Procurement Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th October 2022 Grand Committee

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Negotiating Objectives for a Free Trade Agreement with India

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, for securing this debate and the International Agreements Committee for all its work on this report. I strongly agree with some of its conclusions and strongly disagree with others.

In talking about a UK-India free trade deal, we have to start with history. For the majority of the past two millennia, the Indian subcontinent had the largest and one of the richest economies in the world, representing around 30% of global GDP. Then came the East India Company and the Raj. By 1970, India’s GDP was about 2% of the global total. It has now recovered to some 10%. Over those recent centuries, India was not an underdeveloped country but one that had been underdeveloped, as a process, by the yoke of British dictatorship. Here I disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich; this is not ancient history. If you talk to Indian officials and people, this is very much part of the reality of how they see their relationship with the UK today.

Even in recent years, our relationship with India—its Government and people—has not always been smooth. I have appeared on Indian national television only once, in a debate show that I was told had many tens of millions of people watching it in primetime. This was back in 2013 when, under the coalition Government, the UK planned a disgraceful £2,000 visa bond policy that was levied in an utterly discriminatory way on visitors from India, Nigeria, Kenya, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Rather oddly, I was the closest thing to a representative of the UK Government on the show. I had rather a torrid time, with Indians—including businesspeople with very large investments in the UK—understandably expressing their anger at this policy, which was an early attempt at the culture war hostile environment that we have seen so much more of in years since. That I was saying the Green Party opposed the policy really did not help much, because I am afraid there was not much sign elsewhere in British politics of opposition to the visa bond.

I reflect on that now because reading the Government’s documents and seeing their approach I do not see much sign of a sense of humility, of historical understanding or of the kind of respect that we need to see to establish a future equal, mutually beneficial relationship. As a number of noble Lords have said, it is impossible just to pull money out of the equation and say, “This is only economics and money”. We have to look at the whole geopolitical framework, and that involves history, the present and the future. The poverty, the human rights abuses and the destruction of Indian industries and communities that are the legacy of the Raj still have huge impacts today, and for all the lip service paid in the strategic approach to human rights, gender and workers’ rights, there is very little sign, as other noble Lords have said, of the practical delivery of such returns from our current trading approaches or plans.

We live in a world of globalised, frenzied trade which has delivered huge profits for a few while the rest of us have paid with poverty, exploitation and huge externalised costs to the climate and the environment. That is the story of trade for the UK. It is the story of trade for India, and the story of trade for the world. We need a different approach, and this is where I agree with the International Agreements Committee about the need for democracy. What we need from the Government is a trade policy covering our approach to all countries that receives proper, full democratic scrutiny. As the very useful WWF briefing for this debate highlights, the lack of scrutiny of free trade agreements and our overall policy may put the Government at risk of breaking their commitments under the Aarhus convention, which means that legislation with environmental impacts should receive meaningful public consultation before it is implemented.

My concerns lie particularly, as noble Lords might expect, with climate, environment and social justice, as well as with the crucial issue of tackling corruption. With the City of London being the global centre of corruption, freeing up trade in services risks exporting our problems to India, enhancing the issues that that nation already has.

Turning to environmental issues, it is interesting to take a case study. The Government’s documents and the committee’s report clearly foresee real advantages and potential for growth for the Indian garment industry in exporting to the UK. That has to be an area of great environmental and social justice concern. If we look at the environmental issues, the UK today by volume sells twice the amount of clothes that were sold in the UK 10 years ago. Do we really need more clothes, more waste and more plastic pollution? Do we really need this kind of industry that is so often built on, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, made out so clearly, extreme labour exploitation of women, particularly young women?

In the interests of being positive, I am going to highlight one aspect of the Government’s approach that I am pleased to see, which is that there is at least a mention of antimicrobial resistance. I should perhaps warn the Committee that I intend to make this a focus of my work in the next year, so noble Lords will hear a great deal more on this issue from me. I would like a much stronger focus on a one-health approach which ties together the human, veterinary and environmental aspects of health. Both our nations face significant challenges in these areas. This helps to highlight why this narrow approach on trade and economics is a problem. We need to take a systems-thinking, holistic approach to how we can co-operate and work together to tackle our joint problems.

