and it says that they are its preferred option. If the Department associated with National Highways is doing that, why cannot they be used across all Government Departments?
Jeremy Quin
I am not familiar with the specifics of project bank accounts, to be perfectly frank. We have put measures in place to protect supply chains in the event of the collapse of a prime supplier, but I will take this up with my officials and write back to the hon. Lady.
In recognition of the specific needs of defence and security procurement, and to help deliver the defence and security industrial strategy, a number of provisions specifically apply to defence and security contracts. These provisions will provide flexibility for contracts to be upgraded to refresh technology and avoid gaps in military capability. There will continue to be special rules for certain social, health and education services, to be identified in secondary legislation, that may be procured as so-called light touch contracts, recognising the particular domestic and social aspects that should be captured in such procurements.
The interaction with regulations being prepared under the Health and Care Act 2022 was the subject of particular attention when the Bill was considered in the other place, and it may well be of interest to this House. The Bill will apply to most areas of NHS procurement of goods and services to help drive efficiency and value for money. However, the Health and Care Act regime is intended to address the specific requirements of the health and care system and to fulfil the Government’s intention to deliver greater collaboration and integration in the arrangement of clinical healthcare services.
Let me be clear that the Bill strengthens the NHS’s ability to deliver. The reforms to healthcare commissioning in the Health and Care Act will give commissioners more flexibility in how they arrange services so that both procurement systems can work effectively and deliver care for patients.
The Bill sets out the key principles and objectives of public procurement. These place value for money, public benefit, transparency and integrity at the heart of our procurement system. As well as competition and efficiency, there must be good management to prevent misconduct.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Public procurement is one key way in which the Government can set a framework whereby employers’ standards can be driven up and a good example can be given to other employers. So will the Minister accept an amendment that gives priority when awarding Government contracts to the many thousands of companies that pay their staff the real living wage?
Jeremy Quin
I do not think this is the process whereby we tell employers what they should be paying their employees; that would be a big reach too far. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased that this Bill contains provisions that ensure that we can prevent companies that commit misconduct from taking part in procurements, and that can be in any range of areas. However, this is not the Bill by which we are going to be regulating employees’ pay.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
I welcome this Bill, particularly because, as the Minister rightly points out, it introduces far greater transparency and competition, precisely as I was calling for two years ago in the Government-commissioned report on competition policy. I am delighted to see the Bill coming forward with those measures. May I push him on value for money, which he mentions and which is clearly important? The evaluation task force, which exists jointly between his Department and the Treasury, is a tiny unit that covers a tiny fraction of Government procurement spending. Will he pledge, either today or later in the Bill’s progress, that its role will be expanded to cover far more of what we are buying, in order to make sure that we are buying things that genuinely work and it can say that things have been evaluated and either they have produced the goods or they have not, and therefore should or should not be renewed or rolled over in future?
Jeremy Quin
I thank my hon. Friend for the ideas he threw in our direction, which have been picked up. He is right to say that greater transparency is absolutely reflected in this Bill, and I thank him for the work he did. There has been a long lead-up to get to this Bill and we thank him very much for his support. I am proud of the evaluation task force and the work it does, not only on procurement, but on other areas of policy, looking into them to make certain that they are delivering what we intended when they were announced. That is an important tool for all Governments. I would love to see the evaluation task force grow. It is growing in experience and in the amount of projects it is taking on. It has covered a fair bit of the waterfront, but I appreciate that it is merely a small element at the moment and I would like to see it grow. However, he will forgive me if I do not start making commitments of that sort at the Dispatch Box—
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
When we talk about NHS procurement and the challenges for small and medium-sized enterprises in dealing with the NHS, we are talking about small companies dealing with a vast organisation. PolyPhotonix, a company in my constituency, gave me an example of the frustration involved. It created a light therapy mask to help treat diabetic retinopathy, and I have been supporting the company. The NHS procurement process has been extremely complex, although the company got the mask approved. There was NHS investment in innovation to develop it, but it became used in the private sector before the NHS, because the NHS procurement could not get it right or could not make the approvals. Those were finally obtained and the mask is now active, fabulous and a great product. The other NHS trusts all want to approve it themselves, so surely there is an opportunity here. If something is approved by one NHS trust, surely it does not need to be approved by every other one before it can be used. Is there some opportunity in the Bill to facilitate that greater ease for SMEs?
Jeremy Quin
I recognise the frustration of the company in my hon. Friend’s constituency. He should take up the specifics of that with my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary, but more generally he raises an extremely valuable point, not just in the health sector, but more broadly, about the ease of doing business with Government for SMEs. The Bill contains a range of measures on this: it puts a duty on procurers to ensure that they are considering the specific needs of SMEs; it ensures there is a 30-day payment period; it ensures that pipelines are put out well in advance; it says, “You don’t need to be insured to do the job before you have won it”; and, above all, it provides for one entry point and allows companies to set out in one place what they are as a smaller company before they even start thinking about the tender they are applying for. All those are incredibly valuable components to make it easier for an SME to thrive.
Jeremy Quin
I will not give way at this stage. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the offer, but I think I should be making a little more progress.
In delivering value for money, the Bill will require procurement teams to take account of national priorities, as set out in a new national procurement policy statement. These are national priorities such as improving supply chain resilience, enhancing skills, driving innovation and, of course, protecting the environment. Procurers will be able to give greater weight to bids that support such priorities. I know that in the other place there is a strong desire to pursue particular interests and include a range of policies in the Bill. The Government instead believe that that is a purpose of the NPPS. We want to keep this legislation as clear and simple as possible; the intention is that we allow procurement to keep pace with evolving policy priorities and we do not swamp contractors and SMEs in paperwork.
The Bill will accelerate spending with small businesses. New duties will require contracting authorities to have regard to SME participation. Public sector buyers will have to look at how they can remove bureaucratic barriers and level the playing field for smaller businesses. Commercial frameworks will be made more flexible, with the new concept of an open framework, which will allow for longer-term frameworks that are reopened at set points, so that small and emergent businesses are not shut out for long periods. These measures build on existing policy, which allows procurers to reserve competitions for contracts below the thresholds for SMEs and social enterprises based in the UK, taking full advantage of the new freedoms following our exit from the EU.
We are determined to improve the prompt payment of small businesses in our supply chains. As I have mentioned, 30-day payment terms will apply contractually throughout the public sector supply chains and be implied into the contract, even when not specifically set out. The Bill provides for new improved procedures for the award of public contracts, supported by greater flexibility. Buyers will be able to design procurement processes that are fit for purpose and will create more opportunities to negotiate with suppliers so that the public sector can work in partnership with the private.
We will also take tougher action on underperforming suppliers.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
On partnership between the public and private sectors, the steel industry is a crucial aspect of that. Does the Minister agree that the Government should be looking to set indicative targets for the amount of domestically produced steel that we are putting into Government-funded projects? That would enable us as a country to make, buy and sell more in this country, which should surely be a strategic objective of the Bill.
Jeremy Quin
The hon. Gentleman treads a well-trodden path. Through steel procurement, we are always keen to set out the pipeline and provide every assistance we can to the domestic steel industry. However, as he knows, there are also international obligations, of which we are mindful and I know he will also be mindful, in respect of how we conduct our public procurement. I am not certain whether what he suggests would be consistent with the Government procurement agreement. [Interruption.] On pipelines, we are doing everything we can to help the domestic steel industry see the opportunities ahead of it and engage with public procurement. This is something we definitely and warmly appreciate.
We will also take tougher action on underperforming suppliers or those who present risks through misconduct. The Bill puts in place a new exclusions framework that will make it easier to exclude suppliers that have underperformed on other contracts. Through the Bill, I am pleased to say that we are targeting those who benefit from the appalling practice of modern slavery and, in doing so, undermine our own industrial resilience. The Bill makes explicit provision to disregard bids from suppliers known to have used forced labour or to perpetuate modern slavery in their supply chain. Contracting authorities will now be able to exclude suppliers where there is appropriate evidence of wrongdoing, whether in the UK or overseas.
Debbie Abrahams
I wholeheartedly support the Minister on that. I want to take him back to a previous point about late payments and the 30-day term. How will the Government monitor those and ensure adherence? Will that be done through audited accounts? What will be the punishment if there is not adherence?
Jeremy Quin
Ultimately, this is contractual. On the prime, that is easy: we will be paying the prime contractor within the 30-day period. People in the supply chain will be aware of the contract under which they are supplying to the prime, and we expect that 30-day payment to trickle all the way down the chain. It is the first time that such a measure has been incorporated. It really will be for primes to be held to account. I say to hon. Members of this House that if partners to a contract are not being paid without good cause, it will call into doubt the contract with the prime supplier, so it will be very much in the interest of the prime supplier to deliver. Every effort the Government have made to improve the payment terms through the supply chains has so far been adhered to pretty well by industry. Across Government, we have seen a significant improvement in payments out to industry, and we are expecting a ripple-down effect as a result of the Bill.
We will also create a new debarment list, accessible to all public sector organisations, which will list suppliers who must or may be excluded from contracts. This approach will ensure the high standards that we expect in the conduct of suppliers who benefit from public money. Embedded in the Bill is our commitment to creating an open and transparent system. Everyone will have access to public procurement data: citizens will be able to scrutinise spend against contracts; suppliers will be able to see the pipeline of upcoming contracts so that they can identify new opportunities and develop innovative solutions; and buyers will be able to analyse the market and benchmark their performance against others on, for example, their spend with small and medium-sized enterprises.
The Bill contains key provisions to enable these new levels of transparency, along with the statutory obligation on the Government to deliver a single digital platform to host this data. The Bill will strengthen existing obligations on contracting authorities to identify and mitigate the conflicts of interest in procurement decision making. These new requirements will ensure that conflicts of interest are managed transparently and in such a way that maintains the integrity of the public procurement regime. Additional safeguards include mitigations that may be required of suppliers by contracting authorities and for procurement teams to record and maintain a written assessment of conflicts.
In common with all procurement regimes, provision is made in the Bill for direct awards in a limited number of special circumstances—for example where extreme urgency means that there is no time to run a competition. Ministers will now be able to make provision for contracts required in a rare emergency event when action is necessary to protect life or public safety. This must be kept under review, revoked when no longer necessary, and is subject to the necessary parliamentary scrutiny in both Houses through the affirmative procedure. The Bill also requires that, before a contracting authority directly awards a public contract using any such regulations, a transparency notice must be published. These are major safeguards that did not previously exist.
The Bill fully honours implementation of our international trade agreements, including the World Trade Organisation agreement on Government procurement, which provides UK businesses with access to procurement opportunities collectively worth an estimated £1.3 trillion per annum.
Sir James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
The Minister mentions trade deals. Both the Australia and New Zealand trade deals have a large procurement element. That will fall away if the Bill becomes an Act. I note that the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill has not yet received Second Reading in the other place. May I urge him to hold discussions with business managers with a view to manipulating things so that we get Royal Assent for this Bill rather than for the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill to avoid the very small problem—a problem of just a few weeks—of trade deals being done within a new set of rules that will very quickly become obsolete?
Jeremy Quin
I thank my hon. Friend for a most ingenious comment. I had not considered the calendar of the two Bills. It is an interesting point. I will raise the matter with business managers.
We will continue to support UK businesses so that they can continue to be successful in competing for public contracts in other countries around the world by protecting reciprocal arrangements and guaranteeing market access, treating each other’s suppliers on an equal and fair footing.
Turning finally to territorial application, we have prepared the Bill in a spirit of co-operation between the nations of the United Kingdom. As part of the policy development process, we welcomed policy officials from Wales and Northern Ireland into our team so that they had a critical role in shaping this legislation from the very beginning. As a result, the general scope of the legislation applies to all contracting authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This will ensure that contracting authorities and suppliers can benefit from the efficiencies of having a broadly consistent regime operating across constituent parts of the UK.
I regret to say that the Scottish Government have opted not to join the UK Government Bill and will retain their own procurement regulations in respect of devolved Scottish authorities. Many in the House will regret that and would no doubt welcome our Scottish friends joining the new regime, which will benefit taxpayers and public services alike across Scotland and the whole of the UK.
There has never been a piece of UK procurement legislation as comprehensive as this. It is a large and technical Bill. I accept that there may be some areas that will merit further consideration, which we will debate in more detail in Committee, but I am confident that these significant reforms open up a new chapter for public procurement in this country and will boost business, spread opportunity and strengthen our Union. I urge all Members of this House to support the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, I wish to draw colleagues’ attention to the fact that, while we are not desperately pushed for time, there is quite a lot of interest in this debate, so my recommendation for Back-Bench speeches is about eight minutes. We also have a maiden speech. If Members follow my recommendation, I will not need to impose a time limit. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to open this debate today on behalf of the Opposition. I pay tribute to the work that has already gone into the Bill in the other place. I know that constructive discussions led to positive amendments, and I hope that they will be accepted and improved as the Bill goes through this House. I was a little pessimistic about that following the Minister’s opening comments, but I hope that we can work constructively with what the other place has recommended. As the Minister says, the Bill is an extremely complicated and large piece of legislation, so I hope that we can do that.
We on the Labour Benches recognise the need for a procurement Bill to consolidate the patchwork of former EU rules and to bring the spaghetti of procurement regulations into one place—a single regime. The Procurement Bill is an opportunity to create a coherent rulebook, with one driving aim: to get value for every single penny of taxpayers’ money. We want to deliver better services that meet the demands of the British public and to unlock the world-leading innovation of the UK economy.
I thank all my hon. Friends and Members from all parts of the House who are here today. When most people hear the word “procurement”, they switch off, but I cannot get enough of it. It is absolutely critical to our economy and to our future national prosperity. It accounts for a third of all public spending—more than the NHS budget and double the education budget. When harnessed for good, the power of procurement can drive up standards, pump money back into the pockets of local communities and businesses, create jobs and skills in our towns and cities, and hand wealth back to the people who built Britain.
I fear that the Bill we have been presented with today could miss those opportunities; that the ambition of the proposals before us will not meet the moment, and will not provide answers to the challenges that we face or learn from the mistakes of the past. As it stands, the Bill is a sticking-plaster solution, allowing taxpayers’ money to line the pockets of the well-connected, those with the deepest pockets and the abundance of experts who know how to navigate the system. I want Britain to lead the world on procurement by driving every penny of taxpayers’ money into our local communities, promoting British businesses up and down the country.
There are, of course, some aspects of the Bill that we welcome—in particular the focus on reducing the burdens currently faced by small businesses. SMEs are the backbone of our economy and the current system just is not working for them. Reform is urgently needed. The British Chamber of Commerce found that SMEs are now receiving a smaller relative amount of direct Government procurement spending than they were five years ago. Small businesses across the country are being choked out of the bidding processes, which are complicated and time-consuming. SMEs are competing for contracts against big corporations that have more form-fillers than the SMEs have workers. I welcome the positive steps taken in this Bill, especially as this Government have repeatedly failed to reach their target for SMEs to benefit from 33% of procurement spend.
That being said, there is not enough in this legislation dealing with late payments for SMEs—a practice that, in the current economic crisis, is killing off too many small enterprises in this country. The Minister talks about the trickle-down effect of 30 days, but I do not believe that will work in this instance. I hope he will address that gap in his closing remarks and engage with us in the Committee to improve the Bill in that regard.
I welcome the changes made in the other place to include social value in the national procurement policy statement, but I was disappointed by the scant mention of social value in the original version of the Bill and in the Minister’s opening comments today. Social value is a tool that makes it easier to give money to local British enterprises creating jobs, skills and green opportunities in their communities. It rewards providers who want to build a better society and contribute to our nation’s prosperity in the long term.
This Bill is an opportunity to make, buy and sell more in Britain. It is a chance to give more public contracts to British companies, big and small, so that contracts do not always automatically go offshore, to the giant corporations with the lowest prices, but to businesses creating local jobs, skills and training, maintaining workers’ rights and trade union access. That is what is important and what the social value elements of this Bill need to promote.
Stephen Kinnock
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Returning to the issue of the three fleet solid support vessels, the MOD contract was awarded to a Spanish-led consortium. That in itself was a deeply disappointing decision, but what is even worse is that the Government are not insisting on legally enforceable guarantees from Navantia, the Spanish company that leads the consortium, that the ships will be built with British steel. Does she agree that it is outrageous that we have three key vessels being built without British steel?
Angela Rayner
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. As he says, using public money to make, buy and sell more in Britain can also be achieved through our defence spending and by spending on steel and vital infrastructure in the UK. As the party of working people and trade unions, we in Labour know that, when done well, defence procurement strengthens our UK economy and our UK sovereignty, but this Bill fails to direct British defence investment first to British business, with no higher bar set for any decision to buy abroad.
Labour wants to see our equipment designed and built here. That means our national assets, such as the steel industry, our shipyards and our aerospace. That is fundamental for Labour, and we will amend the legislation to secure it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), the shadow Defence Secretary, made it clear that that is a priority for Labour, when he announced at our conference in September that Labour in government would build the navy’s new support ships in Britain.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) mentioned, the Conservatives announced that the £1.6 billion fleet solid support ship contract would be awarded to Spanish shipbuilders, meaning at least 40% of the value of the work will go abroad. Ministers have confirmed that there is no limit on how many jobs will be created in Spain and that there are no targets for UK steel in the contract. That is frankly a disgrace and a wasted opportunity, when the use of procurement could have been a force for strengthening our UK economy and our security at the same time.
I hope the Minister is listening and will openly work constructively with me to amend the Bill and ensure that British defence investment is directed first to British industry, as well as carrying out a review of the contract for fleet solid support ships.
Jeremy Quin
I hope the right hon. Lady will welcome the fact that, as a result of the FFS award, we will see revitalisation of Harland & Wolff, we will have additional shipyard capacity and we will be rebuilding the British shipyards left in a dreadful state after the last Labour Government. We are seizing opportunities. It is unfortunate that we have to reskill some of our workers and that we have to use opportunities coming from abroad to ensure that we recreate another yard in the UK as well as supporting Appledore, but it is important that we have the right equipment for our armed forces and that defence can seize those opportunities.
Angela Rayner
I thank the Minister for that contribution, but he should put it in the Bill. He should work with us to ensure that we build in Britain and support British industry and the steel industry. We discussed earlier today the difficulties that UK industries face, and I believe this Bill does not go far enough to support our industries. I want to see that support and I will happily work with the Minister on that.
The Minister has also pledged to use this Bill to make procurement quicker, simpler and more transparent. We need look no further than the pandemic for the clearest example of why we desperately need a more agile and transparent procurement system. The Tory VIP lane exposed the true weakness in the system, enabling the shameful waste of taxpayers’ money and profiteering by unfit and unqualified providers.
As a result, the Government have written off £10 billion of public funds spent on unusable, overpriced and undelivered personal protective equipment. More than £700,000 a day of taxpayers’ cash is currently being used to store unused gloves, goggles and gowns—enough to pay for 75,000 spaces in after-school clubs or 19,000 places in full-time nursery care.
I am still waiting to see whether the Government will respond to our Humble Address and come clean about the murky case of PPE Medpro, which saw £203 million handed to a company with links to a Tory politician. Will the Minister use this opportunity to confirm whether his Government are still procuring PPE or other goods using the emergency rules enacted during the pandemic?
There is no doubt the pandemic presented a unique situation, placing huge strains on our procurement processes but, while all countries faced similar pressures and shortages, many countries conducted their emergency procurement in a far more open, effective and cost-efficient manner. The Government must learn the lessons of those mistakes, and what better opportunity than within this Procurement Bill?
I wait with anticipation to see how the Government might go about shutting down the VIP lanes, tightening the leash on Ministers’ freedom to award contracts directly and hard-wiring transparency into the system. Instead of straining every sinew to root out waste and cronyism, the Minister is pushing a Procurement Bill that would allow the same mess to happen all over again—handing more power over direct awards to Ministers, not less. I am sure the Tory party’s cronies watching these proceedings will be rubbing their hands with glee at a Bill that puts their VIP fast lane on to the British statute book. I am also sure that former Ministers from previous Conservative Governments, who grasped the opportunity to do the right thing and clean up politics after years of sleaze, will be disappointed by this Bill.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The right hon. Lady is making a point of saying that we are putting in a VIP lane. Where in the Bill does it say that? In fact, it does not. The Bill puts more oversight on the procurement rules to stop anything like what we have seen in the past ever happening again. If she could just point me to the clause, I would be very grateful.
Angela Rayner
Yes. Clause 41 allows Ministers to use urgency as a new justification for granting direct awards—directly allowing the VIP lane yet again. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the Bill and at exactly what that would mean for the future of our procurement. I am sure Government Members, including Ministers, will be disgusted at the billions of pounds that we have seen wasted through that process. I am willing to work with the Government to identify and close those loopholes.
Jeremy Quin
If life and public safety are at risk, does the right hon. Lady really think that there should not be an urgent procurement procedure—particularly one approved by this House—in that situation?
Angela Rayner
As I said to the Minister earlier, Wales and other countries had emergency powers to do things. It is our situation here that has seen the cronyism and the VIP lane in particular allowing the mates of Tories to get contracts without oversight. I do not believe that we need a system that allows billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to be awarded to friends of the Conservative party. At the time, many businesses in the UK that had experience of working in that field were shunted out for people who had absolutely zero experience but who—guess what—knew the WhatsApp of a Tory Minister. That is completely unacceptable and the Bill does nothing to prevent it.
Anthony Mangnall
The right hon. Lady has taken one point and cherry-picked to emphasise it without looking at the rest of the Bill’s contents. That is why there is a transparency notice and procurement oversight of how we issue it. We are not giving anyone an advantage in our procurement opportunities; we are making sure that there is transparency and that mechanisms are there to hold people to account. Does she not see that?
Angela Rayner
I will come to chapter 3, which addresses transparency—although, again, I think it is unambitious. Look at what Ukraine does in terms of transparency; it is streets ahead. These are baby steps and are nowhere near enough. The hon. Member needs to look at the situation and at the Bill. It is not ambitious enough for the UK and does not prevent situations in which billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is wasted, as we have seen under this Conservative Government. The only fast-track lane that Labour would allow would be one for local businesses and enterprises that create wealth in our communities and contribute to a fairer society. The VIP lanes under a Labour Government would be for local businesses bringing innovation and wealth to their neighbourhoods, so social value would be a mandatory part of procurement. I hope that the Minister will look at that.
The Bill also misses a crucial opportunity to introduce real and workable non-performance claw-back clauses to contract design. There are ways of baking such clauses into contracts so that failing providers must return taxpayers’ money above a certain threshold. The current system just is not working; eye-watering waste continues without consequence. Being granted taxpayers’ money is a privilege. When suppliers do not deliver—just as we saw with PPE Medpro—we want our money back, but under the current proposals there is no way of even checking a provider’s past performance. Again and again, local authorities fall foul of the same failed providers as their neighbours.
Can the Minister explain why he is not using the Bill to make past performance a central pillar of our procurement? When I go to a restaurant, I can see past customers’ reviews of the food. Should the same not apply to multimillion-pound Government contracts? The Green Paper mentioned a procurement unit, but that has since been removed and replaced with a vague concept of “procurement investigations”. That toothless proposal will do nothing to crack down on waste or protect taxpayers’ money. By contrast, Labour’s office for value for money, which would be advised by a social value council, would have real teeth to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent responsibly with regular checks. I hope that the Minister will work with me to strengthen that aspect of the Bill.
I have mentioned chapter 3 of the Bill, which I think is another sticking-plaster solution that misses the opportunity to create real transparency in public procurement. Although I welcome the limited measures the Bill takes to move towards transparency—by obligating authorities to issue a transparency notice before awarding a contract, for example, which the Minister mentioned—those are baby steps that barely scratch the surface of what is required. We must see end-to-end transparency, which means the creation of a public dashboard for Government contracts.
Clause 95 gives an unnamed authority the power to make rules about what procurement information can be shared and through which channels. That is symbolic of the poverty of ambition on display from the Government. The Minister could have used this opportunity to announce a system inspired by Ukraine’s anti-corruption blueprint, a dashboard that guarantees transparency in how taxpayers’ money is spent and bakes trust and integrity into the system. Even under attack from Russia, Ukraine is honest about how it spends public money. What is this Government’s excuse?
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
The right hon. Lady may not be aware, but the Infrastructure and Projects Authority audits all major infrastructure projects across the whole of Government every year and grades them on a dashboard system, so we already have one.
Angela Rayner
I say to the right hon. Member that we do not have a system that works. That is pretty clear to me because we can see the disastrous waste that currently happens in the system, and because companies that should be rewarded with contracts are not, while others get around the system.
I think we should go further still by finally shedding light on the amount of taxpayers’ money being shelled out to tax havens. Labour will push for the Bill to introduce full transparency about whether suppliers pay UK taxes, as well as public country-by-country reporting by multinational corporations. A Labour Government would go further by using public procurement to drive up standards of responsible tax, including by asking big corporations and businesses publicly to shun avoidance and artificial presence in tax havens.
Transparency is not just a nice thing to have; it actually saves money. A lack of transparency in the procurement system reduces competition and increases costs, leaving the taxpayer to shoulder the burden, so the adoption of open transparent contracting makes good financial sense. It leads to a more competitive procurement process and, ultimately, to cost savings.
As I said earlier, being granted public money is a privilege, and suppliers should in turn uphold the highest standards in the workplace. The Bill is an opportunity to drive up standards across the economy and ensure that public procurement is used as a means to promote decent work throughout supply chains and to reward businesses that treat their workers right. We must back the workers and the employers who create Britain’s wealth by using procurement to raise the floor on working conditions for all. I hope that the Minister will engage openly in Committee with proposals to include good work and the promotion of quality employment as strategic priorities.
That brings me to outsourcing. This Government have become too dependent on handing away our public services on the cheap, and we are all paying the price. It is ideological and not based on sound service delivery. The Bill presents an opportunity to introduce measures to end the knee-jerk outsourcing trend and to ensure that, before any service is contracted out, public bodies consider whether work could not be better done in house. When I worked in local government, we coined the phrase “not outsourcing but rightsourcing”. That is what a Procurement Bill should facilitate.
The pandemic showed us that a decade of Tory Government had shattered the resilience of British businesses and services and of our local economies. Instead of handing out billions to British firms to deliver services, jobs and a better future, big contracts were given to Tory cronies and unqualified providers. The Tories eroded standards at work, encouraging a race to the bottom.
But it does not have to be this way. From the Welsh Government and London’s Labour Mayor to local governments in Manchester, Southwark and Preston, Labour in power is showing that things can be done better. What we need is a public procurement policy that the public can trust and that will make winning contracts a force for our country’s good. Not more sticking-plaster solutions but a Bill that will restore trust in the way public money is spent.
Caroline Lucas
I was trying to time my intervention for just as the right hon. Lady was finishing her remarks. Before she finishes, does she agree that one of the reasons why procurement is so brilliant is that it has a vital role to play in greening our economy? Again, the Bill does not go far enough on that. In particular, it does not include scope 3 emissions in supply chains, and the Government will not meet their own net zero targets unless they start accounting for those emissions. Does she agree that that is a big hole in the Bill?
Angela Rayner
Absolutely. I listened to the Minister’s response to the hon. Member’s question earlier, and it showed a lack of ambition. Those of us concerned about environmental factors, as we all should be, are also concerned that the Minister is not putting the necessary gusto into the Bill to ensure that those issues, including meeting the net zero targets, are really factored in. I hear a lot of words, but when it comes to the legislation that will enable us to do that, I do not see the practice being delivered. The next generation will hold the Government to account for the disaster they will be given if we do not act now. We know what the science says and what needs to be done, but this Bill does not do enough to ensure that it happens.
I want a Bill that will restore trust in how public money is spent, will have social and environmental factors in it, and will make British industry the best it can be so that workers in this country get the best they can get. I urge the Minister to use this opportunity to plough taxpayers’ money back into local communities so that we can make, buy and sell more in Britain, claw back our money when it is wasted, and outlaw VIP lanes once and for all.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I give a gentle reminder of my advice that speeches should last no longer than eight minutes.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; how tactfully you remind us about the eight-minute limit. What a pleasure it is to follow the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), from whom we had a lather of indignation —it could have been an advert for Pear’s soap, so great was the lather. I might remind the right hon. Lady that there was a similar lather of indignation from Opposition Members when we were trying to order PPE at the beginning of the pandemic. They really ought to watch the replays on the Parliament Channel to see how furious they were and how hopeless they thought it was that the Government were not spending even more money and ordering even more PPE. We should bear that in mind when we consider all their criticisms of this excellent Bill, brought forward with such distinction by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General.
What is the fundamental point of procurement legislation? It is a burden for industry and a cost for taxpayers and it makes it harder for small and medium-sized enterprises to get into the supply chain. The fundamental point of such legislation is to keep Government honest: there has to be procurement law to ensure that contracts are awarded properly and fairly. That is why the openness of the Bill is so welcome; there will be more detail not only in the pipelines but in the whole process of procurement.
However, there has to be a balance. Large firms can employ departments to fill out tenders. They can afford the cost of tendering and of putting forward the necessary documents, and they can afford the executive time because they have more executives. Small firms, on the other hand, find procurement extremely burdensome and complicated and it uses a great deal of executive time. A large firm will have a team that does it; the SME will be using the chief executive’s time. That is why the light-touch regime is one of the most important things about the Bill. It is not set out in the greatest detail in the legislation, but there will be the ability to enhance it and make it more available for SMEs.
The more SMEs are brought in, the better it is for taxpayers. SMEs will be lower cost. In a lot of procurement, the Government go to a large company that then employs the SMEs while taking a margin for doing so. That is a cost to the SME, which charges a lesser price, and to the taxpayer, who pays a higher price. The ability to go directly to the SME is a saving for the taxpayer and a better profit margin for the SME. That is fundamentally important.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
When covid-19 came in and the Government had to make big decisions, a number of SMEs in my constituency had the ingenuity, ability and process but were unable to get any Government contracts. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that they would be able to do so with this legislation?
Mr Rees-Mogg
That is the main point of the Bill, along with moving away from the European approach that essentially favours big business. Also involved is an attitude of Government, for which we can praise the Cabinet Office—particularly Gareth Rhys Williams, who has been absolutely brilliant in running the Government’s procurement and saving billions of pounds for taxpayers. The issue is about not just law but attitude of mind. To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the Bill will also make it easier for SMEs to be used by local authorities, which will know the local businesses and may know their reputations. That is an important easing.
I would like to see one easing more, although it may be difficult because of some of our international agreements, which may need to be changed. To my mind, it is quite unnecessary to include private utilities in this legislation. Private utilities’ motivation and risk appetite are completely different from the Government’s. Private utilities have shareholders who want value for money and they will award contracts to get the best value for money. They do not need bureaucratic procurement regulations to hang over them. There is scope within the Bill to remove more private utilities from the regime. I hope the Government will use that, both to extract them in future and ensure that the regime is as light touch as possible for private utilities. This is essentially another of the hangovers from the European Union that turned up in some of our international trade agreements because most European utilities are state owned. It is inappropriate and unnecessary for this country.
It may not surprise the House that I disagree with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne on social value. Social value is in the eye of the beholder. The right hon. Lady may think that there is social value in trade union rights when it comes to procurement.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I got a cheer from the Opposition Front Bench! I rarely get those, but on this occasion I have. I think giving trade union rights is straightforward cronyism: it is giving money to your mates and ensuring that your mates, who then fund the Labour party, do better out of it. The Opposition like it, and I think it dangerous. No doubt they could think of examples of things I might be in favour of—say, putting into a contract free speech as a social value—that they think are not necessary.
Value for money is fundamental, and I am glad of clause 12(1)(a)—that heroic clause in this great Bill. The right hon. Lady called the Bill a sticking plaster—quite some sticking plaster, running to so many clauses over 120 pages. Elastoplast does not produce sticking plasters of that size, I do not think. The key to procurement must be value for money—it must always be that, because taxpayers’ money is being spent. It is not about “nice to do” things, worthy things or virtue signalling; it is spending other people’s money, which must be spent as well as it possibly can be.
Within that, there may be a case for supporting innovation. Perhaps the commercial decision will be to spend money to innovate and get future savings, so that may be an exception. But that is the only one I can think of, other than where the Bill is absolutely excellent: in excluding those who have behaved badly. They may be foreign actors—there are powers to exclude on national security grounds—or companies that have behaved badly. The issue is of fundamental importance.
I might touch on Bain, which has been excluded from Government contracts for its involvement in the most extraordinary state capture of the South African Revenue Service. Many of us will know about the scandals, fraud and corruption that there have been in South Africa. The Zondo commission looked carefully at what Bain had been doing and discovered that it had been instrumental in state capture. A company with a fine veneer of respectability was involved in facilitating corruption of the worst kind in South Africa. As the Zondo commission reports, more than 2,000 experienced people in the South African Revenue Service, including inspectors, were removed. The Zondo commission said that that facilitated organised crime.
It is only right that this country should be able to stop companies involved in bad behaviour abroad from applying for contracts here. That is made easier under the Bill. The response of Bain, when challenged on this, was particularly poor. It simply attacked the whistleblower, a brave man called Athol Williams, who had the courage to point out what was going wrong. That important benefit will help with national security as well as with probity in our system.
I am at your time limit, Madam Deputy Speaker. I even had an intervention, for which I probably got a bonus minute.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Madam Deputy Speaker is a hard lady; she shakes her head.
Let me conclude by saying that this is a good Bill. It is a major step forward, it ensures value for money, it helps SMEs and it will make procurement better, more efficient and better for taxpayers. It is a Brexit bonus.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Happy new year to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to everyone in the Chamber. Thank you for calling me to speak on Second Reading of the Procurement Bill.
I will take the tiniest bit of leeway at the beginning of my speech to thank my predecessor as the SNP Cabinet Office spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), for his hard work in this role. He does not leave an easy gap to fill as he moves on to lead for us on international development, but I will do my best to learn as quickly as possible, and what better way than with the Second Reading of the Procurement Bill and the subsequent Bill Committee. That is not a joke—the Minister will be totally fed up with me by the time the Bill Committee has ended.
Both the SNP Westminster group and the Scottish Government have significant concerns about the content of the Bill as currently written. I am disappointed by how the Paymaster General put forward his views on the Scottish Government’s action, given that constructive discussion is going on about how best to amend the Bill. I hope he is going into those discussions in a more constructive manner than it sounded like from his tone at the Dispatch Box when he spoke about the views of the Scottish Government. Corrections need to be made before the legislation can be considered acceptable, because the Bill undermines the devolution settlement.
We have not tabled a reasoned amendment to the Bill on the basis that the Scottish Government hope they can resolve the issues with the UK Government. However, should the UK Government fail to fix the Bill, we absolutely will oppose the legislation at future stages. The Bill seeks to confer a power exercisable concurrently by UK and Scottish Ministers to implement the Government procurement chapters of the agreements with Australia and New Zealand by secondary legislation. Although the negotiation of international agreements might be a reserved matter, their implementation in devolved areas, such as Government procurement, is a devolved matter.
The correct constitutional solution would be to amend the Bill to grant the implementation powers solely to Scottish Ministers in Scotland—obviously not in the rest of the UK. If the UK Government refuse to make that concession, at the very least the Bill must be amended to require the consent of Scottish Ministers when UK Ministers act in devolved areas to implement international agreements. It is a vital issue of principle. Devolution must not be undermined every time a sitting Westminster Government fancy doing so.
The Scottish Government are working to resolve these issues with the UK Government, and that is why we have not tabled a reasoned amendment to reject the Bill, but I and my colleagues urge the UK Government to continue that work. They often claim that they want to work with the Scottish Government, and we want to ensure that this Bill is not added to the litany of devolution-undermining legislation that has been put through since Brexit.
We have further concerns about the Bill, and I hope the Minister will accept them in the constructive spirit in which they are meant. We believe that the UK Government must ensure that supporting environmental objectives is clearly and explicitly included in the Bill’s objectives. Those objectives should be compatible with the Scottish Government’s more ambitious climate change reduction targets. If the UK Government are to act in such a way on reserved matters, they need to take account of the fact that the devolved legislatures have different and more ambitious climate change targets.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
The hon. Lady referenced the devolution agreement, and she has just mentioned reserved matters. Can she clarify whether she is referring to the Scotland Act 1998 and devolution as set out within its terms?
Kirsty Blackman
Yes, I am referring to the devolution settlement and how devolution works. Within the Scotland Act, there are matters that are the competence of the Scottish Government and ones that are the competence of the UK Government. In that regard, the implementation of international agreements in relation to how public procurement works is a matter for the devolved legislature, and we would prefer that the UK Government recognised that, rather than giving a power in this Bill that could overrule that.
The Bill includes a discretionary exclusion group for environmental misconduct, but I am not clear why that exclusion should be discretionary. The UK Government are failing time after time to embed environmental objectives in legislation. They refused to do so with the Subsidy Control Act 2022 or with the creation of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, despite the Opposition pushing them to include it. It is as if they are keen to have big headlines on climate change targets, but not actually to embed them and do the actual work, and not to put those targets where it matters, which is explicitly in legislation that this place is putting forward, without exclusions and without discretionary rules. It should be embedded in every single thing we are doing, because it is the most important issue for this generation and for future generations. The Bill must explicitly commit to taking environmental considerations into account when awarding contracts, and that should be a core consideration, not a pointless box-ticking exercise.
We welcome the retention in the Bill of the principles that underpin EU procurement rules: transparency, equal treatment, non-discrimination and proportionality. However, having the principles included in the Bill is utterly meaningless if they are not upheld. It is vital that the principles are practised. As was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), the UK Government’s shambolic handling of the covid contracts is a stark reminder of the danger of not upholding these principles. Transparency International’s report on the public contracts awarded during the pandemic noted that critical safeguards to prevent corruption were suspended “without adequate justification” during the pandemic procurement processes. It also found “systemic bias” towards those with connections to the UK Government. The rush to try to get more PPE has already been mentioned. It was vital that PPE was procured; the issue is how that was done, which explicitly favoured those who had close links to the UK Government. That is not how it should have been taken forward.
We need measures in the Bill to ensure that the UK Government cannot unilaterally decide to suspend the safeguards and principles that are in place. The horrendous nepotistic waste of taxpayers’ money should not have happened once, and we absolutely cannot allow it to happen again. The opportunity should have been taken to include the measures put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) in his Ministerial Interests (Emergency Powers) Bill.
Lastly, but no less importantly, the UK Government should take this opportunity to ban malicious actors and organisations involved in human rights abuses from the supply chain. During the Bill’s passage in the other place, several peers tabled amendments that sought to cut companies responsible for or complicit in slavery, genocide and crimes against humanity out of the supply chain. That is a noble principle and it should be adopted regardless of circumstances. It is unfortunately necessary that this needs to be explicitly included, as products from companies with horrific records are widespread through UK procurement chains.
The UK Government have shown that they can, after delaying, dithering and being publicly shamed, remove Huawei from the UK’s telecommunications infrastructure, and there is no reason why they cannot do the same with other companies, such as Hikvision, which is directly involved in the Chinese Government’s detention of Uyghur Muslims. More than a million cameras from Hikvision are present in the UK and they are used by as many as 61% of public bodies. The US Government blacklisted it in 2019; the UK Government have not yet taken comprehensive action against this company, despite making clear that they are aware of the issue. The SNP would like to commit to working with others across the House who seek to protect the supply chain from harmful actors and ensure that public procurement does not work to enrich those who profit from crimes against humanity.
I look forward to the Public Bill Committee—I really do—and I hope we can hear evidence from those who are expert in public procurement. I have no doubt that we will table amendments to ensure that the Bill respects devolution, that human rights are protected and that environmental priorities are actually prioritised.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. My guidance is creeping down more towards seven minutes.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I welcome much of this Bill, in particular its support for small and medium-sized enterprises, but I wish to focus my comments on national security concerns. Geopolitical and geo-economic competition has upended our traditional supply chains, while the actions of hostile states who are industrialising path dependency require us to think more strategically about public procurement. Equipment used by our police forces, hospitals, Departments and local councils are providing hostile states with a back door into our security and forcing dependency on these malign actors and the states who produce them.
As the Minister rightly pointed out from the Dispatch Box, this Bill gives us the opportunity to meaningfully put resilience at the heart of this Government’s effort. We cannot risk insufficient action now because it will hurt us in the long term, as exfiltration is far more costly and complicated than putting in place the right measures now.
For too long, we have allowed the public sector to outsource basic components that make up our everyday security to companies and countries with malign intent. All of us will recall the debates about stripping Huawei from our 5G telecoms network, which took too long but was the right thing to do. The problem is, we face Huawei-level decisions on a range of security measures and it relies on MPs becoming aware of these companies and this risk for there to be a meaningful debate about it, which cannot be the right way to deal with it.
There are tens of examples that could be raised, whether it is DJI drones, which are used by our police forces across Britain, or Hytera body cameras, which film what police officers can see. The likelihood is that what is seen by every police officer entering the home of a constituent in Rutland and Melton could be sent back to China. The risk is so strong that Motorola has created technology to intercept that technology and prevent the data from being sent back. My priority is protecting the data of British nationals—our faces, our gaits, our walks, how we use our mouths and how we communicate—because China wants this data. That is why it is buying up gay dating apps and why it owns TikTok. It is our data that will allow it to have supremacy over us as we go forward and make us vulnerable. The Chinese Communist party is seeking to build a tech totalitarian state, and that requires the data of those around the world. At the moment, British taxpayers’ data and money is enabling that.
We have to update the rules. Over the weekend, there was a story about tracking devices found hidden within Government cars. Our data is important because it reveals not just the locations we go to in our cars, but our friends and networks, our vulnerabilities, habits and activities, which allows us to be threatened, blackmailed, undermined or tracked. If these cellular IoT nodes—called SIM cards in the media—were duplicitously installed, then that is CCP espionage. It is more likely that these are standard technologies that are installed in all cars. That shows why this Bill is so important, and why we need national security considerations. At the moment, we all have constituents driving around with these cellular IoT modules in their cars; any of those individuals could be pinpointed if they drove near a secure site and were then tracked by the Chinese Government. The Chinese Communist party would then know where they live, how they live their lives and what they do, and they would become vulnerable.
The Chinese Government could quite easily work out who the Prime Minister’s security team is by looking at the cars that travel out of No. 10 and then go back to the Prime Minister’s house all the time. They could then track those security officers to where they are doing recces for future visits, and then they will know where our Prime Minister is travelling to. They could do that to any of us if they wanted to make us vulnerable.
The problem is that 50% of all cellular IoT modules are made by three companies: Quectel, Fibocom and China Mobile. These are three Chinese companies that cannot be trusted. There are alternatives, but businesses are choosing to save pennies on the pound in order to protect their businesses rather than do what is right, which is making sure that small tools such as these modules are removed, thereby protecting the data of British nationals.
There is, without question, a balance to be struck within British procurement. We have to get value for money for taxpayers. However, the purchasing of cheaper equipment—quite often state-subsidised by hostile powers—is a dangerous false economy because it produces that path dependency that I have set out.
When the Cabinet Office last year rightly advised public bodies to sever contracts with Russian and Belarusian suppliers, the lack of legal provisions to do so meant that any meaningful attempt would actually result in a serious breach of UK law. I ask Ministers to rectify that when they look at the Bill.
The flaws in our procurement system severely undermine not only our security at home, but our ability to stand up for human rights around the globe. The Foreign Affairs Committee has found that the same Hikvision cameras that guard our council buildings monitor and enable Uyghur internment camps where we know that genocide is being industrialised. It is morally unacceptable that we choose to use a surveillance system that actively racially profiles Uyghurs within our own systems. It is tantamount to facilitating genocide, because we are funding the Chinese Government and enabling them to continue to do what they do. We know that they are guilty, yet we are saying that we will remove those cameras only from sensitive sites. It should be from all sites, particularly when there are alternatives.
My asks of the Government are as follows. I met with Cabinet Office officials last year, and again this morning with the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart)—I am grateful for his time—and we need clarification. First, on the debarment list that is created to exclude suppliers from procurement contracts, with a procurement review unit to lead investigations, who will have ministerial discretion over who appears on the list? Will we have proactive powers to hunt down these companies to ensure they are on the list, or are we going to wait for MPs to have the information handed to them so that they can stand up and raise it?
Secondly, we must ensure we do not end up in a relentless whack-a-mole trying to hunt down the companies responsible for such things. We need to focus on the components within sensitive industries or sensitive items, and to ensure that any public body procuring such components or companies within relevant industries must come to someone for a second review. That means we are not attacking a specific country and saying China’s products are bad or saying that certain companies are awful; we are doing due diligence in sensitive areas. That is why we need a SAGE-style committee on public procurement specifically looking at national security.
Thirdly, has the Secretary of State drawn up a list of priority sectors that we can deal with when the Bill passes into law? Finally, what assurances can the Secretary of State provide for how local authorities will be able to check with the Government whether a provider is on the debarment list? At the moment I have local authorities from around the countries writing to me saying, “Alicia Kearns, can you please give me advice on whether or not we as the local council should procure from this company?” That cannot be the way we do this. We must ensure local government is not the entry point for hostile states.
Finally, on supply chains, public authorities need to be able to investigate, and we must ensure that this goes high enough up the chain. Canadian Solar is looking to build a solar plant in my constituency. It sounds lovely—“Canadian Solar? What a great company”—but when we actually look into it, it is GCL-Poly, a Chinese-owned, Chinese-run company that is complicit in Uyghur genocide. We must ensure that the burden to investigate is properly addressed.
On that point about human rights and genocide, I recommend to the Minister that we look at the International Criminal Court’s Rome statute so that, again, we have explicit, grounded-in-law ways in which to determine whether certain countries should not be allowed to provide things to us, so that we are not looking to make complicated determinations of genocide. Again, that is where a SAGE-style committee could come in use.
All in all, I urge the Government to seize the initiative. There is so much we could do on national security that I cannot fit into seven minutes, but my door is open for further discussions. I hope that my speech sets out in brief just some of the asks. This Bill could be transformational for protecting our people and their data in the long term and for protecting our children’s futures.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I welcome this Bill’s aims of openness, effectiveness and transparency. A third of public expenditure—£300 billion—goes on public procurement, so we must get this right. Unfortunately, though, the Government’s record here has been undermined by the PPE scandal. I do understand that exposure to fraud was a risk during the panic of the pandemic and that the global PPE market was highly competitive. However, big mistakes were made, and billions have been wasted.
The National Audit Office has done brilliant work on tracking the Government’s covid spending. Its investigation into the management of covid contracts in March 2022 found that 46 of the 115 contracts awarded to the Government’s VIP lane did not go through the Government’s due diligence process. That meant that the Department for Health and Social Care could not fully understand the contract management risks it was exposing itself to. Therefore, the sheer scale of Government waste is not just explained by global markets pressures; the UK Government’s failures must also be acknowledged. After all, the PPE scandal has seen £4 billion of taxpayers’ money wasted on unusable equipment and now £2.6 billion-worth of disputed contracts.
I am specifically concerned about contracts awarded to Unispace Global Ltd, which won more than £600 million of PPE contracts during the pandemic. It is extremely difficult to follow the financial paper trail: a look at its manoeuvres, and the chopping and changing of its directors, raises big questions. For example, payments from the Department of Health and Social Care were made to Unispace Global Ltd, but in 2021, it transferred its contracts to a new company, Unispace Health Products LLP, which now trades as Sante Global LLP. Private Eye says, however, that the companies’ accounts do not feature anywhere near the £600 million paid to them, which begs the question: why this chicanery? Will the Bill deal with such shenanigans?
I welcome the introduction of a single central Cabinet Office online platform—that is quite a mouthful—but it should go further and include a publicly accessible dashboard for Government contracts. In that way, we can track delivery and performance, make contractors truly accountable to the people, and close the loopholes that profiteers enjoyed. The British people also deserve to know the profits, commissions, dividends and big bosses’ bonuses being made on the back of public money.
We need measures that financially penalise those who benefited from the public contractors’ PPE super-profits, but when a company changes its identity multiple times, that is made much harder, and the other route—recovering money through the courts—is very expensive and hugely time consuming. What measures will the Government bring forward to deal with those PPE profiteers and their like? We need a Bill that mandates open accounting of public contracts and shines a light on the vultures that prey on the public purse. We need a Bill that allows us to properly follow the money.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
As a former Defence Minister, I will confine my remarks to the Defence-related aspects of procurement, which feature multiple times in the Bill, particularly in parts 1, 2 and 4. The United Kingdom’s system of Defence procurement is broken. That is the considered opinion of the all-party Public Accounts Committee, on which I now serve, which concluded in its 2021 report, “Improving the performance of major defence equipment contracts”, that,
“The Department’s system for delivering major equipment capabilities is broken and is repeatedly wasting taxpayers’ money.”
The Government’s auditor, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, audits all major infrastructure programmes from HS2 downwards. It produces its findings each summer, in which it grades each project on a traffic light or dashboard system. The definition of a red project is that,
“Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable.”
Amber projects are those where,
“Successful delivery appears feasible but significant issues already exist”.
In its latest report of July 2022, the IPA audited 52 of the largest MOD procurement programmes from Dreadnought downwards, which total more than £80 billion of British taxpayers’ money. Of those, nine projects were rated red or unachievable, 33 were amber where significant issues already exist, seven were classified on national security grounds, and only three were rated green, whereby,
“Successful delivery of the project on time, budget and quality appears highly likely”.
I submit to the House that a system where barely 6% of our new major Defence programmes are judged to be confidently on track is indeed a truly abysmal record and fully in keeping with the PAC’s verdict of a “broken” system.
In a similar vein, in March 2021, the Defence Committee published a hard-hitting report, “Obsolescent and outgunned”, which highlighted that in two decades, the British Army has not successfully introduced a single new major armoured fighting vehicle into service. As it powerfully concluded:
“This report reveals a woeful story of bureaucratic procrastination, military indecision, financial mismanagement and general ineptitude, which have continually bedevilled attempts to properly re-equip the British Army over the last two decades.”
The biggest scandal in this sorry tale is that of the General Dynamics Ajax armoured reconnaissance vehicle which, after 10 years and the expenditure of over £4 billion of UK taxpayers’ money, has still not resulted in a single new vehicle entering frontline service, for which the MOD is even now unable to provide a definitive date. Even if it could, the future communication system on which the highly digitised Ajax would rely, called Morpheus, is still many more years from entering service. The lead contractor on the Morpheus evolve to open project is General Dynamics, the same prime contractor as for Ajax. Last year, the Defence Secretary commissioned Clive Sheldon KC to conduct an independent inquiry into the flow of information surrounding Ajax, including to Ministers, which is due to report very shortly. I suspect it may well prove uncomfortable reading for some of those who were working on the Ajax programme.
To take another example of a red programme, it has taken nearly seven years to integrate an airborne early warning radar into a Merlin helicopter to provide air defence coverage for our aircraft carriers—a project called Crowsnest. In stark contrast, during the 1982 Falklands war, we integrated an earlier version of the same radar into a Sea King helicopter in just over three months. This is just one more example of how ponderous, bureaucratic and inefficient our procurement system has now become.
One associated area that is also desperately in need of reform is the procurement of the maintenance of accommodation for service personnel and their families. The future defence infrastructure services—FDIS—contract, which went live earlier this year, is an utter shambles. Complaints about mould, lack of heating and multiple contractor visits, which still failed to carry out basic repairs, such as fixing broken boilers, have appeared in numerous media outlets in recent months. We cannot carry on like this. Our service personnel and their families deserve better. I understand that Defence Ministers may now genuinely be considering terminating the FDIS contract and seeking alternative arrangements. I co-authored a report for a previous Prime Minister on military retention—entitled “Stick or Twist?”—three years ago, in which we suggested establishing a bespoke housing association instead. Whatever solution Ministers now finally adopt, I earnestly hope they will stop reinforcing failure via FDIS and opt for something successful instead.
In summary, the Public Accounts Committee was right: our system of defence procurement is broken, and it is going to take much more than this Bill to fix it. With a war under way in Ukraine and the Government’s integrated review being updated as a result, there is now an opportunity to put right these weaknesses in our defence procurement process, which are deep-seated and have taken place, it must be said, under Governments of both colours for many years. We certainly need to increase our defence spending, but we also need to spend what we allocate for defence much more efficiently as well. This system is crying out for an extremely thorough analysis to be subsequently followed by dynamic reform. We cannot let this go on much longer. Our national security depends on it, and if hon. Members do not believe me, then perhaps ask a Ukrainian instead.
Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am genuinely delighted to be speaking in this important debate.
As a former leader of Cheshire West and Chester Council, I am proud to have a strong record of putting the principles of social value at the heart of public spending. These values look for benefits to society, the economy and the environment. When they are aligned with good fiscal management, local people get more for their money.
The Northgate development in Chester is a central regeneration project in the heart of Chester city centre. The council on which I have served since 2011 was the main driver for this exciting project. Indeed, I was proud to see the new public market open in November, with nearly half a million customers already through the door. In delivering this project, we have squeezed every last penny of value from every pound spent not just to deliver the project itself, but to deliver 435 weeks of apprenticeship opportunities, 13 education events, 12 work placements, 43 training weeks, 64 employment activities and more than £22 million-worth of expenditure in the local economy.
On top of that, construction workers raised money for local homelessness charities; there were donations to the local food banks; Chester football club—a fan-owned, community club—had its car park upgraded; and many students from local schools and colleges gained valuable industry insight from being involved in a live and local construction project. Even the sandstone excavated from the drainage tunnel ended up being recycled in the rhinoceros enclosure at Chester zoo. This is how we do business in Chester. Social value is highly important and an opportunity to make, buy and sell more in Britain. Chester has shown that that makes a difference to local communities and can be done in the right way. These communities are at the heart of Chester’s identity and I am now honoured to represent them as their Member of Parliament.
Chester has a long and complex history that attracts visitors and businesses to the city and makes it a fascinating and beautiful place to live. Chester was founded by the Romans in AD79, due to its strategic advantage given our geographic location on the border with Wales and on the banks of the River Dee. An integral historical feature which Cestrians use to this day is the city’s walls. Many places in Britain are walled but only Chester has a complete circuit. They are about 2 miles long and have over millennia been constantly altered, repaired and sometimes attacked. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) mentioned recently, “The only red wall in Chester is the Roman wall.”
As an aside, a breach of the walls by parliamentarians during the siege of Chester in 1645 has been commemorated in Lego by our local blogger and champion of all things Cestrian, Tony Chester. His magnificent Lego display of Chester through the ages will soon be a key feature in the previously mentioned newly opened market.
These days, our city is a thriving and vibrant place characterised by excellent hard-working retailers, traders, restaurateurs, publicans, and visitor attractions such as Chester zoo and the Deva Roman Experience, who are all committed to the future of our city. I am determined to help Chester to weather the current economic storm and make our city a top retail and tourism destination. This commitment is one of five I have made to the people of Chester that I intend to keep now I am here as their elected representative.
I want to restore frequent, reliable buses and trains to keep our city connected to the wider country, and I want to return to neighbourhood policing with more officers on the beat in our communities. Most of all, I want to stand up for our city and end the cost living crisis which is badly hitting many people living in Chester.
The River Dee, the reason why our city is where it is, has been well used over centuries, whether for industry, recreation or sport. Indeed, the river hosts the oldest rowing regatta in the world, celebrating its 290th anniversary this year. It is a busy and important part of our city and the reason I will be working so hard to end the practice of dumping raw sewage into it, as is currently permitted.
In other sporting news, Chester has had a football club since 1885. Currently playing in the national league north, the club has always fulfilled an important role in our community. Since 2010, the club has been a supporter-owned co-operative with elected directors, hundreds of volunteers and thousands of members. Chester FC is currently enjoying some success under a talented young manager, Calum McIntyre. The club motto is “Our city. Our community. Our club”, and that is being realised through a set of principles and values based on a mission to create a successful team and bring wellbeing and cohesion to our city, and to do it without ever going into debt. The club reflects and is a prime example of the importance of social value; I wish the club continued success.
I first visited the Houses of Parliament when I was a sixth-former at Christleton High School. The visit was hosted by Peter Morrison, the first member of Parliament for the City of Chester I can remember. His successor was Gyles Brandreth, whose candidacy, I recall, was announced on red nose day prior to the 1992 general election. His spell as the city’s MP was characterised by his good humour, something which continues today as he serves as chancellor of the University of Chester.
In 1997, the people of Chester elected the city’s first ever woman Member of Parliament, Christine Russell. She served our city well for 13 years and continues to do so in many roles across the constituency. She remains a good friend and mentor to me. Her successor, Stephen Mosley, served the city for five years and contributed much to parliamentary life through his role on the Science and Technology Committee. My predecessor, Christian Matheson, was also widely acknowledged throughout the constituency for his hard work on behalf of many residents and stakeholders. I am honoured to follow in all of their footsteps.
Chester, as beautiful, unique and historic as it is, has always masked significant levels of inequality. A commitment to improve the lives of others has been a thread throughout the years and the work of my predecessors.
Our city has a popular and thriving university that sees students from across the globe choosing to come to study in Chester. Our university trains many of the nurses, midwives and healthcare professionals who serve our community so well in association with our local health trusts. Along with our excellent schools and their hard-working teachers, and our superb police officers and firefighters, as well as the first-rate officers of the council, Chester is served by many fine public servants.
As we reach the tail end of winter, the struggles that our communities are facing are not easing. The current economic climate makes it more important than ever to create a transparent procurement system; one with social value and public interest at its heart and which will support suppliers who act ethically and create high-quality jobs.
Chester was a pioneer for social value in that, 21 years ago, our city became the very first Fairtrade city in the country. I am proud that in our city we live and breathe the principles of social value. Most importantly, I am honoured to have been elected to serve the people of Chester, and I will work hard for them every day. I have lived in Chester for nearly all of my life. It is where my home is and where my heart is. I want the very best for my city, and I promise that this Chester woman will be a determined and dedicated public servant for those who voted for me and for those who did not. I will be an MP for all the people of Chester. I look forward to serving them here in this place.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is an absolute honour to follow such an assured maiden speech from the hon. Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon). She spoke with great confidence and great experience of the subject at hand. She painted a beautiful picture of her city, and I am sure that that was the first of many excellent contributions that she will make to our debates.
I put my name down to speak in the debate because it struck me that procurement is so tied to what is our biggest economic problem: the cost of living and the rate of inflation. The questions that I want the Minister to respond to in his closing remarks are about that rate of inflation and how the transparency and openness of the new procurement system can help by bringing down the price that the Government pay at all levels for the contracts they award.
I draw the Minister’s attention to the situation in Ukraine—no, not the one that occupies the headlines, but a little-noticed development in 2016 that was very much supported at the time by the UK, along with Transparency International: the development of its procurement system, known as ProZorro. It is quite a remarkable platform. It is open source and shows every opportunity that exists in Ukraine to bid on contracts. It is completely open to citizens and civil society to look at all of the data on what is being tendered for and at what price companies are successful in bidding for those contracts. It is an extraordinary example of how public procurement can be transformed by openness and technology. If he has not done so already, I urge him to ask his officials if they could give him the opportunity to look through the ProZorro system used in Ukraine. It has done an enormous amount to reduce the cost of procurement over the years and to increase transparency for citizens.
The second public economic priority that the Bill helps to support so much is innovation. The openness and transparency of the procurement system will give small businesses—this has been mentioned a few times in today’s debate—much more of an opportunity to see what there is in the pipeline of public procurement. Again, I wonder whether I can ask the Minister to reply on this point in his closing remarks. In terms of innovation, one of the factors that small businesses often cite to me—and to other colleagues, I am sure—is that when they put their tender in for a public procurement, very often they are required to provide at least three full years of financial records. That can act as a very insidious way of reducing the ability of newer businesses and more innovative businesses, and perhaps nimbler and less expensive businesses, to participate in public procurement. I urge him to think about how the qualification process might enable some of the start-ups we really want to succeed to get into the pipeline of public procurement as easily as possible.
My finally question echoes some of the excellent points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) on the importance of defence. I want to ask about the single-source procurement regulations, with which I know the Minister will be intimately familiar, and recognise the fact that in those procurements the Government are, obviously, dealing with one supplier. What thought has he given to then requiring the single-source supplier to procure more in a more innovative way from down the supply chain, and in a way that would not compromise national security, which of course has to be paramount?
With those short remarks, may I say once again what an honour it has been to be in the Chamber for the maiden speech of the hon. Member for City of Chester?
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon). I hope her nerves have settled after an excellent speech. I thank all my hon. Friends for their eloquent contributions to today’s debate. I hope the Minister recognises there is a real appetite on the Labour Benches to work constructively with the Government on this issue.
Colleagues have rightly drawn attention to the ways in which the Bill risks enshrining in law the kind of cronyism we saw run wild during the pandemic. In the short time available to me, however, I want to speak specifically to the issue of social value and how recent developments in my constituency illustrate the urgent need for reform of our broken procurement regime.
When metro Mayor Steve Rotheram announced that the Liverpool city region combined authority would be commissioning the first new Mersey ferry in over 60 years, there was a widespread belief that it could only be built at Cammell Laird shipyards in my constituency of Birkenhead. What could be more fitting than for such an iconic Merseyside institution to be built on the banks of the Mersey itself? And what a difference the multimillion -pound contract would have made to the lives of my constituents, securing high-skilled work for years to come and guaranteeing additional investment in skills and training.
But soon enough those hopes were sunk by the cold reality of today’s procurement landscape. Cammell Laird could not compete on price against the likes of multinational giants like Damen. No matter how much the metro Mayor might have wanted to see the Ferry built in its entirety on Merseyside, he found his hands tied by onerous procurement rules enforced by central Government. As a result, the construction of the ferry is now set to be split between Cammell Laird and a Damen shipyard in the Balkans, with much of the most high-value labour likely to be offshored abroad.
My constituents were badly let down by a failed procurement regime that failed to take wider social, economic and environmental considerations properly into account. The news, only a week later, that the Ministry of Defence had awarded the contract for the new fleet solid support ships to a Spanish-led consortium made the blow even harder to bear.
Ministers have stated time and again that they intend to reaffirm value for money as the foundational principle of their procurement strategy. No one in this House is arguing for anything other than delivering the highest value for taxpayers, but that must also mean recognising the extraordinary potential for public procurement—which accounts for £1 in every £3 that the Government spend—to promote British businesses, boost job creation and drive investment in communities such as Birkenhead. For too long, communities across the country have missed out on the benefits of billions of pounds of public spending: one in six procurement contracts are now awarded to companies with links to tax havens, while the number of SMEs winning Government contracts is falling year on year.
This Bill was an opportunity to put right the mistakes of the past. Ministers had the chance to strengthen the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, give contracting authorities the flexibility they need to do their best by the communities they serve, and enshrine social value at the very heart of a new, progressive procurement regime. But there is not a single mention of social value in the Bill. Instead, Ministers are promising to expand on their plans to maximise social value in a national procurement policy statement with no statutory footing. If the Government are as committed as they claim to be to supporting critical industries such as shipbuilding, why does the Bill not contain a social value strategy?
The simple truth is that when it comes to supporting British businesses, the Bill is desperately lacking in ambition. For all the talk from Government Members about seizing post-Brexit opportunities, all the Bill really has to offer is more of the same—more of the giant multinationals treating this country as a cash cow while forcing home-grown British businesses out of the competition, and more public money piling up in tax havens while domestic industry struggles to survive one of the bleakest economic outlooks in recent history.
I recognise the need for a major overhaul of our national procurement regime. In the hope of achieving meaningful improvements to the Bill, I will not vote against it this evening, but if the version that returns on Third Reading does as little for the communities and businesses that I represent, I will be forced to think again.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) on her fantastic maiden speech. I wish I could have delivered mine with the same level of confidence. She gave us a rapid tour through the history of her city and expressed her desire for it to be a hotspot for tourists from across the country; she will certainly find many colleagues across the House to support her in that endeavour. I wish her luck in this place.
It is an absolute pleasure to follow my friend the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), a fellow member of the International Trade Committee. I would like to make a few remarks about trade and ask for some clarity. I agree with him about the necessity of harnessing the power of public procurement and using it to the advantage of businesses of all sizes across the country. I might also point out that it has huge value in the free trade agreements that this country is signing. Global Britain is about signing new trade agreements. The Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill, which is working its way through the other place, deals with the very issue of procurement. It offers new opportunities not only for other countries to bid into our system, where we wish them to do so, but for our own businesses, large and small, to bid into procurement programmes around the world. Importantly, the more practised they are with our systems, the more accustomed they will be to foreign programmes and procurement processes.
A lot of Opposition Members have made comments about national security and asked why bigger companies are not doing more in the UK to build our defence systems. Helpfully, I hope, I might just point out that if we include SMEs—there is a very large contingent of small and medium-sized enterprises in the defence sector, and the Bill is about helping SMEs—we are thereby helping small businesses in the defence sector to build the systems that we need in this country to keep us safe and protected.
It is essential to be aware that the Bill, in its entirety, also creates a platform to exclude businesses that have previously performed badly. It gives authorities the opportunity, when looking at future contracts, to say, “These businesses have not performed—we are therefore able to exclude them.”
Much has been made of the social value point, and I think we have to be careful in this regard. If we are too precise, we will block out businesses; we will encourage bigger businesses that can throw more money at the issue, and exclude the very small businesses that we want to be able to help through the Bill.
I welcome the Bill because it is trying to achieve something that needs to be achieved: reducing bureaucracy. It seeks to repeal the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016, the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, the Concession Contracts Regulations 2016, and the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011. It is truly a wonderful day when we see a Government actually taking away pieces of legislation and trying to introduce new, streamlined laws that will help small businesses. Indeed, the Government are going even further: 350 individual regulations from EU directives are to be repealed. The Bill will make it simpler and easier for businesses of all sizes throughout the United Kingdom to bid in through a single, uniform framework for public procurement. That is its core and essence.
However, I have a few questions for the Minister. Are we making the public bidding process understandable to small and medium-sized businesses while also protecting the taxpayer, and will we be providing the national and local services that will ensure that procurement projects and processes are delivered? With that in mind, may I ask—in the context of clause 27 and the other clauses relating to exclusions, including clause 29, which concerns national security—what impact the Modern Slavery Act 2015 would have on the Bill, in respect of clause 65? Would Huawei, which has already been mentioned, be placed immediately on the debarment list? My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) referred to Hikvision. Would it be on the list as well, given the evidence that has been presented across the western world about its engagement in relation to the Uyghurs? What is the timeline for the exclusion of businesses that are put on the debarment list?
I would also like some clarification on clause 63. We talk about the speed of appeal and how we might put a business on the debarment list, but what happens if there is an ongoing investigation of a business while a local authority tender is out there, and the local authority decides to choose a business that is under investigation by the Government, by a Minister or by an authority, and has yet to preside over that issue? Would the local authority be made aware of the ongoing investigation, and would there be an impact on the tendering process if the business could not be given access to what was going on?
I think that clarification of those issues would provide a small amount of extra reassurance. Introducing a centralised system of information about businesses that have performed well, making local and other authorities aware that businesses have been debarred, is clearly sensible, but what provisions are there to prevent companies from renaming themselves and coming back for a second bite at the cherry, perhaps with a different local authority or a different individual at the head of the company? That is another small point that I think requires clarification.
I have already mentioned our signing of the landmark Australia and New Zealand trade deals, which open new markets for businesses around the world. Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) about China, may I ask whether any consideration has been given to excluding non-signatories to the World Trade Organisation’s agreement on Government procurement? Given that that may shake the Government a little and cause them a bit of fear because it may exclude some more friendly countries—other than China—perhaps we should consider excluding countries that have not signed the agreement, perhaps those with whom we have not signed free trade agreements. That would allow us a way through without our offending any countries with which we have signed, or wish to sign, free trade agreements.
The Bill presents us with a huge opportunity to sign new trade deals and use them to advance British businesses at home and abroad, but also to consider how we can get locally produced food into our schools and hospitals, and how we can provide smaller, tailored contracts to help people boost their businesses and ensure that there is value for money. I welcome the centralisation, I welcome the structure, I welcome the repeals, I welcome the opportunity for SMEs, and I welcome the transparency that the Bill provides. If we can get this right, we can cut the Gordian knot that has been procurement in this country and, once and for all, create a streamlined system that will deliver value for money and opportunity for businesses of all sizes.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats support the Government’s stated ambition in the Bill of speeding up and simplifying the procurement process and creating greater opportunities for small business to access public contracts. However, the Bill could be improved on a number of points. It is important that we get this right, especially at a time of straitened public spending and a cost of living crisis. It is fundamental that Government and Parliament are seen to be taking every care possible with taxpayers’ pounds. We have seen the recent shambolic procurement of PPE and the resulting scandals. I do not think the public currently have confidence in the Government’s ability not to waste money or to create value for local communities. As it stands, the Bill does not align procurement to our environmental and climate goals.
The Bill as originally drafted by the Government included a huge carve-out for the NHS. It was originally proposed that instead of following the procurement regime provided for in the Bill, the Secretary of State for Health would be able to make up their own rules for huge swathes of NHS procurement by secondary legislation. I am pleased that Liberal Democrats in the Lords amended the Bill to ensure that the NHS would be brought into scope. It is important that we maintain that amendment because NHS spending accounts for such a large amount of public procurement. It would be absurd for it to be excluded. I would like the Minister’s assurance that they will maintain that Liberal Democrat amendment in the Bill.
NHS procurement is the most recent example of the most egregious failures of public procurement. The bypassing of the usual procurement rules via VIP lanes saw £3.8 billion of taxpayers’ money handed over to 51 suppliers of PPE, many of whom were closely tied to Conservative Ministers and their friends. We have had months of allegations about PPE Medpro, and today we have heard that SG Recruitment was handed a £50 million contract after being referred by a former Conservative party chair.
The Government will be resistant to some of the rhetoric around VIP lanes, but I urge them to look at the work of the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member. We have done extensive inquiries into PPE procurement over the last few years and have found a number of failings that cannot be excused by the urgency that we all accept was a key factor of that procurement. The Public Accounts Committee found that at no stage was any consideration given to
“potential conflicts between individuals making referrals through the VIP lane and the companies they were referring.”
It was therefore not surprising to see reports emerge of excessive profits from PPE contracts and confirmation of such conflicts of interest. The Government really must address that; the public will expect it if the Government are to live up to their stated ideals of transparency. The Prime Minister was apparently “absolutely shocked” to read of the allegations against Baroness Mone. We should attempt to save him from future such alarm. The Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment in the Lords to ban VIP lanes, which was voted down by the Conservatives, but I urge the Minister to reconsider.
I want to talk a little about social value, which gives me an opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) to her place and to congratulate her on an excellent maiden speech. She summed up what social value is, in an excellent description of what it means in the city of Chester. I very much disagree with what the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) said about social value being in the eye of the beholder. I do not think that is true.
The hon. Member for City of Chester described extremely well what can be done when public procurement is used to attain a number of different social outcomes. The danger of not providing specific examples or definitions of social value in the Bill is that procurers will default to a definition of purely financial value. That would be a huge mistake and lead to a huge number of missed opportunities. I urge the Government to look again at the drafting of the Bill to enable it to unleash opportunities for charities and social enterprises to innovate in public service delivery, and to ensure that local communities are the key beneficiaries of an improved procurement regime.
The National Audit Office and the Environmental Audit Committee have found that departmental public procurement lacks consideration of net zero and environmental goals. We need a procurement system that encourages businesses to move their supply chains to a more sustainable model, but the Bill is just another piece of legislation introduced by the Conservative Government that fails to show the ambition that is needed. It is essential to have objectives that commit the Government to sustainable procurement as part of the net zero goal, and those should be included in the Bill. I hope the Government will look again at that.
The Liberal Democrats support efforts to reform to our procurement regime. We want to increase transparency and create opportunities for small businesses, but as it is currently written, the Bill will not achieve that. It fails to put an end to VIP lanes, it fails to grasp the opportunities for a system to create social value and it fails to support the Government’s own stated net zero goals. However, I am glad that the Government seem already to have acknowledged that there is much room for improvement in the Bill. They tabled almost 350 amendments to their own legislation during its passage through the Lords, and I will be interested to see how it proceeds through the Commons. I hope the Government will continue to engage constructively and look to address some of the concerns that have been outlined today.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
It is a privilege to follow the new hon. Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon). I congratulate her on her maiden speech and particularly on managing to introduce a reference to Lego. It is one of the great joys of speaking in this place to listen out for the new and innovative in a speech, and I commend her for that. I look forward to hearing more contributions from her in due course.
I rise to speak in favour of the Bill, which I believe will do much to improve value for money for public authorities, access for small and medium-sized businesses, and transparency for taxpayers. It will also deliver some of the ambition that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) alluded to in his speech. However, it is in considering a global Britain—an outward-looking, forward-leaning trading nation—that I will make some suggestions on how the Bill can be used to strengthen the Union of the United Kingdom. Like the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), I must confess to feeling a frisson of excitement at the mention of procurement, having nearly two decades ago seen the introduction of the national procurement strategy for local government and the genuine impact it had on local government.
There is much to commend in the Bill. Having spent some time in local government as a councillor, I welcome the enhanced freedoms it offers to authorities, which will now have greater flexibility to devise tendering processes to fit their specific requirements. That will save time and money and allow councils to select contracts that best fit the needs of those they serve. Arguably, no one has a better picture of what is needed for a job than those who are responsible for delivery. No amount of checklists imposed by Brussels or Westminster can replace this local knowledge and hands-on experience.
As a former businessman, I welcome the Bill’s provisions on easy access to contracts for SMEs and guarantees of prompt payment. The creation of a single repository for business identification will prevent the duplication of paperwork, and the creation of a centralised procurement hub listing all tenders, frameworks and dynamic markets will improve access for small and medium-sized businesses across the public sector. Sadly, too often a labyrinth of paperwork and an anarchic landscape of procurement systems freeze SMEs out of public contracts and under-mine competition, adding costs to businesses and the taxpayer. This Bill makes strides towards eliminating those hurdles.
If I can commend the Bill as a former councillor and businessman, it is as an advocate for our Union that I see potential for strengthening the Bill. On the one hand, the Bill has positives in this regard. It contains a mechanism to ensure that procurement bodies throughout the UK have access to one another’s frameworks and dynamic markets—a move that may encourage co-operation. Likewise, the decision of the Welsh and Northern Ireland devolved authorities to opt in will ensure that businesses have improved access to contracts in the majority of the UK.
However, the devolution of the national policy statement power allows local authorities the autonomy, for example, to give regard to, but not necessarily conform to, the guidance of those centralising devolved authorities. The same applies to the devolution of the power to make regulations determining the form and location of the publication of procurement notices and other documents by authorities and suppliers. That raises the worrying prospect of further barriers to businesses attempting to access different parts of the UK, and of separate procurement hubs. Why? Because the devolved Administrations have on occasion pursued a strategy of non-co-operation. After all, on 1 June 2022 the Welsh Labour Economy Minister, Vaughan Gething, wrote to every council leader in Wales to state explicitly that his Administration will not assist local authorities that implement projects funded by the UK Government’s shared prosperity fund if they do not align with Welsh Government priorities.
Finally, as the majority of devolved Administration spending is funded by the UK taxpayer, the absence of a central, accessible and standardised repository of procurement information raises important questions about transparency. Is it not fair that UK taxpayers should have easy access to details about how their money is spent, wherever it is spent in the UK? Or must the spending of UK funds sent behind a devolved curtain remain unaccountable to their provider, the UK taxpayer?
That brings me to the subject of accountability. The Bill delivers powers to investigate authorities that may have breached procurement rules, and recent events suggest that this should be a particular cause for concern. A combination of journalistic investigation and leaks has revealed that the Scottish Government’s recent award of the contract for two island ferries to a political supporter was not in accordance with the terms of the advertised tender. We have also discovered that the state ferry procurement authority and civil servants advised against the award to Ferguson Marine, which had no history of such projects and would not provide industry-standard refund guarantees. Indeed, leaked documents revealed that civil servants had advised that the award may be unlawful, but this became apparent only when it was realised that the redactions in the documents could be reversed.
Subsequent investigation has revealed that Ferguson Marine was unique in receiving an in-person meeting and a 424-page briefing pack, much of which appears to have been copied and pasted into its official bid. The outcome is that the ships are now nearly four times over budget and over five years late, which is a significant cost to the UK taxpayer. It is particularly costly to the islands that the ferries were meant to serve, which have at times been cut off from the British mainland and from essential supplies. To top it all off, Audit Scotland recently revealed that a further £130 million used to bail out Ferguson Marine has gone missing due to sloppy accounting.
I cite this case study not to score points but to ask a very simple question: who watches the watchers? Unless the UK enjoys standardised reporting rules and a transparent, easy-access hub for public procurement information, its taxpayers have no guarantee that their money is being spent with integrity. This Bill offers high levels of flexibility, enough to account for the divergent needs of local and devolved authorities across our country. What it may benefit from, however, is a mechanism to ensure that the right to accountable public spending is shared across the United Kingdom.
I conclude with three requests to the Minister. The first is that a reserved right to commission an independent investigation into procurement by devolved Administrations, where there is good reason to believe that rules may have been broken, be included in the Bill. The second is that provision be made to ensure the comparability of data and UK-wide standards for recording and publishing tenders and procurement information. My final request is that he considers extending the Bill to Scotland to help secure value for money for taxpayers and to secure the benefits of competition across the UK for UK residents in Scotland. We have a duty to secure their interests and should expect at least a demonstration of how these standards will be met by the Scottish Government through an alternative route, if they persist in seeking to be excluded from the Bill.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Procurement in Wales is very much a devolved matter. I would have preferred to see our Senedd introduce its own legislation on the matter, but in this case there is a great deal of co-operation. The Welsh Government have opted to allow the UK Government to legislate on their behalf when it comes to developing post-EU procurement frameworks. Despite this, the Welsh Government are yet to recommend that the Senedd grants consent to the Bill. That is due to outstanding issues with the Bill passed by the House of Lords.
In particular, the Bill provides for concurrent powers in relation to devolved areas; the Welsh Government would much prefer these powers to be amended to be concurrent-plus powers, which would put in place an important constitutional protection by requiring the UK Government to receive consent before exercising powers in devolved areas. The Welsh Government are also concerned about the Bill’s commencement powers. I understand that there was an initial commitment from the UK Government that Welsh Ministers would have commencement powers in the Bill, but, as it is, the Bill provides for Ministers of the Crown to have those powers. I would be grateful if the Minister updated the House as to what progress has been made on those matters.
Given the creeping devolution power grab, I should note that there seems to be a significant degree of co-operation between both Governments on the Bill. I also welcome the fact that some amendments have already been made in the Lords at the request of the Welsh Government. I place on record my support for other amendments made in the Lords, particularly those setting out that requirements on climate change and the environment will be strategic priorities in the national procurement policy statement. I also welcome the amendments that will allow contracting authorities to exclude suppliers from contract awards for their involvement in activities linked to forced organ harvesting or unethical activities relating to human tissue. Those are non-Government amendments, but I hope that the UK Government will commit to retaining these changes. It would be good to hear from the Minister on that as well.
As I said, procurement is devolved and although much of the Bill is relevant to Wales, the Welsh Government will develop its own Welsh procurement policy statement, which will be underpinned by legislation recently passed in the Senedd: the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Bill. The aim of that legislation, with its emphasis on outcomes rather than regulation and inputs, is to ensure that the new Welsh procurement regime delivers social, environmental, economic and cultural results, including fair work.
Many years ago, I co-delivered a long sequence of training for charity workers and trustees on the then new Charities Act. As a freelance trainer, living on my wits in the private sector, I needed no persuasion to see the value of that training. In respect of this legislation, the training and development of procurement professionals to ensure that they have the necessary knowledge and understanding of the new regime will be key to successful delivery. Both Governments intend to produce materials to support the delivery of the new regimes. There may well be significant differences between England and Wales in respect of procurement, so I ask the Minister to ensure now that the UK Government are mindful of potential divergence when commissioning future training and information, not least in respect of Wales securing materials and the actual delivery of training in both Welsh and English when intended for use in Wales.
Returning to the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Bill, my Plaid Cymru colleagues in the Senedd are pushing the Welsh Government to set out clear targets for the proportion of procurement spend spent in Wales and spent with specific types of suppliers, such as small and medium-sized enterprises or social enterprises—that point has been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
In conclusion, I am pleased to report that this is already a priority for my Plaid Cymru-run local authority Cyngor Gwynedd, which spent 61% of its procurement budget last year locally.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to be closing this debate on behalf of the Opposition. I thank right hon and hon. Members for their contributions this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) highlighted the serious lack of transparency within our system, which led to huge waste during the pandemic, with millions handed out to many personal protective equipment companies. It was great to welcome my newly elected hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon), who painted such a beautiful picture of her city that I am keen to visit it. She also highlighted the real benefits of social value and why it is a missed opportunity for this Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) also mentioned the support for social value.
As many Members have mentioned this evening, procurement is such an exciting and interesting topic! Let me be honest: if I went back and told that girl from Brixton that one day she would be closing a debate for the Opposition on this subject, she would probably have said, “What the hell is procurement?”
Having come to this place via local government and the London Assembly, I know how important procurement is to our communities. I know how local businesses, which are rooted in our communities, feel when they are sidelined for public contracts that they are more than capable of delivering. I know how important it is to make sure that we get value for every single penny of public money, and to make sure that we get the right framework for procurement to deliver the best services for our country.
Procurement accounts for a third of all public spending and most people involved with the sector will recognise the need for a simplified regime to replace the current daunting list of former EU regulations when approaching a contract. I want to work constructively with the Minister to make the new regime deliver for the British people as best it can, but unless the Government make the crucial amendments to the Bill that can deliver the value for money that our country deserves, it will be a missed opportunity. The Bill is also a missed opportunity to restore trust in our procurement process. We must recognise that trust in the procurement system has sadly been damaged by the mess of the personal protective equipment contracts on the Government’s watch.
I know the Government are keen to get maths on the agenda, so perhaps the Minister will not mind me doing a bit of “quick maths”— in the words of Big Shaq—in the House today. What do we get if we add a lack of due diligence over billions of pounds-worth of PPE, plus £18 million recouped from potentially fraudulent PPE contracts, plus an unfair VIP lane, giving access to lucrative contracts to those with connections to the Government? Let me tell the Minister: he will get £10 billion of PPE written off, with the public picking up a bill of more than £777,000 a day for PPE stored in China. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said, that could cover 75,000 spaces in after-school clubs desperately needed by parents up and down the country. The Government do not need a report card to know that they have got an F in delivering value for money for the taxpayer.
No one is denying that covid caused incredible stresses in our procurement processes, but we on the Labour Benches were expecting the Government to learn the lessons from the PPE scandal. We expected the Bill to offer a system that gives the public confidence that it is fair and transparent, but what we have is a direct contract scheme that hands more, not fewer, powers to Ministers. It would give them a free rein to bypass crucial elements of whatever scrutiny they felt was needed. If the Minister wants an example of why scrutiny is important, I invite him to look at the Public Accounts Committee’s damning report on the awarding of contracts to Randox Laboratories. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) said, there were a number of failings that cannot be excused. The report found that
“basic civil service practices to document contract decision making were not followed.”
It also said:
“The role of the Department’s ministers in approving the contract was also confused and unclear.”
It gets worse. Despite struggling to deliver on its first contract, the company was then awarded another contract extension worth £328 million, just seven months later. In this time, Randox saw a four-hundredfold increase in its profits in the year to June 2021. That is disgraceful.
Anthony Mangnall
Does the hon. Lady not take confidence from the platform the Bill creates whereby a business or organisation that has performed badly will not be able to bid into a contract? The whole point of the transparency measures is to stop that from happening. We have addressed those concerns and placed them in the very Bill that we are debating this evening.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. What we in the Opposition are trying to say is that the transparency clauses the Government are talking about do not go far enough. We have a system that does not claw back the money that is wasted; at a time when we are telling members of the public to look at the cost of living, we are seeing money wasted and not clawed back.
Public transparency is not just a nice thing to say, but a vital tool to ensure that every single penny of public money is spent efficiently. I welcome some of the moves towards transparency in this Bill, but we can and must go further. We must look at Ukraine, which has created a transparency system that is open to the public and inspires trust. The Ukrainians have managed to do that while under attack by Russia. If they can do it, so can we.
Labour would follow in Ukraine’s footsteps and publish an accessible dashboard of Government contracts that is available to anyone as part of our public works pledge. We say that not only because transparency inspires public trust, but because it helps us to track the value created by public procurement in the UK. That matters, because value for public money and spending is ultimately about value to our communities. It is about creating well-paid jobs, ensuring environmental standards are fit for the next generation and preventing a race to the bottom on workers’ rights.
To that end, this Bill is a perfect chance to guarantee a strong commitment to social value and legislation. While I welcome some of the significant progress made on social value in the Lords with the national procurement policy statement, the Bill sadly does little to further the promise of social value or to build on the promise of the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012.
Labour would go further. Our public works pledge would make social value mandatory in public contract design, but that is not all we would do. We would get tough on suppliers who fail to deliver for the taxpayer. We would guarantee transparency on how taxpayers’ money is spent. We would cut the red tape to give our SMEs a fair chance at winning contracts. We would oversee the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation to deliver public services that we can all be proud of.
The Bill is large and technical and there are many things I look forward to working constructively on with the Minister during line-by-line scrutiny. In that spirit, I end my remarks by praising the progress made on the Bill in the other place. Important amendments on the national procurement policy statement and protecting human rights are now included in the Bill as a result. I close by urging the Minister to commit today that the Government will not roll back on those key victories—that is vital. I hope he will work with me to ensure that our procurement system delivers for people up and down this country.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
I warmly welcome the new hon. Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon). I could not help but notice that the Chamber filled up slightly when she was speaking—almost as though she was more popular than the subject under debate today. I genuinely enjoyed her speech; as a former history teacher, the only thing I was disappointed not to hear mentioned was a beautiful silver penny from the early 10th century, which seems to show the walls of Chester. It was issued, we think, by Alfred the Great’s daughter—another great woman who represented her city.
The Bill before us is a major and exciting piece of post-Brexit legislation. It is an opportunity for this country to take back control of its procurement regime to the advantage of our businesses, our authorities, our public services and our country. I must at the outset say some words of thanks to Lord Agnew, who was instrumental in seeing this legislation drafted in the first place, to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who played a fundamental role in ensuring it was prepared for the statute books, and to Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Lord True, who took the Bill through in the other place.
Despite some of the remarks made by Opposition Members, I also thank the Opposition for their constructive stance towards this legislation. It is important that we get this right. Enormous opportunities are there to be taken from this £300 billion-worth of public procurement. We on the Government side of the House can very much see how those advantages will be made.
As I have said, the Bill will replace the current bureaucratic and process-driven EU regime for public procurement by creating a simpler and more flexible commercial system that better meets our country’s needs while remaining compliant with our international obligations.
John Spellar
I know that the Minister has to talk about Brexit and all the rest of it to please those on his Back Benches, but surely the real problem is not in Brussels but in Whitehall, with Ministers who will not get a grip of Whitehall and behave like every other European country by backing our own industry.
Alex Burghart
If the right hon. Gentleman had witnessed the consultation that was held on the legislation, he would see that the problem very much was in Brussels. For a very long time now, authorities and businesses of all sizes in this country have been aware of the enormous limitations in the way in which EU procurement rules are set out. The Bill cuts through that.
Alex Burghart
The right hon. Gentleman says that it does not, but the shadow spokeswoman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), said at the start that it did and praised the fact that it was creating a single rulebook. This will make it easier for our authorities to procure decent services from people who will be able to provide better value for money and will be held to account better. I am very pleased that it is this Government who are bringing it forward.
Opening up public procurement to new entrants such as small businesses and social enterprises so that they can compete for public contracts is a major part of this work, as is embedding transparency throughout the commercial lifecycle so that the spending of taxpayers’ money can be properly scrutinised. The main benefits of the Bill have been reflected by hon. Members on both sides of the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin). By delivering better value for money, supported by greater transparency and a bespoke approach to procurement, the Bill will provide greater flexibility for buyers to design their procurement process and create more opportunities to negotiate with suppliers. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset said, that will drive better value for money.
As we slash red tape and drive innovation, more than 350 complicated and bureaucratic rules governing public spending in the EU will be removed. We are creating better and more sensible rules that will not only reduce costs for businesses in the public sector, but drive innovation. That will be at the heart of our work as we encourage authorities to publish pipelines that allow businesses of all sizes to prepare for contracts in new and interesting ways.
We will make it easier for people to do business with the public sector. The Bill will accelerate spending with small businesses. A new duty will require contracting authorities to consider SMEs, and will ensure that 30-day payment terms are made on a broader range of contracts.
We also intend to take tough action on underperforming suppliers. The Bill will put in place a new exclusions framework that will make it easier to exclude suppliers who have underperformed on other contracts. As has been mentioned a number of times, it will also create a new debarment register—accessible to all public sector organisations—that will list suppliers who must or may be excluded from contracts.
A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the excellent work that has been done on the ProZorro service in Ukraine. I am pleased to be able to let the House know that Ukraine was on our advisory panel and has actually informed our work, and our single digital platform takes a lot from what Ukraine has done with ProZorro. The platform will enable everyone to have better access to public procurement data. Citizens will be able to scrutinise spending decisions, suppliers will be able to identify new opportunities to bid and collaborate, and buyers will be able to analyse the market and benchmark their performance against others on spending with SMEs, for example—better transparency; better for taxpayers.
Nick Smith
Will the Minister please tell us when his single digital platform will be ready for use by industry across our country?
Alex Burghart
The platform is based on a system that we already have. We are confident that we will be able to introduce it in line with bringing this Bill into force. Obviously, we have to pass the legislation and get Royal Assent, and then there will be a settling-in period. But it is going to be functional very soon.
We are also strengthening exclusion grounds. The Bill toughens the rules to combat modern slavery by allowing suppliers to be excluded when there is evidence of that, accepting that in some jurisdictions it is unlikely that a supplier would ever face conviction. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) made some important points on that score. It is absolutely right that we should be able to debar suppliers who have engaged in such dastardly crimes. It is too soon, however, to say exactly which suppliers are going to be debarred, but he has read the legislation and can see what the potential is. We will consider suppliers according to a prioritisation policy. Once on the list, suppliers will stay on it for up to five years unless they can show that they no longer pose a risk—these are the self-cleaning clauses. Any contracts awarded during an investigation can be terminated if the supplier is debarred. Safeguards are built into the grounds to stop suppliers from renaming themselves. I am happy to talk about those.
Alicia Kearns
I thank my hon. Friend for meeting me earlier today. It was enormously appreciated and I thank him for his time. How does he plan to overcome the risk of playing whack-a-mole—business after business being involved and MPs and others being relied on to flag them up? Will the procurement unit be proactive or will we instead focus on components and vulnerable sectors to ensure that we have the protections we need?
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend raises an excellent point, which I was happy to discuss with her earlier. Obviously, the issue is under active consideration. In her speech, she also referenced debarment. I reassure her that the debarment provisions allow for proactive investigations into any supplier or subcontractor and that cases will be selected by the Minister for the Cabinet Office. Selections of cases will be governed by a robust prioritisation policy, which we will set out in due course. The debarment list will be publicly available for all contracting authorities to consult, demonstrating how transparency is at the heart of the Bill.
Value for money is a core component of what we are seeking to achieve. I assure the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) that buyers will be able to give weight to bids that create jobs and opportunities for communities in the delivery of a contract, supporting and levelling up our objectives. Now that we have left the EU, central Government buyers can reserve competitions for contracts below certain thresholds for suppliers in the UK and/or SMEs and social enterprises only.
I am pushed for time, Madam Deputy Speaker, so allow me to draw my remarks to a close. This key legislation has been made possible only through our having left the European Union. It comes at a time when we have a need for a new procurement policy in this country. I say to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, who made a number of claims about PPE and VIP lanes, that the Bill provides strong safeguards to preserve the integrity of procurement. Equal treatment obligations require that all suppliers participating in the procurement must be treated the same. Additionally, any conflicts of interest should be identified for anyone acting for, or who has an influence on a decision made by or on behalf of, the contracting authority in relation to the procurement. If a conflict of interest puts a supplier at an unfair advantage and if steps to mitigate that cannot prevent that advantage, the supplier must be excluded. Furthermore, the direct award provisions have clear and narrow parameters for use. They include a new obligation to publish a transparency notice before making a direct award and maintain obligations to publish contract details once awarded.
This Government are absolutely committed to integrity, transparency, value for money and delivering for the British people. This Bill will make a difference to our procuring authorities, to our public services and to our taxpayers. It is good for our authorities, our taxpayers and our local communities, and it is good for our country. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
PROCUREMENT BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Procurement Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 23 February 2023.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming Committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Andrew Stephenson.)
Question agreed to.
