Future of the UK Constitution and Devolution

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Bim Afolami]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, which is well timed, because I am about to come to his very point—not so much about the tardy response from Ministers, but about the necessary engagement on devolution deals and other such mechanisms between localities and the centre.

It is fundamentally important that we regularise the local government and devolution structures across England, in particular. I will come to the other nations, but let me first focus on England, which was the topic of the intervention. In a county such as Hertfordshire, there are district councils and a county council. In central Bedfordshire, a neighbouring county, there is a unitary system. In the Tees Valley, there is a mayoralty, but the powers are different in that mayoralty from the west midlands, and the powers are different again in London. I have probably missed out other forms of local government as well.

When we speak to people who are trying to navigate their way through our local government structures, they will often say—they definitely this say to me—that it takes them forever to figure out who is responsible for what. I have not even mentioned such things as local enterprise partnerships or the chambers of commerce, which overlap all those structures—let alone NHS trusts, integrated care boards and the other things that cut across the structures.

I mention that because it is critical, both for the health of our democracy and how our country runs and for economic growth—holding in mind those two things —to regularise local government structures, so that we do not need to worry about whether there is a devolution deal in this area or whether the right Minister or MP is lobbying in the most effective way. Everybody will have a clear sense, broadly speaking, of whether they are in one of three areas: in a county, where we should have unitaries; in a smaller urban area, where there should be a mayoralty with certain powers; or in a large urban area, such as Manchester or London, where the mayoralty should perhaps have greater powers. We need to regularise the structures so that we can finally move to a system in which people understand what the powers are and who is responsible for what. That responsibility is critical for democratic health and for economic investment and growth.

I was recently in Germany. When I speak to German businesses and say, “How does it work with investment?”, whether into Germany or into the UK, they often say that, if they are investing in most countries in Europe, they will go to the local mayoralty, for cities, or to the region, but in England—I say that precisely—they often do not know where to go. For example, in my county, if someone were to invest in life sciences in Stevenage, which is a hugely growing area and doing very well, they might go to Stevenage Borough Council, but the council would say that they also need to speak to the county council about different things and North Herts Council about certain other things. That inhibits our economic growth, and that is just one example.

Regularising and standardising the relationships is important, but this is not just about that. Let us assume that we had managed to do that, and we had a more standardised local government structure, such that people started to understand who is responsible for what. It is important that local leaders—we often talk about the importance of local leaders—have a more direct relationship with Westminster as well. It should not just be that someone elects a Member of Parliament and, indeed, a Government in the general election, and they elect their local leader in a local election, yet the relationships between the local leader and the centre are not formalised. We should move to a system in which local leaders have, in a more standardised fashion, formal mechanisms to engage with central Government and Parliament. We could use the House of Lords, perhaps with positions in an ex officio capacity, though that may not be necessary. However, the broader principle is to have a more formalised way in which leaders from Cheshire, for example, have a relationship with Westminster and Whitehall that enables them to lobby and make their voices heard, and enables MPs to feed into that process effectively, so that we get much better governance. I am talking not just about Cheshire, as such a system might benefit Hertfordshire, for example.

Regularising these things would not cost much money, if any at all. This is not about paying extra and it would not change a huge amount. However, it would make sure that the voices of local people and local leaders are heard here in Parliament.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I am not exactly sure what the hon. Gentleman is proposing that regularisation should look like. In Scotland, we have a system of unitary authorities—32 local councils—that meet together in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which is the forum where negotiations with the Government happen. Local leaders are all members of and involved in COSLA, and they have a relationship with the Government through that system. Is he suggesting something similar, with a kind of unitary authority structure?

[Bim Afolami]

As with the intervention from the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), the hon. Lady’s intervention provides me with a perfect segue to talk about Scotland and, indeed, Wales and Northern Ireland. We live in one United Kingdom—I appreciate that we have opposition from the hon. Lady on that particular question—and it is important that local people in all parts of the United Kingdom have broadly similar relationships with the centre, with Westminster and Whitehall, regardless of whether there is a devolved Assembly or devolved Parliament. By achieving that, we will help to knit our country closer together and, again, build the understanding and awareness of responsibilities with the population, business and economic actors in this country and outside it.

The next part of my remarks relates to the second Chamber, the House of Lords. People have been talking about Lords reform for more than 100 years and I am pretty sure that in another 100 years, people will still be talking about Lords reform, although I do not intend to be here then—[Interruption.] You never know.