I come back to the points on which I certainly disagree with the committee, and probably with the Government, on the investor-state dispute settlement procedures. Here I also disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, as I have before and will probably often do so again. In this context, I note that, disgracefully, a British company recently won $190 million in compensation from the Italian Government, who had taken environmental measures to protect both their own population and the global climate. The Italian Government blocked oil drilling from 12 miles off their shores. Under the energy charter treaty—a subject of growing controversy—using an ISDS procedure and no-win no-fee lawyers, the British developer Rockhopper won $190 million. That was eight times the amount it had invested.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently warned that ISDS risks a “regulatory chill”, which will stop Governments taking the essential steps they need to on environmental issues. One study in the journal Science found that Governments could be liable for up to $340 billion of payouts through ISDSs for taking the environmental measures we all need. This is clearly extremely dangerous and deeply undemocratic.

I will also comment briefly on the considerable discussion there has been on the barriers to trade within Indian states and the difficulties in dealing with them. This is democratic decision-making. They are democratic governments—they are perhaps not always perfectly democratic, but then ours is not either—making decisions for their people. What right do we have to drive a cart and horses through those democratic decisions?

I will finish by reflecting on the alternatives on this. How might we focus on co-operation and working together, rather than looking at the narrow financial advantage, to tackle the issues we need to? I go back to history. Through the 20th century, particularly in the work of the Institute of Plant Industry in Indore, there was a great deal of understanding of the importance of soil health and the use of green and animal manures. Research was carried out there that was transported to the Soil Association in the UK, which now increasingly informs thoughts and scientific research in the UK about the future of protecting our soil, which the NFU and many others will acknowledge. This two-way exchange of knowledge, ideas and research is the kind of exchange on which we need to focus.

In thinking about that and putting it in this model, I drew the attention of the previous Government to how we might look at trade differently, as fair trade and co-operation rather than free trade that benefits the few. In 2019, Costa Rica, Fiji, Iceland, New Zealand and Norway announced the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability, which aimed to slash the barriers on trade in environmental goods and services, to phase out fossil fuel subsidies and to encourage voluntary eco-labelling programmes and mechanisms that could go across international arenas. It is based on a commitment to achieving environmental outcomes, not just to increasing export volumes.

The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, brought up Scotland. As we speak, Scotland is announcing what looks like an impressive programme for government. I am proud of the contributions that Green Ministers have made to that programme. I would welcome the chance to discuss more ways in which we might green Britain’s trade policy. The models are out there; we just need to adopt them.

Heatwave Response

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I greatly welcome what the noble Baroness has said, and I tried to make the same point earlier: 45 members of the public at Wennington had to self-evacuate; 10 members of the public were evacuated to a rest centre; and 10 firefighters were affected by heat exhaustion, two of whom went to hospital. It was a horrific and shocking event for those involved. I hear what the noble Baroness said but I can only repeat what I said earlier: that I hope all the authorities involved—some of those will be private as well as public—will address with sensitivity the cases she referred to.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to difficulties getting to Stansted Airport on Sunday. That is, of course, contributing to the problem, whether you travel by rail or road. He may be aware of the report this morning from UCL and LSE academics and Carbon Tracker showing that the oil and gas industry has delivered profits of £2.3 billion a day over the last 50 years to multinational companies and petrostates: that is a total of $52 trillion. Should that industry not be paying a lot more in tax instead of, in the UK, just since the Paris agreement was signed, the Government subsidising it to the tune of £13.6 billion?

Drawing on the point made by the noble Baroness, will not the people of Wennington and the other parts of east London and the other parts of the country so affected by these events, by wildfires that are entirely outside the British general experience, be thinking that those oil and gas companies should be paying into our long-awaited national resilience strategy and making a contribution for the conditions of the Anthropocene that they played a huge part in creating?