PROCUREMENT BILL [LORDS] (MONEY)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Procurement Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by a person holding office under His Majesty or by a government department; and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—(Andrew Stephenson.)
Question agreed to.
SUPPORTED HOUSING (REGULATORY OVERSIGHT) BILL (MONEY)
King’s recommendation signified.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Andrew Stephenson.)
Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Tuesday 31st January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 31 January 2023 - (31 Jan 2023)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room. This shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issues. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order that they are debated but in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. The selection list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates.
A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in the group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they need to let me know.
I will first call the Minister to move the programme motion standing in his name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 31 January) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 31 January;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 2 February;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 7 February;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 9 February;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 21 February;
(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 23 February;
2. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 3, Schedules 1 and 2, Clause 4, Schedule 3, Clauses 5 and 6, Schedule 4, Clauses 7 to 41, Schedule 5, Clauses 42 to 57, Schedules 6 and 7, Clauses 58 to 73, Schedule 8, Clauses 74 to 88, Schedule 9, Clauses 89 to 113, Schedule 10, Clauses 114 and 115, Schedule 11, Clauses 116 to 124, new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill;
3. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 23 February.—(Alex Burghart.)
The Chair
The Committee will therefore meet again at 2 pm this afternoon and every sitting Tuesday and Thursday until 23 February, unless we complete our consideration of the Bill before then.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Alex Burghart.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be circulated to Members by email and published on the Bill website.
Clause 1
Procurement and covered procurement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and with all hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. This is a significant piece of legislation in this Parliament, and a substantial one. We have 124 clauses in 13 parts with 11 schedules to discuss in 12 sessions, and I look forward to sharing them all with hon. Members present.
Clause 1(1) sets out the technical definitions of “procurement” and “covered procurement”. Covered procurement means those procurements that are covered by the majority of the provisions in the Bill. They are mostly procurements by contracting authorities above the relevant thresholds for goods, services and works that are not exempted from the Bill.
However, the Bill does cover some aspects of procurements that go beyond that. That is why we have a wider definition of procurement, which means any procurement. That allows the Bill to make some limited provision in relation to matters such as below-threshold procurements, and procurements in accordance with certain international rules or certain treaties. For example, the provisions in part 6 of the Bill regulate certain procurements that are of a lower value than the thresholds set in schedule 1 but are none the less subject to some regulation under the Bill.
Subsection (2) makes it clear that the term “procurement” —and, by extension, “covered procurement”—includes all steps taken in the contract award, as well as the management of a contract, up to and including termination. Subsections (3) and (4) make it clear that references to procurement and covered procurement also apply where contracting authorities conduct joint procurement and procurement by a centralised procurement authority for the benefit of other contracting authorities.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I start by paying tribute to Sarah, Christopher and Huw in the Public Bill Office for all their hard work in going through over 100 amendments tabled for Committee stage. I also thank the Minister for his opening remarks.
We have been clear that we want to work constructively with the Government to get the Bill into as good a state as possible. We all want procurement to work for British people, inspire confidence in the system and offer genuine value for money. I hope that the Minister will consider our amendments on their merits, as genuine attempts to get the Bill into as good a place as possible.
As we know, the Bill began its life in the Lords and underwent significant changes before reaching this place. While we expected the Government to table amendments to their own Bill—especially given that, sadly, we have seen four Chancellors of the Duchy of Lancaster since the Bill’s introduction in the Lords on 11 May 2022—I have to say that the scale of change between the Bill as drafted and the Bill before us today does not inspire confidence that what we end up with will be without significant loopholes. Even as we start Committee stage today, the Minister has put his name to 71 amendments. That is a noticeable number, following on from the hundreds we had in the other place. Of course, we welcome changes that bring the Bill into a more workable state, but if we are having to amend it on such a scale with just one stage of parliamentary scrutiny left, we cannot have much confidence that the end product will not be riddled with errors and inconsistencies that have gone unfixed.
When we are talking about a third of public spending and the livelihoods of countless workers rely on us getting this right, it is disappointing that the Government introduced a Bill that still clearly needs significant work in Committee and on Report. I know that several of the amendments have come as a result of the ministerial merry-go-round that the Government have subjected us to over the past year. We broadly welcome those changes, particularly in relation to the increased consideration of small and medium-sized enterprises within the Bill.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Does the hon. Lady share my concern that a lot of the evidence we have seen, such as the oral evidence given in the Lords, was provided on pretty much a different Bill from the one we are discussing today, and the one we will end up with after all the Government amendments?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the hon. Lady for that point. It is so important, because we have seen what can happen when we do not get procurement right. We all know the impact it has on our local communities; we all have small businesses and organisations in our communities that are good at handling and dealing with public contracts but never get a look in. The fact that so many really good amendments were tabled in the other place but not taken up by the Government is quite disappointing.
What businesses ask us for is certainty, especially during these difficult economic times, but the mess the Government have made of the Bill does nothing but offer more confusion to the many businesses who rely on procurement. The Bill today is vastly different from the Bill introduced in the Lords, but it is also different from the Bill promised in the Government’s Green and White Papers and—who knows?—it may be vastly different from the Bill that ends up on the statute book. That does not scream strong and stable from this Government, and it is unacceptable when public services and livelihoods are on the line.
I am sure we will hear warm words from the Government that many of the amendments we discuss in Committee are unnecessary as they plan to address them in the national procurement policy statement. But how can the Government ask us, businesses and the people who rely on procurement for the day-to-day running of the country to trust them on their word after the year of chaos and uncertainty they have subjected us to, not least in the state of the Bill?
Even this first clause had to be forced in by the Government in the other place due to confusion in the Bill originally introduced to the Lords. Labour did not oppose the introduction of clause 1, which narrows down the definition of procurement to cover public contracts, and we will not oppose it today. We understand why the definition has been included—to distinguish between the specified procurements and other general procurements, particularly as we know that certain procurements that are not meant to be caught by the full framework of this legislation are no longer automatically included. We also agree with the need to familiarise our language in respect of the World Trade Organisation’s agreement on Government procurement, which the United Kingdom became a part of on 1 January 2021.
However, I share some of the concerns expressed by Lord Coaker in the other place about the use of the term “procurement” in the Bill. In particular, amendment 34 moved in the other place took non-covered procurement outside the remit of procurement objectives. I understand why that is necessary for the purpose of the Bill, but I would like to think that all procurement, covered or not, is carried out along the principles of value for money, integrity and maximising public benefit. However, I read carefully the explanation from Baroness Neville-Rolfe in the other place and found her explanation convincing enough to not table an amendment on the issue.
Alex Burghart
I thank the Opposition for their support for the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Contracting authorities
Alex Burghart
I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 2, page 2, line 13, leave out “including the NHS”.
This amendment would remove the specific reference to the NHS because the NHS falls within the definition of “public authority” regardless.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 116 stand part.
Government new clause 13—Power to disapply this Act in relation to procurement by NHS in England.
Alex Burghart
Amendment 27 and new clause 13 are necessary to address amendments made in the other place that would, if left, be problematic to the proper functioning of the Bill and to healthcare procurements.
First, it is necessary to remove from the definition of a public authority in clause 2(2)(a) the words “including the NHS”. We fully sympathise with the desire to mention that NHS bodies are contracting authorities—they absolutely are—but it is neither necessary nor helpful to make this addition, for a number of reasons. The NHS is not a single legal entity and does not have a clear meaning in law, so the inclusion of those words would create uncertainty and may have the effect of excluding bodies that are intended to be within it or unintentionally including bodies.
Kirsty Blackman
Will the Minister give us some examples of bodies that could be included or excluded by the continued inclusion of those words?
Alex Burghart
I am delighted by the hon. Lady’s enthusiasm to hear my next paragraph.
The relevant NHS bodies that are covered by the Bill will be specifically identified in regulations made under the power in schedule 1(5). This is exactly the same approach as under our existing procurement regulations, which is appropriate and helpful as it enables the list of central Government authorities to be updated from time to time as organisations change. There is absolutely no doubt that NHS trusts and various other NHS bodies are contracting authorities. This is because they clearly meet the test for a public authority set out in clause 2(2)(a), which is that they are publicly funded. That test is how we determine whether an entity is a public authority.
Clause 116, which was inserted in the other place, needs to be removed and replaced with the original clause. As it stands, the clause would delete the power agreed by Parliament in the Health and Care Act 2022 for the Department of Health and Social Care to make healthcare procurement regulations that are appropriate for patient care—otherwise known as the provider selection regime. NHS England and the Government have consulted extensively on proposals for the provider selection regime since 2021, and it has received strong support from health and care stakeholders.
The 2022 Act and the powers within it were approved by Parliament and received Royal Assent as recently as April 2022. Parliament recognised then that the procurement of healthcare services provided to patients is a special case and would benefit from procurement rules that would allow for the further integration of services and more joined-up care for patients. The provider selection regime is designed to support the reforms made by the 2022 Act by having flexible and robust procurement rules to support greater collaboration and integration in the NHS.
If clause 116 remains unamended, DHSC will be unable to proceed with its plans to foster the greater integration of healthcare services that better serve patients. If this power is not reinstated, procurement for NHS healthcare services will end up with a confusing scheme of double regulation under the Department of Health and Social Care’s healthcare procurement regulations and under this Bill. It is also likely to lead to greater competition and less collaboration for those healthcare services. I am working closely with colleagues in DHSC to ensure that the provider selection regime is compatible with, and not used to circumvent, the procurement obligations in the Bill, which properly apply to much of the NHS procurement landscape. Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the provider selection regime regulations through the affirmative procedure when they are laid by DHSC in due course.
New clause 13 provides a power for a Minister of the Crown to make regulations disapplying the Bill in relation to areas covered by healthcare procurement regulations made under section 12ZB of the National Health Service Act 2006, as inserted by section 79 of the Health and Care Act 2022. Hon. Members will recall from the debate on the Health and Care Act that a separate but interrelated process of reforms is under way for the procurement of certain healthcare services. Using the powers in that Act, DHSC is currently preparing regulations to govern its proposed provider selection regime, with the aim of improving collaboration in the sector and removing barriers to integrating care. The Bill, following enactment, will therefore need to be disapplied to the relevant extent to enable that scheme of regulations to exist and achieve its intended purpose.
Florence Eshalomi
Labour does not intend to oppose amendment 27, nor the Government’s changes through clause 116 and new clause 13. Although we of course want the NHS included in clause 2 and the scope of the Bill, I am satisfied by the Minister’s response and do not intend to vote against the Government’s amendments.
I wish to touch on some issues relating to clause 2, which I will raise now to avoid the need for a separate clause stand part debate. In some ways, the issues relate to the intentions behind the amendment in the other place. The term “public authority” by necessity covers a wide range of organisations, from central Government bodies to local councils to arm’s length bodies and NHS contracting authorities. The number of organisations that fall under the definition of
“(a) wholly or mainly funded out of public funds including the NHS, or
(b) subject to public authority oversight,”
is exceptionally broad. With such a broad definition, there are always likely to be organisations that function on the edge of being a public body. Therefore, doubt still exists over some organisations’ status as public bodies and whether they come under the scrutiny that the Bill hands down to public bodies. There are two important examples of a vast number of bodies where such ambiguity lies: in our housing and education systems.
There is consistent ambiguity about whether housing authorities are public bodies, and the definition has a significant impact on millions of households. The latest English housing survey statistics, released in December 2022, show that approximately 2.4 million dwellings in England were managed by housing associations in 2021. The Minister will be aware that previous questions about the status of housing associations have gone to court. In Weaver v. L&Q in 2009, the Court of Appeal said that, for the purpose of the Human Rights Act, housing associations are public bodies and susceptible to claims. The Office for National Statistics has also found it difficult to put its finger on the status of housing associations, and their classification moved from private to public in 2015 and then public to private in 2017 following the passage of Government legislation.
Obviously, the status of housing authorities and their management goes far beyond the intentions of this Bill. We did not table an amendment on the issue because we understand the greater implications that tabling an amendment of that nature would have created, but I urge the Minister to address the point and give clarity on the issue, so that public bodies and housing associations have a clearer picture of what to expect from the legislation.
Kirsty Blackman
Thank you for chairing this sitting, Mr Mundell, and I thank your fellow Chair, who will be responsible for overseeing us and ensuring that we behave ourselves, which I am sure we will. I appreciate the opportunity to take part in the Committee and look forward to positive discussions about improving the Bill. I am not terribly hopeful that the Government will listen to much of what we say, but I hope they will listen even if they do not necessarily take it on board. In previous Bills, the Government tabled amendments that we had tabled. I hope the Minister will listen to some of what we say and that we can get clarity on some matters in response to our questions.
I want to make a couple of comments on the NHS. I am glad to hear the Minister’s confirmation that NHS trusts will definitely be included in the definition. It is good to have him say that in Committee, and it is helpful to the wider understanding of how the Government intend the Bill to work.
Let me comment on how procurement rules are intended to apply, and how the NHS and NHS trusts in England are moving. We need NHS reforms and NHS procurement reforms to result in two things: the best outcomes for patients and the best outcomes for people working in the NHS. Those two things are not mutually exclusive; they go hand in hand. If people have good terms and conditions, and pay that they can afford to live on, they will do a better job than if they are struggling to make ends meet and therefore worrying.
If decisions around NHS procurement are best for businesses—putting businesses’ interests first—those decisions will directly conflict with those other two aims. It may be that having some private-sector input is the best option in some situations, but it should never be the first port of call. We should run and manage the NHS so that we have fair pay and terms and conditions for people working in it, and the best possible outcomes for patients. We should outsource as a last resort. It will be interesting to see the further guidelines and the statutory instruments put forward by the Department of Health and Social Care in that regard.
It may seem odd that I am commenting on this issue, as an MP from Scotland whose NHS is entirely separate, but it has a significant impact on Scotland’s budget. How the NHS is funded in England gives rise to Barnett consequentials that allow the Scottish Government to fund the NHS in Scotland, so the less the Government are willing to spend on the NHS in England, the less the Scottish Government have to spend on our priorities, particularly in the NHS but also in other areas. I look forward to seeing the future statutory instruments and I will not oppose any of the suggestions under consideration.
Alex Burghart
Again, I thank the Opposition for their support for the amendments.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall asked an important question about housing associations. On the question of whether the definition of contracting authority includes housing associations, the proposed definition, as with its predecessor, does not address all individual bodies or categories of bodies explicitly. It is the same for multi-academy trusts. There are simply too many bodies that exist and that change over the course of time to address it that way. Rather, the definition uses a number of tests that determine whether a particular body is covered or not. As we go through the Bill line by line, we will come across those tests over and over again. Registered providers of social housing are included in our coverage schedules to the WTO Government procurement agreement under the indicative list of bodies that may be covered. The new definition aims to ensure consistency with those international commitments.
It is the case that under normal circumstances, simple oversight would not meet the test for management and control. However, in the case of registered providers of social housing, it is well understood and documented that the Regulator of Social Housing has more than simple oversight, carrying out regulatory activity that does meet this threshold—as under the existing regime as a body governed by public law. I reassure the hon. Lady that the Bill does not change that position.
I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North for her interest in the English NHS. We are also committed to having an excellent NHS that both supports the people who work in it and is free at point of use for all citizens.
Amendment 27 agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Public contracts
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
Government amendments 85 and 86.
Government motion to transfer paragraph 25 of schedule 2.
Government motion to transfer paragraphs 31 and 32 of schedule 2.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Alex Burghart
We have already discussed how the majority of the Bill’s provisions cover the processes and procedures required of contracting authorities in relation to covered procurement. As that concept is based on the award, entry into and management of public contracts, it is necessary to be clear about what is meant by “public contracts”.
Clause 3 classifies three types of contracts that are public contracts and covered by the legislation. The first category is contracts for the supply of goods, services and works—provided those contracts are not subject to an exemption—that have an estimated value above an applicable threshold. The second category is frameworks—that is, contracts providing for the future award of other contracts, as defined more fully in clause 45—again provided that they are not exempt and have an estimated value above an applicable threshold. The third category is concession contracts—that is, contracts where part of the consideration lies in the rights to exploit the works or services as defined more fully in clause 8—again provided they are not exempt and have an estimated value above an applicable threshold.
Schedule 2 sets out the types of contracts for which the contracting authority does not need to apply the rules in the Bill for the contract award procedure because it is exempted from the procurement rules. Where exemptions apply only to part of a public contract—that is, the contract contains both exempt and non-exempt elements—the reasonableness test in paragraph 1(2) of the schedule will prevent the contract from being exempted if the main purpose of the contract could reasonably be separated and supplied under a different contract, and that main-purpose contract would not fall under one of the exemptions in schedule 2.
We have tabled an amendment to split schedule 2 into two parts, following consultation with bodies including the Local Government Association, which was very supportive of doing so. Part 1 will be for exemptions based on the relationship with the other party, where the contract will always be exempt if the relationship conditions are met, and part 2 will be for exemptions for specific goods and services. The reasonableness test will apply only to part 2. The Bill broadly maintains the exemptions available in current domestic procurement law, but simplifies how those exemptions are framed and ensures that the terminology used reflects domestic law.
The exemptions ensure that contracting authorities have the freedom to carry out the most appropriate procurement where the rules in the Bill would otherwise be unsuitable. Contracting authorities can also exempt a procurement from the Bill where the contracting authority determines that doing so is in the interests of national security—that power is available to all contracting authorities. National security interests can include where a procurement is too sensitive to advertise, or where the UK’s national security requires a UK capability. As is usual in legislation, national security is not defined in the Bill, in order to ensure that it is sufficiently flexible to protect the UK’s national security interests.
Defence and security contracts are exempt where local contracting is required where the armed forces are deployed or maintain a military presence in another state. Operational requirements mean that contracts need to be placed with local suppliers for speed of acquisition. That often makes it impractical and inefficient to place contracts with suppliers outside of the state in which the armed forces are deployed. Sometimes, the state requires local contracting as part of the conditions for the presence of the armed forces.
Schedule 2 also exempts defence and security contracts under international agreements. That covers Government-to-Government contracts; contracts awarded under a procedure of an international organisation of which the UK is a member, such as NATO; and cases in which the UK and another country jointly develop a product. In all those situations, the application of the domestic procurement law of one party to such an arrangement is not viable. All the exemptions are compatible with our international obligations, particularly those in the WTO Government procurement agreement.
Schedule 1 sets out the various thresholds applicable to the different categories of contract. Whether the estimated value of a contract is above or below the relevant threshold determines whether it is subject to the main regime for public contracts set out in the Bill, or to the below-threshold regime in part 6. The core thresholds in the schedule are derived from the WTO Government procurement agreement, to which the UK is a party. The threshold values in the GPA are set in special drawing rights, or SDRs. The UK is required to provide an update to the sterling equivalent of the SDR thresholds every two years—the next one will be in January 2024. For that reason, paragraph 2 of schedule 1 contains powers for an appropriate authority to update the threshold values, so that the UK remains compliant with its international obligations.
Separately, paragraph 3 provides a power to update the light-touch thresholds in rows 5, 7 and 8 of the table. Those thresholds are not determined by international obligations, and as such will be updated for different purposes—for example, to allow for inflation or reflect changing priorities for that category of contract. The defence and security thresholds in rows 1 to 3 of the table can be updated using either power, depending on whether the current policy is continued whereby they track the GPA thresholds for utilities, though that is not required by the GPA.
On amendments 85 and 86, on Report in the Lords my noble Friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe asked officials to engage with the LGA, which I previously mentioned. The LGA was concerned that the reasonableness test in paragraph 1(2) of schedule 2 would prevent public service collaborations facilitated by the exemptions in paragraphs 2 and 3 if the contract could reasonably be alternatively awarded through competitive procurement.
Paragraph 1(2) deals with contracts where exemptions apply only to part of a public contract—that is, the contract contains both exempt and non-exempt elements. It says that a contract is not exempted if its main purpose could reasonably be separated and supplied under a different contract, and that main-purpose contract would not fall within one of the two exemptions in schedule 2. However, unlike most other exemptions in the schedule, which are conditional on the subject matter of the contract, the vertical and horizontal exemptions are conditional on the relationship between the contracting parties. Provided that those strict relationship conditions are met, it is irrelevant what the activity of the contract is.
Florence Eshalomi
I have a few points to raise regarding both schedules, so will take them in turn.
Schedule 1 pertains to the threshold agreements that govern the levels above which many of the terms in the Bill become applicable to contracts. We want all contracts—whether they are for £50 or £50 million—to follow some level of basic principle in procurement: we have to ensure there is value for money for the taxpayer. However, we recognise the burden that the management of those contracts places on both the contracting authorities’ procurement managers and the companies that bid for the contracts themselves. We therefore understand the purpose of threshold levels within the system as a fair way to balance the need for scrutiny with the need to ensure the system is not over-burdensome. We also understand that the threshold levels are set by the agreement between the World Trade Organisation and the United Kingdom, and we do not wish to put an important trade agreement into jeopardy by attempting to meddle with them.
However, I have a couple of questions regarding the functioning of the schedule and the bureaucratic process that goes with amending the hard numbers in the Bill, as their real-terms value shifts in the dynamic world before us. First, does the Minister consider the mechanisms in place with the World Trade Organisation and in the Bill are sufficient to account for the current high inflation levels? The World Trade Organisation’s revised agreement on Government procurement, published in 2012, defines the current mechanism to deal with currency shifts. It states:
“The conversion rates will be the average of the daily values of the respective national currency in terms of the SDR over the two-year period preceding 1 October or 1 November of the year prior to the thresholds in national currency becoming effective which will be from 1 January...Thresholds expressed in national currencies will be fixed for two years, i.e. calendar years for all Parties except Israel and Japan”.
Having joined the GPA on 1 January 2022, we will have our threshold set at the value measured at that time until 1 January 2024. Does the Minister not see significant problems arising from having threshold levels based on the value of the pound at that time?
In December 2022, the Office for National Statistics found that inflation rose by 9.2%. If that trend is followed when the data from 2023 is released, the threshold values will be nearly 10% lower in real terms than the thresholds agreed when we joined the GPA. That is a significant amount of money, and it could draw in many contracts over the next year that have simply been the victim of weak economic management by the Conservative party.
Although there may be benefits to having extra scrutiny of more contracts, it should not happen by accident as a result of high inflation. Nor should it mean that a significant amount of contracts will be flung into scrutiny this year, then out of scrutiny on 1 January next year. I hope the Minister recognises that that creates inconsistency for businesses and procurement managers alike. Will the Minister inform the House whether steps are being taken at the WTO to assess the impact of inflation on the thresholds? What is his assessment of the impact of inflation on the rollercoaster workload of those responsible for near-threshold contracts?
Schedule 2 sets out contracts that are excluded from the definition of a “public contract” and the provisions that apply to public contracts. I understand the need for excluded contracts and do not object to any of the listed justifications for excluding contracts from the Bill. We cannot expect areas such as the intelligence services and particularly sensitive national security matters to follow all parts of an Act relating to public services. It is right for sensible and proportionate exemptions to help make procurement efficient, save people millions and run the services that we desperately need.
One such exemption is the horizontal and vertical arrangements that form paragraphs 2 and 3 of schedule 2. Those paragraphs carry over provisions from regulation 12 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. Vertical and horizontal arrangements are often used by local authorities to save public money. The vertical arrangements exemption, also known as the Teckal exemption, enables the award of contracts to entities that, although separate entities, are de facto in-house to the contracting authorities. The horizontal arrangements exemption, known as the Hamburg exemption, allows public authorities to co-operate to deliver services collectively.
Taken together, such arrangements give local authorities the tools to enter agreements to share services and achieve savings through economies of scale, and those savings are significant. The Minister highlighted the LGA, whose research shows that such agreements saved the public nearly £200 million in 2018-19. When we face a cost of living crisis and families are choosing between eating and putting on the heating, it is critical that we are as efficient as possible in how we run procurement. It is critical that we do not hinder innovative agreements that help councils, which have had their budgets slashed over the past decade, in saving the money they need to deliver services such as social care.
As the Bill stands, however, there is real concern that it will hinder the use of horizontal and vertical agreements within local authorities. Paragraph 1(2) of schedule 2 stipulates that
“a contract is not an exempted contract if…the goods, services or works representing the main purpose of the contract could reasonably be supplied under a separate contract”.
Groups such as the LGA have highlighted the fact that many contracts that fall under the vertical or horizontal arrangements can be supplied by a separate contract:
“It will often be the case that public services, whether front-line or back-office, could ‘reasonably be supplied’ by a provider that is not a public entity. As a result, the legislation can be interpreted as requiring the public sector to have to engage the market, even for arrangements wholly within the public sector”.
If enacted, the new wording could therefore close down models of collaboration and efficient service delivery that save public money.
Sub-paragraph 1(2)(a) of schedule 2 also opens up a new avenue of legal challenge against the public sector. From the words of Baroness Neville-Rolfe on Report in the other place, I understand that the provision is necessary to avoid a loophole when mixed contracts are inappropriately excluded. I am therefore pleased that the Government have tabled amendments 85 and 86, and I know that the LGA has worked hard with the Government to try to fix this loophole. However, I hope the Minister keeps up engagement with the LGA to ensure that the amendments fix the problem and do not create unintended threats to the existence of horizontal and vertical agreements.
Alex Burghart
On the hon. Lady’s two points, she is absolutely right that the mechanism that exists in our WTO arrangement is biennial. As I said, the next upgrade, relative to inflation, is in January 2024. There is nothing we can do about the fact that the updates are biennial—it is part of the agreement, and we have obligations internationally.
The hon. Lady is right that the high rate of inflation—which we are experiencing as a result of Putin’s dreadful war in Ukraine and the end of covid, and which is common to many western democracies at the moment—will make some previously below-threshold contracts into above-threshold contracts. There are pros and cons to that. It means that we will have a degree of extra competition that we would not have had before, but we will see a re-correction in what will now be less than 12 months.
Florence Eshalomi
Does the Minister agree on the inconsistency that this will bring for procurement managers, especially when we are proposing this legislation to cut some of the red tape and burden on those same procurement managers?
Alex Burghart
Obviously, some contracts will, as I said, be brought above threshold, and those contracts will need to be conducted in accordance with the law. However, as I said to the hon. Lady, that is something that all countries that are signatories to the WTO and that are experiencing inflation will find is happening. In some instances, it will also mean that there is better competition for contracts, which could result in lower costs to the public purse, so it is not all bad.
On mixed contracts, the hon. Lady is absolutely right. The work that my hon. Friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe did in the Lords with the LGA means that we have closed the loophole, and that is to the strength of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2
Exempted contracts
Amendments made: 85, in schedule 2, page 84, line 11, leave out from “in” to end of line 17 and insert—
“this Part of this Schedule.”
This amendment would ensure that contracts within the new Part 1 of Schedule 2 (which will comprise paragraphs 2, 3, 25, 31 and 32) are always exempted from being public contracts.
Amendment 86, in schedule 2, page 85, line 39, at end insert—
“Part 2
Subject-matter exempted contracts
General
3A (1) A contract is an exempted contract if it is—
(a) a contract of a kind listed in this Part of this Schedule;
(b) a framework for the future award of contracts only of a kind listed in this Part of this Schedule.
(2) But a Part 2-only contract is not an exempted contract if, on award of the contract, a contracting authority considers that—
(a) the goods, services or works representing the main purpose of the contract could reasonably be supplied under a separate contract, and
(b) that contract would not be a contract of a kind listed in this Part of this Schedule.
(3) In considering whether goods, services or works could reasonably be supplied under a separate contract, a contracting authority may, for example, have regard to the practical and financial consequences of awarding more than one contract.
(4) In this paragraph ‘Part 2-only contract’ means a contract of a kind listed in this Part of this Schedule that is not of a kind listed in Part 1 of this Schedule.”—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment would apply the exception previously applied to all contracts listed in Schedule 2 to those listed only in Part 2 of Schedule 2, ensure it operates by reference to the opinion of a contracting authority, and clarify that the authority may have regard to practical and financial consequences.
Ordered,
That paragraph 25 of Schedule 2 be transferred to the end of line 39 on page 85.—(Alex Burghart.)
This is a motion to move paragraph 25 of Schedule 2 (defence and security contracts with governments) to the new Part 1 of Schedule 2 to ensure such contracts are always exempted from being public contracts.
Ordered,
That paragraphs 31 and 32 of Schedule 2 be transferred to the end of line 39 on page 85.—(Alex Burghart.)
This is a motion to move paragraphs 31 and 32 of Schedule 2 (utilities contracts with affiliates and joint ventures) to the new Part 1 of Schedule 2 to ensure such contracts are always exempted from being public contracts.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4
Valuation of contracts
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Clause 5 stand part.
Alex Burghart
Clause 4 and schedule 3 are fundamentally interrelated. Clause 4 requires contracting authorities to estimate the value of contracts in accordance with a simple methodology set out in schedule 3, in order to determine whether the contract is above or below threshold and consequently what relevant rules need to be followed. It also includes an anti-avoidance mechanism that makes it unlawful to exercise any discretion in valuing a contract with a view to avoiding the effects of this legislation.
Schedule 3 contains the methodology that clause 3 requires contracting authorities to follow when they estimate the value of contracts. As well as the general rules in paragraph 1 of schedule 3, there are also special rules for frameworks in paragraph 2 and concessions in paragraph 3. The anti-avoidance provision in paragraph 4 is designed to ensure that contracting authorities do not artificially subdivide procurements to evade the rules. There is also a new rule for how to proceed when an estimate is not possible; in such circumstances, contracting authorities must treat the contract as above threshold.
In general terms, the long-standing mechanism in existing regulations works well, so the Bill proposes a similar mechanism, albeit with some adjustments to take advantage of opportunities for simplification and reduction of regulation and some inevitable structural differences as we move from one style of drafting to another.
In clause 5, as there are different thresholds for different types of contract, it is important that the rules adequately address the inevitable situations our contracting authorities will face, such as where a contract contains multiple elements that are subject to different thresholds—that is, a mixed contract. The existing regulatory environment provides a mechanism, across four different regulatory schemes, that allows authorities the flexibility to separate elements into separate contracts, or to mix the elements into a single contract, subject to certain safeguards to prevent rule avoidance.
However, those rules comprise around 14 pages of legislation, are somewhat complicated and can appear repetitive due to their need to address the multifarious combinations of elements within and spanning each regime. Thankfully, the harmonisation approach taken in the Bill means these complicated and seemingly repetitive provisions can be streamlined and simplified, while continuing to provide the necessary flexibility and safeguards against rule avoidance.
Clause 5 provides a safeguard to ensure that authorities do not mix above-threshold and below-threshold contracts purely for the purposes of avoiding the rules. Of course, separate elements can always be procured separately, and mixed contracts with elements that are properly inseparable should be allowed. But the basic safeguard remains that if separation is reasonably possible, but a contracting authority chooses not to separate, a mixed contract containing both above and below-threshold elements must be treated as above-threshold and therefore in scope of the legislation. When determining whether separation is reasonably possible, the practical and financial consequences of awarding more than one contract can be taken into consideration.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the Minister for his explanation of clause 4 and schedule 3, which relate to the estimated value of the contracts, and are both relatively short and simple parts of the Bill. However, the importance of a value estimation is critical to the Bill and the management of procurement. That particularly relates to above-threshold contracts, regulated below-threshold contracts and the application of key performance indicators, as well as the publication of high-value contracts. Given the importance of that estimation, it is critical that contracting authorities get it right and that similar contracts do not end up with widely different values as a result of the calculation values. I would like the Minister to outline the support the Government are giving to those managing procurement within contracting authorities, so that the figures are correct. I have no doubt that such work has been done, but I would welcome an outlining of it.
I welcome the clarity of paragraph 4 of schedule 3 on anti-avoidance. It is critical that all contracts should be scrutinised under this legislation and that there should be no attempt through inventive accounting to avoid them coming under the provisions of the legislation.
I would like clarity on paragraph 5 of schedule 3, which states:
“If a contracting authority is unable to estimate the value of a contract in accordance with this Schedule (for example because the duration of the contract is unknown), the authority is to be treated as having estimated the value of the contract as an amount of more than the threshold amount for the type of contract.”
While it makes sense for contracts with uncertain value to be treated as having above the threshold amount, I have a question on how that applies to the cut-off value of £5 million for key performance indicators and the publication of contracts. Obviously, we do not want every contract without an estimated value to be covered by measures designed for larger contracts. But, similarly, there will be contracts where the value will likely exceed the £5 million currently set as the limit, even when their value cannot be estimated by the clause. Can the Minister inform me whether the clause covers the higher £5 million cut-off and what steps are being taken to ensure that the right level of scrutiny is applied when the value of contracts cannot be estimated?
Alex Burghart
As I said a few moments ago, the group we are discussing is in part about making sure that we do not create another loophole where, in a mixed contract, it is possible for a contracting authority to go for a below-threshold requirement because one part of the contract is covered by that. As we discussed in the previous group, the measure is intended to make sure that we are not creating an opportunity for people to play the system.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Utilities Contracts
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 6 explains that a utilities contract is a contract for the supply of goods, services or works wholly or mainly for the purpose of a utility activity. Utility activities are set out in schedule 4, but do not include activities that are carried out wholly outside the UK. In the case of private utilities, they include only activities carried out where a private utility has been granted a special or exclusive right.
A special or exclusive right exists where a private utility has been granted a right under a statutory, regulatory or administrative provision that has the effect of substantially creating a monopoly situation that would limit competition. A right is not special or exclusive if it is granted following a competitive tendering procedure under the Bill or otherwise on the basis of a transparent procedure and non-discriminatory criteria.
The utility activities set out in part 1 of schedule 4 cover the water, energy and transport sectors. Part 2 of schedule 4 lists specific activities that are not utility activities. An appropriate authority may make regulations to add or remove activities from part 2 of schedule 4. However, activities can be added to part 2 only where there is fair and effective competition in the relevant market and entry to that market is unrestricted.
Schedule 4 sets out the scope of utilities activities. This largely mirrors the coverage of the existing domestic regime and reflects our commitments in trade agreements such as the WTO Government procurement agreement.
Florence Eshalomi
Clause 6 and schedule 4 relate to the procurement of utilities, covering the scope of the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016. Historically, the procurement of utilities as defined in schedule 4 has run slightly differently from general procurement. For example, the value at which a contract passes the thresholds in schedule 1 is £426,955 for general utilities contracts, as opposed to £138,760 for central Government authorities and £213,477 for sub-central Government authorities.
I thank the Minister for explaining the mechanisms in place specifically for utilities contracts. I do not disagree with the rationale behind the systematic differences between how utilities contracts are awarded and managed and how general contracts are awarded. Following the publication of the Green Paper, the Government have responded to the sector’s concerns that the proposed system would be too onerous compared with the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016. However, I do not believe that the measures in the Bill should subtract from the significant problems that need to be addressed in the utilities sector.
In particular, we have seen the rail sector have deeply troubling issues among some contracted-out services in the past months, and it is vital that we manage contracts in a way that will help to mitigate those risks. For those of us who come from an Italian background, the word “avanti” means “to come in”, but I think it is fair to say that the word “Avanti” will see my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and many others roll their eyes in despair. The fact is that too many of Avanti’s trains have not, in fact, been coming into stations, with many cancellations and packed trains becoming a sad norm for huge swathes of the country.
Those on Avanti are not the only ones struggling. TransPennine Express, which connects places such as Grimsby, Doncaster, Sheffield and Liverpool, has also seen its performance struggle significantly. That is despite reports in The Telegraph that shareholders are due to earn a share of £75 million. For customers who turn up for their trains, day in and day out—many of whom have annual season tickets costing thousands of pounds—to see shareholders due to earn a share of that £75 million is a slap in the face. That also happened during the pandemic, when a number of trains up and down the country were cancelled, yet shareholders were again in line to pocket big payouts.
We have also seen franchises such as the east coast main line and Northern fall to the operator of last resort following the termination of the previous operator’s contract. The fact is that the operation of train contracts in this country is simply not fit for purpose. Even the Prime Minister cannot deny the problems, saying at Prime Minister’s Question Time on 30 November 2022:
“My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the unacceptable deterioration in the quality of Avanti’s service.”—[Official Report, 30 November 2022; Vol. 723, c. 898.]
Despite the criticism from the Prime Minister, the Government went on to award Avanti with a contract extension until 1 April 2023. That beggars belief.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) put it best when she said:
“By giving Avanti this six-month contract extension, after months of failure and rail chaos, this Government are frankly rewarding that failure. Avanti promised to improve services back in September, and instead it has gone and cut services, introduced this emergency timetable and almost entirely stopped selling tickets online.”
I remember trying to book tickets for annual conference last year; I kept going online and refreshing the page. I stopped using the laptop and went on to the iPad, thinking it was maybe the laptop that had problems. I stopped using the iPad and went on to my phone, thinking it was the iPad that had problems. But the tickets were not for sale; they came on sale a day before we were all due to travel to Liverpool. That mad rush at the whim of the train operators, effectively holding people to ransom, is frankly unacceptable.
My hon. Friend continued:
“The provision of reliable train services is essential for the economic growth and prosperity of more than half the UK’s population.”—[Official Report, 25 October 2022; Vol. 721, c. 160.]
At this time, we are hoping to see more people leave their cars at home and use public transport so that we tackle the really serious climate emergency. However, the fact that these companies are being awarded contracts yet are failing to deliver is another way in which the Government are not taking the climate emergency seriously.
Will the Minister provide clarification on the metrics that he will use to assess improvements or, indeed, failure, given that the bar is currently set so low? It is clear that the west coast franchise has been fundamentally mismanaged by Avanti. It may be beyond the Bill’s scope to completely fix the franchising mess in this country, but it is critical that we create a culture of procurement that is carried out in a way that restores public trust and offers fair treatment to everybody across the country.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Very often, these contracts consider only value for money and the relationship between the contracting parties, not the consumer. We have tabled other amendments that look at social value and the consumer, but is it not important, particularly in relation to utilities, that the consumer is key? The outcome of that is that the consumer gets a better service, rather than the contracting parties scrimping and saving, or slicing off money for their friends.
Florence Eshalomi
Hear, hear, and I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. We all remember the summer flash floods almost two years ago. People may think, “Actually, London is insulated from that”, but a number of my constituents were affected, and one issue that they outlined was the failure of Thames Water to maintain its pipes. Thames Water is another utility company that is essentially rewarding its shareholders instead of making sure that the public, which receives a vital and critical service from the company, is treated fairly. Customers see their water rates increasing and ad hoc repairs causing disruption on many roads, but all some of those companies think about are their shareholders, who continue to receive massive payouts. When we talk about procurement contracts, it is important that we think about the end users—the customers, the residents, our constituents—who all deserve value for money.
Kirsty Blackman
It is the case, though, that this Government are not keen to make a public service a public service. An awful lot of local banks have been closed, changes to Royal Mail since privatisation mean that people cannot get the services they need, and post offices have been closed. All that could be avoided by changing the mindset and ideology, and classing those things as public services for the benefit of the public, rather than for the benefit of shareholders.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the hon. Lady for making such a vital point. The Minister will wonder why I have so many examples, but just last week, I was notified that another local bank in my constituency, NatWest on Clapham High Street, will close and that a number of the branch’s customers had not been told. That is just another example of key services on our high streets, which many of our constituents rely on, disappearing. It is important that we remember the public element of those key services that continue to benefit from public contracts.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I want to raise the disastrous Southern Water and its continued spillage of sewage into our seas. Many of my constituents have become ill from sea and river swimming. Southern Water was prosecuted and found guilty of breaching water quality standards and pumping pollution into our rivers and oceans, but in the same year, the chief executive received a six-figure bonus. Clearly, there is something wrong with these utilities: there is no competition, never any procurement and they have the contract permanently, forever and ever. Does a clause that does not allow a company to be excluded from any form of procurement in the future simply let such a company continue to misbehave, as regulations are weak and shareholders run away with the profits?
Florence Eshalomi
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. A number of these companies know that they can get away with it. What they are doing is effectively legal, yet for our constituents who have to suffer the consequences it is not fair. The Government have spoken about trying to make a Procurement Bill that is fair, transparent and value for money, but this is not value for money because our constituents will receive hefty fines if they are a day late with their water bill or even if they send a package without the correct postage. We see the situation with Royal Mail and the chief exec, who, when he appeared before the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee a few weeks ago, was not very clear about the bonus he received, even though the figures were there and the Chair quoted them back to him. It cannot be acceptable for managing directors, chief execs and CEOs to continue to receive big payouts and for their shareholders to be paid while the services that our constituents and the public rely on are not delivered.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The case of British Telecom and Openreach is another good one. In my constituency, they planned to make all the engineers redundant and to move them to a place in the midlands at lower pay through a fire and rehire scheme. Fundamentally, that means that people will not have well-paid local engineers ploughing money back into the local economy. Is that not the problem of trying to centralise services and underpay engineers and technical staff? The profits go to offshore companies and they do not get recycled into the local economy.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for making such a valuable point. I am sure that Members will remember the fantastic private Member’s Bill on fire and rehire promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), which we debated in the House. Sadly, the Government voted it down. Throughout the pandemic, up and down the country, we saw a number of big multinational organisations using the cover of the pandemic to fire their staff, make drastic changes to their work conditions and try to re-employ them on lower wages and weaker conditions. In organisations such as British Gas/Centrica and British Airways, dedicated levels of service from staff were thrown out of the window, yet those companies continue to receive big payouts for their shareholders and CEOs. We need to address this situation; the Government could have addressed it, but they failed to do so. We have a Procurement Bill in front of us that could help to address some of the loopholes, yet the Government are failing to take it on board.
Perhaps the most frustrating thing for our train passengers is the poor service that they continue to receive while they know that the train operating companies that do such a poor job will continue to be rewarded with those contracts. LNER runs the east coast main line and we might think that it would face similar logistics to Avanti, yet it has nowhere near the same problems. It is not just a timing issue. It is shameful that until 27 November 2020, Northern rail services between some towns were carried out using bus-like Pacer trains that were designed to be inexpensive temporary solutions in the ’80s.
We have heard a lot about levelling up, but we cannot level up when we have such inequal transport across the country. I say that as a Londoner, where we have Transport for London and regular buses. Whenever we leave—this issue is raised by many Members from all parties—we see that the level of service and transport provision across the country is not fair.
Kirsty Blackman
I am lucky enough not to have to travel on the west coast main line terribly often, but when I did last year I ended up having to get an overnight Megabus because there were no trains. It has put me off ever visiting any of those places on the west coast that I would normally get to by train. Those communities are losing out as a result—not just the people who live there all the time, but the people who want to visit the really cool places on that line.
The Chair
I am sure that these are important points, but we are straying slightly off the clauses. Can we stick to the clause we are debating?
Florence Eshalomi
Thank you, Mr Mundell, for your guidance. I agree with the hon. Lady that if we want to ensure that all sectors of our economy recover after the pandemic, it is important that people can get to those places.
I hope the Minister will work with the Department for Transport in implementing these regulations to ensure that proper levels of security and resources are in the Bill. Hopefully, that will restore trust in our rail sector.
Alex Burghart
Thank you for your guidance on digressions, Mr Mundell. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall is aware, rail is not dealt with in the Bill. Schedule 2(17) states that public passenger transport services are exempt and will continue to be regulated by other means, but I believe that Transport questions are coming up shortly, so she will have the opportunity to raise her concerns with the Secretary of State.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 7
Defence and security contracts
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 7 defines “defence and security contract”, which is used in certain clauses and schedules to make specific provision for such contracts. The definition primarily covers contracts currently within the scope of the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011, but it also includes other contracts set out in subsection(1)(g), where the defence and security provisions in the Bill are to apply.
The clause also defines a defence authority contract, which is a defence and security contract entered into by a defence authority. A defence authority will be specified in regulations. It is a contracting authority that exercises its functions wholly and mainly for the purposes of defence or national security. The clause also sets out additional definitions for terms used in the definition of “defence and security contract”.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I look forward to working with the members of the Committee and the Clerks as we work our way through this important Bill.
It is also a pleasure to serve opposite the Minister, whom I count as a personal friend. We often exchange text messages in the early hours of a Sunday morning or late on a Saturday night—I do not want anybody reading anything into that, but we are both huge boxing fans, and we are usually debating the merits of the latest big fight. The last time we faced each other, we debated the merits of Lennox Lewis, the greatest British fighter of all time. I think I won that one, but let us see how we go today.
Clause 7 sets out definitions for defence and security contracts—in particular, for the supply of a range of contracts on military equipment, sensitive equipment, logistics services, goods, services or works necessary for the development, production, maintenance or decommissioning of equipment and work that is relevant to the country’s readiness for action and the security of the armed forces. Those definitions are crucial, because defence procurement is one of the most important activities undertaken by the Government.
The Ministry of Defence is the fifth largest spender on procurement in central Government. In 2019-20, it spent £15.9 billion on procurement, and since the pandemic, that has inevitably increased. One of the key functions of a state is to defend itself, and for it to do that, we must ensure that our armed forces have the equipment they need. Our national security, our ability to defend ourselves as a nation and the lives and safety of our troops rely in part on procuring the best equipment. As a country, we have always taken that duty to our armed forces seriously, but at times, tragically, we have not reached the level they deserve. I hope that in this Committee we can work together to improve the procurement system with the shared goal of ensuring that our forces get the equipment they deserve.
Promoting public safety should be the priority of any Government, and defence and security contracts are at the centre of that principle. It is therefore crucial that we get it right. The clause speaks to the procurement of not just the supply of military equipment, but the goods, services or works necessary for the development, production, maintenance or decommissioning of such equipment.
For my sins, between 2015 and 2019, I served on the Public Accounts Committee, and I remember some very uncomfortable hearings with some—shall we say—reticent Ministers who had to explain a lot of mistakes. If there is one thing I learned, it is this: if we do not get contracts absolutely right, it is not just a waste of taxpayers’ money; it puts our safety at risk.
I know you said we should not digress from the clause, Mr Mundell, but I want to use as an example the contract for the decommissioning of the Magnox nuclear reactors. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority failed to understand the scale and complexity of the work needed, and by the time the contract was terminated, the cost to the taxpayer, according to the National Audit Office, was £122 million. I am sad to say that that is not an isolated case—I could be here all day talking about all sorts of examples. I raise this because it is so important that procurement is undertaken with proper care and consideration, and unfortunately there are too many examples of that just not happening.
Kirsty Blackman
I want to focus on the last point made by the hon. Member for Islwyn on local content and contract value. The value of these contracts, even when they are within budget, is significant. A huge number of jobs are being created and massive amounts of Government money are being spent, but I do not feel that the MOD is utilising it in the best possible way, not only because of the problems of budgets being overrun, the amount of time being taken, and equipment not necessarily being fit for purpose when it arrives, but also because of the fact that the way the contracts system works is that the MOD is dealing with tier 1 suppliers.
The system is not hands on enough. We need to look at the suppliers that will be subcontracted and ensure that local content is used and local jobs are created. If the MOD is only looking, for example, at the tier 1 contractors and not digging underneath, and if the majority of the contract are then being subcontracted, there is not adequate oversight or steering of the contract to ensure that best possible use is being made of public funds, so we get both the best equipment and the highest quality jobs created and funded as a result.
In Scotland, one of the things that the MOD is not doing quite as well as it could be is working with the supplier development programme. That programme literally links public authorities and public contracting authorities with suppliers, but it has not had as much input from the MOD as it would like. No matter what the situation is with the reserved nature of the MOD, the reality is that it has lots of places in Scotland, and lots of those require procurement. That conversation between the local contractors and the MOD itself is not happening on the scale it should be. Local suppliers do not have the access to the contracts that they should or would like to have. One way this could be improved is by the MOD becoming more involved in the supplier development programme, which is specifically about making those links.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
I acknowledge the existence of the supplier development programme, but can the hon. Member explain why those suppliers would not ordinarily or necessarily interact directly with the MOD? Is it possible that having a Scottish version of that interaction is getting in the way?
Kirsty Blackman
No. A number of these contractor organisations went along to a training session that was run by the supplier development programme on applying for MOD contracts. But the thing is, those tier 1 suppliers were being given the contract. The MOD is not looking at local suppliers in the first instance in the way that it could.
I am not saying that local suppliers should always get every contract. Such a blanket approach would not be appropriate; but even those that have gone through training and have a better understanding of how to apply for MOD contracts are not necessarily being included. The supplier development programme is, for example, running a major event on 17 May this year where companies are put in touch with public authorities, but the MOD has not confirmed that it is willing to attend the event, or suggested that its tier 1 contractors should attend. I am absolutely not saying that the MOD should exclusively work with the supplier development programme. However, this is specifically about making those links. If the MOD were to get involved, it would have a better understanding of the companies out there that it would be able to contract from, the companies would have a better understanding of how best to put in tenders for the MOD, and that link would be better made between the two organisations.
I am not seeing this from the point of view of the MOD being a reserved organisation so I do not like it or agree with the way it works. The supplier development programme has not raised the same concerns with me about other reserved functions that happen in Scotland. It is specifically finding this issue with the MOD, which does have significant numbers of bases and places in Scotland, but is not as willing to engage as it could be. I am just pushing gently—I am not trying to have a big argument about this—to suggest that the MOD could do better in this regard. One of the best ways to do that would be to open that conversation and ensure that it is getting involved.
David Duguid
Genuinely, in the spirit of trying to resolve the issue the hon. Lady brings up, I would be interested to talk to her offline about this. I have suppliers in Banff and Buchan who have in the past, and perhaps still do, provide services to the MOD—in fact, I know at least one of them still does. As far as I know, those suppliers deal with the MOD directly. If there is a way that we can get more businesses from our constituencies to the MOD, I would be more than happy to help.
Kirsty Blackman
I am happy to have a conversation with the hon. Gentleman afterwards and ensure he has the contact details for the supplier development programme, so that it can lay out some of its concerns to him. Hopefully, he can similarly provide a gentle push in the background to ensure that everybody—both the people looking to contract and the contracting authorities looking to have the best possible contract and tender applications made—is getting the best possible outcome from this scenario.
Alex Burghart
It is a pleasure to be opposite my friend on the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for Islwyn. I am sorry to say that such was the scale of his knockout defeat in that debate that it appears to have blurred his memory—we established without controversy that, as I defended, Lennox Lewis was the greatest British fighter of all time.
To the hon. Gentleman’s point, we certainly agree that it is absolutely important to get these contracts right. The spirit running through the Bill is to have a streamlined process that makes it easier for everybody to understand their opportunities and responsibilities. On the point made by both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, we will see as we go through the Bill that there are many opportunities through transparency and clauses put in to support SMEs to enable British businesses of different sizes to be able to avail themselves of opportunities in procurement, generally, but also in defence. In that spirit, I look forward to having specific conversations with the hon. Gentleman on those clauses as we progress.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Julie Marson.)
Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)
Tuesday 31st January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 31 January 2023 - (31 Jan 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
Colleagues will be sad to hear that we have only 117 clauses to go as we enter this second sitting. Clause 8 defines the concept of a concession contract. It is a type of public contract, and its award is regulated by the Bill. Subsection (1) sets out the key concepts specific to a concession contract. There are two main features. First, under a concession contract, at least part of the consideration received must lie in the right to exploit the works or services. A good example might be a concession contract to operate a canteen where the supplier receives income from customers.
Secondly, in exploiting that right, the supplier or concessionaire must be exposed to a real operating risk. Subsection (2) defines an operating risk, which is a risk that the supplier will be unable to recover its costs through the concession—for example, the risk of fluctuating vehicle numbers and income under a contract for the construction and operation of a toll bridge where the supplier has the right to receive the toll income.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Apologies for my lateness, Mr Efford. Clause 8 refers to concessionary contracts—contracts through which the authority contracts out work on the basis that the contracted company may be able to exploit or charge for extracted resources. Examples include the channel tunnel, which was paid for by private finance, with the financiers picking up the benefits. We support these contracts in principle—they can help us to build things without much cost to the taxpayer, and can help to expand the state—but there needs to be a balance. There needs to be guidance on what the right cost is. We could lose millions if the cost is wrong and the concession is given away too cheaply. Also, when deals regarding important infrastructure are signed, there needs to be caution to ensure that the long-term running of the system is up to standard. It is important that performance-based targets are included, as well as provisions for infrastructure building.
The Green Paper highlights that proposals for integrating the regulations for concession contracts into the core regime will be taken forward. However, there will be specific provisions covering the definition of a concession, how a concession contract is to be valued, and the duration of that concession. Those specific provisions address the key points raised by stakeholders in the consultation. The Government also propose to retain the higher financial threshold for concession contracts, greater discretion with regard to the method of calculating the estimated value of a concession contract, and an exemption for lottery-operating services, as well as other exemptions that come under the current regime; in all other respects, procurements for concession contracts will be subject to the new regime. We support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Light touch contracts
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Light-touch provisions reflect the fact that certain public contracts, including those for social, healthcare and legal services, can warrant special treatment and greater flexibility. Flexibility is permitted by the scope of our international agreements. Clause 9 introduces the term “light-touch contract”, and provides for regulations to define which exact services should be subject to the lighter rules. As in the existing regime, common procurement vocabulary codes will be used to specify services.
The special features of the contracts are identified in subsection (4), which helps to prevent any inappropriate use of the power, as does compliance with our international agreements, which would prevent us from expanding the scope of what is included in the light-touch regime.
Light-touch contracts will be openly advertised unless a direct award ground applies. Contracting authorities will have to apply the exclusions and consider conflicts of interest. Transparency will be maintained through publication requirements, including requirements for an award notice, a contract detail notice and, when the contract is over £5 million, publication of the contract. By integrating these light-touch contracts into the broader regime, and having carve-outs where greater flexibility is justified, we have made it much clearer how such procurement should be run, and have ensured that probity and transparency are built into the process, while respecting these contracts’ unique characteristics.
Florence Eshalomi
I understand the need for a light-touch contracts regime, but I share the concerns expressed in the other place about the scale of the changes. Lady Noakes tabled a probing amendment that pressed the Government on why such contracts are not more narrowly or widely defined. Her amendment 30 sought to confine light-touch contracts to those concerning health or social care services provided to individuals, on the basis that that is how they are used at the moment—that is my understanding. However, if the Government believe that the definition should be wider, they should put that in the Bill. Open-ended regulation-making powers should not be necessary and are not desirable.
As the Minister is aware, the Cabinet Office delegated powers memorandum justifies the power by saying:
“While the scope of what is to be included in regulations made under this power is known, it is not practical for the Bill to include a long list of detailed…CPV codes to indicate which categories of contracts may benefit”
from the light-touch regime. It goes on to say that
“CPV codes may evolve over time, which would…require amendment to the Bill.”
However, the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee found that explanation to be inadequate, as
“it does not explain why it is considered appropriate for the power to be so broad that the issue of which kinds of contracts are to be subject to the ‘light touch contract’ regime is left entirely to regulations. There is nothing of substance on the face of the Bill to limit the discretion afforded to Ministers to allow less rigorous regulation for contracts of a kind that they choose to specify in regulations. Clause 8(4) lists three factors which Ministers must consider but without saying what effect these factors are to have. The Memorandum suggests that the provision made in exercise of the power will simply be a list of CPV codes but the power need not be exercised in that way.”
In its conclusion, the Committee said that
“the reasons given by the Government for leaving entirely to regulations the question of which contracts should be subject only to the ‘light touch’ regulatory regime are inadequate”,
and recommended that
“unless the Government can fully justify doing otherwise, the Bill should include criteria for determining which contracts should be subject to that regime.”
I understand the Government’s response to the consultation—that it might be tricky to tie down a definition and put it in the Bill—and Labour therefore does not seek to amend clause 9 today. However, I share the concerns aired in the other place about the scope of this part of the Bill. I am also concerned that the Government have not justified their stance beyond pointing to the existence of the common procurement vocabulary codes. Many feel that that does not answer the question posed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I would like clarity from the Government on whether they are working closely with the likes of Lady Noakes to put their minds at rest. In particular, I would welcome a clear definition of what the powers in clause 8 mean in practice and how the Government intend to use them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Mixed procurement: special regime contracts
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 10 concerns mixed contracts that involve an element to be procured under the general rules regime and an element to be procured under one of the special rules regimes. We discussed the objective of clause 5, which is in a similar vein. It is important to provide for such mixed contracts—a need for them will inevitability arise—while safeguarding against exploitation of exemptions and the lighter-touch rules. That will be achieved through the introduction of a test of separability, a safeguard similar to that in clause 5.
If separation of the general rules regime and special rules regime elements are possible, but a contracting authority chooses not to separate out the contract, then that mixed contract must be awarded in accordance with the general rules. It will not qualify for the special rules regime if the elements could reasonably be procured separately, having regard to the practical and financial consequences of splitting the requirement out.
Florence Eshalomi
As the Minister outlined, clause 10 is similar to clause 5. It is uncontroversial, as we see it, and it closes a loophole where one part of a contract could come under the special rules regime.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Covered procurement only in accordance with this Act
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 11 requires contracting authorities to carry out covered procurement solely in accordance with the Bill. Specifically, they must use the procedures in the Bill for competitive award, direct award and framework agreements. That will ensure that contracting authorities properly engage with the market and achieve value for money.
The duty that clause 11 creates will allow a supplier to hold a contracting authority to account. Remedies are available under part 9 when it can be demonstrated that a contracting authority has materially failed to have regard to one or more of the requirements in the Bill— for example, where there is direct award without proper justification, or discriminatory technical specifications —and the supplier consequently suffers, or is at risk of suffering, loss or damage.
Florence Eshalomi
We support this uncontroversial clause. It underpins many parts of the Bill, and mandates that procurement must be carried out under the terms of the Bill. The clause also points to different parts of the Bill for different forms of procurement—to clause 19 on competitive award, clause 41 on direct award in special cases, clause 43 on direct award after switching procedures, and clause 45 on award under frameworks.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Covered procurement: objectives
Florence Eshalomi
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 12, page 9, line 24, after “money” insert
“, including value that is social value within the meaning of the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, overall providing the optimum balance of economy, efficiency, effectiveness and equity”.
This amendment would require social value to be considered in the procurement objectives.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 10, in clause 12, page 9, line 25, after “benefit” insert
“and public value, including in relation to benefits and value contributing to socio-economic development, to be realised over time and in relation to areas of public responsibility of other contracting authorities.”
This amendment would require public value to be considered in the procurement objectives.
Amendment 100, in clause 12, page 9, line 28, at end insert—
“(e) mitigating climate change and “Net Zero” commitments.”
Amendment 101, in clause 12, page 9, line 28, at end insert—
“(e) transparency and anti-corruption efforts.”
Amendment 89, in clause 12, page 9, line 28, at end insert—
“(1A) In having regard to delivering value for money under subsection (1), a contracting authority must consider the impact of delivering the contract on—
(a) social value,
(b) the ability to meet the needs of service users,
(c) long-term value, including the prevention of adverse life outcomes and the increasing demand for services that results from adverse life outcomes,
(d) savings to other areas of public service delivery, and
(e) furthering equality and tackling inequality.”
This amendment would define value for money when carrying out covered procurement.
New clause 2—Procurement principles—
“(1) In carrying out a procurement, a contracting authority must pursue the following principles—
(a) promoting the public good, by having regard to the delivery of strategic national priorities including economic, social, environmental and public safety priorities,
(b) value for money, by having regard to the optimal whole-life blend of economy, efficiency and effectiveness that achieves the intended outcome of the business case,
(c) transparency, by acting openly to underpin accountability for public money, anti-corruption and the effectiveness of procurements,
(d) integrity, by providing good management, preventing misconduct, and control in order to prevent fraud and corruption,
(e) fair treatment of suppliers, by ensuring that decision-making is impartial and without conflict of interest, and
(f) non-discrimination, by ensuring that decision-making is not discriminatory.
(2) If a contracting authority considers that it is unable to act in accordance with any of these principles in a particular case, it must—
(a) take all reasonable steps to ensure it does not put a supplier at an unfair advantage or disadvantage, and
(b) publish a report within 90 days setting out the principles with which it could not act in accordance and its reasons.”
This new clause would require contracting authorities to pursue a series of principles when carrying out procurements
Florence Eshalomi
Our amendment 9 would require social value to be considered as a procurement objective. We welcome the changes made in the other place to include social value in the national procurement policy statement, but I was disappointed to see scant mention of social value in the original version of the Bill.
Social value is a tool that makes it easier to give money to local British enterprises, creating jobs, skills and green opportunities in those communities. It rewards providers that want to build a better society and contribute to our nation’s prosperity in the long term, and it can convey a huge amount of value.
I have quoted these figures to the Minister before: Social Enterprise UK found that between 2010 and 2020 we may have missed over £700 billion-worth of opportunities to create economic, social and environmental value. The Bill provides an opportunity to make, buy and sell more in Britain, which is something that we should all champion, and a chance to give more public contracts to large, medium and small-sized British companies, so that contracts do not automatically always go to giant offshore corporations with the lowest price. Those contracts should go to businesses that create local jobs, and provide skills and training, and to businesses that maintain workers’ rights and trade union access.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a good speech. Obviously, we do not see much social value in the Bill. I would go back to a speech that I made in the Chamber a week ago about Mersey ferries. The Liverpool Mayor commissioned a replacement for the iconic but decades-old Mersey ferries, and Cammell Laird, which sits on the River Mersey, was singularly well-suited to build it. It had a reputation for quality and innovation across the sector, and sits right on the banks of the Mersey. Building a new ferry in Cammell Laird would have guaranteed the viability of the site and allowed the yards to make further investments. Not only that, but it would have employed a lot of local people. This is all about social value. Why should it be only companies that benefit? The community should level up, and get the value out of social value.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for that example of why social value is so important. That contract was a missed opportunity to employ local people. We all want those local benefits, and employment in our constituency, so it is important that contracts be awarded to local companies, as well as the big ones.
Amendment 10 would require public value to be among the procurement objectives. That would complement our amendment on social value; together, the amendments would add real teeth to the Bill, and would give contracting authorities the mandate to make decisions that would benefit not only their area but the whole country. That is important because we spend £3 billion a year on procurement, and although the Bill is a step forward, without clear mandates on social value and public value, contracting authorities may miss out on the chance of creating tremendous value for the public through their procurement processes. Amendment 89 clarifies that by explicitly providing a wider definition of value for money. The Bill does not define value for money, nor does it set out what can or should be considered when an assessment is being made of which is the most advantageous tender.
Legislation allows for wider considerations of value, but the determining factor too often remains the low unit cost. That is problematic because it can lead to services being procured that do not effectively meet needs, and it can drive higher costs in the long term, particularly when it leads to a spiral of support needs. People do not get the support that they need, and their need for support escalates as a result. They are forced to keep going to services that cannot give them the help that they need, or cannot address the root causes of their issues.
Although the Cabinet Office is planning training to be rolled out alongside the legislation to encourage culture change, it is important that the legislation goes as far as possible in encouraging better practice. Further defining value for money is an example of how it could be done.
The aim of amendment 89 is to help to prevent the false economies that arise when we take value for money on a short-term and shallow basis. When we are considering such massive parts of public spending, crossing many levels, it is vital that every penny spent ties together. We do not want a situation where saving a penny in one pot loses a pound from another. By defining value for money in the way that the amendment does, we could ensure that contracting authorities consider the wider impact of their decisions. Again, that could lead to significant efficiency savings for this and future Governments, and to stronger public services for all to enjoy.
New clause 2 would place the procurement principles on the face of the Bill: promoting the public good; value for money; transparency; integrity; fair treatment of suppliers; and non-discrimination. In their December 2020 Green Paper, “Transforming public procurement”, the Government proposed enshrining those principles in law. In responding to the consultation, the Government stated that 92% of 477 respondents agreed with the original desire to put the procurement principles in the Bill, so I was not the only one surprised when the principles were missing from the Bill when it was published in the other place.
Our new clause 2 seeks to accomplish the original aim of the Bill. I know that we will hear from the Minister that we should trust the Government on such issues, and that we should wait for the national procurement policy statement, rather than looking to put things in the Bill. The principles are so important to how we carry out procurement, however, and perhaps the best source for why that is so comes from the Government. In the Green Paper, the Government say of the public good:
“The decision to invest public funds into policies, services, projects and programmes is subject to analysis and appraisal to assess the public good that is expected to accrue as a result of the expenditure. For national spending this will have been conducted in accordance with the HM Treasury Green Book guidance and subject to National Audit Office scrutiny. Procurement should draw a clear link between the objectives, outcomes and anticipated benefits that underpin the investment decision and the selection of contracting parties to deliver those benefits…Public procurement should also be leveraged to support strategic national priorities. Commercial teams should have regard to the Government’s national priorities when conducting public procurement. These will be set out in the National Procurement Policy Statement…This is consistent with international practice where public procurement is regularly leveraged to achieve social and environmental value beyond the primary benefit of the specific goods, services and capital works through operational delivery that contributes additional social value.”
The Green Paper goes on to say of value for money:
“The Government is making clearer the ways in which value for money is assessed at the point of the investment decision, which will be set out in a revised Green Book. A critical element of the assessment is a strong strategic case that sets: a clear objective aligned to government priorities, a rationale for intervention, and/or robust evidence and analysis for how different options for delivering that intervention will advance that objective…The role of procurement is to translate the desired outcomes into the right contracts and select the supplier or suppliers that will deliver these in the way that offers best social value for money. For many procurements there may only be a single contract, but for complex major projects there will be many hundreds of separate contracts of different types, sizes and sectors that need to be packaged and procured in such a way as to deliver the whole project successfully. Whether there is one contract or many it is critical to maintain the ‘golden thread’ from government priorities via the business cases through to procurement specifications and the assessment of price and quality when awarding contracts.
Value for money does not therefore mean simply selecting the lowest price, it means securing the best mix of whole-life quality and effectiveness for the least outlay over the period of use of the goods, works or services bought. Value for money also involves an appropriate allocation of risk and an assessment of the procurement to provide confidence about its probity, suitability, and economic, social and environmental value over its life cycle.” On transparency, the Green Paper states:
“The principle of transparency in public procurement is central to the integrity and accountability of the system and the fight against corruption. This is consistent with best international practice. It ensures business opportunities are accessible and processes and decisions can be monitored and scrutinised. It ensures that decision makers are held accountable for spending public money and helps open up public procurement to more effective competition that in return can deliver better value for money.”
On integrity, it states:
“The principle of integrity is key to strengthening trust and combating corruption. Procurement professionals must always bear in mind the needs of the ‘customer’ or ‘user’. Planning a public procurement must promote good governance, sound management of public money, and a professional relationship between buyer and supplier, e.g. managing conflicts of interest, protecting intellectual property and copyrights, confidential information or other standards of professional behaviour.”
On the fair treatment of suppliers, it states:
“The principle of fair treatment of suppliers means all suppliers must receive fair and reasonable treatment before, during and after the contract award procedure so as to encourage participation by suppliers of all types and sizes. Suppliers should have timely access to review mechanisms to ensure the overall fairness of the procurement process.”
And on non-discrimination, the Green Paper states:
“The principle of non-discrimination applies to procurement under the new regulations and means contracting authorities cannot show favouritism among domestic suppliers. This principle also applies to suppliers who have rights under an international trade agreement that covers the procurement. Non-discrimination in this context means that suppliers, goods and services from any other party to the agreement are given no less favourable treatment than domestic suppliers, goods and services.”
Thank you, Mr Efford, for indulging me; I felt it was really important to outline the very same principles that the Government put in the Bill, but on which they have now reneged. I do not think anyone in this room would disagree with those principles, but the treatment of the procurement principles during the lifetime of the Bill shows why we are keen to make sure we get this down in legislation. We cannot rely on just words and expect to trust the Government when they have already changed their mind on the Bill so much.
Delegating so much responsibility to regulations and statements risks taking the Bill further away from its original intentions, and I do not think that even the Minister wants that. I hope he has listened to those key statements, as outlined by his Government. I urge him to live up to the pledges in the Green Paper, which were supported in the other place, and to support our amendment.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Thank you for chairing our sitting this afternoon, Mr Efford; we appreciate it. I am going to talk about my amendment 101 and also the Labour party’s amendments 9, 10, 89 and new clause 2.
I am happy to support all the Labour party’s amendments. It is particularly important to put new clause 2 in the Bill. I cannot find a definition of value for money or of public benefit in the Bill. If the Government are making suggestions about how contracting authorities should proceed, they should be clearer about what that means and what outcomes they are seeking in the Bill, rather than in a national procurement statement to come at a later time. I understand that the Government’s priorities will change, which is to be expected, particularly when we expect a change of Government. That will happen and they will definitely have different priorities, but the principles that we are talking about in new clause 2 will surely not change. They are the threads that should run through everything we do and all the decisions we make.
I want to mention integrity specifically. The Prime Minister has said that he wants his Government to be marked by professionalism, accountability and integrity; it is very clear that integrity is one of the Government’s priorities in this regard, so not having it on the face of the Bill when the Government have been very clear that they support it seems odd to me. Adding it to the Bill through new clause 2 would be incredibly useful.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to support all the amendments in this group. I will talk a little bit about the importance of requiring people to consider social value. Currently, councils might consider it. It is an option for some, and many councils weave through the requirements and the paperwork to do so. I think about Liverpool City Council or Preston City Council; many Labour councils are leading the way in navigating the current system.
In Sussex, this situation causes real problems, where some councils are proactive and others not. A year and a half ago, our domestic abuse services, run by a local charity called RISE, went up for tender. RISE was created by women in the city, with support from the council. This time around, the contracting authority was East Sussex, West Sussex, Brighton and Hove, and the police trying to do it together. As only Brighton and Hove had social value as a key part of its procurement process, social value was dropped entirely. The procurement process did not consider RISE’s social value whatsoever.
Unsurprisingly, RISE lost the contract. That meant that decades of understanding the needs of women from an organisation that had grown out of the Brighton Women’s Centre—a successful centre that I have taken Justice Ministers to a couple of times—and the refuge support that was provided, was no longer there. A national organisation, with no presence in the city, came to take over. The problem is that not only is the money now taken out of the area and distributed elsewhere—an enterprise has the contract rather than a charity—but when procurement comes around next time, there will be no local competition because the experience will have been lost and RISE’s ability to bid again will have been depreciated.
The service could well have been within the council, so no procurement would have been needed. However, because we wanted women to run it themselves and for it to be women-led, it was an external to the council. That meant procurement rules were applied and the women’s organisation lost out to a housing organisation—not even an organisation specialising in domestic violence, abuse, refuge or any of the key areas.
Alex Burghart
I will try to treat all the amendments in this large group in order. Amendment 9 seeks to replace the well-understood concept of value for money with a new duty, by importing into the procurement objectives the meaning of “social value” under the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012. There are difficulties with that approach, I am afraid, in particular that there is no definition of “social value” in that Act. Contracting authorities are also likely to struggle to understand the concept of equity in the context of procurement.
Amendment 10 is unnecessary, as “public benefit” already allows for “public value” and for contributing to socioeconomic development to be considered where appropriate and relevant. This amendment also undermines the concept of what is in the public benefit by overlaying a similar but different concept of public value. That suggests that benefit and value are different things, and narrows the former term in a way that is not legally helpful.
Amendments 9 and 10 are also not necessary to ensure that social value is considered in the procurement objectives. The public benefit objective in subsection (1)(b) requires contracting authorities to think about the extent to which public money spent on their contracts can deliver greater benefit than it otherwise would—for example, broader social value or equitable outcomes for groups such as armed forces veterans, local employment and such like.
Amendment 101, tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, seeks to add transparency and anti-corruption efforts to the list of procurement objectives in the Bill. The Bill, however, will establish a world-leading transparency regime. It will see more commercial information published in three nations of the UK than ever before, including information on upcoming procurements prior to opportunities being advertised, and data against key performance indicators on major contracts, so that taxpayers can see how well contracts are being performed. Transparency is therefore already a mandatory requirement.
Florence Eshalomi
Is the Minister aware that the Government’s own “transparency ambition” document outlines a failure to provide for transparency in our procurement system? Some of the measures he has outlined are a step forward, but they still lack substantiveness to give providers and the public access to the full transparency that we need. Should we not look to follow in the steps of Ukraine in publishing an accessible digital dashboard, which would help the Government?
Alex Burghart
As the hon. Lady knows, transparency sits throughout the Bill. As I have just said, there are far greater requirements to publish than ever before, on an online platform that the Government will provide. She gave the important example of Ukraine. She will remember that we talked about this on Second Reading: the Ukrainians were advisers to the UK Government when we were putting our ideas together, so we are very much building on what they did in Ukraine. This will be an extraordinary step forward for transparency in the nations that are taking it up.
The Bill also requires contracting authorities to have regard to acting, and being seen to act, with integrity. That will oblige them to consider how to prevent fraud and corruption through good management, prevention of misconduct, and control. Failure to take anti-corruption steps or measures will be an indication that the contracting authority did not have a regard to the importance of acting and being seen to act with integrity.
Contracting authorities will also be required to comply with the provisions in the Bill on conflicts of interests and the exclusion of suppliers, preventing contracts from being awarded to inappropriate suppliers. That provides further opportunities to directly address transparency and anti-corruption issues within the context of a procurement. I hope that we all agree that it is essential that the procurement regime commands the trust of suppliers, the public and our international trading partners. In our view, the Bill already provides for those matters as it stands.
Amendment 89 seeks to define value for money. Clause 12 specifically does not define value for money to leave a degree of flexibility for different types of contracting authorities to adapt the concept for their own procurements. Contracting authorities should be able to select the most advantageous tender that prioritises things that deliver value for money for them. There are many precedents on the statute book where the term is left undefined, and that allows for a degree of flexibility. I could point to the Communications Act 2003, the Energy Act 2004, the Defence Reform Act 2014, the Bus Services Act 2017, and so on.
Kirsty Blackman
The Minister has answered the question in relation to value for money not being defined in this Bill because it is mentioned in other measures without that kind of definition. Regarding the term “public benefit”, is it also the case that it is widely used in other legislation without being defined? If the Minister does not have an answer now, I would be happy to hear something afterwards.
Alex Burghart
No, I am happy to say that it is already set out in the social value Act, I think, which I mentioned at the start of my remarks. Similarly to amendment 9, we feel that amendment 89 is unnecessary, as “public benefit” already allows for those factors to be considered, where appropriate and relevant to the contract being awarded.
New clause 2, also tabled by the hon. Member for Vauxhall, seeks to oblige contracting authorities to follow the six principles that the Government consulted on in the Green Paper. Now, the Green Paper was just that; it was a Green Paper and it formed the basis of what came subsequently. The six principles in the Green Paper were subsequently refined and then translated into the objectives and specific obligations that now exist in the Bill in the light of the responses to the Green Paper.
The language of a Green Paper is not the language of legislation, and one of the main lessons from the Green Paper and the consultation was the need to reflect the principles in a way that helps contracting authorities understand how they will implement them. That is what we have done. However, I assure the Committee that each of those principles remains within the Bill in an appropriate form. “Value for money” remains a fundamental tenet of the procurement regime. It is well understood by contracting authorities so does not need to be elaborated on.
“Public good” was focused on the delivery of strategic national priorities, so we revised it to the objective of “public benefit” to address the concerns raised in the public response to the Green Paper that it was solely about national, and not local, priorities. The revised principle supports wider consideration of social value benefits.
As we have discussed, “transparency” remains as an objective to encourage information sharing with suppliers, and “integrity” also remains an objective. The public response to the Green Paper indicated that “fair treatment” was too subjective for contracting authorities to determine by objective standards, so we introduced the concept of “treating suppliers the same”, which hon. Members will find in clause 12(2). Finally, “non-discrimination” has been converted from an objective to a hard-edged obligation in clauses 88 to 90.
The combination of the objectives and specific legal obligations in the Bill deals with procurement principles more effectively than the broad principles that the Government consulted on in the Green Paper. I therefore respectfully request that the amendments be withdrawn.
Florence Eshalomi
I heard the Minister’s response, and I think, again, that it is disappointing that there is a total shift between what was introduced by the Government in the Green Paper and what we now see in front of us. That was also noted in the other place.
I welcome the aim of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. That is something that we do support, and I know that she highlighted it in a Westminster Hall debate just last week. Climate change is something that we are very much concerned about.
On ensuring that we think about the next generation, we can only do that if we protect the environment and the Earth that we are on now. We only have one opportunity. We cannot do it later, because there will be nothing left. That is a key issue that our young people are concerned about, and it must be front and centre in this Bill.
The climate elements of the Bill are really important. They touch on social value and on public value. There is an interwoven link showing why that is important, and that should receive due consideration, so it is a shame to hear the Minister not wanting to take those measures forward.
Kirsty Blackman
If possible—I did not indicate this before—I would like to push amendment 100 to a vote.
Florence Eshalomi
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 12, page 9, line 36, after “enterprises” insert “and co-operative societies”.
This amendment, together with Amendments 2 and 3, would ensure that the barriers to cooperative societies are considered by contracting authorities during the procurement process.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 90, in clause 12, page 9, line 36, after “enterprises” insert “and charities”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 91, would ensure that the barriers to charities are considered by contracting authorities during the procurement process.
Amendment 91, in clause 16, page 13, line 17, at end insert—
‘(6) In carrying out preliminary market engagement, a contracting authority must consider potential barriers to participation by small and medium sized enterprises and charities, and take steps to mitigate any barriers identified.’
This amendment, together with Amendment 90, would ensure that the barriers to charities are considered by contracting authorities during the procurement process.
Amendment 2, in clause 85, page 57, line 27, after “enterprises” insert “and co-operative societies”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 3, in clause 119, page 77, line 24, at end insert—
‘“co-operative society” means—
(a) a society registered as a co-operative society under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014, or
(b) a pre-commencement society (within the meaning of that Act) that meets the condition in section 2(2)(a)(i) of that Act;’.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Florence Eshalomi
The amendments relate to co-ops and charities, respectively. As a proud Labour/Co-op MP and a huge believer in the co-operative movement, I am proud that the amendments relating to co-ops were the first to be tabled.
The amendments follow in the same vein as amendments made in the other place, which Labour supports, to help remove barriers to the procurement process. We want SMEs to have fair access to public procurement, and those amendments will help to make a positive impact on the inclusion of SMEs in the procurement system. In fact, we think the amendments have so much potential that we want them to apply to other groups that we see as disadvantaged by the system.
One of those groups is co-ops. There are over 7,000 co-operatives across the UK employing 250,000 people, and they make an annual contribution to the UK economy of nearly £40 billion. They range in size from large retail co-operatives, such as the Co-op, to small community pubs, and include co-operative financial institutions such as credit unions and building societies. Indeed, many will be SMEs and already covered by the clause.
Historically—and as evidenced by experiences during covid—co-ops are a more resilient form of business, in large part due to the commitment and support of their members and their ability to make democratic decisions for the long term, rather than based on short-term returns. The number of independent co-ops grew by 1.2% in 2020, despite the impact of covid. In the same year, just 1.5% of co-ops were dissolved, compared with 6.5% of businesses in the wider economy, meaning that they were arguably four times less likely to cease trading. In the same vein, co-ops are seen as more productive, as their members have a vested interest in their success, bringing natural social value to their contracts.
Despite that, co-operatives make up less than 1% of the total number of UK businesses. The sector should be encouraged and supported to grow to ensure a more democratic economy, where wealth and power are shared more fairly and business is rooted in the interests and geography of local communities. Given the nature of these businesses and their model—they are run by people who work on the ground—they have a lot to offer the procurement system. Many of those who would work at a procurement co-op service may be service users themselves, able to see the cracks in the system and offer innovative solutions to create a public service provider that offers true value for public money.
Co-ops have a lot to offer our procurement system, and our procurement system has a lot to offer co-ops. That is why we have tabled these amendments. I hope the Minister will look at them carefully and accept them.
Amendments 90 and 91 would do a similar thing to amendments 1 to 3 but for charities. While all types and sizes of charities experience challenges relating to the commissioning and procurement of public services, smaller organisations often face greater barriers. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations highlighted to the House of Lords the barriers charities face in delivering services for communities and the lessons learned from how authorities worked with charities during the covid-19 pandemic.
I hope the Minister will agree that the Bill must reduce barriers to entry for charities and voluntary organisations, because they are often best placed to deliver a range of public services. They are trusted in communities, able to reach people who are overlooked or underserved by mainstream services, and can provide wraparound support to address the root causes of the challenges many people face.
Charities and voluntary organisations often combine support with a focus on prevention of future needs, with a versatility and agility that enables them to respond quickly to changing circumstances. Their ability to do that while delivering wider social value for individuals, communities, the local economy and other public services means that their impact reaches not only those accessing services, but others in their local communities and taxpayers more widely.
The Government spent £11.6 billion on contracts with charities alone in 2019-20. Ensuring that the Bill works for such organisations and services is therefore crucial. To help address some of the barriers facing charities, we would like the Government to commit to include specific reference to charities in guidance and in learning and development content. I know that many charities are likely to be covered by the clause as they are SMEs, but I would like to take that further by passing amendments 90 and 91.
Kirsty Blackman
I am quite happy to support these amendments, which are clever and necessary. They would both improve the process and make clear the direction of travel and intention behind the Bill. Procurement legislation and processes, and the tender processes that organisations have to go through in order to win a contract, are sometimes quite exclusionary. They are difficult. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall mentioned, they are easy to navigate for companies with significant teams of lawyers and tender-writing experts, but much more difficult to navigate for small organisations, which may be doing a huge amount of good but unable to translate that into writing the best possible tender. That is not to say that some of them do not write excellent tenders—I am sure some of them do—but it is important that we take that into account and include a presumption to consider such organisations.
Charities are struggling at the moment. Every charitable organisation that I have spoken to has mentioned its concerns about how it will carry on. We know that during the cost of living crisis, people are reducing their discretionary spending; they do not have any money left to spend on things such as charitable giving, and therefore charities are really in need of contracts to be able to continue to provide their services. Charities have workers—people work for charities. Without securing sensible, value-for-money contracts, charities will not be able to give their staff the uplift they need in order to avoid the cost of living crisis. It would be helpful specifically to include charities in the Bill and define that.
On co-operative societies, I have thought a fair bit about how we encourage those businesses and organisations that are not currently co-operatives but may benefit from becoming a co-operative. How do we make that landscape easier? How do we make it easier to understand how to become a co-operative organisation? I represent Aberdeen, where we have a significant number of companies that grow to a certain size and then get sold off. Some of those companies continue to flourish under some multinational, international umbrella, but some of them are just subsumed and disappeared, because the multinational is doing its best to buy up the intellectual property so that there are fewer competitors. In some of those situations—I am not saying it is the case in all situations—a co-operative would be the best way forward for the company. I do not think enough is being done to smooth the path for that and to put it on a more level playing field.
Alex Burghart
Amendments 90 and 91, tabled by the hon. Member for Vauxhall, seek to amend clauses 12 and 16 so that contracting authorities have to have regard to potential barriers to the participation of charities, particularly when carrying out pre-market engagement.
Charities provide important services and may well offer the best value for money in a procurement, particularly in the social and education services. That was in the forefront of our minds when allowing greater flexibility for light-touch contracts, which means that those procurements often facilitate the participation of charitable and not-for-profit organisations.
Before I go on, I must correct my remarks to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North at the end of our debate on the previous group of amendments. I foolishly leapt to my feet and said that it was the social value Act that was relevant. It is actually section 4 of the Charities Act 2011. I am grateful to have officials who do not err.
There are a broad range of charities involved in public procurement, including some very large, well-established organisations capable of effectively competing in a public procurement market. Charities that need extra support for public procurement will often meet the definition of SME in clause 119, and will therefore already benefit from the duty in clause 12(4) to support SMEs, which applies to pre-market engagement and the whole procurement lifecycle. I say as someone who has worked with and for both large and small charities that asking for charities of all sizes to be treated the same way is perhaps not appropriate. In addition, the provisions on reserving contracts for certain suppliers in clauses 32 and 33 will help those charities that qualify as a supported employment provider or public sector mutuals.
The Government are fully committed to supporting charities, hence the sector will often be the beneficiary of grants that sit outside the public procurement regime. However, the Bill already functions to give appropriate support to charities’ participation in public procurement. It is undesirable to include other types of organisations in clause 12(4) and risk diluting the separate requirement for contracting authorities to have particular regard to barriers that smaller suppliers face because of their size. I respectfully request that the Committee does not support amendments 90 and 91.
In the other place, my colleague Baroness Neville-Rolfe admirably championed small and medium-sized enterprises, and tabled amendments to complement the Bill’s existing provisions that support smaller businesses. Those include explicit duties to have regard to the participation of SMEs. Amendments 1 to 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Vauxhall, would amend those duties to include a specific reference to co-operative societies. I share her deep admiration for co-operative societies. They play a very important role in our economy and our society as a whole. I am happy to confirm to the Committee that the SME obligation will include co-operative organisations where they meet the tests for being an SME.
Many co-operatives will meet our definition of SME in clause 119. Where they do not, for example because they employ more than 250 staff, they should not benefit from the duty to support SMEs. We think it would be wrong to treat a large co-operative bank, for example, in the same way that we are proposing to treat SMEs. If we included other types of organisations, we would risk diluting the Bill’s particular regard to the barriers that SMEs face—the clauses would lose their impact, which would be a shame for the SMEs that the Bill seeks to support. I therefore respectfully urge the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendments.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Burghart
Clause 12 sets out the procurement principles that establish what the Bill is designed to achieve, and how its success will be judged. The clause splits the procurement principles into objectives and other rules to help contracting authorities to understand what they are obliged to do.
The objectives in clause 12(1) set out the values of public procurement, the furthering of which contracting authorities must give proper consideration to in the course of making procurement decisions. Public procurement needs to be focused on achieving value for money, which is rightly at the top of the list of objectives set out in clause 12(1). However, each of those objectives has its own merit, and each must be considered independently. It is not the intention of the Bill that value for money, however important, disapplies or overrides the obligation on contracting authorities to have due regard for the objectives of public benefit, information sharing and integrity.
The rules on equal treatment in subsections (2) and (3) are obligations that set minimum standards that contracting authorities must follow. The Bill will also accelerate spending with SMEs through the creation of new duties that will require contracting authorities to have regard to SME participation. We want to level the playing field for smaller businesses and for buyers, not only to avoid putting up, but to remove barriers to their participation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
The national procurement policy statement
Florence Eshalomi
I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 13, page 10, line 2, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require a Minister to publish a National Procurement Policy Statement.
The amendment seeks to mandate that the Government “must” publish a national procurement policy statement, instead of just “may”. I am sure the Minister will tell me that the amendment is unnecessary as, of course, the Government will seek to publish a national procurement policy statement. However, as has been stated, the change that we have seen in the Bill from the Green Paper to today means that we can take nothing for granted when it comes to the Government’s word on procurement.
The amendment is identical to the one tabled in the other place by Lord Lansley. When Baroness Noakes introduced it, she said that the clause’s current wording leaves the door open for a statement not to be published. Given the importance of the policy statement in setting rules for covered procurement, it would be deeply damaging for it not to be published. I urge the Minister to ensure that that cannot happen by supporting our amendment.
Kirsty Blackman
It seems to me that this is probably the easiest amendment for the Government to accept. They have made it clear how important the national procurement policy statement will be, and how a significant proportion of the decision-making processes in the Bill will flow from that statement.
I support the amendment, and I would suggest going even further in saying that every Government should publish a national procurement policy statement. We have had quite a lot of Governments recently, but after every general election and every first King’s Speech of a new parliamentary Session, the Government should be clear in a number of areas. They should set out their policy direction of travel, not just in procurement but in general. That is a key moment when the Government could refresh their national procurement policy statement.
I do not have a significant issue with the Government updating the statement based on priorities. We have seen what has happened in the last few years with covid, and in the past decade or so, we have developed a better public understanding of the impacts of climate change. Science has changed, and not only have priorities changed, but the social system has changed as a result of covid. It therefore seems that updating the statement would be a sensible thing to do. If the Minister is not willing to accept the amendment, I urge him to make it clear that the Government intend to publish the national procurement policy statement, no matter whether the clause says “may” or not.
We will come to the clause stand part debate, but the clause states that there is an intention to keep the statement “under review”. Does the Minister expect that if Government priorities were to change significantly, a new or a tweaked statement would be published? For example, if something major happened, as with covid or the war in Ukraine, priorities may change as a result. Does he expect Government Ministers to at least consider updating the national procurement policy statement in the light of drastic changes that may or may not come to us in future?
Alex Burghart
Amendment 22 would require the Government to publish a national procurement policy statement rather than just allowing them to do so. We have had a lot of debate about the nature of procurement policy and the associated important elements of procurement, such as driving social change.
As has been demonstrated by the sheer number of topics that we have touched on, procurement is often used to transact wider policies. That is correct, but we have to be realistic about the fact that those policies shift over time. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North gave a couple of examples of that. Indeed, the Government demonstrated how quickly we can change our procurement policies in the light of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. It is therefore both preferable and necessary that procurement policy is aligned with wider Government objectives. As such, the publication of an NPPS is a decision based on the strategic policy priorities relevant to the Government at that time. It needs to be as flexible as possible, and mandating a Minister to publish one takes away some of that possibility.
However, I assure the hon. Lady that the Government absolutely intend to publish an NPPS. They are working on it at the moment, and I look forward to bringing it to the House and discussing it when the time comes. She is right that it will be possible for Administrations to update their national procurement policy statement, but it will also be possible for them to withdraw it. One reason for not mandating is that there may be times when the Government are working on a new one, and there is a hiatus between the two. I therefore do not see that changing the drafting of the clause and mandating the statement is necessary. I respectfully request that the hon. Member for Vauxhall withdraw her amendment.
Alex Burghart
I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 13, page 10, line 9, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment would remove the requirement for a Minister of the Crown to give due regard to certain principles before publishing the national procurement policy statement.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 7, in clause 13, page 10, line 12, after “environmental” insert “, cyber security”.
This amendment would make cyber security one of the strategic national priorities for procurement.
Amendment 11, in clause 13, page 10, line 12, after “environmental” insert “, national security”.
This amendment would add national security as part of procurement principles.
Amendment 107, in clause 13, page 10, line 25, at end insert—
“(vii) fair treatment of workers, by ensuring fair pay and conditions, workplace wellbeing, development of skills and progression and diversity in recruitment.”
This amendment would add a procurement principle based on the fair treatment of workers.
Government amendment 29.
Amendment 105, in clause 13, page 10, line 36, at end insert—
“(4A) The national procurement policy statement must include measures to ensure that no supplier may be granted a procurement contract with a contracting authority where the Secretary of State is satisfied there is established evidence that a provider has been involved in—
(a) modern slavery,
(b) genocide, or
(c) crimes against humanity.”
Alex Burghart
The purpose of amendments 28 and 29 is to overturn amendments added to the Bill in the other place, which require that prior to publishing a national procurement policy statement, the Minister must give due regard to a number of specified principles and mandate the inclusion of a number of priorities in the NPPS.
I reiterate that the Government recognise that those principles are important to procurement, which is why most of them are already core elements of the procurement regime and are reflected throughout the Bill. That is evident in the Bill’s drafting overall. For example, value for money, integrity and maximising public benefit are set out in clause 12 as procurement objectives that contracting authorities must have regard to directly when carrying out procurements. As discussed, transparency is also a requirement running through the Bill. Furthermore, specific requirements in the Bill place obligations on contracting authorities regarding fair treatment of suppliers and non-discrimination in decision making—for example, the conflicts of interest provisions in part 5. Therefore, although the principles are important, to incorporate them as part of the national procurement policy statement process when they are already applicable to procurements on the face of the Bill is unnecessary.
Similarly, the other place added a subsection that requires the inclusion of specific priorities in the national procurement policy statement. Those relate to achieving targets set under the Climate Change Act 2008, the Environment Act 2021 and the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, as well as to promoting innovation among potential suppliers and minimising the incidence of fraud.
We carefully considered which policy priorities should and should not be included within the regime, in order to maximise productivity and ensure that the Bill is as streamlined as it can be to deliver for all contracting authorities and maximise the benefits from all procurements. It is, I believe, more than adequate that the Public Services (Social Value) Act requires contracting authorities to consider the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of an area when undertaking specified procurement. Restating that in a policy statement would be unnecessary, as that Act is already binding on contracting authorities.
The amendment introduced in the other place looks to increase innovation and minimise fraud, but that is already at the core of the Bill. With our new approach to small businesses, we are unleashing innovation in the supply chain, and by embedding transparency throughout the procurement lifecycle, alongside our plans for oversight, tackling fraud will be easier than ever before. It would be counterproductive to restrict the flexibility of the national procurement policy statement by placing specific priorities in primary legislation.
We have made it clear that the NPPS will be used to set out strategic policy priorities, over and above those enshrined in the Bill, that are relevant at the time that the NPPS is to take effect.
