Procurement Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord Aberdare

Committee stage
Wednesday 13th July 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 75A in my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, my noble friend Lady Hayman and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for putting their names to this amendment.

This amendment is consistent with the remarks I have already made in Committee: that there should be specific reference to “social value” as being part of public benefit in order to provide clarity to public bodies, companies and social enterprises; and that social value should be embedded in the procurement process through the appropriate guidance and reporting requirements for public bodies, which this amendment concerns.

This new clause would be added to the Bill mandating the Government to provide “guidance” to the public sector about “how to implement social value”. The Committee is aware that this is of great concern, given that the public policy—the legislative framework—is there for social value, and yet there is no mention of it in the Bill and no mention of how it might be implemented or how it might work with the procurement regime. I hope that we can resolve this matter between now and Report.

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 71 in this group, which is a simple probing amendment seeking to understand why the Bill exempts contracting authorities from having regard to the national procurement policy statement for contracts involving frameworks or dynamic markets. I can find no explanation, in the Bill’s Explanatory Notes or elsewhere, why such arrangements should not be covered by the terms of the national policy statement, but perhaps the Minister will be able to give a simple answer.

A large number of construction-related public projects will be procured through frameworks and dynamic market contracts. A framework is an agreement with suppliers to establish terms governing contracts that may be awarded during the life of the agreement. The Government themselves acknowledge in the Cabinet Office’s Construction Playbook that framework agreements, as a means of longer-term strategic collaboration in construction, can provide the best medium through which procurement and contracting can deliver transformational improvements.

Last December, the Cabinet Office also published Constructing the Gold Standard: An Independent Review of Public Sector Construction Frameworks, based on an independent and objective review commissioned from Professor David Mosey of King’s College London. To quote the then Cabinet Office Minister:

“This review recognises the potential of frameworks as a powerful engine-room for implementing Construction Playbook policies that include strategic planning, integrated teams, continuous improvement and the delivery of better, safer, faster and greener project outcomes.”


The review states that the Civil Engineering Contractors Association

“identifies over 1,660 public sector construction frameworks procured between 2015 and 2019 with an aggregate value of up to £220 billion.”

Given that the national procurement policy statement will seek to define strategic priorities and set the parameters for better public procurement in line, I hope, with the gold standard prescribed by the review, why should contracting authorities be exempt from having regard to it in agreeing the terms of frameworks?

A similar question arises in relation to dynamic markets. At Second Reading, the Minister stated:

“The new concept of dynamic markets … is intended to provide greater opportunity for SMEs to join and win work in the course of a contracting period.”—[Official Report, 25/5/22; col. 929.]


Again, it is not clear to me why the terms of the national procurement policy statement should not also apply to dynamic markets—although I am quite prepared to believe that I may be missing something.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord Aberdare

Monday 24th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Aberdare]

My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me for making a brief intervention at this stage. I am not convinced that this Bill is significantly more revolutionary than, for example, the introduction of civil partnerships. I believe it is a logical next step to take. Indeed, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, that in 10 years’ time it may well be widely, if not universally, accepted as such. I also believe that it will ultimately have a positive impact on society and social cohesion. It will make the status of marriage, which I see as a vital building block of society, available to same-sex couples and parents, and remove any possibility of their being treated in a discriminatory way by comparison with opposite-sex married couples.

A number of noble Lords have spoken of the lack of an electoral mandate, but the Bill enjoys support across all parties. As the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, reminded us, it received a substantial majority in a free vote in the other place, and another large majority at Second Reading in this House. Whatever the process hitherto, the Bill is now receiving detailed scrutiny in your Lordships’ House, as indeed it should. I do not believe a referendum would be appropriate, or indeed that its cost would be justifiable. I welcome the Government’s initiative in introducing and pressing forward with this Bill, and I believe that the time is right.

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I shall be very brief, and say two things. One is that when you are losing the political argument, it seems to me that you always go for the methodology or, in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for Europe. The second thing is that I agree with everything said about this by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. The majority supported it in the free votes. I really think that there is nothing else to add, and the referendum the amendment proposes is a very bad idea indeed.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord Aberdare

Monday 17th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Aberdare]

My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but I will make two brief points. First, I am very uncomfortable with the references we have heard to a new definition of marriage. As I understand it, the aim of the Bill is to enable same-sex couples to share in the existing understanding and status of marriage. My understanding of my marriage is not primarily gender-based; it is based on the fact that I love my wife and wish to stay with her for the rest of my life. That has nothing to do with gender.

Secondly, I would love to find a compromise—I am a compromising sort of person, and I very much welcome the recognition of my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss that the word “marriage” is essential in whatever we end up with—but I find it extremely hard to imagine any compromise that would not formalise the idea that there are two different forms of marriage. Therefore, I tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alli, that it is either one thing or the other.

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, we have had a long and interesting debate about the definition of marriage and about this group of amendments. I accept fully that noble Lords are, with the best of intentions, trying to find a way through. However, we on these Benches think that the effect of all the amendments in this group would be the same. All, in different ways, seek to enshrine in law a distinction between what is referred to as “traditional marriage” or “matrimonial marriage” and the new, statutory definition of marriage that will be created under the Bill, which encompasses the union of both opposite-sex and same-sex couples. Whether those who tabled the amendments intended to or not, they were in effect making two classes of marriage. Trying to find different definitions—and in some cases, I fear, jealously guarding the word “marriage” for heterosexual couples—suggests that one form of marriage is inferior to another and that flies in the face of the Bill.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, was quite right in his remarks, as were other noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Dobbs and Lord Black, the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, my noble friend Lady Turner, the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, in her excellent speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. They all appreciated that while those who tabled the amendments have a strong personal belief about marriage, in some cases rooted in their religious faith, their amendments would undermine the purpose of the Bill.

It is important to make a distinction between something that has the effect of undermining a belief or an idea and something that undermines an individual’s ability to hold such a belief. I find it difficult to believe that, when the Bill becomes an Act and same-sex marriages are a routine matter, as they will be, the noble Lords who have been so nervous today will feel that something important or precious has been removed from their faith or their strong belief in marriage.

Article 9 of the Convention on Human Rights clearly enshrines an individual’s right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. We must be absolutely clear in our protection of these rights. The Bill seeks to do that. The Bill does not in any way undermine those rights for individuals in relation to their belief about the appropriate nature of marriage. As the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, said, its purpose is to provide for the state to recognise equally the relationships of couples, regardless of whether they are between members of the same sex or of opposite sexes, who wish to make a loving and lifelong commitment to each other.

By inserting a distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage back into statute, whether by describing one as a “union”, as Amendment 1 would do, or as matrimonial marriage requiring special privileges, as Amendments 46 and 57 do, or by setting up a separate register, we would undermine the purpose of the Act, which is to remove the distinction in law between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. Therefore, we on these Benches have no sympathy with, and do not support, any of the amendments in this group. I ask noble Lords not to be seduced by what I regard as the lethal combination of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. The way they described what they wish to achieve was seductive, but it would have the same effect on the Bill.