Procurement Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 13th July 2022 Grand Committee

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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”.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 11th July 2022 Grand Committee

I speak from direct experience of the higher quality of charity-run care homes and the greater dedication and commitment of their staff. We all know of effective social care provision by mutuals, social enterprises and charities under contract to government. This amendment emphasises that there is and should be a significant role for this sector alongside profit-making outsourcing companies and government agencies, particularly in this sensitive area of personal social public services. We support a mixed economy in the provision of public services, not an overwhelming dependence on large outsourcing contractors regardless of the type of service provided. I hope the Minister does too, and that she will recognise that the Bill, in its current position as a skeleton Bill, needs to have more of the principles set out in it.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

My Amendment 130, which would be the substantive change, may well be technically defective but would require an assurance that the different criteria—price and the objectives set out in Section 11—should have equality of regard. That is what I am looking for in the wording of the Bill, and that is what my amendment seeks to do.

[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).

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Committee adjourned at 7.39 pm.

Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

The letter from the Prime Minister alluded to this. Noble Lords will see from the details in the letters themselves that they allude to commercially sensitive matters, so, clearly, I cannot get into further detail beyond what is set out in the letters: you have the Prime Minister’s words. But I draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that the Prime Minister was seeking guidance on the Ministerial Code in this particular instance.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Can the Minister tell me why the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, as an ethics adviser, was asked to give advice on compliance with international law over steel tariffs, but Sir James Eadie, First Treasury Counsel, was not asked about the legality of plans for the Northern Ireland protocol?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I have already said that I am not going into speculative comments on what may or may not have been the subject of a commercially confidential matter under consideration.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[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?

Elections Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 25th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. They have already very clearly outlined Amendment 63, to which I attached my name, so in the interests of time, I will comment just on Amendments 66 and 68 in my name. These are advances, derivations or different approaches that arose from the debate we had on these issues in Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, just said, I would not necessarily suggest that these are the complete answer—although Amendment 68 certainly takes us in the direction that he referred to of reviewing our current situation—but they are an attempt to raise the issues and continue the debate from Committee.

I begin by noting—I owe this to the Forbes website—that a superyacht costs on average about $275 million. I cannot personally attest to that, but we can take it as a ballpark figure to start with; of course, there are probably quite a few going second hand at the moment, which might make them a bit cheaper. This is a demonstration of the fact that, in our current economic system, with the corruption and extractivism, we have people in the world who have access to massive sums of money. Amendment 63 and most of the debate around this have focused very much on foreign influence. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, talked about bringing influence over our democratic politics. But what my Amendments 66 and 68 do is ask: why should any individual, wherever they reside, have that kind of influence over our democratic politics?

If we look at what a typical political party—one of the two largest parties, or perhaps particularly the party that draws the most funds, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said—spends on a general election, it is about 10% of the cost of a superyacht. It is not quite small change down the back of the sofa for the oligarchs, but it is not a really large amount of money. I asked in Committee what would happen if one of our existing political parties or a new political party drew all its funding from one source—one highly questionable source or any source at all. For example, we have just had the French election, and the far-right candidate, Marine Le Pen, who got more than 40% of the vote, got a very large loan from a Hungarian bank linked to President Putin. If noble Lords want to see how this plays out in Australian politics, they might like to look at the role of Clive Palmer in the election going on now, since I raised that issue in Committee.

This amendment developed from the Committee work. Of course, we do not have exact parallels to the two examples I have just cited in the UK, although I note, looking back over the past decade or so, that in the run-up to the 2010 election, Lord Ashcroft donated about 20% of the money that the Conservative Party spent in preparing for and running that election campaign. In 2021, the Conservative mayoral candidate, Shaun Bailey, received about 40% of his funding from the same source. I am not in any way casting aspersions on those cases; I am merely asking what happens to our politics when one person is hugely influential and a party is dependent on that one person.