Florence Eshalomi
I oppose amendment 28; it would remove Lords amendment 46, which was added on Report. Clause 13 currently mandates the Government to give due regard to a number of important principles before publication of their national procurement policy statement. Those principles follow on from the procurement principles promised in the Bill— namely, promoting the public good, value for money, transparency, integrity, fair treatment of suppliers and non-discrimination.
Those principles are important. We know that public good allows us to put what we believe is best for the country at the heart of procurement. When we also consider the huge amount of money spent on procurement —ultimately, it is the public’s money going towards delivering goods and services—it is right that the Government expect the money to be spent in the public’s interest. Procurement must always have that idea in mind, and it cannot be driven by any other aim of individuals in Government or other private individuals.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
It is particularly important to include these principles in the Bill. Although we all agree with them, have there not been many accusations that during covid, the principles were not followed? We know that a huge amount of reclaimed money has still not been discovered. There were fast-tracks for mates and friends with no experience. People lobbied and pushed for their mates to get contracts—we know that because one Member of Parliament has had to resign over it and the scandal is ongoing. Without having these principles in the Bill, there is a danger that even if Conservative or other Governments are whiter than white, the public will not believe it and think that something murky is going on? That destroys trust in politics, so including them will protect us all.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for that important point; I will highlight that further as I make progress.
It would be completely wrong, especially when households up and down the country are struggling to put the heating on during this cold winter, to not carry out the due diligence and get every bit of public value out of our procurement budget. Again, this is public money and, as my hon. Friend highlighted, transparency is even more critical now. The Government must not take money from the taxpayer and then be opaque about how it is spent. As has been highlighted, we saw during the pandemic why that principle was so important. Shining a light on our procurement not only is fair, but makes it more efficient and helps to achieve more value for money for the public.
During the pandemic, we saw billions of pounds of personal protective equipment written off. I believe that greater transparency in the process could have helped prevent some of that waste and some of the scandals that unfortunately lie at the Government’s doorstep today. We have concerns about transparency in the Bill as it stands, and I want to speak about that at greater length.
Integrity ties all this together. Ensuring good management and fighting against fraud and corruption is critical in ensuring public trust in the system and ensuring we get value for money. That links closely with transparency—we need a transparent system where integrity naturally flows and corruption is highlighted. It also links to ensuring that the public get their money back when contracts are not carried out or are carried out to a poor standard. Too often in the current system, those who deliver poor services get away with it. They are even awarded further contracts despite poor performances. We do not see enough money clawed back: just before Christmas, the figure was just over £10 million from fraudulent PPE contracts during the pandemic. Perhaps the Minister can update us on that; I hope that it is far more, considering the amount of waste in that area.
Fair treatment of suppliers is also vital to maintaining the best possible procurement system. I know that that may be frustrating at times when considering wider policy goals. It is always tempting to mandate certain procurements to support groups such as SMEs or to follow agendas such as levelling up, yet this is equally as important as the other principles.
We cannot have favouritism in the system or decide what is best based on the supplier and not the merits of the offer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown highlighted, we saw that during the pandemic, with the VIP lanes ultimately being ruled unlawful in court. In her ruling in January last year, Mrs Justice O’Farrell said the Good Law Project and EveryDoctor had established that the VIP lane system was
“in breach of the obligation of equal treatment”.
She went on:
“There is evidence that opportunities were treated as high priority even where there were no objectively justifiable grounds for expediting the offer.”
It is clear that that cannot happen again. I hope the Minister will outline what steps are being taken to ensure that that principle is adhered to and that there are consequences for going against it.
Similarly, non-discrimination is an important principle to ensure we show no favouritism among suppliers. That is particularly important when we sign up to trade agreements and want to ensure respect between partners. I expect the Minister to say that we should trust the Government and that it will be in a policy statement, but if the Government can go against their own words in the Green Paper, why should we trust them now?
More importantly, the amendment ensures that future policy statements from any Government would have to follow these principles in procurement. I think we all agree that the principles are important, and should a future Government want to go against them, that should be done via primary legislation and not through a policy statement with far less oversight. Primary legislation can always be introduced, so we are not tying a Government to the principles for life, but given their importance to the system that runs through the Bill, any policy note brought by this piece of legislation should take this into consideration. I urge the Government to think carefully and withdraw amendment 28.
I will now speak to amendment 7 and urge the Government to go further to strengthen the procurement principles in the policy statement. Our amendment 7 would introduce cyber-security as a strategic national priority for the Government. The past 12 months have reminded us of the risks to our security from every corner of the globe—from nation states, criminals and rogue actors. This year’s National Cyber Security Centre annual review confirmed that cyber-crime continues to be the most significant threat for consumers and small businesses. Looking at the big picture, it is clear that the cyber-security threat is not at the forefront of minds when it comes to risk, despite the recent joint warning from the heads of MI5 and the FBI that commercial organisations on both sides of the Atlantic are increasingly being targeted by state-sponsored hackers. This is a challenge that requires us to raise our game domestically and collaborate more effectively internationally.
Endpoint security is a major challenge, particularly for the public sector. The Government’s cyber-security strategy is very welcome, but fails to mention device security once. When it comes to cyber-security, everyone thinks about software, but the resilience of our PCs, laptops and printers is often under-appreciated. A lack of protection for hardware in our schools and hospitals leaves the UK vulnerable to malign actors, and data shows that the Government remain an attractive target for cyber-attackers, with 40% of cyber incidents between 2020 and 2021 affecting the public sector. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster recently acknowledged that the UK is now the third most targeted country for cyber-attacks, behind only the USA and Ukraine.
Combating fraud requires the Government, businesses and individuals across the UK to work together. Greater co-operation and knowledge sharing can make a real difference. Raising awareness of the different types of fraud we face and its impact on all corners of the UK is the first key step to arming us with the knowledge to stay safe online. The NCSC’s cyber aware campaign—which in the run-up to Christmas revealed that victims of online shopping scams in the same period last year lost an average of £1,000 per person—is a great move in the right direction. We need to ensure our policies and requirements have greater teeth to better protect UK plc, and there are three simple steps that the Government can take to do that. Now that the UK has left the European Union, we are in a much stronger position to defend our national interest within our own public procurement rules. If the Bill allowed the Government to exclude suppliers to the public sector on cyber-security grounds, that would send a strong signal to malicious actors around the world.
Our amendment would insert cyber-security requirements as a required purchasing criterion for public sector procurement into the national procurement policy statement, which sets out national priorities and guidance for contracting authorities. It would make cyber-security one of the strategic national priorities for procurement, and would strengthen the Bill’s national security focus. I hope it gets cross-party support and is accepted by the Government, as it would help to safeguard the UK from attacks from rogue actors and nation states, and would bring us into line with best practice from across the world.
Kirsty Blackman
I will cover the amendments in the order that seems more sensible to me, which is probably not the order in which they appear on the selection list and amendment paper—apologies. I will do my best not to go over the same ground that has been covered by the shadow Minister in her excellent extensive speech. We are discussing a significant hefty chunk of the Bill and a number of different issues in one section.
The terms of Government amendment 28 are almost the opposite of new clause 2, which we discussed earlier. As I said then, I think it is one of the most important Labour amendments. I still believe that to be the case, and I think the withdrawal of the 33 principles would make the Bill poorer. This is one of those moments when you read a Bill—I am not sure how many people read Bills—and you think, “Hey, this is pretty good.” And then the Government take out the clauses that you actually liked. That is not helpful. The Government did exactly the same thing in the Online Safety Bill Committee. Before sending that Bill to the Lords, they took out some of the most useful and helpful clauses, which would have made most difference to people’s lives. I will therefore resist the Government amendment to this Bill vigorously.
Amendments 7 and 11 were tabled by the shadow Minister. I will not add too much on those, other than to say that cyber-security is one of the biggest risks facing us as Members of Parliament, the United Kingdom, the devolved Administrations—all of us. At this moment, that risk is only increasing. To have a conversation about cyber-security and national security in Committee is important, but they must also be considered during any procurement decisions. We want to improve cyber-security and national security and to take them into account, rather than forgetting them or hoping that they do not exist.
Amendment 107 on the fair treatment of workers struck me as one of the places where Government spending—public spending—could have the best benefit. Spending public money delivers not only great services for citizens, but high-quality jobs. It delivers jobs that are well paid and that have, in a lot of places, comparatively great terms and conditions. It is incumbent on us to ensure that the principles of fair work are held throughout all the decisions made on public spending. It is incredibly important that, when we use public money to create jobs, those jobs are good, well-paid jobs and, where possible, they financially recognise the increased cost of living—that the Government make the uplifts they should be making in the negotiations with various trade unions, which are struggling at the moment on behalf of workers and their members.
I will also strongly resist Government amendment 29. The shadow Minister explained it well. This is a pretty low bar. Clause 13(4) states:
“The strategic priorities to be included in the statement must include, but are not limited to…achieving targets set under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021”.
The Government passed those Acts. Why do they not intend them to be a strategic priority? Were they just things they passed in order to tick a box? If tackling climate change is a priority, clearly it should be part of the national procurement priorities.
Last week or the week before, in a Westminster Hall debate on public procurement, we heard the percentage of public money spent on public contracts; it is something like £1 in every £3. That is so much money! The clause as drafted is asking the Government to include a piece of their own legislation in the Bill as one of the strategic priorities. I do not think that that is asking too much.
I have just covered subsection (4)(a) and, in earlier discussion, we covered paragraph (b) at some length—again, I agreed with that. Paragraph (d) covers:
“minimising the incidence of fraud, waste or abuse of public money.”
That is very important. We saw the issues caused by the covid PPE contracts and the resultant massive waste of public money. It is totally inconceivable for the Government to open themselves to getting into that mess again, or for us to end up with another illegal fast-track lane, no matter how urgent the circumstances. The circumstances meant there was an urgent need for suitable PPE, not an urgent need for the Government to procure a whole lot of unusable PPE, or to prioritise recommendations from those in the VIP lane above companies that had a track record of producing PPE. It has not worked. It has failed our doctors, nurses and those working on the frontline. It has failed all of us who contribute towards public money and want it spent in a good way. It is therefore important to minimise instances of fraud, waste or abuse of public money. That should not need to be stated, but it does.
Alex Burghart
Amendment 7 would require “cyber security” to be added to the list of principles to which Ministers should have regard when drafting a national procurement policy statement, and amendment 107 would require fair treatment of workers. Similarly, amendment 11 seeks to broaden the list of principles to which Ministers should have regard when drafting a national procurement policy statement by adding “national security”.
National security is, of course, of paramount importance. The Bill makes substantial provision for the protection of the UK’s national security through the national security exemption in schedule 2(21) and the discretionary exclusion grounds for suppliers in schedule 7(14). Where national security considerations are relevant, the Government have established policy and guidance that procurers must take strict account of.
Amendment 105 seeks to prevent the award of contracts to suppliers involved in modern slavery, genocide or crimes against humanity through measures to be included in the national procurement policy statement. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North mentioned her enjoyment of reading Bills. As she will see later on, the Bill already contains a robust regime for the exclusion of suppliers that are unfit to hold public contracts.
Schedules 6 and 7 set out a wide range of exclusion grounds that target the most serious risks to public procurement, and that explicitly includes modern slavery. We have also taken action to strengthen the way that modern slavery is defined, so that suppliers may be excluded where there is sufficient evidence that they are responsible for modern slavery anywhere in the world, whether or not they have been convicted of an offence.
I also draw the hon. Member’s attention to the debarment regime in clauses 59 to 64, which allows for Ministers to consider whether any supplier meets one of the grounds for exclusion and whether the issues in question are likely to reoccur. Suppliers on the debarment list face exclusion across the public sector at all levels. That is a significant step forward in our approach to supplier misconduct.
As I made clear in my initial remarks, the principles in clause 13(3)(b) are duplicative and do not serve a strong purpose. I therefore still propose to overturn them.
The hon. Lady remarked on failures in the existing regime. I gently extend the invitation to her, once again, to leave the existing regime behind and join the new regime; but alas, Scotland has declined to do so and will be stuck with the existing regime.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. The clause states that Welsh Ministers may publish a statement setting out
“the Welsh Government’s strategic priorities in relation to procurement.”
I am pleased that the Welsh Government are adopting the Bill, subject to the legislative consent of the Senedd, of course. To put it simply, the clause comes down to respect. Devolution was originally introduced in the UK in 1998 through the Scotland Act 1998, the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It has since become embedded in our society and our national identities; a whole generation has not known anything different, which is a good thing. Protecting the voices of our devolved nations in UK legislation is crucial not only for maintaining the relationships between the UK Government and the devolved nations, but for our democracy as a whole. The Wales procurement policy statement is the voice of the Welsh Government on procurement and, by extension, the voice of the Welsh people, and that deserves a place in the Bill.
The Bill has arisen from our exit from the European Union. Our exit has given us opportunities to ensure that our legislation works best for the UK and the devolved powers. We need a procurement system that works for all communities across the UK and all the devolved nations.
Clause 14 also outlines the steps that Welsh Ministers will need to take before publishing the policy statement. They include carrying out a consultation and, after receiving the responses, making any necessary changes to the statement, which must then be laid before the Senedd. The Bill is a good example of how the two Governments can work together in consultation on legislation in a devolved setting.
I note the views of the Welsh Government on fair value and social partnership, which they have outlined in their Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Bill. It focuses on the wellbeing of Wales and a “prosperous Wales” as an outcome of procurement, and provides a framework for improving socially responsible public procurement. Ensuring that our public procurement system supports the whole UK’s prosperity is vital.
The social partnership between Government, employers and workers is also a strong focus of the Welsh Government’s Bill. It is valuable to include everyone who is at the table. A major component of the legislation is the requirement on certain public bodies to take into account socially responsible procurement by establishing wellbeing goals that they must meet when procuring, and to publish a procurement strategy. Under the Welsh Government’s framework, those public bodies will be required to seek to improve economic, environmental, social, and cultural wellbeing when carrying out procurement.
Alex Burghart
I am delighted to follow the hon. Gentleman’s comments about Wales. I must say that work on this Bill has been an absolute model of co-operation between us in Westminster and colleagues in Cardiff. The Bill is very much a result of joint working, and it is stronger for it, and for the support it enjoys from colleagues from Northern Ireland, from Belfast. We hope that one day colleagues in Holyrood will see fit to join us in creating a new procurement landscape that takes advantage of the opportunities that leaving the EU has made available to us. I praise the joint working that we have seen so far, and look forward to joint working in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Planned procurement notices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 15 concerns the planned procurement notice. It is designed to give as much advance information to the market as possible, so that interested suppliers can determine whether they wish to bid in the procurement covered by the notice, and so that they have the maximum time for preparation. It also gives contracting authorities the option of reducing tendering periods by publishing a planned procurement notice. Publication of that notice may take place at any time before publication of the tender notice, but if its publication occurs at least 40 days and no longer than one year before publication of the notice, the contracting authority may, if it wishes, benefit from reduced tender periods of a minimum of 10 days.
Florence Eshalomi
As the Minister has outlined, clause 15 relates to planned procurement notices. When used well, such notices allow for significant benefits, both for the contracting authority and for the companies wanting to bid. For the contracting authority, they reduce the time limits associated with procurement notices by significant amounts; in many cases, that reduction may be from 25 days to 10 days, which represents a significant decrease in the time limit and reduces bureaucracy for contracting authorities. The clause will mean that suppliers get 40 days to plan for a bid before the official bidding time limit opens. We welcome that; it is a sensible mechanism that will benefit a number of SMEs, which often do not have legions of administrative staff. They will welcome that extra notice to prepare a bid for a contract.
As the Minister may be aware, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Aberdare supported an amendment in the other place that attempted to make those notices mandatory. Lord Aberdare said:
“The existing wording in Clause 14(1) allows for better practice, confirming that contracting authorities are able to publish a planned procurement notice. But your Lordships will know that being able to do something within legislation does not mean that it actually happens…My preference might be simply to replace ‘may publish’ with ‘must publish’.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 2022; Vol. 823, c. GC279.]
I do not think I need to push that point particularly hard with the Minister, but I hope that as we progress, he will explore in more detail what support can be given through the Bill to help SMEs.
How does the Minister expect the notices to be used by contracting authorities? When it comes to small contracts, the amendment tabled in the Lords may be too onerous on contracting authorities, but I think we can all agree that the notices are used by contracting authorities. As Lord True said in response to the amendments in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Aberdare,
“I agree that it is vital that the market—particularly certain aspects of it to which the noble Lord and others referred—is given sufficiently early warning of what contracting authorities intend to buy so that suppliers can gear up to deliver. This is particularly important for SMEs and charities, which were referred to by the noble Lord and others.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 2022; Vol. 823, c. GC290.]
Will the Minister outline to contracting authorities how often they should use those notices, and will he take a proactive approach to investigating how they are used by contracting authorities, and whether their use can be expanded?
Also, how can groups such as SMEs and charities find out about the notices? Perhaps the Minister is leaving much of this to the Government’s planned digital platform, but I hope he can confirm that the notices will be on the platform, and that SMEs will be able to find them efficiently.
Alex Burghart
Absolutely. This is all part of our enhanced transparency regime, which will make it much easier for everyone—authorities, suppliers, the public, the press, and hon. Members of this House—to see what is going on in public procurement. Planned procurement notices are a very good thing; they give authorities the option of making clear what they are about to do, thereby giving themselves the chance to speed up that process slightly later on. We have every expectation and hope that they will be widely used, and as the hon. Member for Vauxhall has said, it is often small and medium-sized enterprises that will particularly benefit. When this initiative is considered alongside our plans to encourage authorities to publish their pipelines, we can really start to see the benefits of enhanced transparency in this area.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Julie Marson.)
Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
Thursday 2nd February 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 2 February 2023 - (2 Feb 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members that Hansard colleagues would be grateful if they could send their speaking notes via email to hansardnotes@ parliament.uk. Please switch all electronic devices to silent. No tea or coffee is to be consumed during the sitting.
Clause 16
Preliminary market engagement
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 16, page 12, line 35, after “suppliers” insert
“, including small and medium-sized enterprises,”.
This amendment, with Amendment 21, seeks to ensure preliminary engagement explicitly refers to SMEs.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 21, in clause 16, page 12, line 38, after “suppliers” insert
“, including among small and medium-sized enterprises,”.
This amendment, with Amendment 20, seeks to ensure preliminary engagement explicitly refers to SMEs.
Amendment 25, in clause 21, page 16, line 29, at end insert—
“(6A) Subject to subsection (6D), subsection (6B) applies where a tender notice or associated tender document indicates that a public contract is suitable for small and medium-sized enterprises.
(6B) If no small or medium-sized enterprise submits a tender, the contracting authority must withdraw the tender notice, and may not republish the tender notice until it has fulfilled the condition in subsection (6C).
(6C) The condition is that the contracting authority has conducted preliminary market engagement (see section 16) with a view to engaging with suppliers who are small and medium-sized enterprises.
(6D) Subsection (6B) does not apply if the contracting authority can demonstrate that it fulfilled the condition in subsection (6C) before the tender notice was published.”
This amendment would require contracting authorities to engage with small and medium-sized enterprises before describing a contract as suitable for SMEs. The requirement would only apply if no SME submits a tender.
Florence Eshalomi
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this morning, Mr Efford. Taken together, amendments 20 and 21 would specify that small and medium-sized enterprises should be considered when carrying out preliminary market engagement. These amendments are the first of a number that we have tabled to try to improve the Bill’s support for SMEs, and we are pleased to see the progress made on SMEs in the other place. As I mentioned previously, Labour supports the amendments made in the Lords; we want SMEs to have fair access to public procurement, and the amendments would make a positive impact by including SMEs in the procurement system. Baroness Neville-Rolfe’s amendments in Committee have added a depth of support for SMEs. I believe the Bill will be a step forward even if those amendments are not accepted, but we should not have a poverty of ambition in this place, which is why we want to go further. The Government talk about improving SMEs’ chances when it comes to procurement, but for far too long that has been just talk. We have not seen enough action.
The statistics on SMEs and procurement are truly shocking. Analysis by the Spend Network found that big corporations still win the lion’s share—almost 90%—of contracts, worth £30 billion a year, that are deemed suitable for bids from smaller businesses. Research from the British Chambers of Commerce and Tussell found that over £1 in every £5—around 21%—spent by Government on public sector procurement in 2021 was awarded to small and medium-sized enterprises. The British Chambers of Commerce also found that SMEs are now receiving a relatively smaller amount of reported direct Government procurement spending than they were five years ago. As a proportion of the overall procurement budget, direct spend with SMEs by local government bodies was the highest, at 38%. NHS bodies across England spent 22% of their procurement budgets with SMEs, while the figure for central Government was significantly lower than the average—they awarded only 11% to SMEs.
That point was addressed in written evidence to this Committee. Anthony Booth from Bromford Housing Group stated:
“Please note that many SMEs do not have the capacity, IT capability, resource or knowledge to participate in the proposed single supplier onboarding / contract portals. Housing associations do rely on the use of smaller regional and local suppliers and a more effective and simplified process would be welcome to allow them to participate. The use of email trails and traditional spreadsheet analysis for simple tender exercises would support these instances rather than involving complex procurement systems such as precontract. This would encourage the flexibility in the supply chain that the Bill is…designed for and also allow an improved competitive position in order to achieve VFM which is also a core requirement of the bill.”
I think we would all agree with that. It is the kind of insight that pre-tender engagement could gather and feed into a more efficient procurement system.
Labour does not feel that SMEs are getting their fair share under this Government, and we believe that we must go further. Our amendments 20 and 21 would address some of the problems that SMEs face. By ensuring that they are engaged during the pre-tender market engagement, our amendments would help to break down some of the barriers that SMEs face in accessing procurement. Early engagement is vital. It can help with efficient contract design, to avoid any bias towards big and established firms that know how the system works. It also means that SMEs will feel more involved in the process and have the confidence they need to bid for programmes.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The shadow Minister is making a powerful and well-researched case that builds on the case she made in Committee on Tuesday. I do not want to test the Committee’s patience by making a speech on this, but I want to let her know that I am willing to support her amendment should she push it to a vote.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the hon. Member for her support.
At the moment it is clear that SMEs find the process frustrating and time-consuming. In his written evidence to the Committee, Colin Cram, who set up the conference company Open Forum Events Ltd to run conferences to support the delivery of improved public services, outlined his experience of the procurement system for SMEs. He stated:
“Tendering is expensive and time consuming. The way the UK’s public sector operates all too frequently inadvertently discriminates against SMEs, which will include the most innovative of suppliers on which the UK’s economy and future global competitiveness will depend. Many SMEs—which means most businesses in the UK—do not know how to tender properly and they don’t have the time to do so. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, at the end of 2021 there were 5.5 million SMEs employing fewer than 50 people each. Their average turnover was £1.25 million. However, only half were registered for VAT, so most will have a turnover well below that. Many of these will be capable of delivering contracts greater than the thresholds”.
He continued:
“Having to tender for every contract that might interest a small business would prove prohibitively expensive. To illustrate the point, a mid-cap business sought my advice. It was winning just 1 tender in 20 and was thinking of withdrawing from the public sector. I suggested that it should employ 2 full time tenderers. It took my advice, and its win rate went up to 1 in 4—without changing either the products or services that it was providing...To put together the simplest of tenders will cost not less than £1000 if properly costed. So, 4 attempts at tendering for the simplest of contracts would cost £4000 and 20 in order to win at least 1 contract would cost £20,000.”
I am pleased that we have made progress on SMEs, but Labour Members fear that, without more clarity and market engagement, SMEs will still be put off by the cost of applying for contracts that they think they have little chance of getting.
SMEs should not have to employ two full-time tenderers to improve their chances of winning contracts that they know they can do. Pre-tender marketing engagement can help to establish contracts that are more easily digested through the bidding process. We understand that some contracts will not be suitable for SMEs, but early engagement can help in figuring out where that is the case and hopefully open up more contracts to a variety of companies. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North for supporting our amendment, and I hope other Members and the Government will support our amendments 20 and 21.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Amendments 20 and 21 seek to ensure that preliminary market engagement explicitly refers to SMEs.
I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall for her support of the changes that Baroness Neville-Rolfe made in the House of Lords. We are all committed to improving options and opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises to take advantage of the substantial amount of public procurement that exists in this country. We fully agree that preliminary engagement is an important part of that. That is why we have included the new duty to have regard to SME participation in the procurement objectives.
The duty will apply in relation to pre-market engagement just as it will cover the whole of the procurement life cycle. Consequently, we do not consider it necessary to clarify in the pre-market engagement clause that the word “suppliers” captures SMEs. It clearly does, and in view of the broad application of the general duty to support SMEs, there is no need for any drafting changes to be made.
To be clear, the new SME duty will lead contracting authorities to consider not only whether they have engaged with SMEs in their preliminary market engagement, but whether their procurement process and timelines are accessible to smaller businesses, supporting them to win and deliver more public contracts. It is nice to hear the hon. Member for Aberdeen North support small and medium-sized enterprises in England—would that the SNP in Scotland had supported the Bill, giving those same opportunities to SMEs in Scotland. I once again extend my invitation to her and the Government at Holyrood to join us on this journey.
Kirsty Blackman
The Minister keeps talking as if Scotland does not have procurement legislation, and will not have procurement legislation going forward. It is absolutely the case that we will continue to have procurement regulations and rules, and a fairer procurement system—one in which we do things such as mandate the real living wage, for example.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady has previously given some good examples of things that are going wrong with current procurement. The SNP has not tabled any reform to procurement in Scotland, and I am afraid that, without reform, Scotland will be stuck with the old regime, whereas from spring next year, small and medium-sized enterprises in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will be taking advantage of the regime set out in the Bill.
Kirsty Blackman
I hope the Minister is not suggesting that when the Scottish Parliament passes procurement legislation, the UK Government will again levy a section 35 order to stop us changing our procurement legislation.
Alex Burghart
Certainly not, because I am sure that there would be no need, whereas it was very clear that there was a need in the case to which the hon. Lady refers. She will know that the Government used that constitutional power reluctantly, but very well advisedly.
Amendment 25 would require contracting authorities that have stated in the tender notice that a contract is suitable for small and medium-sized enterprises to, in the event that no SMEs submit a tender, withdraw that tender notice and engage with small and medium-sized enterprises prior to republishing it, unless they can show that such engagement took place prior to the original publication. The Bill supports—indeed, it actively encourages—buyers to conduct preliminary market engagement. We have gone further than existing regulations: clause 17 requires the publication of a preliminary market engagement notice, and clause 12 contains a duty to have regard to reducing barriers facing SMEs. That should lead to increased openness and greater inclusion of SMEs in preliminary market engagement.
However, amendment 25 would add an extra layer of bureaucracy and delay for procurers to manage, and could well frustrate suppliers who have prepared a tender, only for it to be withdrawn if no qualifying bids are received. It is far better for us to increase SME participation in procurement by reducing barriers and highlighting the many benefits they bring to the public sector. I respectfully request that the amendment not be moved.
Florence Eshalomi
The Minister has said that there is no need for amendment 25, but it would cover similar grounds to those that we are discussing and would go further, ensuring that SMEs are given access to suitable tenders. When a contracting authority tags a tender as suitable for SMEs, it is only right that due diligence is carried out to ensure that SMEs have the opportunity to come forward. Unfortunately, tagging a contract as suitable for SMEs does not make it particularly accessible to them: it bears repeating that analysis by the Spend Network found that big corporations still win 90% of contracts, which we know are worth over £30 billion.
“Suitable for SMEs” cannot be another buzzword like “affordable housing”—one that does not mean anything to those SMEs that already say they are struggling to win these tenders. Amendment 25 would help to address that. If a contracting authority thinks that a contract is suitable for SMEs, it should be doing the work to engage those SMEs, ensuring that that contract is truly suitable. Under our amendment, contracting authorities would not have to go through that unnecessary bureaucracy. They will have had to engage with SMEs prior to offering the contract, but if none came forward, that would not hinder the contracting authority’s ability to award it. The purpose of the amendment is to help small businesses. Again, I hope the Minister will consider it carefully and support it.
The Chair
Minister, I realise you have given your response, but do you have anything to add?
Alex Burghart
I will just repeat what I said, very briefly. I understand the desire behind the amendment, but we believe that there are sufficient measures for preliminary market engagement for SMEs already in the Bill. In the case described by the hon. Member for Vauxhall, there is a danger that, if no SME came forward, we would be adding unnecessary process and cost to a procuring authority.
Alex Burghart
Clause 16 covers preliminary market engagement and is followed by clause 17, which includes provisions on related notice requirements. We want to promote and encourage contracting authorities to conduct preliminary market engagement. The information gathered during this stage can be invaluable for the authority as it clarifies its requirements, assesses the market’s capacity and develops its procurement strategy. This is even more important in the new regime, within which contracting authorities are given more flexibility to design their own competitions that are tailored and fit for purpose.
Clause 17 makes provision for contracting authorities to publish a preliminary market engagement notice prior to publishing a tender notice. The purpose of this preliminary market engagement notice is to advertise the fact that the contracting authority intends to conduct or has conducted preliminary market engagement. It is another great example of there being greater transparency and greater opportunities both for suppliers and authorities as a result of this Bill.
Florence Eshalomi
As the Minister outlined, clause 16 gives local authorities the power to undertake pre-market engagement. Although it may be expedient for there not to be pre-market engagement in relation to a number of contracts, particularly small contracts or contracts that are pretty standard for the market, it is entirely sensible for there to be such engagement when an authority is dealing with novel markets or markets where there is innovation. Pre-market engagement can be a powerful tool to help contracting authorities to understand the nature of their contract, what terms are fair in a contract and the nature of the market in relation to a particular piece of work. When it is done correctly, it can also help businesses to get a sense of whether they should put in for particular tenders.
Of course, it is right that any company that receives an unfair advantage in preliminary market engagement is not included in the contract, and we support this addition to the clause. However, I will ask the Minister a couple of questions about this clause that are in a similar vein to the questions I asked during the stand part debate on clause 15.
How often can we expect contracting authorities to undergo preliminary market engagement? As I have said previously, I understand why it is impractical to carry out such engagement on every above-threshold contract. However, it is important that there is some level of consistent practice in the system. In addition, although I also understand the need for flexibility among contracting authorities, I know that businesses want certainty and some certainty can come from knowing that different authorities will follow a similar level of preliminary market engagement as standard.
However, I also have concerns about the burden that this process may place on already stretched procurement departments, a concern I have already raised in earlier debates. The written evidence this Committee received from John Lichnerowicz is telling. He says:
“In my experience Procurement Departments particularly those containing CIPS qualified professionals are extremely overstretched and a bottleneck to public sector organisations being able to deliver their services.”
So it is easy to envision that this clause, as well as lacking clear mandates for local authorities to carry out pre-market engagement, will also mean that stretched procurement departments will not have the resources to carry out such engagement.
If pre-market engagement is done proportionally, it could save the taxpayer a small fortune. Will the Minister be issuing clear instructions as to when he intends such engagement to take place?
Many forms of pre-market engagement will involve consideration of contracts that are already being carried out for other contracting authorities. Although every contract will have some bespoke elements, this does not mean that what we learn from one engagement round in one place has no relevance to similar engagement rounds or similar contracts in other places. Will the Minister confirm that information from pre-market engagement will be shareable across contracting authorities and indeed that sharing such data should be relatively common where it is possible to share it?
Regarding subsections (3), (4) and (5) of clause 16, can the Minister say what the threshold for an unfair advantage would be? Of course we cannot have suppliers writing contracts, but engagement will necessarily expose suppliers to some level of information about the planned tender. At what level will such activity be considered to constitute an unfair advantage? Will guidance be issued to decision makers about this matter?
Finally, on clause 17 will the Minister confirm that efforts will be taken to ensure that such notices are received as widely as possible? Again, we all know it is important that small and medium-sized enterprises, charities and social enterprises are made aware of these notices and can then take part in preliminary market engagement if we are to have a true picture of the market. What steps will be taken to ensure that it is not just those who have keen eyes on contracting authorities who engage with them?
Alex Burghart
Let me take the hon. Lady’s questions in turn. Effective preliminary market engagement is a great tool to improve procurement. It will improve contracting authorities’ ability to act as an intelligent customer—that very much came out in the engagement work we did in the construction of the Bill—because it benefits suppliers, as the potential customer understands the market’s capability, is exposed to industry best practice and learns of potential innovative solutions being designed or tested. That will lead to more effective and efficient procurement by reducing the burdens on suppliers during the competition, avoiding the customer considering an unrealistic bid and improving the drafting of contract terms. We will not dictate to authorities when to undertake preliminary market engagement—we think it is better that that is their decision—but we are obviously encouraging them to do so. Of course, as the hon. Lady will know from other discussions we have had, transparency runs throughout the Bill. Sharing the outputs from such engagements will be possible and essentially a great thing.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Duty to consider lots
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
The clause requires the contracting authority, before advertising the opportunity, to consider whether the contract can be split into smaller chunks, or lots. That may be the right thing to do for a number of reasons. It could reduce supply risk by having numerous suppliers, or encourage smaller organisations to bid by making the opportunity more accessible and manageable—for example, breaking a large facilities management contract into regional contracts that local companies can deliver. Because that is important to provide opportunity, particularly for SMEs, clause 18(2) requires contracting authorities to either
“arrange for the award of…contracts by reference to lots”
or
“provide reasons for not doing so.”
Florence Eshalomi
As the Minister outlines, the clause obliges authorities to divide larger contracts into smaller lots where that is appropriate for the contract. That is a useful and necessary power, and it is one that we hope SMEs will welcome. Breaking down contracts is a good way of making them more accessible for smaller companies. I mentioned the evidence from John Lichnerowicz, who said that it can be difficult for all but larger suppliers to take on bigger contracts that are not broken down. His written submission states that
“overstretched Procurement Departments would lump requirements into a single large procurement which would go to only the biggest companies in their field who would then have the freedom to pick their favourite sub-contractors effectively eliminating the contribution of equally capable sub-contractors and adding a main contractor’s margin into the sub-contractor’s costs for little benefit”.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
In a number of contracts awarded recently by my council, the overall contractor ended up subcontracting people who had made separate individual bids but did not have the capacity to take on the bigger contract and therefore were not awarded it on that basis. Having big contracts is just a way of diverting money away from the taxpayer and into shareholders’ pockets, is it not?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for that valuable point. What we want for SMEs, and what SMEs tell us they want, is fair access to Government contracts—public money that should be going back into local communities up and down the country. Unless we ensure that larger contracts can be broken up into smaller lots and awarded directly to smaller companies, there will be a repeat of what we see with those big contracts. No one wants those same practices to be employed all over the country. I want the Minister to stress what oversight will be put in place to ensure that the important provisions in the clause are carried out and to ensure that all our SMEs truly benefit from public contracts.
Alex Burghart
As the hon. Lady will see in clause 18(2), contracting authorities will be required either to arrange by lots or to report on that; they will be required to give a reason, so there will be transparency.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown characterised money from public contracts as going into shareholders pockets. Obviously, larger contracts are also going to very successful charities. I can think of lots of examples of that in areas where I have lived and areas where I work and live now, so I do not wish to give the impression that is always the case.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Even if it were going to these mega-charities, which are huge international organisations and firms, it surely is not right for them to come in and take a contract, and take the top slice off it if the work is still done by small, local organisations. Whether they be for profit or not, local, small organisations should have a chance of just getting the smaller elements of the contract directly, should they not?
Alex Burghart
It is wonderful to hear the hon. Gentleman supporting our Bill once more. Making contracts more accessible to small and medium-sized enterprises is a major purpose of the Bill. It is not always mega, international charities that are getting local contracts. In Essex, I see that is not the case.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which states that I am an owner-shareholder of an SME. There are other benefits of working for a main contractor, and that should go on the record. The Bill should make it easier for small enterprises to gain that work, but if a contractor works directly for the client, it becomes the main contractor. When it becomes the main contractor, it becomes responsible for the health and safety and everything that goes with it, so there is an awful lot of cover for smaller contractors to work for a main contractor so that the main contractor takes some of those responsibilities away. I know what we are trying to do here and it is a good thing to do. If small and medium-sized enterprises work for the main authority, they become responsible, so there is a cover that main contractors provide. They are not just taking the top slice for nothing; they are actually taking on responsibility for the entire project.
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Award of public contracts following a competitive tendering procedure
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I beg to move amendment 95, in clause 19, page 14, line 16, at end insert—
“(aa) must disregard any tender from a supplier that does not guarantee the payment of at least the Real Living Wage to all its own employees and contracted staff and those of any sub-contractors;”
This amendment, together with amendments 96 to 99, is designed to ensure that no public contract can be let unless the supplier guarantees the payment of the Real Living Wage to all those involved in the delivery of the contract.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 96, in clause 41, page 28, line 36, at end insert—
“(3A) A contracting authority may not award a contract under this section to a supplier that does not guarantee the payment of at least the Real Living Wage to all its own employees and contracted staff and those of any sub-contractors.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 95.
Amendment 97, in clause 43, page 30, line 12, at end insert—
“(5A) A contracting authority may not award a contract under subsection (1) to a supplier that does not guarantee the payment of at least the Real Living Wage to all its own employees and contracted staff and those of any sub-contractors.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 95.
Amendment 98, in clause 45, page 31, line 14, at end insert—
“(aa) permit the award of a public contract to a supplier that does not guarantee the payment of at least the Real Living Wage to all its own employees and contracted staff and those of any sub-contractors.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 95.
Amendment 99, in clause 119, page 77, line 41, at end insert—
“‘Real Living Wage’ means the hourly wage rates for London and for outside London calculated annually by the Resolution Foundation and overseen by the Living Wage Commission (or their successor bodies);”
This amendment inserts a definition of the Real Living Wage for the purposes of Amendments 95 to 98.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
From July in Scotland, grants will require that the real living wage is paid, and it is already included in procurement rules. That has led to Scotland now having fewer, in percentage terms, workers earning less than the real living wage than in England. We in England and Wales deserve the same. It pushes up wages across the sector. For too long, public authorities have used procurement as a way to undermine salaries and salary rates. It is an ideological viewpoint that the private sector is always best but, in reality, far too often, what “best” means is paying poverty wages. Sometimes innovation from the private sector and the charity and third sector is important, but if it is on the back of paying wages that are below standard, it is not acceptable. That is why I beg to move amendment 95 and linked amendments 96 to 99. Hopefully, they will start to redress the balance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) asked the Minister’s colleague previously about the Government’s position on this, and the Government said that they do not believe in dictating employees’ wages. The reality is that by not setting a minimum floor—no one is suggesting a maximum—we are undermining good companies that pay good wages. Decent employers can lose out from people playing fast and loose with wages. We have seen numerous scandals, including fire and rehire, TUPE rules not being enforced and collective bargaining being undermined.
Wages below the real living wage require universal credit support. Let me be very clear: if someone is paid below the real living wage, the Government subsidise them. That is, in reality, a subsidy for that piece of work—that procurement. That puts companies whose workers do not receive that subsidy in a worse situation. To create a level playing field, all should receive the real living wage. That would mean that no employees in those companies have to receive a state subsidy for their work. That basic principle—that level playing field—must be enforced in this Bill.
Procurement bodies can incorporate a number of tests relating to the real living wage, but they cannot require that absolutism in contracts. If a company does not fulfil the living wage requirements set out in its procurement tender, but it does fulfil the other requirements, it is required to be offered the contract. That directly undermines the small and medium-sized organisations that work hard to pay the real living wage.
In Brighton, we have a great collaboration between the chamber of commerce, which requires all its members to pay the real living wage, and the trade unions. That kind of collaboration between businesses and unions needs to be supported. People who are not members of a chamber of commerce-registered body should not be able to come in and undermine those contracts.
The Minister might say that this proposal endangers international obligations, or that it means that UK workers are more fairly treated, but because Scotland has already incorporated it, we know it is not a breach of international agreements. It is important to ensure that British workers are respected when British money is being paid out—I should say English and Welsh money, because that is what these rules will be for. We need to ensure they get their just desserts and are not undermined by offshoring with low wages, and companies that are paying their fair share must not be undermined by universal credit subsidies. I commend these amendments to the Committee.
Kirsty Blackman
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown on these excellent amendments. I am glad that he mentioned what is happening in Scotland, and I will talk a bit more about that.
It is interesting that the Government say they do not believe in dictating employees’ wages, given that they literally set the national minimum wage and they refuse to lift it to the level of the real living wage. They absolutely could lift it to a level people can afford to live on, but they refuse to do so. They chose to change its name, rather than changing the amount and sorting out the significant age discrimination in the national living wage.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct that in Scotland, 91% of people are paid at least the real living wage, which is significantly higher than the minimum wage in the other UK nations. In October 2021, we started to routinely mandate payment of the real living wage in Scottish Government procurement contracts. In 2022 we published updated statutory guidance under the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 to reflect the change and the extension of the Fair Work First criteria to include specific reference to provision of flexible working and no use of fire and rehire. We have gone even further than the real living wage; our public money must be spent in a way that requires fair work practices. That is incredibly important because we have the opportunity to spend public money in a way that supports workers and ensures people are best placed to manage the cost of living crisis that we currently face. It ensures that people are fairly paid.
We are not asking for much. Ensuring that people are paid a wage that they can live on and does not need to be subsidised quite so much by universal credit is not a big thing to ask for. We are asking for dignity and respect for people. We are asking for people to be paid a fair wage and to be treated fairly.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
There is an alternative to these amendments, which is for the Government to adopt Labour’s policy to change the rules of the national minimum wage so that they take into account the cost of living in this country and therefore adopt the standard of the real living wage. I am sure the hon. Lady would support that Labour policy.
Kirsty Blackman
Absolutely. We have for a long time been calling for the UK Government to change their national pretendy living wage to an actual real living wage. We have also asked for the age discrimination to be removed, because it does not cost a 17-year-old with one child any less to run a house than it costs a 32-year-old with one child; people face exactly the same costs. The UK Government are trying to require people to live with their parents, which is exclusionary and discriminatory because not everybody has that option.
The Minister is right to say that the Bill applies in England and Wales and also in reserved functions carried out in relation to Scotland, so there will be some impact on Scottish procurement, or on procurement that affects Scotland or is in Scotland. But I fear that he misunderstands the devolution settlement and the constitution when he suggests that perhaps I, as a Scottish MP from a Scottish constituency, elected to this place that makes laws, should not express an opinion. I was elected to this place in the same way as he was. There are not two tiers of MPs in this place, or so we were told by the Conservative Government when they put through the English votes for English laws rules. There is no two-tier system, so it is appropriate for me to comment on these situations and support amendments, and to consider whether the impact on workers is important. Whether they are in England, Wales or Scotland, it is important.
It is also appropriate for me to consider the Barnett consequentials of any decisions made. For example, if there is a change in the way that procurement legislation works so that more people are paid the real living wage, we might see a situation where procurement ends up with slightly higher costs and universal credit ends up with slightly lower costs, meaning that we end up with more Barnett consequentials for the Scottish Parliament to spend and greater flexibility within our very limited budgets.
If the Minister is going to continue criticising the Scottish Government’s and the Scottish Parliament’s approach to procurement—he is within his rights to do so—he has no high ground in talking to me if I talk about the England and Wales approach to procurement. I am perfectly entitled to do so. In fact, he has not been elected to the Scottish Parliament, which has power over procurement in Scotland; he has been elected to this Parliament, which does not.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
I completely agree with the hon. Lady that there are not two tiers of Members in this House. She mentioned a 17-year-old. Can she expand on that? I am looking at the Living Wage Foundation website, which states:
“Living Wage accreditation does not require employers to pay the Living Wage to volunteers or apprentices.”
What impact, if any, has the introduction of a real living wage as part of the procurement rules in Scotland had on apprentices in Scotland?
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there is an issue with that, because the national living wage is set differently for apprentices. He is correct that the Living Wage Foundation’s rules on apprenticeships are different. I do not have the figures on whether the wages of our apprentices have risen as a result of the changes that have been made. However, I am sure that the fair work procedures and the rules around that—the inability to fire and rehire, for example—are applicable to apprentices and ensure that they have a higher level of protection than they did previously. In exactly the same way, we have greater requirements with respect to flexible working requests.
Although I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact details on figures and wages, I can say that working conditions are, as standard, better as a result. I am sure that many people who were putting procurement contracts out to tender required the real living wage and great working conditions. The amendments would mandate that, so that it is set in stone and everyone is brought up to that minimum standard, although some will well exceed that.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North for their remarks. The amendments are important because so many people are having to take the difficult decision to take strike action as their wages cannot sustain them. We are seeing situations where people are unable to feed their children and heat their properties. People who work in our core public services are relying on food banks. Instead of demonising those people, we as politicians, and the Government, should be looking at how we can help them.
I am proud to be a member of GMB and Unison. We should remember that trade union members are ordinary people. They pay their union subs, yet they are losing a day’s pay by going on strike to show the Government that their wages cannot sustain them. People are effectively on poverty wages. During this cost of living crisis, it is important that we listen to their valid concerns.
We see a number of employers still not doing the right thing by recognising the issues that their employees are going through, while still making millions of pounds in profits. As I said in my remarks on amendment 107, Labour is committed to delivering fair treatment for all workers, and that must include fair pay and conditions, workplace wellbeing and the development of workers’ skills. We believe that procurement offers a great opportunity to increase social value. Our later amendments will make it clear that we do not want to see those who are breaching the rights of their workers awarded public contracts.
Our ambitions on the minimum wage should not be limited to workers in procurement. Instead, Labour believes we should increase the minimum wage for everyone across the economy. An incoming Labour Government would want to ensure that everyone across the economy is paid a fair day’s wage. We would instruct the Low Pay Commission to factor in living costs when it sets the minimum wage, ensuring that it covers the cost of living.
The cost of living continues to increase for many people and, as inflation continues to rise, their salaries are not keeping pace. These measures would put hundreds of pounds into the pockets of the lowest-paid workers. We would also scrap the low pay category for workers aged 18 and 19.
Alex Burghart
Amendments 95 to 99, tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds East, would place legal requirements on contracting authorities in respect of the Resolution Foundation’s real living wage in their procurements. That would ensure that no public contract could be awarded unless the supplier guaranteed the payment of the real living wage to all those involved in the delivery of the contract, including subcontractors.
While the principle behind the amendments is admirable, the Government cannot support them. It is imperative that all contracts are awarded on the basis of the best value for money for the taxpayer and that staff employed on the delivery of public contracts are paid fairly, in line with existing legal requirements. But using procurement rules to compel private sector employers to pay their workers beyond minimum legal requirements would be disproportionate.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown talked about a floor. There is a floor: for this Government, it is the national minimum wage, or the national living wage for workers over 23. He also mentioned insourcing. Obviously, procuring authorities are completely at liberty to insource if they so wish, and the Bill does nothing to prevent that. If procuring authorities feel that they can get better services, a better deal or better conditions by insourcing, they are entirely at liberty to do so.
I should also let hon. Members know that when constructing a contract, a procuring authority can stipulate pay and conditions as part of that contract. Procuring authorities have big levers at their disposal.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Can the Minister give me an assurance that the terms and conditions that procuring authorities can issue can be the sole reason for not awarding a contract, if a supplier does not fulfil that sole clause?
Alex Burghart
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an absolutely categorical answer, but I can tell him that procuring authorities have it within their power to use that as part of a suite of conditions.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I am not quite clear whether the Minister is unable to give me an assurance from his position, or because procuring authorities cannot do so. If he just cannot give me an assurance from his position, I would appreciate his writing to me to confirm whether procuring authorities have the ability to put in a clause that says, “We can disregard contracts that do not fulfil our wages and conditions requirements.”
Alex Burghart
I will certainly let the hon. Gentleman know.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North raised a number of general points; I encourage her to go back and read Hansard. I am delighted that she is here; I am delighted that Scottish MPs are in the UK Parliament, and that the Scottish people voted to keep them here at the last referendum. I am very pleased that she is on the Committee and bringing her experience to it.
The hon. Lady will have heard me say in the Westminster Hall debate the other day that I wish the SNP was more involved in the running of the constitution of the United Kingdom. I wish, for example, that it was prepared to take up its seats in the House of Lords, in order to engage with debate there and further the interests of the people of Scotland. Alas, it would seem that the SNP has better things to do.
The hon. Lady said that I have said that she should not be talking about these matters. I really do not mind at all if she talks about these matters, but obviously, some amendments have Barnett consequentials and others do not. As long as she is happy for me to discuss what goes on in Holyrood and in Scotland, I am very happy for her to discuss what goes on in Westminster and in English authorities. I have no problem with that at all.
Returning to the issue at hand, as I say, it remains open to contracting authorities to include conditions or criteria around pay and remuneration in their tenders. Should they feel it is appropriate in the individual circumstances, they can design a procurement around those criteria. I respectfully ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I would have been willing to withdraw the amendment if the Minister had been able to give me a cast-iron guarantee that procuring authorities could reject a contract solely on the basis of a failure to meet a wage level. He has not been able to give me that guarantee—although I welcome that he will be writing to me to confirm the position—so I do want to test the water on amendment 95. I will not move the other amendments.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Burghart
I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 19, page 14, line 21, at end insert—
“(ba) may disregard any tender that offers a price that the contracting authority considers to be abnormally low for performance of the contract;”.
This amendment would allow contracting authorities to disregard tenders offering an abnormally low price.
Alex Burghart
We tabled amendments 30 and 31 to ensure that contracting authorities can assess and disregard abnormally low tenders where the supplier cannot demonstrate to the buyer’s satisfaction that it will be able to perform the contract for the proposed price. We are committed to delivering value for money and the amendments will provide helpful safeguards against suppliers that seek to undercut the competition with unrealistic tenders.
Florence Eshalomi
While our response to amendments 30 and 31 is lukewarm, we think that they are important. We want all contracting authorities to consider value for money for the taxpayer when making procurement decisions, but there is a substantial risk of accepting below-value tenders for bids. Procurement has to be sustainable, and we know too well the risks when we get that wrong.
When considering the Bill, we must all remember 15 January 2018 and the collapse of Carillion. When it went into liquidation, it employed 42,000 people, including nearly 20,000 people in the UK. It also had a liability of £2 billion to some 30,000 suppliers and subcontractors, some of which sadly fell into insolvency themselves as a result of the collapse. While there are excludable grounds relating to poor procurement practices set out in later clauses of the Bill, I do feel that these amendments provide another check against the reckless behaviour of companies such as Carillion.
In 2018, following the collapse of Carillion, the then Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), said:
“It is staggering that the Government has attempted to push risks that it does not understand onto contractors, and has so misunderstood its costs. It has accepted bids below what it costs to provide the service, so that the contract has had to be renegotiated. The Carillion crisis itself was well-managed, but it could happen again unless lessons are learned about risk and contract management and the strengths and weaknesses of the sector.”
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
To some extent, has that not already happened again on the east coast franchise? Twice, unrealistic bids have been accepted and then collapsed, requiring the Government step in. It is not unusual for that to happen, so the amendments are good but probably not strong enough.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that those lessons do not seem to have been learned.
The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex went on to say:
“Public trust requires that outsourcing better reflects public service values. The Government must use this moment as an opportunity to learn how to effectively manage its contracts and relationship with the market.”
The amendments will not fully solve the problems associated with Carillion, or the problem just mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown, and a culture shift in procurement should have taken place following the collapse of Carillion. However, they do provide a safeguard for authorities to use against abnormally low and unsustainable bids.
Finally, will the Minister outline the wider impact of changing “most economically advantageous tender” to “most advantageous tender”?
Alex Burghart
I will respond as part of the clause stand part debate.
Amendment 30 agreed to.
Amendment made: 31, in clause 19, page 14, line 23, at end insert—
“(3A) Before disregarding a tender under subsection (3)(ba) (abnormally low price), a contracting authority must—
(a) notify the supplier that the authority considers the price to be abnormally low, and
(b) give the supplier reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that it will be able to perform the contract for the price offered.
(3B) If the supplier demonstrates to the contracting authority’s satisfaction that it will be able to perform the contract for the price offered, the authority may not disregard the tender under subsection (3)(ba) (abnormally low price).”—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment would require contracting authorities to notify suppliers of the fact that the contracting authority considers the price to be abnormally low and give suppliers reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that it is workable before disregarding their tender.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 19 describes the rules that apply to the award of a public contract following the conclusion of a competitive tendering procedure. Contracting authorities are able to award a contract only to the supplier that submits the “most advantageous tender”, which is the tender that satisfies the authority’s requirements and best meets the award criteria when assessed in reference to the assessment methodology and the relative importance of the criteria. The clause describes the circumstances that would either require a contracting authority to exclude a supplier or disregard a tender, or give the authority the discretion to do so.
Contracting authorities are required to disregard tenders when the supplier does not satisfy the conditions for participation, and may disregard a tender that materially breaches a procedural requirement. Contracting authorities are also permitted to disregard tenders from suppliers that are not treaty-state suppliers, or when the supplier intends to subcontract the performance of all or part of the contract to a subcontractor that is not from such a country.
The clause also refers to provisions elsewhere in the Bill that allow for contracts to be reserved for supported employment providers, for contracts for particular services to be reserved for public-service mutuals, and for tenders from suppliers that are not members of a dynamic market to be disregarded. It also deals with when suppliers must or may be excluded. I will come to those specific provisions later.
The Government have a moral obligation to spend taxpayers money efficiently. These rules, which provide better flexibility for procurers, will help to ensure that every pound goes further for our communities and our public services.
Florence Eshalomi
The clause contains a small change, which could have significant ramifications, but it is one that we support. Moving from “most economically advantageous tender” to “most advantageous tender” can make a significant difference to the reality of how contracts are awarded. Throughout this process, we have heard of many people who apply for contracts, and have a lot to offer, but fail the most economically advantageous tender test. The new wording gives them a fighting chance at winning contracts.
Charities may also benefit from that. However, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations is cautious about the power of the new term. I hope the Minister is aware of some of the concerns that it raised. It says, in its submission that
“this alone will not have the desired effect. This was already possible under current regulations and guidance, as contracting authorities are meant to account for the wider benefits of any bid, but in reality, it has rarely been applied, with decisions continuing to be dominated by lowest unit costs.
The change in language to assessing for the MAT will not be sufficient to change practice and culture. Further clarity and expectations are needed so that assessing the MAT includes placing more emphasis on the importance of social value and recognising the different ways this can be delivered.”
I think it is important to get clarity on how this will be applied. With the right instruction, this new rule can open up how authorities judge applications, but if the Government get it wrong, it could lead to confusion and be little better than the status quo.
It is worth considering the advice from Colin Cram, which I mentioned earlier. He said that it costs £1,000 for all the effort that goes into that tender, so SMEs need to know how much things such as the social value will matter in this new test, and whether it is worth them tendering for contracts. Everyone needs clarity to help them to understand that, and to make economic decisions about how to bid. I would therefore welcome a firm commitment from the Minister and the Government on how we could plan for clarity on that term, and a timetable on how that will be published widely to SMEs.
Alex Burghart
I am very pleased to hear the Opposition’s support for this clause and for our significant shift from MEAT to MAT—from most economically advantageous tender to most advantageous tender. That framing sends a very clear signal to contracting authorities to take a broader view, beyond price, of what can be included in the evaluation of tenders—wider social and environmental considerations, for example. We think that the clause will make a significant difference and that, partnered with the national procurement policy statement—NPPS—it will open the way for new thinking about public procurement. I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Competitive tendering procedures
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
A key proposal in the Green Paper was simplification of the existing procurement procedures in the public contracts regulations, and clause 20 is the enactment of that proposal. It sets out how competitive tendering procedures should be run. The first option is an “open procedure”. That is a single-stage procedure whereby any supplier can submit a tender in response to the tender notice. The second option is a “competitive flexible procedure”. That will allow contracting authorities to design the procedure that works best for their procurement, allowing them to engage with suppliers, negotiate, and undertake numerous phases such as for research and development and prototype delivery. Once determined, that procedure will be set out in the tender notice and associated documents.
Florence Eshalomi
This clause is an important one. Again, it relates to the competitive tendering process. Although the mechanisms of these procedures are an incredibly important element of the Bill, many aspects of the procedure are addressed later in the Bill. Those are also referenced in the latter part of this clause. I will cover that later, but I do want to address some aspects of the clause now.
It is welcome that we are seeing a two-stranded procedure system in the Bill. We are aware that some contracts will attract very few bids and are suited to a single-stage tendering process. We are also aware that some tenders will attract many bidders and it is necessary to have a multi-round process to come to a conclusion as to who the best bidder is. Although this provision is welcome, there is discontent from some stakeholders about how the bidding processes will work in practice.
In written evidence, which we all received the other day, Zurich Insurance stated:
“As currently set out, it appears the ‘Competitive Flexible Procedure’ could be the most suitable approach for the Risk and Insurance services. However, it would be useful if more detail on how each of these procedures will operate could be provided within the Bill.”
I therefore have some questions regarding the nature of the multi-round process and how it will work in practice. First, how much effort will be required from contractors at an early stage of the competitive flexible procedure, before putting in a bid? Earlier I referenced and highlighted the evidence from Colin Cram, and we have also heard from him that the cost of putting in a tender can, for some small businesses, be in four figures. For contracts that could attract a large number of bidders—for example, a relatively small contract that can be carried out anywhere—that would mean that many bidders would in effect be entering a really expensive lottery with little chance of winning with their bid. That is particularly off-putting for SMEs, which do not want to spend a significant amount of their budget bidding for these contracts. Mr Cram, who supports the current system of restricted procedure, says that although that system is not perfect, it is much better than what is proposed. He says that the current system
“has a formal and very simple, easily understood and low cost approach to shortlisting businesses/organisations before asking them to tender. Typically, this might result in just 4 being invited to tender. That gives each one a decent, though still expensive, chance of winning.”
We all know that the new system will have advantages over the old, restricted procedure, but I hope that the Minister can address some of the concerns and outline how the new system will not be expensive for SMEs.
Alex Burghart
In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, the new competitive flexible procedure will allow procurers to design the procurement best to deliver their outcome , rather than being constrained by a rigid and bureaucratic process, which is often the case at the moment. That is good commercial practice.
We plan to provide templates and guidance for contracting authorities to use, so that there is consistency of application without stifling their ability to innovate. That flexibility will benefit suppliers, who will be able to negotiate and offer more innovative solutions. Additionally, when a contracting authority publishes an initial advert, it will have to set out the procedure it intends to run. The contracting authority, in setting out the procedure, will have to ensure that it is proportionate and takes into account the nature, complexity and cost of the contract. The procedure set out will then have to be followed. There is scope to modify the procedure, but that must be in a transparent way and only in so far as it would not have changed the market response.
I feel that we have planning and precautions in place to deal with the concerns expressed by the hon. Lady.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Tender notices and associated tender documents
Amendment proposed: 25, in clause 21, page 16, line 29, at end insert—
“(6A) Subject to subsection (6D), subsection (6B) applies where a tender notice or associated tender document indicates that a public contract is suitable for small and medium-sized enterprises.
(6B) If no small or medium-sized enterprise submits a tender, the contracting authority must withdraw the tender notice, and may not republish the tender notice until it has fulfilled the condition in subsection (6C).
(6C) The condition is that the contracting authority has conducted preliminary market engagement (see section 16) with a view to engaging with suppliers who are small and medium-sized enterprises.
(6D) Subsection (6B) does not apply if the contracting authority can demonstrate that it fulfilled the condition in subsection (6C) before the tender notice was published.”—(Florence Eshalomi.)
This amendment would require contracting authorities to engage with small and medium-sized enterprises before describing a contract as suitable for SMEs. The requirement would only apply if no SME submits a tender.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Burghart
The clause describes the requirement for contracting authorities to publish a tender notice in order to advertise and commence a competitive procedure. A tender notice may act as an invitation to submit a tender for the contract under the open procedure, or an invitation to suppliers to submit a request to participate in a multi-stage tender process under the competitive flexible procedure. In either case it must be published on the central platform, the publishing location for all notices required throughout the procurement cycle.
The central digital platform will contain public sector procurement information, allowing the citizen to understand the authorities’ procurement policies and decisions and to see how much money the Government, local authorities and the NHS spend on purchasing essential goods and services, and who is really benefiting from the public purse. Contracting authorities will also be required to provide any relevant associated tender documents, which will provide further details of the procurement. Transparency runs through the Bill like sunlight.
The Bill gives contracting authorities significant freedom to choose a procedure that will best deliver their requirement, but they must set out the process to be followed at the outset. While there is some limited ability to modify those—as we will see in clause 31 —contracting authorities must follow the processes set out in their tender notices or associated tender documents, and failure to do so will leave them at risk of challenge. Further details on the contents of the tender notice and associated tender documents await us in clause 93.
Florence Eshalomi
As the Minister said, the clause pertains to tender notices and all the associated documents. It is crucial to get this right. We cannot just expect measures to be in the Bill—they have to be in there.
The existing Contracts Finder function is the central functioning database for companies to find public contracts that are open for tender. With the Bill, the Government have talked about a new digital platform that will go much further than Contracts Finder, making the finding of contracts even easier. I wish the Government well in that goal, and it is important for a number of reasons.
Alex Burghart
One of the real advantages of having our online digital platform is that everyone, particularly the very small businesses that do not have much capacity, as the hon. Lady mentioned, will know where to go. Everyone will know where to look, and that will be an enormous convenience for all involved. It will help us to fulfil one of the major functions of the Bill, which is to help new entrants into the system and help fresh suppliers take advantage of the £300 billion pot of public procurement money.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Conditions of participation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 22 enables contracting authorities to set conditions on suppliers’ participation in a procurement process. They are the conditions that a supplier must satisfy to be awarded a public contract. The current regime has often described these as the selection criteria. Conditions of participation must relate only to the legal and financial capacity and the technical ability to fulfil the requirements of the contract. Any conditions of participation set for those purposes must also be proportionate to the nature, complexity and cost of the public contract. That means the conditions should not be unnecessarily onerous for the supplier. A contracting authority can include qualifications, experience or technical ability but, to ensure fair treatment of suppliers and equality of opportunity, they cannot relate to a particular prior award of a public contract or contravene the rules on technical specifications in clause 56.
Florence Eshalomi
Clause 22 gives contracting authorities the power to set conditions of participation for contracts where necessary to get the suppliers to fulfil their full terms of contract. This is an important clause because it allows contracting authorities to put checks and balances in place to ensure that suppliers are fit to carry out the contract. That gives contracting authorities the confidence to engage with novel suppliers, providing a certifiable window into procurement. It ensure that checks can be carried out against the kind of collapse we saw with Carillion. This is a proportionate and necessary measure, so I would welcome assurances from the Minister that the guidance will be provided to contracting authorities on how to impose conditions of participation.
Alex Burghart
I thank the Opposition for their support of the clause. Obviously, we will set out a whole range of guidance around the Bill, but the conditions of participation set out in the clause speak for themselves.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Julie Marson.)
Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 2nd February 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 2 February 2023 - (2 Feb 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 23, page 18, line 4, at end insert—
“(3A) Where—
(a) the contracting authority is the Ministry of Defence, and
(b) the contract concerns defence or security,
the award criteria must be weighted so as to advantage United Kingdom suppliers.”
This amendment would give advantage to UK based suppliers in the case of defence or security contracts under the Ministry of Defence.
As has been said during the Committee’s proceedings, when done well, defence procurement strengthens our UK economy and UK sovereignty. Labour in government would make it fundamental to direct British defence investment first to British businesses, with a higher bar set for any decisions to buy abroad. That is the objective behind the amendment.
The Government really have missed an opportunity in the Bill to put British businesses first. We should be using it to ensure that we buy, make and sell more in Britain. Across the country, we have amazing British businesses, with the capability to support all the country’s defence and security procurement needs. Our steel, shipbuilding, aerospace and material industries are national assets and treasures. We need to support them.
If we want to use legislation to empower British business, we need to ensure that British business has the first bite of the cherry of the investment on offer. For the good of our country, we should want to see as much as possible of our equipment designed and built here in the United Kingdom. There are those who think that putting that in the Bill is not necessary, and that being a British business that supports jobs and industry in the UK should speak for itself. Sadly, as we have seen, that is not true.
I draw attention to the recent signing of the contract for fleet solid support ships, which was awarded to a Spanish-led consortium. The Government claim that the contract will support 1,200 jobs across the UK and 800 at Harland & Wolff in Belfast, but it is worth noting that the Government have included no guarantees of those jobs in the contract itself. Under the terms of the contract, the Spanish company will do the majority of the complex manufacturing of the ships, which requires most of the expertise and technology transfers that underpin the project. Instead of investing in the UK’s own abilities in design and technology, we are paying Spain to strengthen its abilities.
To return to my point, the Government chose that Spanish state-subsidised bid over a bid that would have sustained more than 2,000 jobs directly in the design and building of the FSS ships and about 1,500 jobs in the wider UK supply chain, and supported about another 2,500 in local communities around the UK—not insubstantial figures. The award of that contract comes at a critical time for the UK shipbuilding industry. Today, we have already had a statement on the Floor of the House about British Steel. The GMB union has released research to show that shipbuilding and ship repair employment in Great Britain has fallen by 80,000 jobs since the early 1980s. Not only is that a massive decline in skills in the UK industry, but it poses a threat to the UK sovereign defence manufacturing capability at a time of international uncertainty.
I do not need to tell the Committee that this country has a skills gap that desperately needs to be fixed. According to the National Audit Office report on the digital strategy for defence published in October 2022, the Ministry of Defence is having difficulties recruiting and retaining the necessary workforce, because its pay rate cannot compete with the private sector. Some defence companies are actively trying to resolve the issue by recruiting through apprenticeship programmes, such as that at Rolls-Royce, which announced 200 new apprenticeships at its new nuclear skills academy in Derby, and the apprenticeship scheme at Leonardo, where I went last year to speak with the apprentices in Yeovil about their hard work.
Apprenticeships, however, cannot exist without the work to do. One of the main issues that defence companies come to me with is the sustainability of workflow. That makes employers reluctant to take on apprentices for fear that they will not have enough work or money to support them. For apprentices themselves it does not make the defence industry look like a stable place to grow their career. We need long-term investment in apprenticeships and skills development in the UK. There needs to be a culture change in Government to put the growth of local industries first and to review the pipeline of all major infrastructure projects to explore how to increase the materials made in Britain and to upskill the workers to get the jobs of the future.
Such concerns are spread across the whole United Kingdom. The Scottish Affairs Committee has raised those concerns regarding Scottish shipyards. In its report, “Defence in Scotland: military shipbuilding,” which was published on 23 January, the Committee said:
“Recent developments have introduced uncertainty about some orders in the pipeline and whether it sets out a clear ‘drumbeat’ of orders needed to sustain Scottish shipyards.”
UK workers deserve better than that uncertainty.
When discussing the UK defence industry, we must not forget the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises in the supply chain. We know that shipbuilding contracts can help to deliver benefits for the wider economy and in shipbuilding communities. If contracts keep going abroad, work for SMEs will also go abroad, and the skills will go with them.
Public money should be spent for the public good. We should always consider the wider value to society. Our smaller local businesses are at the heart of that. The amendment would advantage British businesses in bidding for defence and security contracts. As a result, it would also advantage UK businesses in the supply chain.
If we are serious about defence procurement, we must commit to buy, sell and make more in Britain. It is crucial, now more than ever, that we have a procurement system that supports our sovereign capabilities, ensuring that UK businesses have the advantage when it comes to securing defence and security contracts.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
It is a pleasure to serve under you this afternoon, Mr Mundell. Before I turn to amendment 12, I would like to refer back to our previous sitting. I said that I would get back to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, who is not in his place at the moment but will have the advantage of being able to read Hansard later. His question was whether a procuring authority can reject a bid if it requires a supplier to pay the real living wage. The short answer is yes. That option is very much open to procuring authorities. I am sorry that I could not provide him with that information earlier, because I know that he would have been happy to hear it.
Amendment 12, tabled by the Opposition, seeks to ensure advantage to UK-based suppliers for defence or security contracts. Defence contracting authorities will determine the right procurement approach on a case-by-case basis. That ensures the delivery of the most effective solution for the armed forces while ensuring value for money, taking into consideration factors including the markets concerned, the technology we are seeking, our national security requirements and the opportunities to work with international partners, before deciding the correct approach to through-life acquisition of a given capability.
The defence and security industrial strategy sets out a strong commitment to maintaining onshore industrial capability in key capability segments, such as those that are fundamental to the UK’s national security. That commitment does not always preclude the involvement of foreign-based firms, as long as they conduct the work in the UK and comply with certain security conditions.
I understand that the Labour party wishes to burnish its patriotic credentials—that is all for the good, I am sure—but to listen to the speech by the hon. Member for Islwyn, one could be forgiven for not understanding that 90% of defence spend is already within the UK. Indeed, the fleet support ships that he referred to will be built to a British design, with the majority of the construction at the Harland & Wolff shipyards in Belfast and Appledore and all the final assembly being completed at the Harland & Wolff shipyard in Belfast, bringing shipbuilding back to Northern Ireland. In our Westminster Hall debate the other day, it was good to hear the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) praising that, and saying what a difference it would make to people and businesses in his community.
We must understand that there is already a good tradition of this approach. The Bill, though stipulations elsewhere, will actually make it easier for British small and medium-sized enterprises to bid for these contracts. We will also have better publication of pipelines, which will help them too.
While I appreciate what the hon. Member for Islwyn is trying to do with his amendment, there is a real risk that, if it was passed, we would see some defence authorities occasionally being forced to accept much more expensive contracts, perhaps with lower capability, and that would be to the detriment of both taxpayers’ money and, more significantly, the capability of our armed forces. I therefore respectfully ask, on those practical grounds, that the amendment be withdrawn.
Chris Evans
The Minister mentioned the hon. Member for Strangford, whose nickname is the hon. Member for Westminster Hall, he speaks in so many Westminster Hall debates—I think he lives there. I listened to what the Minister said, and I appreciate that 90% of contracts are in this country. However, the amendment would be a shot in the arm not only for our defence industries, but for our steelmaking capabilities, so I will press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Burghart
The clause explains what we mean by “award criteria”. They are the criteria against which contracting authorities assess tenders under a competitive tendering procedure, and the clause sets out the rules that apply to them.
The clause requires that award criteria are clear, measurable and specific, comply with the rules on technical specifications, are a proportionate means of assessing tenders, and relate to the subject of the procurement. The clause requires that the way in which tenders are evaluated is transparent and set out in the assessment methodology, and that contracting authorities set out the relative importance of the criteria.
The clause makes it clear that award criteria can cover a wide range of things, from price to how things are produced to what happens at the end of the solution’s lifecycle, provided criteria relate to the subject matter of the contract. The rules allow a contracting authority to limit the number of lots that it wishes to award to a single supplier, when it has broken down a larger procurement into smaller lots or components. Where the contract is for light-touch services, which are person-centred services, reference is made to additional matters that can be considered to be relevant to the subject matter of the contract.
We want contracting authorities to be confident when designing and running procurement procedures. An area that often causes confusion is how far award criteria can be iterated during the process. Given the flexibility afforded to contracting authorities under the new regime, clause 24 makes it clear that award criteria may be added to through greater detail, or tweaked to add clarity during a procurement procedure, but any such refinements to award criteria should be made at specified points. The clause does not allow for wholesale changes to award criteria. For example, during a procurement procedure that allows for a research phase, a design phase and a development phase, the overarching criteria will remain constant, but the specifics may evolve. That is what the clause seeks to achieve.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell.
Clauses 23 and 24, as the Minister highlighted, relate to the award criteria and their refinement before the invitation of tenders. Award criteria for procurement need to be finely balanced to achieve the best deal for the public. If they are too narrow, we risk missing out on innovative processes, and the potential to save the taxpayer money and deliver those services efficiently; if they are too broad, we risk delivering substandard and inappropriate services.
In the lead-up to our consideration of the Bill, I spoke to different groups and charities. They said that broad contract terms often mean that contracting authorities end up awarding the contract to the cheapest bidder. That is despite the charities offering more bespoke and important services that address the needs of procurement far more substantially.
Alex Burghart
I am glad to be able to give the hon. Lady that assurance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Sub-contracting specifications
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
The clause sets out a specific and somewhat technical provision, whereby a contracting authority can either permit or direct a supplier to subcontract the supply of goods, services or works to another supplier.
In certain procurements, circumstances exist where part of the contract needs to be subcontracted to a specified supplier. That could be due to economic or technical reasons relating to requirements of interchangeability or interoperability with existing equipment, services or installations. It could also be due to the protection of exclusive rights.
For example, a contracting authority might require the use of certain technical software that is owned by a single supplier. Therefore, in such procurements, a contracting authority may need to nominate a particular subcontractor that must be used. For direct award under clause 41, however, a contracting authority may only require a supplier to subcontract the supply of goods, works or services to a particular supplier where the justifications for a direct award set out in schedule 5 also apply to the subcontractor.
Florence Eshalomi
The clause states that where a contract could be supplied to a supplier under a direct award, the contracting authority can mandate that a supplier that wins a competitive tender process must subcontract the supply of those works, goods and services to the supplier that could have supplied the contract via a direct award. We have discussed the issues of subcontracting and of direct awards, and we will discuss them further under clauses 71 and 41 respectively. This clause is relatively uncontroversial, in that it seeks to ensure that the mechanisms for direct awards can apply via a subcontract. We therefore do not wish to oppose the clause and are happy for it to stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Excluding suppliers from a competitive award
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
We come to the clauses concerning the exclusion of suppliers. I appreciate that there is considerable interest in these clauses, and rightly so; they are an important part of the Bill.
Clause 26 sets out the basic principles governing the exclusion of suppliers from competitive award of contracts. Subsection (1) provides that contracting authorities must disregard tenders from suppliers that are “excluded”. Excluded suppliers are defined in clause 57 as those in respect of which a mandatory ground for exclusion applies, as set out in schedule 6, and the issues in question are likely to occur again, or that are otherwise treated as excluded suppliers under the Bill.
Subsection (2) provides that contracting authorities must consider whether a supplier is an “excludable supplier” before assessing tenders, and may, at their discretion, disregard tenders from such suppliers. Excludable suppliers are those in respect of which a discretionary exclusion ground applies, as set out in schedule 7, and the issues in question are likely to occur again.
Subsection (3) requires contracting authorities to give the supplier the opportunity to replace an associated person, such as a subcontractor that the supplier is relying on, to meet any conditions of participation, if the exclusion situation pertains to such a supplier.
Clause 26 is essential to give effect to the exclusions regime set out in the Bill with regard to the assessment of tenders, which protects contracting authorities and the public from suppliers that may not be fit to compete for public contracts. However, the clause does not provide the detailed grounds for exclusion and the process for how authorities should apply them. Those are set out in clause 57 and in schedules 6 and 7, which we will come to on a future day.
Clause 27 sets out the basic principles governing the exclusion of suppliers from competitive, multi-staged procurements. Those provisions are needed in addition to clause 26 to ensure that contracting authorities consider the exclusions at the start of multi-stage procedures, as well as when considering tenders.
Subsection (1) provides that contracting authorities must apply the exclusions regime to interested parties at the outset of all multi-staged procurements. For those procurements, authorities should consider whether each interested supplier meets any of the grounds for exclusion and, if so, whether the issues in question are likely to occur again, and whether that supplier is to be treated as an excluded supplier under the Bill for other reasons.
If a supplier is an excluded supplier under subsection (2), the authority must prevent the supplier from participating in, or advancing any further in, the procurement. Where the supplier is an excludable supplier under subsection (3), the authority may, at its discretion, permit the supplier to participate. That has the effect of making exclusions a gateway into the procurement.
Subsection (4) requires contracting authorities to give the supplier the opportunity to replace an “associated person”, such as a subcontractor the supplier is relying on, to meet any conditions of participation, if the exclusion situation pertains to such a supplier.
Clause 27 is essential because it gives effect to the supplier exclusion regime set out in the Bill, which protects contracting authorities and the public from suppliers that may not be fit to compete for public contracts. However, as with clause 26, clause 27 does not provide the detailed grounds for exclusion and the process for how authorities should apply them. Those are set out in clause 57 and schedules 6 and 7.
Clause 28 deals with exclusions and subcontractors. It sets out the circumstances in which contracting authorities must, or may, consider whether the exclusion grounds apply to subcontractors that the bidder in question intends to work with, and how to apply the exclusion regimes where that is the case. Importantly, that is not limited to direct subcontractors of the bidder but includes other subcontractors further down the supply chain.
Subsection (1) requires contracting authorities to request information from suppliers about all intended subcontractors and to check that they are not on the debarment list. Subsection (2) then allows contracting authorities to request additional information about any subcontractors and consider whether they are excluded or excludable suppliers. Contracting authorities may choose to do that for particular types or categories of subcontractors, such as all first-tier subcontractors or service-critical subcontractors.
If a subcontractor is an excluded supplier under subsection (3), the contracting authority must disregard their tender and exclude them from taking part in a competitive tendering procedure. If the subcontractor is an excludable supplier under subsection (4), the contracting authority may disregard their tender or exclude them from the procedure. Before disregarding a supplier’s tender or excluding them from a procedure under this clause, under subsection (5), the contracting authority must give the supplier the opportunity to replace the subcontractor in the supply chain in order to avoid itself being excluded.
We know that some of the worst corporate misconduct and unlawful behaviour occurs deep in supply chains to Government. That is particularly true with respect to forced labour and other modern slavery abuses. This clause is essential to ensure that the same standards to which we hold bidders for contracts can be applied all the way down the supply chain.
Florence Eshalomi
Clauses 26 to 28 concern the exclusion of suppliers on the grounds listed in schedules 6 and 7 related to mandatory and discretionary grounds for exclusion. We support the inclusion of exclusion grounds in the Bill. In the Green Paper “Transforming Public Procurement”, the Government said:
“The current procurement regulations allow contracting authorities to take into account the past performance of a supplier on only very limited grounds and commercial teams often have to rely on bidders’ self-declarations rather than objective, evidence-based information. We can act now to raise the bar on the standards expected of all suppliers to the public sector and ensure that outstanding small suppliers are able to secure more market share, increasing productivity and boosting economic growth.”
I am sure that there is complete agreement on that in the Committee today. There can be no question but that we should not give public money to those convicted of wrongdoing or acting in a way that damages the country and our communities.
Clauses 26 to 28 put into place terms to bring the mandatory exclusion grounds from schedule 6 and schedule 7 into force by using the language of “excluded” and “excludable”, as defined in clause 57. Of course, the strength of this clause is heavily determined by the strength of the grounds for exclusion.
We are pleased to see some steps forward from the system inherited from European Union directives, which was brought into power in this country via the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. In particular, we are pleased to see environmental misconduct implemented as a discretionary exclusion ground. Our environment is a key natural asset that provides us with the building blocks for living in this country. Those who seek to damage our environment—for example, by dumping waste and causing significant damage to plant or animal life—should not be given Government contracts. We are also pleased to see national security within the system, although, as the Minister can guess from our planned amendments, we feel that this could have a stronger presence in the Bill, with some of the ambiguity removed.
When reading through the clause, we had some concerns about how it will be applied and some of the doors that it leaves open on discretionary exclusion grounds. Although the Bill is clear that those excluded on mandatory grounds must be disregarded from a tendering process, it is not clear on the fate of suppliers that fall foul of the discretionary grounds. Here, the Bill says that contracting authorities “must consider” whether a supplier is excludable on discretionary grounds but “may disregard” their tender, as the Minister said. This discussion may seem similar to ones we have already had, but this could have far more serious consequences.
For example, let us say that a supplier is decided to be a national security risk following an assessment by a contracting authority and that is confirmed by the Government via the provisions in clause 29. That supplier then applies for a tender to another contracting authority. What is stopping that contracting authority awarding this contract, should it so wish? There does not seem to be any mechanism to permanently exclude an excludable supplier in the Bill. Even when the Government consider a threat so severe that it should go on the debarment list, the Bill would still allow authorities to apply the “may” rather than the “must” exclude part.
I am sure the Minister will say that he will issue clear guidance on this and that contracting authorities should, of course, exclude a supplier in this case, but these are serious grounds for exclusion; we all agree on that. We cannot leave it to chance that a contracting authority uses the powers as they are written in the Bill, rather than as the Minister wishes. At the very least, that creates ambiguity around the whole system.
Alex Burghart
On that final point, the hon. Lady will have heard me say that we intend to introduce a major programme of training and guidance across many areas covered by the Bill, as part of breathing new life into procurement in our country.
On the hon. Lady’s previous points, this part of the Bill deals with the creation of the mechanism, the details of which are dealt with subsequently in the Bill. The mechanism is that there are some discretionary grounds for exclusion and some mandatory grounds for exclusion. When we get to the relevant clauses and schedules, we will be able to put our arguments, and she and her party can say whether they think that certain issues should be mandatory or exclusionary. I think she will see, when we get there, that sometimes there are grounds for mandatory exclusion on particular issues, but sometimes, on a different version of the same issues, there can be grounds for discretionary exclusion. As I say, we will get into the detail of that as we progress.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 27 and 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29
Excluding a supplier that is a threat to national security
Florence Eshalomi
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 29, page 20, line 42, leave out
“paragraph 14 of Schedule 7”
and insert
“paragraph 42A of Schedule 6”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 15.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 15, in schedule 6, page 104, line 25, at end insert—
“National security
42A A mandatory exclusion ground applies to a supplier if a decision-maker determines that the supplier or a connected person poses a threat to the national security of the United Kingdom.”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 16, would move national security from among the discretionary exclusion grounds in Schedule 7 to the mandatory exclusion grounds in Schedule 6.
Amendment 16, in schedule 7, page 110, leave out lines 28 to 31.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 15.
Amendment 17, in schedule 7, page 111, line 39, leave out sub-sub-paragraph (e).
See explanatory statement to Amendment 15.
Amendment 19, in clause 78, page 53, line 38, leave out
“paragraph 14 of Schedule 7”
and insert
“paragraph 42A of Schedule 6”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 15.
New clause 1—National Security Procurement Committee—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a committee, chaired by the Minister for Resilience, to consider (a) national security and (b) cyber security within the Government’s supply chain.
(2) The committee must consider whether suppliers should be excluded on the basis of the discretionary exclusion ground in paragraph 14 of Schedule 7 (threat to national security).
(3) The committee must review ongoing major government contracts, with focus on threats to national and cyber security.
(4) The committee must meet no less than once every three months.”
This new clause will mandate that a new committee must be set up with a view to proactively identifying potential security threats within the Government’s supply chain.
New clause 4—Dependence on high-risk states—
“(1) The Secretary of State must within six months publish a plan to reduce the dependence of public bodies upon goods and services which originate in whole or in part in a country considered by the United Kingdom as a high risk sourcing country.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a country is considered a high risk sourcing country by the United Kingdom if it is defined as either a systemic competitor or a threat in the latest Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy.”
Florence Eshalomi
Amendments 18 and 15 to 19 relate to the discussions that we just had—on clauses 26 to 29 stand part—on exclusion and excludable grounds. Taken together, the amendments would move the national security ground for exclusion from schedule 7 to schedule 6. In practice, that would mean taking the consideration that a supplier is a threat to national security from being a discretionary to a mandatory ground.
As I mentioned, we considered removing the distinction between mandatory and discretionary grounds entirely in the Bill, and to some degree, the amendment serves as the first step towards considering wider reform of these parts of the Bill. However, we believe there is a particular case for national security to be a mandatory, not a discretionary ground.
Perhaps the Minister can cast his mind back to Second Reading, over a month ago. During that debate, Members on both sides of the House raised a number of valid concerns about national security in procurement. We in the Opposition share those concerns. Procurement deals with our basic infrastructure and offers a million doors into our country to those who represent a security threat. We cannot be too arrogant to believe that those who represent such a security threat cannot think of innovative ways to get access to critical and sensitive information.
Just last month, we heard how SIM cards capable of tracking location were found in ministerial cars, which was very concerning. We need to think about all the data that could be revealed and the sensitive information that could end up in the hands of malign actors. Even for minor contracts, important information about the country could be extracted without our knowledge. It is worth reiterating that we cannot be too arrogant about knowing what information is sensitive and what is not.
As we enter the age of the internet, our data and the strength of our infrastructure become more valuable and at even greater risk. There is no room to open up the operating strands of the country to national security risks. Doing so confers unnecessary risk on the state.
Let me take the Minister’s mind back to the speech from his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns). He can look at some of the points she highlighted if he doubts the severity and importance of the issue. She made a powerful case, and the test for what constitutes a national security threat should be strong, as it is in the Bill.
Clause 29 provides that suppliers may be excluded on those grounds only with the express permission of a Minister. It is right to have that test in the Bill, as no one wants contracting authorities making decisions on such important matters. However, it makes no sense for there to be such a high-level test in the Bill if no high-level response comes with it. It also makes no logical sense to the path of decision making in the Bill. It also makes no logical sense for the path of decision making in the Bill. If the matter is so important that the decision to exclude cannot be left to authorities, why do contracting authorities have discretion to decide whether to disregard a tender? Surely at the very least the decision to disregard a tender should also be taken at Secretary of State level. Under the Bill, even when the Secretary of State decides to place a supplier that is deemed to be a national security threat on the debarment list, contracting authorities still have discretion over whether to award the contract.
It does not take much imagination to see that an under-resourced contracting authority might decide that national security issues were not relevant to a small contract, and that could inadvertently open a door to sensitive information being shared. We are clear that there are no circumstances where a national security threat should be awarded a Government contract.
There is an unacceptable and unknown threat associated with having suppliers that are considered a national threat in our procurement system. I welcome the positive Government amendments that go in the direction of acknowledging that; the Bill is a step forward on national security. However, amendments 15 to 19 are the only way to close the loopholes in our procurement system.
In the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton said that
“we must ensure we do not end up in a relentless whack-a-mole trying to hunt down the companies responsible for such things. We need to focus on the components within sensitive industries or sensitive items, and to ensure that any public body procuring such components or companies within relevant industries must come to someone for a second review. That means we are not attacking a specific country and saying China’s products are bad or saying that certain companies are awful; we are doing due diligence in sensitive areas. That is why we need a SAGE-style committee on public procurement specifically looking at national security.”
We completely agree with that sentiment. New clause 1 is an attempt to bring to life that committee in the style of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. As I said on amendment 11 to clause 13, there are a multitude of examples from the past decade of procurement giving rise to national security concerns, the latest of them involving SIM cards being found in ministerial cars; I mentioned that earlier. We are seeing the same questions arise throughout our debates. What damage has already been done? How much will it cost to repair? How did we not spot this earlier? These are all good questions. Without fail, the answer to all those questions is that the cost and damage is far greater than if we had acted earlier and prevented concerns from arising.
I hope the Minister will agree that new clause 1 aims for a cultural change in national security and procurement. We cannot afford to be reactive when it comes to national security threats. The sooner we act, the less valuable information we lose, and the less risk we are at from the threats that we identify. The SAGE-style committee could consider whether a supplier could be excluded on national security grounds. It could also consider wider threats across the supply chain. In his closing remarks on amendment 11, the Minister said:
“National security is, of course, of paramount importance.”––[Official Report, Procurement Public Bill Committee, 31 January 2023; c. 63.]
That being so, I hope that he will support new clause 1.
Clause 29 adds provisions relating to exclusion on national security grounds; it ensures that the grounds for exclusion are verified by the Secretary of State. Declaring that a supplier is a threat to national security is serious, and it is right that there be scrutiny in the system to ensure that contracting authorities do not do it lightly, or without due care. I hope the Minister can inform me how that will interact with the debarment test that he mentioned. Given the scrutiny and certification that is needed if a supplier is to be disregarded on the grounds that they are a national security threat, it is logical that the great bulk of those suppliers will end up on the debarment list. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case? If it is not, what circumstances relating to national security would lead to a supplier not being added to the debarment list?
Alex Burghart
New clause 1 would legislate for the establishment of a committee to consider the threat to national security and cyber-security from suppliers in supply chains delivering public contracts. The Government take national security considerations extremely seriously, and we understand the importance of countering threats to our security throughout our supply chains. We recently demonstrated that through our action to remove Chinese surveillance equipment from sensitive sites across the Government estate. The inclusion of the national security exclusion ground in schedule 7 to the Bill will bring about a significant improvement to the existing EU-derived regime. It will allow a supplier to be excluded on national security grounds, even when the procurement does not meet the bar for exemption on those grounds.
We understand the intention behind the hon. Lady’s new clause, but it duplicates aspects of the new procurement regime underpinned by the Bill. I have already mentioned the ability to exclude a supplier on grounds of national security. The Bill requires any contracting authority that wishes to rely on those grounds when excluding a supplier or rejecting their tender to first notify a Minister of the Crown, who must be satisfied that the supplier should be excluded.
The notification not only ensures that the Minister agrees to the exclusion, but serves to alert them, if they are not already aware, that there may be security concerns about the supplier. The Minister may accordingly decide to investigate the supplier under clause 60, which could lead to the supplier being placed on the debarment list under clause 62. Furthermore, if a supplier already holds a public contract and is found to meet any exclusion ground, clause 77(2)(b) enables the contract to be terminated. Clause 77(2)(c) extends that to subcontracts. As with exclusion, any proposed termination on the grounds of national security must be brought to the attention of the Minister for a decision; again, that could trigger debarment from future procurements.
Under the new clause, the proposed committee would also consider threats to cyber-security. Existing policy in this area is detailed in procurement policy note 09/14. That mandates that where contracts have certain characteristics, suppliers must meet the technical requirements prescribed by the Cyber Essentials scheme. That applies when ICT systems and services supplied by the contract either store or process data at official level. In addition, the MOD, through the defence cyber protection partnership, has developed the cyber-security model that is to be applied to its procurements to ensure cyber-security-related risks are adequately managed throughout the life of the contract.
In short, contracting authorities are already alive to the need to consider national security, including cyber-threats, when procuring public services, and are well placed to review their contracts and supply chains for such threats, bolstered by the provisions of the Bill. However, I am mindful of the concerns raised by colleagues on Second Reading, and those concerns will continue to inform Government thinking as we move forward.
Amendments 15 to 19 seek to make exclusion on national security grounds mandatory, rather than discretionary. Any risk to national security should of course be taken very seriously indeed, but it is right that we leave some scope for nuance and flexibility in the application of the exclusion ground. Suppliers may pose a risk in some contexts, but not in others. For instance, in a relatively innocuous procurement, the exclusion of a supplier might not be merited if the contracting authority was confident that there was no potential for harm. A company that might raise concern in the manufacture of one technical device might also produce paper clips, which would not be a threat to national security.
It is important to note that contracting authorities must consider all exclusion grounds, mandatory and discretionary, against every supplier in each procurement. Any decision not to exclude a supplier that poses a national security risk must be weighed against that risk, and I am confident that contracting authorities will do so carefully.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I understand what the Minister is saying, but if the contracting authority is spending public money on those paper clips, it is funding a company that can breach national security and do things that are against the national interest. The contract may not be a risk to national security, but the company is, so surely it should be a mandatory, rather than a discretionary, exclusion.
Alex Burghart
There would be a balance of risks. Not all security threats are proven. Of course, it is up to the authority to assess the concerns at the time.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Burghart
Clause 30 requires contracting authorities to exclude suppliers that have gained an unavoidable, unfair advantage in a procurement as a result of improper behaviour in relation to that procurement, and suppliers that have failed to provide an accurate and complete list of connected persons and associated persons when requested to by the contracting authority.
Subsections (1) and (2) are clear that exclusion as a response to improper behaviour, defined in subsection (4), is a last resort. It is to be used only where the supplier has gained an unfair advantage that cannot be remedied other than by exclusion. Subsection (3) requires contracting authorities to give suppliers the opportunity to remedy their improper behaviour. When suppliers seek to tilt the playing field in their favour via mis-representation or undue influence, and fail to remedy that, it makes fair and open competition for contracts impossible, and it is taxpayers who pay the price.
Transparency is another essential component of fair procurement, so subsections (5) and (6) are clear that suppliers that are not prepared to disclose full and accurate details of their connected persons, including beneficial owners and directors, or associated persons—for example, subcontractors that are relied on to meet conditions for participation in the procurement—are not fit to bid for public contracts. Contracting authorities must know who owns or has control over the suppliers with which they are contracting. The clause will support them in gaining that knowledge.
Florence Eshalomi
As the Minister has highlighted, clause 30 concerns the exclusion of suppliers who behave improperly during the procurement process. It is important that we do not tolerate improper behaviour in procurement. Many procurement contracts are public-facing and require a huge amount of trust, because the suppliers represent the contracting authority to the public. If there is evidence of misleading and improper behaviour that betrays a lack of integrity during the procurement process, it will raise doubts about whether such behaviour may flow through into how the company carries out the contract. Critical goods are procured via these processes, which are vital to the way our country functions, and we cannot let those who embellish their evidence during the tendering process have access to our supply chains.