Personally, I am not a proponent of an elected second Chamber, but I strongly understand and recognise the concerns of those who feel that it needs an elected element. It is clear to me that there is a way to help to sort out some of the glaring inconsistencies and problems with the House of Lords. We are all familiar with those issues, whether we are talking about a sense that it is too big, concern about certain people who have been nominated to it, the fact that there is no retirement age, or various other things that a lot of people have problems with, in my view very reasonably. We can try to kill two birds with one stone by engaging local leaders in the broader governance of the country and by using the second Chamber partly to help that process to happen.

By doing that, we would help the voices of local people to be heard, because they would not just elect a local leader to deal with their local issues, and that was that. That local leader would then have a national voice that would help the governance of the wider country. Presumably, we are all here to help to improve the governance of our country. Where there are local leaders who have something to add and to offer, that should be shared and voiced, which could benefit everybody. In my view, we should use the House of Lords to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I am glad to speak in this debate on International Women’s Day. Unfortunately, we are significantly outnumbered, but it is nice to have a woman in the Chair and to hear a colleague—only one, sadly—speak with a huge amount of knowledge and experience that she brings to her role.

I thank the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) for securing the debate, which he opened with a short history lesson. I give him credit: it was very interesting. This is also the building in which William Wallace was tried; if we are talking about the history of the constitution and devolution, this building plays an important role in that part of Scotland and England’s history.

This has been quite a disparate debate with a lot of different takes on what is an incredibly broad subject; I understand why everybody has come to it with slightly different views and from slightly different positions. I will talk a bit about what a number of people around the room have said, and then about my views and my take on the debate title we were given.

First, on the way that local authorities work, we have 32 unitary authorities in Scotland. My constituency is Aberdeen North, which is wholly within the Aberdeen City Council area. The Aberdeenshire Council headquarters are also in my constituency, because Aberdeenshire surrounds the city, so I have the honour of having two local authority headquarters in my patch, which I am not sure that many MPs are able to say—certainly not in Scotland. The 32 local authorities work through COSLA in their relationship with the Government.

The hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden in particular, but also several others, spoke about financial matters. In recent years we have instituted participatory budgeting for local authorities. One per cent. of local authorities’ budgets has to be spent through a participatory budgeting route, which means that people in local communities decide where to spend that money—regeneration money, in a lot of cases—to best improve their communities. It does work, because the people choose their priorities. The priorities do not come from the centre; they are chosen by the people. Suggestions are put forward and costed up, and then decisions are taken by people who have the ability to vote if they live in certain areas of our city. I am speaking specifically about Aberdeen, but we do it across Scotland. The process works, it makes a difference and it is helpful for returning power to local communities.

We have done an awful lot to improve community empowerment in recent years with things such as community asset transfers, whereby buildings that are no longer being used by the city council, for example, are transferred over to community groups for very little money, giving those groups the opportunity to run them and to have a place. Community asset transfers do not just involve buildings; in some cases, tracts of land have been transferred. They have been incredibly successful.

One thing that could be done to improve local leadership is paying councillors reasonable salaries, as we have done in Scotland. I confess that although I have tried, I do not understand the local government systems in England. They seem to be different in all different parts of England and I am utterly baffled by the whole thing. In Scotland, councillors are paid a salary that, while not enough to live on—it is supposed to be two thirds of a full-time wage, although I do not know any councillor who only works two thirds of the time—is an actual salary.

[James Grundy]

Let me try to help the hon. Lady. There are often different wage structures in England because the different tiers of authorities have different responsibilities, whereas with the unitaries in Scotland the responsibilities are obviously uniform across that system. For example, county councils deal with roads and potholes, while district authorities tend to deal with lower-tier things, which sounds hilarious compared to potholes. I hope the hon. Lady understands that although the wage structure varies greatly, that is the reason why.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct on that, but the thing is that if we are not paying councillors a reasonable amount of money, we are not going to get the high-calibre local leaders that we need, or even just people who are able to dedicate the time that is necessary to do the role for the money they are given. That is one thing that I suggest could be improved.

The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) made a suggestion about the House of Lords. Abolishing the House of Lords would be a better way forward than giving it more power. Labour first stood on a platform to abolish the House of Lords in 1910. Despite some moves towards having fewer hereditary peers, we have not yet got to the position of having none. If we are going to give any more power to the unelected House of Lords, we need to have a serious look at the way its Members are selected, particularly given recent events.