Amendment 66 is an attempt to say that there should be a limit on how much one person can influence a political party. I came up with the figure of 5%, which I think is a reasonable estimate. This was debated at some length with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who is not in his place today. He said that he would go away and think about whether one person should be able to donate 100% of the cost of an election campaign for a party or major character. I give notice to the Minister that I raise that question again. The noble Earl said he would go away and reflect on what the maximum percentage should be; maybe the Government do not think my 5% figure is right, but do they really believe that 100% of the funding for a political party’s campaign for a general election should be able to come from one source? Maybe they think it should be 50% or 25%. I give the Minister fair warning that if I do not get an answer to that, I will be bouncing back up again. I am sure that, if they engage with Amendment 66, the Government are likely to say that this might be drafted differently. I have attempted to address some of the main issues. I will not push this to a vote. I do not believe that I have necessarily found all the answers here, but there is a really important question that needs to be asked about whether we should limit anyone’s, not just foreign residents’, percentage of influence over our parties.

Some will say that we have rules about declaring donations and, providing they are followed—your Lordships’ House did its best earlier to keep an independent Electoral Commission overseeing that—voters can use that information to influence their choice. However, even if it is all open and transparent, voters have many reasons to make the choices that they do. Elections do need to be funded, which is why I have put down Amendment 68, which would require a 12-month consultation on public funding of political parties. This very much draws on the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, tabled in Committee and on which, unfortunately, due to the hour, we did not have time to have a full debate. None the less, the noble Lord put forward—as he has again in an amended form here—a proposal for how to do this and get state funding of political parties. We could have lots of debates about the nature of that and the way it should be done, so rather than do that, I have put down this amendment for a review.

I will stop there, but I remind the Minister that I will be asking him if he thinks that 100% of the funding for a campaign should be able to come from one source.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment, although I do not think it goes to the source of the problem. The source of the problem is the massive increase in the electorate contained within this Bill. We know from the impact assessment and I know from written replies I have had from the Minister that it increases the electoral roll of people living abroad—many of whom have lived abroad for decades—from around 1 million to 3.3 million, an increase of 2.3 million names. I remind the House that these will overwhelmingly be people who have lived abroad for more than 15 years—for many, 50 or 60 years —and who have no reasonable expectation of ever returning to this country. The Bill makes it easier for this registration to persist as, once on the register, names now remain for three years as opposed to one year previously, and you can get on the electoral roll by the process of attestation—in other words, providing you can get someone to attest that you lived at 22 Station Road 60 years ago, even though 22 Station Road has been demolished and you have not been back since, and that you are a bona fide former resident of the United Kingdom.

To me, that is wrong in principle, but I shall also apply it at a constituency level—the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised this and I can give him some of the answer. Under the present system, with the 15-year rule on residence that is allowed, in London and Westminster, 2.43% of voters at the last election were overseas voters. Let us assume that that increases by three, once these 2.3 million are added to the register. You could then have constituencies in the United Kingdom with 6,000 or 7,000 voters in an electorate of 73,000 who have no obvious connection whatsoever with the constituency in which they are voting. That, it seems to me, is wrong.

Whatever your view is, the absolute basis of our electoral system—which I cherish; I have to be controversial here by saying I am a powerful supporter of first past the post and single-member constituencies—is that representation, for a general election, is based on where you live. That is a very good basis for registration and voting, it seems to me. But, no, we are going to add 2.3 million people to the register who never lived in the country—not in recent memory.

In order to do this, the Government are spending some £15 million. I wish that they would show the same anxiety and commitment on making sure that people resident within the United Kingdom and not on the register at present were added instead of spending £15 million on getting people to vote in individual constituencies—possible decisively, affecting the result—who simply do not live in the area.

I am very sorry that this Bill has extended the period of residence from 15 years to life. I hope that the Minister can improve on his answer when I raised this before; he asked what on earth is the basis for objecting to supporting a 15-year rule, which says that—I quote him loosely—if you have been abroad for 15 years, you can vote in an election, but if you have been abroad for 15 years and a day, you cannot vote in an election. That really is a thin argument; he really can do better than that. That applies to any boundary—why do we say people can vote at 18 but not at 17 and 364 days? We can all find numerous examples of how people draw boundaries.