The Opposition support the clause, but I have a few questions about how it will work. What steps will be taken to establish improper behaviour during the tendering process? What steps can be taken if information comes to light after the award of a contract? It is crucial that improper influence does not permeate into our procurement system; the measures in the Bill can prevent that, but there also needs to be transparency in the system so that we can spot things like undue influence and prevent improper behaviour from falling through the cracks. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that undue influence, both formal and informal, is spotted during the procurement process?
I must also ask what consistent remedy is available to contracting authorities that find out about breaches following the award of a contract. Let me take hon. Members back to the covid-19 scandal, when billions of pounds-worth of unsellable personal protective equipment was written off. I know that that was not all due to fraudulent behaviour from suppliers, and that some fraudulent behaviour would not fall under the clause if a competitive tender were used. However, it is shocking that the Government admitted on 20 December 2022, in answer to a parliamentary question, that only £18 million of taxpayers’ money had been clawed back from PPE contracts.
There needs to be stronger clawback and remedies when suppliers act improperly. Perhaps that is a matter of culture more than legislation, as many contracts include such a clause, but it would still be helpful to hear what the Minister thinks needs to be done to ensure that more public money is clawed back from those who act improperly.
Alex Burghart
In answer to the hon. Lady’s final point, the Government are absolutely seeking to recover public money. The Department of Health and Social Care has been in a process of mediation, but obviously there will come a point at which mediation may need to lead to litigation. Contracts have been drawn up in a way that ensures that we can do the right thing by taxpayers.
On the hon. Lady’s earlier point, I can reassure her that we will publish guidance to support contracting authorities in this area, so that they can conduct due diligence on suppliers and their connected persons.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Modifying a section 19 procurement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
There will be times when changes need to be made to the terms of a procurement. Clause 31 sets the scope for such modifications, with the intention of striking a balance between permitting changes required by contracting authorities and preventing abuse of that flexibility, for example to suit a particular supplier. Modifications are allowed in all procedures, but—with the exception of light-touch contracts, which have greater flexibility—they must be confined to non-substantial changes. In essence, that prevents a change that would be likely to impact the market response to the procurement.
Where a permitted modification is made, the contracting authorities must, in consequence, consider revising the time given to suppliers to respond to the invitation to tender or request to participate. The making of modifications will also be transparent, as the contracting authority must provide revised documentation that highlights the changes.
Florence Eshalomi
Clause 31 relates to the modification of a section 19 procurement prior to the deadline for submitting a request to participate in the procedure, where there has been no invitation to submit such requests. This sensible clause has proportionate provisions relating to the alteration of contracts. It is right that contracting authorities should be able to modify terms early in the process and carry out later alterations where they are not substantial, or relate to light-touch contracts.
Alex Burghart
As the hon. Lady will know, we have included provisions throughout the Bill to make sure that bids are more accessible for SMEs and that we have a level playing field. In that respect, the clause is no different from others in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Reserving contracts to supported employment providers
Alex Burghart
I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 32, page 23, line 22, after “operates” insert “wholly or partly”.
This amendment would mean that an organisation could meet the test of being a “supported employment provider” if it only partly has the purpose of providing employment or support to disabled or disadvantaged individuals.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 92, in clause 32, page 23, line 23, leave out “or disadvantaged”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 93 would ensure that provisions related to supported employers are targeted at disabled individuals, in line with the Public Contract Regulations 2006.
Government amendment 33.
Amendment 93, in clause 32, page 23, line 25, leave out “or disadvantaged”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 92 would ensure that provisions related to supported employers are targeted at disabled individuals, in line with the Public Contract Regulations 2006.
Amendment 94, in clause 32, page 23, line 25, leave out “30” and insert “50”.
This amendment would increase the threshold for an employer to be considered supported from 30% of disabled or disadvantaged staff to 50%, in line with the Public Contract Regulations 2006.
Clause stand part.
Alex Burghart
Amendments 32 and 33 seek to ensure that the provision is applied widely and as intended, so as to support disabled or disadvantaged people who might otherwise struggle to find employment effectively. Many of the organisations that wish to provide that assistance through the delivery of public contracts do so via arrangements commonly referred to as “employment programmes”, which can be established by one organisation or a number of organisations working together. We need to ensure that those programmes can qualify for a reserved contract. Amendments 32 and 33 therefore seek to clarify that the 30% threshold for disabled or disadvantaged workers can be applied to the programme or part of an organisation, and not just to the organisation as a whole. Where a programme is established as a result of organisations working together, each organisation can contribute to the 30% threshold.
The amendments also seek to clarify that, in order to qualify, an organisation does not necessarily need to have been set up with the sole purpose of assisting disabled or disadvantaged people in employment, but the part of the organisation interested in delivering the contract must have that purpose. This may be a subsidiary or a specific project within an organisation. Where it is applied to a programme made up of a number of organisations working together, the purpose applies to the programme.
Clause 32 allows procurements to be reserved for organisations that provide employment and/or assistance in finding and retaining employment for disabled or disadvantaged people, allowing public procurement to support organisations that assist people who might otherwise struggle to access the labour market, while delivering public services to a high standard. Such companies are often not for profit and will therefore benefit from a more level playing field when competing for a reserved procurement than might otherwise be the case. In order to qualify, the organisation, or an arrangement between organisations, must have the aim of assisting disabled or otherwise disadvantaged people in employment, and at least 30% of the workforce must be disabled or otherwise disadvantaged.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the Minister for his explanation of amendments 32 and 33. We support the use of supported employers and believe that they could go even further, as I will argue in relation to our amendments 92 to 94, but I will first touch on amendments 32 and 33.
We are concerned that Government amendments 32 and 33 expand the definition of supported employment provider so that it would apply where the part of the organisation delivering the contract would meet the relevant thresholds, which could potentially allow for a further watering down of the requirements. Has the Minister considered the potential of the amendments to limit the effectiveness of supported employment by allowing more providers that are not focused on the needs of disabled people to access reserved contracts, or even the potential for larger contractors to game the system? We do not intend to push the amendments to a vote, but I would welcome clarity from the Government and I hope that the Minister’s response will satisfy me. We reserve our right on that.
On amendments 92 to 94, supported employment is a long-established practice and plays an important role in increasing employment opportunities for disabled people. The principle of reserving contracts so that only supported employment providers can bid for them is welcome. However, there are concerns that the Bill does not set a sufficiently high bar for an organisation to be a supported employer, dilutes the aims of reserving contracts and potentially opens the system to abuse.
The Public Contracts Regulations 2006 required 50% of employees to be disabled people, which provided a greater focus on the specific aim of supporting the employment of disabled people. Clause 32 instead enshrines the weaker standard defined in the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which require only 30% of workers to be disabled or disadvantaged. That potentially limits the impact of supported employment in providing employment opportunities for disabled people.
Concerns have been raised that that approach does not fully recognise the importance of deaf and disabled people’s organisations, or DDPOs, which not only provide supported employment but have a wider role in society. There are clear links between the work of DDPOs and social value. DDPOs protect and uphold disabled people’s rights, campaign for equality and inclusion, and provide a range of peer-led accessible services. Their services support disabled people in accessing services and entitlements, challenging discrimination and exclusion, and having choice, control and independence.
Amendments 92 to 94 would return to the broad definition of a supported employment provider set out in the Public Contracts Regulations by requiring 50% of employees to be disabled and placing a greater emphasis on the role of DDPOs. Inclusion London, a membership body for DDPOs in London, defines a DDPO as an organisation the management committee or board of trustees of which has at least 75% representation from deaf and disabled people, the staff of which is made up of at least 50% deaf and disabled people at all levels of the organisation, and that works to provide services for or works on behalf of deaf and disabled people.
Amendments 92 and 93 would remove “disadvantaged” from the definition. Disability is clearly defined in the Equality Act 2010, which provides a more robust definition that would ensure that the aim of reserving contracts is effectively targeted at the right providers. Did the Government consider the merits of the 2006 definition in preparing the Bill, and did the Government assess whether that definition more effectively targeted the measure of reserving contracts? Will the Minister consider engaging with DDPOs to ensure that the benefits of those organisations are considered in implementing the Bill?
Alex Burghart
Amendments 92 to 94, tabled by the hon. Lady, seek to reduce the scope of application of clause 32, which allows procurement to be reserved for supported employment providers. The clause is consistent with the requirements in regulation 20 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which has functioned well since coming into force. Amendments 92 to 94 seek to revert to procurement rules from 2006, which have long since been repealed.
Amendments 92 and 93 seek to remove the support to disadvantaged people who may struggle to access the labour market. “Disadvantaged” is deliberately undefined in the Bill to enable contracting authorities, particularly local government, to address challenges in the employment landscape at any point in time. The underlying objectives could be to assist those who traditionally struggle to access the labour market, such as the long-term unemployed, prison leavers or care leavers. It is our intention that this clause be capable of broad application, at the discretion of the contracting authority. Amendment 94 would result in fewer organisations, including not-for-profit organisations, being able to qualify for a place in a reserved procurement.
Increasing the percentage of the workforce who must be disabled—or disadvantaged, as the clause is currently drafted—from 30% to 50% may at first appear as an incentive for organisations to have more disabled employees, and therefore appear laudable. However, in reality, it will reduce the competitive market. A threshold of 50% will be a very high target for most organisations looking to bid on their own. Similarly, employment programmes are often the result of collaboration between commercial and not-for-profit organisations, which contribute to meeting the threshold. We have taken steps to ensure those sorts of arrangements can qualify. Significantly increasing the threshold may put those collaborations at risk—we would not want to see that.
Suppliers might feel obliged to establish more complex supply chains to meet the threshold, which could hinder the quality of delivery and could drive up costs. Alternatively, suppliers might simply choose not to bid for Government contracts.
Ultimately, if a reserved procurement is to be successful, it requires competition. The smaller the pool of qualifying organisations, the less likely a reserved competition will be viable, meaning contracting authorities will not be able to use the provision, and the direct support to the people and organisations the clause aims to benefit will be lost.
Amendment 32 agreed to.
Amendment made: 33, in clause 32, page 23, line 24, leave out from “individuals” to end of line 26 and insert “where—
(a) disabled or disadvantaged individuals represent at least 30 per cent of the workforce of the organisation,
(b) if a particular part of the organisation is to perform the contract, disabled or disadvantaged individuals represent at least 30 per cent of the workforce of that part of the organisation, or
(c) if more than one organisation is to perform the contract, disabled or disadvantaged individuals represent at least 30 per cent of the combined workforce of—
(i) those organisations,
(ii) where a particular part of each organisation is to perform the contract, those parts, or
(iii) where a combination of organisations and parts is to perform the contract, those organisations and parts.”—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment would mean that an organisation could meet the test of being a “supported employment provider” if part of the organisation meets that test and that part is to perform the contract, or the test is met by the combined workforce of organisations or parts of organisations that will together perform the contract.
Clause 32, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Reserving contracts to public service mutuals
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 33 operates similarly to clause 32, but allows only specific procurements to be reserved for organisations that have spun out of the public sector to provide social services, with company decisions managed by company employees. Those companies are known as public service mutuals.
Public service mutuals play a vital role in supporting communities at a local level, delivering essential services and contributing to economic growth. However, they may struggle to compete with larger or more well-established suppliers, and it is therefore appropriate that we encourage these public service mutuals by enabling competition in certain limited circumstances among only those organisations that meet the requirements of this clause.
Subsection (6) provides a full definition of a public service mutual body for the purposes of applying this clause. For example, in order to qualify, the company must be run on a not-for-profit basis or restrict the distribution of profits to its members. The exact list of services that can be reserved under clause 33 will be provided in secondary legislation under subsection (8). All reservable services are also light-touch services; examples include adult educational services and rehabilitation services.
Florence Eshalomi
As the Minister has mentioned, clause 33 gives contract authorities the ability to reserve certain light-touch contracts for public service mutuals. I am pleased to discuss this matter; as a very proud Labour and Co-operative MP, I am happy to have another opportunity to talk about how fabulous co-operatives are and how they can benefit the public sector. It is fair to say that the Minister and I agree that public service mutuals have so much to offer in terms of innovation and how they can help the wider public sector. The running of services by people rooted in their community helps to bring an understanding of local needs to the heart of public service mutuals, and they can also improve both employee morale and the quality of services for users.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady will have heard me say on Tuesday about the light-touch provisions that the Government are heavily hemmed in by our international obligations in this area. The codes to which she referred are very specific and they are not included in the Bill because they are extremely numerous. I think there are about 500 of them, so it would have been very difficult for us to put them all in the Bill. However, I am grateful that she supports the general thrust of the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Competitive award by reference to dynamic markets
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
This substantial grouping of clauses is of considerable importance to the Bill.
Clause 34 relates to the awarding of contracts under the new concept of a dynamic market. This is a highly flexible commercial tool. Dynamic markets are established by contracting authorities and essentially are “live” lists of suppliers that are pre-qualified to deliver certain types of contracts.
Dynamic markets are similar to existing dynamic purchasing systems, in that they will allow for suppliers to be admitted to the market if they meet the conditions of membership. To maximise the benefits of this flexible purchasing tool, we have significantly broadened the type of contracts that can be awarded in dynamic markets. Dynamic markets will be available for all types of procurement and not just for commonly used goods and services, as was the case for dynamic purchasing systems.
Clause 34 is the first in a series of clauses relating to dynamic markets. It allows a contracting authority that has established a dynamic market to award contracts under the market by undertaking a competitive flexible procedure. The use of a dynamic market does not avoid the need to comply with the usual rules for a competitive flexible procedure under clause 20.
Subsection (1) allows contracting authorities to restrict procurements to suppliers that are members of a dynamic market or a part of the market, for example if the dynamic market comprises categories of works or services. A supplier will be a member of a dynamic market if the market allows for the award of the contract in question by that contracting authority and the supplier has been admitted to the market. Subsection (3) requires contracting authorities to disregard tenders from suppliers that are not members of the dynamic market.
Dynamic markets are open to new suppliers to join at any time, as long as they meet the conditions for membership, which is a substantial improvement on the way things have been done up to this point. For that reason, subsection (4) requires contracting authorities to consider membership applications from non-member suppliers before excluding them from the procedure or disregarding their tenders. Subsection (5) says that the only exception to that is where, due to the complexity of the procurement, the application for membership cannot be considered in the timescales set out by the contracting authority for requests to participate or tenders.
Clause 35 sets out how dynamic markets, including utilities dynamic markets, may be established. It allows contracting authorities to establish arrangements known as dynamic markets, which are essentially live lists of suppliers that are pre-qualified to deliver certain types of contracts for the purpose of contracting authorities awarding contracts to suppliers that are members of the dynamic market.
Subsection (2) defines a utilities dynamic market, which is a particular type of dynamic market for the award of utilities contracts by utilities. Subsection (3) allows utilities to award utilities contracts under a utilities dynamic market established by any person, as long as the market has been established in accordance with the rules applicable to utilities dynamic markets as established by private utilities.
Subsection (4) defines a utility as a public authority or public undertaking that carries out a utility activity or a private utility. Utility activities are set out in schedule 4; private utilities are defined in clause 2. Subsection (5) states that the establishment or modification of a dynamic market is not a contract for the purpose of the Bill, making it clear that all the rules on the award of contracts do not apply.
Clause 36 sets out the rules on how suppliers can become members of dynamic markets, including utilities dynamic markets. Subsection (1) allows contracting authorities to set conditions of membership that suppliers must meet in order to be admitted to a dynamic market. The conditions of membership must be a proportionate way of assessing suppliers’ legal and financial capacity and technical ability to deliver contracts that might be awarded as part of the arrangement.
Subsection (2) prohibits conditions of membership that require the submission of annual audited accounts by suppliers that are not already required by law to have their annual accounts audited. It also prohibits conditions of membership that require insurances to be in place before the contract is awarded. As hon. Members will be aware, this is a major boon to SMEs that are seeking to get involved.
The restrictions on the conditions of membership of a dynamic market, set out in subsection (3), are similar to those applicable to conditions of participation in a competitive tendering procedure under clause 22. They include limiting conditions to those that are a proportionate means of ensuring suppliers have the relevant qualifications, experience and technical ability to perform the contract, ensuring that the conditions do not break the rules on technical specifications, and requiring that equivalents must be allowed where particular qualifications are required.
Subsection (4) says that when deciding on what is proportionate, the contracting authority must have regard to the types, complexity and cost of contracts that will be awarded through the dynamic market. Subsection (5) ensures that contracting authorities can require evidence that a condition of membership is met to be independently verifiable by a person that is not the supplier.
Subsection (6) ensures that dynamic markets remain open to new suppliers as long as the dynamic market is in operation. Applications for membership must be considered within a reasonable period and suppliers must be informed of the outcome of their application, with reasons. Suppliers that meet the conditions of membership must be admitted to the market in a timely manner. This measure is another great innovation. Where these systems have been in place previously, once the list is set up, it has been closed to new entrants. Now, new entrants will be permitted throughout the operation of the market.
Subsection (7) says that the membership of a dynamic market cannot be limited to specific numbers of suppliers and the conditions of membership cannot be amended during the lifetime of the arrangement.
Clause 37 outlines the rules on removing suppliers from a dynamic market. Any supplier that is on the debarment list for a mandatory exclusion ground must be removed from a dynamic market under subsection (1). It would be entirely inappropriate for suppliers subject to debarment on that basis to remain on a dynamic market.
Subsection (2) allows contracting authorities to remove a supplier from a dynamic market if it is an excluded supplier or has become an excludable supplier, or it is discovered to have been an excludable supplier when it applied for membership. Additionally, if the conditions of membership are no longer met, the supplier may be removed from the dynamic market. That provides contracting authorities with flexibility to manage their dynamic markets as they best see fit. Subsection (4) states that, before being removed from a dynamic market, a supplier must be told in writing of the decision and the reasons why.
Clause 38 sets out when fees can be charged to suppliers that participate in dynamic markets, including utilities dynamic markets. Subsection (1) allows for fees to be charged when a supplier is awarded a contract under a dynamic market—other than a utilities dynamic market, which is addressed separately. That avoids “pay to play” arrangements and ensures that fees are only chargeable if the supplier is awarded work. The fees must be calculated as a fixed percentage of the estimated value of the contract awarded. For utilities dynamic markets, subsection (2) states that fees may be charged in connection with obtaining and maintaining membership of the market.
Clause 39 sets out the transparency requirements for the creation and management of dynamic markets. Subsection (1) states that the notices are referred to as dynamic market notices. Subsection (2) requires contracting authorities to publish a notice before they set up a dynamic market. The notice must detail the authority’s intention to establish the market. A notice is also required, under subsections (3), (4) and (5), once the dynamic market has been established or modified, or when the market ceases to operate. Additional content requirements for the various notices will be set out in secondary legislation under clause 93. Clause 39(6) states that private utilities are not required to issue a notice when a utilities dynamic market ceases to operate.
Clause 40 speeds up procurements and reduces the burden for utilities using a utilities dynamic market, or UDM, by only requiring utilities to provide tender notices for upcoming procurements to suppliers already on a UDM, or appropriate part of a UDM, instead of having to publish the notices. In practice, that means utilities can, for example, provide the tender notice to suppliers on the UDM as part of the associated tender documents as each procurement under the UDM is commenced.
In order to take advantage of that flexibility, the notice setting up the UDM must meet minimum information requirements, which will be set out in regulations under clause 88. Utilities must specify in the UDM notice that only members of the UDM will be provided with tender notices. The notice setting up the UDM will be published continuously and will remain open so that new members may join at any time. If accepted, they would then be entitled to receive future tender notices.
Florence Eshalomi
Clauses 34 to 40 relate to dynamic markets. Dynamic markets expand on the existing dynamic purchasing system scheme by allowing such markets to be used for all procurements. That means that a reliable and ready pool of bidders can be gathered, which the contracting authority has verified meets the conditions of participation for the contract. When used correctly, such market innovations help save contracting authorities significant amounts of money and time by requiring early scrutiny only once for similar contracts.
Labour does not oppose the proportionate use of that mechanism. However, we note that those who supplied written evidence to the Committee picked up on some concerns. The Local Government Association, in its submission, outlined concerns about terms that are present in the current system but missing in the Bill:
“Councils use dynamic purchasing systems to effectively deliver a range of services that need to be procured quickly, for example, adult’s and children’s residential social care, apprenticeship training, asbestos removal, cleaning services, home-based care services etc.
In particular, local authorities heavily rely on DPS for school transport procurement, where a significant number of contracts must be let quickly each summer as children are allocated school places. These contracts are straightforward, with pre-approved suppliers typically competing on price. These contracts have no cross-border implications so don’t disadvantage operators in other countries as no operator without a local base is likely to bid.
Regulation 34(12) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 states: ‘Sub-central contracting authorities may set the time limit for the receipt of tenders by mutual agreement between the contracting authority and all selected candidates, provided that all selected candidates have the same time to prepare and submit their tenders.’
The Bill no longer allows this, and should therefore be amended to reinstate this important flexibility, to ensure that everything from school transport to social care services can be delivered on time for the individuals who rely upon…them”.
Alex Burghart
As I have said, we think that dynamic markets are a fantastic opportunity to speed up procurement and to bring SMEs into procurement opportunities that they have not previously had. Obviously, dynamic markets are themselves a dynamic new development and, as I mentioned, a lot of training and guidance will flow from the Bill. However, obviously, we will be working with partners throughout the system to ensure that this new way of working works.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 35 to 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Julie Marson.)
Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 7th February 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 February 2023 - (7 Feb 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that Hansard colleagues will be grateful if you could send your speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch all electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed to be consumed during sittings.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 41, page 28, line 27, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (4A),”.
This is a paving amendment for Amendment 14, which would prevent the award of direct contracts to excludable suppliers when the supplier was excluded as a threat to national security.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 14, in clause 41, page 28, line 38, at end insert—
“(4A) If the supplier is an excludable supplier by virtue of the discretionary exclusion ground in paragraph 14 of Schedule 7 (threat to national security), the contracting authority may not award the contract to that supplier.”
This amendment would prevent the award of direct contracts to excludable suppliers when the supplier was excluded as a threat to national security.
Florence Eshalomi
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mr Efford.
Amendments 13 and 14 reiterate our amendments 15 to 19 to clause 29, which we debated last week. We think that competitive and due process should be followed as much as possible, and that the bypasses enabled by clause 41 should be used as little as possible. Although we understand why direct awards might be needed, we believe that they must be used with caution.
One element of the clause that we find troublesome is the provision on excludable suppliers and the public interest test. The rationale for direct awards can be related to defence, as under paragraph 18 of schedule 5, and the matters listed in the “overriding public interest” test in clause 41(5) are serious. We understand why the Government may look to bypass many of those grounds should the issues be serious enough, but we do not believe that it should ever be the case that threats to national security are awarded contracts, in particular under direct awards.
Previously in Committee, we attempted to move national security concerns from discretionary to mandatory grounds. We feel that the necessary amendment would require us to go beyond the public interest test for excluded suppliers and exclude suppliers with national security concerns across the board. The fact is, as we go further up the food chain of security sensitivity, the risk to our country from exposing our supply chain to national security threats becomes more severe.
To take the public interest test on constructing, maintaining or operating critical national infrastructure, we understand that that is of the utmost importance for the country, but we should not expose our network to security threats if the need for such a test is so great. The risk of doing so is catastrophic. It could mean malign surveillance in vital infrastructure undermining our entire security system and the fundamental safety of the state. In such cases, there must be a clear instruction for contracting authorities to look for alternative provisions that do not put the state at risk.
We feel that our amendments address such proportionality concerns. They would ensure that we never turn to national security threats for procurement, preventing the threat that those could cause to critical infrastructure. The Minister will say that we need flexibility in the system and that decision makers can assess the threat where necessary, but the reality is that we cannot expect procurement officers to be national security experts and to spot every threat that could be present with a supplier with national security concerns.
It is worth bearing in mind that, in high-pressure situations when wrong decisions can have hugely damaging unintended consequences, proper and strong legal checks and balances are critical, even at urgent times. Again, we may want to remember what happened during the covid pandemic. The National Audit Office investigation into Government procurement during covid-19 found:
“General guidance issued by the Crown Commercial Service recommends that awarding bodies publish basic information about the award of all contracts within 90 days of the award being made. Of the 1,644 contracts awarded across government up to the end of July 2020 with a contract value above £25,000, 55% had not had their details published by 10 November and 25% were published on Contracts Finder within the 90-day target.”
The result was that £10 billion-worth of PPE was written off, with auditors rebuking the Department of Health and Social Care for its management of taxpayers’ money during the pandemic. The Government are now locked in legal battles with the companies that failed to deliver on their contractual obligations. In the first quarter of 2022-23, the Government are still disputing 176 contracts worth nearly £3 billion. It is fair that even in an emergency we must abide by solid procurement principles if we are to avoid unintended consequences that put public finances and our national security at risk.
I think it is fair to say that we cannot be so arrogant as to assume that this would not be done inadvertently. During her speech on Second Reading, which I have alluded to already, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) highlighted several issues that point to the need for tightening up in this area. She said:
“At the moment I have local authorities from around the country writing to me saying, ‘Alicia Kearns, can you please give me advice on whether or not we as the local council should procure from this company?’ That cannot be the way we do this. We must ensure local government is not the entry point for hostile states.”
She added:
“Finally, on supply chains, public authorities need to be able to investigate, and we must ensure that this goes high enough up the chain. Canadian Solar is looking to build a solar plant in my constituency. It sounds lovely—'Canadian Solar? What a great company’—but when we actually look into it, it is GCL-Poly, a Chinese-owned, Chinese-run company that is complicit in Uyghur genocide. We must ensure that the burden to investigate is properly addressed.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 363.]
I do not want to say that all these companies are necessarily a national security threat and need to be addressed by the Bill, but the points made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton and others show how easy it is for suppliers that may be of concern to the state to slip through the cracks. All these things concern us, and they should concern the Minister. With such risks present, I do not think there can ever be a proportional use of a national security threat in direct award procurement.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making very good points. We have the Committees on Arms Export Controls, which scrutinise not just Government sales but commercial sales abroad. Is there not a case for a similar Committee, or for the existing Committees to have a wider scope, to look at imports that might be national security threats? Would that not be a way to shine some light on this?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and I hope that the Minister responds to it. It shows the many different angles from which, inadvertently, we could see national security threats coming into the country. We must make sure that we avoid that. We need to look at the issue of national security threats when we are directly awarding procurements.
There is very little in the clause in legal terms preventing the use of national security threats in direct awards; as my hon. Friend highlights, there is no guarantee that they will not be used. Our amendments 13 and 14 would prevent threats from entering the system via direct awards. I hope that the Minister will support them.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Efford, as we enter the third day in Committee. We are making good progress through the Bill, and we hope to make even better progress today.
Amendments 13 and 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Vauxhall, seek to prevent contracts from being directly awarded to suppliers that pose a risk to national security. As we have discussed, national security is of the utmost importance, which is why we have chosen to strengthen the protections in our rules by introducing a new discretionary exclusion ground for suppliers that pose a risk. As I have already explained, the provision has to be discretionary, because there will be situations where a supplier poses a threat in one context but not in another.
The amendment envisions circumstances where a direct award justification applies, meaning a competitive award is not feasible. That would include where there are no other suitable suppliers, or where there is an extreme and unavoidable urgency. It is in precisely those situations that it is vital for contracting authorities to retain an element of discretion in the national security exclusion ground; that element of discretion does not in any way lessen the obligation on authorities to consider whether exclusion is appropriate for the particular contract given the risk posed by the supplier.
Those considerations will of course be informed by the publication of guidance produced in partnership with national technical authorities such as the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure and the National Cyber Security Centre. I have complete confidence that contracting authorities will use the discretion appropriately. I respectfully ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 103, in clause 41, page 29, line 10, at end insert—
“(5A) Where a direct award justification applies, before making a direct award to a supplier a contracting authority must satisfy itself that no preferential treatment has been conferred on the supplier by virtue of any recommendation made by a Member of the House of Commons or the House of Lords.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 104, in clause 44, page 30, line 23, at end insert—
“(c) any connections between the supplier and any—
(i) registered political party,
(ii) Ministers of the Crown, or
(iii) Members of the House of Commons or House of Lords
where such connections are of a nature likely to be relevant to the direct award of the contract.”
Amendment 111, in clause 44, page 30, line 25, at end insert—
“(4) Any Minister, peer or senior civil servant involved in recommending a supplier for a contract under section 41 or 43 must make a public declaration to the Cabinet Office of any private interest in that supplier within 5 working days.”
This amendment would implement the recommendation of the National Audit Office that any contracts awarded under emergency provisions or direct awards should include transparency declarations.
Kirsty Blackman
These amendments arise mostly, although not entirely, as a result of what happened with PPE during covid. I would be less inclined to move the amendments if the Government had shown any contrition about the situation we find ourselves in. They tend to stand up and say, “Well, we needed to procure things in a rush, so we have no regrets about the situation.” It would be much better for them to stand up and say, “We needed to procure in a rush, but lots of mistakes were made along the way and therefore we believe that we need to do better next time.” A full investigation would also be helpful.
The situation we find ourselves in is this: a significant amount of PPE, of significant value, was unusable; the VIP lane has been considered unlawful; and those who made recommendations—one person, certainly, who made a recommendation—have personally benefited from Government contracts that were awarded. In the light of that situation, it is incredibly important that the procurement rules we set up ensure that such a situation cannot happen again—that there is both a requirement for the people making direct awards to satisfy themselves that no preferential treatment has been given on the basis that the person has been recommended by a Member of the House of Commons or the House of Lords, and that, should there be any connections between the supplier and a registered political party, Ministers of the Crown or Members of the House of Commons or House of Lords, that information is laid out in the transparency notice.
That is not asking too much. We all have a register of interests that we are supposed to keep up to date—the ministerial one slightly less often, or very much less often, than that for MPs. Asking for a higher level of transparency, when we know that those links occur, is not asking too much.
The Conservatives have a tendency to point to the fact that, “Well, we have people in the House of Lords who have come from business, therefore of course they will continue to have business interests.” I am not suggesting that they should not—that is absolutely fine—but we should be transparent about it and we should know if a contract has been granted to somebody who will benefit as a Member of the House of Lords. Is the supplier, or the person receiving the procurement contract—the beneficial owner—a peer or a Member of the House of Commons? Are they linked, in some way, to a political party?
We know from Sky’s investigation that a number of Members of Parliament receive money from companies. That is registered, but there is no requirement in the Bill, as it stands, for it to be noted; there is no requirement, when the contract is being given, for that which is open and registered already. Members of Parliament have to register if they receive a certain amount of money from a company, so it should follow that, if the company is being given a procurement contract, it is registered as part of the transparency notice. That should be noted up front.
That is not asking too much, particularly in relation to amendment 104, which is specifically about transparency notices and ensuring that that stuff is clear. It should not be too much work for anyone doing the transparency notice. Absolutely, it will create a little bit of extra work, but all they will need to do is cross-reference the registered interests, and then put that in the transparency notice so that we are all aware of the links.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The hon. Lady is raising some important points about how mistakes were made during the covid period. It is important to note, however, that those same mistakes were not made in Labour-controlled Wales or SNP-controlled Scotland, where transparency seemed to be much higher and fast-track schemes were not implemented. Is there a case for greater light to be shone in this place, where the rot seems to have truly set in?
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree. In fact, that adds to the case that we should be willing for there to be an investigation. It shows that, actually, we can do it right and in such a way that individuals do not benefit from that.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I look forward to her supporting Scottish Conservative calls for transparency on certain procurements—of ferries and suchlike—by the Scottish Government.
The hon. Member said that it should not be too much to ask. I have heard that argument many times about making amendments, not just to this Bill but to others. She said herself that the registers of Members’ and Ministers’ interests already exist. Does she not feel that making “shouldn’t be too much to ask” amendments to any Bill risks diluting its effect?
Kirsty Blackman
I do not think that that is the case. We should not have such an issue that we need journalists, such as those at Sky, to shine a light and make those links. There should be a requirement for that transparency to be in place. Although we have the registers of Members’ and Ministers’ interests, they stand alone and are separate from the procurement contracts. If we end up in situations where people are benefiting significantly, having that in the transparency notice is important.
Florence Eshalomi
The hon. Member makes a valid point. Does she agree with my concern that only the other week the Paymaster General said that Ministers’ interests will be updated, but not until May, whereas we as Members have to update our entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests within 28 days? Why the delay?
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree. The former Chancellor and chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), did not update his list of ministerial interests for a significant period after he was put into his role. In fact, some of the most egregious issues did not come to light properly until he updated the list of ministerial interests in January, some three months after he became the party chairman.
I agree that the lack of transparency is a significant issue, and I was disappointed in the Government responses. They do not seem keen to move on the register of ministerial interests being updated more regularly. Surely, given the amount of Executive power in this place and the post-Brexit creep towards increasing the amount of ministerial or Executive power—taking power away from Members—it is even more important for ministerial interests to be registered.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Does the hon. Member agree that the proposal would be in the interests of a governing party that is facing so many scandals—from Baroness Mone to the Randox lobbying affair—that have almost brought down Prime Ministers? It would help to protect the Conservative party from some “bad apples”, as Conservatives might put it.
Kirsty Blackman
I agree and would add to that: how many former treasurers of the Conservative party who have given significant amounts to the party have just happened to end up in the House of Lords? Who knows how that has happened? We know that there are people in this House and in the other place with significant business interests, and the amendment is not a criticism of that; it is not a negative thing, but it is about ensuring transparency.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
The nub of the issue is that people have been appointed to the House of Lords and, in a particular case—I do not want to mention the name—they are not then taking an active part in proceedings in the other place. We could mention a number of peers who have hardly spoken since they were appointed, or not spoken at all. Rather than using that position to serve the Executive of this country, they have used it to lobby for contracts from the Government. That needs to be stamped out. Does the hon. Member agree that it is now time to look at how we appoint people to the Lords, and perhaps remove appointment to the Lords from the honours system altogether?
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree. Each former Prime Minister is able to put forward whoever they want to the House of Lords, so we end up in this situation of having 850 peers and counting. The numbers are increasing drastically because the Government keep putting in more people to balance the politics in that place.
On the amendment, it is important for the Government to be willing to consider how best to improve transparency. So far, they have shown no willingness to improve transparency or to accept that there have been issues and that mistakes have been made. We need to change the system.
The UK has fallen in Transparency International’s corruption index, which has nothing to do with the Financial Action Task Force one. The FATF index is about corruption when it comes to money laundering, but Transparency International’s is about corruption in the public sector. It looks specifically at such issues as breaches of the ministerial code—in particular, ones that have not been investigated—and the scandals we have seen and continue to see.
The Prime Minister cannot keep sacking people who breach the code; we need to change the system so that they never get to that position in the first place—so that they can never commit the egregious breaches of trust we have seen and can never profit as individuals as a result of their position in this place or the other place. If the rules and systems are changed—which they clearly need to be—the Prime Minister will not need to sack people, because they will never be able to breach the rules and will never be able to profit as individuals simply as a result of their links to this place.
I will push amendments 103 and 104 to a vote when we come to that point and am happy to support amendment 111, tabled by the Labour Front-Bench team.
Florence Eshalomi
We fully support amendments 103 and 104, tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, which consider how we embed transparency into the system of direct awards. The two amendments highlight why we need additional layers of scrutiny to address glaring areas of conflict of interest in respect of Members of both the Commons and the Lords. It is vital to have additional checks in place.
Throughout the proceedings on the Bill the Minister has talked about the principle of impartiality, and said that the Bill will make VIP lanes, such as those we have seen, illegal and that it is all going to be fine. But that is just not the case. We need only to look at the pandemic to see why we desperately need to make sure that our procurement system is more agile and more transparent. The Tory VIP lane exposed a weakness in the system.
We must remember that we are talking about taxpayers’ money. We are at a time when so many people are feeling real difficulty in their choices and are seeing their household incomes reduce. Council and social housing tenants dread their rents going up. A number of councils have already highlighted how they are going to increase their council tax, including a borough in south London that is proposing to increase council tax by 15%.
Taxpayers’ money was wasted on contracts that were not fit for purpose and wasted as profits for unqualified providers. Worryingly, the Government have written off £10 billion of public funds that were spent on PPE that was either unusable, overpriced or undelivered, and it is worth bearing in mind that we are still spending £700,000 of taxpayers’ money a day on storing unused gloves, goggles and gowns. That money could pay for spaces in after-school clubs. It could pay for 19,000 full-time nursery places. It is public money.
The Bill does not pass the Mone or Paterson test; that waste could still be allowed to happen, over and over again. Handing more power to Ministers in respect of direct awards is not the way we want to go. We support the two amendments, because it is important that we empower local authorities to be able to ask the necessary questions when it comes to conflicts of interest. The current procurement system is not working, and we need to include new checks.
The amendments could be further strengthened by placing the onus on individual Ministers, civil servants and special advisers to make the necessary declarations but, as we have seen, when the onus is on them, they still do not make those declarations. Essentially, they have to be dragged kicking and screaming. We are in a situation in which we will not see the declarations of Ministers’ financial interests updated until May, if we are lucky. Anything could happen before May.
I draw the Committee’s attention to amendment 111, which we think further addresses the aims of amendments 103 and 104. We have an opportunity to learn from past mistakes and to tighten the freedom of Ministers to award direct contracts. It is about hardwiring transparency into our system. That should be a good thing and something we should all support. Instead, it seems the Minister wants to continue to have a back door and a VIP entrance. We must be clear that the Bill offers us a chance to clear that up.
The facts and figures speak for themselves. Some £3.4 billion of taxpayers’ money, in the form of contracts, went to Conservative donors and friends. A former Conservative Minister lobbied for Randox, which then provided 750,000 defective tests that had to be recalled, all while he was being paid £100,000 on top of his salary. Globus (Shetland), a business that has donated £400,000 to the Conservative Party since 2016, received £94 million-worth of PPE contracts.
Millions of people struggled during covid-19. The Government did some good things—including the furlough scheme to help people not to lose their jobs and the support for businesses—but a large group of people missed out on any money, including the 3 million people who form ExcludedUK. For those people who paid their taxes, submitted their returns and did not receive any money to have seen contracts dished out to friends, when those contracts were not even viable, was a slap in the face. When millions of people struggled during covid-19, it was not fair for them to have seen friends and donors of the Tory party prosper. As it stands, the Bill would continue to allow that to happen.
Our amendment 111 takes an important step, with amendments 103 and 104, towards addressing the situation, by asking Ministers to act, ensure genuine transparency in the system and restore trust in public money. This is about trust in the system. A number of members of the public do not trust our system; this is about restoring some of that trust and ensuring that, after years of waste and mismanagement, we do not find ourselves in this situation again.
Our amendment is based on a proposal by the independent National Audit Office and would mandate that:
“Any Minister, peer or senior civil servant involved in recommending a supplier for a contract under section 41 or 43 must make a public declaration to the Cabinet Office of any private interest”.
I hope we all agree that that is a straightforward, pragmatic proposal. It is not about layers of bureaucracy for business; it is about layers of additional scrutiny on Ministers to help to give the public confidence that another PPE Medpro scandal will be stopped and that we will not see a situation in which handfuls of millions of pounds of public money are redundantly spent on equipment that we cannot use.
The three amendments would outlaw VIP lanes once and for all, ensuring that we stop corruption. They would introduce a timeframe for transparency around declarations so that we can have information about conflicts of interests, instead of it being drip fed through the media or journalists. They would ensure that these scandals are not allowed to build up gradually over months and continue the erosion of trust. I hope the Minister agrees that Members of Parliament and the Government should have nothing to hide. If there is nothing to hide, they should support these reasonable amendments, which will help us to clean up our procurement system.
Alex Burghart
Conflict of interest in direct award contracts is clearly an extremely important topic. Amendment 103 would require a contracting authority to satisfy itself, before making a direct award, that no preferential treatment has been conferred on the supplier by virtue of any recommendation made by a Member of this House or the House of Lords. We understand—indeed, we agree with—the intent behind the amendment, but the Bill already covers such a scenario via robust requirements for contracting authorities to ensure equal treatment and address conflicts of interest. The bottom line is that if a conflict of interest puts a supplier at an unfair advantage, they must be treated as an excluded supplier and cannot be given a direct award.
Amendments 104 and 111 relate to the highlighting of political connections to political parties, Ministers of the Crown, Members of the House of Commons or House of Lords, or senior civil servants. As Members will have already heard, the Bill includes significantly greater transparency around direct awards than we have had in the past, via the new transparency notice in clause 44 and elsewhere. The conflicts provisions have been strengthened against the current procurement rules. A key change is the requirement in clause 82(5), which I will address in a future sitting, for contracting authorities to confirm that a conflicts assessment has been prepared, reviewed and revised as necessary when publishing a relevant procurement notice, which will include the transparency notice for direct awards.
The assessment must include details of any actual or potential conflict of interest identified in the procurement, and steps must be taken to mitigate such conflicts. That would include any political party affiliations the supplier has to any person acting for or on behalf of a contracting authority, and to anyone who influences a decision in relation to a covered procurement. In addition, in accordance with clause 84(4), if a contracting authority is aware that there may be even the appearance of a conflict, it must address that.
Kirsty Blackman
I thank the Minister for his response. I would like to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 41 permits a contracting authority to award a contract without first running a full competitive procedure when a justification in schedule 5 is met. The World Trade Organisation agreement on Government procurement contains grounds for limited tendering, on which the justifications are based. They will be familiar to those who use the current regime, and include justifications such as intellectual property, exclusive rights or technical reasons that mean that only a single supplier can deliver the contract.
Direct award may also be permitted where practicalities in the market make competition unfeasible—for instance, when buying commodities such as oil, where demand dictates the price, or when the contracting authority can obtain advantageous terms due to insolvency. There are also defence-specific provisions, and a new ground for light-touch contracts—for example, in adult and children’s social care—which allow for direct award due to “user choice” where the beneficiary of the contract or their carer has a legal right under other legislation to choose the supplier.
Overall, the Bill is clearly designed to support fair and open competition in order to secure the best outcome for the public interest. However, sometimes competition is not possible. For example, a supplier may own intellectual property rights that mean that only it can supply a particular good. Alternatively, competition may not be possible for technical reasons when the application of a particular legislative regime means that a contract can be awarded only to one specific provider. For example, the Children and Families Act 2014 may require special educational needs provision to be delivered by a particular supplier; or extreme and unavoidable urgency, such as the procurement of short-term recovery services following an unexpected flood, may render competition unviable. In such cases, limited exceptions to the requirement for competition are justified to ensure the effective and prompt delivery of critical services.
In respect of cases in which a contracting authority relies on one of the specified grounds, the Bill introduces a requirement for a transparency notice other than the very specific user choice exemption. That important new safeguard brings welcome transparency and accountability, and facilitates pre-contractual challenges if anyone fears foul play. Additionally, before publishing a transparency notice, the contracting authority must undertake a conflicts assessment in accordance with clause 82.
Florence Eshalomi
As the Minister outlined, these clauses relate to the provision of direct awards. Sadly, their abuse under the Government has done untold damage to the public interest, as I highlighted earlier. The current system does not work, and it is disappointing that the Government have failed to take this opportunity to learn from those mistakes. The Minister just said that competition is sometimes not possible, but taxpayers’ money must be treated with respect, not handed out in backroom deals or as a passport to profiteering.
I highlighted the case of PPE Medpro, but it is just the tip of the iceberg of the scandals we have seen unfolding over the past few years. We know that the companies that got into the VIP lane were 10 times more likely to win a contract, and that they did not go through the so-called eight-stage process of due diligence, as Ministers have now admitted. We also know that businesses that had the expertise to procure PPE and ventilators were not awarded contracts. That is worrying.
It is also worrying that no company was referred to the VIP lane by a politician of any party other than the Conservative party. It did not have to be that way. There could have been more transparency and faith in the system. At that time, Governments across the world were dealing with the covid emergency without wasting billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and relying on backroom deals.
According to the watchdog, the Welsh Labour Government managed to prevent health and care bodies from running out of PPE. It said:
“In contrast to the position described by the…National Audit Office in England, we saw no evidence of a priority being given to potential suppliers depending on who referred them.”
The Welsh Government were able to create an open and transparent PPE supply chain—why were we not able to do that in England? The question that the Committee needs to ask is how we act to prevent a repeat of the waste that we saw during the pandemic.
This is about faith in politics. At a time when people are questioning politicians and Ministers, we have to restore that faith. This Bill gives us an opportunity to fix that. It is disappointing that the Minister has dismissed some of that and has failed to engage properly on the issue of VIP lanes. I hope he will respond constructively to ensure we fix the current system, which is not working.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 42
Direct award to protect life, etc
Florence Eshalomi
I beg to move amendment 108, in clause 42, page 29, line 29, at end insert—
“(5) Subject to subsection (6), regulations made under section (1) may remain in force for no longer than three months.
(6) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations provide for the continuation in force of regulations made under subsection (1) for a period of no longer than a further three months.
(7) A Minister of the Crown may exercise the power in subsection (6) more than once in respect of the same regulations made under subsection (1).”
This amendment would restrict the time in force of regulations allowing direct award of contracts to protect life or public order to no more than three months, but provide a power to extend their time in force, by three months at a time, by further regulations (which would be subject to approval by Parliament under clause 118(7)).
Florence Eshalomi
Clause 42 permits a Minister of the Crown to award a contract during an event that is deemed to be a threat to life, health, or public order or safety. The explanatory notes state:
“The purpose of this clause is to ensure procurements during an emergency event (like the Covid-19 pandemic) can be conducted as quickly and transparently as possible, even if the circumstances leading to the event are foreseeable (which may rule out the extreme urgency justification for direct award contained in Schedule 5).”
We all understand that emergency powers were needed during covid-19, and we do not oppose the sort of power that is in the Bill to keep the country as safe as possible in the event of another pandemic or a major emergency. As alluded to in the explanatory notes, the power builds upon the extreme urgency justification in schedule 5, and covers the gaps where events cannot be covered under that schedule. During the covid-19 pandemic we saw that removing the scrutiny of the non-direct procurement procedure can bring major problems. It is worth reiterating the figures that are clear for all of us to see: almost £10 billion of public money went towards PPE that was written off. In answer to a written question in November, the Government confirmed that they are paying £770,000 a day—the figure that I quoted earlier—to store PPE in places such as China. Think what we could all do with such an amount of money in our respective constituencies.
We should not treat procurement during the pandemic as a model of good practice; we should look at learning from those mistakes. As the Bill is introduced, we should not let those patterns continue and just conduct current practices in the same way. It is critical that the use of these powers should not be the norm. Competitive awards must be the default under the direct procurement system, and these powers should be exercised only in the most severe circumstances. Therefore, we have questions about the meaning of subsection (2) and the limits of what is deemed necessary.
The explanatory notes say:
“Subsection (2) provides a definition of what would be deemed “necessary” (i.e. to protect life or public safety). This intentionally limits the discretion afforded to the Minister in subsection (1). Additionally any regulations made under this section would need to be compliant with the United Kingdom’s international obligations, which will in practice ensure that the interpretation of ‘necessary’ is not too broad.”
What does that mean in practice, though? What international obligations would govern how broadly the clause should be applied? On a cursory reading,
“necessary to … protect human, animal or plant life or health”
could be as trivial as tackling the scourge of cats getting stuck up trees. I am sure that, as the explanatory notes say, the interpretation of “necessary” should not be too broad. I hope that the Minister can outline the Government’s explanation and give hon. Members some guidance, to help to put our minds at ease for Report stage.
I question, too, whether the clause is limited to tackling novel or temporarily sensitive issues, or whether it could be used to apply to problems we face constantly and are well known. We all understand that situations may arise in which we may need these powers—in response to a national emergency or a disease such as covid. However, we would be sceptical about their use for something such as a standard winter flu, where surges and needs can be predicted and procured for well in advance. We note that the higher bars are put into place to protect against misuse, and they may tackle some of the problems we have already touched on. For example, regulations must be made via clause 118 affirmative procedures and must be agreed by Parliament. Although these raised bars are welcome, our experiences from covid-19 show us that we can and should go further to ensure that these powers are not abused. In particular, the temporal measures involved in this clause can be beefed up. That is essentially what amendments 103, 104 and 108 would do. Amendment 108 would add a sunset clause to the powers under clause 42 and ensure that every three months Parliament had to approve the use of these powers.
Subsection (4) states:
“A Minister of the Crown must—
(a) keep regulations made under subsection (1) under review, and
(b) if the Minister considers that direct award under section 41 is no longer necessary, revoke the regulations.”
We saw during the pandemic how emergency powers were in place for far longer than some deemed necessary, and prevented extra layers of scrutiny of direct awards. As I have already highlighted, that had consequences in terms of taxpayers’ money, which is still being spent on PPE that is not needed. As the explanatory notes explain, procurement may need to be carried out quickly in an emergency; but after three months, we should be far more aware of the problems we face. Although emergencies may stay unpredictable, the knowledge available to Parliament and to decision makers at the start of an emergency will be significantly less than what we will know later. Parliament should have a say when more knowledge is available about that emergency. It should have a say on whether the powers are still necessary and proportionate to the emergency. The answers can change, so it is right that the House has the ability to respond. In addition, the further we go into an emergency, the more aware we are of the needs of our services to tackle the problems presented and the more confident we can be in carrying out our procurement.
Alex Burghart
Amendment 108 seeks to include a sunset clause on the face of the Bill in relation to any regulations made under clause 42, plus a prohibition on multiple uses of this power.
The fact that the regulations are subject to the made affirmative procedure gives the House a great deal of power. If the House does not wish to accept open-ended regulations, it will not have to. The scope of clause 42 is already suitably confined and restricted to prevent any abuse. The power can be used only in extremely rare scenarios. The regulations will have to be tailored to respond to the situation and their duration kept to the minimum. Further, any regulations made will have to be in compliance with our international agreements, which in practice will help ensure the scope is not too broad.
Any regulations made under this clause must be kept under review, and if the Minister considers that direct award is no longer necessary, the regulations must be revoked. For the avoidance of doubt, the use of the made affirmative procedure means that if regulations are not approved by Parliament, they will lapse after 28 days. Any regulations would likely be time limited through a sunset provision or subject to parliamentary review after a duration deemed appropriate in the context of the emergency event. If they were not, it would be open to Parliament not to approve them. We cannot see that Parliament will be satisfied with open-ended regulations permitting the procurement of goods or services beyond what is necessary to protect life in an extreme emergency event. As such, we respectfully suggest that the amendment is not required.
Clause 42 introduces a new power for a Minister of the Crown via statutory instrument to allow contracting authorities to award contracts directly within specific parameters. The power is crafted deliberately narrowly so that regulations can be made only where it is considered necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health, or to protect public order or safety. The “extreme urgency” ground in regulation 32 of the public contracts regulations reflected in schedule 5 will be suitable for nearly all situations. But in rare cases, this may need to be overridden via Government direction to rapidly procure what is necessary for the protection of life.
The first Boardman review of covid-19 procurement suggested giving relevant Ministers the power to designate situations as a “crisis”, provided certain criteria were met, naturally with appropriate safeguards. The clause looks to implement these recommendations and aid emergency contracting. The current ground relies on individual contracting authority assessments and cannot be used if the need for urgency is caused by the authority itself or is foreseen. Regulations made in these circumstances would allow contracting authorities to procure with confidence, quickly and within specific parameters to deliver the essential goods or services.
In the extremely rare event that regulations under clause 42 are needed, there are already significant safeguards in the Bill. As I mentioned, the making of any secondary legislation will be subject to the scrutiny of the made affirmative procedure. The regulations will come into force immediately but will require approval from both Houses within 28 days. Without this approval, the regulations will cease to have effect. There is no limit on the regulations’ duration, allowing them to be tailored to the situation. Parliamentary scrutiny will ensure that the scope of the regulations is appropriate.
The obligation to publish a transparency notice prior to awarding a direct award contract remains even when relying on any such regulations. These new mandated notices demonstrate our intent—seen throughout the Bill—to drive further transparency into the procurement regime. We hope that clause 42 will never need to be used, but if direct awards are necessary to protect life or public safety in an ongoing emergency situation, the mechanism under the clause will significantly improve the situation by allowing contracting authorities to procure in confined circumstances, speeding up decisions and ensuring consistency across the public sector. I respectfully ask that the hon. Member for Vauxhall withdraw her amendment, and I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Burghart
Sometimes, competitive tendering procedures do not go to plan. Clause 43 allows the contracting authority to switch from a competitive procedure to direct award where no suitable tenders are submitted and it becomes clear competition is not possible. There are only limited circumstances to determine that a tender is unsuitable, which are detailed in subsection (2)—for example, where the price is abnormally low, as we discussed the other day, if there is evidence of corruption or collusion, or if a procedural requirement has been materially breached in a manner that may put the tender at an unfair advantage.
Florence Eshalomi
The clause relates to the switching of contracts under very limited circumstances. The use of the clause is not ideal, but we understand that it may be necessary in certain circumstances. We therefore do not object to the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 44
Transparency notices
Amendment proposed: 104, in clause 44, page 30, line 23, at end insert—
“(c) any connections between the supplier and any—
(i) registered political party,
(ii) Ministers of the Crown, or
(iii) Members of the House of Commons or House of Lords
where such connections are of a nature likely to be relevant to the direct award of the contract.”—(Kirsty Blackman.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Burghart
Our approach in the Bill is clear: transparency is not optional. Clause 44 introduces a mandated requirement to publish a transparency notice when a direct award ground is going to be used. That goes further than the current voluntary notice. Direct award should, of course, be the exception and will be allowed only on the basis of specific and limited grounds set out in legislation. When direct award is relied on, the obligation will mean visibility, further demonstrating our drive to ensure transparency in public procurement.
Florence Eshalomi
As the Minister outlined, the clause covers transparency notices. Although we welcome the limited measures that the Bill takes to move towards transparency—for example, by obligating authorities to issue a transparency notice before awarding a contract—those are small baby steps that barely scratch the surface of what is required. Transparency should be a must; it is not a “nice to have”. It is about restoring public trust and it ultimately saves money. Lack of transparency in the procurement system reduces competition and increases costs, leaving the taxpayer to shoulder the burden. The adoption of open and transparent contracting makes good financial sense and will help to lead to a more competitive procurement system, ultimately, as I mentioned, saving on costs.
Transparency needs to be extended to Ministers. I have spoken at length about what we saw during the pandemic and the lack of transparency. Amendment 111 would go a long way to truly ensuring that Ministers, Lords and civil servants take transparency seriously.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady will have heard me say that we are mandating transparency like never before, and that all her concerns are already dealt with in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
Frameworks
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
This considerable group covers award under frameworks. Clause 45 sets out that a framework is a public contract designed for the future award of contracts to a supplier or suppliers. Frameworks are not the answer for every purchasing need, but they have their place and can result in significant savings, both financially and in time. As a framework is a public contract, it must be awarded in accordance with the procedures set out in the Bill. Once a framework is awarded, subsection (1) allows contracting authorities to award future public contracts in accordance with the framework.
Subsection (3) states that contracts can be awarded under a framework only following a competitive selection process, unless subsection (4) applies. Subsection (4) sets out the circumstances in which a framework can provide for the award of contracts directly to suppliers who are party to the framework, without any further competition. These are where the framework is with only one supplier, or if the framework sets out the core terms of the future contract and an objective mechanism for supplier selection.
Subsection (5) requires that each framework must state the goods, works or services that can be procured under it, the mechanism for defining the price, the estimated value of the business that will be procured through the framework, and the process to award further contracts. Subsection (5) also requires that the framework must state the duration of the framework, the contracting authorities that are able to use the framework, and whether the framework is an open framework. Currently, all frameworks lock suppliers out for their duration as there is no mechanism to open them up, and we are changing that under the Bill.
The provisions ensure that all frameworks will contain basic information about the scope and estimated value of the framework to clearly set out the parameters in which the framework can be used, and to avoid frameworks being used in a manner that unduly or unfairly closes off markets to competition.
Subsection (6) prohibits the award of a contract under a framework to an excluded supplier. Subsection (7) allows for fees to be charged under a framework when a supplier is awarded a contract under a framework. Subsection (8) means that a framework may not be used to award a concession contract, nor may a framework be used to set up another framework. Subsection (9) disapplies certain parts of clause 45 to frameworks that are light-touch contracts.
Clause 46 sets out the process by which contracts can be awarded under a framework through a competitive selection process. Subsection (1) allows for a competitive selection process to include conditions that suppliers have to satisfy to participate. Subsection (3) prohibits conditions that require the submission of annual audited accounts by suppliers who are not already required by law to have their annual accounts audited. It also ensures that alternative evidence can be used when assessing the supplier’s financial capability and that insurances need to be in place only at the point of contract award. That is a major win for small and medium-sized enterprises, removing a substantial barrier that has often held them back from entering into procurement.
Florence Eshalomi
Clauses 45 to 49 cover the framework arrangements that are in place and widely used across the public sector, helping to provide efficiency savings in procurement contracts. We feel it is important that there are powers in the Bill to allow for their existence, but we have concerns about the nature of the frameworks. We should make sure that we include strong terms to prevent any detrimental effects that they can have on procurement.
A big problem with the frameworks is that they can lock out suppliers and prevent the breakthrough of innovative and efficient suppliers in our system. That is outlined and emphasised in the Government’s impact assessment:
“The use of frameworks is established in the public sector, however stakeholders raised concerns around lengthy frameworks essentially locking suppliers out of a market for a number of years, without the opportunity to re-bid. This is particularly of concern for SMEs who may benefit from a place on a framework to assist business growth and gain experience in delivering contracts for the public sector.”
The Minister touched on some of that, but the Bill should look to reduce those concerns.
We also have concerns about some of the changes in language in relation to the term limit, which the Minister outlined. Currently, most frameworks have a term limit of four years. It is good to see that carried through in the Bill, even if there is an increase to eight years for defence, security and utilities. However, there seems to be a change to the contracts, whereby some of the terms can be extended. In the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, the time limit exception states:
“The term of a framework agreement shall not exceed 4 years, save in exceptional cases duly justified, in particular by the subject-matter of the framework agreement.”
However, clause 47 states:
“Subsection (1) does not apply if the contracting authority considers the nature of the goods, services or works to be supplied under contracts awarded in accordance with the framework means that a longer term is required…If a contracting authority relies on subsection (2) in awarding a framework with a term exceeding four or eight years, the contracting authority must set out its reasons in the tender or transparency notice for the framework.”
I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed what the difference is between those two terms. Will the clause make it easier or harder for contracts to be extended? If it makes it easier, as he suggested, will he tell us the justification behind the change? As we mentioned, there have been concerns about locking out suppliers through the frameworks, so we should be cautious about why the Government would seek to weaken provisions that prevent locking out. Clarity from the Minister on that point would be helpful.
I welcome the Minister’s comments on the new open frameworks procedure in clause 49, which has the potential to reduce time limits by unburdening contracting authorities from running the tender for a framework from scratch, but will he outline how often he would expect a typical framework to reopen? The legislation sets out a maximum of three years in the first instance, and then five years in the second. However, the explanatory notes state:
“This allows for the open framework to be re-opened on a more frequent basis—for example, annually”.
Again, the Minister touched on some of that, but does he expect the reopening of frameworks on an annual basis, and will there be any incentives in the system to encourage annual reopening?
Alex Burghart
As the hon. Lady heard me say, the great new initiative in the Bill—open frameworks—means that we will not see companies being shut out for long periods of time, which is good. We have seen SMEs being locked out from accessing public sector markets for up to four years at a time, so we have introduced the new open framework and the utilities dynamic market tools to bring down the barriers. I think we can all agree that that is much to the good.
The hon. Lady will also have heard me say that if a contracting authority is to go for a longer term than the four and eight-year maximum, it must be because of the goods, services or works that it will supply. Contracting authorities have to be clear and open about that, but we would expect them to do so only where there are specific reasons—for example, where it will take longer than eight years to recoup investment under the framework, or where contracts have a long lead time and therefore cannot be awarded within the requisite time period. Contracting authorities must have a rationale for that, and they have to be open. We think that the clauses cover that.
The hon. Lady will have seen that the maximum term provisions in clause 47 do not apply to open frameworks, which have a maximum duration of eight years. However, clause 49 requires open frameworks to be reopened for new suppliers to join at regular intervals—first, within the first three years of the framework, and not less than every five years thereafter.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 46 to 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 50
Contract award notices and assessment summaries
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 50 requires contracting authorities to publish a contract award notice before entering into a public contract. The notice will publish details about the outcome of the procurement process, alert the market to the fact that a contract is about to be signed and start the standstill period where it applies, which is a mandated or voluntary pause before the contracting authority can sign the contract. I will explain that further under clause 51.
Prior to the publication of a contract award notice issued under a competitive procurement, contracting authorities will be required to provide each supplier whose bid was assessed against the award criteria with an assessment summary containing information about the outcome of the assessment for the supplier’s own tender, to enable suppliers to understand why they did or did not win the contract. Unsuccessful suppliers will also be provided with a copy of the winning supplier’s assessment summary so that they can also see how their tender compared to the winning bid.
Clause 50 does not apply to contracts awarded under a defence and security framework, or to direct awards where the justification is that the contract is a user choice contract.
Florence Eshalomi
This is a simple clause relating to contract award notices and assessment summaries. We welcome these provisions and see it as a good step forward for suppliers and for transparency that each supplier that is not disregarded receives information about why their bid failed and why another bid was successful. That will help suppliers to improve their bids and to understand what a contracting authority desires.
We have spoken a lot about SMEs, and I think they will welcome the clause, because they often struggle to navigate the market and they may feel that the cost of failed bids is part of the reason. We await information on what will come from clause 93, but we will discuss that when we get to it. We are happy to support this clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 51
Standstill periods on the award of contracts
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 51 covers the standstill period, which is a minimum eight-working-day pause following publication of the contract award notice before the contracting authority can enter into the contract. It gives unsuccessful suppliers, in particular, the opportunity to understand the feedback provided and raise legal challenges to the procurement process prior to the contract being signed, where they believe the procurement has been conducted unlawfully.
A claim notified during the standstill period triggers an automatic suspension of the procurement under clause 99, which preserves the potential for the challenging supplier to obtain the contract and protects the contracting authority from entering into an unlawful public contract. That mitigates the risk of a contracting authority paying twice—that is, paying the price of the contract plus compensation for a losing bidder with a successful claim—as after contract signature, the contracting authority is subject to post-contractual remedies under clause 101. That includes damages and the possibility of the contract being set aside—being declared void by the court.
If the standstill period passes without legal challenge, the contracting authority avoids the risk of a set aside claim under clause 101. A standstill period is not mandatory in all cases. Subsection (3) lists the types of contract where the contracting authority can elect to apply a standstill on a voluntary basis. Contracting authorities complying with a voluntary standstill period, which is also envisaged for contract modifications under clause 75, will receive the same protections as that obtained for a mandatory standstill.
Florence Eshalomi
Clause 51 is almost identical to similar provisions in the Public Contracts Regulations. As the Minister outlined, the standstill period will be welcomed and beneficial. The Opposition feel that the clause is necessary and that there is nothing controversial in it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52
Key performance indicators
Chris Evans
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 52, page 35, line 23, leave out “£5 million” and insert “£2 million”.
This amendment would reinstate the threshold for the setting and publication of key performance indicators for major projects at £2m.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 75, 78 and 80.
Clause stand part.
Chris Evans
I outlined the importance of transparency and accountability in a previous debate on procurement. Our amendment 4 is an attempt to strengthen that further and to reinstate at £2 million the threshold for publishing contracts in major projects. I noted previously that the financial threshold was raised in the other place and that the Minister could not explain why £5 million was decided on. If the Bill is an attempt to make procurement more transparent, we have failed at the first hurdle.
On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), the deputy leader of the Labour party, said:
“Being granted taxpayers’ money is a privilege.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 353.]
I remind Government Members that their long-departed leader, Lady Thatcher, once said that it is not the Government’s money, but taxpayers’ money, and that every penny should be accounted for. I am looking at the Minister and hoping that I got that quote absolutely right—I am sure he will correct me if I did not. I believe that is true no matter the sum of money. Every pound represents the work of hard-working people across the country, and we—particularly those of us who serve on the Public Accounts Committee—should be mindful of that.
That is why contracts awarded at £2 million should have the same scrutiny as those worth more. Figures such as £2 million are often bandied about—we hear the value of transfers in sport—but that is still a considerable amount of money. If we are truly committed to reducing waste in procurement, we need more transparency throughout. Introducing key performance indicators at a lower threshold would signal to businesses that the UK requires value for money, and efficiency, from every procurement contract.
While I appreciate that the Government have stated that the changes to the threshold are to reduce any administration requirements, and to address concerns raised by the Local Government Association, the lack of transparency around how the threshold was decided has made me understandably cautious. Transparency and value for money must be priorities when spending taxpayers’ money. Increasing the number of contracts that are scrutinised by requiring key performance indicators would allow for transparency at all stages of a contract’s lifecycle and hold businesses to account on issues of social value.
When we are in the midst of a climate crisis, it is necessary to ensure that suppliers are actively working towards the UK’s net zero commitments. When industries across the country are facing a skills gap, it is necessary to ensure that businesses are committed to apprenticeships and training new generations. And while the country continues to face a cost of living crisis, it is necessary to ensure that jobs across the supply chain are protected.
Alex Burghart
There are few rarer treats than hearing an Opposition Member quote Baroness Thatcher. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have reflected on, and enjoyed, the fact that she also said, “The problem with socialism is that you quickly run out of other people’s money.”
However, the hon. Member’s probing amendment is fair enough, and it is important that we discuss this issue. Hon. Members will recall that the Bill as introduced had a threshold of £2 million for the publication of KPIs on public contracts, but that the threshold was increased to £5 million in the House of Lords as part of a package of measures designed to reduce the administrative burden placed on contracting authorities, while still providing increased transparency in respect of larger public procurements.
The current financial threshold balances the need for transparency on KPIs with the costs and burdens of implementing the rules at a lower spend value. To reassure the hon. Gentleman, £5 million, which we have now fixed on, aligns with the thresholds that are used by central Government in the playbook for procurement. It is generally seen as the point where things become more complex. We thrashed out the number based on a lot of engagement with industry, and it was felt that that was an appropriate threshold to ensure that we were not including a lot of contracts with lower complexity.
Turning to amendments 75, 78 and 80, there are a number of places in the Bill where we apply financial thresholds that trigger obligations on a contracting authority. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that the affirmative procedure for secondary legislation should be applied for a number of those, and we made those amendments in the other place. That ensures greater scrutiny where there is a change in transparency requirements. We also indicated in our response to the DPRRC that we considered that the justifications for that applied equally to the amendment of the financial threshold for the setting and publication of key performance indicators. Amendments 75, 78 and 80 achieve this.
Clause 52 describes a requirement for contracting authorities to
“publish at least three key performance indicators”
for public contracts worth more than £5 million. That is a new requirement and it will ensure that we have visibility of how well individual suppliers are delivering in the public sector.
The clause is intended to bring transparency to the management of significant public sector contracts, allowing citizens and others to see how suppliers are performing. It should also ensure that companies that repeatedly fail to deliver do not win additional business—something that is not possible under the present procurement rules. The requirement does not apply if the contracting authority considers that KPIs are not an appropriate measure of contract performance in a given case. The example we give is of a contract for the one-off supply of goods. That is a one-time action and cannot be measured over time or by varying metrics.
The clause does not apply to the establishment of framework contracts—but it will apply to contracts awarded through the framework—utilities contracts awarded by a private utility company, concession contracts or light-touch contracts. A power is given for an appropriate authority to amend the financial threshold above which KPIs must be published. We have tabled an amendment to make the power to change the threshold subject to the affirmative procedure, so that if this Government or future Governments wish to adjust the threshold, they can easily do so, provided that they have Parliament’s consent.
The overall picture is enhanced by the spend data reporting obligation in clause 70. I respectfully request that amendment 4 be withdrawn.
Chris Evans
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53
Contract details notices and publication of contracts
Chris Evans
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 53, page 36, line 9, leave out “£5 million” and insert “£2 million”.
This amendment would reinstate the threshold for publishing the contracts in major projects at £2m.
As noted in the explanatory statement, the amendment would reinstate the threshold for publishing the contracts in major projects at £2 million. As I have pointed out, the Government seem to have chosen £5 million as an arbitrary figure. I will not repeat the points I have already made. We do not want to place an undue burden on small and medium-sized enterprises to have to employ costly legal advice to redact sensitive company information. However, I believe that, with sums of more than £2 million, it is completely reasonable to expect transparency.
Trust in Government spending is important to overall trust in Government, especially when they are spending sums of public money in the millions. It is not unreasonable for the public to expect transparency about where their money is being spent, and that the information is readily available and easily accessible. Although I understand the need not to make the process too arduous for smaller businesses, the proper balance must be found.
Alex Burghart
The revised threshold of £5 million seeks to ensure that a disproportionate administrative burden is not placed on contracting authorities and, as I have said, it reflects what we have in the playbook. The figure came out of a large amount of engagement with industry. There was recognition that it is around the £5 million threshold that we see additional complexity in contracts. That is why we think that the current financial threshold balances the need for transparency in these important matters with the costs and burdens of implementing the rules at a lower spend value.
It is important to stress, however, that contracting authorities will still be bound by a transparency obligation to publish contract detail notices for contracts above the agreement on Government procurement thresholds, which will contain information on which supplier has won the contract and other information about the contract award. I respectfully request that the hon. Gentleman withdraws his amendment.
Chris Evans
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 53 requires contracting authorities that enter into a public contract to publish a contract details notice. This is a significant extension of transparency, which will allow interested parties to see details of public sector contracts. The contract must be published within 90 days of the contract being entered into or, in the case of a light-touch contract, within 180 days. The contract details notice will contain information on the goods and services procured, the value of the successful tender and the procurement method used.
The Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive have decided to include a derogation from publication of a contract, which is their right.
Chris Evans
Clause 53 sets out the need for the publication of contract details for all contracts over £5 million. According to the Government’s own figures, one in every three pounds of public money—some £300 billion a year—is spent on public procurement. Ultimately, the taxpayer deserves to know that money from the public purse is being well spent.
I know from my time on the Public Accounts Committee—sooner or later, we will start doing PAC bingo, as every time I stand up I seem to mention how long I was on that Committee. I was there for five years. I promise that I am not going to speak for five years, Mr Efford—
Chris Evans
Fidel Castro was the master—I think 18 hours was his minimum. If you want me to do that, Mr Efford, I can. With lunch coming up, I think I would be the most popular member of the Committee.
I know from my time on the Public Accounts Committee that transparency leads to improved Government spending. There should be no place to hide poor contract decisions or, in the worst cases, possible cronyism. Unfortunately, there have been several scandals relating to procurement and Government spending. We have already heard this morning about the questions surrounding the procurement of PPE during the pandemic, which led, unfortunately, to the huge sum of £10 billion of public funds being spent on unusable, overpriced and even undelivered PPE.
At a time when so many families are struggling with the cost of living crisis, we cannot allow the public to feel that their hard-earned tax money is not being spent properly, and we all must work to restore public trust in Government procurement. The Government’s own “transparency ambition” document outlines a concerning failure to provide transparency in our procurement system. These reforms are long overdue and I am pleased that we are able to talk about them today. I think we can all agree that it is important that we increase trust in Government, and one of the key ways we can do that is through transparency. Labour would go further in government than the present Conservative Government. We would introduce a Ukraine-style publicly accessible dashboard of Government contracts tracking delivery and performance.
I am pleased that the Government have made some commitments to increasing transparency on large projects. The reforms—particularly the introduction of a number of new procurement notices covering the entire procurement lifecycle from planning through to contract expiry—are a welcome step forward. However, there are a few areas where we need clarity on implementation.
For example, at clause 53(2), the Bill states:
“A ‘contract details notice’ means a notice setting out—
(a) that the contracting authority has entered into a contract, and
(b) any other information specified in regulations under section 93.”
The Minister said on Second Reading that the Government
“will deliver world-leading standards of transparency in public procurement”—[Official Report, 9 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 343.]
and that there is a
“statutory obligation on the Government to deliver a single digital platform to host this data.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 348.]
However, it is unclear what a contract details notice will look like in practice, and how much detail will be required—in other words, how much transparency will actually be provided. It seems strange that there is no outline of how much data will be provided and what form it will take. I worry that will allow for only the very basic details of public contracts to be provided. Could the Minister explain his understanding of what transparency notices will look like and what information they will be required to contain?
A concern raised by the Local Government Association is that the clause risks contradicting other pieces of legislation, which, in turn, risks the ability to achieve one single digital platform for procurement. The LGA has suggested that the Transport Act 1985, the Service Subsidy Agreements (Tendering) (England) Regulations 2002 and the best value transparency code may have an impact on the implementation of the Bill. Could the Minister tell us whether that has been resolved, or what plans the Government have to ensure that other legislation does not interfere with the implementation of the single digital platform?
Overall, I welcome the goals of the clause, but I feel that it requires closer attention to ensure that it is properly implemented.
11 am
Alex Burghart
I am happy to play bingo with the hon. Gentleman any time. One particular game that we might play is to call “Bingo!” every time the Ukrainian digital platform is mentioned, because it has been mentioned several times. And well might it be mentioned, because it is a model of good practice. The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say on several occasions that we were grateful to the Ukrainian Government for coming and advising us on the creation of our own digital platform, which he will also have heard me mention. That platform will be the harbour of transparency, enabling suppliers, contracting authorities, central Government, voters and the press to see what is going on and to hold people to account. It will be a great asset.
The precise details of what needs to be published are not fit to be put in the Bill and the requirements may change over time. However, we will set those details out in due course, and what will drive our considerations when we do so is the ability to hold suppliers and contracting authorities to account.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54
Time limits
Alex Burghart
I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 54, page 37, line 14, at end insert— “The contract— (a) being awarded is a utilities contract, or (b) is being awarded by a contracting authority that is not a central government authority, and is subject to a negotiated tendering period No minimum period The contract— (a) being awarded is a utilities contract, or (b) is being awarded by a contracting authority that is not a central government authority, and tenders may be submitted only by pre-selected suppliers 10 days”
This amendment would set different minimum tendering periods where tenders may only be submitted by pre-selected suppliers (depending on whether the contracting authority and suppliers agree on a tendering period or not).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 35 and 36.
Clause stand part.
Alex Burghart
Government amendments 34 to 36 are technical amendments to allow shorter time periods to be set by utilities and contracting authorities that are not classed as central Government authorities, which will be defined in regulations made under the Bill, for procurements where there has been a prior selection round.
Following completion of that prior selection round, utilities and non-central Government authorities will invite identified suppliers to submit their tenders. The amendments will mean that they can negotiate a suitable time limit with all suppliers or, in the absence of agreement, a minimum of 10 days will apply. This flexibility exists in the current regime and, in common with all minimum time limits in the clause, is GPA-compliant. It was not included in the Bill previously because certain trade agreements did not permit such flexibility. However, following very positive progress in negotiations, we are now confident that we can make the change.
We know from our engagement with industry groups that utilities and sub-central bodies such as local authorities are hugely supportive of the change, because they will benefit from reduced timeframes and faster procurements. This will ultimately result in quicker delivery to the public of goods and services from those entities, benefiting us all.
Clause 54 as a whole deals with time limits during competitive procurements. It is important that suppliers are allowed adequate time during the awarding of public contracts, for example to prepare and submit tenders or requests to participate in a procurement.
The clause sets out minimum time periods that must be met in different circumstances, in line with the requirements of the GPA. These are minimum time limits. Consequently, contracting authorities are also directed to wider considerations for setting time periods, such as the nature and complexity of the contract, the need for site visits, and avoiding unnecessary delays.
Florence Eshalomi
These amendments set out the minimum timescales that apply when a contract is only between authorities and pre-selected suppliers. As these suppliers are verified to be compliant with the conditions of participation, it is logical that they would need less time to prepare a bid and would not be caught off guard by the 10-day minimum period, or the negotiated tendering period if one can be agreed. I thank the Minister for his explanation about why this is necessary, which was helpful. However, I also share the desire to reduce some of the unnecessary bureaucracy on both the authorities and the companies involved.
We do not seek to oppose these amendments. However, in relation to clause 54 there are considerable concerns about the minimum time limits that contracting authorities must abide by within certain circumstances. It is right to strike the balance between bureaucratic obligations on contracting authorities and the need for suppliers to have sufficient notice to compile a tender. As we have already outlined, this is really important for SMEs, which may sometimes lack the necessary staff or may require greater time to consider the consequences of bidding for contracts and to assess the ability of their company to do so.
We must also bear in mind the article 11 time periods of the World Trade Organisation’s general procurement agreement, which sets out minimum deadlines in line with the deadlines in the Bill. That is a step forward. We recognise that the Government’s hands are somewhat tied on this issue, but we should not wish to breach any international agreements. We therefore feel that the current amounts strike the right balance between bureaucracy and providing everyone with a fair chance to bid, so we do not intend to oppose them. As I have highlighted, we welcome the provisions in clause 15, which also interact with this part of the Bill. Trading off time limits in this part of the Bill for a pre-engagement notice is a sensible choice that benefits everyone, and we are happy to support the second part of this provision in the clause.
Amendment 34 agreed to.
Amendments made: 35, in clause 54, page 37, line 35, at end insert—
“‘central government authority’ has the meaning given in paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 (threshold amounts);
‘negotiated tendering period’ means a tendering period agreed between a contracting authority and pre-selected suppliers in circumstances where tenders may be submitted only by those pre-selected suppliers;”.
This amendment would define terms used in Amendment 34.
Amendment 36, in clause 54, page 38, line 2, at end insert—
“‘pre-selected supplier’ means a supplier that—
(a) has been assessed as satisfying conditions of participation before being invited to submit a tender as part of a competitive tendering procedure, or
(b) in the case of a contract that is being awarded by reference to suppliers’ membership of a dynamic market, is a member of that market;”.—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment would define a term used in Amendment 34.
Clause 54, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 55
Procurement termination notices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 55 requires contracting authorities, except private utilities, to publish a procurement termination notice as soon as reasonably practicable after making a decision to terminate a procurement. Each time a tender or transparency notice, which initiates a procurement, is published it creates a data record of the lifetime of that procurement and any resulting contract. Failure to confirm that a procurement has been terminated will result in the suppliers not being aware of a cancellation and in permanently incomplete data records and inaccurate records on our central platform, because the number of ongoing procurements will incorrectly include terminated procurements, which is unhelpful for anyone monitoring and using that data. A procurement termination notice is required to ensure that the data record and the full story of the procurement are concluded.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the Minister for outlining that. The clause is simple. It ensures that when a tender or transparency notice is published, there must be a notice if the contracting authority does not award the contract. The clause is necessary, and we are happy for it to stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 55 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 56
Technical specifications
Alex Burghart
I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 56, page 38, line 24, at end insert—
“(za) the standard adopts an internationally-recognised equivalent, or”.
This amendment would allow procurement documents to refer to a UK standard if the standard adopts an internationally-recognised equivalent.
Alex Burghart
The Committee will be delighted to hear that Government amendments 37 to 41 to clause 56, which concerns technical specifications, are very technical amendments. They will help to ensure that the Bill’s requirements in relation to standards, certification and accreditation are clear and fully align with how standards work in practice and the Government’s policies in those areas.
We are committed to openness and international trade, so contracting authorities must use international standards, or international standards that the British Standards Institution has adopted via a British standard, before using specific UK standards. We need to ensure that standards are appropriate, and we have strengthened the onus on the supplier to demonstrate that when claiming that it possesses an equivalent to standards requested by contracting authorities. In addition, the amendments make clear that contracting authorities can request evidence to verify that a standard has been met. That may include conformity assessments from certification bodies accredited by organisations such as the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, or UKAS.
Florence Eshalomi
The amendments help to clarify some of the technical provisions relating to the presentation and meeting of United Kingdom standards, as referred to in subsection (5). The Minister said that they are technical amendments. It is fine that we have technical provisions that have reached this stage without amendment, but we will be happy to hear clarification from the Minister this morning. We do not intend to oppose the amendments.
Amendment 37 agreed to.
Amendments made: 38, in clause 56, page 38, line 26, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment is consequential on equivalent provision being made by the new subsections inserted by Amendment 39.
Amendment 39, in clause 56, page 38, line 29, at end insert—
“(3A) If the procurement documents refer to a United Kingdom standard, they must provide that tenders, proposals or applications that the contracting authority considers satisfy an equivalent standard from another state, territory or organisation of states or territories will be treated as having satisfied the United Kingdom standard.
(3B) In considering whether a standard is equivalent to a United Kingdom standard for the purposes of subsection (3A), a contracting authority may have regard to the authority’s purpose in referring to the standard.
(3C) A contracting authority may require certification, or other evidence, for the purpose of satisfying itself that a standard is satisfied or equivalent.”
This amendment would clarify how a contracting authority is to assess whether tenders, proposals or applications satisfy equivalent standards to United Kingdom standards (including that it may require evidence).
Amendment 40, in clause 56, page 38, line 36, leave out “such matters” and insert
“the matters mentioned in subsection (4)”.—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment would clarify that the requirement in subsection (5) only applies where the matters mentioned in subsection (4) are referred to in the procurement documents.
Florence Eshalomi
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 56, page 38, line 38, at end insert—
“(5A) For all procurement which is intended for use by natural persons, whether the general public or staff of the contracting authority, the technical specifications in the procurement documents must, except in duly justified cases, be drawn up so as to take into account accessibility criteria for disabled persons or design for all users.”
This amendment would reproduce on the face of the Bill requirements for accessibility criteria for disabled persons which are included in the Public Contacts Regulations 2015, which this Bill will replace.
Amendment 8, in the name of my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), addresses the fact that the Bill overwrites requirements that ensure publicly procured goods and services are accessible to everyone and has no clauses specifically relating to accessibility for disabled people or replacing the current regulatory framework for accessibility. Accessibility is included only in clause 94, with regard to electronic communication and in the recommendation. While the reference to accessibility in clause 94(2), which states that any electronic communications utilised as part of the public procurement exercise must be
“accessible to people with disabilities”,
is a welcome addition, it does not address concerns to ensure that public funds are used to drive improved outcomes for disabled people. The Bill does not include any reference to the need for public procurement exercises to take account of accessibility.
Amendment 8 would create a new provision in the Bill to ensure that publicly procured goods and services meet a minimum standard of accessibility. Currently, regulation 42 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 states that the specifications for procurement must be
“drawn up so as to take into account accessibility criteria for disabled persons or design for all users.”
The amendment would simply reproduce that existing requirement in the Bill, ensuring that the current regulatory framework for accessibility is maintained.
Legal experts do not believe that the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 is sufficient. That is recognised by the current system, which incorporates both the public sector equality duty and regulation 42 of the Public Contracts Regulations to ensure that goods and services are accessible to everyone. Even with regulation 42, contracting authorities continually fail to consider their obligations and procure inaccessible products. Accessibility for disabled people must be maintained at the heart of any new public procurement legislation.
In early 2020, the then Prime Minister wrote to every Government Department calling on his Cabinet to increase opportunities and improve access to services for disabled people. From publicly procured ticketing machines to online consultation software, the Bill offers a great opportunity to meet that expectation and ensure that Government services are accessible to all. I hope the Minister will agree that this amendment would help to ensure we do not go backwards on disability rights in procurement.
Alex Burghart
Amendment 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea, with whom I had the pleasure of serving on the Work and Pensions Committee a few years ago, seeks to ensure that in procurements where the end product is intended to be used by people, the technical specifications account for the needs of people with disabilities. I very much want to reassure the Committee that the UK already has legal obligations that dictate how technical specifications are drawn up in these circumstances, with disability accessibility and even broader considerations covered by the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
The existing procurement regulations are derived from EU procurement directives, which were designed to be applied to member states where domestic laws do not adequately provide for accessibility requirements, as the Equality Act does. When applied to procurement, the Equality Act requirements are more pervasive than regulation 42 of the Public Contract Regulations 2015, and there is no need unnecessarily to replicate EU provisions when our domestic law is fit for purpose. Indeed, the Equality Act goes further than regulation 42, covering other protected characteristics and applying to the whole commercial lifecycle more broadly than just technical specifications.
Although we do not think this amendment is necessary, the Government remain committed to ensuring public procurement drives better outcomes for people with disabilities, and I recognise that implementation is currently patchy. We welcome engagement with charities and organisations supporting people with disabilities, to help ensure that disability accessibility is improved and effectively considered by contracting authorities in public procurement. As a consequence, I respectfully request that this amendment be withdrawn.
Florence Eshalomi
I understand the Minister’s concern and his admission that the Government will consult those disability charities, but does he agree with me that, as it stands, there are currently no requirements for goods and services to meet that standard of accessibility?
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady will have heard me say that the legal duty that exists within Equality Act 2010 goes further than the EU procurement rules that we are getting rid of. It goes further than the EU procurement directives, so there is no loss of obligation in the creation of the Bill.
I am very happy to meet the hon. Member for Battersea, who is an expert in these issues, in order to reassure her. As far as we are concerned, the Equality Act 2010 goes further than the EU procurement directives, so this amendment is not necessary.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Burghart
Clause 56 sets technical specifications that contain the required characteristics of the goods, services or works that a supplier has to provide. They are included within procurement documents to present suppliers with a full description of the contracting authority’s needs, to enable suppliers to propose a solution to meet those needs via a tender response.
In line with the broader goal of a simpler regulatory framework and increased flexibility to design efficient, commercial and market-focused competition, the Bill does not dictate how technical specifications are to be drawn up by contracting authorities, or mandate what exactly should be included.
As such, clause 56 simply requires contracting authorities to refer to performance or functional requirements over descriptive characteristics, to focus on the desired outcomes of a contract rather than being overly prescriptive on the method by which this is achieved. Clause 56 also prevents contracting authorities from referring to things like specific trademarks or producers—in essence prohibiting an arbitrary favouring of national or specific products—to avoid narrowing the competitive pool.
Contracting authorities must also use international standards where they exist, or national standards allowing for equivalents. This provision, required by the UK and other parties to the World Trade Organisation’s Government procurement agreement is helpful, as the UK advocates for high standards in the supply of goods and services and was a founding member of standards organisations, such as the International Organisation for Standardisation and the International Electrotechnical Commission.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 56, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Julie Marson.)
Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 7th February 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 February 2023 - (7 Feb 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 57, page 39, line 22, after “mandatory” insert “or discretionary”.
This amendment would make a supplier or an associated person on the debarment list for a discretionary ground an excluded supplier.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 24, in clause 57, page 39, line 29, leave out subsection (b).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 23.
Clause stand part.
Clause 58 stand part.
Florence Eshalomi
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. Amendments 23 and 24 would ensure that everyone on the debarment list is excluded from the procurement system, except for under the provisions relating to the public interest test in clause 41.
On Thursday I listened to the Minister explain “exclusions”, “exclusionary” and the debarment list. We had hoped that the Minister would give a more substantive explanation, given the issues that we highlighted, but we remain concerned. I will not go over the debate, but I was not satisfied to hear that a contracting authority will have discretion to award, say, a paperclip contract, as the Minister said, to a company identified as a national security risk. I have my paperclips here, if the Minister would like one. I want to ask a question that most people in this country will have. Why we are giving public money to a supplier who is identified as being a threat? With all due respect to procurement officers, we cannot expect there not to be blurred lines. Something that seems innocuous might actually be an open door, not spotted by a procurement officer or even our own security experts.
I am sure we all heard last week about the issue of the spy balloon, and how that created alarm in the USA. In the end, military action was required to shoot it down. A US defence officer has revealed that other suspected spy balloons flew over the US during the Trump Administration. That shows that real threats can pop up anytime and anywhere, and they can take multiple forms. Amendments 23 and 24 reflect some of the dissatisfaction I have outlined. As the Bill stands, a supplier put on the debarment list on schedule 7 grounds would be classed as an “excludable supplier”, meaning the contracting authority could still, at its discretion, award them a contract. I understand from the Minister’s comments, and from conversations with stakeholders, why there needs to be discretion with regard to excludable grounds, but I do not believe that such discretion should extend to suppliers on the debarment list.
The Government have outlined the debarment list is reserved for the most serious cases of misconduct. On 4 August 2022, the then Minister Lord True wrote a letter to the now Minister Baroness Neville-Rolfe, in which he said:
“I should start by explaining that the debarment list is intended to focus on the most serious cases of supplier misconduct, where suppliers may pose a significant risk to contracting authorities or the public. It is not the case that every supplier which meets a ground for exclusion will be considered for inclusion on the debarment list. Rather, there will be a prioritisation policy which governs how cases are selected for investigation. It is likely that only a small number of cases will be considered each year.
It is also important to clarify that meeting a ground for exclusion is not sufficient on its own to justify the addition of a supplier to the debarment list. In addition to considering whether an exclusion ground applies, the Minister must also consider whether the circumstances that led to the application of the exclusion ground are likely to occur again. Only if the circumstances are considered likely to occur again may the supplier be added to the debarment list. This ensures that exclusion is not a punishment for past behaviour but a forward-looking measure based on the risk posed by the supplier.”
In the words of Lord True, suppliers on the list represent a significant risk to the public. It was therefore pleasing to hear the Minister say on Tuesday:
“Suppliers on the debarment list face exclusion across the public sector at all levels. That is a significant step forward in our approach to supplier misconduct.”––[Official Report, Procurement Bill Public Bill Committee, 31 January 2023; c. 63.]
I think most people would welcome the fact that suppliers on the list are automatically excluded. However, under the Bill, the contracting authority will still be able to exclude suppliers on the list on discretionary exclusion grounds. When a supplier represents such a risk that they are one of the few to be on the debarment list, why should they still be allowed access to public contracts? We do not want suppliers who commit egregious breaches near public contracts.
I refer back to the Minister’s example of a paperclip contract. Does he believe that a supplier who has been found guilty of environmental misconduct, has frequently breached contracts and performed poorly, is a national threat, or committed a breach that is grounds for discretionary exclusion, although the Government decided not to put them on the debarment list, should have access to public contracts? Will the public want their money to be spent that way, and handed to that supplier? Every supplier on the debarment list is surely one that the Minister believes should not be near our procurements. Again, we come to the question: why allow this discretion? Our amendment would ensure that those on the debarment list were excluded from all public contracts without question. I urge the Minister to think carefully about that, and to consider whether he can support the amendment.
I turn briefly to clause 58. Although every excluded or excludable supplier must be given the opportunity to prove that they are now a reputable supplier, it is important to remember that procurement rules are there to ensure that public money is spent efficiently and on delivering the public services we need. When it comes to deciding whether a supplier comes under the definitions set out in clause 57, has the Minister considered taking the US-style approach of weighing the reputational and delivery risk to the contracting authority of allowing the supplier to take the contract? There will be disadvantages and advantages to both approaches, but I would be interested to learn whether that was explored, and why the Government adopted the approach taken in the Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Mundell. Amendments 23 and 24 would require contracting authorities to treat any supplier on the debarment list as being subject to mandatory exclusion, even when it is on the list because a discretionary exclusion ground applies. The concept of “excluded supplier” is by nature a blunt instrument. An excluded supplier faces exclusion from every public contract for five years unless and until a contracting authority is satisfied that the risk of the issues re-occurring has been addressed. For that reason, a supplier is an excluded supplier only when one of the grounds reserved for the most serious forms of misconduct apply—the mandatory grounds.
It is clearly right that when a Minister of the Crown places a supplier on the debarment list because a mandatory exclusion ground applies, and the issues are likely to occur again, authorities awarding contracts should treat that supplier as an excluded supplier. The inclusion of discretionary exclusion grounds in schedule 7 reflects the fact that, for offences where a range of misconduct could be involved, it might be appropriate to take into account factors such as the nature of the contract being tendered or the level of harm caused before deciding to exclude a supplier.
None the less, the Government believe that it should be possible to include a supplier that has fallen foul of a discretionary exclusion ground on the debarment list. This involves contracting authorities having to do their own due diligence on the suppliers’ misconduct and self-cleaning measures. However, given that discretionary exclusion grounds are potentially less serious, a contracting authority should retain some discretion with regard to that supplier, once they are on the list.
Clause 57 sets out the meaning of the terms “excluded supplier” and “excludable supplier”. The Bill provides elsewhere that contracting authorities are either obliged or permitted to consider whether suppliers should be excluded or excludable at various points in a procurement. In most cases, excluded suppliers must be prevented from participating in a procurement or being awarded a contract, while excludable suppliers may be excluded at the discretion of the contracting authority.