The constitutional settlement is broken, and the situation is getting worse. We are supposed to have parliamentary sovereignty and a situation where Parliament can and does make decisions. I disagree with the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar), who suggested that we need to look at what we have and fix it, rather than starting with something new. With the constitutional settlement and the way this place works, I think we are beyond tweaking and fixing.

The whole idea proposed about Brexit was that it was about returning power—people said, “We want Brexit because we want power to be returned”—but over the years this Conservative Government have repeatedly moved power away from Parliament to the Executive. That continues to happen. We will see it next week, when I imagine the Chancellor will present the Budget without an amendment of the law resolution. That seems like a small thing, but it makes a significant difference to parliamentary power and sovereignty. It is a change in the way that our constitution works that has just been slipped through. A former Chancellor wrote to the Procedure Committee to say, “This is just a tweak—it is just a small change.” It is not; it massively dilutes MPs’ power to amend the Budget.

In Scotland, we have an agreed devolution settlement. The problem we have is that the Westminster Government, in their post-Brexit antics, have done what they can to return power from the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood to this place, most recently with the section 35 order. Absolutely, that is in the Scotland Act 1998, but it is supposed to be used only in extremis, when there is a massive negative impact on the rest of the UK. There is no good argument that Ministers can make that that is the case now. The only way we will solve the problem and get a collegiate relationship between the Scottish Government and the UK Westminster Government is if Scotland is an independent country and we are able to have this conversation on our terms—on the terms that the people of Scotland want us to have it. In Scotland, it is not Parliament that is sovereign; it is the people of Scotland, and we intend that the people will be able to have their say and choose the way forward.

Civil Service Pay

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I appreciate you chairing this afternoon’s debate, Mr Pritchard. We have been particularly raucous and difficult to control, so congratulations on taking on that most difficult role this afternoon.

I also thank the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) for taking forward this incredibly important debate. I was going to start by discussing the question she asked yesterday in Department for Work and Pensions questions—to which the Secretary of State responded by tacitly acknowledging that more than a quarter of DWP staff are paid so little that the minimum wage increase in April will lift their salaries. How have we reached a situation where they are so poorly valued and so poorly paid that they are not even paid the real living wage? They are simply paid the Government’s pretendy living wage.

Given that such a high percentage of them claim universal credit, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) has just stated, how is that cost-effective for the Government, never mind anything else? If people are paid so little that they need other Government funding to allow them even the most basic standards of life, something is going wrong. As so many Members have said, these are people who worked day in, day out during the course of the pandemic. They worked so hard to ensure that others were able to access the vital public services that we all need and that became incredibly important—far more important than before the pandemic—for so many. People were putting themselves at risk by travelling and working during lockdowns and the pandemic. It is a travesty that those people have been undervalued to such an extent.

Comments have also been made about gender-based discrimination and job cuts, and the fact that the Government expect people to do more work for less pay. Nobody wants to do more work for less pay. We should value the folk who deliver the most vital public services. During sittings of the Procurement Bill Committee, which some Members here attended, we tried to ensure that the Government would write a real living wage into procurement contracts. It is important that the real living wage is paid. When we write procurement contracts it is important that that is a requirement on external contractors or companies, but it should also be required of all public services.

We are doing everything we can in Scotland. Ensuring that people such as those working in adult social care are paid the real living wage is resulting in a significant increase in the number of people being paid an amount on which it is possible for them to live. That also reduces reliance on the benefits system and ensures that people have dignity and can avoid having to go to food banks to provide basic services for their families.

The Minister might talk about the amount of money that the Government have given to people for electricity and gas bills, but it is not enough. People are still struggling. The money given to support people with energy costs does not fully cover the increased costs, and that is not to mention the 17.1% inflationary increase in the cost of food. The highest increase is for the most basic food, yet we cannot avoid buying pasta, potatoes and rice.

The Government need to step up. They need to properly negotiate with trade unions. Nobody wants to take industrial action. It is not the case that trade unionists hate work. They have been forced into this situation because of the UK Government’s unwillingness to negotiate. In Scotland we have negotiated pay deals far more successfully. We have experienced strikes in Scotland, but we have constantly been round the table talking. We have been able to make much higher pay offers despite the fact that we have a legal requirement to have a balanced budget. We do not have the same flexibility as the UK Westminster Government on budgets. They can pay people by making in-year changes to budgets. We cannot do that in Scotland, yet we have prioritised pay because we recognise how important our public sector workers are. We recognise how vital the services that they provide are, so we are doing everything that we can to make the best possible pay offers.