The problem of overseas voting—and here I find myself agreeing with the Green Party, which I do not on every occasion—is that with the possibility of this initial problem, which is that you can vote however long you have been away from the country, you can also now provide funds for parties. It means, as has already been said, that, in theory, a party could be almost entirely financed by people living abroad with no intention of returning to the United Kingdom or of living with the consequences of their vote. That is the other crucial element in our democracy: you live to see the consequences of your vote. People who voted Conservative—I hope a lot of them vote Labour at the next election—bear some responsibility for what is happening in the country at the moment. It is not the same responsibility as the Minister, of course, but they have some responsibility. Of course, if you live abroad, vote from abroad, remain abroad and intend to remain abroad, then you do not live with the consequences of your vote.

I very much regret that, somehow or other, this massive extension of the franchise is in this Bill, without any compensating extension of the franchise for people in this country who are not on the electoral roll. I have seen no sensible, adequate defence of it so far. I am sure that the Minister will do his best, which he is bound to do, but we have made a step in our democracy that violates the principle of representation by place of residence and adds the problem of enabling parties to be massively financed by people living and working permanently abroad.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I was thinking that others would wish to intervene, but that does not appear to be the case.

These are important amendments, but I shall not encourage anyone to think that the Government will accept them. The context is a shared concern about dirty money, a phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, used. I do not think any Government have been stronger in response to the Russian invasion, or in bearing down on oligarchs, than this Government. However, following our robust debate in Committee, I am pleased that we are again returning to this important issue of political donations. I do listen to contributions of noble Lords and these debates will certainly serve as a key reference point for the Government as they keep rules on political donations under review, to ensure that they continue to provide an effective safeguard that protects the integrity of our political system. In that context, the Bill bears down very heavily on foreign donations and makes them much harder.

Turing to the specific amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, Amendment 63 would remove the rights of overseas electors to make political donations. Amendment 69B would place a £7,500 limit on any donation or series of donations from overseas electors. I fear that many will not be surprised when I reiterate that the Government cannot support these amendments, as we intend to uphold the long-standing principle, first introduced by the Committee on Standards in Public Life itself in 1998, that if you are eligible to vote for a party, you are also eligible to donate to that party. These amendments would overturn that principle by removing the right of overseas electors to donate. Overseas electors are British citizens who have the right to vote and, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, the Labour Party has acknowledged that for many years. They are reasonable participants in our democracy. Furthermore, due to the interaction of Amendment 69B and the existing legislation, there would be no provision for either the return of donations exceeding the £7,500 threshold or the reporting of such donations to the Electoral Commission. This leaves a significant gap, which means that the amendment would simply not have the intended impact.

The Government do not support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, to which I listened carefully. It was fair for him to set out his case because he wishes to establish an independent committee to report on the creation of a foundation for democracy. The concept here, however, which is where agreement falls away, is that he submits that this body should be responsible for collecting all donations made to registered political parties and mandatorily allocating them based on membership and vote share at certain elections. The Government can find no justification for this amendment and believe it would place unreasonable restrictions on an individual’s freedom to donate to the political party of their choosing. It would go against the fundamental principle of allowing members of the public to get involved in our democracy by giving their support, be it at the ballot box, via a cup of coffee or via donations, to any party or parties that they choose.

Moreover, this proposal would risk disproportionately penalising smaller parties, which may not have such high levels of membership and vote share as the larger parties, but form an integral part of our democracy. Indeed, it is not clear to me how any new parties would emerge under the noble Lord’s system, as they would not be able to fundraise for themselves and would therefore struggle to get their message out to the public to encourage members to join and voters to support them in the future. The Government are therefore simply not convinced that there is a demand or evidence to support the noble Lord’s radical idea; nor do we think it necessary to establish an independent committee to come to this conclusion. Should other parliamentarians share the noble Lord’s view, the existing framework of parliamentary committees obviously provides an ideal place to consider the proposal further, so I urge the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

Next, I turn to Amendments 66 and 68, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, which address a similar theme. Amendment 66 would seek to cap donations that any one individual or organisation can make to a political party to 5% of that party’s maximum campaign expenditure limit at the preceding election. This cap would apply to all donors, whether individuals or organisations, such as trade unions for example. What effect would it have on a large trade union donation?