Excluded suppliers are defined in subsection (1) as those to whom a contracting authority considers that
“a mandatory exclusion ground applies”,
as set out in schedule 6. The contracting authority must also consider that
“the circumstances giving rise to the application of the exclusion ground are likely to occur again,”
or that the supplier is
“on the debarment list by virtue of a mandatory exclusion ground.”
Excludable suppliers are defined in subsection (2) as those to whom a contracting authority considers that
“a discretionary exclusion ground applies”
as set out in schedule 7. The contracting authority must also consider that
“the circumstances giving rise to the application of the exclusion ground are likely to occur again,”
or that the supplier is
“on the debarment list by virtue of a discretionary exclusion ground.”
In both cases, the supplier is excluded or excludable if they are on the debarment list. Private utilities can treat mandatory exclusion grounds as discretionary; that is set out in subsection (3).
Clause 58 sets out how contracting authorities should assess the risk of the re-occurrence of the circumstances that gave rise to the application of an exclusion ground to a supplier. Contracting authorities may have regard to the range of factors set out in subsection (1) when evaluating that risk. Subsection (2) imposes a duty on the contracting authorities applying the exclusions regime to give suppliers an opportunity to submit evidence to show that the circumstances are not likely to recur—that is, that they have “self-cleaned”. Suppliers are also entitled to make the case that they are not subject to a ground for exclusion, and to make representations more generally.
The self-cleaning evidence must be sufficient to satisfy the contracting authority that the circumstances that gave rise to potential exclusion are not likely to occur again. Importantly, subsection (3) stipulates that contracting authorities must not make disproportionate requests for information or remedial evidence. That protects suppliers by ensuring that contracting authorities focus on the most important aspects of self-cleaning relevant to the particular circumstances.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall understandably takes us back to the issue of discretionary versus mandatory exclusions, which we debated the other day. One thing we need to bear in mind—perhaps with regard to more rarefied objects than paperclips—is that there may be circumstances in which particular substances or items can be procured only from certain suppliers. That may be essential for the operation of certain processes or the response to certain emergency situations.
Florence Eshalomi
As I said, I understand why the Minister says that there should be some discretion, and that it should lie with the contracting authority. However, does he agree that such discretion should not stretch to the point at which an organisation is on the debarment list, and there is an issue of national security?
Alex Burghart
There is absolutely the issue of national security. However, it is important that we retain an element of flexibility, so that in extremis, if there is only one provider of an essential good, the public authorities that need it still have access to it, even if there are concerns about other activities performed by a certain company. Although I completely understand the hon. Lady’s desire to prevent companies whose practices we disagree with from unduly benefiting from the public purse, we have to retain a degree of flexibility so that, in extremis, public authorities can get what they need.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Burghart
Schedule 6 sets out the mandatory grounds for exclusion. They consist of criminal offences and other misconduct serious enough to merit exclusion if the circumstances in question are likely to reoccur.
Florence Eshalomi
As the Minister highlighted, the schedule covers the grounds on which a supplier can be excluded, with some general provisions on how the suppliers are treated. I have touched on our concerns about excluded suppliers and excludable systems, and we will say more about that when we come to schedule 7. However, we believe that the scope of schedule 6 could be widened to cover issues of national security, to ensure that suppliers who are a risk to national security are not included in our supply chain, even when contracting authorities want paperclips. We support the increase in the scope of the schedule, so that it excludes suppliers who have committed serious offences, and who represent a concern to the authorities in the delivery of services. We are pleased to support the schedule.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 6 accordingly agreed to.
Schedule 7
Discretionary exclusion grounds
Alex Burghart
I beg to move amendment 87, in page 110, line 33, schedule 7, leave out paragraph 15.
This amendment would leave out the discretionary exclusion ground relating to forced organ harvesting.
Amendment 87 removes an amendment made to schedule 7 in the other place. It created a discretionary exclusion ground for suppliers with connections to forced organ harvesting, which is, of course, an utterly abhorrent practice. However, serious unethical behaviour particular to a certain industry is already covered by the ground of professional misconduct. The Bill is not the appropriate place to address the issue.
Every exclusion ground, whether mandatory or discretionary, must be considered for each and every supplier for each procurement. I am sure the Committee can appreciate how burdensome that would be when there are thousands of contracts every year. We want to make public procurement simpler and less burdensome for suppliers, particularly those that are small and medium-sized enterprises, and to drive value for money for the public. Adding additional exclusion grounds costs contracting authorities time and money. It is therefore crucial that we limit exclusion grounds to those that pose a major risk to public procurement. No supplier to the UK public sector has been involved in forced organ harvesting, as far as I am aware.
I am, however, pleased to say that the Government have already taken significant steps to make it explicit that the overseas organ trade, or complicity in it, will not be tolerated. Under the Health and Care Act 2022, it is already an offence to travel outside the UK to purchase an organ. That is why I believe that the amendment is necessary to overturn a well-meaning but, in practice, very challenging change to the Bill.
Florence Eshalomi
As the Minister highlighted, amendment 87 would sadly overturn Lords amendment 91, made on Report, in relation to forced organ harvesting. I agree with the Minister that there can be no doubt that organ harvesting is an abhorrent practice, but we should be careful when saying that this measure would just result in additional bureaucracy and time in contracts and procurement.
The practice of forced organ harvesting involves the removal of organs from a living prisoner, which results in their death or near death. It is something that none of us should stand by and watch. Linking this back to taxpayers’ money, no taxpayer would expect a single penny of their public money to go to a company explicitly linked to this practice. Tragically, there is evidence that forced organ harvesting may not be a particularly niche issue.
The Minister highlighted that the measure, although well intended, would add more time and another layer of bureaucracy. I want to go back to the debates in the other place, and some of the powerful words from Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who moved the amendment that led to our discussion today. Both made moving and compelling arguments for the inclusion of the measure against forced organ harvesting, providing examples of evidence that the practice is taking place on an extremely depressing scale in China.
The excellent speeches made by Lord Alton and Lord Hunt have been backed up by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, which stated that serious human rights violations have been committed in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region,
“in the context of the Government’s application of counter-terrorism and counter-‘extremism’ strategies. The implementation of these strategies, and associated policies in XUAR has led to interlocking patterns of severe and undue restrictions on a wide range of human rights. These patterns of restrictions are characterized by a discriminatory component, as the underlying acts often directly or indirectly affect Uyghur and other predominantly Muslim communities.”
The OHCHR also stated that the treatment of persons held in the system of so-called vocational education and training centres—VETC facilities—is,
“of equal concern. Allegations of patterns of torture or ill-treatment, including forced medical treatment and adverse conditions of detention, are credible, as are allegations of individual incidents of sexual and gender-based violence. While the available information at this stage does not allow OHCHR to draw firm conclusions regarding the exact extent of such abuses, it is clear that the highly securitised and discriminatory nature of the VETC facilities, coupled with limited access to effective remedies or oversight by the authorities, provide fertile ground for such violations to take place on a broad scale.”
That is damning. It shows there is evidence of this already happening. In an April 2022 paper published in the American Journal of Transplantation, Matthew P. Robertson and Jacob Lavee stated:
“We find evidence in 71 of these reports, spread nationwide, that brain death could not have properly been declared. In these cases, the removal of the heart during organ procurement must have been the proximate cause of the donor’s death. Because these organ donors could only have been prisoners, our findings strongly suggest that physicians in the People’s Republic of China have participated in executions by organ removal.”
As a country, we must stand steadfast against these practices and ensure that any supplier with ties to forced organ harvesting is not allowed anywhere near our procurement system. I do not think taxpayers would expect anything less. No one wants to be linked to these horrific practices.
I fully understand and appreciate that the Minister may have covered these and other concerns in his remarks, but we may want to consider that there is no doubt this practice is an exclusion ground. In Committee in the Lords, the Minister, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, said it was almost certain that it would be covered by paragraph 12, but I think we have to ask ourselves, how many times have we heard that something is almost certain, only for it not to be covered when the Bill passes? We cannot and should not take chances on this issue. It is a fundamental and critical issue of human rights. If the Committee is to do its job, we cannot support the attempts to remove forced organ harvesting as a discretionary exclusion ground. For those powerful and valid reasons, I will not be supporting the amendment.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is tempting to think that forced organ harvesting is so far removed from anything that we consider human, or a normal occurrence, that it does not happen—but it does. As the shadow Minister laid out, the issue was discussed in significant detail in the other place. We know it occurs.
The Minister has given some level of assurance that other parts of the Bill cover this practice. Could he be explicit that he does not believe that any supplier involved in forced organ harvesting would be eligible to receive a public contract through the procurement framework set out in the Bill? If he can give that explicit assurance that he believes the practice is covered elsewhere in the Bill, and that provisions elsewhere in the Bill adequately do the job of this provision, I would be happy not to oppose the amendment. That assurance from the Minister would give us a measure of reassurance and comfort that the Bill covers everything that he intends and expects.
Alex Burghart
We are assured that the absolutely abhorrent practice of forced organ harvesting would qualify as serious unethical behaviour. Consequently, that would mean that, in the Bill, it would be covered by the grounds of professional misconduct. Within the Bill, we have that provision; outwith the Bill, we have the Health and Social Care Act, to which I referred in my remarks. I hope that no one will take away anything other than the fact that the Government are strongly opposed to this practice and to the people who conduct this practice and that we wish public procurement to have no part in it.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Florence Eshalomi
I beg to move amendment 106, in schedule 7, page 111, line 4, at end insert—
“Failure to consider sanctions regime
16 A discretionary exclusion ground applies to a supplier if a decision-maker determines that the supplier or a connected person has failed to adhere to sanctions imposed by the United Kingdom.”
This amendment would add a discretionary exclusion ground based on the failure to adhere to UK sanctions regimes.
Amendment 106 would add a discretionary ground to give contracting authorities the power to disregard tenders from suppliers who do not comply with the UK sanctions scheme. The amendment takes inspiration from the international reaction to Putin’s illegal and barbaric invasion of Ukraine. We know that many companies did the right thing in response to that invasion and swiftly pulled out from Russia. They withdrew funding, marketing and development, and they all took a stand not to finance Putin’s actions against the people of Ukraine. Sadly, however, some did not.
For example, research from Yale has identified the status of more than 1,000 companies in Russia, rating them from A to F on what presence they still have in the country. I will not go into specific cases, but it noticeable that companies rated D—defined as “continuing substantive business”—have been awarded lucrative public contracts since the invasion of Ukraine.
Alex Burghart
The amendment would introduce a new discretionary exclusion ground in relation to sanctions violations. The Government of course expect all businesses to comply with their obligations under the UK sanctions regime.
In 2016, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation was established to ensure that sanctions are properly understood, implemented and enforced. A range of tools are available to encourage compliance, including monetary penalties. However, we do not consider that sanctions violations pose a sufficient risk to public procurement to justify a ground for exclusion.
I am not aware of any evidence that public contracts have been awarded to suppliers that have violated sanctions. It is important that the exclusions regime focuses on the most pertinent risks, because each additional exclusion ground will increase burdens on contracting authorities and suppliers. That is why we have taken a targeted, risk-based approach, informed by extensive consultation across the public sector and with those who are most impacted by the exclusions regime, such as small and medium-sized enterprises. I respectfully request that the amendment be withdrawn.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Florence Eshalomi
I beg to move amendment 112, in schedule 7, page 111, line 4, at end insert—
“Labour law infringements
15A (1) Subject to paragraph (2), a discretionary exclusion ground applies to a supplier if a contracting authority determines that a supplier, within the three years leading to the date of tender—
(a) has been found by an employment tribunal or court to have significantly breached the rights of an employee or worker engaged or formerly engaged by it,
(b) has admitted that it significantly breached the rights of an employee or worker engaged or formerly engaged by it, or
(c) has made a payment to an employee or worker engaged or formerly engaged by it in respect of a significant breach by it of the employee or worker’s rights,
and the contracting authority may treat the supplier as an excluded supplier in relation to the award of the public contract.
(2) Where a contracting authority determines that a supplier fulfils one or more of sub-paragraphs (1)(a), (b) or (c), the contracting authority must determine that the supplier is not an excluded supplier in relation to the award of the public contract if the contracting authority is satisfied that the supplier has provided convincing evidence to the effect that measures taken by the supplier are sufficient to demonstrate that it is in the public interest and in the interest of the contracting authority that the supplier should not be excluded from the procurement procedure.
(3) The evidence referred to in sub-paragraph (2) must include proof that the supplier has—
(a) paid or undertaken to pay without delay compensation in respect of any damage caused by the breach of rights,
(b) clarified the facts and circumstances in a comprehensive manner by actively and without delay collaborating with any relevant employment tribunal or court process and the parties thereto, and
(c) taken concrete technical, organisational and personnel measures appropriate to prevent further breaches of rights of a similar kind.
(4) Any such measures taken by the supplier must be evaluated taking into account the gravity and particular circumstances of the breach or breaches of rights.
(5) Where the contracting authority considers such measures to be insufficient, the contracting authority must give the supplier a statement of the reasons for that decision.
(6) ‘Rights’ in paragraphs (1) to (4) means any entitlement or benefit of an employee or worker engaged or formerly engaged by the supplier or of a trade union of which he or she is a member deriving from common law (including contract and tort) or statute, or protected by the international obligations of the United Kingdom referred to in Article 399 of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (within the meaning of section 37 of the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020).”
This amendment is intended to give contracting authorities the discretion to exclude suppliers who have significantly breached the rights of staff in the last three years unless they have “self-cleansed”.
We hope that amendment 112 will be a step toward recognising that being granted public money via a public contract is a privilege, and that in return for this privilege suppliers should be upholding high standards in the workplace. The Bill provides us with an opportunity to drive up standards and ensure public procurement is used as a means to promote decent work throughout the supply chain and to reward businesses that treat their workers right, so we can raise standards right across the economy. We must all back the workers and employers who are creating Britain’s wealth. We must use procurement as an opportunity to raise the bar for all on working conditions. We believe this is a strong amendment. It seeks to include good work and the promotion of quality employment as a strategic priority.
Alex Burghart
Amendment 112 would introduce a new discretionary ground for exclusion in relation to labour law infringements. There are already robust grounds for exclusion for the most egregious violations of the rights of workers. These are based on the serious labour offences within the purview of the director of labour market enforcement. Compared with the mandatory grounds in existing legislation—the Public Contracts Regulations 2015—they represent an expansion in the scope of the grounds on which suppliers can be excluded from procurements for labour violations, with new grounds including failure to pay the national minimum wage and offences relating to employment agencies.
It is right that exclusion is reserved for the most serious circumstances or behaviour that could, if not addressed, raise a sufficient risk to contracting authorities or the public as to make the supplier unfit to bid for public contracts. Nevertheless, where the treatment of workers and the protection of their rights is relevant to the contract being procured, contracting authorities are entitled to set conditions of participation in these areas and to evaluate treatment of workers as part of the award criteria in assessing tenders. This may be the case, for example, for the procurement of contracts for labour-intensive services. I respectfully urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Burghart
I beg to move amendment 88, in 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;”
This amendment would insert a definition of “event” for the purposes of paragraph 16 of Schedule 7.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Amendment 88 is a technical amendment that inserts a definition of “event” for the purpose of the five-year look-back period in schedule 7. It mirrors the same definition already included in schedule 6, but refers to an event by virtue of which a discretionary exclusion ground applies to a supplier.
Schedule 7 sets out the discretionary grounds for exclusion. Discretionary grounds involve a range of circumstances, some of which are potentially less serious and might not merit exclusion. It might depend on the circumstances relating to the exclusion ground, the type of contract being procured such as its urgency or criticality, or facts specific to the procurement—the number of bidders, for example.
Similar to the mandatory exclusion grounds, the discretionary grounds are subject to a five-year, look-back period, as set out in paragraph 16, whereby only convictions or other events that the decision maker was aware of within the past five years count when assessing whether grounds apply. Again, that is subject to a transitional regime to avoid the unfair retrospective effect of new exclusion grounds for events that would not have given rise to exclusion prior to the coming into force of the Bill.
The discretionary grounds generally apply to misconduct or circumstances involving either the supplier or a connected person of the supplier. Connected persons are defined in paragraph 44 of schedule 6, as I explained earlier. As with schedule 6, I hope that we have achieved our objective of making the exclusion grounds both clearer and more consistent.
Florence Eshalomi
As the Minister outlined, the amendment seeks to define the events, with reference to the relevant paragraph of the schedule on determining temporal cut-off points for events that may make a supplier excludable. We believe that it is a tidying-up amendment to ensure that the event is defined in the schedule, so we do not wish to oppose it.
More widely, there are some faults with the schedule and its implementation, but the Opposition view it as a step forward in procurement versus the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. We recognise the importance of clauses on matters such as labour markets and environmental misconduct, but the appropriateness of the scope of schedule 7 will depend on how stringent the rules on excludable suppliers are applied by contracting authorities. We should consider that when assessing how well the terms of the schedule will work in a few years’ time.
I would be grateful if the Minister explained why different timescales have been used in different parts of the Bill, as set out in paragraph 16. How were the decisions made for different grounds? We do not seek further amendments to the schedule, which we are happy to support.
Alex Burghart
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and support of the schedule. She asked about the look-back periods in paragraph 16 and why they differ—perhaps she could intervene to clarify her question.
Florence Eshalomi
I asked about the different timescales outlined in paragraph 16. I would like a better understanding of how those decisions were reached.
Alex Burghart
I am embarrassed to say that my memory is failing me, but I will let the hon. Lady know later in the afternoon.
Florence Eshalomi
Thank you.
Amendment 88 agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59
Notification of exclusion of supplier
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 60 and 61 stand part.
Government amendments 42 to 44.
Clause 62 stand part.
Government amendments 45 to 47.
Clauses 63 and 64 stand part.
Government amendment 76.
Government new clause 9—Debarment decisions: interim relief.
Government new clause 10—Debarment proceedings and closed material procedure.
Government new clause 15—Debarment decisions: appeals (No. 2).
Alex Burghart
We move on to a monster grouping. The clauses, which concern the debarment list, are important, ground-breaking provisions that will support contracting authorities to reject bids from suppliers that pose the most serious risk.
Clause 59 requires contracting authorities to notify either a UK, Welsh or Northern Irish Minister—depending on the status of the contracting authority—whenever action is taken under the exclusions regime against a supplier or subcontractor. Subsection (1) sets out the relevant actions, which include exclusion from a procurement, rejection of a tender, rejection of an application to join a dynamic market or removal from a dynamic market, or the replacement of an associated person or intended subcontractor.
The obligation to notify a relevant appropriate authority is in subsection (2), and must be made within 30 days of the relevant action. Subsection (3) sets out the information that must be in the notification. There is also an obligation in subsections (4) and (5) to notify within 30 days where a challenge is brought under part 9 of the Bill against a contracting authority with regard to any exclusion, and also on conclusion of any such proceedings.
Florence Eshalomi
This group of amendments and new clauses pertains to the debarment regime and a new interim relief scheme that suppliers can use when they wish a decision to be put on the debarment list. We support the addition of a debarment list to the Bill. It is right that suppliers that represent a significant risk to contracting authorities and the public are identified. Clearly, this is a strong step and represents a higher bar than simply excluding a supplier from a procurement tender process.
That high-bar intention for the list has been made clear by the Government and in the Minister’s remarks. I refer back to the letter of the then Minister Lord True to Minister Baroness Neville-Rolfe:
“I should start by explaining that the debarment list is intended to focus on the most serious cases of supplier misconduct, where suppliers may pose a significant risk to contracting authorities or the public.”
Ministers must also consider whether the circumstances that led to the application of the exclusion ground are likely to occur again. However, the Government might have changed their mind since then. Will the Minister confirm whether that is still the intention in that case?
Clarity is needed. The need for clarity highlights a potential flaw in the existing clauses: there is still some ambiguity about what the bar actually is to be placed on the debarment list. As drafted, any supplier deemed to be an excluded or excludable supplier can, in theory, be added to the list. It is also possible that no suppliers, even those with egregious cases, are added to the list.
The only other issue that I will raise is that of the threshold. Will there be additional guidance for suppliers and contracting authorities? The list can involve severe reputational and financial damage, so it is right to have safeguards. We will support the measure if the Minister can outline the additional safeguards.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady is right that Lord True wrote to a Member of the House of Lords about this, and we do not believe that the Government’s position has changed since then. I am afraid I cannot remember her second point—if she is happy to intervene on me, that will refresh my memory.
Alex Burghart
I look forward to receiving the hon. Lady’s letter.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 59 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 60 and 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 62
Debarment list
Amendments made: 42, in clause 62, page 43, line 30, leave out from “section” to end of line 39 and insert
“and, as part of that entry, must—
(a) state the exclusion ground to which the entry relates, and whether it is a mandatory exclusion ground or a discretionary exclusion ground, and
(b) indicate the date on which the Minister expects the supplier to cease to be an excluded or excludable supplier by virtue of the stated exclusion ground (and, accordingly, expects the entry to be removed from the list).
(4) A list kept for the purposes of this section is the ‘debarment list’.”
This amendment would make it clearer that each entry will relate to one exclusion ground and, as such, could be challenged individually.
Amendment 43, in clause 62, page 43, line 44, at end insert—
“(5A) The Minister may not enter a supplier’s name on the debarment list before the end of the period of eight working days beginning with the day on which the Minister gives notice to the supplier in accordance with subsection (5) (the ‘debarment standstill period’).
(5B) The Minister may not enter a supplier’s name on the debarment list if—
(a) during the debarment standstill period—
(i) proceedings under section (Debarment decisions: interim relief)(1) (interim relief) are commenced, and
(ii) the Minister is notified of that fact, and
(b) the proceedings have not been determined, discontinued or otherwise disposed of.”
This amendment would ensure that an application for interim relief under the new clause inserted by NC9 would suspend the Minister’s decision to add a supplier’s name to the debarment list.
Amendment 44, in clause 62, page 44, line 1, leave out from “review” to end of line 5 and insert—
“(b) may remove an entry from the debarment list at any time, and
(c) may revise a date indicated under subsection (3)(b).
(7) If a Minister of the Crown voluntarily removes an entry from the debarment list in connection with proceedings under section 64 (debarment decisions: appeals), a Minister of the Crown may reinstate the entry only after the proceedings have been determined, discontinued or otherwise disposed of.
(7A) A Minister of the Crown must remove an entry from the debarment list if the Minister is satisfied that the supplier is not an excluded or excludable supplier by virtue of the ground stated in the entry.”—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment would restrict modifications that could be made to the debarment list, provide for the Minister to voluntarily suspend a decision to add an entry to the debarment list in connection with proceedings, and clarify that the Minister must remove an entry where a particular ground no longer applies.
Clause 62, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 63
Debarment list: application for removal
Amendments made: 45, in clause 63, page 44, line 16, leave out from “for” to end of line 17 and insert—
“(a) the removal of an entry in respect of the supplier from the debarment list, or
(b) the revision of the date indicated as part of such an entry under section 62(3)(b).”
This amendment would ensure that a supplier can apply to change the date indicating when it will cease to be an excluded or excludable supplier.
Amendment 46, in clause 63, page 44, line 21, leave out from “since” to “, or” and insert
“the entry was made or, where relevant, revised”.
This amendment would allow for the fact that a supplier may make different applications in respect of the same or different entries.
Amendment 47, in clause 63, page 44, line 23, after “subsection (1)” insert
“in relation to the entry or, where relevant, revision”.—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 45.
Clause 63, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 64 disagreed to.
Clause 65
Timeline for removal of suppliers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 65, which was added to the Bill in the other place, requires the Government to publish a timetable for the removal of Government surveillance equipment where there is evidence that a provider has been involved in modern slavery, genocide or crimes against humanity. That would require the Government to undertake a review of evidence that existing surveillance suppliers or subcontractors have been involved in those matters. Given the size and complexity of technology supply chains, any review of that nature would be costly and resource-intensive; it would need to cover hundreds, if not thousands, of companies.
The measure is intended to target Chinese suppliers, but it is not guaranteed to lead to action against them. The evidence surrounding the complicity of surveillance suppliers in the oppression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang is highly contested, and it would likely be difficult to show that any supplier had been involved in the matters set out in the clause. Although it is unclear what precisely is meant by “established evidence” that a provider has been “involved” in the specified abuses, proving that those suppliers knowingly provided technology for use in human rights abuses would be especially difficult. Even if there were sufficient evidence to do so, the cost and disruption of removing such surveillance equipment from across the entire Government estate would be significant. For that reason, public procurement policy has tended to focus on preventing unfit suppliers from participating in future procurements, rather than requiring the termination of existing contracts.
However, the Government are deeply concerned by both the accusations of modern slavery and the national security implications posed by such equipment, and they are taking action. In November, they announced that all Government Departments will be expected to remove such equipment from sensitive sites and to avoid procuring it in the future. We are also strengthening our powers in the Bill by introducing an exclusion ground for suppliers considered to pose a threat to the national security of the United Kingdom. Combined with the new powers for a centralised debarment list, that will mean that where the risk is sufficiently serious, Ministers can act quickly to ensure suppliers that threaten national security face exclusion from all contracts across the public sector.
I believe that we have taken decisive action in this area, both in the written ministerial statement and in the Bill. However, we are mindful of the concerns raised in both Houses, and we will continue to reflect carefully on those views as we move forward with the legislation and its implementation.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the Minister for his closing remarks on that and the need to address some of the concerns. The clauses mandate the eventual removal of physical technology or surveillance equipment from the Government’s procurement system supply chain, where there is substantiated evidence of modern slavery, genocide or crimes against humanity.
Kirsty Blackman
Throughout the discussion of Hikvision and other companies in relation to human rights abuses, genocide and crimes against humanity, the Minister has missed the point. The shadow Minister has absolutely got the point.
For a start, the US has already blacklisted Hikvision. If the US believes that there is enough evidence to do that, and the Scottish Government are getting rid of the Hikvision cameras we have in Scotland, I do not see why the UK Government are unable to act in that regard. Two other jurisdictions have found enough evidence to debar Hikvision from providing cameras involved in our public life, yet the UK Government feel that there is still not enough evidence. They are somehow suggesting that perhaps the situation is over-egged, but it appears that the Foreign Affairs Committee does not think the situation is an over-exaggeration, and that it thinks that there is actually a risk and danger.
This is not just about the threat to our national security, although that is obviously incredibly important, and the Labour Front Benchers have been clear about national security throughout our discussion of the Bill. This is also about supporting a company that is committing human rights abuses. It does not matter whether a company is committing them here or elsewhere; the reality is that through public procurement, we are funding a company using facial recognition in mosques and committing atrocities against Uyghur Muslims in the Xinjiang region. How is that okay just because it is not causing any problems here?
Even if the company were not causing any threat to national security, this is about the direction of travel. On modern slavery, for example, the Government are pretty clear that no matter where that is happening, we do not want to be entangled with suppliers involved in modern slavery and enslaving people. We should not want to be involved with, and companies and suppliers should not be giving public money to, the people committing these crimes. Just because this is not modern slavery, it does not mean that they are not creating significant problems and putting people in severe danger as part of the extreme regimes that they are working for.
I do not see the justification in allowing public money to be given to any of these organisations. As I said last week, it is not as though this is a high bar; it is a low bar. We are saying that modern slavery and genocide are crimes against humanity. Those are pretty much the most serious things we can think of. Any organisation involved in those should not get public money, whether or not it is a threat to national security.
I am slightly pleased that the Government and the Minister seem a bit more willing to look at the possibilities regarding Hikvision. I appreciate that removing it from secure and sensitive sites, particularly, is a priority for the Government—they have agreed that they will do that—but that is not enough; we should not fund these organisations at all. Asking the UK Government to make a move in that regard in order to remove this technology and ensure that Hikvision does not get any more of our money is incredibly important, and not too much to ask.
I stress again the point made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall: the clause does not ask for immediate removal. It gives the Government six months to publish a timeline for removal—it is not giving them six months to remove the stuff, but to produce a timeline. They are not being asked for something entirely unreasonable. There are other camera providers and technologies out there that could be used instead to provide safety and security for places that we want to be safe and secure, without our supporting a company propping up a regime that is profiling and committing crimes against humans just because they happen to be Muslim. That is completely unacceptable, no matter where in the world it is doing that. Whether or not this is being done in the UK, the Government should take action on that.
I will therefore strenuously resist any attempt to remove clause 65 from the Bill. I used this phrase earlier, but it should not be too much to ask for the Government to take action on this issue. I am pleased that the Minister seems to have moved his language slightly since our previous debate, but it is not good enough and we are not there yet. We need a firm commitment from the Government to remove this technology that is causing so much harm to the lives of so many and to remove the support for the people causing such harm.
Alex Burghart
I thank hon. Members for their remarks. As I said, we think that the clause as drafted would be unworkable. On what the hon. Members for Vauxhall and for Aberdeen North said, we are moving to a new debarment regime, and I am not able to prejudge who will be covered by that regime. Suppliers will be considered for addition to the debarment list based on a rigorous and fair prioritisation policy. That policy is under development, and it is too early to say which suppliers will or will not be added to the debarment list.
We should remember that the new regime will give broader exclusion powers to authorities that have primary responsibility for applying the exclusions regime. The sorts of crimes we have touched on this afternoon, such as organ harvesting, modern slavery and the like, are very serious crimes against people and humanity, and no doubt that will have a bearing on future judgments. I appreciate where the amendment in the Lords came from, but we do not think the clause is workable. As a Government, however, we continue to consider the issue carefully.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
I beg to move amendment 50, in 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.”
This amendment would ensure that a contracting authority can require the use of a particular system in relation to electronic invoices, and that a contracting authority that is a defence authority can require that the system is one that requires the payment of fees by the supplier.
Alex Burghart
Before I discuss Government amendment 50, I will take this opportunity to go back to the question that the hon. Member for Vauxhall asked me about timescales for exclusion. Generally, the look-back is five years, but for some offences, we have transitional provisions to avoid creating retrospective offences in the early years of implementation. I am happy to write to her with a more detailed explanation if that will be useful.
Amendment 50 will ensure that the clause, which governs electronic invoicing, does not inadvertently prevent contracting authorities from requiring suppliers to submit electronic invoices via invoice processing systems. Invoice processing systems are used by many contracting authorities and we want to make it clear that their use is permitted under the clause.
The amendment will also ensure that defence authorities are allowed to charge suppliers for using such systems. For security reasons, the Ministry of Defence does not permit suppliers to have direct access to their internal system to submit invoices and track payments in relation to its contracts. Suppliers are thus required to use and register with a third-party system in order to carry out invoicing and payments with the MOD. They are charged a fee for use of that system. Amendments 51 and 52, and 61 to 64 are all related to that, and we will return to them later in Committee.
More broadly, the clause applies a term to every public contract to ensure that invoice processing is done electronically. That is essential for swifter payments to suppliers, proper audit trails and increased visibility on public contract spend. It retains the principles of the existing regime with regard to e-invoicing. Nothing in a contract may restrict or override the implied term.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the Minister for introducing the amendment. As he highlighted, the clause mandates contracting authorities to accept non-disputed electronic invoices as an implied term in every contract. The amendment provides clarity that contracting authorities can require the use of a particular system for electronic invoicing, with extra provisions relating to defence contracts. We think that neither the original clause nor the amendment are disagreeable, and they are not controversial. We support their addition to the Bill.
Amendment 50 agreed to.
Clause 66, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 67
Implied payment terms in public contracts
Florence Eshalomi
I beg to move amendment 110, in clause 67, page 46, line 32, at end insert—
“(10A) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must prepare, publish and lay before Parliament a report on the effectiveness of this section in ensuring prompt payment of small and medium-sized enterprises.
(10B) Not later than 6 months after the report has been laid before Parliament, a Minister of the Crown must make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.”
This amendment would require the Government to report to Parliament on the effectiveness of this section in ensuring prompt payment of SMEs.
The amendment would add provisions to mandate that, within six months of passing this Act, the Government produce and publish a report on the effectiveness of implied payment terms in public contracts in ensuring the prompt payment of small and medium-sized enterprises.
One of the problems we see in procurement is the failure to promptly pay suppliers down the supply chain. Many of those suppliers are small and medium-sized enterprises, which require prompt payments to pay wages and bills, and, in some cases, to keep their company going. Failure to pay SMEs the money that they are owed can lead to serious repercussions.
The Government talk about improving the chances of SMEs when it comes to procurement, but for far too long, this has just been a lot of talk and no action. The statistics for SMEs and procurement are truly shocking. Analysis by the Spend Network found that big corporations still win the lion’s share—more than 90%—of contracts worth £30 billion a year that are deemed to be suitable for bids from smaller businesses.
Research from the British Chambers of Commerce and Tussell found that just over one in every five pounds, or 21%, spent by the Government on public sector procurement in 2021 was awarded to SMEs. They also found that SMEs now receive a relatively smaller amount of reported direct Government procurement spending than they did five years ago.
As a proportion of the overall procurement budget, direct spend with SMEs by local government bodies was the highest at 38%. NHS bodies across England spent 22% of their procurement budget with SMEs, while central Government was significantly lower than the average, awarding only 11% of contracts to SMEs.
We have touched on the issue of subcontractors and why they should be paid on time by those contracting out their services, whether that is a contracting authority, a prime supplier or a supplier three or four rungs down the supply chain. We are pleased to see terms to protect the 30-day payment standard between contracting authorities and prime suppliers, but, as the Bill stands, we have concerns about its ability to properly protect subcontractors down the supply chain.
On Second Reading, the Paymaster General said:
“On the prime, that is easy: we will be paying the prime contractor within the 30-day period. People in the supply chain will be aware of the contract under which they are supplying to the prime, and we expect that 30-day payment to trickle all the way down the chain. It is the first time that such a measure has been incorporated. It really will be for primes to be held to account. I say to hon. Members of this House that if partners to a contract are not being paid without good cause, it will call into doubt the contract with the prime supplier, so it will be very much in the interest of the prime supplier to deliver. Every effort the Government have made to improve the payment terms through the supply chains has so far been adhered to pretty well by industry. Across Government, we have seen a significant improvement in payments out to industry, and we are expecting a ripple-down effect as a result of the Bill.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 347.]
Although we recognise what the Paymaster General was saying, we are left with some concerns, especially for the SMEs that are waiting for that vital payment. I do not think we can expect these terms to ripple down the supply chain, and it may take a while for a ripple-up effect to take place if a subcontractor down the line misses payments to another subcontractor in the supply chain, which could be serious. The Government say that that would reflect badly on the prime contractor, but what methods will the Minister use to track this? How will he be able to tell whether it is effective?
Our amendment would add a requirement to assess the effectiveness of the Government’s claims about the ripple-down effect within six months of the Bill passing. As the Paymaster General highlighted on Second Reading,
“This is the first time that such a measure has been incorporated.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 347.]
Surely the Minister owes it to suppliers across the supply chain to check whether this method is effective. This should not be an arduous report to comply with, but it could provide a crucial stress test for the new system and feed into tweaks that go even further to ensure that all suppliers are paid on time. I hope that the Minister will agree with us about bringing SMEs into the procurement system and that those SMEs need to be paid in a timely manner. I urge him to support our amendment.
Alex Burghart
Amendment 110 would require Ministers to report to Parliament within six months of the Bill’s passage, detailing how effective the implied payment terms in clause 67 have been in ensuring prompt payment of small and medium-sized enterprises. The new regime will not come into force immediately on passage of the Bill; secondary legislation will be needed prior to the go-live, as will the comprehensive programme of learning and development and the digital platform to support the increased transparency obligations. I am afraid, therefore, that the time period in the amendment is impractical.
In addition, there is already a requirement for contracting authorities to publish payment information, set out in clause 68 on payments compliance notices, which requires reports to be published on the speed of invoice payments one month after the end of each successive six-month period. Those reports will enable interested parties, including taxpayers and suppliers, to see for themselves how prompt payment performance has changed as a result of the new regime without the need for additional reporting. The reports will address payments to all suppliers of a contracting authority, rather than just SMEs, and will be publicly available for all to inspect. I therefore respectfully request that the amendment be withdrawn.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Burghart
I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 67, page 46, line 33, at end insert—
“(za) ‘electronic invoice’ and ‘required electronic form’ have the meanings given in section 66(3);”
This amendment would clarify that “electronic invoice” and “required electronic form” in clause 67(8) have the same meanings as in clause 66(3).
Alex Burghart
Amendments 51 and 52 are technical amendments. Amendment 51 clarifies that clauses 67 and 66 mean the same thing when they refer to “electronic invoice” and “required electronic form”. Amendment 52, similar to amendment 50, ensures that contracting authorities can require the use of a particular system in relation to the processing of electronic invoices.
Florence Eshalomi
The two amendments are uncontroversial and clarify points covering the terms of use. We will not oppose them.
Amendment 51 agreed to.
Amendment made: 52, in clause 67, page 46, line 36, after “address” insert
“, or through an electronic invoicing system,”.—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment would clarify that a reference to a contracting authority receiving an invoice for the purposes of clause 67 includes receiving an electronic invoice through a system specified in the contract.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Briefly, clause 67 will set the standard by which all contracting authorities will be expected to pay their suppliers. The clause will imply 30-day terms into public contracts. Any attempts to override those payment terms will be without effect, unless the arrangements are to pay quicker than 30 days. Ministers may, by regulations, vary the number of days, provided that the number of days to pay suppliers does not exceed 30 days. SMEs will benefit from 30-day payment terms on a much broader range of public sector contracts, including those previously covered by public utilities and defence. The clause does not apply to concession contracts, utilities contracts awarded by a private utility or contracts awarded by a school.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 67, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 68
Payments compliance notices
Alex Burghart
I beg to move amendment 53, in clause 68, page 47, line 18, at end insert “, or
(d) in relation to a concession contract.”
This amendment would exempt contracting authorities from the requirement to publish a payments compliance notice in relation to a concession contract.
Alex Burghart
Amendment 53 will exempt concession contracts, and payments made under them, from the scope of payments compliance notices. This minor technical amendment aligns with the scope of clause 67 on implied payment terms in public contracts, from which concession contracts are excluded, and brings consistency across the payment clauses. It will also save contracting authorities from additional bureaucracy, as they will no longer have to produce a payments compliance notice where concessions are the only payments they are making.
Clause 68 will require contracting authorities to publish a payments compliance notice—specified information detailing how quickly they have paid suppliers—every six months. We are strengthening payment legislation to ensure that the public sector is held to account on its own performance. We are aligning how the public and private sectors report on their payment performance, and we will report against the same set of metrics. By creating a central repository of Government payment information, we will increase transparency of public sector payment performance and make external scrutiny of that performance easier. The clause does not apply to private utilities, contracts awarded by schools or Northern Ireland contracting authorities.
Florence Eshalomi
The amendment will exclude concession contracts from the provisions of the clause. Given that the nature of these contracts is to give the right to exploit a developed resource, it makes sense to exclude them from this part of the Bill. We will not be voting against the amendment and we welcome the provisions in clause 68. Contracting authorities should report on their compliance with the 30-day payment term. As we have touched on previously, sunlight is the best disinfectant, and the clause shines a light on whether contracting authorities are complying with payment terms.
As I highlighted in the debate on clause 67, however, I have concerns as to whether this will lead to a ripple-down effect, although benefits may arise from suppliers feeling some level of scrutiny when they are responsible for paying subcontractors, many of which, as I mentioned, will be SMEs—the same SMEs that are currently struggling in the procurement system. I have touched on the value of those contracts and the fact that the big corporations continue to win the lion’s share of them, as shown by research from the British Chambers of Commerce. That research also found that direct spend is still quite a small proportion of the overall procurement budget.
I am disappointed that the Government did not see the sense of our amendment 110. I hope that will take action to ensure that suppliers are acting in the spirit of the clause.
Alex Burghart
We intend to issue guidance separately to contracting authorities, setting out how to include spot checks on the payment performance of supply chain members through terms and conditions. We do not think that needs to be done in legislation; it can be addressed through guidance. Furthermore, contracting authorities are often better placed to use civil remedies and can have a significant influence over suppliers, so they should hold suppliers to account and ensure that payment terms are passed down the supply chain to subcontractors, enforcing such terms through contractual remedies if necessary.
Amendment 53 agreed to.
Clause 68, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69
Information about payments under public contracts
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 69 requires contracting authorities to publish specified information about any payment of more than £30,000 made by the authority under a public contract. That information must be published before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the last day of the quarter in which the payment was made. The financial threshold and time limit for publication may be amended by regulations.
The clause does not apply to public contracts awarded by private utilities or schools, or to concession contracts. Its purpose is to bring transparency to the expenditure of public money, and to allow interested parties to ascertain the value that was specified in the tender, the value of the contract at the point of award, and how the contract spend is progressing. The Northern Ireland Executive have decided to include a derogation from this publication obligation.
Florence Eshalomi
As the Minister outlined, the clause relates to the publication of information on payments of over £30,000 by contracting authorities. Its impact will be heavily affected by the ultimate state of the online system, as specified in clause 93. It is frustrating that many aspects of the Bill are to be set out in secondary legislation: we will not know whether this is a sensible and proportionate measure until we know how the online system promised by the Government will work. However, we believe that this is an important provision of the Bill, and as such we do not intend to oppose it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 69 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 70
Assessment of contract performance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 70 has two main functions. First, it requires contracting authorities that have set key performance indicators in their public contracts under clause 52 to assess performance against each KPI, and to publish the results at least once every 12 months. The exact nature of the information required in each case will be set out in regulations made under clause 90. The purpose of this provision is to bring greater transparency to the performance and management of public contracts.
Secondly, the clause requires contracting authorities to publish a notification in certain circumstances relating to breach of contract or poor performance by a supplier. The circumstances are equivalent to those that constitute the discretionary exclusion ground for breach of contract and poor performance in paragraph 13 of schedule 7. The purpose of the provision is to provide verifiable information for contracting authorities on suppliers that meet the exclusion ground for breach of contract or poor performance. Clause 70 does not apply to private utilities, and the subsections relating to poor performance do not apply to light-touch contracts.
Florence Eshalomi
As the Minister outlined, the clause relates to key performance indicators and lays out how they will be assessed in the system. Subsection (2) mandates an annual assessment of the key performance indicators and the publication of information in this area. Again, this subsection makes reference to clause 93 in terms of how information relating to the key performance indicators is to be published. It might be useful to consider what information should be part of that system.
There could be merit in having an obligation to publish information on performance workflows and the relationships between contracting authorities and suppliers. The obligation could mean that contracting public bodies must publish the following on a six-monthly basis in respect of service contracts: operational performance against contracts; changes to staff terms and conditions; financial performance and payments made to contractors; costs of client contract management; any financial penalties or service credits; and details of meetings between decision makers. They could also publish the contracts within three months of them being let.
Subsection (5) relates to information that must be published within 30 days where a contracting authority believes a supplier has breached a contract to the point of termination or remedy. It also covers instances where suppliers provide an unsatisfactory service following a proper opportunity to improve performance. The powers are important to ensure that the process is properly followed when a supplier is not delivering for the public. It is right for the supplier involved and for the public that the information is published. We therefore support the inclusion of the clause in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 71
Sub-contracting: directions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 71 covers subcontracting, which is an important part of the delivery of public contracts. It enables businesses to use specialist suppliers to increase their overall effectiveness and efficiency. It also encourages SMEs to participate in public sector procurement, which helps to encourage innovation and deliver value for money for the public. The clause applies when a contracting authority either requires or permits a supplier to subcontract, and also where that subcontractor has been relied on to pass conditions of participation. In such circumstances, a contracting authority may direct a supplier to enter into a legally binding agreement with the proposed subcontractor, failing which the contracting authority can refuse to enter into the public contract, require an alternative subcontractor, or terminate the contract if already commenced.
Clause 72 will ensure that the 30-day payment terms set out in clause 67 will apply throughout the public sector supply chain, regardless of whether they are written into the contract. That will ensure that businesses in the supply chain that substantially contribute to the performance of a public contract benefit from the prompt payment and the liquidity benefits it brings. Unlike the equivalent provisions in the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, clause 72 includes defence and public utility contracts, benefiting SMEs in the supply chain across a much broader range of public sector contracts. Those rules do not apply to utilities contracts awarded by a private utility, concession contracts and contracts awarded by a school.
Florence Eshalomi
Clauses 71 and 72 relate to the treatment of subcontractors in the system. We welcome the clauses as a step forward in the attempt to ensure the prompt payment of subcontractors. The Bill makes a slight alteration from the current system by making a 30-day payment an automatic term for subcontractors rather than requiring the contracting authority to include an obligation on its suppliers to flow down. We have spoken at great length about the issue of subcontractors being paid on time, and the fact that many smaller businesses rely on prompt payment. We do not see any issue with the clauses, which we are happy to support.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 71 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 73
Modifying a public contract
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
Government amendment 54.
Clauses 74 and 75 stand part.
Government amendments 55 to 58.
Clause 76 stand part.
Alex Burghart
I will take a deep breath. Clause 73 sets out when a contracting authority may modify a public contract or when a contract, as a result of a modification, will become a public contract—that is to say, a convertible contract. It provides that a contract may be modified in one of the following circumstances: where the modification falls within one of the grounds permitted under schedule 8; where the modification itself is not a “substantial modification”; or where the modification itself is below a threshold that makes it de minimis in effect. Certain contracts, such as below-threshold contracts and light-touch contracts, are exempt from the constraints on modifications.
A “substantial” modification in this context is one that increases or decreases the duration of the contract by more than 10%, or materially changes the supply of the deliverables under the contract, or makes the contract materially more economically beneficial to the supplier.
Clause 73(4) clearly defines what constitutes a “below-threshold modification”. Those low-value modifications, to be properly considered as such, must not materially change the contract in either value or scope. A cap is placed on successive modifications permitted under this ground, as the aggregated value of below-threshold modifications made during the lifetime of a contract should be less than the Government procurement agreement threshold amount for the type of contract. Overall, these provisions give contracting authorities more usable grounds to make modifications that are not sufficiently material to justify requiring contracting authorities to run a new competition.
Schedule 8 sets out seven grounds, in addition to the two provided in clause 73, on which contract modifications are permitted. Four of those grounds are based on policy retained from existing legislation, as consultation established that contracting authorities wished to retain those commonly relied on “safe harbours”. Those four grounds are where the modification is provided for in the contract; where the modification has arisen due to unforeseeable circumstances; where the modification is for additional goods, services or works in specific limited circumstances; and where the modification is to effect a transfer of the contract following a corporate restructuring. I would like to be clear that that concise ground on corporate restructuring is intended to cover all the circumstances, such as insolvency, detailed in the Public Contracts Regulations 2015.
We have also introduced three new grounds, to provide for greater flexibility that stakeholders have indicated is needed, and to give greater legal certainty to contracting authorities than the existing grounds currently afford. The new ground of
“Urgency and the protection of life, etc”
will enable contracting authorities to act swiftly and efficiently in extraordinary circumstances and modify existing contracts to adapt to those urgent requirements.
The new ground permitting modifications on materialisation of a known risk will give contracting authorities legal certainty that they can modify contracts to adapt to a risk that, although identified as such at the outset, could not be addressed in the initial contract document in clear and unequivocal terms. The risk must have materialised through no fault of the contracting authority or supplier and must have been identified in the tender or transparency notice.
For example, if, due to quickly emerging cyber-threats, a requirement for a new software system to hold personal information needs to be adapted in order for it to operate safely and adequately protect that information, the contracting authority can adjust the requirement accordingly, provided that the risk of the new cyber-threat was identified up front in the required notices.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the Minister for the points he has outlined. Amendment 54 is largely uncontroversial, removing an unnecessary provision from clause 74.
Amendments 55 to 58, taken together, would reduce the burdens on contracting authorities to publish contract modifications, requiring them to do so only where they are required to under clause 74, which does not cover changes that only change the value or length of the contract to a relatively small degree. Without the amendments, even minuscule contract amendments would be required to be published. Although these measures cover the larger contracts affected by the Bill—in particular, those valued over £5 million—it would be a disproportionate burden on contracting authorities to be required to publish every change to a contract. We understand the rationale for the amendments and we do not intend to oppose them.
On clauses 73 to 76 more widely, we understand that it is necessary, on occasion, to alter public contracts. It is important that the circumstances are justified, and we are pleased to see schedule 8 set out proportionate reasons to modify contracts. However, it is important to ensure that contracts are drawn up in a way that does not open this part of the Bill up to abuse.
As noted in paragraph 1 of schedule 8, modifications can be made if they are agreed in the contract and do not
“change the overall nature of the contract.”
However, there must not be a free-for-all. Contracting authorities must draw up contracts that provide the right flexibility for change. We should not expect service levels to vary massively because contracts are written in a way that would allow modification under this part of the Bill. For example, our engagement with stakeholders has revealed concerns that modifications are seen as an alternative to remedy and clawback, and that expensive legal fees put authorities off using clawback clauses, with those authorities instead opting to renegotiate terms with suppliers. That should not be the case.
We do not believe the best way to tackle that is necessarily through the Bill, but it is an important point. In an answer to a parliamentary question dated 20 December 2022, the Government admitted that money was wasted and that only £18 million had been clawed back from PPE contracts. That was only highlighted after the National Audit Office revealed that the Government had effectively written off quite a lot of that money, and auditors had rebuked the Department of Health and Social Care for its management of taxpayers’ cash during the pandemic.
It is a shame that the Government are still locked in legal battles with companies that failed to deliver on their contractual obligations. The public expect their money to be clawed back when contracts are broken, but if even the Government find it difficult to claw back money from contracts, it is little wonder that smaller contracting authorities apparently rely on contract alterations to seek remedy. The result is that suppliers that have not delivered for the public keep winning contracts to deliver services.
I understand why people may look at a supplier and say, “This supplier has failed to deliver services to an acceptable standard. Why are they still delivering our services? Why has this supplier not had this contract taken off them? Why have we not got our money back?” They are all valid questions. I hope that the Minister will outline his understanding of the use of contract modification as a substitute for clawbacks, and what steps he is taking to ensure we get our money back from suppliers.
We feel it is right that contract changes are published. Clauses 74 and 76 allow for the publication of a notice of change and, for larger contracts, publication of the changes and the altered contract. Those measures are proportional to the provisions of clause 53, relating to publication when a contract starts.
Clause 74 refers to the terms of clause 93. We agree with the introduction of a new online programme, but it is disappointing that we do not have the detail of what will be expected as part of that system. We should not leave future Governments with their hands tied, unable to go beyond what we can achieve today, but we do think that the Government could show some base level of ambition and outline the basic level of transparency that we think the system should allow. I hope the Minister will touch, even just briefly, on how the system will work and what information will be expected under clause 74, via the provisions of clause 93.
Alex Burghart
To the hon. Lady’s first point, we all accept that, in exceptional circumstances, contracting authorities may have to move very quickly to procure essential goods, services and works with minimal delay. Launching a new procurement procedure can take time. When time is of the essence and when a supplier has proven in-contract its ability to deliver to time, cost and the expected standard, it makes sense to take the modification route. To be clear, these are areas where the urgency and protection-of-life grounds must exist in the first place.
With the new transparency rules in clauses 74 and 76, taxpayers will be able to see exactly where we propose to spend their money, including where there is additional expenditure through use of modification grounds. The transparency rules will require contract change notices to be published in circumstances where the urgency ground is used and, where such modifications are made to contracts over the £5 million threshold, the modifications themselves will need to be published.
On the hon. Member for Vauxhall’s general point about what happened during the pandemic, she will have heard me say on a number of occasions that the Department of Health and Social Care, despite the circumstances in which it was working, had robust contracts in place. That means it is capable now, where it was given defective goods, to enter mediation. If that proves insufficient, it will be able to enter into litigation. The whole purpose of the exercise in which we are currently engaged—at length—is to ensure that we have better procurement processes in this country. That is what the Bill is going to deliver.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 73 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 74
Contract change notices
Amendment made: 54, in clause 74, page 51, line 5, leave out paragraph (c).—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment would remove unnecessary provision, as light touch contracts are excluded from the whole clause under subsection (6)(b).
Clause 74, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 76
Publication of modifications
Amendments made: 55, in clause 76, page 51, line 40, after “modification” insert “—
(a) in respect of which the contracting authority is required to publish a contract change notice under section 74, and”.
This amendment would limit the requirement to publish a copy of a contract as modified or a modification to those modifications in respect of which the contracting authority was required to publish a contract change notice.
Amendment 56, in clause 76, page 51, line 43, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 55.
Amendment 57, in clause 76, page 52, line 3, leave out
“or a transferred Northern Ireland authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 55.
Amendment 58, in clause 76, page 52, line 7, leave out
“or a transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangement”.—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 55.
Clause 76, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 77
Implied right to terminate public contracts
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 77 sets out that it is an implied term of public contracts that a contracting authority can terminate a contract if one of a number of termination grounds apply. These are where a contracting authority considers that the contract was awarded or modified in breach of the Bill and regulations made under it, where a supplier has become an excluded or excludable supplier, or where a subcontractor is an excluded or excludable supplier.
These last two grounds considerably expand the implied right to terminate on exclusion grounds and are a good example of how we are tightening the rules on poor suppliers. Contracting authorities must still give suppliers that subcontract to an excluded or excludable supplier the opportunity to cease their arrangements. Contracting authorities must also communicate any intention to terminate the contract on these grounds before proceeding to terminate.
Clause 78 requires contracting authorities to obtain approval from a Minister before terminating a contract in reliance on the discretionary exclusion ground for suppliers that pose a threat to national security. Subsection (1) states that this requirement applies when contracting authorities are seeking to rely on the implied termination right in clause 77 where a supplier or subcontractor is excludable in respect of the national security exclusion ground. Subsection (2) says that this requirement applies to all contracting authorities other than a Minister, a Department or a corporate officer of the House of Commons or House of Lords.
The clause is essential to ensure that contract terminations on the basis of national security are not made without ministerial consideration of the risk posed by the supplier and the impact of the decision. The requirement to seek ministerial approval will allow for the views of those tasked with protecting national security, including the security services, to be taken into account.
Clause 79 sets out the mandatory transparency requirement that all contracting authorities must publish a contract termination notice on termination of all public contracts, with the exception of private utilities contracts and user choice contracts that have been directly awarded. It specifies the time period by which it must be published, which is 30 days after a public contract has terminated. It also sets out that contract termination notices will contain information that will be specified in the regulations made under clause 93.
Clause 79(3) makes it clear that a reference to termination includes: discharge, expiry, termination by a party, rescission, or set aside by court order, whether or not under part 9 remedies. That list does not exclude other references to termination, and a contract termination notice should be issued at the conclusion of a contract, however that contract has ended.
Florence Eshalomi
Clauses 77 to 79 relate to provisions that allow for the termination of contracts in specific circumstances. The implied circumstances include the contract being awarded or modified in a material way in opposition to this Bill, or a supplier becoming an excluded or excludable supplier. They also provide for termination when a supplier is subcontracting all or part of the contract to an excluded or excludable supplier.
The Opposition understand and support the need for these provisions, but we have some concerns about the meaning of the clauses. When a contractor becomes an excluded supplier, will the contract be terminated automatically? It would seem strange that, although a contract cannot be awarded to a supplier under those terms, an excluded supplier is not automatically stripped of a contract when they become excluded.
Some of the provisions included under the excluded schedule are extremely severe. They include human trafficking offences, slavery offences, corporate homicide and even terrorism. We must make it clear that, when suppliers are convicted of such crimes, they must not provide contracts for public services. I hope we all agree on that. Does the clause allow for contracts with excluded suppliers to be automatically terminated, or is that at the discretion of the contracting authority? That is a really important point, and I hope the Minister will be able to clarify it. The public would not expect a supplier that has been convicted of terrorism to still be carrying out public contracts, even if the contracting authority decides it is right.
We also have concerns about how discretionary exclusion grounds are treated in this part of the Bill. As I have previously said, we want consistency in the Bill on when these grounds are applied. We do not believe that it makes sense for a company to have its contract terminated by one contracting authority for, say, environmental misconduct, but in the same breath keep a similar contract with similar risk with another contracting authority based simply on the decision of the authority. A lot of that is inconsistent and confusing, which has been highlighted, and it means suppliers that fall foul of discretionary exclusion grounds to the degree that a contract can be stripped from them may still be providing services to the public in other areas. The Minister has highlighted the need for discretion, which we understand, but surely there should be some level of consistency.
I also raise the inconsistency between national security in clause 78 and how the Minister laid it out previously. We do not wish to vote against clause 78, and we believe that it is the right way to carry out public procurement when considering national security. As the name suggests, national security is a national issue. However, during the Minister’s remarks on our amendments 15 to 19, he said:
“Amendments 15 to 19 seek to make exclusion on national security grounds mandatory, rather than discretionary. Any risk to national security should of course be taken very seriously indeed, but it is right that we leave some scope for nuance and flexibility in the application of the exclusion ground. Suppliers may pose a risk in some contexts, but not in others.”
The Minister went on to say:
“It is important to note that contracting authorities must consider all exclusion grounds, mandatory and discretionary, against every supplier in each procurement.”
He also said:
“There would be a balance of risks. Not all security threats are proven. Of course, it is up to the authority to assess the concerns”.––[Official Report, Procurement Public Bill Committee, 2 February 2023; c. 113.]
Based on what the Minister said in response to our amendments, there is some inconsistency in this approach. We need verification to identify a national security threat on a national scale and to disregard a contract on that basis, but to say that awarding or terminating a contract for a national security threat is at the discretion of authorities is a little contradictory.
For example, let us take what happens when a contracting authority identifies a threat. If the authority decides not to terminate the contract regardless, the contract is awarded with no follow-up from the Government and no check that it is a threat. If the authority decides to terminate the contract, it needs to go through a check with the Minister and confirm whether it is a threat. We think that is the right course of action, but why should the decision effectively be taken at different levels? Surely there should be an obligation to check with the Government regardless of whether the contract is terminated or not. At the very least, the Government can advise on the decision not to terminate the contract based on the threat.
As I and those who submitted evidence have highlighted, we can see procurement departments in many organisations being overstretched. We cannot expect those very same contracting authorities we want to come forward to bid for public contracts to act as MI5 or national security experts.
The Chair
I call the Minister, mindful that there will be a vote in the House at 4.12 pm.
Alex Burghart
I will try to contain my remarks to the next few minutes. Before I get to the specifics, I should for the sake of posterity record that, by working so hard today, hon. Members have reached the end of the selection list. Had more groupings been available, they would no doubt have wished to go further—[Interruption.] Cries of “More, more!” were heard from the Opposition Benches.
I will return to some of our previous conversations. As I said earlier to the hon. Member for Vauxhall, there will be times when a supplier may have made errors and got itself into trouble. It may be the case that there are times when a company has suppliers over which there are national security concerns, but they supply goods that cannot be found anywhere else and do not in themselves present a risk to national security. That is the role of the difference. The Division bell is ringing, but I am happy to pick up on this when we meet again on Thursday.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 77 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 78 and 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Julie Marson.)
Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 9th February 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 9 February 2023 - (9 Feb 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind you that Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
Clause 80
Conflicts of interest: duty to identify
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 116, in clause 80, page 54, line 32, after “who” insert “directly or indirectly”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 117, in clause 80, page 55, line 2, at end insert—
“‘person who directly or indirectly influences’ includes but is not limited to—
(a) civil servants;
(b) government contractors or consultants and their employees;
(c) special advisers;
(d) parliamentarians; and
(e) political appointees.”
Clause stand part.
Clauses 81 and 82 stand part.
Florence Eshalomi
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mr Mundell.
Clauses 80 to 82 concern cases where a conflict of interest may arise during the procurement process. In particular, the clauses place obligations on contracting authorities to identify and mitigate against conflicts of interests where they may arise. The clauses are important, and it is correct, alongside the principle of non-discrimination, to ensure that suppliers that may be able to unduly influence the decisions of contracting authorities are excluded from the procurement process.
It is critical that taxpayers’ money is spent in the right way. We cannot and must not have a repeat of the back-room deals that we saw during the covid pandemic. The public expect their money to be spent in an open and transparent way, and they expect the value for money that comes with openness and transparency.
We know what happens when that is not the case. I have referred to this figure before, but it is important to keep stating it: the Government have written off £10 billion of public money spent on personal protective equipment that was unusable, unsellable, overpriced or undelivered. With £770,000 a day being spent to store unused gloves, goggles and gowns, that is not acceptable. The companies that got into the VIP lane were 10 times more likely to win a contract, and Ministers have now admitted that many did not go through the so-called eight-stage process of due diligence.
We know, therefore, that much more needs to be done to stand steadfast against conflicts of interests in procurements. We believe that clauses 80 to 82 may offer a step forward, but we also think that we could go even further to capture the wide range of influence on procurement decisions that may give rise to conflicts of interest.
Our amendments 116 and 117, taken together, would achieve that. They were suggested by Spotlight on Corruption in its written evidence to the Committee. We feel that they strike the right balance to increase scrutiny in the procurement system. In justifying the amendments, Spotlight on Corruption stated:
“As the Mone affair and the VIP lane as well as other COVID procurement scandals have shown, indirect influence over procurement decisions pose a real risk to public perceptions about the fairness and integrity of procurement. The fact that a minister, special adviser, or politician referred a company for emergency covid procurement appears to have been at least entertained as part of the decision-making process by procurement officials in awarding contracts. While this was an emergency procurement context, it has exposed the vulnerabilities in the UK procurement regime and the potential for those in political office to influence procurement decisions.
Sir Nigel Boardman’s reviews specifically recommended that conflicts of interest in procurement should be identified in relation to a broad range of actors, including: civil servants, special advisers, contractors, consultants and political appointees. The ‘VIP lane’, as well as the Owen Paterson affair, show that members of parliament, who may have private interests, can also seek to influence government procurement decisions in favour of those interests.
As it is not specified on the face of the Bill what the term ‘influences’ may include, it is not clear whether the term will be interpreted narrowly or more widely by contracting authorities. To ensure that it is interpreted widely, in our view, the Bill should contain specific language to reflect indirect influence (which might include lobbying or financial interests), and the wide range of people who may exert such influence.”
The Opposition agree with Spotlight on Corruption’s arguments and believe that it makes a strong case for the inclusion of such language in the Bill.
If we are asking the public to trust us with their money, we must never let the VIP lane scandal happen again. I hope the Minister will agree that the amendments would strengthen our defence against undue influence, and I urge him to support them.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chair-personship again, Mr Mundell. It is good to be back for the fourth day of deliberation in Committee.
Clause 80 is clear that a contracting authority must take all reasonable steps to identify conflicts or potential conflicts of interest on the part of those acting in relation to a procurement. Amendment 116 is impractically broad. The Bill already provides safeguards in clause 82(4), which could lead to the contracting authority taking steps in relation to a person with an indirect influence on a procurement, where the contracting authority believes that such a circumstance would be likely to cause a reasonable person to believe there to be a conflict.
Extending conflicts of interest to be identified in respect of any individual with only an indirect influence over the decisions of contracting authorities, as the amendment seeks to do, would go too far. It would add unnecessary administrative burdens on contracting authorities and potentially make it impossible for them to comply with the requirements of the Bill. It is not reasonable for a procurement officer to be expected to identify all individuals who may indirectly influence a procurement decision, let alone their potential conflicts of interest, in respect of every supplier tendering for every procurement. For example, it could lead to a school, when undertaking any public procurement, having to identify and consider the interests of all senior civil servants and Ministers in the Department for Education and the Treasury. That would be neither practical nor desirable.
Amendment 117 would add a list of certain individuals for contracting authorities to consider when identifying conflicts of interest. Such a list of individuals is better kept in guidance rather than legislation. All the persons listed in the amendment, where they have influence in respect of the relevant procurement decision, will already be caught by the current provision but may not be relevant in every single procurement by every single contracting authority. We therefore respectfully request that the amendments be withdrawn.
Clause 80 sets out the obligations on a contracting authority to take all reasonable steps to identify and keep under review potential or actual conflicts of interest. It is followed by clause 81, on duties to mitigate, and clause 82, on conflicts assessments. When conflicts of interest are not properly identified and mitigated, there can be far-reaching consequences, which can lead to accusations of fraud, bribery and corruption, legal challenges and the undermining of public confidence in the integrity of our public institutions.
Clause 80 details the individuals in respect of whom conflicts, or potential conflicts, should be identified. That includes people acting for, or on behalf of, the contracting authority in relation to the procurement; a person with influence on the decision making; and a Minister acting in relation to the procurement. The clause also defines what constitutes an interest, which can be a personal, professional or financial interest, either direct or indirect.
Clause 81 sets out obligations on a contracting authority to take all reasonable steps to mitigate conflicts of interest. As a rule, it is important that we treat all suppliers the same in our procurements. That is critical for us to ensure fair and open competition and deliver the best value for money. At the same time, a conflict of interest relating to a supplier should not automatically lead to their exclusion. We must therefore ensure that where conflicts of interest are identified, contracting authorities can first attempt to put mitigations in place to avoid a given supplier having an unfair advantage or disadvantage. A contracting authority must take all reasonable steps to do so and may require a supplier to take reasonable steps too. However, to ensure open competition and genuine fairness in the procurement, if a conflict of interest does lead to an unfair advantage that cannot be avoided, or the supplier refuses to take certain steps to avoid it, that supplier must be excluded.
Clause 82 places specific duties on contracting authorities in relation to conflicts assessments. In large part, those duties are to ensure compliance with clauses 80 and 81. A conflicts assessment is a document that includes the details of both the conflicts of interest identified and any steps taken to mitigate them. The structure or format of such a document will remain within the discretion of the contracting authority, and is likely to depend on the procurement. A contracting authority must prepare a conflicts assessment at the start of the procurement and keep it under review, revising it where necessary. When publishing a relevant procurement notice, the authority must confirm that those actions have been undertaken. This is a new duty on contracting authorities that strengthens the existing requirements relating to conflicts.
It is important to clarify that there is no duty to publish the conflicts assessment; rather, contracting authorities must publish confirmation that the assessment has been prepared or revised. Conflicts of interest can adversely impact procurements at any point of the commercial lifecycle, and the Committee will note that the definition of “relevant notice” in clause 82(8), which specifies when there should be confirmation that the conflicts assessment has been revised, reflects that fact.
I respectfully request that the amendment be withdrawn, and commend the clauses to the Committee.
Florence Eshalomi
I understand the Minister’s concern about additional bureaucracy, but we should aim to make sure that there is no interpretation regarding undue influence. There is a view that the Bill should contain specific language to reflect indirect influence. I hope the Minister agrees that the notion of transparency and making sure that no perceived conflicts arise should be fully addressed in order to ensure that we restore public trust, especially as it relates to Government money—taxpayers’ money—and large contracts. We need to stamp out some of the concerns that many people rightly highlighted about what happened during the covid-19 pandemic. Yes, there were some cases in which emergency contracts had to be procured, but as I have already mentioned, on numerous occasions, the proper procedure was not followed. I hope the Minister agrees that the Bill should contain specific language reflecting what is termed indirect influence.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Burghart
The rules on contracts that are valued below the thresholds set out in schedule 1 broadly represent a continuation of the position under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and have four main functions. They apply some basic procurement standards on transparency; they continue the ban on burdensome pre-qualification stages; they ensure that suppliers get paid promptly; and they ensure that small and medium-sized businesses are considered. These rules are justifiably simpler and less onerous for contracting authorities and suppliers, given the low value of the contracts concerned. Taken together with the new duty to have regard to SMEs in clause 85, the rules will help to make Government procurement more accessible to SMEs and voluntary organisations, charities or social enterprises.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the Minister for outlining the clauses, which, as he highlighted, deal with below-threshold contracts. While such contracts do not meet the threshold for inclusion in many parts of the Bill, they will still need to follow some bits of regulation in how they are processed. In particular, a contract details notice must be published for contracts above £12,000 or £30,000 —known as notifiable below-threshold contracts—after they are entered into. Below-threshold contracts must follow the procedures relating to the 30-day payment rules.
The clauses are almost identical to current regulations, and we support their inclusion in the Bill. We feel that the extra scrutiny is welcome for groups such as SMEs, which may find that these contracts are the right size for their enterprise to deal with. It is important to strike the right balance. In general, we are happy with the clauses and will not oppose them, but I would ask the Minister what protocol will be followed when the threshold figures are altered.
Alex Burghart
It will be in secondary legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 83 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 85
Regulated below-threshold contracts: duty to consider small and medium-sized enterprises
Amendment proposed: 2, in clause 85, page 57, line 27, after “enterprises” insert “and co-operative societies”.—(Florence Eshalomi.)
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 9 be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 89 stand part.
Government amendment 59.
Amendment 102, in clause 90, page 60, line 32, at end insert—
“(1A) A Minister of the Crown acting under subsection (1) must acquire the consent of Scottish Ministers.”
Government amendment 60.
Clause 90 stand part.
Government amendments 69, 77, 79 and 81 to 83.
Government new clause 11—Trade disputes.
Alex Burghart
Part 7 of the Bill is concerned with the implementation of the United Kingdom’s international obligations. The UK is currently party to 24 international agreements that contain procurement obligations, with each listed in schedule 9 to the Bill. They include trade agreements signed before our exit from the EU, such as the World Trade Organisation Government procurement agreement, and the recently signed Australia and New Zealand trade agreements.
Clause 88 uses the term “treaty state suppliers” to identify suppliers from countries that are entitled to benefit from one of the international agreements listed in schedule 9. The clause ensures that treaty state suppliers have the right to no less favourable treatment than domestic suppliers under the UK procurement regime to the extent covered by their relevant agreement, including the right to seek remedies. As the UK negotiates new international agreements or is required to amend existing agreements, delegated powers under subsection (3) will allow schedule 9 to be revised accordingly. In this way, schedule 9 will continue to reflect our updated international obligations and ensure that the UK remains compliant.
It is important for the Committee to understand that the delegated power in subsection (3) does not allow for substantive changes to the rules set out in the Bill regime, even where required by an international agreement. This is partly the reason why separate primary legislation is required to implement the UK-Australia free trade agreement. It is therefore not capable of being used to implement rule changes that might affect matters such as food standards, environmental standards or control over the health service. For that, the Government would need to return to Parliament with further primary legislation. Schedule 9 to the Bill is a list of international agreements that contain substantive procurement obligations and to which the UK is party.
Clause 89 sets out that a UK contracting authority may not discriminate against a treaty state supplier; that is to say that UK procuring entities may not treat the goods, services and works of treaty state suppliers less favourably than those of UK suppliers. Clause 89 is imperative in order to meet our international obligations. The principle of non-discrimination is firmly embedded in the WTO’s Government procurement agreement and other international agreements to which we are party. Being party to these agreements will ensure that UK goods, services, works and suppliers also receive the same fair treatment from our trading partners. In doing so, the UK will continue to enjoy the benefits of existing and future trade agreements, including guaranteed access to procurement opportunities in some of the world’s largest economies.
The power set out in clause 90 allows regulations to be made in relation to devolved procurement in Scotland to ensure that treaty suppliers are not discriminated against. The power is to be exercisable concurrently by a Minister of the Crown or Scottish Ministers, meaning that in the course of implementing international obligations under the Bill, a Minister of the Crown could also implement obligations for the whole of Scotland, in respect of both reserved and devolved procurement. This recognises both that the implementation and observation of international obligations is a devolved matter, but that the UK Government are ultimately responsible for compliance with our international obligations.
Amendments 59 and 60 seek to address a concern raised by the Scottish Government that the power in clause 90 is broader than is necessary, and in particular broader than the equivalent power that allows the updating of schedule 9 to the Bill to reflect new free trade agreements.
Although I can assure the House that it is not the Government’s intention to use the powers in clause 90 to interfere with Scottish procurement rules, we have listened and added a number of factors that would limit the exercise of the power. These amendments will ensure that either a Minister of the Crown or Scottish Ministers would only be able to make provision that is equivalent to provision in part 7 and only when it is necessary in order to ratify or comply with an international agreement, such as by adding to or amending the list of international agreements in Scottish procurement legislation. It could not be used to amend Scottish procurement rules substantively. I thank colleagues in Scotland for working constructively on this point.
New clause 11 and the consequential amendments 69, 77, 79, 81, 82 and 83 are needed to give the UK the ability to take necessary retaliatory or compensatory action as a result of a procurement-related dispute under the World Trade Organisation’s Government procurement agreement, or with a country with which we have a free trade agreement on procurement.
Under the UK’s trade agreements, if a country does not comply with its international public procurement obligations, we must be able to implement practical retaliatory measures; otherwise, we may not receive the full benefits of the commitments under these agreements. These amendments would give the UK a power to amend its domestic procurement legislation to take such action, for example to remove market access to particular procurement markets for suppliers from a trading partner that is in breach. Similarly, if the UK is in breach, it may need to implement measures to bring itself back into line.
This power is clearly limited in scope to procurement-related disputes and can only be used to make provision relating to procurement. The power cannot be used to address disputes relating to other areas of the UK’s trade agreements. It will also be subject to the affirmative procedure, so that there is a sufficient level of scrutiny in Parliament when it is to be used.
Without these amendments, the UK would be at a disadvantage among its trading partners, because it would not be able to take retaliatory action to incentivise other countries to comply with their procurement commitments and, in the absence of the necessary domestic legislative mechanism to compensate its partners in case of non-compliance, the UK would not be viewed as a trusted international partner.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, on what is the fourth day of our deliberations in this Committee.
Mr Mundell, you, my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North and I are all members of the Celtic fringe, and we have all been accused in the past, somewhat unfairly, of speaking too fast. However, the Minister put us to shame just now, so I wonder whether he has Scottish or Welsh roots somewhere. [Laughter.]
As the Minister set out, part 7 of the Bill, which includes clauses 88, 89 and 90, sets out the implementation of international obligations in relation to procurement. These clauses have a strong theme of ensuring that no discrimination takes place between contracting authorities and treaty state suppliers, which are set out in schedule 9 to the Bill. Clause 90 also reaffirms this for procurements made by devolved Scottish authorities.
What is important about this part is our commitment to meeting our international obligations. I know from my role as a shadow Defence Minister how important it is to be an active member of the international community. It is important not only for the UK’s standing in the world; I have also found that when we meet these standards, we are also doing the best for this country here at home.
I think that we were all deeply moved yesterday by President Zelensky’s speech in Parliament. The war in Ukraine is a prime example of how important it is to meet our international obligations. By donating weaponry to Ukraine, we are aiding a member of our international community in their fight against an illegal invasion. However, if we are to continue to support the international community, we need to ensure that our procurement system can keep up.
As it stands, we will have a gap in our defence capabilities. In March 2021, the Defence Committee concluded that the Army would be “hopelessly under-equipped” in “obsolete armoured vehicles” and would be “very heavily outgunned” if it was called to fight an adversary, such as Russia, in eastern Europe in the next few years.
The war in Ukraine has shown us how dangerously close we are to this reality. We need to ensure that we are capable of defending ourselves first, so that we can then help others in need. I believe that a commitment to buy, sell and make more in Britain within our procurement system would help us to achieve that. Now, more than ever, we have to ensure we continue our commitment to a fairer world. I believe the way we conduct our procurement has a huge role to play in that.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I agree with the hon. Member for Islwyn that the Minister is giving us a run for our money today. I feel like I was speaking particularly slowly on Tuesday, as I was not feeling great and my brain was taking a while to catch up, but hopefully I can be a bit speedier today and get through with a higher level of coherence. Apologies if I said anything then that did not make much sense.
I will focus on clause 90, the Minister’s amendment 59 and our amendment 102. The Bill seeks to confer the power exercised concurrently by UK and Scottish Ministers to implement the Government procurement chapters of the agreements with Australia and New Zealand by secondary legislation. We agree with that and have no query about the fact that the negotiation of international agreements is a reserved matter but, as the Minister noted, the implementation in devolved areas, such as Government procurement, is a devolved matter. Procurement is devolved to the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament, and we make our own decisions about how best to implement that.
The correct constitutional and devolution-respecting solution would be to amend the Bill to grant implementation powers solely to Scottish Ministers in this regard. I agree that the Minister has put forward an amendment that changes what clause 90 says, but the amendment also says:
“Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a Minister of the Crown considers, or the Scottish Ministers consider, that the regulations are necessary in order to ratify or comply with an international agreement to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.”
The “or” is what I have a problem with, on the basis that it still allows the UK Government to act in devolved areas. I recognise the restrictions put in place by the rest of the amendment in terms of the breadth of the action that can be taken, and I recognise that the UK Government Minister has worked with colleagues in the Scottish Parliament to ensure that we are getting a bit closer together; indeed, it is closer than in the Bill that originally came to us from the Lords. However, I still feel that amendment 102 is necessary to protect the devolution settlement, because we should not have UK Government Ministers acting in devolved competencies. They should not be able to take this decision wherever they feel it is necessary to do so.
We are not for a second suggesting that we would not act in concordance with our international agreements, because we would. I am sure the Minister would not suggest otherwise, as the Scottish Government do stick to their international agreements—regardless of whichever Government signed up to them, we do our very best to fulfil them. However, this is about the implementation of procurement rules and ensuring that that works in the best possible way for Scotland.
The Scottish Parliament is writing legislation on procurement for Scotland, which, as has been noted a number of times in this Committee, is distinct and separate in Scotland. We already have our own procurement system, which works on a different basis to the procurement system down here. We have already talked about the real living wage running through our procurement rules, where it is not in the rest of the UK. We already have a distinct situation. The UK Government are not elected to take this action in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament is elected to take this action in Scotland and to implement it in the way that will work best for our procurement systems and for the people of Scotland, who elected the Scottish Parliament to do that.
Amendment 102 says:
“A Minister of the Crown acting under subsection (1) must acquire the consent of Scottish Ministers.”
I do not think that is too much to ask on the basis that this is a devolved area. Actually, if the UK Government are making new procurement rules that relate to Scotland’s implementation of its international agreements, ensuring the consent of Scottish Ministers means those rules will work within our procurement frameworks, systems and situations in order that those agreements can be properly implemented.
The Scottish Government want and intend to implement these international agreements properly. However, in order for that to happen as written, the UK Government will need a significant understanding of the Scottish procurement system, which is distinct from that of the rest of the UK. Our system will continue to be distinct in order to be able to write appropriate legislation that will apply in Scotland and work within our devolved legislation. It seems like a burden for UK Government Ministers to have to learn that, when actually, they could just say to Scotland, “How would you like this to be written?” and the Scottish Government could say, “This is how we would write it.” We could then have a discussion about whether or not that implements our international agreements. I am certain that it would, because the Scottish Government are good at acting in compliance.
Lastly, respect for the devolution settlement is an important tenet of our democracy. Devolution to Scotland is what the Scottish people voted for. We have the Scottish Parliament, which is significantly more popular than the Westminster Parliament in terms of the actions taken on behalf of the Scottish people. It is also significantly better regarded in terms of accessibility. I do not mean accessibility simply in terms of the building; I mean accessibility in terms of people being able to come and speak to Ministers and to have Ministers or civil servants listen and take action that improves their lives. It is much closer to people, and people feel that. Moving this process even further away seems like a real negative for people in Scotland.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
I am listening to the hon. Member very carefully. Given her assertion that only people who are elected to the Scottish Parliament should make these decisions, should not she and I, and indeed the Chairman of the Committee, get our coats and head home early today?
Kirsty Blackman
As I mentioned in previous speeches, we are taking decisions here for the entirety of the UK. Like it or not, I have been elected in the same way as the hon. Member has, as a UK member of Parliament. We therefore have the right in this place to take decisions on procurement in England and procurement in Wales. We do not have the right to take decisions on procurement across the UK, given the agreement that the implementation of procurement and how it works in Scotland is devolved.
In fact, this Bill does not confer any rights on Members of Parliament to make decisions for the people of Scotland. It confers the power on Ministers to make that decision, which is very different from conferring it on Parliament. I have spoken before about the Executive power creep of recent years, which continues to give more power to the Executive and less to parliamentarians and MPs in this place. It is therefore important that the Scottish Parliament gets to take these decisions. I do not think the UK Government should be allowed to override the devolution settlement whenever they feel it convenient to do so, as we saw recently when they used section 35 to stop legislation put through the Scottish Parliament on a cross-party basis.
Again, the Bill is a further overreach of the UK Government’s powers. We are not suggesting for a second that the UK does not have the right to sign up to international agreements. It absolutely does, but we have the right in Scotland, as part of the devolution settlement, to implement those rules in devolved areas. In that regard, I would like to push amendment 102 to a vote. I am not convinced that I will get terribly much support, but I will do my best anyway. Hopefully the Minister will move Government amendment 59, which is a step forward, as I have said, and I hope he will also agree to the inclusion of our amendment.
Alex Burghart
To address the most pressing issue in this group, I must confess to having a Celtic heritage. Indeed, my grandfather was from south Wales, and his grandfather was born in the workhouse, not terribly far from the constituency of the hon. Member for Islwyn, so he has found me out.
Alex Burghart
One family, one Wales.
I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman support NATO and the Government’s actions with regard to our allies in Ukraine. He will know that we have a trade agreement in place with Ukraine, and yesterday was a sign of the ongoing, very close relationships between President Zelensky’s Government and our own, and the necessary partnership in the face of tyranny.
Let me turn to amendment 102, in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. I must assure her at the outset that this is a power that the UK Government would only need in extremis. I completely understand that Holyrood and the Scottish Government—certainly under the SNP, I am sure—would always want to implement our international agreements. But what if another party that was not so upstanding was one day to be in power? What if another group of nationalists was to seize control from the SNP and wished to hold up our international agreements? There are other nationalist options—the former head of the hon. Lady’s party has formed a renegade bunch running under the name Alba—and perhaps they would not be as reasonable the hon. Lady’s party. Perhaps they would wish to prevent us from implementing our international trade agreements. That would not only prevent us from delivering the benefit of those agreements to the whole of the United Kingdom, but completely ruin our chances of signing future trade agreements. We understand her objections, but we believe that it is essential to ensure that in all circumstances the UK Government can make good on the promises that they sign with partners.
Kirsty Blackman
The Minister is suggesting that clause 90 will be used only in extremis. Do I read that correctly, or is that not his suggestion?
Alex Burghart
Certainly, if there was an international agreement and the Scottish Government wished to legislate or regulate to implement it, that would be our preference. As I say, it is important that we put safeguards in the Bill. On the hon. Lady’s point about burdens being placed on officials by having to keep up with procurement regulations in Scotland, I can assure her that my officials welcome the burden, and that their understanding of such regulations is so strong that they would not notice the extra weight at all. I hope that she will not move her amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 88 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 90
Treaty state suppliers: non-discrimination in Scotland
Amendment made: 59, in clause 90, page 60, line 32, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) may only include provision that is equivalent to provision in—
(a) subsection (1), (2), (5) or (6) of section 88 (treaty state suppliers),
(b) section 89 (treaty state suppliers: non-discrimination), or
(c) Schedule 9 (specified international agreements).
(1B) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a Minister of the Crown considers, or the Scottish Ministers consider, that the regulations are necessary in order to ratify or comply with an international agreement to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.
(1C) In subsection (1B), the reference to being a signatory to an international agreement includes a reference to having—
(a) exchanged instruments, where the exchange constitutes the agreement;
(b) acceded to the agreement.”—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment would mean that a Minister of the Crown or Scottish Ministers, in making regulations under clause 90, may only make provision equivalent to provision in Part 7 and if the Minister considers, or Scottish Ministers, consider it necessary in order to ratify or comply with an international agreement.
Amendment proposed: 102, in clause 90, page 60, line 32, at end insert—
“(1A) A Minister of the Crown acting under subsection (1) must acquire the consent of Scottish Ministers.”—(Kirsty Blackman.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Burghart
A contracting authority is required to publish a pipeline notice if it reasonably expects that, in the coming financial year, it will pay more than £100 million under relevant contracts. The pipeline notice in clause 91 is designed to set out details of public contracts that a contracting authority proposes to enter into in the forthcoming 18 months with an estimated value of more than £2 million. It provides potential suppliers with advance notice of upcoming opportunities and allows them to plan for future work. The notice must be published within 56 days of the first day of the relevant financial year. Private utilities and transferred Northern Irish contracting authorities are not required to publish pipeline notices.
Florence Eshalomi
The clause introduces pipeline notices, which mandate large contracting authorities to publish a pipeline of contracts worth over £2 million every year for the upcoming year. We question why it is £2 million when the Government have altered the other thresholds of that value to £5 million elsewhere in the Bill. Will the Minister clarify that for us? However, we do not oppose the lower number or the pipeline notices in general, so we are happy for the clause to stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
The threshold of £2 million was set following the determination that that was the best balance of realising the benefits of transparency against the efforts made by contracting authorities in providing the information.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 91 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 92
General exemptions from duties to publish or disclose information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 92 sets out when contracting authorities may withhold—for example, by way of redaction—information that they are otherwise required to publish or disclose under the Bill. The two exemptions are for national security and sensitive commercial information. “Sensitive commercial information” is defined as information that “constitutes a trade secret” or would be likely to prejudice commercial interests if published or disclosed. The exemptions are modelled on their equivalents in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and are intended to be understood and interpreted in the same way.
However, the FOIA is a scheme for responding to requests for information, whereas the Bill is about proactive publication by contracting authorities. The sensitive commercial information exemption is subject to an overriding public interest test, while the national security exemption is absolute. If the contracting authority relies on either of the exemptions to withhold or redact information, it must notify anyone to whom the information would have been provided that information is being withheld or redacted and why. The latter requirement is suspended if it would be contrary to the interests of national security to make such a notification.
Florence Eshalomi
The clause relates to a small number of reasons why information may not be published where it would otherwise be required under the Bill. Of course, we agree that some information is particularly sensitive and should not be disclosed to the public. I welcome the Minister’s assurance on ensuring that national home security is absolute. The reasons for non-publication in the clause are proportionate and sensible. We do not feel that this is controversial, and we will not oppose its addition to the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 92 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 93
Notices, documents and information: regulations and online system
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
In support of the Government’s drive towards ensuring greater transparency in procurement, there are many provisions in the Bill that place requirements on contracting authorities to publish information. Clause 93 confers a power to set out the form and content of the information to be published or provided as well as the place it is to be sent. That is a broad but necessary power. The World Trade Organisation GPA sets out the core of the detail of many of the notices that we have described in the Bill, which will give hon. Members a clear indication about the sorts of information that will be required to be published using these powers.
However, the Government wish to push further and create additional transparency to that required by the GPA. For that reason, we have created new transparency obligations and proposed the power to set out the detail in clause 93. The flexibility inherent in taking that power allows us to tailor the transparency regime over time to ensure that we can benefit from greater transparency across the procurement landscape. The power allows us to set different requirements for different types of contract or different industries, depending on the needs and benefits of different areas.
Clause 93 also puts an obligation on the Government to establish and operate an online system for the purpose of publishing notices, documents and other information under the legislation. The online system must make notices, documents and other information published under the legislation available free of charge and accessible for people with disabilities.
Florence Eshalomi
Clause 93 is perhaps the most referenced throughout the Bill; it has been mentioned about 24 times. We did not expect the legislation to be all-encompassing, but we are now at clause 93 and we are seeing a little more deflection and can kicking. We support the implementation of a new digital system, but the reality is that we do not have any idea what it will look like based on the clause.
We have high hopes for the system, and it has the potential to be transformative for procurement, which we will get to during the debate on new clause 14. We believe it can be taken even further, as was the case in Ukraine. We can take inspiration from what is happening in Ukraine, and their heroic fight against Putin’s barbarism, as we heard during President Zelensky’s address yesterday. We must also take inspiration from their procurement system, even in the midst of what is going on.
I was pleased to hear the Minister say on Second Reading that he was pleased to let the House know that Ukraine was on our advisory panel and has informed the work on our single digital platform, which takes a lot from what Ukraine has done with ProZorro. The platform will enable everyone to have better access to public procurement data. Citizens will be able to scrutinise spending decisions, suppliers will be able to identify new opportunities to bid and collaborate, and buyers will be able to analyse the market and benchmark their performance against others on spending with SMEs, for example. That will provide better transparency, which will be better for taxpayers. Those are welcome words from the Minister, but at this stage, they are just words.
On Second Reading, the Minister also said:
“The platform is based on a system that we already have. We are confident that we will be able to introduce it in line with bringing this Bill into force. Obviously, we have to pass the legislation and get Royal Assent, and then there will be a settling-in period. But it is going to be functional very soon.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 383.]
How soon will that be? When is that target? We all agree the system has huge potential, but, as we have already seen in the promised version of the Bill and the version before us today, we cannot be certain about anything until it is in the statute book. Will the Minister commit today to introduce the regulations under the clause as soon as possible? I hope that he will deliver on the promises he made on Second Reading.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady will have already heard in our debates in Committee, on Second Reading and in Westminster Hall the huge range of areas in which we are bringing in additional transparency. The online digital platform will be the repository of sunlight that she is understandably so interested in. It is necessary at this stage for us to keep the primary legislation broad, so that there will be flexibility for Governments over time.
We intend to bring forward the online digital platform in 2024, bringing the Bill into force and allowing us to see the benefits. It will be a major step change in how we see evidence of public procurement. I hope the Opposition will welcome that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 93 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 94
Electronic communications
Alex Burghart
I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 94, page 62, line 37, after first “a” insert “covered”.
This amendment would restrict the requirements in respect of electronic communications systems to covered procurements.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 62 to 64.
Clause stand part.
Alex Burghart
We are introducing amendments 61 to 64 to clarify the use of electronic communication systems and the application of other systems in various commercial circumstances. Clause 94 currently requires that electronic communication systems must be
“free of charge and readily accessible”.
Our intention is to allow businesses, particularly SMEs, to easily access the necessary documents and systems to bid for contracts, ensuring that access is open to all. However, the term “electronic communication systems” is broad, and concerns have been raised with us that it could inhibit certain practices that are currently commonplace, thereby making the Bill overly burdensome. For example, it could constrict the ability of utilities dynamic markets to charge for membership, and of the Ministry of Defence to make use of systems that charge to preserve secure payments.
Amendment 62 therefore limits the free-of-charge obligation beyond the point when the public contract is entered into and disapplies it to utilities dynamic markets. We have also tabled amendments 61, 63 and 64, which ensure that the clause only applies to covered procurement, and that the security exception in clause 94(3) extends to the whole clause.
Clause 94 sets out how communications relating to a procurement should be undertaken. Electronic communications can help reduce procurement process costs for suppliers and contracting authorities; reduce procurement timescales; encourage access to opportunities for suppliers; facilitate compliance with the rules; and promote traceability and auditability in the procurement process. As such, for covered procurements, we want contracting authorities to, so far as practicable, communicate with suppliers electronically and ensure suppliers do likewise. Electronic communication systems must be free of charge and readily accessible to suppliers, generally available and interoperable with other systems, and accessible to people with disabilities. There is an exemption from the requirement to communicate electronically if doing so would pose a particular security risk.
Florence Eshalomi
These amendments tidy up this part of the Bill by limiting requirements that relate to covered procurement, limiting the obligations on information after the awards of contract or in dynamic markets, and ensuring that all parts of the clause are excluded in the case of security risks. I am pleased to say that we do not feel the amendments are controversial, and that they sensibly fix a gap that could otherwise have caused problems, so we will not oppose them.
Clause 94 concerns electronic communications. In today’s modern world, electronic and digital communication is the norm, and we should expect all suppliers to have access to electronic communication methods. Such methods are the norm in wider society. It is right that information is freely available. We must ensure that it is accessible to everybody, so we welcome subsection (2), which puts some principles of communication in the Bill. We are happy for the clause stand part of the Bill.
Amendment 61 agreed to.
Amendments made: 62, in clause 94, page 62, line 42, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (2)(a) does not apply in relation to an electronic communications system used, or required to be used—
(a) after the award of the public contract, or
(b) in relation to a utilities dynamic market.”
This amendment would create an exception to the requirement for electronic communications systems to be free of charge and readily accessible to suppliers where those systems are used after award of a public contract or in relation to a utilities dynamic market.
Amendment 63, in clause 94, page 63, line 1, leave out “Subsection (1)” and insert “This section”.
This amendment and Amendment 64 would extend the exception in subsection (3) to any requirement in clause 94 the contracting authority considers poses a security risk.
Amendment 64, in clause 94, page 63, line 2, after “communication” insert “, or the use of an electronic communication system meeting the requirements of subsection (2),”.—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment and Amendment 63 would extend the exception in subsection (3) to any requirement in clause 94 the contracting authority considers poses a security risk.
Clause 94, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 95
Information relating to a procurement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 95 provides that regulations may be made requiring certain information to be shared in a particular way. The power will be used to specify that contracting authorities and suppliers must use the central online platform, to be established under clause 93, and to provide detail on the proposed register of suppliers.
As part of the central digital platform, the register of suppliers will allow suppliers to submit the common data needed for procurements, such as their full name and registered office address, date of registration, VAT number and so on, in an evidence locker, so that they can “tell us once” across the public sector. All contracting authorities will be required to use data from the register of suppliers in their procurements.