Job cuts have been mentioned, but we are trying to ensure that people are not asked to do more work for less pay. We are putting in other provisions as well to ensure that we have enough staff. Obviously, we are hampered in that by Brexit.

In spite of a decade of real-terms pay cuts and the lack of flexibility in the Scottish budget, we will keep on fighting for a better and fairer Scotland. On Thursday, the Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) accused me of using the need for a balanced budget in Scotland as a convenient scenario. It is not convenient! It is incredibly inconvenient that Scotland has to have a balanced budget and that we cannot therefore make the offers we would like to make and provide people with cost of living uplifts. We have been arguing for decades for independence for Scotland so that we do not have to work within this framework and so that we have the ability to make our own choices about spending and about the money that we have as a Government to spend. The UK Government’s continued cuts to the budget mean that our budget is less and we do not have the power or the flexibility to sort out that situation.

This debate has been incredibly interesting because Conservative Back Benchers have not come to the debate to provide their input. Do they not think that DWP staff are important? Do they not think that Home Office staff and DVLA staff are important? Do they not think that they should be coming out to bat for their constituents and providing that level of support? We are not asking for anything excessive. We are asking simply for the Government to look at inflation-level increases. That is not a completely crazy idea. It would allow people to have the dignity to support themselves and, as I have said a couple of times, not to find themselves entangled in the benefits system, where they are having to claim universal credit. People do not want to be in that system, but when the Government are not paying them enough and when Government Members are standing up in Parliament, as they did yesterday, and doing everything they can to smear the name of the civil service, we will have a situation where those dedicated public servants will be saying, “Enough is enough. We are not continuing to work for this Conservative Government, who continually undervalue us and refuse to negotiate reasonable pay uplifts.”

Civil Service Impartiality

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I am glad to hear the Minister talking about the hard work that the civil service does and being clear, in agreeing with his colleague the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), that Ministers and Secretaries of State would be nowhere were it not for the constant hard work of impartial civil servants. It is very important that the Minister talks to his Back-Bench colleagues and ensures that, in making statements about individuals, they are not tarring the entire civil service with some of the allegations that they are bringing forward.

I have asked repeatedly about anti-corruption champions, and while we are standing here talking about issues relating to breaches or potential breaches of the ministerial code, it is important that the Government get their house in order and ensure that we have an anti-corruption champion in place. Will the Minister therefore both talk to his Back-Bench colleagues to ensure that their language is moderated when talking about civil servants, and ensure that the ministerial code is adhered to so that we can be viewed in a better light internationally?

[Jeremy Quin]

The anti-corruption strategy is run by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security; I know he works actively on that, and an anti-corruption champion will be appointed in due course. With deference to the hon. Lady’s position, I think that is a very different scenario from what we are talking about today. For a start, we are talking about the civil service code, not the ministerial code. However, I agree that we always need to support and not undermine the impartiality and the perceived impartiality of the civil service. That applies to all of us, including the Leader of the Opposition.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Can the Prime Minister be clear with the House that this agreement does not get us any closer to being readmitted to the Horizon Europe programme—to our universities or to Northern Irish universities being readmitted to the programme?

[The Prime Minister]

They are two completely separate things. The Windsor framework is about resolving the issues with the Northern Ireland protocol. It is about safeguarding Northern Ireland’s place in the Union, the free flow of goods around our internal market and sovereignty being restored for the Northern Irish people. The hon. Member will have heard the comments from President von der Leyen earlier today, and the Government’s position on that remains the same.

Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th February 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Burghart]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for supporting the clauses. As we are nearing the end of our debate today, I will come back on a couple of points that the hon. Lady made so that we have covered everything off.

Before the lunch break, the hon. Lady kindly supported the clauses in part 9 of the Bill. As mentioned, if suppliers are breaching contractual terms, that will be a matter to be resolved pursuant to those contractual terms. The contracting authority will actively monitor compliance of these types of matters under its usual contract management and monitoring procedures, which will be strengthened by the Bill. I hope that adequately answers the hon. Lady’s question such that there is no longer any need to confirm in writing.