Amendment 68 would require the Government to publish a report on proposals to establish state funding of political parties and limitations on private donations. In essence, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are seeking the Government’s views on these two fundamental principles. I will underline our position.

First, fundraising is a legitimate part of the democratic process. Consequently, there is no cap on political donations to parties, candidates and other types of campaigner but, instead, strict limits on what they can spend on regulated campaign activity during elections. These maintain a level playing field in elections. In particular, the noble Baroness’s amendment has the potential to create a very uneven and complicated playing field. Under the proposal, each political party will have different amounts it can fundraise, given that spending limits are calculated according to the number of constituencies it contests. New political parties in particular, again, would be affected and this change could encourage quite unnatural growth, whereby new parties are incentivised to contest seats they have no intention of winning to give them a more competitive funding limit in the next cycle. I will not be drawn on what percentage of a party’s overall donation might be permitted because the Government simply do not accept that there should be such a percentage figure.

Secondly, there is absolutely no public support for expanding the level of public funding already available to political parties. The Government are not going to go down that road.

Finally, I wish to address Amendment 69, retabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. This would introduce requirements, as he said, for registered parties to carry out risk assessments and due-diligence checks on donations. Only those with a legitimate interest in UK elections can make political donations and there are strict rules requiring companies making donations to be both incorporated and carrying out business in the UK. Parties must check that companies meet these criteria. It is also an offence to circumvent the rules through proxy donors—for example, an impermissible donor seeking to make a donation through a company that is itself a permissible donor. Political parties must already report all donations over a certain value to the Electoral Commission, which are then published online for public scrutiny.

The Government have heard the concerns that donors may seek to evade the rules and, in principle, the point of strengthening the system to provide greater levels of assurance on the sources of donations to ensure they are permissible and legitimate is important. Indeed, the Government recently published, ahead of introducing necessary legislation, the Corporate Transparency and Register Reform White Paper.

Reforms to Companies House will deliver more reliably accurate information on the companies register by introducing mandatory identity verification for people who manage or control companies and other UK-registered entities, providing greater powers for Companies House to query and challenge the information it receives, and introducing more effective investigation and enforcement powers for Companies House. This, in combination with a new power for the Companies House registrar proactively to pass on relevant information to law enforcement and other public and regulatory bodies, including the Electoral Commission, will indirectly support the enforcement of the rules on donations by providing greater confidence in the accuracy of the data held at Companies House, including when seeking information on UK-registered companies and other UK-registered entities that have made political donations.

The Government have not dismissed the fact that this is a significant area, which is why we are instituting these reforms to corporate transparency, but for the reasons I have outlined to the House on various amendments, I urge that noble Lords consider not pressing their amendments.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Before the Minister sits down, may I confirm what he said? I wrote down his words: “The Government do not accept that there should be a percentage limit.” On the percentage of contribution from one person or organisation to a political party’s campaign, would the Minister confirm that the Government believe it appropriate for 100% of the funding for a political party’s campaign to come from one source or organisation?

Elections Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Wednesday 6th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, a couple of minutes after I thought I might have to rise to move the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, and others, I rise to support it. With between 6 million and 9 million people missing from electoral registers or incorrectly registered, something is clearly wrong.

Surveys by the Electoral Commission show that 60% of people think, incorrectly, that the registration process happens automatically and that they do not need to do anything. Registering is not just about the right to vote; it is about making yourself available for jury service and being able to obtain credit. The Government maintain that there should be an opt-in principle to the right to vote, but there is no opt-in principle for healthcare, education or support from the emergency services, nor do the Government expect you to opt in to paying tax, so you should not have to opt in to the right to vote.