Clause 95 also requires contracting authorities to keep records of any communication between the authority and a supplier in relation to a covered procurement. All data published on the central digital platform will be aligned to the open contracting data standard, or OCDS. Adoption of the standard will significantly improve data quality and sharing.
Florence Eshalomi
The clause puts in place similar provisions to clause 93, and has huge potential to make our procurement system more efficient—for example, by standardising how information is shared. That would simplify the procurement system for SMEs, which would not have to navigate the surprising number of ways in which the information in the Bill could be presented.
I will not reiterate my points on clause 93, but I have similar concerns that these provisions are just words, before we have seen the regulations laid, but I hope the Minister will make good use of them as quickly as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 95 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 96
Data protection
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 96 sets out that the Bill does not authorise or require a disclosure of information that would contravene the data protection legislation. It defines the data protection legislation as being the same as the meaning set out in the Data Protection Act 2018. The effect of the provision is that there is no requirement to publish information that would otherwise be prohibited from disclosure under the Data Protection Act 2018.
Florence Eshalomi
This clause, as the Minister outlined, considers data protection and ensures that the Bill does not work contrary to the Data Protection Act 2018. It is entirely correct, and we do not object to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 96 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 97
Duties under this Act enforceable in civil proceedings
Alex Burghart
I beg to move amendment 65, in clause 97, page 64, line 6, at end insert—
“(6A) A supplier may not bring proceedings under this Part on the grounds that one or more of the following decisions of a Minister of the Crown was unlawful—
(a) a decision to enter a supplier’s name on the debarment list;
(b) a decision relating to the information included in an entry on the debarment list;
(c) a decision not to remove an entry from the debarment list, or revise information included in such an entry,
(see section 64 (debarment decisions: appeals)).”
This amendment would ensure that challenges to debarment decisions are all dealt with under clause 64 (debarment decisions: appeals).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clauses 98 to 103 stand part.
Government new clause 12—Part 9 proceedings and closed material procedure.
Alex Burghart
Clause 97 provides that, where a UK or treaty state supplier has suffered, or risks, loss or damage in consequence of a contracting authority’s failure to comply with certain parts of the Bill, that supplier can hold the contracting authority to account through civil proceedings for breach of statutory duty.
The relevant parts of the Bill govern the award, entering into and management of public contracts—namely, parts 1 to 5, 7 and 8. Clause 97(5) lists the few exceptions, however, where any compliance failure is best challenged through judicial review. Those are a failure to have regard to barriers facing SMEs, which is required by clause 12(4), and a failure to have regard to the procurement policy statements in clauses 13(9) or 14(8). Suppliers can also raise concerns with the procurement review unit, which may engage with the contracting authority on a non-statutory basis to resolve any issues.
Further, proposed new subsection (6A), courtesy of Government amendment 65, will ensure that, where a claim is on grounds that can be challenged through the debarment appeals process—under clause 64—the supplier cannot also bring a claim under part 9 on those grounds. Debarment decisions are taken by a Minister of the Crown, and not a contracting authority, thus it is appropriate for the Minister to respond to that claim. I invite hon. Members to accept the amendment.
Clause 98 says that if a contracting authority has been notified during a standstill period that a claim has commenced in relation to the procurement, the contracting authority is prevented from proceeding with the public contract until the claim is resolved. That is called automatic suspension. However, it is important that the court has a discretion to lift the automatic suspension on application by the contracting authority, and permit the contract or modification to be entered into, where that is necessary, despite a legal challenge. The factors for the court’s consideration when deciding whether it is appropriate to lift the suspension are laid out in clause 99 on interim remedies.
Interim remedies are, by their nature, applicable before the determination of any legal claim, at whichever point it is raised in the procurement—pre or post contract signature. Types of interim remedy under clause 99 may therefore include suspending the procurement process or performance of the contract.
An important aspect of clause 99 is the new test for lifting the automatic suspension. Unlike the current test derived from the 1975 American Cyanamid patent case, the test on the face of the Bill is specific to public procurement disputes, and enables the court to consider the merits of the case with reference to factors that ensure that the interests of the contracting authority, the claimant, the successful supplier and the public are considered in a fair and balanced way. The test will also apply to injunctions made to prevent the contracting authority from entering into the public contract where there is no automatic suspension.
Clause 100 deals with pre-contractual remedies. Suppliers bringing claims to the court at this time are most often seeking a fair opportunity to bid for the public contract. Accordingly, clause 100 includes remedies such as reversing a decision made by the contracting authority, or requiring an action such as the re-evaluation of tenders. The court may also award damages or make any other order it deems appropriate in the circumstances.
Clause 101 sets out the post-contractual remedies—that is, those that apply once the contract or modification has been entered into. For the most egregious breaches, such as failing to honour a mandatory standstill period, where the supply has been denied the opportunity to seek pre-contractual remedies the contract may be set aside by the court. This is currently known as the remedy of ineffectiveness, and an order of this kind makes the contract or modification invalid. Where a set aside ground applies per clause 102, the court must set aside the contract or modification unless there is an overriding public interest in maintaining the contract, in which case the court may instead reduce the scope or duration of the contract, and award damages.
In common with the existing regime, the award of damages to a supplier following a breach of statutory duty is discretionary, and judges can continue to make an appropriate assessment on the award of damages, including quantum, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the breach and its consequences. As I mentioned, clause 102 sets out the conditions that, if met, may result in the contract or modification being set aside, where the supplier has been denied the opportunity to seek pre-contractual remedies.
Clause 103 sets out the timescales in which a supplier must raise a claim under the Bill for breach of statutory duty. For all claims except some for set aside under clause 102, this will be within 30 days from when the supplier knew—or ought to have known—about the breach. For set aside claims, after the contract has been entered into, the time limit is 30 days from the date of actual or deemed knowledge, unless a contract details notice was not published, in which case the 30 days applies up to a long stop date of six months from contract signature. The six month cut-off also applies to claims for set aside of contract modifications. The court may extend the 30 days up to three months, but may not extend the six month cut-off. The timescales aim to give suppliers adequate time to raise legal challenges to the procurement, while also enabling contracting authorities to manage the risk of delay and disruption to their public procurements.
The Government have proposed new clause 12 to be inserted after clause 103 to allow the Minister for the Cabinet Office to apply for a declaration permitting closed material procedure applications in procurement challenge proceedings, as we discussed the other day. Closed material procedure involves the non-Government parties leaving the courtroom while sensitive material is heard.
Florence Eshalomi
Amendment 65 shifts the responsibility for the debarment list remedy to clause 64, rather than being under this part of the Bill. New clause 12 is a simple amendment that extends the power to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, rather than just the Secretary of State. Both amendments make sense and we do not oppose them.
Clauses 97 to 103 relate to remedy against contracting authorities when duties under parts of the Bill are breached. It is right that suppliers have remedy when contracting authorities do not follow due process while carrying out procurement. I listened to the Minister’s explanatory remarks about having a fair and balanced remedy for tenders and contractors, about discretionary damages, and about legal challenges and timescales, but has he given thought as to whether employees or contracted workers, or subcontracted organisations involved in delivering public contracts, can seek a remedy if the employment terms and conditions agreed as part of a contract are not delivered?
At the point of tender or contract, a supplier may commit to providing certain employment conditions—for example, the living wage. However, if the supplier in that example, having won the contract, does not implement an annual increase in the living wage, I hope the Minister agrees that there is little recourse for workers employed under the contract. There is no clear, robust mechanism for workers or parties such as trade unions to complain, or for workers affected to receive remedy if there is a failure to comply. There may be a redress mechanism or a point of contact for them in the contracting authority, but there is no certainty that complaints will be investigated, let alone remedied. We are concerned about that, as workers may miss out on long-term remedies. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to that point, either now or later in writing.
Alex Burghart
I am happy to respond to the hon. Lady with more detail in writing. I think her example relates to where a contracting authority had written in certain terms and conditions for the employees of a supplier, which then receives the procurement deal. In those circumstances, the supplier would obviously be in breach of the contract. That would be as serious as other breaches of contract. I will check the detail and get back to the hon. Lady, but it will obviously be within the supplier’s employees’ rights to contact the contracting authority and let it know that they believe the supplier is in breach.
Amendment 65 agreed to.
Clause 97, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 98 to 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 104
Procurement investigations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 104 enables the appropriate authority—a Minister of the Crown, a Welsh Minister or a Northern Irish Department—to investigate relevant contracting authorities’ compliance with the requirements of the Bill. It also obliges the relevant contracting authorities to provide reasonable assistance to the investigation within notified time periods, and allows the findings of investigations to be published.
Although the legislative definition of a relevant contracting authority in clause 104(5) excludes Departments, they may be subject to investigation; it is simply that Ministers do not require statutory powers to do this. Ministers already have the authority to investigate the procurement activities of Departments and ensure that any recommendations resulting from an investigation are duly taken into consideration. The Cabinet Office has established routes for co-operation with such investigations within Government. The new procurement review unit will utilise the statutory powers afforded by clauses 104 to 106, as well as non-statutory powers, on behalf of Ministers of the Crown.
Clause 105 allows the appropriate authority to make statutory recommendations as a result of an investigation under clause 104, where the investigation has identified that a contracting authority is engaging in action giving rise, or likely to give rise, to a breach of any requirement of the Bill. Clause 106 allows the appropriate authority to issue statutory guidance to contracting authorities, following an investigation under clause 104. This guidance will share the lessons of matters considered in the procurement investigation where those lessons are relevant to a larger number of, or indeed all, contracting authorities, including Departments, not just those that were the subject of the investigation. Contracting authorities are required by clause 106 to have regard to the published guidance when carrying out their public procurements and considering how to comply with the requirements of this Bill. It is left to the discretion of the appropriate authority to determine which contracting authorities would benefit from having regard to the guidance.
Subsection (3) highlights clauses 107 to 109, which restrict a relevant authority’s ability to issue guidance to particular contracting authorities. A Minister of the Crown can, with express consent from the devolved Administrations, issue guidance to all authorities, including devolved and transferred contracting authorities.
Florence Eshalomi
Clauses 104 to 106 concern oversight of procurement. Compliance with such is critical and it runs through the Bill.
As stated previously, the success of things such as the 30-day payment will ultimately come down to compliance with the Bill at all levels. We do not oppose these clauses, but we are concerned about the lack of ambition compared with what was outlined in the Green Paper. To take the Minister back to those proposals, the Green Paper states that the Government propose
“establishing a new unit, supported by an independent panel of experts, to oversee public procurement with powers to review and, if necessary, intervene to improve the commercial capability of contracting authorities. This unit would aim to improve capability and practices for the benefit of all contracting authorities and suppliers rather than provide remedies for an individual supplier on a specific procurement. This will be facilitated through greater information about purchasing and supply markets and behaviour, allowing targeted interventions to be implemented, optimising policy delivery and driving improvements in capability, behaviour and practice.”
We understand that proposals change between Green Papers and Bills—the Minister has touched on that before—but will he explain the reason for this reduction in ambition? What is proposed now?
There is a genuine question about to who will oversee compliance, especially as, despite the promises in the Green Paper, nothing has been done to reform the remedies system. The Bill contains little information on how the system will be overseen. It does not mention a procurement review unit, and refers only to an “appropriate authority”. Worryingly, the remit of the unit does not extend to central Government, Welsh Ministers or Northern Irish Departments, among other things. That seems like a large and inexplicable gap, which means that the unit will not be able to investigate compliance by any central Government Departments.
The “appropriate authority” has power to carry out an investigation of compliance by an authority under the Bill, and to make a recommendation; but it cannot make recommendations on compliance with a multitude of matters, including compliance with the national procurement policy statement, the national objectives in clause 12, or a specific procurement. On the face of it, that is relatively toothless, leaving the unit with limited remit and no enforcement powers. It also does not seem to be independent. That replicates the existing position, which we have discussed.
The Bill offers an opportunity to go further and to deliver better procurement systems across the country. Clearly, the Government do not wish to make the PRU into an appellate body, but the court system is an expensive and random way of enforcing compliance, tilted against challengers and small and medium-sized enterprises. While reforms of the court system belong outside the Bill, there is no evidence that any such reforms are being brought forward. We will not reject clauses 104 to 106, nor have we proposed amending them, but I hope that the Minister will address my concerns. I will welcome any feedback he can offer.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady will have heard me refer a number of times to the procurement review unit. We considered making the PRU an independent arm’s length body, but on consideration we felt that to do so risked creating unnecessary bureaucracy and cost and would lead to confused and overlapping responsibilities, with duplications of interactions with contracting authorities. Positioning it within the Cabinet Office best aligns it with other related functions to improve commercial standards among contracting authorities that are covered by the Government’s chief commercial officer.
We did not feel the need to put the PRU in the Bill, because it will not be a non-departmental body established in statute. The approach we are using here is similar to how the current public procurement review service utilises statutory powers under section 40 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, but is not specifically mentioned in that Act.
There are great opportunities for the PRU to assist in procurement processes across the country, which have been outlined during the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 104 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 105 and 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Julie Marson.)
Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting)
Thursday 9th February 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 9 February 2023 - (9 Feb 2023)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 107, page 70, line 3, leave out “only” and insert “wholly or mainly”.
This amendment would mean that a public undertaking or private utility that operates “wholly or mainly in relation to Wales” will be treated as a devolved Welsh authority.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 67.
Clause stand part.
Clause 108 stand part.
Government amendment 68.
Clauses 109 and 110 stand part.
Government amendments 70 to 73.
Clause 111 stand part.
Alex Burghart
It is a pleasure to open this afternoon’s proceedings with this substantial grouping. I will begin with amendments 66 and 67. The Bill provides Welsh Ministers with various powers, and clause 107 sets out the parameters for their exercise by specifying the bodies that Welsh Ministers may regulate. Welsh Ministers may exercise powers under the Bill only in relation to devolved Welsh authorities and procurements covered
“under a devolved Welsh procurement arrangement.”
The Bill adopts the definition of a “devolved Welsh authority” found in section 157A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 and extends it, for the purposes of the Bill, to include certain public undertakings and private utilities, and other contracting authorities that ought reasonably to be regulated by Welsh Ministers for pragmatic reasons.
As the Bill was introduced, we recognised that the competence was ill-defined with respect to Welsh contracting authorities, and that it would have the effect of requiring devolved contracting authorities that operate principally in Wales but have some operations in England to follow two sets of rules. We have been working closely with the Welsh Government to include a pragmatic approach to the definition in the Bill. As such, we have agreed with the Welsh Government to include in their competence, for the purposes of the Bill, any contracting authority that is a private entity or utility that operates
“wholly or mainly in relation to Wales”
and whose activities
“do not relate to reserved matters”.
For example, Welsh Water, a not-for-profit private company providing water services in Wales, would fall into that category.
Finally, we have also agreed to extend Welsh Ministers’ competence in relation to a contracting authority that is not a devolved body for the purposes of the 2006 Act, but the functions of which are exercisable “wholly or mainly” in Wales and, wholly or mainly,
“do not relate to reserved matters”.
I am pleased to introduce the amendments and recognise that this is a pragmatic solution for many public bodies who operate, for example, in Herefordshire and across the border in Powys.
Turning to amendment 68, clause 109, which we will cover in a moment, establishes that
“A Minister of the Crown may exercise a power under this Act for the purpose of regulating a contracting authority that is a devolved Welsh authority only in relation”
to certain areas. The Welsh Government raised concerns that, as drafted, clause 121 would give an appropriate authority—in this instance defined as a Minister of the Crown—the power to
“by regulations make supplementary, incidental or consequential provision in connection with any provision of this Act.”
The provision set out in clause 121 is used to amend other legislation, where necessary, to ensure the functioning of the Bill, and it is right that Welsh Ministers should be able to agree to any subsequent amendment to legislation within their competence. I am pleased to change this so that any power for Ministers of the Crown to make consequential provision requires consent. That respects the devolved competence of procurement and makes practical sense for the Bill. I thank Welsh Government officials and Ministers for working closely to agree these important amendments.
As we have discussed, clause 107 sets out the parameters for the exercise of powers provided to Welsh Ministers by specifying the bodies that they may regulate. The Bill provides a Northern Ireland Department with various powers, and clause 108 sets out the parameters for their exercise by specifying the bodies that a Northern Ireland Department may regulate. A Northern Ireland Department may exercise powers under the Bill only in relation to “transferred Northern Ireland authorities”, as defined in the Bill, and any
“procurement under a transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangement.”
For example, the Northern Ireland Department sets up a framework for services that could be used by UK or Welsh contracting authorities.
The starting point of the competence of Northern Ireland Departments is that conferred on them by the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which is that they are competent in respect of a public authority whose functions are exercisable only
“in or as regards Northern Ireland”
and are wholly or mainly transferred functions—that is, neither reserved nor excepted.
In addition, we have agreed with the Northern Irish Government to include within their competence, for the purposes of the Bill, any public or private utility that operates only in, or as regards, Northern Ireland and whose activities do not relate to reserved matters. For example, Northern Ireland Water Ltd, a company providing water services in Northern Ireland, would fall within that category.
Clause 109 sets out certain restrictions on how a Minister of the Crown may exercise powers created by the Bill, taking into account that public procurement is largely a devolved matter in Wales and Northern Ireland and that, as such, certain functions fall within the regulatory ambit of Welsh Ministers or a Northern Ireland Department. The clause sets out how, where two bodies can both exercise powers, those concurrent powers are to be exercised.
The clause establishes that a Minister of the Crown may exercise a power under the Bill for the purpose of regulating a devolved Welsh authority only in relation to procurement under a reserved procurement arrangement or transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangement. In respect of Wales, this means that if a Welsh devolved authority uses a framework or dynamic market established by a reserved body such as the Crown Commercial Service, it must do so in accordance with reserved rules. That means, for example, that they must have regard to any national procurement policy statement issued by a Minister of the Crown, rather than a policy statement issued by Welsh Ministers.
That restriction, however, does not extend to clause 66 on electronic invoicing or to clause 106 on the issuing of guidance following a procurement investigation. Instead, these powers, and the powers in clause 121 on consequential provision, can be exercised in respect of devolved Welsh procurement only with the consent of Welsh Ministers. No such consent is required if the regulations or guidance relate to a devolved Welsh authority’s participation in a reserved or a Northern Ireland procurement arrangement.
Clause 109 also establishes that a Minister of the Crown may exercise a power under the Bill for the purpose of regulating a transferred Northern Ireland authority only with the consent of a Northern Ireland Department, unless the regulations relate to procurement under a reserved or a devolved Welsh procurement arrangement authority. As in the Welsh example, this means that, if a transferred Northern Ireland authority procures via a reserved framework or dynamic market, for example, it must follow regulations made by a Minister of the Crown. Similarly to the position on devolved Welsh procurement, a Minister of the Crown may not publish guidance under clause 106 that would regulate a Northern Ireland Department without consent, unless the guidance relates to reserved procurement or devolved Welsh procurement.
Finally, clause 109 provides that the restrictions on the powers of a Minister of the Crown in respect of devolved Welsh procurement and transferred Northern Ireland procurement do not apply in relation to certain named powers, including the powers to update schedule 9 to the Bill to ensure the application of new or amended free trade agreements and to ensure their implementation in respect of devolved Scottish procurement, and the power to make provision to allow the UK to respond to trade disputes.
Clause 110 defines the different types of “procurement arrangement” referred to in the Bill. The term is used primarily in clause 111, which provides powers to ensure that all UK bodies, devolved and reserved, can continue to work with one another and across the UK’s internal borders when undertaking procurements under one another’s procurement arrangements.
I turn to amendments 70 to 73. As the Committee is aware, procurement is a devolved matter, and Scotland already has its own procurement rules. Hon. Members may not be aware that Scottish devolved bodies are presently able to access commercial deals set up in the rest of the UK, and vice versa. Therefore, to enable devolved Scottish bodies to continue to use commercial tools such as frameworks established under the new regime, and to provide access for reserved contracting authorities to Scottish frameworks, the Scottish procurement regulations will need to be amended. As the Bill is drafted, a Minister of the Crown, as well as Scottish Ministers, can amend Scottish regulations for that purpose.
For context, having the power for a Minister of the Crown to amend Scottish regulation was a contingency power, should we be unable to agree with the Scottish Government on how the Bill would be implemented. I am pleased to say that we have an agreement in principle on how to proceed, subject to the normal parliamentary arrangements in both Parliaments, and there is therefore no requirement for the UK Government to be able to amend the Scottish procurement regulations. We are therefore amending the Bill to remove that power for Ministers of the Crown.
At the same time, the UK Government will lay regulations to ensure that devolved Scottish contracting authorities can access frameworks and other commercial tools established under the new regime. When that happens, it will be necessary for Scottish Ministers to disapply their regulations, as they have agreed to do. We propose amending clause 111 to ensure that they can do so and expanding it slightly to ensure that the power covers all Scottish procurement rules.
Clause 111 therefore sets out a series of regulation-making powers that will be used to ensure that procurement bodies across the UK can continue to work with one another and across the UK’s internal borders when undertaking procurements. First, the clause provides powers for a Minister of the Crown to regulate procurements by devolved Scottish authorities under purchasing arrangements set up by reserved authorities or by devolved Welsh or Northern Ireland authorities. That will ensure that devolved Scottish authorities can make use of frameworks and dynamic markets established by other UK authorities, benefit from procurements undertaken by centralised procurement authorities, and jointly procure with other UK authorities acting as the lead authority. In those circumstances, devolved Scottish authorities will be required to follow certain rules in the Bill, details of which will be set out in secondary legislation.
The clause also provides powers for a Minister of the Crown to disapply the Bill’s provisions for reserved authorities, devolved Welsh authorities and devolved Northern Ireland authorities when they are procuring under purchasing arrangements established by devolved Scottish authorities. That will allow those authorities to benefit from arrangements put in place under the Scottish regulations and to undertake joint procurement with devolved Scottish authorities acting as the lead authority.
The clause also creates new powers giving Scottish Ministers the competence to amend Scottish procurement legislation to apply it to reserved authorities subject to the Bill when procuring under purchasing arrangements established by devolved Scottish authorities. Scottish Ministers are also given a power to disapply devolved procurement regulations where a devolved Scottish contracting authority procures using commercial tools set up under the Bill. That arrangement was reached after lengthy consultation with the Scottish Government, and I am delighted to say that they are pleased with the results.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for outlining the discussions with Scottish and Welsh colleagues. As he said, clauses 107 to 110 set out the devolutionary roles and responsibilities of the Welsh, Northern Irish and UK Ministers. Although Wales and Northern Ireland have opted to be part of this procurement system, they will still keep the appropriate regulatory powers within the Bill.
I will not repeat the excellent speech from my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn, on clause 14—it is fair to say that he has had more exposure to Welsh procurement than I have. However, we Labour Members are very proud of our colleagues in Wales and their strong record on procurement.
We are pleased that the Welsh and Northern Irish Governments are adopting the Bill. As my hon. Friend mentioned on clause 14, this is about respect for devolution and for the will of the people of Wales and Northern Ireland. These clauses are about enshrining that respect into law, ensuring that all authorities under the Bill discharge their powers in the right and appropriate manner, and giving everyone involved the flexibility to set the system that their people want. As such, and following the Minister’s remarks, we do not find the clauses disagreeable and will not oppose them.
Lastly, amendments 66 to 68 and 70 to 73 make minor tweaks to the balance of this part of the Bill. Again, we feel that the amendments are fine and are not disagreeable, so we will not oppose them.
Amendment 66 agreed to.
Amendment made: 67, in clause 107, page 70, line 12, leave out paragraph (b)—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment would mean that a contracting authority whose functions are exercisable “wholly or mainly in relation to Wales” will be treated as a devolved Welsh authority regardless of the subject-matter of a particular procurement.
Alex Burghart
I beg to move amendment 113, in clause 107, page 70, line 14, after “section” insert “and section 123 (commencement)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 115.
Alex Burghart
Amendment 115, on commencement powers, will amend clause 123 and require consequential amendments to clause 107. The amendment will make the commencement of devolved Welsh aspects of the Bill subject to the consent of the Welsh Ministers, and allow UK Ministers to amend the Act resulting from the Bill so that it no longer applies in respect of devolved Welsh procurement and could be commenced without consent in respect of procurement in England and Northern Ireland, and all reserved procurement, including that in Wales.
Amendments 113 and 114 are consequential amendments that amend clause 107, which we have discussed already.
Florence Eshalomi
It is reassuring to hear the Minister’s additional update from the Welsh Government and that they support the arrangements. The amendments mandate the consent of Welsh Ministers while making procurement, and allow for the exclusion of Welsh procurement from the provisions of the Act. In essence, they mean that Welsh Ministers have to consent to the Act, but that UK Ministers can exclude Welsh procurement from the regime. In practice, I assume that the proposals will ensure that Wales consents to the Act but that, should it not, a UK Minister can remove it from the system and then commence the Act without the consent of Welsh Ministers.
This is a sensible amendment that underlines the respect for the Welsh Government, and we are right to expect that from the Bill. As the Minister outlined, it is good that there is support. We are content with the amendments and will not oppose them.
Amendment 113 agreed to.
Clause 107, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 108 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 109
Minister of the Crown: restrictions on the exercise of powers
Amendments made: 68, in clause 109, page 71, line 12, after “section 66” insert “or section 121”.
This amendment would mean that a Minister of the Crown could not make consequential provision for the purpose of regulating a devolved Welsh authority without the consent of Welsh Ministers.
Amendment 69, in clause 109, page 71, line 32, at end insert—
“(ba) section (Trade disputes) (trade disputes);”.—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment would allow a Minister of the Crown to exercise the trade dispute power under NC11 in relation to devolved Welsh authorities and transferred Northern Ireland authorities.
Clause 109, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 110 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 111
Powers relating to procurement arrangements
Amendments made: 70, in clause 111, page 73, line 4, leave out—
“A Minister of the Crown or”.
This amendment would remove the power of a Minister of the Crown to amend Scottish procurement legislation to apply it to procurement under devolved Scottish procurement arrangements by contracting authorities.
Amendment 71, in clause 111, page 73, line 5, leave out from “of” to end of line 7 and insert—
“(a) applying it in relation to procurement carried out by contracting authorities under devolved Scottish procurement arrangements;
(a) disapplying it in relation to procurement carried out by devolved Scottish authorities under—
(i) reserved procurement arrangements,
(ii) devolved Welsh procurement arrangements, or
(iii) transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangements.”
This amendment would give the Scottish Ministers power to amend Scottish procurement legislation to disapply that legislation where procurement by devolved Scottish authorities may be regulated by provision made by a Minister of the Crown under subsection (1).
Amendment 72, in clause 111, page 73, line 8, at end insert—
“(za) the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 (asp 12),”.
This amendment would extend the definition of “Scottish procurement legislation” to include the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014.
Amendment 73, in clause 111, page 73, line 13, leave out “those regulations” and insert “that legislation”.—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 72.
Clause 111, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 112
Disapplication of duty in section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
The clause ensures that authorities to which section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988 applies are not prevented by that section from complying with their obligations under the Procurement Bill. It also enables a Minister of the Crown or Welsh Ministers to make regulations to disapply, when required, a duty under section 17 of the Act.
The clause ensures that authorities covered by the 1988 Act can take advantage of domestic procurement policies. As stated in the other place, we intend to use clause 112 for the first time, once enacted, to make regulations so that local authorities may take advantage of the policy of December 2020 so that below-threshold procurements may be reserved to UK suppliers only, or to UK small and medium-sized enterprises or voluntary, community and social enterprises in a particular region or county of the UK.
As section 17 of the Act precludes local authorities from awarding public supply or works contracts by supplier location, tabling regulations under the clause will ensure that local authorities can take advantage of that permitted flexibility, already available to central Government Departments, in respect of lower value contracts.
Florence Eshalomi
The clause interacts with section 17 of the Local Government Act, which placed a duty on certain authorities not to consider non-commercial elements when awarding or managing certain contracts. The amendment to the section is necessary for the new procurement regime, in particular given the move from most economically advantageous tender to most advantageous tender. The clause will also give Ministers the power to disapply the Act via regulations. That could be used, to give an example from the explanatory notes, to allow relevant authorities to reserve below-threshold procurements by location and/or small and medium business size status. We support and welcome the measures and will not oppose clause stand part.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 112 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 113
Single source defence contracts
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 10 be the Tenth schedule to the Bill.
Alex Burghart
The clause introduces schedule 10, which amends the Defence Reform Act 2014 to enable reforms to the Single Source Contract Regulations 2014. The regulations continue to work well to deliver their objectives of ensuring value for money for the taxpayer and a fair price for industry. However, delivering the defence and security industrial strategy and building on experience since 2014 means some reforms are needed. They will ensure that the single source procurement regime can continue to deliver in traditional defence contracts and be applied effectively across the breadth of single source defence work in the future.
In paragraph 2(2) and 2(4) of schedule 10, we are taking a power to clarify that some cross-Government single source contracts with a substantial defence element will come under the Defence Reform Act regime. That will provide assurance on value for money on a greater proportion of single source defence expenditure.
We are increasing the flexibility of the regime by taking a power in paragraphs 3(2) and 3(8) of schedule 10 to enable contracts to be considered in distinct components with different profit rates being applied to different parts of a contract, where that makes sense. Further flexibility in the regime will be provided by a power in paragraph 3(3) to specify circumstances under which a fair price for all or part of a contract can be demonstrated in ways other than by reference to the pricing formula in the Defence Reform Act. Circumstances for using such an approach will be set out in regulations and will include, for example when an item has previously been sold in an open market or where a price is regulated by another regime.
We are simplifying the contract negotiation process by amendments in paragraph 9(3)(a) of schedule 10, which will ensure that the contract better reflects the financial risks involved, and in paragraph 8(3)(e), by taking a power that will clarify how the incentive adjustment should be applied. We are also removing two steps from the current six-step profit setting process. The amendment in paragraph 9(3)(b) will abolish the funding adjustment for the Single Source Regulations Office or SSRO. The same paragraph will also remove the adjustment that ensures that profit can be taken on a contract only once. That issue is dealt with through allowable costs by virtue of paragraph 12(3) of schedule 10.
We are simplifying some reporting requirements by way of amendments in paragraph 13 of schedule 10 to reflect concerns expressed by suppliers and to make compliance with the regulations more straightforward. We are making better use of the expertise of the SSRO by way of the amendments in paragraphs 18 and 19 by enhancing its power to issue guidance, and clarifying and expanding the range of issues on which it can adjudicate. That will empower the SSRO to play a greater role in speeding up the contract negotiation process.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his explanation of the clause, which is related to the Defence Reform Act 2014, which created the Single Source Regulations Office. I have only a question or two about the clause: is there any effect on that office? How does he envisage the regulations he mentioned developing over time? He has already said the regulations will be laid in due course, but can he give the Committee any idea of what they will look like in the new regime proposed in the clause?
Alex Burghart
With reference to the SSCR, where we procure in the absence of competition it remains vital that we strike the right balance between, on the one hand, paying contractors fair prices for the goods and services we buy and, on the other, providing assurance that the taxpayer is getting value for money. Experience from before 2014 showed that a non-legislative approach was insufficient to achieve that balance. The amendment in schedule 10 will apply only to contracts that are substantially for defence purposes. The criteria for including a contract will be set out in secondary legislation. To the hon. Gentleman’s point, that is necessary because it is not generally possible to price the defence elements of such contracts separately in primary legislation, so we need the flexibility in secondary legislation.
Chris Evans
I hear what the Minister says about regulations. Will that have any effect on the profit margins set by the SSRO?
Alex Burghart
That will depend on what the regulations were, which is for discussion at a future point.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 113 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clause 114
Concurrent powers and the Government of Wales Act 2006
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
The clause makes it clear that certain restrictions on the legislative competence of the Senedd do not apply in relation to powers granted to Welsh Ministers under the Bill. That ensures that Welsh Ministers can exercise the legislative powers granted to them under the Bill, and amendments to the Government of Wales Act 2006 are not uncommon in Westminster legislation that grants powers to Welsh Ministers.
Florence Eshalomi
As the Minister said, the clause contains provisions about the Welsh Government and actions that they can and cannot take on procurement. The clause makes a short and technical amendment that removes the prohibitions on the Senedd to legislate on qualified devolved functions in this area. We see no reason to oppose the removal of the prohibition, so we are happy for the clause to stand part.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 114 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 115
Repeals etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 11 be the Eleventh schedule to the Bill.
Alex Burghart
The clause and schedule 11 between them set out the legislation that will be repealed, revoked and disapplied once the Bill comes into effect. That includes the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, the Concession Contracts Regulations 2016, the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016 and the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011, which make up the existing procurement regime for England and Wales, and for Northern Ireland.
Florence Eshalomi
The clause repeals a number of pieces of primary and secondary legislation, as outlined in schedule 11. In practice, the clause and schedule will repeal the current procurement system under the likes of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015.
It is a little unusual that, under schedule 11, we will repeal part of a Bill that is matching this Bill stage for stage in its passage through this House. In fact, I believe that the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill had its Second Reading in the other place just hours before we had Second Reading of this Bill. I know from the Minister’s references that he is fond of boxing, and I wonder which one of those two titanic pieces of legislation will win the bout against the rigmarole of getting a Bill through Parliament? We need to get the Bill through, but perhaps the trade Bill will be one of the fastest enacted pieces of legislation to pass through the House. Labour Members understand why the measure is necessary, however, to ensure that there are no gaps should this Bill take longer to pass through Parliament.
We also understand why we cannot have two procurement systems in place at the same time. As previously stated, we feel that the Bill is a step forward in addressing some of the issues in our procurement system that were introduced by the likes of the public contracts regulations. Many provisions that are part of those regulations have been brought into the Bill, and others have been improved on. We feel that the Bill could have gone further in many ways, and we will continue to argue for amendments in those areas for the rest of our proceedings in Committee and on Report, but we share the view that it will bring benefits to our procurement system as a whole. We will therefore not oppose the repeals alongside the enactment of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 115 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 116 disagreed to.
Clause 117
Power to amend this Act in relation to private utilities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
The clause provides a power for an appropriate authority to make regulations to reduce the regulation of private utilities under the Bill. That power may be used, for example, to disapply particular provisions or to modify them to reduce the regulatory burden, such as to reduce financial costs or administrative burdens.
In the UK, regulators such as Ofgem and Ofwat have promoted competition in many utility markets and provided a proxy for competition, with protection of consumers’ interests at its heart where that is not feasible. That oversight of private utilities justifies minimising the regulatory burden on them to avoid passing costs to customers.
As the Bill provides in clauses 89 and 97 that contracting authorities owe a duty to “treaty state suppliers”—that is, suppliers entitled to the benefit of international trade agreements—to comply with a substantial part of the Bill, the power can be exercised to make amendments only where they do not put the UK in breach of its obligations to those suppliers. The Bill already includes a number of measures that reduce the regulatory burden for private utilities, such as the transparency requirements being pared back to the minimum required by international trade agreements.
Parliament and interested parties will have ample opportunity to scrutinise any amendments proposed to be made under the power, as clause 117 requires consultation prior to making regulations. Parliament will rightly be able to scrutinise the regulations under the affirmative procedure.
Florence Eshalomi
The clause pertains to the ability to reduce regulations in relation to private utilities. It is important that the Bill does not create regulatory burdens where they are not necessary. The clause gives powers to ensure that the Bill can be amended to disapply parts of it in relation to private utilities.
Several exceptions for private utilities already exist throughout the Bill: for example, on the policy statements, the publication of certain information and assessing contract performance. Of course, that does not mean that private utilities do not go unregulated. It is important that groups such as Ofgem regulate the gas and electricity market, but it would be burdensome to have several different frameworks of regulation applying to bodies where they are not needed. That can end up duplicating regulation and creating unnecessary bureaucracy, and simplifying frameworks is one of the main reasons that the Bill is before us.
We believe that our private utilities should be regulated, particularly at a time when we see so many people up and down the country feeling the pain of skyrocketing energy bills this winter, but it must be done via the appropriate channels. For that reason, we are minded not to oppose the clause. However, I hope the Minister can briefly justify when the clause will be necessary and say that the powers will not be used overzealously.
In its report on the Bill, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said:
“The Committee considered that there was inadequate justification for taking a power to make regulations for the deregulation of private utilities under the Bill. They considered that Ministers should explain more fully the proposed use of the power and unless the Government can fully justify it, the breadth of the power should be narrowed.”
In their response, the Government said:
“The power is limited by our international obligations. This means that we must retain some regulation of private utilities in order to comply with our trade agreements such as notice requirements and rules on conditions for participation and award criteria.”
How does that limitation play out in practice? What parts of regulation will be hard-locked into the system by it, and what parts will be open to amendment by the clause? In addition, does a mechanism exist to reapply regulation where it has been disapplied by the clause? It seems wrong for it to be the case that we could disapply bits of the Bill quickly but, should we realise that it was a mistake or maybe want to disapply the provisions only temporarily, the bar to reapply an existing regulation under the Bill would be a lot higher. Can the Minister inform me how that can be done, and what can be done in those cases?
As I mentioned, we are minded not to oppose the clause, but I would be grateful if the Minister could address some of those points.
Alex Burghart
Under the Bill, we have already reduced the regulatory burden for all types of contracting authorities, not just private utilities. Because the four sets of regulations will be streamlined into a single regime, it will be clearer for public authorities, which may currently need to use two or three of these sets of regulations, what rules they need to follow. All contracting authorities will benefit from a simpler, more flexible and commercial system that better meets our country’s needs while remaining compliant with our international obligations. We think it is right to go further for private utilities, as they operate in markets that are regulated in other ways—for example, by regulators such as Ofgem—and are more competitive and commercial.
As the hon. Member for Vauxhall said, the UK is party to trade agreements—for example, the UK-Switzerland trade agreement and the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement—that require us to ensure that private utilities allow suppliers from those countries to participate in procurements covered by the relevant agreement. Under those agreements, suppliers from those countries have access to procurements by private utilities operating in sectors such as gas and heat, electricity, water, transport services and ports and airports. It is right that we are deregulating utilities, because they operate in different markets and we must have a pragmatic approach.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 117 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 118
Regulations
Amendments made: 75, in clause 118, page 75, line 21, at end insert—
“(da) section 52 (key performance indicators);”.
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to an exercise of powers by a Minister of the Crown under clause 52.
Amendment 76, in clause 118, page 75, line 23, leave out paragraph (f).
This amendment is consequential on the Government‘s intention to replace the power in clause 64 with the substantive provision in NC15.
Amendment 77, in clause 118, page 75, line 29, at end insert—
“(la) section (Trade disputes) (trade disputes);”.
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to an exercise of powers by a Minister of the Crown under the new trade disputes clause in NC11.
Amendment 114, in clause 118, page 75, line 39, at end insert—
“(ua) section 123(6) (exclusion of devolved Welsh authorities);”.
This amendment would subject the power added by Amendment 115 to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 78, in clause 118, page 76, line 21, at end insert—
“(ca) section 52 (key performance indicators);”.
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to an exercise of powers by the Welsh Ministers under clause 52.
Amendment 79, in clause 118, page 76, line 26, at end insert—
“(ha) section (Trade disputes) (trade disputes);”.
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to an exercise of powers by the Welsh Ministers under the new trade disputes clause in NC11.
Amendment 80, in clause 118, page 76, line 47, at end insert—
“(ca) section 52 (key performance indicators);”.
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to an exercise of powers by a Northern Ireland department under clause 52.
Amendment 81, in clause 118, page 77, line 1, at end insert—
“(da) section (Trade disputes) (trade disputes);”.
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to an exercise of powers by a Northern Ireland department under the new trade disputes clause in NC11.
Amendment 82, in clause 118, page 77, line 15, leave out from “under” to end of line 16 and insert “any of the following provisions”.
This amendment is preliminary to Amendment 83.
Amendment 83, in clause 118, page 77, line 18, at end insert—
“(a) section 90 (treaty state suppliers: non-discrimination);
(b) section (Trade disputes) (trade disputes);
(c) section 111 (powers relating to procurement arrangements).”—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to an exercise of powers by Scottish Ministers under the new trade disputes clause in NC11.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 118 sets out the relevant procedures associated with the making of regulations under the Bill. They must be exercised by statutory instrument or equivalent powers in relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Where a power is exercised by a Minister of the Crown, the powers listed in subsection (4) are subject to the affirmative procedure, those made under clause 42 are subject to the made affirmative procedure and, with the exception of commencement regulations, the rest are subject to the negative procedure.
Where powers are exercised by Welsh Ministers, those set out in clause 118(10) are subject to the affirmative procedure and all other powers are subject to the negative procedure. Similarly, where powers are exercised by a Northern Ireland Department, those set out in subsection (12) are subject to the affirmative procedure, and all others to the negative. Regulations made by Scottish Ministers under clauses 90 and 111 are subject to the affirmative procedure applicable in proceedings of the Scottish Parliament.
Florence Eshalomi
Clause 118 outlines the powers and restrictions related to regulations that can be passed under the Bill. We all understand the point of secondary legislation. We do not oppose its use in this Bill, nor do we oppose the clause. However, we share the concern of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee about the scale of the use of delegated powers. Its report states:
“This report identifies multiple failures in the Memorandum to adequately explain and justify very broad delegations of power which enable implementation of significant policy change by delegated legislation. This would give us cause for concern at any time but is particularly disappointing as it comes so soon after the publication of our report, Democracy Denied? The urgent need to rebalance power between Parliament and the Executive, in November 2021, and of revised guidance for departments on the role and requirements of this Committee.”
The DPRRC’s concern was shared by Chris Smith, e-procurement and procurement consultant at CA Procurement Consulting Ltd. In his written evidence to this Committee, he said:
“The latest version of the Bill relies heavily on secondary legislation, which has not yet been published, and I am concerned that the level of compliance of Contracting Authorities with transparency regulations and policies will not be improved by this Bill as it is currently worded.
Currently, there remains a significant gap in transparency and the data captured in the existing online systems that not only undermine accountability and scrutiny of the use of public funds but also means that the government cannot rely on obtaining accurate data from these systems, for example, on SME participation. The same goes for the private sector.”
I think it is fair to say that I have made my feelings clear to the Minister throughout the Committee’s proceedings about the use of secondary legislation. I will not go through all those points again—I am sure he can refer back to them—but I still have concerns about how heavily the Bill relies on secondary legislation.
It is not that we object to the use of secondary legislation, nor do object strongly to an instance of its use throughout the Bill. At the end of the day, it is an option that the Government can use to legislate. However, as the Minister knows, it was well within the Government’s gift to set out more information in the Bill so that we could scrutinise further what some of the powers will mean in practice. They could have either set out the scope of what regulations should do, or scrapped the need for regulations entirely and spelled out the provisions in the Bill. Instead, we have had hypothetical debates—some powers may be granted, and some may not; they may transform our procurement system, or they may go unused. It is a bit frustrating to produce legislation in that way.
Alex Burghart
Well, Mr Mundell, I reassure the Committee that my batteries are, if not at 100%, still perfectly green; I have many Duracell hours left in me.
We have consulted with the DPRRC. The hon. Lady will know from earlier discussions that we require a very high degree of flexibility in a lot of areas of the Bill, and that requires secondary legislation, but she can rest assured that a lot of the secondary legislation will see public consultation before it is formulated. She will also have heard me refer to the affirmative procedure, which we intend to use for a lot of the secondary legislation. That means that it will be considered in Parliament, which will give it a good level of public scrutiny. I hope that she will take that as reassurance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 118, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 119
Interpretation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
Clause 119 defines words and phrases of general application in the Bill that are not listed elsewhere—for example, “appropriate authority” is defined as a Minister of the Crown, Welsh Minister or Northern Ireland Department. Importantly, the clause also sets out the definition of “small and medium-sized enterprises”, and provides that an appropriate authority may amend by legislation the definition of an SME. The clause includes some concepts of wider application in the Bill, setting out, for example, that value of money thresholds are inclusive of VAT.
Clause 120 sets out where in the Bill the definitions of certain concepts of wider application can be found.
Florence Eshalomi
Clauses 119 and 120 relate to interpretation and definitions. Clause 119 defines terms, such as SME, that are common in the Bill but are not defined in individual clauses where they are mentioned; clause 120 contains a useful index of defined terms and where their definition appears in the Bill. We believe that the clauses are necessary and useful for navigating the many different terms that appear in the Bill, and we do not intend to oppose them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 119 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 121
Power to make consequential, etc, provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 122 and 123 stand part.
Government amendment 84.
Clause 124 stand part.
Alex Burghart
Clause 121 provides a power to make regulations that make supplementary, incidental or consequential provision. It is a standard clause that means that the Government can make regulations that ensure that the Procurement Act—as it will be—works effectively with the rest of the statute book. It includes the power to amend primary legislation.
Clause 122 explains the extent of the Bill—that is to say, the jurisdictions in which it will form part of the law. The Bill’s provisions extend to each of the jurisdictions of the UK. The majority of provisions apply to all procurement by contracting authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, including matters that we agree are within the scope of devolved competence. The Bill also extends to Scotland and applies, in limited respects, to procurement by devolved Scottish contracting authorities.
Clause 123 is a standard clause setting out when the Bill’s provisions will have effect as law. Some provisions will commence when the Bill is passed and some will commence upon regulations being made by a Minister of the Crown. As we have discussed, however, and following agreement with the Welsh Government, that power can be exercised in relation to devolved Welsh procurements only with the consent of the Welsh Ministers.
We have committed to provide six months’ notice of the new regime coming into force from when the Bill is passed. We expect that to be spring 2024 at the earliest. The existing legislation will apply until the new regime goes live, and it will also continue to apply to procurements started under the old rules. Frameworks, dynamic purchasing systems and qualification systems let under the old rules can remain live for their planned lifespan.
Clause 124 is mainly for citation purposes, and does not necessarily cover all aspects of the Bill. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, it will be cited as the Procurement Act 2022. Amendment 84 will remove the amendment made in the other place in respect of the financial privilege of the House of Commons.
Florence Eshalomi
Amendment 84 is a privilege amendment. It is added to Bills by convention to avoid the violation of the privilege that the House of Commons rightly enjoys over the ability to charge people and public funds. The amendment is a quirk of our constitution for Bills beginning in the Lords, and we are, of course, happy to affirm the privilege of this House.
Clauses 121 to 124 are standard parts of Bills in this House. Although there can sometimes be contention about when Bills should commence, it is welcome that, on this occasion, there is no such controversy and the Bill will commence on the day it passes. Of course, we do not object to that, or to the other provisions of the clauses. We are happy for them to stand part of the Bill.
Alex Burghart
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for supporting the clauses. As we are nearing the end of our debate today, I will come back on a couple of points that the hon. Lady made so that we have covered everything off.
Before the lunch break, the hon. Lady kindly supported the clauses in part 9 of the Bill. As mentioned, if suppliers are breaching contractual terms, that will be a matter to be resolved pursuant to those contractual terms. The contracting authority will actively monitor compliance of these types of matters under its usual contract management and monitoring procedures, which will be strengthened by the Bill. I hope that adequately answers the hon. Lady’s question such that there is no longer any need to confirm in writing.
Similarly, in the closing stages of Tuesday’s sittings, the hon. Lady asked whether contracts already entered into following a procurement process will be terminated automatically if a contractor subsequently becomes an excluded supplier. Termination of contracts is often covered by contractual terms, but clause 77 gives contracting authorities an implied right to terminate a contract should a contractor become an excluded or excludable supplier. Although it is not automatic, authorities are able to terminate in the circumstances set out in clause 77.
Given the range and variety of contracts that contracting authorities will enter into, they need to be able to consider individual circumstances and the fulfilment of contract deliverables. Automatic termination of contracts when a supplier becomes excluded or excludable takes no account of other contractual obligations and would have serious implications for the delivery of the essential goods, services and works on which the public rely.
There is no need to mandate automatic termination. Contracting authorities should be trusted to exercise discretion appropriately, including in relation to national security. As with excluding a supplier prior to contract award under the national security ground, a contracting authority will be required to seek approval from a Minister to terminate a contract on this ground. I hope that gives the further detail the hon. Lady was looking for.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
If I can crave your indulgence, Mr Mundell, I will not be present at the Committee’s next sitting, so I want to say thank you very much to the Clerks, to Hansard and, in particular, to two staff members, Josh Simmonds-Upton and Sarah Callaghan, who have been excellent in providing me with valuable support.
The Chair
Thank you for putting that on the record.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 121 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 122 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 123
Commencement
Amendment made: 115, in clause 123, page 81, line 14, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) A Minister of the Crown may not make specified regulations under subsection (2) without the consent of the Welsh Ministers.
(4) In this section, “specified regulations” means regulations to bring into force provisions regulating procurement by a devolved Welsh authority other than procurement under—
(a) a reserved procurement arrangement, or
(b) a transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangement,
but ‘specified regulations’ does not include regulations to bring into force provisions in Part 7 (implementation of international obligations).
(5) In this section, ‘devolved Welsh authority’ has the meaning given in section 157A of the Government of Wales Act 2006.
(6) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that—
(a) Parts 1 to 6 and 8 to 13, or particular provisions in those Parts, so far as not already brought into force under subsection (2) do not regulate procurement by a devolved Welsh authority other than procurement under—
(i) a reserved procurement arrangement, or
(ii) a transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangement;
(b) existing legislation continues to regulate procurement by devolved Welsh authorities and procurement under devolved Welsh procurement arrangements.
(7) Regulations under subsection (6) may modify this Act.
(8) In this section—
“existing legislation” means any enactment, other than this Act or regulations made under this Act, that is passed or made before section 11 (covered procurement only in accordance with this Act) comes into force;
a reference to a provision regulating procurement includes a reference to a provision conferring a function exercisable in relation to procurement.”—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment would make commencement of devolved Welsh aspects of the Bill subject to the consent of the Welsh Ministers, and would allow UK Ministers to amend the Act resulting from this Bill so that the Act no longer applies in respect of devolved Welsh procurement and could be commenced without consent.
Clause 123, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 124
Short Title
Amendment made: 84, in clause 124, page 81, line 18, leave out subsection (2).—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment would remove the technical amendment made by the House of Lords in respect of the financial privileges of the House of Commons.
Clause 124, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Julie Marson.)
Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)
Tuesday 21st February 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 February 2023 - (21 Feb 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
Today, the Committee will consider new clauses tabled to the Bill. We will begin with the Government new clauses, all of which have already been debated.
New Clause 9
Debarment decisions: interim relief
“(1) A supplier may apply to the court for suspension of the Minister’s decision to enter the supplier’s name on the debarment list.
(2) Proceedings under subsection (1) must be brought during the debarment standstill period.
(3) The court may make an order to—
(a) suspend the Minister’s decision to enter the supplier’s name on the debarment list until—
(i) the period referred to in subsection (3)(b) of section 64 (appeals) ends without proceedings having been brought, or
(ii) proceedings under that section are determined, discontinued or otherwise disposed of, and
(b) if relevant, require that an entry in respect of the supplier be temporarily removed from the debarment list.
(4) In considering whether to make an order under subsection (3), the court must have regard to—
(a) the public interest in, among other things, ensuring that public contracts are not awarded to suppliers that pose a risk,
(b) the interest of the supplier, including in relation to the likely financial impact of not suspending the decision, and
(c) any other matters that the court considers appropriate.
(5) In this section—
‘the court’ means—
(a) in England and Wales, the High Court,
(b) in Northern Ireland, the High Court, and
(c) in Scotland, the Court of Session;
‘debarment standstill period’ has the meaning given in section 62 (debarment list).”—(Alex Burghart.)
This new clause, to be inserted after clause 62, would allow a supplier to apply to suspend a Minister’s decision to add their name to the debarment list. If the decision is suspended, the supplier will not be able to be excluded from procurements on the basis of that entry until the suspension is lifted.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 10
Debarment proceedings and closed material procedure
“Part 2 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 (disclosure of sensitive material) applies in relation to proceedings under sections (Debarment decisions: interim relief)(1) (interim relief) and 64 (appeals) as if, in each of the following provisions, each reference to the Secretary of State included a reference to the Minister for the Cabinet Office—
(a) section 6(2)(a), (7) and (9)(a) and (c);
(b) section 7(4)(a);
(c) section 8(1)(a);
(d) section 11(3);
(e) section 12(2)(a) and (b).”—(Alex Burghart.)
This new clause, to be inserted after clause 64, would allow the Minister for the Cabinet Office to apply in place of the Secretary of State to allow closed material applications to be made to the court in proceedings for interim relief or an appeal against a debarment decision.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 11
Trade disputes
“(1) This section applies where there is, or has been, a dispute relating to procurement between the United Kingdom and another state, territory or organisation of states or territories in relation to an international agreement specified in Schedule 9.
(2) An appropriate authority or the Scottish Ministers may by regulations make such provision relating to procurement as the authority considers, or the Scottish Ministers consider, appropriate in consequence of the dispute.
(3) Any provision made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (2) must relate to procurement—
(a) carried out by devolved Scottish authorities, or
(b) under devolved Scottish procurement arrangements.
(4) Regulations under this section may include provision modifying primary legislation, whenever passed (including this Act).
(5) In subsection (1), the reference to an international agreement specified in Schedule 9 does not include a reference to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the one part, and the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the other part, signed at Brussels and London on 30 December 2020.”—(Alex Burghart.)
This new clause, to be inserted after clause 90, would provide that an appropriate authority or the Scottish Ministers could make provision to deal with the procurement consequences of a trade dispute under a treaty implemented by way of Schedule 9 (other than the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the European Union, which is dealt with under existing legislation).
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 12
Part 9 proceedings and closed material procedure
“Part 2 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 (disclosure of sensitive material) applies in relation to proceedings under this Part as if, in each of the following provisions, each reference to the Secretary of State included a reference to the Minister for the Cabinet Office—
(a) section 6(2)(a), (7) and (9)(a) and (c);
(b) section 7(4)(a);
(c) section 8(1)(a);
(d) section 11(3);
(e) section 12(2)(a) and (b).”—(Alex Burghart.)
This new clause, to be inserted after clause 103, would allow the Minister for the Cabinet Office to apply in place of the Secretary of State to allow closed material applications to be made to the court in proceedings under Part 9.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 13
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.”—(Alex Burghart.)
This new clause would be a substitute for clause 116 and allow a Minister of the Crown to make provision excluding from the scope of this Bill procurement that is within the scope of regulations under section 12ZB of the National Health Service Act 2006.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 15
Debarment decisions: appeals (No. 2)
“(1) A supplier may appeal to the court against a decision of a Minister of the Crown—
(a) to enter the supplier’s name on the debarment list,
(b) to indicate a particular date as part of an entry in respect of the supplier under section 62(3)(b), or
(c) not to remove an entry in respect of the supplier from the debarment list, or revise a date indicated as part of such an entry, following an application under section 63 (application for removal).
(2) Proceedings under subsection (1)—
(a) may only be brought by a United Kingdom supplier or a treaty state supplier,
(b) may only be brought on the grounds that, in making the decision, the Minister made a material mistake of law, and
(c) must be commenced before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which the supplier first knew, or ought to have known, about the Minister’s decision.
(4) Subsection (4) applies if, in proceedings under subsection (1)(a), the court is satisfied that—
(a) the Minister made a material mistake of law, and
(b) in consequence of the mistake, a contracting authority excluded the supplier from participating in a competitive tendering procedure, or other selection process, in reliance on section 57(1)(b) or (2)(b).
(5) The court may make one or more of the following orders—
(a) an order setting aside the Minister’s decision;
(b) an order to compensate the supplier for any costs incurred by the supplier in relation to participating in the procedure or process referred to in subsection (3)(b).
(6) Otherwise, if the court is satisfied that the Minister made a material mistake of law, the court may make an order setting aside the Minister’s decision.
(7) In this section—
‘the court’ has the meaning given in section (Debarment decisions: interim relief) (interim relief);
the reference to a supplier being excluded includes a reference to—
(a) the supplier’s tender being disregarded under section 26;
(b) the supplier becoming an excluded supplier for the purposes of section 41(1)(a), 43(1) or 45(6)(a).”—(Alex Burghart.)
This new clause would be a substitute for clause 64 and replace the power to make provision about appeals relating to debarment with detailed provision for their operation.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 3
Public interest
“(1) Where a contracting authority is considering outsourcing public services that are at the time of consideration delivered in-house or where contracts are due for renewal, the contracting authority must ensure that outsourcing or recontracting passes a public interest test and provides greater public value than direct service provision.
(2) As part of the duty in subsection (1), the contracting authority must demonstrate to the public, service users and its employees that it has thoroughly assessed the potential benefits and impact of outsourcing the service in question against a public sector comparator with assessments being based on criteria to be set by the Secretary of State from time to time, including taking a five year consideration of—
(a) service quality and accessibility;
(b) value for money of the expenditure;
(c) implications for other public services and public sector budgets;
(d) resilience of the service being provided;
(e) implications for the local economy and availability of good work in relevant sub-national labour markets;
(f) implications for public accountability and transparency;
(g) effect on employment conditions, terms and standards within the provision of the service to be outsourced and when outsourced;
(h) implications for public sector contributions to climate change targets;
(i) implications for the equalities policies of the contracting authority and compliance with the public sector equality duty.
(3) The contracting authority and the supplier of the outsourced service must monitor the performance of any contracted service against the public interest test and the stated objectives set by the contracting authority pre-procurement to demonstrate that outsourcing the service in question has not resulted in a negative impact on any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2)(a) to (i).
(4) The Secretary of State must from time to time set budget thresholds for when a public interest test would be required.”—(Florence Eshalomi.)
The new clause would create a process to ensure that contracting authorities safeguard the public interest when considering whether or not to outsource or recontract services.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mr Mundell. It is good to see all hon. Members back and raring to go on our favourite subject, the Procurement Bill. The new clause, which we think is really important, would introduce a public interest test when contracting authorities are considering outsourcing public services that are currently in-house, and when contracts are up for renewal.
The Opposition strongly believe that there is a place for the delivery of public services by private companies. Many private companies deliver services efficiently, save the taxpayer money and represent the best of our procurement network. When outsourcing is done well, both the public and companies benefit. I highlight to the Minister that the new clause is not intended to stop good outsourcing practice, nor is it intended to harm suppliers providing public services. However, we have to remember that we are talking about public money and it is critical that we outsource only when it offers value for money for the public—not just in relation to the contract, but for the wider public sector.
When it is done wrong, outsourcing has the potential to offer poor value for money, erode rights and deliver poorer services. In effect, more public money can go to companies that are just making a profit off the taxpayer, while services could be delivered to the same or a better standard in-house, without the profit premiums. Decades of relentless outsourcing have seen hundreds and thousands of staff transferred from employment by local councils, NHS trusts, police authorities, universities, colleges, schools and utility services to external providers, such as companies or charities.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making very good points about outsourcing. It is quite right that we support outsourcing to good companies that pay good and fair wages and offer good terms and conditions, but savings are far too often made by treating workers poorly, by undercutting their pay and terms and conditions, and by trying to offload workers who are needed for the service. This test would allow councils to check whether they could do it better in-house.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for that really valid point. It is important that we look at what has happened. Over the years, there have been many examples of outsourced services in which staff working conditions have been eroded and staff pay has not kept in line with inflation. The situation that we are seeing now is that staff are walking—they are voting with their feet and choosing to lose a day’s pay by going on strike. That is a result of some areas of outsourcing. From catering to social care, from cleaning to IT and HR services, almost no area of public services has been left untouched.
Too often, outsourcing is accompanied by deterioration in the pay, pensions and terms and conditions of the staff delivering the service. That almost creates a two-tier workforce of directly employed staff working alongside contractor staff, as well as a two-tier workforce within the contractor. The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations can offer some limited protection for staff who are transferred to an outsourced contract, but staff recruited by the contractor after transfer have no such protection. Those inferior conditions can translate to lower costs for contractors, which can play a crucial role in their offering a cheaper tender and winning contracts.
A major flaw of this model is that it creates a false economy. The cost of the service is superficially low, but over time, staff have to claim universal credit. People retire without enough to live on and have to claim pension credit. Lower pay and insecure work have a negative impact on mental health. The decline in the number of decent public sector jobs in the community has a chilling effect on the local economy. The dots are not joined and the wider economic costs not considered.
In some regards, the supposed benefits of outsourcing have been eroded by the reality of contracting out services in recent years. There has been a notable turn towards insourcing—the process by which a public authority takes a service that has been contracted out and brings it in-house to be delivered by directly employed staff. However, we are still a very long way from the presumption that services should be outsourced only if it can be shown that the work cannot be delivered just as effectively in-house. Hundreds of thousands of carers, cleaners, porters, security staff and catering staff in our public services workforce are among the worst-off and most insecure workers in the UK.
Creating a check on such practices should be an objective of the Bill. That could be achieved through a public interest test to require contracting authorities to think holistically and outsource public services only when it is demonstrably in the public interest and when a robust assessment provides clear evidence that the services could not be better delivered in-house.
If a contracting authority is considering outsourcing public services that are currently delivered in-house, or where contracts are due for renewal, it should ensure that outsourcing or re-contracting passes a pre-procurement test and provides greater public value than direct service provision. The new clause would require the contracting authority to
“demonstrate to the public, service users and its employees that it has thoroughly assessed the potential benefits and impact of outsourcing the service in question against a public sector comparator with assessments being based on criteria to be set by the Secretary of State from time to time, including taking a five year consideration of—
(a) service quality and accessibility;
(b) value for money of the expenditure;
(c) implications for other public services and public sector budgets;
(d) resilience of the service being provided;
(e) implications for the local economy and availability of good work in relevant sub-national labour markets;
(f) implications for public accountability and transparency;
(g) effect on employment conditions, terms and standards within the provision of the service to be outsourced and when outsourced;
(h) implications for public sector contributions to climate change targets;
(i) implications for the equalities policies of the contracting authority and compliance with the public sector equality duty.”
Importantly, the public interest test would take place pre-procurement, and not all services subject to the test would eventually go to market. To increase transparency around those services that enter into the procurement process, the Bill should mandate information about outcomes of the associated public interest test to be published.
Under the new clause, the contracting authority and the provider of the outsourced service would also be required to
“monitor the performance of any contracted service against the public interest test and the stated objectives set by the contracting authority pre-procurement to demonstrate that outsourcing the service in question has not resulted in a negative impact on any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2)(a) to (i).”
Labour is clear that we would run the biggest programme of insourcing for a generation. We recognise the value offered by those delivering outsourced services, but we have concerns about the current scale of outsourcing. New clause 3 would lay out a clear test for outsourcing, ensuring it is done only when it is in the interests of the public, and that we do not hand out public services on the cheap.
We must create a culture of value for money throughout the public sector and avoid waste wherever we can. We believe that the new clause would help to create that culture. I hope that the Minister will give it due consideration and support it.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Mundell. I can feel an air of excited sadness in the room because there is a possibility that the Committee may finish its consideration of the Bill today.
May I begin with a small correction relating to remarks that I made on 2 February when discussing dynamic markets? I stated that the current regime for dynamic markets does not remain open for new suppliers to join at any time. I was confused when I was talking about that; I was talking about the new provisions that we are making for open frameworks, where it is now possible for people to jump on. I just wanted to put that on the record.
New clause 3 would require contracting authorities always to undertake a public interest test when considering whether to outsource or continue to outsource a public sector service. Following the collapse of Carillion in January 2018 and the ongoing difficulties of some companies in the outsourcing sector, the Government’s commercial function undertook a review of what we outsource, why we outsource and how we outsource. It concluded that
“when done well, the private sector can bring efficiency, scale and fresh thinking to the delivery of public services.”
In February 2019, we published the first sourcing playbook, which captured key policy reforms for better outsourcing that contracting authorities should follow when considering how best to deliver Government services. This applies whether the contracting authority decides to outsource and deliver a service in partnership with the private and third sector, insource and use in-house resources, or do a mixture of both. That includes carrying out a make-versus-buy assessment, now referred to as a delivery model assessment, which is mandatory for central Government services in certain situations, such as the introduction of new public services or where there is a need to re-evaluate an existing service, for example because of a deterioration in the quality of delivery. It is important to emphasise that the playbook supports a range of delivery models that should be carefully considered as part of a mixed-economy approach to service delivery.
As well as in-house delivery and outsourcing, different models, such as grant making, may also be available. Hon. Members will recall that when I spoke on clause 3, I referred to the types of contracts regulated by the Bill. In particular, contracts must be for pecuniary interest, which can encompass monetary and non-monetary consideration. Contracts merely for the reimbursement of costs and without further remuneration or other direct benefit to the supplier are not covered. We do not, for example, intend the regime to capture contracts for the deployment of grants.
The sourcing playbook, which is now in its third iteration, builds on policies set out in the first sourcing playbook and is a more agile and appropriate place for this type of provision. I recently met the Business Services Association, which was extremely supportive of the playbook approach.
The tests set out in the new clause would be hugely burdensome for any contracting authority every time it is considering outsourcing or re-letting an already outsourced service. For that reason, I ask that the new clause be withdrawn.
Florence Eshalomi
I understand the Minister’s hesitancy about supporting the new clause, which he claims is because of bureaucracy. Does he recognise that many local authorities and others are conducting a big wave of insourcing, including my local authority, Lambeth Council, which decided last year to bring back its cleaning and maintenance service? The feedback from residents was that the contractors providing the outsourced service were not delivering, so the council has now brought it back in-house.
A number of local authorities under different political parties are following in the same vein. The new clause would help us to help them to look at the key issue of value for money and ensure that every pound spent on contracts delivers value for money. The new clause is not about extra bureaucracy, but about taxpayers’ money being spent on the right contracts. Does the Minister agree that the new clause would help those organisations to do that?
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady gives a very good example of how the existing regime allows for outsourcing. We are building on that: the playbook that I described is there to help all contracting authorities to make better decisions about whether they want to outsource or to keep things in-house. She is quite right that there are circumstances in which keeping things in-house is a very good thing, but we feel strongly that the new clause would create a series of unnecessary requirements when the tools to insource are already at the disposal of authorities.
Question put and negatived.
New Clause 5
Carbon reduction plans
“(1) Subject to subsection (4), contracting authorities must obtain, assess and publish a carbon reduction plan from all suppliers under consideration for qualifying contracts before entering into a public contract with any supplier.
(2) In this section, ‘qualifying contract’ means—
(a) a public contract with an average value of more than £5 million per annum (excluding VAT) over the duration of the contract,
(b) any contract to be awarded under a framework agreement anticipated to be greater than £5 million per annum (excluding VAT) in value, or
(c) any contract to be awarded by reference to a dynamic market which is anticipated to be greater than £5 million per annum (excluding VAT) in value.
(3) For a qualifying contract of the type referred to in subsection (2)(a), a ‘carbon reduction plan’ must contain—
(a) the supplier’s current greenhouse gas emissions,
(b) confirmation of the supplier’s commitment to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 for their UK supply chain, operations, products and services,
(c) intermediate targets for reductions in their greenhouse gas emissions at no more than 5 year intervals, beginning with the date of award of the contract,
(d) as far as they are able, the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to performance of the contract,
(e) as far as they are able, targets for reductions in those greenhouse gas emissions, and
(f) other environmental management measures in effect which will be applied when performing the contract.
(4) For the qualifying contracts of the type described in subsection (2)(b) and (2)(c), a carbon reduction plan should contain the matters specified in subsection (3)(a), (b) and (c) only.
(5) In complying with requirements imposed by the regulations, a contracting authority must have regard to guidance prepared from time to time by an appropriate authority.
(6) ‘Greenhouse gas’ has the meaning given in section 92 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and ‘emissions’ has the meaning given in section 97 of that Act.”—(Florence Eshalomi.)
This new clause would require company-level carbon reduction plans for bidders for certain larger contracts, including information and targets from suppliers on the emissions attributable to the performance of the contract. It also specifies that the Carbon Reduction Plan must be a key performance indicator for certain contracts.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Florence Eshalomi
New clause 5 would introduce carbon reduction targets for certain large contracts, in general those worth £5 million or more. The new clause is inspired by the Government’s own procurement policy note 06/21, which outlines their intention to take into account suppliers’ plans to reduce carbon emissions when considering large contracts.
Climate change is the biggest threat we face as the human race. Everyone in this room must recognise and agree that we need to reduce emissions urgently if we are to avoid this crisis. We must not ignore or under-appreciate the impact that reforms to our procurement system will have on our carbon emissions. However, I fear that the Bill is a missed opportunity to deliver real change in environmental standards in the procurement system.
That is particularly true considering what the Government have already chosen to remove from the Bill. Removing amendments on social value and the procurement policy statement, for example, that would have incorporated emissions will do nothing to tackle climate change in our procurement system, and there is hardly anything else in the Bill to drive real progress on carbon emissions.
Alex Burghart
New clause 5 would require contracting authorities to obtain carbon reduction plans from suppliers for contracts above £5 million per annum. In 2021, the Government implemented a procurement policy that required suppliers to provide carbon reduction plans when bidding for major Government contracts. The new clause would limit opportunities to amend and improve the policy as our ambition to achieve net zero progresses.
I assure the Committee that contracting authorities will continue to be able to take account of suppliers’ net zero commitments and carbon reduction plans, environmental targets, and climate change where they are relevant to the subject of the contract. The Bill and our existing policies already allow that in individual procurements, which is absolutely in line with the Government’s commitment to achieving net zero by 2050.
A key Government commitment is to encourage small and medium-sized enterprises into the Government supply chain. We are of course mindful of the impact that policy and legislation have on suppliers. The purpose of the Bill is to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens in the procurement regime to support SME suppliers in winning Government contracts. In our view, contracting authorities are able to deal with these matters as it stands, and we will not be supporting the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Florence Eshalomi
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would disapply section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 where a breach of non-discrimination occurs under clause 89 and is caused by a representation to the contracting authority by a Member of Parliament, a Member of the House of Lords or a senior civil servant. In practice, this would ensure that relief is granted in the case of a court finding that there has been unequal treatment between traders as a result of the type of lobbying seen in the VIP lane scandal during the covid-19 pandemic.
In the debate on amendment 103, tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, the Minister said:
“We understand—indeed, we agree with—the intent behind the amendment, but the Bill already covers such a scenario via robust requirements for contracting authorities to ensure equal treatment and address conflicts of interest. The bottom line is that if a conflict of interest puts a supplier at an unfair advantage, they must be treated as an excluded supplier and cannot be given a direct award.”––[Official Report, Procurement Public Bill Committee, 7 February 2023; c. 139.]
I do not doubt that VIP lanes would breach provisions relating to equal treatment of suppliers, and I do not doubt that those provisions were broken during the VIP lane scandal. In fact, that was at the heart of Mrs Justice O’Farrell’s ruling in the PestFix case last year, in which she stated that the operation of a high-priority VIP lane was
“in breach of the obligation of equal treatment”.
Despite that finding, the plaintiffs in the case were not awarded remedy, and it is unclear what checks and balances are in place to ensure that a future Government will not rely on VIP lanes, even when they know that their application will fall foul of the law. That is summed up by Mrs Justice O’Farrell’s closing remarks:
“In these proceedings, the Claimants have established that operation of the High Priority Lane was in breach of the obligation of equal treatment under the PCR. However, the court has found that, even if PestFix and Ayanda had not been allocated to the High Priority Lane, nevertheless they would have been treated as priority offers because of the substantial volumes of PPE they could supply that were urgently needed. Although there is public interest in the outcome of this challenge, the contracts in question have been performed (or expired) and it is sufficient that the illegality is marked by this judgment. Therefore the granting of relief does not meet the test in section 31(2B). In those circumstances, the court must refuse to grant the relief sought.”
I believe that, at its heart, that ruling shows the flaws in the current system. In debates on other amendments and clauses, I have argued for more transparency in the Bill in relation to conflicts of interest. The Minister knows that the Opposition believe that shining a light on proceedings as early as possible helps to limit the time in which illegal activities can occur. Surely, however, as the Government rejected our earlier amendments, they must see the need to tighten up the consequences of acting against the law. We know that the use of the VIP lane was illegal, and we know that companies that got into the VIP lane were 10 times more likely to win a contract, but the fact is that we do not know whether there have been any real consequences associated with the use of the illegal VIP lane.
I hope the Minister will agree that the public are rightly angry about the use of the VIP lane. They are angry that billions of pounds were wasted on personal protective equipment that was not up to standard. They expect to see justice when illegal activities are carried out. What is the point of putting laws in place if there are no consequences? New clause 6 would tighten up action against activity that breaches rules on conflicts of interest by ensuring that the courts are able to grant relief when lobbying by MPs, peers or senior civil servants results in unfair treatment. I hope the Committee will support the new clause.
Alex Burghart
New clause 6 would, in circumstances where a breach of the non-discrimination principle in clause 89 was caused by a representation to the contracting authority by an MP, lord or senior civil servant, disapply section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 in the context of any judicial review.
Section 31(2A) essentially prohibits a court from granting relief, including awarding damages, where it is highly likely that the conduct complained of did not make a significant difference to the contracting authority’s decision. In other words, the intention of the new clause is to enable a court to grant relief when lobbying for a contract to be awarded to a particular supplier has led to alleged unequal treatment, even where the contracting authority can demonstrate that it would have selected the chosen supplier regardless of any lobbying.
While I understand that the new clause is motivated by a desire to ensure consequences if an MP, lord or senior civil servant lobbies a contracting authority to award a contract to a certain bidder, resulting in the unequal treatment of other suppliers, the Bill is crystal clear with respect to conflicts of interest, and there are consequences if those statutory duties are breached. Clause 81(3) states that if
“a conflict of interest puts a supplier at an unfair advantage”
and if steps to mitigate cannot avoid that advantage, the supplier must be excluded.
Under part 9, suppliers may seek legal remedies, including relief, if they have suffered or are at risk of suffering loss or damages as a result of a breach of statutory duties. Suppliers that have lost out on contracts as a result of such unlawful behaviour are best placed to hold contracting authorities to account.
Additionally, in respect of suspected non-compliances with the Bill, including conflicts of interest that put a supplier at an unfair advantage, an appropriate authority can investigate upon the request of any party, using part 10 of the Bill or other powers, and issue recommendations if commercial practices do not comply with the Bill’s provisions. There is simply no need for the Bill, which has additional remedies for breach of statutory duty, to start interfering with the rule of law applicable to judicial review claims. As a result, we respectfully ask that the new clause be withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. We have only been here half an hour and it is like we have never been away.
New clause 7 would require the Secretary of State for Defence to conduct a review of procurement of fleet solid support ships by the end of 2023. In November 2022, the £1.6 billion contract for fleet solid support ships was awarded to a Spanish-led consortium, Navantia UK, over the rival bidder, Team UK, which included major British defence companies such as Babcock, BAE Systems, Cammell Laird and A&P. At least 40% of the value of the work—about £640 million—will go abroad. My colleagues and I have questioned the Government on numerous occasions about whether there is a limit on how many jobs will be created in Spain and why there are no targets for UK steel in the contract. The Government are yet to give concrete answers. That is exactly why we need the new clause. It is vital that we review the contract to ensure that the promise of work and jobs in Britain is kept.
The new clause outlines key points that we believe must be reviewed. The first is about UK build work. Subsection (2) states that the review must consider
“the total amount of expected UK build work for each Fleet Solid Support ship”
and
“the number of UK jobs and Spanish jobs that have been created so far as a result of awarding the contract for Fleet Solid Support ships to ‘Team Resolute’”.
It is reported that Team UK’s bid would have generated more than 6,000 jobs and supported a full onshore build of the ships. The bid also promised an investment of £90 million in shipyards and a further £54 million in training, apprenticeships and improving the skills base.
Alex Burghart
It is a pleasure to respond to the debate on new clause 7, which mandates a review of the procurement of the fleet solid support ships programme and requires findings to be published by the end of the year. Replying to my friend the hon. Member for Islwyn on this subject is sadly reminiscent of the second Anthony Joshua versus Usyk fight, where Joshua bravely, but unfortunately, deployed similar tactics to the ones he had used previously and met the same conclusion. The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to hear that monitoring is already part of the MOD’s approach to the programme. The MOD will track the process of the overall FSS programme, as well as social value and recapitalisation activities, through regular governance forums such as the project delivery board and the recapitalisation and social value committee.
In support of the forums, Team Resolute is obliged to produce regular reports demonstrating the progress achieved. Examples include reports detailing execution against Harland & Wolff’s shipyard infrastructure works commitments, and earned value progress in terms of design development and the ship build. Additionally, regular site visits will be undertaken by expert personnel in the Department.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the contract will bring hundreds of jobs to the UK. The majority of the contract spend will take place in the UK, with most manufacture activities taking place in UK shipyards in Belfast and Appledore. All three ships will be integrated at Belfast, along with all testing and commissioning. As he knows, these are large ships, second only in length to the carriers. The use of a world-class auxiliary shipbuilder allows for technology and skills transfer to the UK, and for UK capability and employment to sustainably step up to deliver this contract. Team Resolute also said that it intends to use UK-sourced steel wherever it is practical to do so, and steel will be procured in accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines. It is sad to hear the hon. Gentleman talking this great programme down.
All this work will enable early identification and mitigation action against the risk of non-delivery. Key performance indicators for the programme will be reported against, with several relating to UK labour and the UK supply chain. MOD Ministers will receive regular updates throughout the programme, particularly in relation to UK skills development and ramp-up in the initial stages of the contract. That will supplement other regular reporting on FSS that the MOD has committed to providing to His Majesty’s Treasury.
The Bill sets out the framework for public procurement for contracting authorities generally across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is therefore not appropriate to set out requirements for one specific project, the timescale for which is finite. For those reasons, I respectfully request that the amendment be withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Chris Evans
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I must say this, given the shared interest that my friend the Minister and I have in boxing—I was going to stay away from the boxing metaphors, but I think this will be the last time I speak in this Bill Committee. We recently marked St Valentine’s Day, and he will remember the “St Valentine’s Day massacre”, when Jake LaMotta faced Ray Robinson, and after Ray Robinson trapped Jake LaMotta on the ropes and the fight was stopped, LaMotta ran after Robinson, shouting, “You didn’t knock me down, Ray! You didn’t knock me down!” Considering that the Government have won on all the new clauses, I feel like shouting at the Minister, “You didn’t knock me down! You didn’t knock me down!”
New clause 8 would require the NAO to conduct an audit of waste in Ministry of Defence procurement and to provide recommendations on how better contract management might minimise the loss of taxpayers’ money, and then require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on whether the NAO’s recommendations had been accepted. I touched on the issue of waste in my previous speech, but I want to take this opportunity to re-examine the severe levels of waste in the Ministry of Defence. I speak not just as the shadow Minister but as one who was a member of the Public Accounts Committee for five years. I could give this Committee numerous examples of the permanent secretary sitting quite uncomfortably in his seat, answering questions mainly around the defence equipment plan and other such documents that came before the PAC. To be honest, it was embarrassing and uncomfortable, but that is where the Ministry of Defence has been for the last couple of years.
Labour’s “Dossier of waste in the Ministry of Defence 2010-2021”, published last year, confirmed that the MOD has wasted at least £15 billion of taxpayers’ money since 2010, with £5 billion since 2019, while the current Defence Secretary has been in post. Waste in the procurement system has become engrained. This needs to change urgently. I have alluded to the defence equipment plan; when mistakes were pointed out by the NAO, very often the Ministry of Defence response was a shrug of the shoulders and, “So what?” Very often the defence equipment plan was sent back because it was inaccurate and had been drawn up very sloppily, but again, the MOD just shrugged its shoulders. This is why we would commission the National Audit Office to conduct an audit of waste, setting out any instances of waste in Ministry of Defence procurement.
We have set out five definitions of “waste in procurement”, which can all be evidenced in the current procurement system. They are: overspend on initially planned budgets; assets being withdrawn or scrapped, or prepaid services terminated; a contract being cancelled; a contract being extended beyond the initially agreed timescale; and administrative errors that have had a negative financial impact. Everyone might be aware of the key examples of waste, but I feel that they should be mentioned again in order to truly depict the problem in defence procurement. They include £595 million written off with the cancellation of the Warrior armoured vehicle sustainment programme, £231 million wasted by writing off armoured vehicles such as Mastiffs, Ridgebacks and Wolfhounds earlier than planned, and £530 million on overspends relating to the Protector drone programme. The Labour party’s dossier of waste also found that £64 million was wasted on administrative errors.
A shiver goes up my spine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney when I mention the delayed Ajax project, which is based in our constituencies. I have been following this project. General Dynamics, which runs the Ajax programme, has its headquarters in my constituency, and it has a facility in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. Ajax is a perfect example of waste in procurement. The initial planned budget was set at £5.5 billion, with 589 armoured vehicles ordered and expected to be delivered and in service by 2017. Now, in 2023—six years later—the MOD has spent £3.2 billion and only 26 vehicles have been delivered. There are also reports that Ajax will now cost an extra £1 billion or more if all 580 vehicles are still bought.The Ajax programme has been set back by delays, mismanagement and various design and development problems, all adding costs that are being paid for by the taxpayer.
An NAO audit of waste would evaluate programmes like Ajax, analyse at which points in the programme issues start to arise, and identify whether they are trends in procurement programmes across the MOD. The recommendations from the NAO audit would be vital to minimise wasted public money. Ajax is the perfect example of how the costs of delays become built into the procurement process. I have been told by members of the Business Services Association that delays in the system cause the biggest cost, and that their potential impact on the length of procurement contracts actually puts off many from bidding on defence contracts. It is wrong that our system has become a deterrent for British businesses instead of an incentive.
Alex Burghart
I am very happy to play Ray Robinson to the hon. Gentleman’s LaMotta. He will remember fondly, as I do, that Jake LaMotta said, “I fought Sugar Ray Robinson so many times, it is a wonder I don’t have diabetes.” I will cease the boxing chat there, Mr Mundell, lest you get up and bite off my ear, as Mike Tyson did to Evander Holyfield in their second fight.
I am pleased to hear the hon. Member for Islwyn say that value for money and transparency lie at the heart of the Bill, because they do, and it is because of those principles that we feel the new clause is unnecessary. However, it is also unnecessary because the National Audit Office already conducts a yearly audit of the defence equipment plan and undertakes regular audits on defence programmes. Further scrutiny of the performance of defence programmes is undertaken by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which tracks the progress of projects currently in the Government major projects portfolio, the details of which are published in its annual review. As an independent statutory body, the NAO decides independently of Government where to focus its resources, and determines what projects and public bodies it audits at what point in time. The new clause would interfere with its statutory independence.
At the heart of the proposal is a desire to see defence procurement improve—an objective the Government share—but I encourage the Committee to follow closely the implementation of the Government’s defence and security industrial strategy, published in March 2021, which will increase the pace, agility and management of the Ministry of Defence’s acquisition process. We respectfully request that the new clause be withdrawn.
The Chair
I do not know much about boxing, but I know that when there is no knockout, the judges decide.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Florence Eshalomi
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would enable a future procurement system to mandate that procurement transactions be carried out in a specific way. It would build on the powers in clause 95 relating to procurement transactions, but take those powers further to ensure that everyone undertaking procurement under this regime uses a well-designed, specified system that is common throughout.
It is rare in a Bill Committee for the Opposition to propose giving unrestrained and optional power to the Government via an amendment or new clause, so I hope the Minister is delighted by our new clause. It is almost a knockout clause, I would say. We understand, and indeed welcome, the measures to introduce some degree of commonality across procurement through methods such as a single online system. Commonality within the procurement system brings many advantages. It can save contracting authorities the time, effort and money of running individual systems; boost the public’s understanding of procurement data and mechanisms, indirectly boosting transparency; and make our procurement system easier to navigate for suppliers, helping SMEs to bid for contracts efficiently, rather than having to shape-shift around the application process.
Around the world, increased commonality has been seen to increase efficiency and create a system that is the envy of the world. The Minister need only speak to one of his own party’s MPs, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), about Ukraine’s ProZorro procurement system. Systems such as ProZorro and the Republic of Korea’s procurement system bring in a specified system that is used by everyone and that uses cutting edge digital technology to reduce bureaucracy. That was referenced in the Government’s Green Paper on procurement, which said:
“This lack of standardisation, transparency and interoperability is preventing the UK from harnessing the opportunities that open, common and shared data could bring. The ability to analyse spend, manage suppliers, counter fraud and corruption and see inside the supply chain to ensure compliance with government policies. The experience of other nations (e.g. Ukraine and South Korea) is that driving forward with a clear digital procurement strategy focused on transparency results in greater participation and increased value for money driven by competition.”
There is already international precedent for the introduction of a specified procurement system, and the Government have stated these lofty aims, so why should the Bill not make provision to go further?
Our new clause would not mandate immediate action, because we know that this would be complex and take time to set up. However, should this Government or a future one want to introduce a Ukraine-style system, it would be a shame if they found that difficult under the Bill. I therefore hope that the Minister will agree with us and support the new clause.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady’s new clause is on the procurement transaction system. We are absolutely delighted with the Opposition’s enthusiasm for our online system.
The Bill already contains provisions for the establishment of the online system for the purpose of publishing notices, documents and other information under clause 93. It also requires the online system to be free of charge and accessible for people with disabilities. Furthermore, as the Committee will remember, clause 95 requires certain information to be shared in a particular way, including through a specified online system, and requires contracting authorities to keep records of any communication between the authority and a supplier that is made for the purposes of, or in connection with, a covered procurement.
The online system will enable everyone to have better access to public procurement data, in particular because the detailed input received during the early design of the Bill from countries such as Ukraine and South Korea, which have specialist knowledge of designing procurement transparency systems. I am honoured to be able to say that my next meeting after this sitting is with the Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine, at which we will discuss this very issue. I will thank him for his country’s input to our work going forward in the Cabinet Office.
Florence Eshalomi
Does the Minister not feel that the meeting would be even more beneficial and fantastic if he were to tell the Deputy Prime Minister that he had accepted the new clause?
Alex Burghart
I will be delighted to tell our friends in Ukraine that, because of the advice they gave us earlier, there is no need for the new clause. We have a great partnership with Ukraine, which straddles many areas, and a growing number of them. We have benefited from the Ukrainians’ expertise, and from that of colleagues in South Korea, which has very advanced digital government and economy.
As a result of the work we have done and are doing, citizens will be able to scrutinise spending decisions, suppliers will be able to identify new opportunities to bid and collaborate, and buyers will be able to analyse the market and benchmark their performance against others on spending with SMEs. The Government have already committed to sharing procurement information through the online system, and the new clause would simply replicate requirements that are in the Bill already.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall asked how we know whether future Governments will be bound, but the proposal will happen within the lifetime of this Government. The Government are committed to it, to delivering on it and to learning from the experiences of colleagues abroad. We therefore respectfully ask that the new clause be withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Florence Eshalomi
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 16 would ensure that contracting authorities give mind to social value when considering violence against women and girls services. Throughout the course of the Committee, we have spoken at great length about social value. I remain concerned that the Bill does not give social value the prominence it needs. There are many areas that would benefit from the consideration of social value, but there is a particular case for it to be fully considered in violence against women and girls services.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chair
Order. I will call Lloyd Russell-Moyle next, as he was referenced in the shadow Minister’s speech.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I rise to support new clause 16 because of what happened in Brighton, which showed that it is important to have overall guidelines rather than discretionary guidance on this issue. In that case, there were multiple contracting parties, including Brighton and Hove City Council. I have no doubt that, had it contracted the service on its own, it would have seen the value of the important work that RISE has done for decades in the city. RISE is led by women, for women. It fights domestic violence, saving and supporting women who have undergone it, and provides refuge as well as counselling support for the women and their children. However, the contract was given jointly by Sussex police, East Sussex County Council and, partly, West Sussex County Council, and the social provisions in Brighton and Hove City Council’s guidelines did not match up with the social provisions in East Sussex’s guidelines. My understanding is that there were no provisions in the Sussex police guidelines.
When the contract went out for joint tender, the sections that were not compatible with each other were removed, because they were voluntary. This new clause would prevent that from happening again. In the case of RISE, it would have enabled the service to be provided. Instead, the contract was given to a housing association. I am sure it is a lovely, well-meaning organisation, but it is a housing association, not a specialist domestic violence organisation or a women-led organisation. It is not an organisation that has any roots in the city.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for giving such a powerful reminder of why this new clause is so important. He said that the contract was given to a housing association. Does he agree that the women who need this specialist service may not feel comfortable going to a housing association, because part of their issues and problems arise from housing?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Quite right. This housing association had no footprint at all in Brighton and Hove and a very limited footprint in East Sussex. The women who were in that organisation’s housing might find it more difficult to go to them, because it is not a truly independent service.
Whether that is the case or not, what then happened was that the refuges and some of the counselling services that are provided in the city were sub-contracted out to some of the RISE people. So RISE picked up some bits of work, but not all of it. It could not offer the women wraparound support, just support in some very specific areas, so the service potentially became worse for women. A top-slice of the money has been taken out of the area for management and bid-writing fees and costs, which such organisations all take, and given to an organisation that is based nowhere near Sussex and does not have that specialism.
When women then complained and protested during covid, through covid-compliant protests, they were threatened by the police and told their protest was wrong and that they should not be protesting. Interestingly, the police allowed my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and me to address the covid-compliant demonstration. There was no problem with that; it was only as we left that the police pounced on the women organisers, in front of their children, and tried to fine them. That was particularly egregious. I represented those women and said that I would give statements to support them, and in the end the police dropped the case.
Even when women tried to speak up, they were abused and harassed by the police—they were women who have come through domestic violence and who have been RISE service-users. It was important to commission RISE, but it was also important that women themselves had their voices heard. At all stages—in the commissioning and the outcome—women’s voices were removed and shut down. New clause 16 would give that protection.
Even if the Minister does not support the new clause—I would like him to, but I assume he might not—I hope he will reassure us that he will strengthen the section in the guidelines on women-specific services, such as those who have suffered domestic abuse, and place additional emphasis put on ensuring that local women’s voices are heard, while also allowing some of the competitive tendering to be waived. That is already possible, but we need stronger guidelines, particularly for multi-authority procurement. We will push the new clause to a vote, but I hope the Minister provides those reassurances, as I suspect we all broadly agree on the issue.
Alex Burghart
New clause 16 seeks to ensure that authorities have regard to social value when carrying out procurement for services to support victims of violence against women and girls. Before I discuss the specifics, I should say that the Committee has debated over several days the centrality to this legislation of the fact that we are moving from a world of most economically advantageous tender to most advantageous tender—from MEAT to MAT. That gives contracting authorities the opportunity to make decisions that are not based solely on economic advantage. That will cover all areas, not just the specific area outlined in the new clause.
There is already a legal requirement in this area. Contracting authorities are already required to consider how social value might be improved for all types of service contracts under the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012. That Act requires the authority to consider when placing a public service contract
“how what is proposed to be procured might improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area where the authority primarily exercises its functions, and how, in conducting the process of procurement, it might act with a view to securing that improvement.”
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the Minister for his remarks, but does he understand the concerns raised by local and national women’s charities? They say that the current guidance does not go far enough and, in their experience, they feel the guidance is ignored in many cases or given very little weighting in the contracts that are then awarded. Does the Minister agree that those organisations have valid concerns?
Alex Burghart
I understand what the hon. Lady is saying. Obviously, the 2012 Act will continue to apply to procurement of services to support victims of violence against women and girls. Moreover, the public benefit objective in clause 12(1)(b) requires contracting authorities to consider the extent to which public money spent on their contracts can deliver greater social value than it otherwise would, for example by encouraging local specialist service providers that understand the particular needs of the communities they serve.
With the combination of existing legislation and this new legislation, with its emphasis on MAT rather than MEAT, we feel that the duty in new clause 16 already exists in law. I therefore respectfully ask that the new clause be withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Florence Eshalomi
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As we have discussed at length, we feel that public procurement can be a hugely important tool in using the power of the state to drive specific outcomes. That is why the rules and framework that the Bill sets out are so important, and why it is right that the Committee scrutinises them.
Often, we think of the power of procurement simply in terms of outcomes, or perhaps in terms of the economic benefit that can be delivered by the right procurement decisions, but we must not lose sight of procurement’s ethical dimension. Ethical considerations should, and inevitably will, arise during discussions about procurement.
The power of procurement can be used to send a message that we as a country do not condone certain actions or wrongdoing by another country. It should be a totally legitimate position for our country not to procure goods from countries that have committed human rights abuses or war crimes. However, as it stands, the Bill fails to account for that.
New clause 18 seeks to set out a framework for ethical considerations during procurement decisions. It would enable public authorities to choose not to buy goods or services from countries based on their human rights records. In that respect, the new clause would allow for human rights abuses, specifically, to affect procurement decisions.