Automatic voter registration would cut the cost of existing registration processes and reduce red tape and bureaucracy, all things which the Government would normally say that they want to support. Introducing it would free up resources to focus on those who are still unregistered, which is also something the Government say that they want to do, but are they worried that the wrong people may then be able to vote? That is not a very democratic principle, but it is one trumpeted by Republicans in the United States.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I had the pleasure of introducing this amendment in Committee and I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, who has been the proponent of this throughout, was able to be here on Report and provide such a powerful introduction. I raised one practical point previously: how hard it is for people to check if they are on the roll. The Minister said she was going to write to me about that, and I look forward to her letter.

The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, is not in her place now, but in Committee she stressed the way in which automatic voter registration would be helpful to poor and marginalised communities, particularly Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. We should keep that in mind, and also the words in Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, who noted that the impact assessment is to ensure that those who are entitled to vote should always be able to use that right—that is the Government’s stated aim for the Bill.

After those brief words, I will repeat three words said by the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, in his introduction: “seize this opportunity”. I think he was speaking then to voters, but that it is a great message to leave with your Lordships’ House: seize this opportunity for democracy.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to say three things. First, I am pleased to see the Minister back in his place and I hope he has recovered. Secondly, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, has made another journey from Cambridge to be with us tonight. Thirdly, I agree with him that we should make history and I urge the House to vote for this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and to agree with the case she has so clearly outlined for Amendment 44A. However, I will speak briefly to Amendment 44 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, to which I have attached my name. He has already presented this very clearly; I just want to stress that it is talking about local government elections. It is talking about decisions about how your bins are collected and by whom; what happens with the local social care that you or your relatives might need to use; a local library that you and your children might rely on; or, where you are still lucky enough to have local democratic control, a local school. Surely if you have made yourself part of that community and you are relying on those services and contributing to that community, you should have a say over it. That is the case here.

There is also a practical case at this time. There will be a huge level of difficulty and confusion for voters, canvassers and people campaigning for local officials with the cut-off date of the end of the transition period, settled status and different situations for different EU member countries. It will all get very complicated and messy.

I have one final observation for tonight, while expressing my opposition to Amendment 43 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. If you look at the debates as we have progressed through Report today, it is really striking that there is a clear division in this House that runs around the Government Benches, with everyone else, including the Cross-Benchers, on the other side. Every measure defended or promoted from the Government Benches, whether by Front-Benchers or Back-Benchers, seeks to see or will have the impact of fewer people voting. All the amendments moved from this side try to get more people involved and voting. That is a really interesting division to see in your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise extremely briefly to support my noble friend Lady Ritchie’s amendment, to which I have added my name.

Constitutional issues are never easy in Northern Ireland—nothing is ever simple—and this lies in that category too. We live, as it happens, in very troubled times in Northern Ireland. We are but weeks away from a complicated and difficult election for the Northern Ireland Assembly. Issues which might to us seem relatively unimportant are magnified a dozen times when we cross the Irish Sea.

I add my plea to the Minister: can he persuade his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, or himself—whoever decides to go—to meet the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission? They have jointly put forward a submission. Both those bodies were set up 25 years ago at the time of the Good Friday agreement—for obvious reasons, because they were major planks in that agreement. Therefore, if they say that this is going to cause a problem, there is a very strong case for the Government to meet them.

In Scotland and in Wales, local government elections are devolved, so they take their own decisions on this. I am not quite sure why this has not been devolved in Northern Ireland, but it is not, and it lies in the purview of the United Kingdom Government. As it happens, of course—given that this relates to European Union citizens—the people of Northern Ireland voted to remain in the European Union. But that is not the main issue.

The main issue is that there is a problem with regard to the Good Friday agreement and Article 2.1 of the protocol—all difficult issues. But I think that a meeting would be absolutely final, in the sense that it would mean being able to talk to the two commissions about the issues which my noble friend has raised—at least, I hope it would be final. We will know in a second what the Minister will say, and whether he will go ahead with this proposal or could delay it a little until he has met with the two commissions. But I repeat: this is a difficult issue in difficult times. We look forward to what he has to say.