Human rights abuses are crimes of a different order, and I am sure that colleagues on both sides of the Committee agree that our country should condemn them. We have a proud history in the development of modern international humanitarian law, from the ashes of world war two and the creation of the United Nations, to the role we continue to play on the world stage. We have always defended the fundamental and absolute rights of all human beings. The new clause would further that endeavour and embed its principles in procurement law.
However, if procurement decisions made in respect of human rights are to have the greatest impact, it is vital that they are applied across the board. Indeed, it would be contrary to the spirit and letter of the proposed provisions if they were used to single out individual nations. Therefore, the new clause clearly states that contracting authorities must produce a document to set out their policy on procurement and human rights, which must be developed in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State. This will ensure that there is consistency in how contracting authorities decide on these matters.
The practical effect of that will be to make it clear and unambiguous that if a contracting authority does not wish to procure goods from Russia because of President Putin’s abhorrent human rights abuses in Ukraine, the law will be on its side. Equally, if the same authority does not wish to procure services from China because of the appalling treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, the law will be on its side. However, if an authority acted only against a particular state, while turning a blind eye to human rights abuses elsewhere, the new clause would make such actions illegal.
Our party is clear that actions that seek to isolate and target particular states are wrong and should not be tolerated. The new clause would therefore prohibit such actions. Human rights considerations must be applied fairly and consistently, and that is what the framework set out in the new clause would provide for.
The provisions of the new clause are reasonable and proportionate. They would embed our country’s proud humanitarian principles in procurement law. I hope that all Members will agree that this is a serious issue, especially given what is being played out across the world, and I hope that they and the Minister will support the inclusion of the new clause in the Bill.
Alex Burghart
New clause 18, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), would allow public authorities to apply their own policies, under which they would not procure from certain countries because of those countries’ human rights conduct.
It is obviously right and good that human rights abuses have no place in public supply chains, but the new clause is unnecessary and would give authorities too broad a discretion to apply blanket boycotts. Although the new clause would not allow for the singling-out of individual countries, it would allow authorities to exclude suppliers from entire nations without any consideration of whether a supplier itself has had any involvement in abuses or of the steps a supplier has taken to self-clean, both of which are important features of the new exclusions regime to manage risk appropriately and fairly.
Excluding suppliers based on where they are located would be disproportionate and in some cases would be contrary to the UK’s international obligations. The Bill already contains a robust regime for the exclusion of suppliers that are unfit to hold public contracts. Schedules 6 and 7 set out a wide range of exclusion grounds that target the most serious risks to public procurement, including modern slavery and human trafficking. We have taken action to strengthen the way in which those terms are defined, so that suppliers may be excluded where there is sufficient evidence that they are responsible for human rights abuses anywhere in the world, whether or not they have been convicted of an offence.
Guidance already exists to help contracting authorities to address human rights risks and there is well-established practice during procurements. The guidance is detailed, at over 40 pages long, and includes sections on managing risk from new procurements to assessing existing contracts, taking action when victims of modern slavery are identified, supply chain mapping, useful tools, training, and questions to ask.
I will also highlight the new debarment regime provided for in the Bill, which allows Ministers to consider whether any supplier meets one of the grounds for exclusion and whether the issues in question are likely to recur. Suppliers on the debarment list face exclusion across the public sector. This is a significant step forward in our approach to supplier misconduct.
We respectfully request that the new clause be withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Alex Burghart
Thank you, Mr Mundell, for chairing so ably and excellently. I thank the Clerks for their fantastic work. I thank my tireless officials, without whose expertise I would not know what to do. I thank Committee members on both sides of the divide. It is only fair to record in Hansard that the Committee has been good-natured, intelligent and at times almost enjoyable. I thank His Majesty’s loyal Opposition for supporting the overall thrust of the Bill, although they do not agree with every detail. We left it in better shape than when it arrived, and I look forward to working with everyone to take it through Report and to Royal Assent.
Florence Eshalomi
I echo the Minister’s comments. I formally thank the Clerks—Sarah, Chris and Huw—for their endless emails and helping me to understand the groupings and procedure. I will be honest and let hon. Members know that this is my first time leading on a Bill Committee. Many years ago, trying to tell a girl from a council estate in Brixton that she would be leading for the Opposition on such a technical Bill would have been out of the question.
The issues that we have discussed are so important. I hope the Minister will see from some of the points that we have made and the amendments that we have tabled that we have an opportunity to ensure that procurement works for everybody, including those from council estates, who may not understand it but will see the impact on their everyday lives. I look forward to discussing the Bill robustly with the Minister again as it goes through its next phases.
The Chair
Thank you. Of course, Ms Blackman put her thanks on the record on Thursday 9th. The great disappointment for me is that I am debarred from taking part in any future proceedings on the Bill. I, too, thank Committee members for the way in which they have engaged. I am sure we would also like to convey our thanks to Mr Efford for his chairing. I know that he will be deeply disappointed that there will not be a sitting this afternoon.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Procurement Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 13th June 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 June 2023 - large print - (13 Jun 2023)
16:47 - The House divided: - Ayes: 231 / Noes: 282 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:02 - The House divided: - Ayes: 230 / Noes: 280 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 225 / Noes: 288 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:25 - The House divided: - Ayes: 229 / Noes: 280 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 1—Removal from the procurement supply chain of physical surveillance equipment produced by companies subject to the National Intelligence Law of the People’s Republic of China—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a timeline for the removal from the Government’s procurement supply chain of physical surveillance equipment produced by companies subject to the National Intelligence Law of the People’s Republic of China.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay the timeline before Parliament.”
New clause 9—Application of this Act to procurement by NHS England—
“(1) Omit sections 79 and 80 of the Health and Care Act 2022.
(2) For the avoidance of doubt, the provisions of this Act apply to procurement by NHS England.”
This new clause includes the NHS under this Act and procurement by NHS England under the Health and Care Act 2022.
New clause 10—Tax transparency—
“(1) This section applies to any covered procurement for a public contract with an estimated value of £5 million or over.
(2) When assessing tenders under section 19 or awarding a contract under section 41 or 43, a contracting authority must require the submission of a tax report where a supplier is a multi-national supplier.
(3) Where a multi-national supplier fails to submit a tax report, a contracting authority must exclude the supplier from participating in, or progressing as part of, the competitive tendering procedure.
(4) Subject to subsection (5), a contracting authority that enters into a contract with a multi-national supplier must publish a copy of the tax report—
(a) if the contract is a light touch contract, before the end of the period of 120 days beginning with the day on which the contract is entered into;
(b) otherwise, before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which the contract is entered into.
(5) Where a copy of a contract is by virtue of regulations under section 95 published under section 53(3) on a specified online system, the tax report relating to that contract must be published on the same specified online system—
(a) if the contract is a light touch contract, before the end of the period of 120 days beginning with the day on which the contract is entered into;
(b) otherwise, before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which the contract is entered into.
(6) A ‘multi-national supplier’ is a supplier with two or more enterprises that are resident for tax purposes in two or more different jurisdictions.
(7) A ‘tax report’ means a report setting out—
(a) the income booked in the UK,
(b) the profit before tax attributable to the UK,
(c) the corporate income tax paid on a cash basis in the UK,
(d) the corporate income tax accrued on profit/loss attributable to the UK, and
(e) any other information specified in regulations under section 95
for the multinational supplier.
(8) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations amend this section for the purpose of changing the financial threshold.”
This new clause would require large multinational corporations bidding for a public contract to provide information about their Income booked in the UK, their profit before tax attributable to the UK, their corporate income tax paid on a cash basis in the UK and their corporate income tax accrued on profit/loss attributable to the UK, and that information to be published.
New clause 11—Public interest—
“(1) Where a contracting authority is considering outsourcing public services that are at the time of consideration delivered in-house or where contracts are due for renewal, the contracting authority must demonstrate that they have considered whether outsourcing or re-contracting provides greater public value than direct service provision.
(2) As part of the duty in subsection (1), the contracting authority should demonstrate that it has assessed the potential benefits and impact of outsourcing the service in question against a public sector comparator with assessments being based on criteria to be set by the Secretary of State, including taking a five year consideration of—
(a) service quality and accessibility;
(b) value for money of the expenditure;
(c) implications for other public services and public sector budgets;
(d) resilience of the service being provided;
(e) implications for the local economy and availability of good work in relevant sub-national labour markets;
(f) implications for public accountability and transparency;
(g) effect on employment conditions, terms and standards within the provision of the service to be outsourced and when outsourced;
(h) implications for public sector contributions to climate change and environmental targets;
(i) implications for the equalities policies of the contracting authority and compliance with the public sector equality duty.
(3) The contracting authority and the supplier of the outsourced service must monitor the performance of any contracted service against the public interest test and the stated objectives set by the contracting authority pre-procurement to demonstrate that outsourcing the service in question has not resulted in a negative impact on any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2)(a) to (i).
(4) The Secretary of State must from time to time set budget thresholds for when a public interest test would be required.”
The new clause would create a process to ensure that contracting authorities safeguard the public interest when considering whether or not to outsource or recontract services.
New clause 12—Protection of subcontractors’ payments under construction contracts—
“(1) A project bank account must be established for the purpose of subsections (2) to (4) in accordance with the following requirements—
(a) the account must be set up by the contracting authority and the contractor under a construction contract as joint account-holders;
(b) the monies in the account are held in trust by the contracting authority and contractor as joint trustees;
(c) the contracting authority must deposit in the account all sums becoming due to the beneficiaries and any disputed sums must remain in the account until the dispute is resolved and any retention monies remain in the account until they are released to the beneficiaries;
(d) due payments from the account must be made to all beneficiaries simultaneously; and
(e) the beneficiaries include—
(i) the contractor;
(ii) all subcontractors where the value of each subcontract is at least 1% of the value (excluding VAT) of the construction contract entered into between the contracting authority and the contractor; and
(iii) any other subcontractor which has specifically requested that its payments be discharged through the account.
(2) Subsections (3) and (4) have application to construction contracts having a value in excess of £2 million (excluding VAT).
(3) Not later than 30 days after entering into a construction contract a contracting authority must ensure that a project bank account is in place.
(4) In the event that a contracting authority fails to comply with this subsection the construction contract ceases to be valid and may not be enforced by either party.
(5) The Secretary of State must provide statutory guidance on the operation of project bank accounts to ensure that such operation is standardised amongst all contracting authorities.
(6) Subsections (7) to (10) apply where retention monies are not protected within a project bank account.
(7) The contracting authority must establish a retention deposit account with a bank or building society which fulfils the requirements of subsection (1)(a) and (b).
(8) On each occasion that retention monies are withheld the contracting authority must lodge them within the retention deposit account and maintain a record of the names of each subcontractor having contributed to the withheld monies and the amount of the monies contributed by each.
(9) Subject to subsection (10), not later than 30 days after the date of handover of each subcontracted works at least 50% of the withheld retention monies must be released, and not later than the date which is 12 months from the date of handover of each subcontracted works the balance of the retention monies must be released.
(10) A contracting authority has a right of recourse to subcontractors’ retention monies but such right is limited to any subcontractor which is in default of its subcontract in having delivered works which are defective and in breach of the subcontract.
(11) Paragraphs (9) and (10) also apply where retention monies are protected in a project bank account.
(12) Non-compliance with subsections (6) to (11) renders any entitlement to withhold retention monies in a construction contract or subcontracts of no effect.
(13) Subsections (6) to (12) do not affect the right of any subcontractor to pursue recovery of any outstanding or wrongfully withheld retention monies against its other contracting party.
(14) The Secretary of State must provide statutory guidance on the operation of retention deposit accounts to ensure such operation is standardized amongst all contracting authorities.
(15) Any dispute under this section is referrable to adjudication in accordance with section 108 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.
(16) The Secretary of State must carry out a review of the operation of this section within 5 years of it coming into force.
(17) In this section—
“bank” has the meaning given to it in section 2 of the Banking Act 2009;
“building society” has the meaning given to it in section 119 of the Building Societies Act 1986;
“contractor” is the party engaged under a construction contract with a contracting authority;
“construction contract” has the meaning given to it in section 104, Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996;
“handover of each subcontracted works” signifies the date when the works as defined in each subcontract are substantially complete;
“project bank account” is an account set up with a bank or building society which has the requirements listed in subsection (2);
“retention monies” mean a proportion of monies withheld from payments which would otherwise be due under a construction contract, subcontract or any ancillary contract the effect of which is to provide security for the current or future performance by the party carrying out the works;
“subcontract” and “subcontractor” includes sub-subcontracts and sub-subcontractors.”
This new clause ring-fences monies due to subcontractors in construction supply chains through mandating use of project bank accounts and ensuring retention monies are safeguarded in a separate and independent account.
New clause 13—Dependence on high-risk states—
“(1) The Secretary of State must within six months publish a plan to reduce the dependence of public bodies upon goods and services which originate in whole or in part in a country considered by the United Kingdom as a high risk sourcing country.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a country is considered a high risk sourcing country by the United Kingdom if it is defined as either a systemic competitor or a threat in the latest Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy.”
New clause 14—Procurement and human rights—
“(1) A contracting authority may apply a policy under which it does not contract for the supply of goods, services or works from a foreign country or territory based on the conduct of that foreign country or territory relating to human rights, provided that—
(a) the contracting authority has a Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights, and
(b) that statement of policy is applied consistently and not specifically to any one foreign country or territory.
(2) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish, and lay before Parliament, guidance on the form, content and application of Statements of Policy Relating to Human Rights for the purposes of subsection (1).
(3) Contracting authorities must have regard to the guidance published under subsection (2) when applying a policy in accordance with subsection (1).”
This new clause would enable public authorities to choose not to buy goods or services from countries based on their human rights record. They would not be able to single out individual nations to apply such a policy to, but would have to apply it consistently, and in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State.
New clause 16—Eradicating slavery and human trafficking in supply chains—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make such provision as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate with a view to eradicating the use in covered procurement of goods or services that are tainted by slavery and human trafficking.
(2) The regulations may, in particular, include—
(a) provision as to circumstances in which a supplier is excluded from consideration for the award of a contract;
(b) provision as to steps that must be taken by contracting authorities for assessing and addressing the risk of slavery and human trafficking taking place in relation to people involved in procurement supply chains;
(c) provision as to matters for which provision must be made in contracts for goods or services entered into by contracting authorities, including mandating or enabling the use of forensic supply chain tracing.
(3) In this section— “forensic supply chain tracing” is the process of using forensic techniques to track the movement of goods and services through a supply chain; “slavery and human trafficking” has the meaning given by section 54(12) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015; “tainted”: goods or services are “tainted” by slavery and human trafficking if slavery and human trafficking takes place in relation to anyone involved in the supply chain for providing those goods or services.”
New clause 17—Food procurement—
“(1) A public contract which includes the supply of food must include provisions ensuring that the supply of food under that contract—
(a) is aligned with the Eatwell Guide, and
(b) includes options suitable for a plant-based diet.
(2) The ‘Eatwell Guide’ is the policy tool used to define government recommendations on eating healthily and achieving a balanced diet published by Public Health England on 17 March 2016, as updated from time to time.”
This new clause would require public contracts for the supply of food to be aligned with current nutritional guidelines and to include plant-based options.
Amendment 14, in clause 2, page 2, line 15, after “funds,” insert “including the NHS,”.
This amendment includes the NHS in the definition of a public authority for the purposes of this Act.
Government amendments 19 and 20.
Amendment 60, in clause 13, page 10, line 11, at end insert—
“(3A) When the Minister lays the statement before Parliament, the Minister must also lay before Parliament a report which sets out—
(a) the Secretary of State’s assessment of the impact of the statement on meeting environmental and climate targets,
(b) the steps the Secretary of State has taken or intends to take in relation to procurement to support the meeting of those targets.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to explain in a report laid before Parliament the Government’s assessment of the impact of the national procurement policy statement on meeting environmental and climate targets and to set out any intended steps in relation to the meeting of those targets.
Amendment 4, in clause 19, page 13, line 31, at end insert—
“(aa) must disregard any tender from a supplier that does not guarantee the payment of at least the Real Living Wage to all its own employees and contracted staff and those of any sub-contractors;”
This amendment, together with Amendments 5 to 8, is designed to ensure that no public contract can be let unless the supplier guarantees the payment of the Real Living Wage to all those involved in the delivery of the contract.
Amendment 5, in clause 41, page 28, line 26, at end insert—
“(3A) A contracting authority may not award a contract under this section to a supplier that does not guarantee the payment of at least the Real Living Wage to all its own employees and contracted staff and those of any sub-contractors.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 4.
Amendment 1, in clause 42, page 29, line 14, at end insert—
“(3A) Provision under subsection (1) must not confer any preferential treatment on suppliers connected to or recommended by members of the House of Commons or members of the House of Lords.”
This amendment is intended to prevent the future use of “VIP lanes” for public contracts.
Government amendments 21 to 23.
Amendment 6, in clause 43, page 30, line 3, at end insert—
“(5A) A contracting authority may not award a contract under subsection (1) to a supplier that does not guarantee the payment of at least the Real Living Wage to all its own employees and contracted staff and those of any sub-contractors.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 4.
Amendment 2, in clause 44, page 30, line 16, at end insert—
“(4) Any Minister of the Crown, Member of Parliament, Member of the House of Lords or senior civil servant involved in recommending a supplier for a contract under section 41 or 43 must make a public declaration to the Cabinet Office of any private financial interest in that supplier within 10 working days.”
This amendment would implement a recommendation by the National Audit Office that any contracts awarded under emergency provisions or direct awards should include transparency declarations.
Amendment 7, in clause 45, page 31, line 6, at end insert—
“(aa) permit the award of a public contract to a supplier that does not guarantee the payment of at least the Real Living Wage to all its own employees and contracted staff and those of any sub-contractors.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 4.
Government amendments 24 to 30.
Amendment 61, in clause 58, page 40, line 38, leave out paragraph (c).
This amendment would remove provision allowing a contracting authority to have regard to commitments to prevent circumstances giving rise to the application of an exclusion ground from occurring again when considering whether a supplier should be excluded.
Amendment 62, page 40, line 41, leave out paragraph (e).
This amendment would remove provision allowing a contracting authority to have regard to evidence, explanations or factors not specified elsewhere in the clause when considering whether a supplier should be excluded.
Amendment 63, page 41, line 8, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment removes clause 58 (3), which limits the ability of a contracting authority to require whatever evidence is necessary to make their assessment about whether a supplier is reliable.
Government amendments 31 to 50.
Amendment 17, in clause 68, page 49, line 15, at end insert—
“(10A) Within a year of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must prepare, publish and lay before Parliament a report on the effectiveness of this section in ensuring prompt payment of small and medium-sized enterprises.
(10B) Not later than 6 months after the report has been laid before Parliament, a Minister of the Crown must make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.”
This amendment would require the Government to report to Parliament on the effectiveness of this section in ensuring prompt payment of SMEs.
Amendment 68, in clause 71, page 51, line 11, at end insert—
“(6A) When a planned procurement notice is published under section 15 or a tender notice is published under section 21, the contracting authority must include a statement of the outcomes which the contract is intended to achieve.
(6B) The contracting authority must commission an independent evaluation of whether each contract delivered the outcomes mentioned in subsection (6A), unless the contract is excluded by regulations under subsection (6D).
(6C) An evaluation under subsection (6B) must—
(a) be performed by an independent body in accordance with UK Government Evaluation Standards, and include a clear recommendation on whether similar further public contracts should be begun, renewed or extended;
(b) be commissioned in time to be completed within six months of contract termination, renewal or extension;
(c) be published in full by the contracting authority immediately it is received from the independent external body.
(6D) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify types of contracts that do not require independent evaluations under subsection (6B).
(6E) Where the independent evaluation under subsection (6B) recommends that similar public contracts should not be begun, extended or renewed, any contracting authority which nonetheless intends to do so must publish its reasons not less than 30 days before the agreement is begun, extended or renewed.”
Government amendments 51 to 55.
Amendment 13, page 78, line 12, leave out clause 119.
Amendment 8, in clause 122, page 82, line 5, at end insert—
“‘Real Living Wage’ means the hourly wage rates for London and for outside London calculated annually by the Resolution Foundation and overseen by the Living Wage Commission (or their successor bodies);”.
This amendment inserts a definition of the Real Living Wage for the purposes of Amendments 4 to 7.
Government amendment 56.
Amendment 64, in schedule 6, page 106, line 7, at end insert
“or an offence under section 86, 88 or 92 of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017.”
This amendment is intended to ensure that the full range of criminal offences for money laundering are properly captured for the purposes of exclusion from public procurement.
Amendment 65, page 106, line 12, leave out “or 6” and insert ”, 6 or 7”.
This amendment includes the failure of commercial organisations to prevent bribery as an offence which is a mandatory exclusion ground.
Amendment 66, page 106, line 14, at end insert—
18A An offence under Schedule 3 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (sanctions evasion offences).”
This amendment is intended to make criminal offences for sanctions evasion grounds for mandatory exclusion from public procurement.
Government amendment 57.
Amendment 15, page 110, line 12, at end insert—
“National security
42A A mandatory exclusion ground applies to a supplier if a decision-maker determines that the supplier or a connected person poses a threat to the national security of the United Kingdom.”
This amendment would move national security from among the discretionary exclusion grounds in Schedule 7 to the mandatory exclusion grounds in Schedule 6.
Government amendment 58.
Amendment 18, in schedule 7, page 113, line 2, at end insert—
“1A A discretionary exclusion ground applies to a supplier if a contracting authority determines that a supplier, within a year leading to the date of tender—
(a) has been found by an employment tribunal or court to have significantly breached the rights of an employee or worker engaged or formerly engaged by it with one or more aggravating features, or has admitted to doing so; and
(b) has not conformed with applicable obligations in the fields of environmental, social and labour law established by national law, collective agreements or international environmental, social and labour law provisions; and
(c) has not taken steps to rectify the situation through—
(i) paying or undertaking to pay compensation in respect of any damage caused by the breach of rights; and
(ii) clarifying the facts and circumstances in a comprehensive manner by actively collaborating with any relevant employment tribunal or court process and the parties thereto; and
(iii) taking concrete technical, organisational and personnel measures appropriate to prevent further breaches of rights of a similar kind.
1B In making a decision on whether a discretionary exclusion ground applies to a supplier under paragraph 1A, a contracting authority must—
(a) evaluate the adequacy of any action taken by the supplier in accordance with sub-paragraph (c) of that paragraph, taking into account the gravity and particular circumstances of the breach or breaches of rights, and
(b) make reasonable provision for the employer and the employee or worker concerned to make representations, which may be made by agreement by a trade association or trade union.”
This amendment would give contracting authorities the discretion to exclude suppliers who have significantly and repeatedly breached the rights of staff in the last year unless they have “self-cleansed”.
Amendment 67, page 113, line 17, at end insert—
“Financial and economic misconduct
3A A discretionary exclusion ground applies to a supplier if the decision-maker considers that there is sufficient evidence that the supplier or a connected person has engaged in conduct (whether in or outside the United Kingdom) constituting (or that would, if it occurred in the United Kingdom, constitute) any of the following offences—
(a) an offence under section 327, 328 or 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (money laundering offences);
(b) an offence under section 86, 88 or 92 of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017;
(c) an offence under Schedule 3 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (sanctions evasion offences);
(d) an offence under section 2, 3, 4, 6 or 7 of the Fraud Act 2006 (fraud offences);
(e) an offence under section 993 of the Companies Act 2006 (fraudulent trading);
(f) an offence under section 1, 2, 6 or 7 of the Bribery Act 2010 (bribery offences).”
This amendment is intended to allow relevant Ministers and Contracting Authorities the power to exclude suppliers from procurement where they have evidence of financial and economic criminal activity, such as fraud, money laundering, bribery or sanctions evasion, but there has not yet been a conviction by a court.
Amendment 16, page 116, line 6, at end insert—
“Sanctions offences
14A(1) A discretionary exclusion ground applies to a supplier if the decision-maker considers that the supplier or a connected person has engaged in conduct constituting—
(a) An offence established in any regulations made under Part 1 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018;
(b) An offence established under Part 5 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.
(2) A discretionary exclusion ground applies to a supplier if the decision-maker considers that there is sufficient evidence that the supplier or a connected person has engaged in conduct outside of the United Kingdom that could result in such an offence being committed if that conduct occurred in the United Kingdom.”
This amendment would create a discretionary exclusion ground where a supplier (or connected person) has violated UK sanctions or export controls, or would have done so if they were in the UK.
Amendment 3, page 116, line 10, at end insert—
“Involvement in forced organ harvesting
14A(1) A discretionary exclusion ground applies to a supplier if a decision-maker determines that the supplier or a connected person has been, or is, involved in—
(a) forced organ harvesting,
(b) unethical activities relating to human tissue, including anything which involves the commission of an offence under sections 32 (prohibition of commercial dealings in human material for transplantation), 32A (offences under section 32 committed outside UK) or 33 (restriction on transplants involving a live donor) of the Human Tissue Act 2004, or under sections 20 (prohibition of commercial dealings in parts of a human body for transplantation) or 20A (offences under section 20 committed outside UK) of the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006, or
(c) dealing in any device or equipment or services relating to conduct mentioned in paragraphs (a) or (b).
(2) “Forced organ harvesting” means killing a person without their consent so that their organs may be removed and transplanted into another person.”
This amendment is designed to give a discretionary power to exclude suppliers from being awarded a public contract who have participated in forced organ harvesting or unethical activities relating to human tissue, including where they are involved in providing a service or goods relating to such activities.
Government amendment 59.
Alex Burghart
It is a genuine honour to take the Procurement Bill through Report stage. As the House will know, this is a major piece of post-Brexit legislation that enables us, for the first time in many decades, to reform our procurement system, to the benefit of contracting authorities, suppliers and taxpayers.
I begin with new clause 15 and amendment 52. We are inserting into the Bill a new clause that allows us to meet the UK’s international obligations on record keeping. We are strengthening record keeping obligations in the Bill to more fully reflect our obligations in both the agreement on Government procurement—the GPA—and the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. They both require records to be kept for a minimum of three years. New clause 15 sets out the obligation on contracting authorities to
“keep such records as the authority considers sufficient to explain a material decision made for the purpose of awarding or entering into a public contract.”
A material decision is one that requires a contracting authority
“to publish or provide a notice, document or other information in relation to the decision”,
or decisions, that are required to be made under the Bill. Records must be kept for three years from award of, or entry into, a contract—or, if the contract is awarded but not entered into, from the date of the decision not to enter into it.
The primary goal of the Bill is to streamline procurement regulations and ensure the overall efficiency of the system, while avoiding overwhelming businesses and contracting authorities with a multitude of rules and regulations—a point that we will no doubt return to this afternoon. As such, and in line with international requirements, the obligations attach only to the award of, and entry into, contracts; they do not apply to the management stage of a contract.
Information on the management of major contracts will of course be put into the public domain, thanks to the Bill’s considerable transparency obligations. That includes information on key performance indicators, such as performance against them; information on amendments to contracts; and information on contract termination, which will require reporting on performance. The time limit already in the Bill on the duty to maintain records of communications with suppliers is being relocated to sit alongside the new record keeping duty. The record keeping requirement is intended to act as a minimum; contracting authorities may of course keep records for longer, and indeed may be required to do so under other legislation.
Government amendments 24 and 25 change the point at which, under clause 52(1), contracting authorities are required to publish key performance indicators. They will no longer have to do so before entering into a public contract. Instead, there will be a requirement to publish them under proposed new subsection (2A) of clause 52. Clause 53, on contract details notices, provides that the details of KPIs will be specified in regulations under clause 95. That is because it is not possible to publish the KPIs before entering into the public contract, as they arise as part of the process of entering into the contract.
Government amendments 19, 20 and 56 make a necessary technical adjustment to ensure that the City of London Corporation is caught by the Bill in respect of its public sector functions, but not its commercial functions. The Bill is intended to apply to local authorities—clause 2 makes it clear that publicly funded bodies are caught by it—but due to its evolution and structure, the corporation does not operate solely as a local authority. It has significant private sector trading activities—for example, it operates private schools and undertakes property management—that are clearly not intended to be caught by the Bill. Unlike district and county councils, being a local authority is not the corporation’s raison d’être; rather, it has some local authority functions bolted on to its wider organisational functions. Without the amendments to clause 2 and schedule 2, there would be a risk of unintended consequences; the Bill would apply to either all the corporation’s activities, including its commercial activities, or none of them, depending on whether the corporation’s balance of income was derived mainly from its trading activities or from public funds in any one year.
Government amendments 21 to 23 resolve a drafting inconsistency between clause 19, which governs the award of contracts following a competitive procedure, and clause 43, which has rules allowing a contracting authority to switch to direct award if no suitable tender was received in a competition. Under clause 19, a tender may be disregarded in a competition if it breaches a procedural requirement set by the contracting authority—for example, if it is submitted late or is over its word count. Abnormally low tenders can also be disregarded, provided the tenderer has advance notification and the chance to respond, pursuant to subsections (4) and (5).
The changes proposed to clause 43 will ensure that only a material breach of procedural requirements will render a tender unsuitable: for example, being 10 words over the set count should not result in an unsuitable tender permitting direct award. Abnormally low tenders cannot be deemed unsuitable unless the supplier has had an opportunity to demonstrate that it will be able to perform the contract for the price offered, as is required under clause 19.
Moving on to amendment 59, paragraph 2(3) of schedule 10 inserts new section 14(5A) into the Defence Reform Act 2014. The DRA, and the Single Source Contract Regulations 2014 made under it, make provision for the pricing of defence contracts to procure goods, works and services that are not let competitively and meet the necessary criteria, including a financial threshold. New section 14(5A) is being introduced to address uncertainty about when an agreement for new goods, works and services should be regarded as an amendment to an existing contract within the scope of the DRA regime, and when it should be regarded as a new contract in its own right. The proposed new subsection currently addresses the situation by identifying two specific categories of existing contract not subject to the DRA regime that, when amended on a non-competed basis to add further goods, works or services, would become subject to that regime.
A third such category of contract not currently addressed by proposed section 14(5) has subsequently come to light. That category covers a single source contract that was below the financial threshold set by the SSCRs that is subsequently amended to add new goods, works and services that take it above that threshold. Amendment 59 will ensure that such contracts are brought within the regulation-making power. A hypothetical example would be a contract that was let competitively for £6 million a few years ago and was not subject to the regulations, where proposed section 14(5) and section 14(3)(b) —which excludes contracts let through competitions—did not apply, and a single source amendment was subsequently placed a few years later for £10 million of new work. That kind of amendment is referred to in section 14(5), and under the proposed new regulations, it would be treated as a new contract for the purposes of the regulations. Under the current wording of schedule 10, the agreement covering the new work would fall under the regulations.
Amendments 38, 32, 36, 37, 39 to 51, 57 and 58 significantly strengthen the exclusions and debarment provisions for exclusion on national security grounds. As the Bill stands, placing a supplier on the debarment list on national security grounds will make it excludable from all contracts within the scope of the Bill. That means that the supplier will be identified as posing a threat to the national security of the UK, but contracting authorities will have discretion as to whether they exclude the supplier in each particular procurement. Having engaged with colleagues in the House and reflected on their concerns, I can confirm that the Government are content to further strengthen those provisions. 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.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I thank the Minister for the work he has been doing on the Bill, and for listening to colleagues—there is more work to be done, but we are certainly moving in the right direction. There is an issue about dual use stuff: we are talking about national security, but for technology such as cellular modules in Government cars that may or may not be being used by competitor nations to listen in to conversations, it is not just a narrow definition that we should be worried about, but a rather more expansive definition of some of the risks posed by that technology and where it is placed in either very specific national security contexts or, more broadly, among things that are critical to our national infrastructure.
Alex Burghart
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, and for the constructive dialogue that we have had while preparing for today’s debate. As he hopefully knows from what we have already said on this subject—he will hear it again in what I am about to say—the structure that we are putting in place will be able to make exactly that sort of assessment.
If a supplier poses an unacceptable risk in relation to certain goods, such as network communications equipment, the Minister will be able to enter on the debarment list that that supplier is an excluded supplier for contracts for the supply or support of that type of equipment, but that will not necessarily mean that the supplier will be excluded from all other types of contract. Similarly, the entry may also—or as an alternative—stipulate that the supplier is excluded from contracts relating to certain locations or sites, or contracts let by certain contracting authorities. That 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 a procurement when they should not be.
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 a risk is manageable—for example, if a supplier is providing pencils or plastic furniture. We think that approach to national security exclusions is both proportionate and robust, and will allow us to effectively counter the risk posed by some suppliers, including those that many in this House are concerned about.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
The Minister has said that he wants a proportionate response and I take that point. I also thank him for the talks we have had about this issue, which is the basis of my support for new clause 1. However, one thing he has not yet addressed is the timescale. Clearly, a lot of kit that we would regard as suspicious under the Bill needs to be removed. Can he give some indication of what sort of timescale we will need to remove it?
Alex Burghart
I thank my right hon. Friend for the constructive conversations that we have had in getting ready for today’s debate. He is slightly pre-empting some remarks that I will come to later. I hope that he saw the announcement that the Government made the other day. It is in the nature of the work that we are doing that, first, we wish to remove devices and components that pose a security risk to sensitive sites—I will say more about the timescale for that later. Secondly, we intend through the use of the unit and the provisions in the Bill to prevent similar devices and components from entering our sites in future. It is a two-part process: first, get rid of what is already there and, secondly, prevent other such services from coming in in future.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The Minister has mentioned sensitive sites. I do not quite understand what that phrase means—I am hoping that we will get a proper explanation in due course—but what I would observe is that, as far as I can see, every single Government site is by nature and definition sensitive. The Department for Work and Pensions is very sensitive because any disruption of its payments would render the UK in a terrible state. Is it not the case that all Departments of central Government are by nature sensitive sites and, therefore, should take upon themselves the reality that they must all rid themselves of these things?
Alex Burghart
My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and I thank him for his constructive engagement with me and the Minister for the Cabinet Office on this issue. We understand and hear his concerns about sensitive and non-sensitive sites—not least, we understand his view that the definition could incorporate a broader range of assets, where information gleaned on the movement of officials and politicians could be detrimental to our national security. We will continue to work on that issue with him, both in today’s debate and in the Lords debate that will follow it. I am sure that we can reach a sensible conclusion that will be to his satisfaction.
Bob Seely
If I remember correctly, in January, the security services took apart a UK Government vehicle because data was being transferred via a Chinese cellular module, a Chinese eSIM. We do not know who was in that car—whether it was the Defence Secretary or the Prime Minister. Evidence from a separate Tesla car scandal suggests that it would be possible for Chinese engineers to record private conversations using cellular modules. Just out of curiosity—I suspect I know the answer—are we ever going to get an update on what happened to that car and what was happening with it?
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend will know that I am not in a position to comment on matters of national security, but he will have heard me say in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) that we understand the view that the definition in the Bill could incorporate a broader range of assets, where information is gleaned on the movement of officials and politicians that could be detrimental to national security.
Amendment 34 will commit a Minister of the Crown to keep suppliers under review for potential investigation for debarment on national security grounds. We recognise that proactive consideration of suppliers will be highly advantageous in minimising the risk of suppliers who pose a threat to our national security being awarded public contracts. The amendment will therefore commit Ministers to proactively consider a new debarment investigation where there is evidence of risk, so that the Government can act effectively and on time.
I am also pleased to announce that the Government will be creating a new specialist unit with dedicated resources within the Cabinet Office to take on and manage this new approach. That new national security unit for procurement will regularly monitor Government supply chains and review pertinent information to determine which suppliers should be investigated for debarment on national security grounds. The unit will be able to draw on the full range of expertise within government and access the latest intelligence, including that from Five Eyes partners. It will be able to respond swiftly to emerging threats. The unit will also carry out investigations of suppliers for potential debarment, which will be overseen by a committee. Following the outcome of an investigation, the committee will make recommendations to the Minister as to whether the supplier should be added to the debarment list. The final decision will be made by the Minister.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The Minister is making an excellent speech and I agree with the broad thrust of everything he is saying, but in terms of the practical application—how we debar businesses and organisations bidding in through a procurement process—can he just tell us how long an investigation would take? I realise it would be a case-by-case process, but if a procurement tender is put out, and a business or entity bids into it, how long would it expect that investigation to go on before that business or entity is debarred or not?
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend will know that is a length of a piece of string question. In setting up the unit and providing it with resource, we are mindful of the need for it to be able to respond swiftly to emerging threats and to new entities. The unit will not serve its purpose if investigations go on too long. I cannot give him any guarantees on maximum length of time for investigation, but I can assure him that those concerns are very much in our thoughts as we go about establishing this new way of working.
The new unit will also have a role in supporting and upskilling contracting authorities. By directly engaging with them and providing guidance, the unit will help contracting authorities confidently implement the national security exclusion and debarment regime correctly, maximising its effectiveness.
Amendments 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35, 38, 53, 54 and 55 are minor and technical amendments to ensure that the exclusions and debarment regimes can function effectively.
I take this opportunity to thank all colleagues who have engaged with us on this, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who is not in her place today. She has been instrumental in helping us to formulate these ideas in regard to national security and in particular our commitment to the national security unit for procurement.
The Government are taking national security extremely seriously, as the Bill and the amendments just mentioned make clear. Concerns have been expressed in the House regarding the use of surveillance equipment provided by entities subject to the national intelligence law of the People’s Republic of China, the risks of which we fully understand. I take this opportunity to remind the House that, in November, the Government published a written ministerial statement asking Departments to consider the removal of visual surveillance equipment from Government sensitive sites and to cease any future procurement of such equipment.
Today, we are going further. I commit to this House that, within six months of the Bill’s Royal Assent, the Government will set out the timeline for the removal of surveillance equipment supplied by companies subject to the national intelligence law of China from sensitive sites. I make it clear that we are taking firm and decisive action on this important matter and that we will be held to account for that action. That is why we will provide a clear plan for delivering on it, adhering to the timeline requested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. I hope that addresses his and other Members’ wishes that the Government take appropriate action.
If I may, I will address two final points. First, I thank each of the devolved Administrations for their constructive engagement during the drafting and passage of the Bill. I am pleased that the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament have agreed to the procurement aspects of the Bill, which are the vast majority of the clauses. However, despite our best efforts and several amendments, we have been unable to secure full legislative consent motions for the concurrent powers in the Bill relating to the implementation of international obligations. That is disappointing, but not unexpected, given that it is consistent with the position taken by the Scottish and Welsh Governments on the recent Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023.
I reassure the House that, as with current practice, we will continue to engage and consult with the devolved Administrations if they choose not to legislate for themselves in implementing the UK’s international obligations, in so far as they relate to areas of devolved competence. In the absence of a Northern Ireland Executive, a legislative consent motion for Northern Ireland was not possible. However, the permanent secretary for the Northern Ireland Department of Finance has written to the permanent secretary of the Cabinet Office to welcome the Bill as drafted and the close working relationship that has developed between officials.
Secondly, I take the opportunity to clarify the rules for private utilities where they have been directly awarded rights, for example, through a directly awarded contract at the request of the Department for Transport. Private utilities are within the scope of the Bill only where they have been granted a special or exclusive right to carry out a utility activity, effectively creating a monopoly situation. Clause 6(4) clarifies that the right is not special or exclusive where the right is granted following a competitive tendering procedure under the Bill or otherwise on the basis of a transparent procedure and non-discriminatory criteria. That has the effect, for example, that, if a contract for a utility activity with an incumbent supplier is renewed or replaced without competition, the supplier will have been granted a special or exclusive right. The supplier would therefore be classed as a private utility under the Bill. An example would be where an incumbent train operating company awarded a contract following competition has been directly awarded a new contract under DFT legislation.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Three years ago, in the aftermath of the covid-19 pandemic, vital frontline staff across our NHS were struggling against dangerously low stocks of personal protective equipment. We all heard the stories of frontline workers in the early stages of the pandemic. These stories show us the impact of not procuring adequate reserves for a pandemic such as covid-19, and they show us why we need the right culture to rapidly respond to emergency procurement demands whenever they may show. Sadly, what we saw during the pandemic did not live up to standards. What followed, with the horror stories of frontline workers in the early stages of 2020, was a case study in wasteful and inefficient emergency procurement.
In January, the National Audit Office found that nearly £15 billion was wasted on unused covid supplies. That is £15 billion that could be going towards tens of thousands of full-time nursery places. It is £15 billion that could be going towards clearing the backlog in our NHS. It is £15 billion that could hand every single person in this country £220 and still have change left over. Instead, the incompetence we saw from this Government cost this country a fortune. In fact, the Government’s record keeping was so flawed that the Public Accounts Committee’s July 2022 report on the awarding of contracts to Randox during the pandemic stated it was
“impossible to have confidence that all its contracts with Randox were awarded properly.”
It is not just incompetence that costs the country. During the pandemic, the Government created a VIP lane for those offering to provide PPE. The system was extremely useful for some suppliers, with the Public Accounts Committee finding that one in 10 suppliers coming through the high-priority lane were awarded a contract. That compares with just one in 100 for the ordinary lane. The Cabinet Office and the Department of Health and Social Care also accepted that leads that went through the high-priority lane were handled better. Who was in that lane?
In the Public Account Committee’s report on PPE procurement, it stated
“The British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing told us that their organisations did not have access to the high-priority lane, even though they were being contacted by, and therefore would have been able to put forward, credible leads based on the knowledge of their members. The British Medical Association also noted that suppliers which had contacted them, including suppliers trusted by doctors, tried the normal channels of reaching out to the Government but had ‘hit a brick wall’. Care England told us that it had similarly shared the details of potential suppliers but there had been no follow-through.”
Instead, those with contacts with Government Ministers and officials, MPs and Members of the House of Lords were given access to this VIP lane. That included PPE Medpro, a company set up only a few days before but—surprise, surprise—with links to a Tory politician, which was awarded more than £200 million of public money. In total, £3.4 billion of taxpayers’ money in the form of contracts went to Conservative donors and friends. At a time when we were asking people up and down the country to come outside and clap, the Tory Government were giving cash to their donors. The Bill must be used to ensure that that never happens again.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I applaud what the hon. Member is saying about SMEs. She is absolutely right that it is important that we support the small business sector. However, she has tabled amendments that would favour the insourcing of public services. She seems to think that we should require the public sector to deliver public contracts, rather than SMEs. Which is it?
Florence Eshalomi
The hon. Member is absolutely right: those SMEs will work with local councils in a local area, and they know the local area. In some cases the contracts that are outsourced are not value for money. This is about ensuring that, in public contracts, public money is spent in the right way. If we are to lower the risks faced by SMEs seeking to enter the supply chain, it is vital that the measures in the Bill have an impact.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
One of the biggest problems during the pandemic, which came out of China and became a global pandemic, was the question of everybody scraping around trying to find PPE, most of which was manufactured in China. Is it therefore part of the hon. Lady’s argument that we should have strategic manufacturing of PPE—either here or certainly in democracies that we can trust—to which we get earlier access, or will we just leave it to be produced somewhere else?
Florence Eshalomi
I agree with some of the amendments the right hon. Member has tabled on the issue of China and national security. Throughout the Committee stage, we argued consistently for removing risks from countries with a high national security risk, but we have concerns about the approach of naming specific countries in the Bill. It is important that we work with the whole House to get the right framework. I urge the Minister to consider our amendment 17, which is a careful mechanism for assessing the impact of the new rules that he is championing.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, national security has been an issues of extreme interest to the House. On Second Reading, we heard a tour de force from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), on national security. In Committee, I raised multiple concerns with the Minister about the place of national security as a discretionary exclusion ground and its role in the debarment system. I am pleased that the Minister was listening to all those points, and we welcome amendment 57 and similar Government amendments, which we believe will address many of the concerns raised in Committee. I welcome the amendments originally tabled by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, which will establish a list of high-risk suppliers as part of the Bill. Our amendment 15 would exclude suppliers identified as a security threat from public contracts. Although that offers some benefits over alternative proposals, there is a balance, so we are not minded to press amendment 15 to a Division.
Procurement practices affect not only our services, but the many workers who rely on procurement-related roles for their jobs and livelihoods. Public money, and the jobs that will create, should not be given to those who treat their workers unfairly. Our amendment 18 would give contracting authorities the power to exclude suppliers that have significantly and repeatedly breached the rights of their staff. It would affect only those who have not taken self-cleansing measures to correct their conduct and the causes of breaches. The amendment would ensure that authorities have the right to turn away the worst offenders on workers’ rights, and would ensure that publicly funded jobs are protected jobs.
It can only be right that those seeking public contracts in the UK are transparent about where they pay their tax. The public would not expect their hard-earned money to go to those seeking not to pay into the system themselves, but a study from the Fair Tax Foundation found that, between 2014 and 2019, one in six public contracts were won by companies with links to tax havens. Our new clause 10 would mean that multinational companies bidding for large public contracts need to provide information about their tax arrangements in the UK. That would be open to the public and create greater transparency on how public money is spent. Amendment 16 would create a discretionary exclusion ground for suppliers that have violated UK sanctions or export controls, ensuring that authorities have the power to exclude from the procurement system those who continue to profit off businesses in places such as Russia. New clause 11 would require authorities to undertake a public interest test whenever deciding to outsource public services, to ensure that it truly offers value for money. Finally, new clause 14 would allow public authorities to choose not to buy goods or services from countries on the basis of their human rights records. That would give authorities the power to set clear policies, not to hand public funds to those committing atrocities around the world.
I pay tribute to members of the Committee for their engagement on this very long Bill. We have definitely shone a light on it, and had many discussions about paperclips. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), who embellished the Committee with a wealth of examples of procurement practices from their constituencies. I hope the Minister will listen to us on why additional amendments are important to strengthen the Procurement Bill in the interests of all taxpayers across the country, and I look forward to hearing from other Members.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I rise to speak to the amendment in my name and those of 26 others in the House of all parties.
The real issue here is the existence of a specific law in China that makes pretty much all companies in China, but particularly those involved in technology, a public risk in procurement to the United Kingdom. Article 7 of the People’s Republic of China national intelligence law 2017 states:
“Any organisation and citizen shall, in accordance with the law, support, provide assistance, and cooperate in national intelligence work, and guard the secrecy of any national intelligence work that they are aware of.”
In other words, under the Chinese national intelligence law, they must completely comply with all demands and requests for information in the business they are in, and deny they have done that to any other country or authority that asks. We have had Chinese companies coming to the House and lying to Select Committees about what they are doing, all saying that they have no obligations under the national intelligence law. They do have obligations under that law and they will lie for their country as a result.
We need to start by understanding the problems, and I thank my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench for having listened to the arguments and changed the terms, first by referencing the national intelligence law, which is very important, because many Departments will play fast and loose unless what they must do is made very clear. We have been encouraging the Government, who came out with views on Hikvision, Dahua and other companies supplying surveillance equipment to the UK, knowing that they are a surveillance risk not because they are cameras in a particular fashion but because what they glean is available completely to the Chinese authorities under the national security laws.
We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) about the small devices—a growing threat that I have not referenced but which also gets caught by the national intelligence law. China is leading in this technology, which is one way in which it can keep track of its own people, but they are now using it more broadly. I had a suspicion and heard that the cars that my hon. Friend was referencing were Downing Street cars. There is a very good chance that the Prime Minister and others may have been tracked by the Chinese Government without our knowledge.
We must therefore remember that first and foremost China poses a significant threat to us, our interests and the way we live our lives. Until we all agree and come to those terms, we simply cannot move on; that is the key. Government Departments and the Government have dragged their feet over this because we do not want to upset the Chinese—but it takes a lot to upset the Chinese because they carry on as before. The amendment is intended to get the Government to accept that we should reference the national intelligence law because that defines all Chinese business and companies and therefore they are a threat.
There are other Chinese companies that are a problem that will not be named, and surveillance cameras are part of this. I must confess that when my brother-in-law went around an area of a farm looking at the surveillance cameras, he spotted that they were Hikvision cameras—they are not listed in the contract because the contract provider is a UK organisation, but we discovered that they are everywhere.
Once I heard the news that the Government clearly wanted Departments to get rid of those cameras, I made a set of freedom of information requests to all Departments about whether they had cameras, where they were, whether they were on their buildings, and what plans they had to get rid of them, having spotted that a lot of Departments still had them, including the Ministry of Defence. All Departments—bar I think the Wales Office, which came clean and said it did not have any or was getting rid of them—claimed that, under section 24 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, they did not have to answer because it was a security risk. The security risk is having the cameras, not answering the damned question! Excuse my language, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is all about where the cameras are and what they are doing, and that is the point of the amendment.
I hope that Ministers will take this matter forward and tell Departments to stop obfuscating. If they are asked a direct question they should tell the honest truth and explain that under the new rules under the Bill they will be getting rid of those cameras, which is absolutely critical.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point on national security, particularly the risk posed by this equipment. I credit him and others across the House who have worked to encourage the Government to move on this matter. As well as the national security issue, does he share my concern that companies such as Hikvision are involved in human rights abuses in China, for example with the Uyghur Muslims?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I did not send the hon. Lady a copy of my speech but I am glad she has jumped into this because I want to move on to that point now.
Finishing on the point I have been making, however, it is good that the Government are moving on this, but I do not think they have moved enough because I am very worried about the word “sensitive”, which the Minister is talking about. I will come back to that, but this move will begin to bring us into line with the United States, who moved on this under their Hikvision Act, which banned it back in 2019. It is worth reminding colleagues, too, that the European Union is also ahead of us on this now, because the President has said that they must do some “de-risking” on the issue of threats from China. So we are coming back into line on doing that and the west is waking up to this threat.
It is not just about all the threats that are clear under the obligations and the data China collects—it data-harvests, by the way. When the Government said that they were banning TikTok from Government telephones, I made the observation that that is not enough because people might still have TikTok on their own phones. Having run a Department for six years, I know that Ministers’ telephones sit on their desks next to their Government telephones, and therefore the Chinese will be data-harvesting on the back of that. One of my Government colleagues said that he wants to get in touch with the younger people; fat chance they are going to listen to a word they are saying. The truth is he should get rid of TikTok like the rest and be real about it. We must now make it clear that Government telephones and the telephones of Ministers should no longer have TikTok.
Damian Green
I am glad that my right hon. Friend has moved this amendment, which as he knows I strongly support. To return to my point about timescale, security cameras are normally replaced every five to seven years. Does he think we have five to seven years in which we can leave these cameras in place in public sector buildings, or would he like their removal to be accelerated?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The Cabinet Office must now decide the pace of this change. I hear that it is talking about six months and will come forward with a clear and explicit decision. In line with what my right hon. Friend has just said, it ought to explain the timescales for how Departments are going to take them away and how quickly, and an endpoint. That is critical, because otherwise, as I saw with the FOIs, Government Departments will do whatever they can not to do this because they are frightened and they say it will cost them extra. What really costs us is if they fail to do it.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
On telecoms, not TikTok in this instance. According to reports last week, the UK telecoms arm of CK Hutchison, 3 mobile, is merging with Vodafone. Vodafone is extensively involved in Government contracts and evidence by Unite the union published this week is basically saying that CK directors supported the suppression of democracy in Hong Kong. In fact, the chair of the company, Victor Li Tzar-kuoi, is adviser to the Hong Kong Chief Executive. The right hon. Gentleman knows that John Lee, the Chief Executive, has been involved in the suppression of protests and in the arrest of trade union colleagues of mine, members of Unite. Does he share my concern that people linked to this company now are going to have access to Government contracts in the UK?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
That is not the subject of the amendment but I will touch on it briefly. I have already spoken to the unions on this and I am very much in line with their position. The Government need to look very carefully at what has taken place, particularly because it reduces competition in the market. The links to the authoritarianism of the Chinese is one of the big worries, so I suggest that the Government have a serious look at that.
Returning to the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), these cameras are also being used in internal suppression in China. We know about the suppression of the Uyghurs; that is a genocide that is taking place. Even though the Government will not say it is genocide, everybody else believes it is: Parliament here has said it; the Americans have now said it; and so, too, have many other countries. I do not know why we cannot say this is genocide, but that is a question for another debate. The fact is that many of these instruments are being used as part of that suppression in the camps as well as to watch carefully so that suppression can take place. Right now, forced labour, forced sterilisation and re-education in camps are all taking place in China.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) referred from the Dispatch Box to the Opposition’s amendments. It is worth reminding her that China poses a risk in just about every single area with its human rights abuses and abuses of workers’ rights, yet so many of our companies want to ignore that.
While I welcome much of what the Government have done, I do not plan to move new clause 1 today, but only because I want more from the Government. I think they understand that.
I come back to the “sensitive” point. The truth is that, by definition, all Government Departments must be sensitive. As I said, I spent six years in charge of the DWP, and what I know is that there is arguably no more sensitive Department, because stopping payments for one or two days from the DWP would wreak havoc across the United Kingdom. People would not be able to get money to pay their rent, to buy their food or to live—all those things of vital importance. So a foreign power might be able to use information to target a Department such as the DWP that is not on the list because it may not appear as sensitive as the Ministry of Defence, GCHQ or—God bless us—the Foreign Office, when in reality, it is much more sensitive.
When we try to use a word like “sensitive” to give ourselves a little bit of a break, the problem becomes: who defines sensitive, and how often we will redefine it? I recommend that the Government describe all Departments as sensitive or else get rid of the word. That would put the onus on the Departments to come to the Cabinet Office to say, “We need an exemption for a period” or, “We can’t do this as fast.” The current wording means that they will not have to do that if they are outwith the term “sensitive.”
The reality is that we have had a number of Dispatch Box commitments from a load of Government Ministers about interpreting these things, but they never come to fruition. We were promised guidance in the other place on slavery during the passage of the Nationality and Borders Bill, but that was never put in. We really want the Government to commit at the Dispatch Box to changing what they are doing with “sensitive” when the Bill goes to the other place. “Sensitive” is too weak a position. It lets Departments off the hook and will put all the onus on the Cabinet Office. That must be reversed to ensure that this removal gets done.
Kirsty Blackman
I really appreciate the right hon. Member giving way again. Would he consider asking the Government for removal from all sites and, when they produce their timeline, to have them say, “These are our priority sites, which will be done first, but there will be removal from all sites off the back of that”? That would cover removal from all sites but allow the Government to prioritise if they cannot do things overnight.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I agree that that would be the common-sense way of doing it; I think we are all on the same page on this one.
The thing about our new clause is that, without the word “sensitive”, the position is simple. The new clause uses the same language as the Cabinet Office’s announcement in November, which recommended the removal of Chinese CCTV from sensitive sites. Now, that was the wording. Okay. But when we ask, “What has happened? How many Departments have felt under pressure to do that?”, we start to discover that they are not doing it because it is too difficult, and they want the requirement to go away. My answer is: do not use the word “sensitive” in that respect. It is about national security law, and Government Departments must either be completely defined as “sensitive”—if we want to use that word—or be bound to rid themselves of all companies obligated under the national security law. If they are unable to do that, they must make their case so that we can question that publicly and comment about what is going on.
I conclude on this simple point. The new clause is there to try to make it clear that we face a most significant and dangerous threat from the Chinese Communist party in control of China today. It is everywhere. It is using slave labour to produce polysilicon to collect solar rays. We all beat our chests proudly and proclaim that we are heading towards net zero, but on whose backs is that? It is people working in slave labour conditions to produce these things, people under surveillance, and people taken away on genocides. A Government already doing this internally are now referring it out to us. We must make it clear beyond peradventure that Government Departments must now rid themselves of equipment and never place contracts with other companies on equipment that comes under the rule of the national security law. I am looking for commitments from the Government today that, by the time the Bill gets to the other place, that will finally be resolved. If so, they will have my approval and that of many others in the Chamber.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I rise to speak in favour of a number of new clauses and amendments to improve transparency and accountability regarding public procurement and providing value for money for the taxpayer, including those tabled by Labour Front-Bench Members. The House will be aware that trade unions and others have long raised concerns that existing procurement policy pushes public authorities to privatise and marketise public services, including through private finance initiative contracts, which allow private consortiums to make high profits out of public assets—often far above the true value of the asset.
A particularly controversial element of procurement policy has been the use of private finance initiative regimes in NHS contracts. The evidence is clear that many of them have left NHS trusts heavily in debt owing to the need to repay private companies for capital assets, with high repayments meaning that some NHS trusts pay 12 times the initial sum borrowed, giving some investors profits of 40% to 70% in annual returns. Indeed, the poor performance of many of the private outsourcing and consulting companies brought in at significant cost to the taxpayer to provide parts of the covid-19 response stood in stark contrast to the consistently proven effectiveness of our publicly run NHS, for example, but that did not stop more and more contracts being awarded to those seeking to make money off the back of our country’s worst health crisis. Amendment 2, which would prevent VIP lanes by ensuring that any contract awarded under emergency provisions or direct awards should include transparency declarations, is therefore critical.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The hon. Lady has just described PFI contracts in harsh terms, and she is now going on to procurement. Will she explain why the vast majority of those PFI contracts for hospitals, medical facilities and schools were awarded under the last Labour Government?
Apsana Begum
The problem has existed through successive Governments. However, I recognise it through my NHS trust, which is still paying sums that are much higher than the true value of the assets. It has been a problem under successive Governments, and the Tory Government have had years to sort it out if they had wanted to do so.
The Bill does not exclude private companies from getting contracts even where they are failing to abide by international labour law and other environmental standards. I therefore support amendment 4, which would ensure that no public contract would be let unless the supplier guaranteed payment of the real living wage, as calculated and overseen by the Living Wage Commission, to all employees, contracted staff and subcontractors. That is critical because about 4.8 million workers across the country are paid less than the real living wage.
There are a number of amendments and new clauses relating to national security. Indeed, we have heard a lot about national security in the debate. I want to mention briefly the victims of the brutal repression in Hong Kong, some of whose architects may shortly become suppliers to the Government, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). Recent years have seen curbs on the work of trade unions, the jailing of protestors and arrests of independent media outlets. The Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions was persecuted until it was dissolved. Many of its affiliates had been involved in industrial action, including a successful 2013 dock strike for pay and conditions at Hongkong International Terminals, owned by the Hong Kong-based CK Group.
Hon. Members may wonder what relevance this has to a debate about Government procurement in this country, The Minister will no doubt be aware that Vodafone is a so-called strategic supplier to the Government and an approved supplier on two framework agreements, providing a range of telecoms services, including mobile voice and data services. As such, Vodafone has an official Crown representative, appointed by the Cabinet Office, who liaises with it on behalf of the Government.
Bob Seely
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), and I think that some of the things she said will be echoed on the Government Benches.
I want to speak, in the time I have, to new clauses 1, 13 and 16, and I will try to theme them. Before I do so, I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), for his excellent work on the Bill. People moan about Parliament, but we have a Government bringing forward this legislation and Back-Bench MPs from across the House trying to shape it for the betterment of the nation. There is a lot of good in the Bill and I thank the Minister for listening, as he has clearly and obviously done.
I want to talk about the strategic, political and human rights ramifications of supply chain dependency. I thank the Government for their excellent work and the fact that they are moving on this. We will have a national procurement centre, which will look at high-risk firms not only from China but potentially elsewhere. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on their really good work on this.
However, my criticism is that while the Bill is a start, the new clauses that I am speaking to would allow us to go further, and I want to explain why that is. We urgently need to understand the UK’s economic dependence on systemic threats or competitors—namely China, but not only China—and the political, economic and ethical ramifications and risks of that dependency. Not to do so is to betray our national interests. I am concerned at the lack of urgency on this issue, which has become significantly more pressing in the last five years. I thank the Government for focusing more on it, but more needs to be done. I think we are at the starting gate. The reality is that we have high levels of dependency and they are increasing, not decreasing.
Here are some facts. First, as an act of state policy, China is aiming to become less dependent on others, while encouraging others to be more dependent on it. It is decoupling from us, but making sure that we are coupled to it. The Made in China 2025 plan had the goal of raising the domestic content of China’s core components and materials to 70% by 2025. In 2020, it set a goal to become largely self-sufficient in technology by 2035. At the same time, the belt and road initiative means that China is now the largest lender to developing countries and is effectively encouraging debt dependency, which we have talked about in the past. President Xi, at the seventh session of the Chinese Communist party’s finance and economy committee, said that China must develop “killer technologies” to strengthen the
“global supply chain’s dependence on China”.
So this is not a case of, “Gosh, is this happening?” It is stated policy. We do not need to debate whether it is happening; we are being told by the leader of the Chinese state and the Chinese Communist party that it is.
China is already the largest importer to the UK and many other countries. We import more than 50% of our supplies from China in 229 categories of goods. Some 57 of those categories are in sectors critical to the UK’s national security. I therefore agree entirely with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green was saying only a few minutes ago. It is difficult to say what is strategic and what is not. In the US, it might be agricultural production. Here it might be the details of 20 million people on the DWP’s databanks. The 57 categories of goods cover communications, energy, healthcare, transport, critical manufacturing, emergency services, agriculture, Government facilities and information technology.
I do not care that we are 85% dependent on China for plastic Christmas trees—although, I do worry about the environmental impact—but I do care that we are 96% dependent on China for phenylacetic acid, which is a basic building block for many drugs; 83% dependent for TV receivers and decoders; and 68% dependent for laptops. China controls near 90% of rare earth processing, which we are now beginning to worry about. And the point about solar panels was well made.
I asked the Foreign Secretary yesterday about having an annual statement on dependency, not just on China but on states in general. He said that one was not needed. With great respect to the Foreign Secretary, I profoundly disagree. We argued during the passage of the National Security and Investment Act 2021 that we need an annual statement of dependency. New clause 13 is about establishing an understanding of the nature of our extreme dependency. I did a report with the Henry Jackson Society a couple of years ago. We found that although we are the least dependent of all the Five Eyes nations, we still have a critical dependency on China in 230 areas of our industry, manufacturing, information technology and so on.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Just to add to my hon. Friend’s list, as we move to electric vehicles we are about to make ourselves even more dependent. Even battery factories in China are turning themselves into car factories selling to the UK.
Bob Seely
I agree completely and I thank my right hon. Friend for that point. I would not even like that dependency on our allies. Would I like that level of dependency on the United States? No. On Australia? No. But to have that level of dependency on a Communist dictatorship that is investing massively in AI and big data to spy on their own people and increasingly on us as never before, to threaten peace in the Pacific, and to have a stated aim of dominating while freeing itself from dependency on the west, is really an extraordinarily dangerous position for us to find ourselves in.
We know that Chinese Communist party companies such as Huawei actively seek to gain a monopoly position by systematically destroying economic rivals. That is not fair trade; it is trade as a weapon for a Communist party dictatorship. It did it with Huawei, undercutting and deliberately destroying rivals on price through cheap subsidies. It is now doing the same with cellular modules, seeking to dominate and take control of the market. It does that through IP theft, economic espionage, subsidy, access to super-cheap finance, shared technology and other forms of state support.
Companies such as Quectel and Fibocom—the manufacturers of cellular modules—will, like Huawei, claim to be private. They are not. Nothing is private, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, in a Communist state. It was profoundly depressing for me, a couple of years ago, to hear two former senior Conservative Ministers, who should know better, say that Huawei was a private company. That is a rather more serious way of accidentally misleading the House than whether somebody ate cake or not, but that is another matter.
What are the dangers? We know that the Chinese leadership see themselves as being in competition with the west. Why? Because they tell us. A 2013 “Document No. 9” concludes that western constitutional democracy and universal values were a fundamental threat to the PRC. Of course our values are a threat to dictatorships. Our values are always a threat to communists. Earlier this year, a work report delivered to the National People’s Congress set out the belief that
“external attempts to supress and contain China are escalating”,
and the term “self-reliance” appeared multiple times. Again, the idea is to create dependency on China for us, while at the same time freeing China from dependency.
What is the worst-case scenario? Frankly, it has happened in Russia, so we should at least be alive to the idea that the worst-case scenario may be happening in the Pacific.
President Xi has told his army to be ready to re-take Taiwan by 2027. As I said, let us please stop pretending that dictators do not mean what they say, because they have a depressing habit of meaning what they say. I wish they did not; I wish they would overpromise and underdeliver, but they tend to do what they promise.
Either the UK is militarily involved or it is not. Either way, an assault on Taiwan, either by slow strangulation—a sort of Berlin scenario—or direct invasion, would profoundly alter the state of the world. We would have to put on the mother of all sanctions. The minute we do that, we will risk not only a global economic meltdown, but an economic meltdown probably worse than covid. It will strain to breaking point our relationship with the United States, the European Union and Australia—and not just our relationship but the interdependent relationships.
I am not saying that will happen—although, I think we are heading in that direction—or that we should stop trading with China; I am saying that it makes a great deal of common sense, frankly, to know what our levels of dependency are. That is why I would love the Minister to commit to at least developing an understanding of what our trade dependency is.
There is another reason to be concerned about supply chains: what is happening in the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region, which other Members have rightly mentioned. A 2022 UN report found serious human rights violations in the region. They seem to be about the most significant human rights abuses currently happening in the world, whether we use the “G” word or not—genocide. The Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps alone produces 8% of the world’s cotton. China overall produces 20% of the world’s supply of cotton. Effectively, this is a new slave trade in cotton, as shocking as that sounds. It is not happening 200 hundred years, in the 19th century, in the southern United States; it is happening now, in the early 21st century, in Chinese-controlled central Asia.
There are many other things coming out of the Xinjiang province that tell the story of using forced labour, as both Opposition and Government Members have eloquently spoken about. There is forensic technology available, which we could be using in this country, that can pinpoint the region of origin for items tainted by modern slavery, such as cotton. When it comes to new clause 60, on eradicating slavery and human trafficking in supply chains, I ask the Government to set an example by saying that we will, at the very least, commit—a good Government word—to bringing in that forensic technology within a period of time. That would enable us to understand whether western companies are using slave cotton—an incredibly horrible phrase to use in this age—in their manufactured goods.
Finally, we have spoken about Chinese surveillance technology, and I speak again in support of new clause 1. We have got to get this stuff out of the country for a start. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green says, with all the dual-use capabilities and new styles of conflict, not just in conventional military but in data domination, it is really difficult nowadays to say where security starts and finishes.
In summation, we need to understand, as a critical matter of national importance, our supply chain dependency on any country, but specifically China. I implore the Government to use the Bill, even at this late stage, to bring in a statement of dependency so that we can begin to understand and to take measures to work out not how to stop trading with China, but how to trade more safely. That way, if we need to take sanctions in future, and for the health of our relationship with that superpower, we can begin to work out how to diversify our supply chains in future and, at the same time, do something about the horrors happening in Xinjiang.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I rise to speak to my new clause 12 on the protection of subcontractors’ payments under construction contracts. As the explanatory statement describes, the new clause
“ring-fences moneys due to subcontractors in construction supply chains through mandating the use of project bank accounts and ensuring that retention moneys are safeguarded in a separate and independent account.”
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I will speak primarily to new clause 1, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), my name and those of other right hon. and hon. Members.
I have a deal of sympathy with some of the points raised by other Members, not least those eloquently put by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) about trafficking and supply chain risks, as well as those to do with organ harvesting, which all feed back to the subject of China. I appreciate the good work of the Minister, who has listened to some of the representations made, particularly by those of us who have continued grave concerns about the influence of China and its insidious involvement in so many aspects of our society.
We appreciate and are grateful for what has happened so far, but it does not go far enough. That is why I want to speak to some of the themes raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and reinforce how this can only be a staging point and not the end result of what we need to achieve. We very much hope that these provisions will be greatly strengthened in another place.
The new clause that we propose is not extreme or prescriptive. It asks for a serious and realistic timeline, not a completely open-ended one. It passed with a comfortable majority in the House of Lords. It would require the Government to publish a timetable within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent for the removal from the UK procurement supply chain of Chinese technology camera companies that are subject to the national intelligence law of People’s Republic of China. It would catch Hikvision and Dahua Technology cameras that are currently in use across the UK public procurement supply, including in NHS trusts, schools, police forces, jobcentres, prisons, military bases and many local council buildings.
Human Rights Watch has found that Hikvision is one of the principle Chinese companies involved in the construction of the Chinese surveillance state and the camps that house over a million Uyghurs in Xinjiang, as we have heard. A recent report by Big Brother Watch found that about 2,000 public bodies in the UK—some 61%—currently use Hikvision and Dahua surveillance cameras. Other public bodies that have confirmed, in response to freedom of information requests, that they use those cameras include more than 73% of local authorities, more than 63% of schools, more than 66% of colleges, 54% of higher education bodies, 35% of UK police forces, and more than 60% of NHS trusts. There have also been subsequent reports that Hikvision cameras are being used on UK military bases.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. May I return him to the procurement point about what is national security and what is not? He will know, as I do, that if we go to Hong Kong we can see that HSBC, for instance, is already, in a way, in league with the authorities. The changes it is imposing include freezing the pension funds of people who are over here under British National (Overseas) passports and, at times, freezing their bank accounts. It says that it has to obey the Chinese Government. Is that not what we are saying? There is no particular definition. They are all operating, once these companies are in China, under the rule.
Tim Loughton
My right hon. Friend is, of course, right. He and I and others in this place who have been sanctioned in China and beyond have drawn attention to how effectively respectable global British companies are becoming complicit in the suffocation of the democratic principles, freedoms, liberties and rule of law that we all take for granted, and they need to answer for it. Are they on the side of the rule of law, of international freedoms and liberties in all the areas we have described, or have they thrown in their lot for a mess of pottage—or whatever we want to call it—with the Chinese Communist Government, notwithstanding their complete abrogation of any pretence to democratic accountability and freedoms for the individuals who not only happen to live within its borders but against whom they are increasingly able to extend their tentacles globally, not least in this country?
Hikvision and Dalua are both subject to China’s National Intelligence Law, which stipulates that
“any organisation or citizen shall support, assist, and cooperate with state intelligence work according to law”.
The law also permits authorities to detain or criminally punish those who “obstruct” intelligence activities. The presence of vendors who are subject to extrajudicial directions from a foreign Government which conflict with UK law may risk failure by the carrier to adequately protect networks from unauthorised access or interference.
In the UK, Uyghur people face a sustained campaign of transnational repression in the form of threats, harassment, cyberattacks, and online and in-person surveillance. LBC and the Financial Times have recently reported instances of Uyghur people seeking refuge in the UK being offered thousands of pounds a month and blackmailed by Chinese security officers to spy on Uyghur advocates. In that context, the Government must take seriously the threat posed by the presence of this equipment to British national security and the safety of exiled and dissident populations seeking refuge in the United Kingdom. Without urgent action, the UK risks facilitating a system of surveillance designed to extend Chinese domestic policy across borders.
The evidence, which is presented by reputable sources such as IVPM, Axios, The Intercept, The Guardian and the BBC, is deeply troubling. These and other reports paint a harrowing picture of the situation in Xinjiang and provide substantial evidence of Hikvision’s involvement. IVPM’s investigation reveals that Hikvision, a leading provider of surveillance technology, has actively contributed to the surveillance state in Xinjiang, where more than a million Uyghurs are estimated to be held in what we now know to be internment camps. Hikvision’s technology is reportedly used to monitor and control the Uyghur population, facilitating its repression. Worse, it is credibly accused of constructing the surveillance state in Xinjiang in close partnership with the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, a report corroborated by The Guardian, which published leaked documents outlining Hikvision’s close collaboration with Chinese authorities in developing and implementing surveillance technologies in Xinjiang. The evidence suggests a concerted effort by Hikvision to profit from this oppression.
Axios, in its comprehensive reporting, explains that Hikvision’s surveillance cameras are integrated with sophisticated artificial intelligence systems to track, profile and identify individuals in Xinjiang. Let me be clear: this technology is trained to recognise Uyghur-looking faces with a view to profiling them, flagging them when they are doing things of which the Chinese Government do not approve, and then facilitating their persecution through mass surveillance and control with the aim of suppressing their cultural, religious, and political freedoms.
The scale and sophistication of Hikvision’s surveillance technology exacerbate the already dire human rights situation in the region. The Intercept’s exposé provides damning evidence that Hikvision’s technology has been directly used in the internment camps, enabling the Chinese Government to monitor and suppress the Uyghur population. One source revealed that Hikvision’s cameras were installed throughout the camps, capturing every move and expression of the detainees. This raises alarming questions about the company’s complicity in the perpetration of human rights abuses that our own Government have described as
“torture…on an industrial scale”.
The evidence leaves no room for doubt. Hikvision’s involvement in the surveillance and control of the Uyghur population in Xinjiang is deeply troubling, and, even without the security concerns so ably highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, would warrant the company’s removal from our supply chains, consistent with our modern-day slavery commitments. We cannot turn a blind eye to the suffering of millions of innocent people, and help those who persecute them fill their pockets with public money.
Bob Seely
I have a genuine question for my hon. Friend, who is making a brilliant speech, and for the Minister. Given Hikvision’s frankly repugnant role in the ethnically based oppression of an entire people, why on earth is it not covered by our Modern Slavery Act 2015 and how did we let such a repugnant company into this country under any guise?
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend poses a very good question. Whether it is on moral grounds, on the basis of what this House has voted for in the past or on the basis of legislation that is topical in many areas around modern day slavery at the moment, we should not be anywhere near that company or similar companies. Our Government, our public bodies and our procurement agencies need to take much more notice of what Governments do and say. Much more must be done, and urgently so.
It is incumbent on the House to call for a comprehensive investigation into Hikvision’s activities and its complicity in the suspected atrocities against the Uyghurs. We must work alongside our international partners to hold Hikvision and the Chinese Government accountable for their actions. Most importantly, we should use the purchasing power that we have as a Government and the interest we have in public bodies to disincentivise companies from behaving in the way Hikvision has towards the Uyghurs. At the moment, we are not merely failing to hold these companies to account; we are actually making them richer. The Government’s decision to remove Chinese state-owned surveillance at sensitive sites is welcome, but not sufficient. The widespread use of Hikvision equipment by police forces, hospitals and local councils risks providing malign states—
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He has set out an alarming set of issues around the extensive use of this surveillance equipment across various sectors. I know that the Government are listening, so if they were to go ahead as he suggests, should they not, in a parallel way, also ensure that the capacity to fill the gap is there and incentivise other companies to fill it?
Tim Loughton
I do not wish to alarm my hon. Friend, but I am afraid that what we have heard is alarming. The trouble is that it is true. It is based on evidence and the sources that I have given.
We have to achieve a balance here, but we need to show greater urgency to dispel the current installations that we have. We need to ensure that they are replaced with reliable equipment from trusted sources as a matter of urgency. It is that urgency that we are not seeing. My hon. Friend the Minister said that within six months the Government would produce this list—a limited list of action that they are going to take. They could come up with a timeline that is still several years away. That is not realistic or sending out the right messages, and we can and need to do far better.
The widespread use of Hikvision equipment by those different agencies risks providing malign states with a back entrance into UK security and imposing an unwanted reliance on those countries. By contrast, the White House has taken a strong stance on those companies by refusing to support Chinese companies that undermine the security or values of the United States and its allies. Embracing and reasoning would allow the UK Government to be consistent with their commitment to protecting core national security interests and democratic values. That is why this new clause is so important. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that and give us a reassurance and an offer, if we are not taking the new clause to a vote today. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has rather let the cat out of the bag by saying that he will not press his new clause to a vote. If that is the case, more has to be done in the other place. We need much tougher measures than we have seen so far, because I am afraid that the Chinese are laughing at our failure to treat this with the seriousness and urgency that it requires.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak to a number of amendments. It is worth highlighting that the bread and butter of the work of the Public Accounts Committee, which I have the privilege of chairing, is looking at procurement—failed procurement in particular—and making sure that we get on the record and into the brain of Whitehall the lessons learned from those failures. We have also been at the forefront of looking at procurement during covid, and we did our first inquiries into that as early as June 2020. I want to place on record my thanks for the hard work of the National Audit Office, which immediately pivoted to online working to enable us to continue our scrutiny of the Government as a cross-party parliamentary Committee.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The hon. Lady is being very complimentary about an amendment that I tabled and she kindly signed to show cross-party support. Does she agree not only that the cost of evaluation is a rounding error but that the savings from weeding out dud contracts early would dwarf any possible cost? In any case, we already have a network of so-called what works centres, which are arm’s length, independent bodies that have been doing precisely this for ages. The problem is that they cover only about 8% of all that we buy, but they are already in place, so the additional marginal cost would be even smaller.
Dame Meg Hillier
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Of course, if evaluation is built in from the beginning, the company that has been contracted to do the work would be required to collect data. They will say that that involves more cost but, over time, it would wash out. We need a better standard of data collection on all sorts of issues.
Take the example of a contractor that was asked to run a prison. The Government provided data on the prison’s maintenance, but the data was not right as it did not count the number of windows and toilets, and so on, that needed to be fixed, so the company had to come in and count them. In that case, the company had not banked on prisoners breaking more windows than the average in other buildings. There is lots of data, and we keep pushing for it to be collected, and that data could be built into evaluations.
The hon. Gentleman is bang on about making sure we do not send good money after bad. If something is not working, we need the evidence and the political courage, sometimes, to end the contract. We need to make sure that the people delivering a contract are clear that they are delivering the contract’s aims. Evaluation should have the impact of tightening procurement, tightening the management of contracts by the civil service and sharpening up those who bid for contracts to do a better job and to be proud of that job, in the knowledge that doing a good job may well mean that the contract is extended, but not if they do not do a good job. We should also reward good behaviour. I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) tabled amendments that would ensure that organisations involved in nefarious activities are excluded from public procurement. It is extraordinary that companies that are making money in nefarious ways can bolster their activity and give themselves credibility through public procurement. Others have talked a lot about the issues around China, so I will not go into that much more. My right hon. Friend has a strong reputation in this area, and her amendments speak for themselves.
We do not want to miss this opportunity. I recognise that not everything in procurement is about legislation. It would give me some comfort, as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, if the Minister showed that that is being thought about a bit more deeply across Whitehall.
Danny Kruger
This has been a very interesting debate, veering from grand geopolitics to the sourcing of public services and paperclips. All of this is, in a sense, the responsibility of an independent country, so the debate is one benefit of Brexit, for which I am sure we are all very grateful.
I am pleased with the Bill and the Government amendments. I think of it as the patriotic Procurement Bill, which is exactly what we need. I particularly welcome the explicit commitment to national security that has been added to the Bill, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), for their work and their contributions today. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for his tremendous speech about the dangers we face from a more hostile China.
In the Government amendments, and in Government policy in general, we see a necessary new realism in UK policy. Security is the new watchword of our times, and to me it means much more than defence against hostile states. We face all sorts of other threats to our security, including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight mentioned, our extreme dependence on supply chains around the world, not only but particularly those in hostile states.
Conservative Members tend to regard “protecting” and “subsidising” domestic industry as dirty words and unorthodox policies. Nevertheless, we see around the world a growing tide of tariff barriers and domestic subsidies. Our great friends in the United States have committed to spending $500 billion on domestic manufacturers, particularly to wean themselves off Chinese imports. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitments this week to a new US-UK economic collaboration arrangement to secure our common interests and to ensure that we have safe supply chains. We will need to rely more on our allies in future.
As we move from a just-in-time procurement model, we need to recognise, particularly on this side of the House, the role of Government in ensuring economic security. The fact is that £300 billion a year makes the Government the biggest player in the UK economy. As we have heard today, and I pay tribute to the speeches made by Opposition Members, the Government are often not very good at procurement and spending public money for public goods. We could go into the sources and origins of that, but we should recognise that since the late 1990s, and under the Blair and Brown Governments in particular, the model of new public management has created a new doctrine of how Government money should be spent on private sector providers. The principle of introducing internal markets—the purchaser-provider split—was an attempt to ensure greater efficiency, greater value for money and greater responsiveness to the users of public services, and it engendered all sorts of difficulties, too. The hon. Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) listed some of them, and I recognise them from my previous work. Providers have to jump through really bureaucratic processes.
There is a concentration of big suppliers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has done a lot of good work, although he did not speak about it today, on the importance of SME procurement. Large charities in particular can game the system, in the way that large companies can, to secure Government contracts. The Government often do not buy the best; they buy the service that gives commissioners the least risk. Those suppliers often run rings around Government. In the way services are designed and delivered, we see cost deferrals, with payment pushed back beyond the budget cycle; cost shunting, with different parts of the public sector having to carry the cost for a bad contract; the creaming of the high-value, low-cost clients or services; and the parking of high-cost, low-value services. So the providers, whether they are charitable or commercial, game the system. We see that all time, so all this needs improvement and this Bill takes important steps towards ensuring that.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am fascinated by the speech my hon. Friend is making, because he is right in one sense about this. We did a report at the Centre for Social Justice about four or five years ago where we looked at productivity. So often we make international comparisons, but the whole figure for productivity contains that which a country wants to put into it. For example, France does not put health or education into its productivity measures. Health and education have shocking productivity outcomes in terms of cost, which means that France is able to declare itself as having a higher level of productivity. London and the south-east have the highest productivity in Europe, but the real story is that the rest of the UK does not meet the average for the whole of the Europe, which tells us what our problem really is.
Danny Kruger
My right hon. Friend makes important points, and I recognise the difficulty of comparing our productivity figures with those of other countries. The comparison I am making is with our own recent history, but he is absolutely right in what he says. Indeed, the point about what is measured matters enormously. In our debates, we often make the mistake of thinking that the only things that matter are those that can be easily quantified. That is a great challenge we face, particularly in the social sector.
The Government are rightly committed to improving the efficiency and productivity of the public services—I absolutely support them on that—but we face another great challenge that does not get enough of a mention: the need to reduce demand on the system as a whole. We are spending so much not just because we are inefficient, but because the demand on the system is so high. I do not need to run through all the details of the enormous budgets we spend on social breakdowns and the consequences of social problems that we should have averted, in criminal justice, in the health budget, in what is called “social protection”. Some £150 billion is categorised under “social protection” in the public finances—not pensions, but paying for people who have tough lives. We should be seeking to reduce the cost of those budgets, because each one of those costs represents, in a sense, people in trouble. Both for financial and social reasons, we should be trying to reduce that expenditure.
How do we do that? We need social reform. I am not going to bore the House with long thoughts on that, but we need public sector reform, as has been mentioned a bit today, and that includes procurement reform. I acknowledge what Labour is suggesting in some of its amendments and in some of the speeches we have heard: an objection to the whole model of outsourcing. I recognise the objections to some of the failures of public service management—new public management—over the past generation, and some of the challenges of outsourcing and of competition in the public sector or for public services. However, I do not think insourcing everything is the answer. Reverting to a pre-1990 model of everything being delivered by the central state, as one of the amendments and Unison are championing, is not the right model. We need a better model of outsourcing that relies much more on civil society and, in particular, on the local, community-based services in which the UK is so rich and which do such a great job. We need to be able to measure their value properly and commission their services effectively. That is what this Bill aims to do.
I declare an interest, in that I set up and ran for many years projects working in prisons and with youth services. I have personal acquaintance with the challenge of EU procurement, not only social fund commissioning, but central and local government contracts. None of this is easy and I am familiar with all of that. I am familiar with the frustrations of getting on the frameworks; expressing interest; bidding through tenders; and being treated as bid candy on a long contract. I am also familiar with going through a pointless competition process where there is only one obvious provider—the one that helped to design the service—which still has to jump through loads of competitive hoops only for some other random provider to come in and swipe the contract; I speak bitterly from experience. The challenges that small social enterprises face are significant.
The difference between procurement and commissioning is not often acknowledged. We often have procurement departments doing work that is too complicated for them on their own. We need to have proper commissioning where people who are paying for a service work collaboratively with providers, stakeholders, service users and other parts of the system. Everybody needs to bring their assets, resources, skills and experience to co-design the service that is needed locally. The Bill brings us much closer to that model. I greatly welcome the measures that have been included, especially around the simplification of tendering. The single portal is an important development and it is good for transparency as well. The Tell Us Once registration is essential, as is the help that will be given to SMEs and social enterprises, including the active reduction in the barriers to tendering, lower reporting requirements and so on.
Most of all there is the shift from the most economically advantageous regime to the most advantageous regime. That small excision of the word “economically” is an important recognition of the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) was just making about the need to go beyond a purely commercial estimation of the value of social projects. I would go further. In 2020, I wrote a report for the Government who were trying to maximise and sustain the enormous contributions that communities were making during the first lockdown. I suggested that we recognise and declare that the whole of Government commissioning—the whole of public service spending—is to deliver social value for the public. Essentially, that is what we all believe and it should be stated much more explicitly in my view. I just bring the House’s attention back to the Conservative Government’s Social Value Act 2012, which gets those principles right.
I recognise that we need to take enormous steps forward. I honour what the Government have been doing around national security. I also honour the steps that have been taken to ensure greater opportunities for SMEs and social enterprises, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by hon. and right hon. Members across the House about the dangers of sourcing from high-risk countries and parts of countries and those implicated in serious human rights abuses. The appalling persecution of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang is a very powerful case in point that has been echoed by many Members around the House, and I agree very strongly with that.
I rise to speak to amendment 60 and new clause 17. I welcome the provisions in the Bill that aim to help small and medium-sized enterprises to access public contracts. SMEs are often best placed to meet the needs of the communities in which they operate, providing numerous social and economic benefits. Those benefits, often referred to as a social value, cannot simply be reduced to a tick-box exercise. Nor can we allow social value to amount only to crumbs of compensation from corporate giants, while they extract wealth from our communities. Wider economic, social and environmental priorities need to be built in from the start of every procurement process.
The UK spends about £300 billion a year on public procurement. We could question whether that is a good thing. That has already been hinted at—whether some of these services at least would be better off delivered in-house by public bodies themselves rather than via contracts. However, this is probably not the place to go into that debate. I want to focus on the need to use that procurement spend as a force for good—to keep wealth in local economies, to ensure that public money goes to responsible companies and not those that exploit people and nature, and to help us meet our climate goals and to preserve a liveable future for all of us. I want to see values, not just value, at the heart of the public procurement process in public life.
That brings me to amendment 60 on the national procurement policy statement, which sets out the strategic objectives that the Government want public procurement to achieve. The amendment would require the Government to assess and report on the impact of the national procurement policy statement on meeting environmental and climate targets and to set out any steps that they intend to take to meet them.
Thanks to the efforts of climate campaigners across the country, we are now seeing the net zero goal and the need for climate action acknowledged in strategies and policy statements across the public sector. But these acknowledgements remain meaningless unless we assess the real world impact of those statements. Are our plans to reduce emissions actually being implemented and are they working? The amendment would signal to contracting authorities and businesses that the Government are serious about aligning procurement with climate and environmental goals. It would also enable Government to see where policy might need to be strengthened if it is not having the intended impact.
New clause 17 would require public contracts that include the supply of food to be aligned with nutritional guidelines and to specify options suitable for a plant-based diet. We know that animal agriculture is one of the largest contributors to global heating and biodiversity loss, representing around 15% of all greenhouse gas emissions according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation. More and more people are choosing to move to more plant-based eating and almost one quarter of people in Britain now follow a mainly or entirely meat-free diet.
The 2022 progress report to Parliament by the Climate Change Committee urges the Government not to ignore the role of diet and notes:
“Government can influence diet shifts, through mandating plant-based options in public settings”.
My amendment would require public contracts for the supply of food to be in line with the Eatwell Guide, which drew inspiration from the nutritional guidance of what was then Public Health England, developed in conjunction with the devolved nations. Analysis by the Carbon Trust found that, thanks to lower consumption of meat, dairy and sugary foods, the environmental footprint of the Eatwell diet is around one third lower than the current national diet.
In settings such as hospitals and schools, where good nutrition can make all the difference, our public sector should lead the way by offering nutritious and sustainable food. That is too often overridden by a narrow notion of value for money, resulting in vulnerable people being given food that does not meet nutritional guidelines. As we all remember, during the pandemic the Government were forced to U-turn on school meal vouchers after widespread outrage at the poor quality and quantity of food being distributed to families. That was not just one isolated failure; it was symptomatic of a political culture that thinks we can package up children’s nutrition, health or any public service and hand it over to whichever corporate giant says it will do it most cheaply. That is the culture that has to change.
Last year the all-party parliamentary group on the green new deal, which I co-chair, produced a report setting out how local community-based solutions are key to climate action. As part of that inquiry we heard from the Sustainable Food Places network, as well as from community farms and kitchens. A key recommendation that came up again and again was to use the procurement system to support more local food and plant-based diets.
The Government’s own food strategy proposes a target of at least 50% of food spend to be on food produced locally or to high environmental standards, a move I certainly applaud. However, nine months on from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation, we are still awaiting the Government’s response.
Pioneering local authorities and public bodies are leading the way, and my constituency has had some notable successes. In 2020, Brighton received the first-ever Sustainable Food Places gold award. It has brought in improved standards for procurement as part of a wider campaign to get more people eating more vegetables and its school food supplier meets the Food for Life gold standard for championing healthy, local, climate-friendly food.
A more joined-up approach to food, climate and nature and a real commitment to supporting local businesses and community organisations would have huge benefits for our health and our local economies. In addition to the provisions in this new clause, I would therefore hope to see much more support for public bodies that want to put social value at the heart of procurement, to help them to find out how best to get sustainable food from local producers into public sector canteens.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
I rise to speak to my amendment 68, which was tabled with not just my signature on it, but those of the Chairman and the deputy Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.
The amendment is about value for money and evaluation. We have heard during the course of this debate that this excellent Bill, which covers an enormous amount of much-needed reform in this area, deals with about £300 billion-worth of taxpayers’ money every year. That is a vast amount of cash and it is vital that we spend it as effectively as we possibly can. It matters not just for the value for money that taxpayers get, but for the efficiency and effectiveness with which our public services are delivered. That ought to be a compelling dyad if there ever was one.
The aim of amendment 68 is to achieve that evaluation, which we have already heard about from the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I stress that this is not just a cross-party amendment, with support from both Labour and Conservative Members and from the cross-party Public Accounts Committee. It also has a very unusual political coalition behind it, which includes not only the Centre for Policy Studies, the TaxPayers’ Alliance and the Adam Smith Institute—all good, solid free-market, centre-right think-tanks—but Transparency International, Spotlight on Corruption, the Campaign for Freedom of Information and the Centre for Public Data. In other words, it is a very unusual political coalition, backing something because it is right in principle and because it yields better value for taxpayers’ money.
I urge Ministers to give the amendment much closer attention. I appreciate that it is different from the equally important questions that we have also addressed during the course of this debate, about exploitation of workers, exploitation of Uyghurs and human rights abuses around the world. However, domestically, in the middle of a cost of living crisis, it really matters to everybody in our constituencies, the man and woman in the street and hard-working families up and down the country and it can make a prompt difference.
Mary Robinson
Value for money is, of course, at the heart of procurement, and we all want to see it. The Royal Institute of British Architects has recommended post-occupancy evaluation. That would be an effective tool for public buildings such as hospitals and schools. Could it form part of the evaluations that my hon. Friend is talking about?
John Penrose
Absolutely; that is a good and broad-based example that proves the concept’s breadth of applicability.
The whole idea behind that is based on the What Works Network, which is currently backed up by the evaluation taskforce—a joint unit between the Cabinet Office and His Majesty’s Treasury. That is long-standing expertise—over 10 years’ worth—in arm’s length evaluation of Government contracts. It is a great idea in principle, and it has its roots very firmly in successful examples such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which does a crucial job relating to the medicines bought by the NHS.
But—and it is a very big and important “but”—just how much of that £300 billion-worth of public expenditure is properly evaluated each year? The answer, or the “stat of shame” as it is described in the civil service, is 8%—£1 in every £12. That is shocking and should worry us all. Whether or not we are concerned about value for money or the effectiveness of our public services, 8% is far too low. It is true that some major projects have their own arrangements, including gating agreements and a much more structured approach, which we hope will drive improvements, but for everything else—the annual contracts granted on a three-year rolling basis, then renewed, extended and renewed again—that is where the opportunity is, that is where the magic is, and that is where the potential for massive savings and better value for money really lies.
It is an old marketing truism that most marketing and advertising directors will say that they know that they waste roughly 50% of their advertising budget, but they just do not know which half. This will be an opportunity for us, when it comes to Government expenditure, to break that particular truism in half and say, “We will know.” The amendment allows the Minister to exclude contracts if he thinks they are too small or are governed by national security, but for everything else in that £300 billion, or as much of it as we can possibly manage, we will know up front what the contract is supposed to achieve, which is, after all, a rather basic thing—one would think that that would be automatically recorded, but at the moment it just is not.
We have to say up front what we are trying to do, and we are supposed to say at the end of the contract, “Well, did we do it?” That has to be evaluated by an arm’s length body according to the existing independent criteria laid out in something called the Magenta Book, which is long established and well respected. If we do that evaluation, we can then ask, “Did it work?” If it did not, we get a learning loop; an opportunity—as the new economy specialists and entrepreneurs call it—to “fail fast”, to ensure that we spot the duds and do not renew or extend them, or allow them to carry on rolling over willy-nilly. Instead, we say, “We are going to change something because this did not work.” That will be published, and then we will not renew that contract in that form. We will change it to fix the faults that would by then have been identified. At the moment, those faults are not being identified and are allowed to continue to roll and roll.
That is a blessedly simple idea. It will also pay for itself, as I said earlier when the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee was giving her speech, because the amount of money that it would save would pay rapidly not just for the existing costs of the What Works Network, but probably for a huge expansion, were Ministers so minded, of such evaluations to other parts of the national procurement effort. It would therefore cost the taxpayer net not a bean, it would dramatically improve value for money, and it would improve the credibility of our public service delivery, which all Governments of every stripe always struggle with. It would be a ready-made arm’s length route for politicians of any party to say, “We are doing the right thing. This is done independently. We will make sure that, next time around, we weed out the bad and expand the good.” That could be genuinely revolutionary.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats support the provisions in the Bill that will speed up and simplify procurement, and create greater opportunities for new entrants, such as small businesses, to access public contracts. However, we have concerns about those areas of the Bill that create opportunities for circumventing the rules that govern the procurement regime. The Government’s shambolic procurement of personal protective equipment during the pandemic exposed the weaknesses in our procurement system, and showed what can happen when Ministers are awarded too much power, and face too little scrutiny. It is vital that safeguards are in place to ensure that billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money does not go to waste.
Amendment 1, which is in my name, seeks to prevent the use of VIP lanes in the procurement of public contracts. The bypassing of the usual procurement rules via VIP lanes during the pandemic saw £3.8 billion of taxpayer funds handed over to 51 suppliers, many of whom were closely tied to Conservative Ministers and their friends. We all know of the scandals that emerged off the back of those contracts; they included reports of excessive profits and conflicts of interest. The Public Accounts Committee, of which I am proudly a member, has, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), carried out an inquiry on the management of PPE contracts. We found that at no stage was any consideration given to potential conflicts of interest between individuals making referrals through the VIP lane and the companies that they were referring.
The Prime Minister said that he was “absolutely shocked” to read of the allegations against Baroness Mone, but future scandals will not be a shock unless the Government take action to ensure that our public procurement regime cannot be exploited, and prevent Ministers from giving special treatment to their friends without proper scrutiny. Transparency of procurement decisions is paramount. I therefore urge the Government to accept amendment 1, ban VIP lanes and crack down on future cronyism and sleaze.
New clause 9 would ensure that the national health service complied with the public procurement rules set out in the Bill—I would like to press it to a Division this afternoon. Liberal Democrats in the Lords successfully amended the Bill to bring the NHS into its scope, so I am extremely disappointed that the Government have overturned the Lords amendment and are reinstating a huge carve-out for the NHS. Without new clause 9, the Secretary of State for Health will be able to make up their own rules for huge swathes of NHS procurement via secondary legislation. Handing over such a wide-ranging power to the Secretary of State without ensuring proper scrutiny is not the hallmark of a Government who wish to govern with integrity and transparency.
The Government argue that the procurement rules are important for all procurement decisions, so it is unclear why they believe that the NHS, which has a procurement spend of many billions of pounds, should fall outside the new regime. Surely it is essential that the largest public organisation in the country follow the same procurement rules as all other organisations. I therefore urge the Government to accept the new clause, and support the Liberal Democrats in ensuring that NHS procurement represents value for the taxpayer and is subject to proper scrutiny.
To conclude, the Liberal Democrats support efforts to reform our procurement regime, and to introduce new rules to increase transparency and create opportunities for small businesses, but there is too much room in the Bill for the rules to be circumvented. The Prime Minister’s pledge to act with integrity and professionalism risks becoming an empty promise unless the Government take action to prevent the use of VIP lanes. Further, it would be ludicrous for NHS spending to be left outside the regime that governs all other public bodies. Public procurement is the largest area of public spending, totalling approximately £300 billion a year. It is vital that the taxpayer has confidence that the Government are taking due care, and confidence that money is spent in accordance with fundamental principles of transparency and fairness.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). I rise to speak to amendments 61 to 67, which stand in the name of the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge)—sadly, she cannot be here today, so Members are stuck with me. I cannot do an impression of the energy she would have brought to this debate, but I can try to present the arguments that I think she would have made.
What we are trying to do with these amendments is strengthen the provisions in the Bill to help tackle economic crime. One would think, quite logically, that in a Bill on public sector procurement, the risks of economic crime would be quite a significant issue that we would be trying to deal with. I think it is quite right that we use the Bill to tackle issues of national security or modern-day slavery, but equally, I think it is wrong that we do not have the full protections we need for economic crime in the UK.
This is not just a theoretical problem. In a survey from about five years ago, about a quarter of councils said that they had been victims of corruption in their procurement processes. We estimate that the losses are around £876 million a year—the biggest cause of financial loss in local government—so there is clearly plenty of scope for improvement in our performance. We welcome the fact that under the new UK procurement regime, we have an exclusion and debarring regime that is much better, probably much tougher, and hopefully much easier to use. Those provisions do exist in the EU procurement regime, but they have been extraordinarily rarely used in the UK. I think we all hope that we will be much more effective at using the protections that we are putting in place through the Bill.
Mary Robinson
Exclusion and debarment could be a very effective way to incentivise good governance within suppliers, but also to enable local authorities to crack down on and get rid of corruption and fraud in procurement. Indeed, the United States goes a lot further to protect procurement by encouraging whistleblowers to come forward with information through the False Claims Act. In doing so, the US has recovered about £50 billion in respect of fraud in Government procurement and spending. Does my hon. Friend agree that a stronger whistleblowing framework and anonymous whistleblowing, perhaps through a hotline for procurement, could potentially save taxpayers millions of pounds?
Nigel Mills
I agree with my hon. Friend and commend her for the considerable amount of work she has done on whistleblowing—she truly is an expert. In general, the Americans have some good ideas on this. I was at a briefing last week where someone took me through those powers: if someone brings a private prosecution and the Government take it on halfway through, that person gets to keep 20% of the proceeds that are recovered, and if the Government do not take it on and that person is successful, they get to keep 40%. That creates a real incentive in the system for someone to take the huge risk to their personal wellbeing and career of exposing wrongdoing. I think we could learn a very great deal from the American position in that respect.
The amendments I want to speak to can be covered in three different groups. Amendment 67 would give contracting authorities the power to exclude suppliers when they have evidence of economic crime-related wrongdoing, not just a conviction for it. The Bill contains various measures by which authorities that are going through a procurement exercise do not actually have to see convictions—they can see credible evidence. We have ended up in the rather bizarre situation where I can exclude somebody from a procurement if I believe they have been part of a cartel in South America even though they have not been convicted, but I think they might well have been if they were in the UK; however, I cannot exclude somebody who I have real evidence has been committing economic crime in the UK, because there has not been a conviction for it yet.
The problem with that model is that convictions for crimes such as fraud have fallen by about two thirds in the past decade. We have not had a successful prosecution of a large corporate for fraud for a decade, I think, although we have had some deferred prosecution agreements. If we are relying on excluding dodgy companies from the process only where there has been a conviction, we are going to end up in the rather unfortunate position of there not being enough convictions to make the regime successful.
To me, it seems quite reasonable to allow an extension of the more wide-ranging rules in the Bill to apply to an authority that has credible evidence that an economic crime has been committed, especially if that prosecution process is ongoing when that authority is doing the procurement exercise, instead of it not being able to exclude that party from the exercise even though there is a real chance that they could be convicted quite soon. I just think that situation would be a real weakness. I am not saying that we would mandate exclusion in that situation, but empowering authorities to not go ahead with that party or bidder when they have credible evidence seems like quite a reasonable thing to do.
When this issue was raised in the House of Lords, the Government’s response was that it would impose an unreasonable burden on contracting authorities, but as I have just said, the Bill already imposes quite significant potential burdens to try to work out if somebody has been guilty of cartel-like behaviour. I suspect that would be harder than working out whether they have been guilty of actual fraud in the UK. We have the new unit being created that could support authorities in that process. That would not be mandatory. It would be an option that they could use in situations where they have that evidence, so there would not necessarily be any burden at all. I urge the Minister to give real consideration to whether a system that only allows successful prosecution of excluded companies that behave terribly in these areas of crime is the right balance to strike.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
This House, this country and the British public have a long history of supporting human rights. That is why I rise to support amendment 3 in my name. It is signed by Members from across this House.
Up to 100,000 people are brutally butchered for their organs in the People’s Republic of China. It is industrial-scale, state-sponsored organ harvesting, now a nationwide industry worth more than £800 million. The average age of victims is 28. That is not a mere coincidence: 28 is considered by the Chinese Communist party to be the best age for organ harvesting. Hundreds of thousands are kept in internment camps until they are ripe for slaughter. Two or three organs from healthy young adults—28—are worth up to half a million pounds.
The evidence for this crime is growing by the day. The China and Uyghur tribunals, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, former lead prosecutor at The Hague, concluded that Falun Gong, a peaceful religious movement, was the primary target. Worse still, the Chinese Communist authorities have now added the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, some Christians and other prisoners of conscience. The tribunals heard reliable evidence of Uyghur Muslims being subjected to comprehensive blood testing and the collection of DNA, which would allow the oppressive regime to create an organ bank, ready for withdrawals on demand.
Forced organ harvesting is an evil practice that this Government should be doing all they can to stop. At present, there are no specific restrictions on suppliers who are involved in forced organ harvesting. In Committee in the Lords, the Minister stated that this Bill was not the appropriate place to address this issue. I could not disagree more. The hard-earned money of our constituents is free to be used propping up this evil atrocity, but that is not right in a country that prides itself on supporting human rights. We all have a duty to our constituents to make sure they are not inadvertently supporting organ harvesting, or any crime indeed. The Minister also said that forced organ harvesting would already be covered on the grounds of professional misconduct. We have heard that before, only for it to turn out, once a Bill becomes law, that it is not covered. On professional misconduct, may I provide just one example? Once when a surgeon was removing organs, he noticed—he went into a cold sweat—that the body he was operating on was in shock: he was still alive. Professional misconduct!
Forced organ harvesting is not an issue to take such a chance on; it needs specific references relating to this crime against humanity. Last month’s G7 heard our Prime Minister state that we need to work together with our allies to “de-risk” ourselves from China. In the United States, Congressman Chris Smith has introduced a Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Bill, which the House of Representatives almost unanimously supported—straight across. This amendment keeps us in line with our allies. Last November, the Prime Minister delivered his big foreign policy speech and said, on our relationship with China, that
“we will make an evolutionary leap in our approach. This means being stronger in defending our values… And it means standing up to our competitors, not with grand rhetoric but with robust pragmatism.”
This amendment is robust pragmatism in practice. It is not grand rhetoric, but action— action to make sure we are strong in defending our values; action to make sure public money is not supporting a crime against humanity; action that this whole House can be proud of, as it always has been on human rights.
I urge Members from across the House to support amendment 3 to keep our hands clean from this evil practice of forced organ harvesting. We must not continue to turn a blind eye to these horrendous breaches of human rights. Governments across the world need to step up on this. We need to be working together, for—believe you me—China would be far more difficult than Russia.
Kirsty Blackman
It has been an incredibly wide-ranging debate. Everyone has had the opportunity to speak on their own amendments and I find myself trying to speak on everyone’s amendments. I will do my best but if I miss anyone’s it is not personal—it is just that there are a lot of them. I will try to focus on those we are expected to vote on and some that we feel most passionately about.
I was glad to hear the Minister talking about the positions of the Welsh and Scottish Parliaments and recognising that they are consistent with previous positions on trade deals. We consistently believe there is overreach in extending into devolved areas and that is why legislative consent has been withheld on this occasion. Since Brexit particularly, the UK Parliament has been meddling in devolved areas, or allowing itself the power to do so, far more than previously. That is one of the many unfortunate consequences of “bringing back power”: it is power to the Executive, not so much to the devolved Administrations or the rest of us in Parliament.
This Bill is key because the spending of taxpayers’ money for the benefit of, and on behalf of, taxpayers is a hugely powerful and important method the Government can use to ensure that they serve citizens in the best possible way, and that they support behaviours that they want to support and reject those they want to reject, in much the same way as tax laws and new tax measures can be created and implemented to discourage or encourage certain behaviours. There is an opportunity in the Procurement Bill and public procurement to do more than the Government have done in encouraging behaviour.
A number of amendments from Opposition Front Benchers specifically focus on that. I am pleased to see the tax transparency amendment, new clause 10. It makes sense to ask companies to be open and upfront about how much tax they are paying. It is very difficult to find out some of this information and it makes a huge amount of sense that decisions around public procurement could and should be made on the basis of considering whether companies are actually paying the tax they are or should be liable for here.
Amendment 2 from the Opposition on transparency declarations is also incredibly sensible. A number of Members around the House have mentioned the VIP lanes and the fact that there were fast-track contracts in relation to covid. The amendment strikes the right balance. The Government say we need to have fast-track processes and to be able to award contracts quickly. Amendment 2 would still allow that to happen. It would allow the speed that is necessary in emergencies and crises such as covid. It would allow procurement to happen speedily, but would increase the transparency; whether it is an MP, a peer, a senior civil servant or a Minister, a transparency declaration would be required. We wholeheartedly support that amendment.
I turn to amendment 18 on breaching staff rights. The amendment is once again about trying to encourage the behaviour we want to see. We want to see public money, public spending and public contracts going to companies who treat their workers fairly and do not breach workers’ rights. The amendment sets a high bar on exclusion from public procurement as it is specifically about excluding those companies found guilty by an employment tribunal or a court; it not just on the basis of one whistleblower whose case may not yet have been proven. Once again, we wholeheartedly support that.
Alex Burghart
It is a pleasure to wrap up a very interesting Report stage on this landmark piece of post-Brexit legislation that will allow our country to rewrite its procurement rules for the first time in decades.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who had interesting reflections on the Bill. One could be forgiven for being able to listen to her remarks and not understand that the SNP has absented Scotland from the legislation. That is a great shame, and I believe that deep down she recognises the potential of the legislation. As the years go by, and small and medium-sized enterprises, and other businesses and contracting authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland benefit from the new regime, we will take pleasure in reminding businesses and contracting authorities in Scotland that it was the SNP that chose to keep Scotland out of it.
I touched on new clause 1, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), in my opening remarks. I am grateful for his saying that he will not push the new clause to a vote today. In return, I am pleased to reaffirm what I said earlier: we are happy to talk to him and other colleagues who are concerned about the definition of “sensitive”, to ensure that it captures the issues about which he is concerned. We do not consider “sensitive” to attach itself just to sites of military significance or intelligence centres controlled by the agencies. It goes further, and we will take his points away regarding ministerial movements.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
May I be clear? On the question I was asking, and have been asking, the Government have moved, particularly in reference to the national security laws of China, but my key point is that the Government should consider that all Departments fall into that category. There should not be any “B” definition. It would be far better if everybody were incorporated into that definition by the time the Bill got to the other place. Supplication would then have to be made for a variation or change, which the Cabinet Office will make a decision about. Start with the power; then let them come and ask for it to be changed. That is the way to do it.
Alex Burghart
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He will have heard me say earlier that we understand his views that “sensitive” could incorporate a broader range of assets, where information gleaned on the movement of officials and politicians could be detrimental to our national security.
I reaffirm our commitment to make a statement in the House within six months of Royal Assent, setting out the timeline for the removal from sensitive sites of surveillance equipment supplied by companies subject to the national intelligence law of China. I state again my gratitude to my right hon. Friend for his important work in this area and for the constructive dialogue that we have had with colleagues on the matter.
Amendment 3, tabled by the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), introduces a new ground for the exclusion of suppliers involved in forced organ harvesting. The amendment replicates an amendment made to the Bill in the other House, and subsequently removed by Committee of this House. I reassure her that the Government are not turning a blind eye to the extraordinarily important subject that she raises and highlights consistently.
We are in full agreement that complicity in the abuses associated with the overseas organ trade must not be tolerated. The Government have taken action to address that issue on a number of fronts. The Health and Care Act 2022 prohibits commercial organ tourism. I know the hon. Lady was involved in discussions leading to those provisions being included in the Act. The Government continue to monitor and review evidence relating to reports of forced organ harvesting in China, and maintain a dialogue with leading NGOs and international partners on that very important issue. I reassure her that forced organ harvesting is already covered by the exclusion grounds for professional misconduct. These grounds cover serious breaches of all ethical and professional standards—whether mandatory or not—that apply to different industries and sectors. The mandatory grounds in relation to corporate manslaughter and human trafficking are also relevant in this context. We have sought to limit the grounds—particularly those which, like this one, require an assessment of factual circumstances by the contracting authority—to those where there is a major and particular risk to public procurement. We are not aware of any evidence that a supplier to the UK public sector has been involved in forced organ harvesting, but I want to reassure the hon. Lady that the Bill will be able to deal with this horrendous practice appropriately.
Debbie Abrahams
I just want to make sure that the Minister has not forgotten my new clause 12.
Alex Burghart
I absolutely have not, and I am very much looking forward to getting to it after I gone through the intervening amendments. I appreciate the hon. Lady’s enthusiasm.
The mandatory grounds for exclusion cover the types of misconduct that raise only the most serious risks for contracting authorities. We have strengthened the mandatory grounds significantly in comparison with the EU regime, but they cannot and should not cover every offence that could raise a risk to contracting authorities. However, I can offer reassurance that the offences in question could justify discretionary exclusion on the ground of professional misconduct. This means that contracting authorities would have the flexibility to consider excluding the supplier, but could also factor in the nature of the contract being tendered and other relevant considerations in exercising their discretion.
Amendment 67 seeks to add a discretionary exclusion ground where there is evidence of financial and economic crime activity but there has not been any conviction of the listed offences. These concerns would already be caught by the ground of professional misconduct, which permits contracting authorities to weigh up the available evidence in the context of their procurement and use their discretion in determining whether an exclusion would be appropriate.
New clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), revisits the issues we discussed in Committee on the application of this Bill to certain healthcare services. New Clause 9 would insert a new clause 119 that would amend the Health and Care Act 2022, effectively deleting the power that enables the Department of Health and Social Care to make bespoke procurement regulations for the purposes of certain healthcare services, known as the provider selection regime. Amendment 13 deletes the existing clause 119 that provides a Minister of the Crown with a power to disapply the Bill to enable the provider selection regime regulations to be applied to those healthcare services.
The combined effect of these two amendments would be to stop the Department of Health and Social Care making separate procurement rules for certain healthcare services, and make the Procurement Bill apply to all healthcare services instead. As was discussed in Committee, the idiosyncrasies of healthcare delivery necessitate some special rules. The decision to create a free-standing scheme of healthcare-specific rules was taken in 2021 to give the NHS the tools required to deliver more joined-up patient pathways through the health system and to avoid some of the problems of double regulation of both the existing healthcare rules and the standard procurement rules. Significant effort has been expended and invested in consulting on and developing that free-standing scheme over several years now. All sides of the marketplace, including commissioners and providers in the healthcare industry, are expecting this new scheme to be delivered promptly to meet the policy aspirations that they have been so extensively consulted upon.
The Procurement Bill does not address any special measures tailored to support the healthcare reform made by the Health and Care Act 2022, as these measures have always been intended to be provided for in the new provider selection regime regulations. For example, the provider selection regime would permit direct awards to be made in defined circumstances, such as critical A&E services, that cannot be disrupted or when a certain provider is required to play a pivotal role in an integrated healthcare system. It would be incredibly unhelpful for both schemes at this critical stage, when both these healthcare regulations and the Procurement Bill are on the cusp of delivery, to start attempting to unpick it all now. Doing so would add unacceptable and entirely avoidable costs and delays to both programmes, for no tangible benefit. It would also mean more NHS contracts being subject to the rules of the Procurement Bill without due consideration of the exemptions and specific arrangements required to safeguard sustainable and joined-up delivery of NHS services to patients.
Of course Parliament will have its rightful opportunity to scrutinise the provider selection regime regulations, but it cannot be right to do this through the Procurement Bill for the purpose of killing off a near-ready scheme that supports important healthcare reforms that have already been debated and agreed by Parliament in the Health and Care Act.
Amendment 14, also tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, would explicitly name the NHS in the definition of a contracting authority, a matter also discussed in Committee. Although I understand and entirely agree with the view that NHS bodies should be contracting authorities within the scope of this legislation, there is no need for any amendment in this respect, as the Bill already applies to NHS bodies in its current form.
New Clause 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Vauxhall, would require the submission of a tax report where a bidder is a multinational supplier. The tax reports of winning bidders would then be published. I understand that the aim of this amendment is to encourage contracting authorities to favour suppliers that can demonstrate responsible tax conduct. However, hon. Members will know that the basis on which contracts must be awarded under the Bill is by reference to award criteria that relate to the contract being tendered, not to other matters such as where a supplier pays tax. This is the right principle to deliver value for money for the taxpayer. Crucially, it is also a feature of the UK’s international obligations under the World Trade Organisation’s Government procurement agreement. Of course, the Government expect businesses to take all necessary steps to comply with their tax obligations. It is for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to enforce the law on tax, and indeed UK-based multinational enterprises are required to make an annual country-by-country report to HMRC.
Turning to amendment 2, tabled by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), we consider that the Bill already has the balance right in terms of achieving greater transparency on direct award. Indeed, save for the small subset of user-choice contracts, it will now be mandatory to publish a transparency notice declaring an intention to award a contract in every case. This will include confirmation of the contracting authority having undertaken a conflicts assessment prior to signature of the contract.
In addition, the Bill also requires the conflicts position to be kept under review and to be revised at key points in the procurement, which will be confirmed via the contract details notice, after the contract is signed. This further ensures contracting authorities comply with ongoing statutory requirements contained in the Bill. Of course, we are all aware that MPs and peers are already required to register their interests, and civil servants are required to confirm annually that their declarations of interest are up to date. Furthermore, the Bill includes an additional safeguard in clause 83(4) so that where
“a contracting authority is aware of circumstances that…are likely to cause a reasonable person to…believe there to be a conflict”
these must also be addressed. We take these matters very seriously, and there is no need for additional provision to cover this issue. We will continue to work with contracting authorities to show that they know the requirements around conflicts of interest and that they are implemented effectively.
On new clause 12, I welcome the ongoing efforts of the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) to improve liquidity for small businesses, including by advocating for and championing the increased use of project bank accounts. We recognise the energy and enthusiasm she brings to that campaign.
As I said in Committee, project bank accounts are most often an effective way to ensure fair payment and to protect suppliers, and they are already the Government’s preferred vehicle for construction contracts where it is cost-effective and cost-efficient. Government Departments have made a commitment to use PBAs in construction projects unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. However, it is not the Government’s position that PBAs should be mandated across all contracting authorities, as they are not always suitable or cost-effective, particularly where the subcontractor is very small or is paid more frequently than monthly, or where the supply chain is short. Instead, we intend to continue educating contracting authorities, through guidance, on the circumstances in which we believe PBAs are practical and effective.
Debbie Abrahams
I remind the Minister that new clause 12 covers contracts worth over £2 million, so it is not for all contracts.
Alex Burghart
I accept the hon. Lady’s point, but there are other circumstances to consider, which I have just outlined.
We are already working with industry to discourage the withholding of retentions by supporting zero retention for high-quality work pilot projects and reducing the default rate of retentions within certain types of contract to zero. However, we do not support dictating the operation of construction contracts to the degree proposed.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I stand here today proud of the progress we have made to deliver an important manifesto commitment. The Procurement Bill constitutes a vital piece of legislation following our exit from the European Union, which allows us to set our own rules that will work best for the UK. I am delighted to say that we will sweep away bureaucratic regulations and broaden opportunity to small businesses right across the country.
One in every £3 of public money, some £300 billion a year, is spent on public procurement. For too long, modern and innovative approaches to public procurement have been bogged down in bureaucracy. We are changing that. The Bill simplifies our public procurement rules, cutting down the 350 different procurement regulations to create a single rulebook. This will create a more efficient, innovative and friendly procurement system, increasing value for money and opening up public contracts to small businesses, in turn supporting the Prime Minister’s commitment to grow the economy.
Jeremy Quin
I keep promising my colleagues that I will be brief, but I will always give way to the hon. Lady.
Debbie Abrahams
The Minister is being very generous with his time. He will not be surprised by my question. I was a little disappointed that my new clause 12, on introducing and mandating project bank accounts, was disregarded. I mentioned the estimate that 6,000 small construction firms will go into insolvency this year. What is the Department’s analysis of how that might be prevented by project bank accounts?
Jeremy Quin
I am sure I could try to produce a one-hour solution, or I could be more direct with the hon. Lady. I know she has raised this issue on numerous occasions, but she and I have not spoken about it one-on-one. If she wishes to speak to me about it, we could have a meeting, if that would help. I might learn something from it or I might be able to inform the hon. Lady, but if she wishes to do that, I will make certain that we have that opportunity.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
On that point, will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Bill Wiggin
Construction businesses are terribly important. If the Government could do something about the ban on building, for example because of pollution in the River Wye, then those construction businesses would find new opportunities and would flourish.
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend is vociferous on the issue of the River Wye. He never misses an opportunity and has proved his dexterousness yet again, in doing so in this debate.
We, on the Government Benches, are proud to be the party of small business. I am delighted that, as part of this Bill, authorities will now have to have regard to small and medium-sized enterprises and the barriers that they face.
Finally, the Bill will put in place a new exclusions framework that will help to make it easier to reject bids from suppliers whose performance on previous contracts has been unacceptable, or who have been involved in serious wrongdoing, such as fraud, collusion or modern slavery. Crucially, on Report, we introduced a package of vital amendments that will protect our national security and ensure that public contracts do not go to suppliers who pose a risk to our country.
We will also create the national security unit for procurement, which will proactively investigate suppliers for national security threats, and we will publish, within six months of the passing of the Bill, a timeline for the removal of all the surveillance equipment provided by suppliers subject to the national intelligence law of China from sensitive Government sites, protecting places that are most vulnerable to sinister interference and espionage. Together, these changes constitute robust protections against the ever increasing national security threats.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all hon. Members across the House for the quality of the debates and the scrutiny provided throughout the passage of the Bill. I am indebted to my hon. Friends and to those across the House for the helpful engagement and the comments they have made, which have undoubtedly refined this crucial piece of legislation.
I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) for his excellent work on Committee and on Report in this House, and to Baroness Neville-Rolfe for her tireless work in the other place. The Bill has had a long progression, so I would also like to thank our predecessors, Lord Agnew and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg), for their work on the Bill in its earlier stages.
I thank the officials who have worked on this Bill, particularly the Bill manager, Katrina Gayevska, Sam Rowbury, Ed Green, Janet Lewis and other officials who worked on this legislation, as well as the staff in the private offices of all the Ministers in the Cabinet Office, for their support and help throughout.
When he entered office, the Prime Minister said that he would deliver on the manifesto on which we were elected. I am proud today to be doing just that, and I wholeheartedly commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I start where the right hon. Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) left off, by saying thank you to all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) for her contributions throughout the stages of the Bill. I also thank the brilliant Clerks and the House staff, and everyone who has been involved and on hand to support every step of the Bill.
It has been a long and complex process, and I know the Cabinet Office has been very busy in recent weeks, so I welcome the opportunity to debate something of more substance today. Unfortunately, the substance of the Bill, while necessary, is a little bit of tinkering around the edges of a broken system. I understand the need for a new Procurement Bill, to consolidate the patchwork of former EU rules and to bring the spaghetti of procurement regulations into one place, but it seems this distracted Government are more concerned with the civil war than writing good legislation.
Britain faces huge economic challenges—challenges made worse by years of economic incompetence, a disastrous kamikaze Budget and a Government on the side of vested interests. Wages have flatlined, prosperity has turned to stagnation and Britain has the highest forecast inflation in the G7. Procurement is one of the biggest and most effective tools available to Government to drive up standards across the economy and create world-class, affordable and effective public services.
As the Minister said in his response, we are talking about £300 billion of public money a year, a third of public spending and more than the NHS budget. What we should be debating this evening is a bold new set of rules to direct investment to the places that need it most. We should be discussing how we can clear the pipes and flush out the system with transparency after years of cronyism and waste. We should be debating legislation that pumps money back into the pockets of local communities, creates decent jobs and skills in our towns and cities, and hands wealth back to the people who built Britain.
Instead, what we have before us today is a damp squib. This Bill fails to close the loopholes that saw obscene waste of taxpayers’ money through the VIP lane, it fails to mandate social value to secure investment in good British business, and it fails to create robust protections for workers. Labour recognises the need for a new procurement Bill, and for that reason we will not oppose this one, but surely we can do better than this.
This evening the Government chose to vote against a Labour amendment that would have blocked VIP lanes, for the third time. They have had three opportunities to show that they have learnt from the waste and the cronyism that we saw during the pandemic, and on all three occasions they have refused. In fact, loopholes included in this Bill will make it easier for Ministers to bypass existing transparency rules. The Tory VIP lane is at the heart of why we need a procurement Bill. It exposed the true weaknesses in the system and showed us why we desperately need a more agile and transparent procurement system.
Jeremy Quin
It is a bit late in our proceedings, but I really would encourage the right hon. Lady to read the Bill, even at this late stage.
Angela Rayner
I think the Minister knows full well that I have read the Bill, and it is a real shame that in the conversations that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and I have had with him and his team, they have refused to help stop this loophole. The Tory cronyism on the VIP lane is still there in this legislation. The VIP lane enabled a shameful waste of taxpayers’ money and profiteering by unfit and unqualified providers, and as a result the Government have written off £10 billion of public funds spent on personal protective equipment that was unusable, overpriced or undelivered.
While I welcome the moves in the Bill to issue “transparency notices” before awarding a contract, these are just baby steps; they barely scratch the surface. We must see end-to-end transparency. And it is not just me who thinks that. The amendment that the Government voted down today is a proposal by the National Audit Office, a totally independent body calling for the Government to end their murky practices that saw taxpayers’ money wasted at eye-watering rates.
This Bill also gave us an opportunity to reimagine the way we spend public money in order to promote decent work across the economy, to reward businesses that treat their workers right, and to use procurement to raise the floor on working conditions for all. Any suppliers given taxpayers’ money should provide their workers with decent pay, respect, dignity and fairness, as well as access to a trade union. Economies across the world expect that from their employers. In France, Germany and the Netherlands, for example, more collective bargaining, stronger workers’ rights and a fair share of wealth lead to higher growth, productivity and staff retention. President Biden’s Government direct investment to companies with a track record of treating their workers with respect, so why can’t we?
But over the last 13 years, the Tories have failed to use the levers of government to drive up standards for working people. In fact, things have got worse. I am disappointed but not surprised that the Government today voted down our amendment, which would have held suppliers to account when they repeatedly abuse workers’ rights. Taxpayers do not expect their money to be handed to suppliers with a track record like that. They want to see their money going to suppliers who pay their staff properly and who uphold fair conditions, job security and union access. That is the bare minimum.
I also want to take this moment to welcome the Government’s last-minute amendments on national security. I could not help but recognise some of those amendments. I would also like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), whom I worked closely with to highlight the need for change in managing the risk in procurement. I welcome the Minister’s recognition that the current system leaves the door open for foreign threats to enter our supply chain and for taxpayers’ money to be spent with no oversight on whether they are properly vetted. That said, I hope the Minister can tell us what criteria his Government will use to identify suppliers who pose a risk to national security, and I hope he will consider the inclusion of cyber-security criteria in that assessment.
In closing, I would like to once again thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions today. While procurement might seem a dry topic, it is absolutely central to the way that our country works, and when Ministers abuse the procurement system, it is taxpayers who suffer. As we saw during the pandemic, the VIP lane for PPE contracts was a scandal of epic proportions that allowed the shameful waste of taxpayers’ money and inexcusable profiteering, yet instead of learning the lessons of this failure, this evening Ministers voted for a third time to protect the loophole that allows the VIP lanes to exist. The Government have a duty to learn the lessons from the pandemic and, quite frankly, Ministers have abdicated that duty here today. While the Tories are too distracted to govern, Labour in power would flush cronyism out of the system and protect taxpayers, to ensure that every pound is spent in the national interest.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
Energy Bill [Lords]: Ways and Means
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Energy Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—
(1) the imposition, by virtue of the Act, of charges or payments under licences issued under the Gas Act 1986;
(2) the making of provision under the Act requiring electricity suppliers to make payments, or to provide financial collateral, to the Secretary of State;
(3) the making of provision under the Act in relation to income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty, stamp duty reserve tax, stamp duty land tax or value added tax in connection with a transfer of property, rights or liabilities by a scheme under the Act.—(Andrew Bowie.)
Electronic Trade Documents Bill [Lords]: Second Reading
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order Nos. 59(3) and 90(5)), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).
Electronic Trade Documents Bill [Lords] Committee
Ordered,
That the Electronic Trade Documents Bill [Lords] Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.—(Robert Largan.)
Procurement Bill [HL]
Monday 11th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 147-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Amendments - (8 Sep 2023)
18:13 - Division on the amendment to the Motion - Ayes: 76 / Noes: 187 - Amendment to the Motion disagreed.
18:31 - Division on the Amendment to the Motion - Ayes: 173 / Noes: 187 - Amendment to the Motion disagreed.
19:25 - Division on Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 102 - Ayes: 156 / Noes: 151 - Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 102 agreed.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.
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
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for our meeting last week. I have listened carefully to what she has said today and during that meeting; I am afraid that she has not convinced me that the procurement rules for the NHS would be as strong, clear, transparent and accountable as we find in this Procurement Bill. My Amendments 1A and 81A would ensure that the NHS is included.
During the passage of the Health and Care Act 2022, the very short Clauses 79 and 80 gave the NHS exemption from this Bill, with procurement rules to be introduced in secondary legislation by the Health Secretary. Seventeen months on, this still has not happened. When she spoke just now, the Minister relied on government Amendment 82. However, in the consultation—it is, I believe, still open—the NHS provider selection scheme that she referred to sets out some general principles only. During an earlier stage of this Bill, in response to my earlier amendments, the noble Lord, Lord True, referred to clinical contracts being exempt. However, that is not so; in fact, I note that, today, the Minister has been referring to healthcare. Every single time I ask a Minister a question, the definition changes.
In the NHS provider selection scheme, the flexibility rests with NHS bodies to make their own decisions about which scheme they use. The consultation document says:
“This is intended to remove unnecessary levels of competitive tendering … the Provider Selection Regime is intended to make it straightforward to continue with existing arrangements for service provision where those arrangements are working well and there is no value for the patients, taxpayers, and population in seeking an alternative provider”.
Those phrases—“remove unnecessary levels of competitive tendering”, “working well” and “no value in seeking an alternative provider”—are worrying, frankly. The problem, as we have discussed at length in our debates on this Bill, is that poor practice creeps into a culture where people believe that things are working well. The rules that this Bill sets out are there to ensure that every public body putting out a tender has carefully thought through what is appropriate, not just working well.
There is evidence that the current practice in NHS procurement has a mixed record, whether at the highest level or right down at the level of local trusts and CCGs, which is often covered by the specialist press. Despite a blunt National Audit Office report in 2011 on value for money in NHS procurement, the experience during the pandemic showed that some of the deep-seated culture of things not being value for money and not being completely open and transparent continues. The NAO has commented on this and the NHS recognised it in its response paper, Raising Our Game, in which it said:
“Recent reports suggest NHS procurement is lagging behind industry procurement performance”.
Unlike Ministers, the Civil Service and staff at many other public bodies, who are constrained by conflict of interest rules, it is possible for NHS staff, including directors, to use a revolving door to move from the NHS and join a company that contracts with the NHS without a gap. Last year, a deputy director and the head of AI at NHS Digital both left and immediately joined the technology firm Palantir just as it was bidding for further contracts, some without open tendering; Palantir is known to be bidding currently for the federated digital platform contract, which is worth an estimated £360 million and is due to be awarded imminently. Only 10 days ago, the chief operating officer of the NHS left on a Friday and joined Doccla, the virtual ward company that is bidding for substantial NHS contracts, the following Monday. It was also reported in July this year that NHS Digital had spent £7 million on “irregular” payments to external contractors while, last year, the Treasury flagged “irregular” spending by the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS worth £1.3 billion. Let me say that again: £1.3 billion. Last year, the Technology and Construction Court found that staff from three CCGs in the south-west had manipulated a £2 million contract knowing it to be improper.
Many of these incidents are not reported widely. I thank in particular the Health Service Journal and other technology and health reporters for shining a light on this poor practice, even if it is not regular, wherever it has happened. This is not about those individuals nor the contracting companies. It is about the culture of procurement in the NHS. My amendment would ensure that by including the NHS in this Procurement Bill it would share robust regulations with other bodies and would be accountable and transparent even if there is a need for some subsequent special arrangements for complex clinical contracts. Not doing this will not change the culture of NHS procurement but including it in this Bill will. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 4A in this group is in my name. My amendment in lieu would insert a number of priorities and principles into the Bill. I will be fairly brief because we discussed these issues at length both in Committee and on Report but we felt that they were important enough—and were considered important enough by noble Lords during those debates—to bring the amendment back once again.
My amendment asks that due regard be given to a number of priorities and principles. The first is “maximising public benefit”. Public benefit is mentioned in the Bill but we feel that it is too vague, which is why we want to pin it down more within another amendment. Maximising public benefit would include
“the achievement of social value, through the securing of environmental objectives”;
many noble Lords were concerned at the lack of environmental objectives in the Bill. It would also include
“promoting innovation amongst potential suppliers”.
We also think that it is important to have
“value for money, by having regard to the optimal whole-life blend of economy, efficiency and effectiveness that achieves the intended outcome of the business case”.
In our previous debates, the Minister spoke strongly about the importance of value for money, so I hope that she understands why the second part of our amendment is clearly important and would strengthen the Bill.
The next part of my amendment deals with transparency. We think that it is important that we act
“openly to underpin accountability for public money”,
tackle corruption and ensure that all procurement is fully effective in achieving this. We also think that good management should be in place in order to have proper integrity, prevent misconduct and exercise
“control in order to prevent fraud and corruption”.
Importantly, we have added in “fair treatment of suppliers”. I thank the Minister for her work on improving the Bill for small and medium-sized enterprises, but we feel that more could be done to ensure that
“decision-making is impartial and without conflict of interest”.
The final part of my amendment concerns non-discrimination—that is,
“ensuring that decision-making is not discriminatory”.
The reason why we have had such a debate about this matter is that the principles were originally in the Government’s Green Paper and were consulted on. Our concern is that those principles were then left out of the Bill even though the objectives were included. So, my amendment would bring those principles back into the Bill.
We believe that social and public value are important requirements for any contracting authority to consider in order, for example, to encourage anyone contracting to work with local suppliers; to encourage contractors to reduce their CO2 emissions; to encourage the hiring of more apprentices; and to encourage greater diversity. We believe that, if the Government are to deliver their ambitions of levelling up and net zero, it will be important to include these principles in the Bill. We know that social value is included in the national procurement policy statement—the Minister made much of the NPPS in our previous debates—but it is not referred to in the Bill. We also know that public benefit is mentioned in the Bill, but it is not clear to us how social value would sit within that framework. How will it all come together to ensure that it works for the public benefit? We know that the NPPS will include the Government’s strategic priorities but, again, we do not know clearly what those are. Further, the Bill does not mention innovation, which is why it is an important part of my amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said when we previously debated the Bill:
“When our current Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he put innovation at the forefront of his economic approach to improving productivity”.—[Official Report, 28/11/22; col. 1619.]
So why not include it in this Procurement Bill?
As the Minister said in her previous response to similar amendments, innovation and competition have an important part to play here. Procurement should be an enabler of innovation. It is important that there is clarity around these principles and objectives. How will innovation be part of it, for example? The Bill will shortly become legislation. We must revisit these concerns and we want to persuade the Minister to consider very carefully what we have been saying and why we are saying it. From her responses, we do not believe that at previous stages there was adequate explanation of how all this would operate. Good sentiment from the Government and the Minister, and promises around an NPPS we have not seen, are not sufficient to ensure that we have the best procurement legislation possible, which we all want to see. Our amendments would help achieve that end.
Sadly, the Minister has again disappointed me with her introduction on these issues, although I thank her for all the work she has done as we have progressed so far. It is my intention to move my amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will contribute on Amendments 4A and 4B in particular. As noble Lords will recall, the structure of Amendment 4A, as an amendment in lieu of the Commons Amendment 4, incorporates to an extent some of the issues raised in the strategic priorities that your Lordships sent to the Commons to be included in the national procurement policy statement. I will explain how that works in a minute.
Like other noble Lords, I am grateful for the time and effort that my noble friend the Minister has given to listening to what we had to say. On Commons Amendment 5—which would get rid of the reference to “strategic priorities”—I was focused on innovation, as she knows. Innovation is essential to the quality and effectiveness of procurement. Also, public procurement is a substantial part of this country’s economic activity. If it promotes innovation, it can make a significant difference to our overall economic performance and to reconciling our productivity problems. The fact that, in the absence of Amendment 4, the Bill would make no reference to innovation is such an omission that, on those grounds alone, Amendment 4A should be added back to the Bill.
When we tabled our amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and I tried to ensure that the national procurement policy statement was clear about what we regarded as enduring strategic priorities. We have backed off from that. My noble friend and the Minister in the other place were clearly told that we must have maximum flexibility. I still do not understand why the Russian invasion of Ukraine might mean that public procurement in the United Kingdom should not have regard to social value; none the less, leaving that to one side for a moment, I accept that there is an ideological commitment in government to the idea that everything that government does must be so flexible that you cannot even predict some of the basic principles within it.
We have dropped the strategic priorities; we have made them principles. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, rightly has it, we have moved from “must include” to “have regard to”. Therefore, Ministers are not constrained to include in the statement innovation, the achievement of social value, the achievement of environmental objectives or, for that matter, transparency, integrity, fair treatment, non-discrimination and value for money. However, the idea that any of these things would be left out of a national procurement policy statement is wholly unacceptable.
I come back to the essential question: what are we trying to do? We are trying to set the framework for contracting authorities to undertake public procurement. From our point of view, the statement should include whatever the Government think it should include but it should not exclude such basic central principles of public procurement. We have only to ask ourselves what conclusion we would draw if the Government were to send a draft of an NPPS to Parliament which left these things out. In my view, we would have to reject it. What is the benefit of that? Better to put it in the Bill now, make it clear to Ministers and, frankly, officials, that it should be in the statement so that, when the draft of the NPPS comes, we can tick the box, send it forward and approve it.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, will add matters on social value. I just say that we may have left the EU public procurement regime but, when you look at the centrality of social value to public procurement in other jurisdictions across Europe, the idea that you would not seek social value through public procurement seems wholly unacceptable.
I was quite struck by the paucity of argument presented in Committee in the other place when our amendment to the Bill was deleted. In addition to:
“It needs to be as flexible as possible”,—[Official Report, Commons, 31/1/23; col. 54.]
which was predictable, what irritated me especially, as my noble friend on the Front Bench is now aware, was that references to integrity, transparency and value for money are already in the Bill, in Clause 12. The Committee in the other place clearly paid no attention to the Bill in front of it, since Clause 12 relates to covered procurement. As we noticed in our debates in Committee, the national procurement policy statement is not confined to covered procurement. It extends to all procurement by government, though not including the NHS, which for these purposes seems to be excluded from “public authorities”, which is a curious definition in itself.
We knew that the NPPS was wider. The Committee at the other end seemed somehow to imagine that covered procurement was enough, but it excludes everything under about £112,000 in value. Therefore, many small procurements would not be affected by it. It simply is not acceptable. We need to go back and ask the Commons to think again about the exclusion of such central principles from the national procurement policy statement. It has been a long time coming back. We are nine months on from the point at which we sent the Bill to the Commons. We took some time getting it to the point that we did. Noble Lords will recall that on the first day in Committee we received 50 government amendments, this clever idea of covered procurement arising only at that point and not in the original draft of the Bill.
To make a final, acerbic comment, I find it somewhat astonishing that during the passage of the Bill the Government have been able to make many hundreds of amendments that they chose to make. At this stage, we are asking for only a small handful that the Lords want to make. The Government at this point might just bend and accept those amendments.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I regret that due to professional commitments I was unable to contribute as much as I would have liked to earlier stages of the Bill. However, I added my name to two amendments on Report, both of which focused on the importance of recognising social value in the development of the national procurement policy statement. I am grateful to the noble Lords who led on those amendments with such success—the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Worthington, and the noble Lords, Lord Coaker, Lord Fox and Lord Lansley—a truly cross-party team.
The recognition of social value now returns for our consideration with Amendments 4A and 4B. I am again grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for taking the lead and so succinctly gathering in one place the essential priorities and principles to which regard should be given. Chief among them from my perspective is public benefit through the achievement of social value.
I should at this stage disclose my membership of the APPG for Social Enterprise and explain that I was privileged to chair its inquiry into the performance of social enterprise during the dark days of the pandemic. The conclusions of that report were compelling, revealing without doubt that social enterprises—that is, enterprises committed to the delivery of social value alongside more commercial ambitions—performed considerably better during the pandemic than their competitors, be they charities or strictly commercial enterprises. Social enterprises were more resilient, lighter on their feet and more diverse in their employment and service delivery. They delivered a lot more of the smaller contracts—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, identified, would not be covered by Clause 12—and they performed better economically.
Where they performed much worse than their competition was in their ability to secure support and funding from local and central government through public procurement. We noted that this was a particular issue in England, as compared with Wales and Scotland, because in those jurisdictions social enterprises and social value are identified as priorities within their public procurement strategies. With this amendment we will achieve the same and ensure that the delivery of social value is a priority for government. I urge that it is supported.
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.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 2 and 3.
“(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.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was being uncharacteristically acerbic, he mentioned the number of amendments to which this legislation has been subjected. I believe that the Deputy Speaker was present in the Grand Committee when we were wading through some of the 450 or so amendments that were laid before us. It is therefore quite appropriate that, as we wave goodbye—probably—to this legislation from this House, your Lordships are confronted with another 85 amendments. However, in this particular case they have been well explained—for which I thank the Minister—and are non-controversial. In that respect, we can leave in perhaps a slightly less acerbic way than we arrived.
I expect His Majesty’s loyal Opposition to press the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. We on these Benches will support that, in the event that she so does.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I played a very small part in the Committee stage of this Bill, mostly seeking to protect and promote the interests of small and medium-sized enterprises, and I welcome its provisions in that regard.
I take this opportunity to welcome Amendments 8 and 9 from the Commons and to thank the Minister, her colleagues and her officials for getting them included in the Bill. The Bill as it originally stood had the unintended effect of reducing the scope of existing provision for reserving certain contracts for supported employment providers. These amendments ensure that no such reduction will occur. I am most grateful to the Minister for listening to the concerns raised by Aspire Community Works—itself a supported employment provider—to address and, indeed, resolve this issue.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 4.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 4B instead of the words so left out of the Bill—
“(b) have regard to the following priorities and principles—
(i) maximising public benefit, including by the achievement of social value, through the securing of environmental objectives and from economic benefits, including by promoting innovation amongst potential suppliers,
(ii) value for money, by having regard to the optimal whole-life blend of economy, efficiency and effectiveness that achieves the intended outcome of the business case,
(iii) transparency, by acting openly to underpin accountability for public money, anti-corruption and the effectiveness of procurements,
(iv) integrity, by providing good management, preventing misconduct, and exercising control in order to prevent fraud and corruption,
(v) fair treatment of suppliers, by ensuring that decision-making is impartial and without conflict of interest, and
(vi) non-discrimination, by ensuring that decision-making is not discriminatory,””
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 5 to 24.
“(ba) may disregard any tender that offers a price that the contracting authority considers to be abnormally low for performance of the contract;”
“(3A) Before disregarding a tender under subsection (3)(ba) (abnormally low price), a contracting authority must—
(a) notify the supplier that the authority considers the price to be abnormally low, and
(b) give the supplier reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that it will be able to perform the contract for the price offered.
(3B) If the supplier demonstrates to the contracting authority’s satisfaction that it will be able to perform the contract for the price offered, the authority may not disregard the tender under subsection (3)(ba) (abnormally low price).”
(a) disabled or disadvantaged individuals represent at least 30 per cent of the workforce of the organisation,
(b) if a particular part of the organisation is to perform the contract, disabled or disadvantaged individuals represent at least 30 per cent of the workforce of that part of the organisation, or
(c) if more than one organisation is to perform the contract, disabled or disadvantaged individuals represent at least 30 per cent of the combined workforce of— (i) those organisations,
(ii) where a particular part of each organisation is to perform the contract, those parts, or
(iii) where a combination of organisations and parts is to perform the contract, those organisations and parts.”
“(2A) A contracting authority must publish any key performance indicators set under subsection (1).”
“The contract— (a) being awarded is a utilities contract, or (b) is being awarded by a contracting authority that is not a central government authority, and is subject to a negotiated tendering period | No minimum period |
The contract— (a) being awarded is a utilities contract, or (b) is being awarded by a contracting authority that is not a central government authority, and tenders may be submitted only by preselected suppliers | 10 days” |
““central government authority” has the meaning given in paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 (threshold amounts);
“negotiated tendering period” means a tendering period agreed between a contracting authority and pre-selected suppliers in circumstances where tenders may be submitted only by those preselected suppliers;”
““pre-selected supplier” means a supplier that—
(a) has been assessed as satisfying conditions of participation before being invited to submit a tender as part of a competitive tendering procedure, or
(b) in the case of a contract that is being awarded by reference to suppliers’ membership of a dynamic market, is a member of that market;”
“(za) the standard adopts an internationally-recognised equivalent, or”
“(3A) If the procurement documents refer to a United Kingdom standard, they must provide that tenders, proposals or applications that the contracting authority considers satisfy an equivalent standard from another state, territory or organisation of states or territories will be treated as having satisfied the United Kingdom standard.
(3B) In considering whether a standard is equivalent to a United Kingdom standard for the purposes of subsection (3A), a contracting authority may have regard to the authority’s purpose in referring to the standard.
(3C) A contracting authority may require certification, or other evidence, for the purpose of satisfying itself that a standard is satisfied or equivalent.”
“(b) are primarily developed for use in the United Kingdom, or part of the United Kingdom.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 25.
“(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.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister. I will come back to that in a few moments, because she has been extraordinarily helpful, and I know we have made significant progress from when the first amendment was moved on this issue.
In parenthesis, before I begin—and because I will not weary the House with a second speech later, even if the opportunity is there—I would like to say how much I support what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of King’s Heath, is trying to achieve with Motion 102A and Amendment 102B. Again, I have spoken on those previously, along with the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, from the Conservative Benches, my noble friend Lady Finlay—who is unable to be with us this evening—and many others who want to support what the noble Lord is trying to achieve.
I turn to Clause 65 and Amendment 47B in Motion 47A in my name. As the Minister said, it would require a timeline for the removal of surveillance equipment that is connected to the internet and subject to the People’s Republic of China’s national intelligence law. I did say that I would like to start my remarks, and I do, by paying tribute to the Minister’s own efforts and those of her officials, who have met with me now on several occasions—most recently on Thursday last—to discuss the concerns of Members of both Houses when it comes to the presence of Chinese-made surveillance cameras in our public procurement chain.
As recently as yesterday, the Sunday Telegraph reported that the Co-op has decided to ban Chinese CCTV for “ethical and security reasons”. Given the Minister’s professional background in a previous life, she will know that, in doing this, it is following the example of Tesco. It would indeed be odd if supermarkets were ahead of public bodies in recognising the dangers posed by the CCP’s surveillance state. I was also very struck that the Deputy Prime Minister, the right honourable Oliver Dowden, speaking in another place this afternoon about allegations concerning espionage on the estate of your Lordships’ House and that of another place, made a point of saying that one of his first actions in Whitehall had been to have surveillance cameras linked to Hikvision removed from his department. This is something that Sajid Javid also said when he became Secretary of State for Health. I simply say that, if supermarkets and departments of state are not suitable places for these cameras, where is? It would indeed be odd if we did not think about the 60% of public bodies that are estimated to have Hikvision cameras in use.
This is not a new question that I am putting to your Lordships’ House; this is something I have raised on over 40 occasions in the House or in Grand Committee since 2020. Both the Minister and the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord True, have taken this issue seriously. When the noble Lord was in charge of this Bill, in its earliest stages, we had a meeting to discuss Hikvision. Because I want to get on with seeing a resolution of this issue, I am able to welcome the clear commitment from the Minister, given at the Dispatch Box, for a timetable for the removal of this surveillance equipment and these cameras from sensitive sites. However, it is worth noting, as I have said, how we got here.
As the Government have recognised, there are at least a million Hikvision and Dahua cameras in the UK, installed across our high streets, job centres, schools, police forces, hospitals, universities, local government buildings and even government departments. I gently say to the Minister that, although she is right that military barracks or GCHQ are clearly far more sensitive sites than, say, hospitals or schools, some of this is about data collection. That involves every single citizen of this country, so it poses dangers for them too. I commend to her the recent Channel 4 documentary on Hikvision and the fantastic work of IPVM, Big Brother Watch, Hong Kong Watch—of which I am a patron—and other organisations that have outlined the security risk that these cameras pose, particularly in those sensitive public sector sites, but not exclusively so.
It is quite something to consider that, as a country, we have willingly handed over the majority of our surveillance infrastructure, which watches the often public and sometimes intimately private moments of our lives, not just to the police or local authorities but to an authoritarian Government that the House of Commons has found, on a resolution of the House, credibly accused of genocide. I declare a non-financial interest as vice chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uyghurs.
How ironic it is that we are debating this on the day we have learned that an alleged CCP spy has been operating across Parliament, based in the office of a Member of another place. We urgently need a bicameral group of senior parliamentarians to investigate this shocking lapse. The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament has warned against the infiltration of our universities and other institutions. Only last week, the University of Cambridge ended a partnership with a subsidiary company developing Chinese weapons and military hardware. The line between crass naivety and outright collaboration is a fine one. We recall the Cambridge spies and the Soviet Union, and some of the disastrous consequences. It should send a shiver down the spine of every freedom-loving person to see swathes of the public surveillance procurement supply chain handed over to Chinese companies that are blacklisted for complicity in gross human rights violations by the United States and which are legally compelled under the PRC national intelligence law to pass on data to the Chinese Communist Party state.
As we debate the timeline for their removal from our public procurement supply chain, the definition of what we should consider “sensitive sites” and the oversight that Members of this House and another place will have should be high on our agenda. Surely, for too long government policy towards China has favoured investment and trade at the expense of our national security, our values and human rights. We have underestimated the PRC, ignored the voices of those Uighurs, Hong Kongers, Tibetans and others who have been persecuted by the CCP and know it best, and failed to produce a coherent strategy to deal with the threat that the PRC poses. I am always struck by the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, who knows a thing or two about China. He describes it as cakeism—wanting to have your cake and eat it—to want trade deals on the one hand, but recognise the country as a threat to your national interest on the other.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 102A and 102B. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I very much agree with the thrust of what he said and look forward to the results of his eagle eye, which I am sure will come to your Lordships’ House over the next months and years. Like him, I also thank the Minister for her stewardship of the Bill. It has taken so long that I recollect that on our first day in Committee, the noble Baroness herself had laid many amendments which she seemed to have to refute later on in proceedings on the Bill. At least she knows how it feels to have a government Minister reject so many well-argued points.
I thank the Minister also for what she said about the Government’s view of the appalling atrocities being committed in China, with the removal of organs from a living prisoner of conscience for the purpose of transplantation, killing the victim in the process. It is state sanctioned and widespread throughout China. The victims at the moment are known to be primarily Falun Gong practitioners, but most recent evidence suggests that Uighur Muslims are also being targeted on a massive scale, particularly in Xinjiang.
My amendment was supported by noble Lords all around the House on Report. Essentially, it gave a discretionary power to exclude suppliers from being awarded a public contract if they have participated in forced organ harvesting or unethical activities relating to human tissue, including where they are involved in providing a service or goods relating to such activities. The effect of the amendment would have been to prevent any service or goods that may have been involved in, or developed off the back of, the forced harvesting trade entering the UK. When it went back to the Commons, the Government took the provision out in Committee. This was challenged on Commons Report, led by my honourable friend Marie Rimmer. Despite support from MPs of all parties, that was not successful, so I am asking noble Lords to send it back to the Commons for further consideration.
My reasons, briefly, are threefold. First, the scale of the atrocities being carried out in China, specifically in Xinjiang, are becoming ever clearer and more horrific. Secondly, I believe that Ministers were wrong in dismissing the need for the amendment, both in the response they gave in the Commons to my colleagues and in the comments that the Minister has given tonight. Thirdly, I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that the context in which this is being debated is, frankly, that government policy towards China is completely inadequate to the threats that country poses to the interests of the United Kingdom.
On the scale of the atrocities, I can do no better than to quote what Sir Iain Duncan Smith said on Report in the Commons. He referred to the 2022 UN report, which found serious human rights violations in Xinjiang. He said:
“They seem to be about the most significant human rights abuses currently happening in the world,”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/6/23; col. 205.]
whether we use the term “genocide” or not.
What the Minister has essentially said is first that we do not need to do this because there is a discretionary power in the Bill already, and secondly that there is no evidence, as far as the Government are aware, that a supplier to the UK public sector has been involved in forced organ harvesting. On the first point, I believe that there is considerable merit in making explicit reference in the Bill to this matter, so that public authorities are in no doubt whatever that they can use a discretionary power to deal with companies that may be dealing, maybe inadvertently, in this abhorrent trade. Secondly, I think there is evidence of taxpayers’ money being spent on companies involved in forced organ harvesting. For example, pharmaceutical companies may be supplying immunosuppressant drugs to hospitals that have been reported to remove organs from prisoners of conscience.
As I have said, we cannot consider these matters without seeing them in the context of UK policy towards China. I am not going to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, nor to requote. We have now had our Lordships’ Select Committee, then chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, in its report only last month on the Indo-Pacific tilt policy. They all draw attention to the Government’s woefully inadequate response to the threat that China presents and to the very ambiguity there is in policy. We can see the obvious tension between our security, on one hand, and the willingness and wish of the Government to trade with China and to encourage Chinese investment, but I am afraid that, in trying to get a balance, we have ended up with a Government with a wholly inadequate and incoherent policy.
My amendment is very modest. All it does is give the decision-maker discretionary powers to exclude a supplier from a procurement contract if it
“or a connected person has been, or is, involved in … forced organ harvesting, or … dealing in any device or equipment or services relating to forced organ harvesting”.
It would be the first piece of UK legislation to include and define forced organ harvesting. It would be a huge step in preventing UK complicity in forced organ harvesting, and I urge the House to support it.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I was a signatory to earlier amendments and we have just heard the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, make a very cogent case for the Commons to think again about his amendments. I will be very brief, given the hour. The noble Lord built on what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, outlined just now, and his case is backed by international investigation and evidence. Thus, for example, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, not an institution that would say this lightly, concludes in relation to Xinjiang:
“Allegations of … torture … including forced medical treatment … are credible”.
The Minister in the Commons and now the Minister in the Lords have argued that current legislation covers the problem identified in this amendment, but noble Lords will have heard the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, make a very persuasive case that this is not so. My noble friend Lord Fox will comment further shortly but, if the noble Lord decides to put this to a vote, from these Benches we will support him.
Lord Fox (LD)
Very shortly, it seems.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Hunt, for bringing forward these two amendments. I shall address them sequentially. I do not share the surprise of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about supermarkets being able to lead. I am sure the Minister will probably agree that supermarkets are in contact with their customers. They sense the morality and the feelings of their customers, so they do not just lead—they follow. Perhaps we are a bit slow in picking up the moral revulsion that people have out there, and also the fear of scrutiny from a totalitarian regime. I think both those issues play with the public, the public play those back to the supermarkets and the supermarkets have very good antennae for picking them up. We should share their sensitivity to these issues.
The noble Lord made an excellent speech for which he is to be congratulated because, working from here back to the Commons, we have seen significant progress. We have seen a great deal of progress, and I support him in not having to move his Motion this time. He mentioned en passant the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I endorse what he said. The Cabinet Office is now responsible for the National Security and Investment Act—there is a team there working on that—and it now has a team working on this. It behoves those teams, if they are not the same people, certainly to be close to one another, close to the ISC and able to feed off the intelligence that the ISC can give them, which no other committees can. I hope the Minister is able to reinforce that.
Lord Fox (LD)
Eagle—thank goodness. I thought it was an evil eye. I was going to describe it as beady. I thought his “evil eye” was going to be upon the Minister and I was a little concerned for her safety. It is getting late.
Moving on, as my noble friend set out, we will support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. There can be no place in the UK supply chain for businesses that engage in this behaviour, and we have to be absolutely sure that there is no place, which is why the noble Lord is right to want to explicitly write this in. I regret that the fact that my noble friend Lady Brinton’s amendment was not accepted means that if the noble Lord is successful, his amendment will not apply to the National Health Service, which seems rather unfortunate as it would probably be the prime customer. None the less, getting it in writing and putting it in there is very important and will be enthusiastically supported.
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.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 26 to 46.
(i) under section 57(1)(a) or (2)(a) by virtue”
“(ii) on the basis of being on the debarment list by virtue of paragraph 34A of Schedule 6 (threat to national security).”
“(1A) A Minister of the Crown must—
(a) have regard to the fact that contracting authorities may be unknowingly awarding public contracts to suppliers that—
(i) could be excludable suppliers by virtue of paragraph 14 of Schedule 7 (threat to national security), or
(ii) are sub-contracting to suppliers that could be excludable suppliers by virtue of that paragraph, and
(b) in light of that fact, keep under review whether particular suppliers or sub-contractors should be investigated under this section.”
“whether the Minister is satisfied that the supplier is, by virtue of a relevant exclusion ground, an excluded or excludable supplier, and if the Minister is so satisfied—
(a) in respect of each applicable relevant exclusion ground— (i) whether it is a mandatory or discretionary ground,
(ii) the date on which the Minister expects the ground to cease to apply (see paragraph 43 of Schedule 6 and paragraph 16 of Schedule 7), and
(iii) whether the Minister intends to make an entry to the debarment list,
(b) in respect of the exclusion ground in paragraph 34A of Schedule 6 (if applicable), the description of contracts in relation to which the Minister—
(i) is satisfied the ground applies, and
(ii) intends to refer to in a relevant entry in the debarment list, and”
(3A) In this section, the “relevant debarment information” means—
(a) the exclusion ground to which the entry relates;
(b) whether the exclusion ground is mandatory or discretionary;
(c) in the case of an entry made on the basis of paragraph 34A of Schedule 6 (threat to national security), a description of the contracts in relation to which the supplier is to be an excluded supplier;
(d) the date on which the Minister expects the exclusion ground to cease to apply (see paragraph 43 of Schedule 6 and paragraph 15 of Schedule 7).”
“(5A) The Minister may not enter a supplier’s name on the debarment list before the end of the period of eight working days beginning with the day on which the Minister gives notice to the supplier in accordance with subsection (5) (the “debarment standstill period”).
(5B) The Minister may not enter a supplier’s name on the debarment list if—
(a) during the debarment standstill period—
(i) proceedings under section (Debarment decisions: interim relief)(1) (interim relief) are commenced, and
(ii) the Minister is notified of that fact, and
(b) the proceedings have not been determined, discontinued or otherwise disposed of.”
“(b) may remove an entry from the debarment list,
(c) in the case of an entry added on the basis of paragraph 34A of Schedule 6 (threat to national security), may revise an entry to remove a description of contracts, and
(d) may revise a date indicated under subsection (3A)(d).
(7) If a Minister of the Crown voluntarily removes or revises an entry in connection with proceedings under section (Debarment decisions: appeals), a Minister of the Crown may reinstate the entry only after the proceedings have been determined, discontinued or otherwise disposed of.
(7A) A Minister of the Crown must—
(a) remove an entry if the Minister is satisfied that the supplier is not an excluded or excludable supplier by virtue of the ground stated in the entry, and
(b) in the case of an entry added on the basis of paragraph 34A of Schedule 6 (threat to national security), revise the entry to remove a description of contracts if the Minister is satisfied the exclusion ground in that paragraph does not apply in relation to contracts of that description.”
“Debarment decisions: interim relief
(1) A supplier may apply to the court for suspension of the Minister’s decision to enter the supplier’s name on the debarment list.
(2) Proceedings under subsection (1) must be brought during the debarment standstill period.
(3) The court may make an order to—
(a) suspend the Minister’s decision to enter the supplier’s name on the debarment list until—
(i) the period referred to in subsection (3)(b) of section (Debarment decisions: appeals) ends without proceedings having been brought, or
(ii) proceedings under that section are determined, discontinued or otherwise disposed of, and
(b) if relevant, require that an entry in respect of the supplier be temporarily removed from the debarment list.
(4) In considering whether to make an order under subsection (3), the court must have regard to—
(a) the public interest in, among other things, ensuring that public contracts are not awarded to suppliers that pose a risk,
(b) the interest of the supplier, including in relation to the likely financial impact of not suspending the decision, and
(c) any other matters that the court considers appropriate.
(5) In this section—
“the court” means—
(a) in England and Wales, the High Court,
(b) in Northern Ireland, the High Court, and
(c) in Scotland, the Court of Session;
“debarment standstill period” has the meaning given in section 62
(debarment list).”
“(3) After considering an application under subsection (1), the Minister must—
(a) notify the supplier of the Minister’s decision, and
(b) give reasons for the decision.”
“Debarment decisions: appeals
(1) A supplier may appeal to the court against a decision of a Minister of the Crown—
(a) to enter the supplier’s name on the debarment list,
(b) to indicate contracts of a particular description as part of an entry made in respect of the supplier on the basis of paragraph 34A of Schedule 6 (threat to national security),
(c) to indicate a particular date as part of an entry in respect of the supplier under section 62(3A)(d), or
(d) not to remove or revise an entry made in respect of the supplier, following an application under section (63).
(2) Proceedings under subsection (1)—
(a) may only be brought by a United Kingdom supplier or a treaty state supplier,
(b) may only be brought on the grounds that, in making the decision, the Minister made a material mistake of law, and
(c) must be commenced before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which the supplier first knew, or ought to have known, about the Minister’s decision.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if, in proceedings under subsection (1)(a) or (b), the court is satisfied that—
(a) the Minister made a material mistake of law, and
(b) in consequence of the mistake, a contracting authority excluded the supplier from participating in a competitive tendering procedure, or other selection process, in reliance on section 57(1)(b) or (2)(b).
(4) The court may make one or more of the following orders—
(a) an order setting aside the Minister’s decision;
(b) an order to compensate the supplier for any costs incurred by the supplier in relation to participating in the procedure or process referred to in subsection (3)(b).
(5) Otherwise, if the court is satisfied that the Minister made a material mistake of law, the court may make an order setting aside the Minister’s decision.
(6) In this section—
“the court” has the meaning given in section (Debarment decisions: interim relief) (interim relief);
the reference to a supplier being excluded includes a reference to—
(a) the supplier’s tender being disregarded under section 26;
(b) the supplier becoming an excluded supplier for the purposes of section 41(1)(a), 43(1) or 45(6)(a).”
“Debarment proceedings and closed material procedure
Part 2 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 (disclosure of sensitive material) applies in relation to proceedings under sections (Debarment decisions: interim relief)(1) (interim relief) and 64 (appeals) as if, in each of the following provisions, each reference to the Secretary of State included a reference to the Minister for the Cabinet Office—
(a) section 6(2)(a), (7) and (9)(a) and (c);
(b) section 7(4)(a);
(c) section 8(1)(a);
(d) section 11(3);
(e) section 12(2)(a) and (b).”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 47.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 48 to 80.
“(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.”
“(za) “electronic invoice” and “required electronic form” have the meanings given in section 66(3);”
(d) in relation to a concession contract.”
(a) in respect of which the contracting authority is required to publish a contract change notice under section 74, and”
(1) A relevant contracting authority may not terminate a contract by reference to the implied term in section 77 on the basis of the mandatory exclusion ground in paragraph 34A of Schedule 6 (threat to national security) unless the authority has notified a Minister of the Crown of its intention.”
(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) may only include provision that is equivalent to provision in—
(a) subsection (1), (2), (5) or (6) of section 88 (treaty state suppliers),
(b) section 89 (treaty state suppliers: non-discrimination), or
(c) Schedule 9 (specified international agreements).
(1B) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a Minister of the Crown considers, or the Scottish Ministers consider, that the regulations are necessary in order to ratify or comply with an international agreement to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.
(1C) In subsection (1B), the reference to being a signatory to an international agreement includes a reference to having—
(a) exchanged instruments, where the exchange constitutes the agreement;
(b) acceded to the agreement.”
“(b) a reference to discrimination is a reference to discrimination as defined in section 89.”
“Trade disputes
(1) This section applies where there is, or has been, a dispute relating to procurement between the United Kingdom and another state, territory or organisation of states or territories in relation to an international agreement specified in Schedule 9.
(2) An appropriate authority or the Scottish Ministers may by regulations make such provision relating to procurement as the authority considers, or the Scottish Ministers consider, appropriate in consequence of the dispute.
(3) Any provision made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (2) must relate to procurement—
(a) carried out by devolved Scottish authorities, or
(b) under devolved Scottish procurement arrangements.
(4) Regulations under this section may include provision modifying primary legislation, whenever passed (including this Act).
(5) In subsection (1), the reference to an international agreement specified in Schedule 9 does not include a reference to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the one part, and the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the other part, signed at Brussels and London on 30 December 2020.”
“(2A) Subsection (2)(a) does not apply in relation to an electronic communications system used, or required to be used—
(a) after the award of the public contract, or
(b) in relation to a utilities dynamic market.”
“Record-keeping
(1) A contracting authority must keep such records as the authority considers sufficient to explain a material decision made for the purpose of awarding or entering into a public contract.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a decision is “material” if, under this Act, a contracting authority is required—
(a) to publish or provide a notice, document or other information in relation to the decision, or
(b) to make the decision.
(3) A contracting authority must keep records of any communication between the authority and a supplier that is made—
(a) in relation to the award or entry into of a public contract, and
(b) before the contract is entered into.
(4) A record under this section must be kept until—
(a) the day on which the contracting authority gives notice of a decision not to award the contract (see section 55), or
(b) the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which the contract is entered into or, if the contract is awarded but not entered into, awarded.
(5) This section does not apply in relation to defence and security contracts.
(6) This section does not affect any other obligation under any enactment or rule of law by virtue of which a contracting authority must retain documents or keep records, including for a longer period.”
“(6A) A supplier may not bring proceedings under this Part on the grounds that one or more of the following decisions of a Minister of the Crown was unlawful—
(a) a decision to enter a supplier’s name on the debarment list;
(b) a decision relating to the information included in an entry on the debarment list;
(c) a decision not to remove an entry from the debarment list, or revise information included in such an entry,
(see section (Debarment decisions: appeals)).”
“Part 9 proceedings and closed material procedure
Part 2 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 (disclosure of sensitive material) applies in relation to proceedings under this Part as if, in each of the following provisions, each reference to the Secretary of State included a reference to the Minister for the Cabinet Office—
(a) section 6(2)(a), (7) and (9)(a) and (c);
(b) section 7(4)(a);
(c) section 8(1)(a);
(d) section 11(3);
(e) section 12(2)(a) and (b).”
“(4A) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a power under sections 59 to 66 (Debarment proceedings and closed material procedure).”
“(5) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a power under sections 59 to 66 (Debarment proceedings and closed material procedure).”
“(za) sections 59 to 66 (Debarment proceedings and closed material procedure);”
“(ba) section (Trade disputes) (trade disputes);”
“(a) applying it in relation to procurement carried out by contracting authorities under devolved Scottish procurement arrangements;
(a) disapplying it in relation to procurement carried out by devolved Scottish authorities under—
(i) reserved procurement arrangements,
(ii) devolved Welsh procurement arrangements, or
(iii) transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangements.”
“(za) the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 (asp 12),”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 81.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 82 to 101.
“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.”
(da) section 52 (key performance indicators);”
(la) section (Trade disputes) (trade disputes);”
“(ua) section 123(6) (exclusion of devolved Welsh authorities);”
“(ca) section 52 (key performance indicators);”
(ha) section (Trade disputes) (trade disputes);”
“(ca) section 52 (key performance indicators);”
“(da) section (Trade disputes) (trade disputes);”
“(a) section 90 (treaty state suppliers: non-discrimination);
(b) section (Trade disputes) (trade disputes);
(c) section 111 (powers relating to procurement arrangements).”
“(3) A Minister of the Crown may not make specified regulations under subsection (2) without the consent of the Welsh Ministers.
(4) In this section, “specified regulations” means regulations to bring into force provisions regulating procurement by a devolved Welsh authority other than procurement under—
(a) a reserved procurement arrangement, or
(b) a transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangement, but “specified regulations” does not include regulations to bring into force provisions in Part 7 (implementation of international obligations).
(5) In this section, “devolved Welsh authority” has the meaning given in section 157A of the Government of Wales Act 2006.
(6) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that—
(a) Parts 1 to 6 and 8 to 13, or particular provisions in those Parts, so far as not already brought into force under subsection (2) do not regulate procurement by a devolved Welsh authority other than procurement under—
(i) a reserved procurement arrangement, or
(ii) a transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangement;
(b) existing legislation continues to regulate procurement by devolved Welsh authorities and procurement under devolved Welsh procurement arrangements.
(7) Regulations under subsection (6) may modify this Act.
(8) In this section—
“existing legislation” means any enactment, other than this Act or regulations made under this Act, that is passed or made before section 11 (covered procurement only in accordance with this Act) comes into force;
a reference to a provision regulating procurement includes a reference to a provision conferring a function exercisable in relation to procurement.”
“PART 2
SUBJECT-MATTER EXEMPTED CONTRACTS
General
3A (1) A contract is an exempted contract if it is—
(a) a contract of a kind listed in this Part of this Schedule;
(b) a framework for the future award of contracts only of a kind listed in this Part of this Schedule.
(2) But a Part 2-only contract is not an exempted contract if, on award of the contract, a contracting authority considers that—
(a) the goods, services or works representing the main purpose of the contract could reasonably be supplied under a separate contract, and
(b) that contract would not be a contract of a kind listed in this Part of this Schedule.
(3) In considering whether goods, services or works could reasonably be supplied under a separate contract, a contracting authority may, for example, have regard to the practical and financial consequences of awarding more than one contract.
(4) In this paragraph “Part 2-only contract” means a contract of a kind listed in this Part of this Schedule that is not of a kind listed in Part 1 of this Schedule.”
“Commercial contracts of the City of London
37 A contract for the supply of goods, services or works to the Common Council of the City of London other than for the purposes of its functions as a local authority, police authority or port health authority.”
“National security
34A (1) A mandatory exclusion ground applies to a supplier in relation to contracts of a particular description if an appropriate authority determines that the supplier or a connected person—
(a) poses a threat to the national security of the United Kingdom, and
(b) would pose such a threat in relation to public contracts of that description.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1)—
(a) the reference to an appropriate authority is a reference to the appropriate authority that is considering whether the exclusion ground applies;
(b) the reference to a particular description includes, for example, a description by reference to—
(i) the goods, services or works being supplied;
(ii) the location of the supply;
(iii) the contracting authority concerned.
(3) Sub-paragraph (1) applies only for the purpose of an appropriate authority’s functions under sections 59 to 66 (debarment), and cannot otherwise be relied on by a contracting authority when considering whether a supplier is an excluded supplier under section 57(1)(a).”
“(d) paragraph 34A (threat to national security).”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 102.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 102B instead of the words so left out of the Bill—
“Involvement in forced organ harvesting
14A (1) A discretionary exclusion ground applies to a supplier if a decisionmaker determines that the supplier or a connected person has been, or is, involved in—
(a) forced organ harvesting, or
(b) dealing in any device or equipment or services relating to forced organ harvesting.
(2) “Forced organ harvesting” means killing a person without their consent so that their organs may be removed and transplanted into another person.””
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 103 and 104.
““event” means a conviction, decision, ruling, failure or other event by virtue of which a discretionary exclusion ground would apply to a supplier;”
Procurement Bill [Lords]
Wednesday 13th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 13 September 2023 - (13 Sep 2023)
13:50 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 274 / Noes: 194 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 102B.
It is an honour once again to open the debate on this important Bill, which I am delighted to say is now so close to receiving Royal Assent. The Bill is a key Brexit benefit, delivering a simpler, more transparent procurement framework that will benefit small businesses and meet the needs of UK suppliers and contracting authorities.
Colleagues in the Chamber will also, I hope, remember that, when the Bill was last debated in this House, we offered significant new measures to protect the UK’s public procurement supply chain from threats to national security. Those included new grounds to add suppliers to the debarment list for particular types of contracts that will allow us to ban risky suppliers from bidding for those contracts; the creation of a new national security unit for procurement that will provide dedicated resources in the Cabinet Office to scrutinise national security risks in procurement; and a commitment to publish a timetable for removal of surveillance equipment supplied by companies subject to the national intelligence law of China from Government Department sensitive sites. Earlier this week in the other place, we went further: my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe provided an official clarification of the definition of sensitive sites and committed to an annual written report detailing progress. I am sure this House will welcome our additional agreements and agree that they demonstrate the Government’s unwavering dedication to tackle these issues seriously.
I will deal today with one amendment that the other place sent back to this House, on the subject of organ harvesting. Let me begin by saying that I think all sides of this House are in complete agreement that organ harvesting is a dreadful practice that has no place in our supply chains. The question before us today is whether Lords amendment 102B is the right or necessary one to make, given other provisions in the Bill. In Committee in this House, the Government removed a discretionary exclusion ground for suppliers engaged in forced organ harvesting. The other place has subsequently proposed an amendment in lieu, with some modifications of the original amendment. This new version of the Lords amendment does not cover unethical activities relating to human tissue; it does, however, still cover forced organ harvesting and dealing in devices, equipment or services relating to forced organ harvesting.
I urge this House to reject this amendment for a number of reasons. First, as I have said previously, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary as, crucially, organ harvesting is already dealt with under existing provisions in the Procurement Bill. Under the Bill, any suppliers failing to adhere to existing ethical or professional standards that apply in their industry, including those relating to the removal, storage and use of human tissue, could be excluded on the grounds of professional misconduct. It is worth adding at this point that, as far as His Majesty’s Government are aware, no supplier in the UK public sector has been involved in forced organ harvesting. This means that it is very unlikely that any of our public money is being spent on that terrible practice. As noted above, however, if such a situation did arise, the exclusion for professional misconduct would apply.
Secondly, the amendment has significant consequences for contracting authorities. It extends to suppliers
“dealing in any device or equipment or services relating to forced organ harvesting.”
That is an incredibly broad provision that would be extremely difficult for contracting authorities and suppliers to verify in respect of all supply chains and customer bases. If there were any doubt about whether that discretionary ground applied, local authorities or NHS trusts would need to undertake significant due diligence to satisfy themselves that the entire supply chain and the end user of all goods provided by suppliers—potentially including oxygen masks, IT equipment and so on—were not used in these terrible practices. It would mean that a small business tendering for Government contracts would need to understand where their customers might be using or selling their products, to enable them to genuinely and legitimately confirm that they were not subject to this ground.
More generally, the amendment would create excessive bureaucracy, requiring each and every supplier bidding across the thousands of contracts awarded by contracting authorities each year to declare that they are not guilty of forced organ harvesting, when we know that there is no evidence of that horrific practice occurring in UK public sector supply chains. We believe that such a burden would be unjustified when the Bill already covers this issue.
Thirdly, the Government are already taking steps to tackle the issue of organ harvesting. We have been explicit that the overseas organ trade, or complicity with it, will not be tolerated. For example, by virtue of the Health and Care Act 2022, it is already an offence to travel outside of the UK to purchase an organ. In addition, the Government continue to monitor and review evidence relating to reports of forced organ harvesting in China, and maintain a dialogue with leading non-governmental organisations and international partners on this very important issue. This Bill creates new rules for suppliers and contracting authorities that will hopefully stay on the statute book for many decades to come.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I apologise for being slightly delayed, Mr Deputy Speaker: I did not see this debate pop up on the annunciator. I rushed to ask a question about this topic. Forgive me.
On the issue of organ harvesting, I understand the difficulties with this particular amendment, so while I am instinctively supportive of what the Lords are trying to do, I understand the Government’s arguments. However, there is a way to tighten this up. Organ harvesting is taking place in China—it is a regular occurrence—but I would not rely too much on declarations from supply chains. We have already unearthed the problem that supply chains are under no obligation to do the due diligence that would enable them to know whether companies, or the people they are trading with, have any involvement with organ harvesting. Tightening that up would be great.
On that basis, does my hon. Friend accept that we now have to make sure that China is on the enhanced tier of the foreign agents registration scheme? That would really put power in the Government’s hands to make sure that supply chains were properly checked. Will he say to our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and to all those concerned that it is time we did so? China is a genuine threat to us, industrially as well as politically.
Alex Burghart
My right hon. Friend is an expert on these matters. I thank him for his intervention—I have to say that I was quite surprised that he was not sitting behind me when I stood up in the first place, but I am delighted to see him in the Chamber now. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have heard his remarks and will consider them carefully. This is obviously a procurement Bill, and we are doing our best to create the post-Brexit framework that will give us an enhanced ability to improve all aspects of procurement in our society.
In Committee and on Report in this House, we thought it was necessary to tighten up national security considerations to make sure that foreign hostile actors could not get involved in public procurement. We have—as my right hon. Friend knows, because he gave us good advice—taken steps to make sure that we remove technologies that come from those hostile actors from sensitive sites. On the broader point he made at the end of his comments, that is beyond my pay grade, but I have no doubt that those above my pay grade have heard what he has said.
This is an excellent Bill. It is a tribute to the officials who have worked on it and to my predecessors who worked on it in the Cabinet Office. I therefore urge the House to reject the amendment made by the other House and support the Government’s motion.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Coming in as I do at the tail end of the passage of this Bill, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), for all her work on the Bill, and to say that I look forward to working constructively with the Minister.
Turning to the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 102B, we can all agree that forced organ harvesting—a practice involving the removal of organs from a living prisoner that results in their death or near death—is abhorrent. The debate on this Government motion is about whether there should be a specific clause in the Bill to make it clear that we do not want to see a single penny of taxpayers’ money go to any company linked to this practice, or whether that is adequately covered by the concept of professional misconduct that can be used against serious unethical behaviour.
We heard powerful speeches in the other place from Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who made compelling arguments for the inclusion in the Bill of the measure against forced organ harvesting and provided evidence of the practice taking place in China. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall and for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for all they have done to highlight the issue.
Furthermore, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has stated that serious human rights violations have been committed in the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region:
“Allegations of…torture…including forced medical treatment…are credible”.
This is a very current issue, and we would like to see specific mention of it in the Bill.
First, including a specific reference to forced organ harvesting in the Bill will highlight the issue and send a message to potential supply companies to make specific checks that they are not inadvertently in any way associated with the abhorrent business of forced organ harvesting. Secondly, although the Minister has said that forced organ harvesting is already covered by the ground of professional misconduct, which includes serious unethical behaviour, specific mention of it in the Bill will highlight to those undertaking procurement to be particularly vigilant in respect of any potential association of supply companies with this appalling practice. Thirdly, making specific mention of forced organ harvesting helps to send a clear message to China and anywhere else it may occur that the practice will not be tolerated and that there will be economic consequences.
The Minister has objected to having specific mention of forced organ harvesting because it means additional paperwork, and we all want to cut down the amount of paperwork that companies have to deal with. However, I would suggest in this case that a small amount of additional work is well worth it if it sends a strong message of condemnation, strengthens awareness of the issue and hastens the end of this abhorrent practice. The Opposition support the position taken by the other place of including the measure on forced organ harvesting in the Bill, and will therefore vote against the Government’s motion to disagree with the Lords amendment.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to be here talking about Lords amendments for the second day in a row. I am glad to see the Procurement Bill making progress and getting towards becoming legislation. As the Minister has commented on a number of occasions, we have not got to the place that he wanted in relation to his conversations with the Scottish Government about the Bill. To be fair, we have also not got to the place we wanted for the Bill. Neither of us is entirely happy with the position that has been reached, but I do appreciate the work that has been done to communicate between the Governments on this. Both tried to find a compromise solution, but it was just impossible on this occasion to come to one that we were both happy with.
Specifically on the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 102B on forced organ harvesting, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) has laid out a number of very important points and I do not want to go over those. The Minister has said there is an absence of evidence that there is any forced organ harvesting in any of the supply chains involved in UK procurement, and I do appreciate that that is case. However, if the Government are able to find out that there is an absence of evidence on this, surely it should not be beyond the means of those procuring or of companies supplying or buying things that are bidding for Government procurement contracts to find out that their supply chains are not involved. If the Government are able to find out these things, surely those companies should.
The point made by the hon. Member for Llanelli about raising awareness is incredibly important. We have worked very hard with companies through the changes in various Acts, including improving companies’ corporate social responsibility and requiring them to make modern slavery statements. We have worked hard to ensure that companies are taking their social responsibilities seriously, and I therefore do not think that this measure is unreasonable. It would not apply to all companies; it applies only to companies bidding for Government contracts. Surely we want companies bidding for Government contracts to ensure that they are as within the law as possible, upholding human rights and demonstrating corporate social responsibility. I do not think it is unreasonable for us to ask those companies to look into their supply chains and consider whether they are financially supporting organisations or companies that are involved in forced organ harvesting. I think it is reasonable for us to ask them to spend a little bit of time doing this if they expect to take on Government contracts.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Actually, it is simpler even than that. In America, first, it is an offence for a company to have falsified, knowingly or unknowingly, its declarations on supply chains. Secondly, the US Government use companies such as Oritain that use criminal science to test where products were made and whether declarations were correct, and they are therefore able to enforce them. What is happening is that those supply chains are now being rigorously declared by American companies that do not wish to lose Government business. It would not be too much to ask the Government to do spot checks, using such companies that are available to them, and I have recommended it to the Foreign Office, not that that really matters.
Kirsty Blackman
I think the right hon. Member makes a reasonable and proportionate suggestion. Although we disagree on lots of things, I am very surprised to find myself agreeing with him for the second time this week on this. I do appreciate his suggestion, and I hope those on his Front Bench are listening to the advice he has given.
I am not going to test the House’s patience by dragging this out. We will be voting with the Labour party against the Government’s motion to disagree, because we believe that the more stringent controls are something it is absolutely reasonable for us to ask of companies. This is not for all companies, as I have said, but just for those that hope to get Government contracts.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
In this week of all weeks, the House needs to show that our democracy is strong and that we are not intimidated by other nations. The Chinese Communist party has shown that it holds our democracy in contempt. Today we have an opportunity to put tough talk into action.
Forced organ harvesting is a systemic trade that is taking place on an industrial scale in China. Up to 100,000 of its citizens are butchered each year for their organs. This is a state-sponsored crime against humanity. The two or three organs harvested from a healthy young adult are worth over £500,000. Evidence of this crime has been extensively investigated by the China and Uyghur tribunals chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, the former lead prosecutor at The Hague. At the tribunals, evidence was heard of systematic medical testing of thousands of prisoners of conscience, allowing the oppressive regime to create an organ bank.
I have spoken extensively on the horrors that have occurred due to forced organ harvesting in previous stages of the Bill, so now I will address some of the concerns that the Government expressed in the other place when opposing the amendment. The Government claim that forced organ harvesting will be covered by existing provisions of the Bill. Certain conduct will absolutely not be covered by the existing provisions on professional misconduct. Supply chains can be complex, and improper conduct may often be one step too far removed from the crime for professional misconduct elements to be made out. Trying to cover all the different ethical and professional misconduct regulations across a multitude of industries is not practical. Only by having a specific provision for forced organ harvesting will we ensure that British taxpayers’ money is not funding this horrific trade. Otherwise, it will be all too easy for companies to hide behind complex supply chains.
The second issue that the Government raised in the other place was that there was no evidence of UK organisations facilitating forced organ harvesting, yet there are companies with substantial operations in the UK providing immunosuppressive drugs for transplants in China. There is evidence of companies dramatically raising their stake in the Chinese market over the past few years. Sources on the ground claim that CellCept, an immunosuppressive drug, has been used on Chinese prisoners for transplants. There is no evidence that those individuals consented.
That is why a clear and direct provision relating to forced organ harvesting is necessary. UK taxpayers’ money should not inadvertently be supporting this inhumane trade perpetrated by the Chinese Communist party. There must be the ability or at least the option to stop it. The amendment is not asking for draconian action. It simply gives discretionary powers to exclude a supplier from a procurement contract if there is a connection to forced organ harvesting. That would give the Government the ability to act to prevent the complicity of UK taxpayers in forced organ harvesting.
The amendment must be seen in the context of our country’s wider relationship with China. The Government have extensively talked tough about standing up for our values against China. China is a trading partner that we cannot ignore or close ourselves off to, but that does not mean that we should not take such opportunities as this amendment to do right by our values and by humanity. Only a couple of days ago, the Prime Minister told the Chinese Prime Minister that attempts to undermine British democracy are completely unacceptable and that we will defend our democracy and our security. The amendment gives us the opportunity to use our democracy—the democracy that they seem to hold in contempt—to stand up for our values against China.
I urge colleagues across the House to take this opportunity to send a clear message to the Chinese Communist party, in this week of all weeks, that this House will stand up for our values by keeping Lords amendment 102B in the Bill.
Alex Burghart
With the leave of the House, I thank all Members who have made points in this important debate. Let me remind colleagues that the exclusion grounds in the Bill have been selected in the areas of greatest risk to public procurement. I return to the point I made at the start: there is fortunately no single known instance of such practice in the UK public procurement chain. We do not see it as a great risk to public procurement. I welcome the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) to her place and her new role, and I look forward to debating with her and working with her in the weeks and months ahead.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. A deferred Division was going on in the No Lobby. That will be paused while this Division takes place and will resume after it is over, with injury time of about 10 minutes so that those who have not voted in the deferred Division will get an opportunity to do so.
Procurement Bill [HL]
Wednesday 25th October 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 171-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reason - (24 Oct 2023)
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.
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.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for bringing this issue back on a number of occasions. We share the great disappointment that the Government have not seen fit to use their majority to include this in the Bill. As the Minister herself said: at this point there is no such practice going on, so there is no jeopardy, but it puts down a marker and it makes a very important point about ethical procurement and this particularly horrifying issue. I hope the comments that Ministers have made in this place, and in the other place, are used to emphasise the need for ethical process during procurement; this is perhaps the starkest example, but there are many others. It is with regret that it leaves your Lordships’ House without the noble Lord’s amendment, which we supported.
I thank the Minister for her comment on sensitive sites and Hikvision. It is somewhat intriguing because I suspect that the reason this has come up is because Hikvision is circulating material to its potential clients—and I imagine these are the non-sensitive clients—which seeks to use the Government’s language as an implicit endorsement of its continued operation in this country. I suspect that is why the Minister has stood up and made that comment. I hope that the Government can explain to Hikvision that this is an inappropriate use of their language, to try to sell its product in the face of a very particular problem, which has been highlighted, and one that is also a problem in non-sensitive sites across the country. I am interested to understand—either offline or online from the Minister—how they are taking this up with Hikvision.
This Bill has been on a journey since it started in your Lordships’ House. The next Bill is the exception, but rarely has a Bill received so many amendments. In the main, we have substantially improved the quality of this Bill through co-operation; through the hard work of the Minister, the Minister’s team and, of course, your Lordships. The normal character of these things is that we leave matters in a jovial and hearty way, but I am afraid I am not going to because I will return to an issue.
This is not in reference to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but the fact is this Procurement Bill was constructed to guide procurement across the whole country. It is supposed to be the way in which all procurement proceeds, with one exception: the largest single area of procurement in the country, the National Health Service. That would be allowable if there was a gold standard procurement process in place in the NHS. Quite clearly there is not. The Health and Care Act 2022 has not set out a gold standard procurement process, and there have been no processes that we can see which deliver that.
Since the last time we discussed this Bill—since the last time the Minister was standing at the Dispatch Box telling us that we do not need proper procurement processes for the National Health Service—there has been further evidence of huge abuses of procurement in the NHS. We do need this, and in the absence of an actual system that sits in the NHS, this system should apply. By not applying it the Government will preside over the waste of hundreds of millions of pounds that could have been spent on necessary services, due to very poor procurement practice. In that vein we are extremely disappointed that the Government have not seen fit to take the advice of your Lordships and include the NHS in this Bill.
We look forward to seeing how this Bill is applied across the country and, I hope, to seeing some benefit from its practices.
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.
Royal Assent
Thursday 26th October 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 170-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Amendments and Reasons - (18 Sep 2023)