Elections Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Wednesday 6th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerslake (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment and give it my full support. We did much of the heavy lifting on this issue in Committee, so I will keep my comments to four points.

First, contrary to the original assertion, this is not in the 2019 manifesto, and it cannot be regarded as a manifesto commitment. That is in contrast to the issue of voter ID, which was in the manifesto and my opinion was that it would be inappropriate to knock it out completely, even though I personally might have liked to. This is different, and I think the Lords is fully entitled to remove it from the Bill.

Secondly, I refer to the point made by others that this has had no meaningful consultation. In Committee we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, exactly how the mayors themselves feel about this; they are pretty angry about what is going on here. I have lost count of the number of people who did not know that this was happening. This is not the way to make major constitutional change. Let us be clear about it: it affects every voter in this country. There was no consultation on this, in contrast to the painstaking consultation that went on when the supplementary vote was established for the London mayor. It is important that we do not take these cavalier decisions without proper consultation. The key point is that this should not be part of the Bill.

Others have already touched on my third point. Whatever your view is on proportional representation for elections—this is not about that issue, as I made clear in Committee—there is a good case for supplementary votes in mayoral elections and those for police and crime commissioners. I say this because it is much more likely to give the successful candidate what I would call a majority mandate. They will, on the whole and in almost every circumstance, have more than 50% of first or second votes. That is crucial for roles that carry enormous power and responsibility for large amounts of resources. It is quite different from the debate you have about local or central elections; it makes sense for mayoral elections, and we should hold to the current system, which was introduced for good reason.

My fourth point is that the issue of difficulties with the supplementary vote system are very limited, and the case has not been made. As has already been said, in so far as there are issues with the last mayoral elections, the predominant issues were about the number of candidates and the design of the form. You do not change your entire electoral system on the strength of a badly designed form. To put it bluntly, this change is not with the flow of this Bill; it was introduced late into the Bill, it has not had proper consultation and we should remove it. If the Government want to pursue this, they should bring it forward in subsequent legislation.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I have attached my name to the amendment that Clause 12 not stand part of the Bill. I will speak briefly to it. It is a great pleasure to follow the previous three speakers, who have already covered most of the ground.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, made a short assertion about this not being part of the Conservative manifesto in 2019. It is worth reading his wonderful tour de force through the Conservative manifesto from our Committee debate because it sets it out in chapter and verse. To match that, I will read out one sentence from the PACAC report:

“Regardless of the benefits or disadvantages of the changes made by the Bill to the electoral system for those offices, the manner in which the proposed legislative change was brought about is unsatisfactory. Making changes such as this after the Bill has been introduced and debated at Second Reading is disrespectful to the House.”


That was the independent conclusion about the process in the other place. It was not a manifesto commitment. Independent oversight suggests that the way in which it was done was not appropriate.

My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb spoke for us in Committee on this point. It is also worth saying that the Government set great store by the 2011 referendum in suggesting that people somehow or other voted for first past the post. That was 11 years ago. I speak to a lot of voters who are used to voting for whom they see as the second worst candidate to stop the worst candidate getting in under first past the post. There were only two choices on the ballot paper in the 2011 referendum—neither was proportional representation. “#AVisnotPR” sums it up nicely. We really do not have any idea of the people’s view as to what our voting system should be. We should have a people’s constitutional convention. If the public were polled and asked, “Do you think our politics are broken?”, I think you would find a massive consensus. My answer to how we find a way forward is to go to the people and work out what they want. It is clear that what the Government have put before us in Clause 12 has no democratic legitimacy. Your Lordships’ House should remove it.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, the case is there. We rehearsed it extensively in Committee. At the time, we heard some very interesting arguments put forward by the Minister. I hope that he has had chance to revise his views and that we shall hear shortly that he will accept the amendment. I do not want to prolong this, so I shall leave it there.