Similarly, in the closing stages of Tuesday’s sittings, the hon. Lady asked whether contracts already entered into following a procurement process will be terminated automatically if a contractor subsequently becomes an excluded supplier. Termination of contracts is often covered by contractual terms, but clause 77 gives contracting authorities an implied right to terminate a contract should a contractor become an excluded or excludable supplier. Although it is not automatic, authorities are able to terminate in the circumstances set out in clause 77.

Given the range and variety of contracts that contracting authorities will enter into, they need to be able to consider individual circumstances and the fulfilment of contract deliverables. Automatic termination of contracts when a supplier becomes excluded or excludable takes no account of other contractual obligations and would have serious implications for the delivery of the essential goods, services and works on which the public rely.

There is no need to mandate automatic termination. Contracting authorities should be trusted to exercise discretion appropriately, including in relation to national security. As with excluding a supplier prior to contract award under the national security ground, a contracting authority will be required to seek approval from a Minister to terminate a contract on this ground. I hope that gives the further detail the hon. Lady was looking for.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

If I can crave your indulgence, Mr Mundell, I will not be present at the Committee’s next sitting, so I want to say thank you very much to the Clerks, to Hansard and, in particular, to two staff members, Josh Simmonds-Upton and Sarah Callaghan, who have been excellent in providing me with valuable support.

[The Chair]

Thank you for putting that on the record.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 121 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 122 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 123

Commencement

Amendment made: 115, in clause 123, page 81, line 14, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) A Minister of the Crown may not make specified regulations under subsection (2) without the consent of the Welsh Ministers.

(4) In this section, “specified regulations” means regulations to bring into force provisions regulating procurement by a devolved Welsh authority other than procurement under—

(a) a reserved procurement arrangement, or

(b) a transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangement,

but ‘specified regulations’ does not include regulations to bring into force provisions in Part 7 (implementation of international obligations).

(5) In this section, ‘devolved Welsh authority’ has the meaning given in section 157A of the Government of Wales Act 2006.

(6) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that—

(a) Parts 1 to 6 and 8 to 13, or particular provisions in those Parts, so far as not already brought into force under subsection (2) do not regulate procurement by a devolved Welsh authority other than procurement under—

(i) a reserved procurement arrangement, or

(ii) a transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangement;

(b) existing legislation continues to regulate procurement by devolved Welsh authorities and procurement under devolved Welsh procurement arrangements.

(7) Regulations under subsection (6) may modify this Act.

(8) In this section—

“existing legislation” means any enactment, other than this Act or regulations made under this Act, that is passed or made before section 11 (covered procurement only in accordance with this Act) comes into force;

a reference to a provision regulating procurement includes a reference to a provision conferring a function exercisable in relation to procurement.”—(Alex Burghart.)

This amendment would make commencement of devolved Welsh aspects of the Bill subject to the consent of the Welsh Ministers, and would allow UK Ministers to amend the Act resulting from this Bill so that the Act no longer applies in respect of devolved Welsh procurement and could be commenced without consent.

Clause 123, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 124

Short Title

Amendment made: 84, in clause 124, page 81, line 18, leave out subsection (2).—(Alex Burghart.)

This amendment would remove the technical amendment made by the House of Lords in respect of the financial privileges of the House of Commons.

Clause 124, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Julie Marson.)

Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th February 2023 Public Bill Committees

The UK needs to be an active player on the global stage. The only way to do that is by proving we can meet our international obligations, and actions speak louder than words. I am proud of this country’s response to the war in Ukraine. I hope the same commitment to our international community will be continued throughout the procurement process.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I agree with the hon. Member for Islwyn that the Minister is giving us a run for our money today. I feel like I was speaking particularly slowly on Tuesday, as I was not feeling great and my brain was taking a while to catch up, but hopefully I can be a bit speedier today and get through with a higher level of coherence. Apologies if I said anything then that did not make much sense.

I will focus on clause 90, the Minister’s amendment 59 and our amendment 102. The Bill seeks to confer the power exercised concurrently by UK and Scottish Ministers to implement the Government procurement chapters of the agreements with Australia and New Zealand by secondary legislation. We agree with that and have no query about the fact that the negotiation of international agreements is a reserved matter but, as the Minister noted, the implementation in devolved areas, such as Government procurement, is a devolved matter. Procurement is devolved to the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament, and we make our own decisions about how best to implement that.

The correct constitutional and devolution-respecting solution would be to amend the Bill to grant implementation powers solely to Scottish Ministers in this regard. I agree that the Minister has put forward an amendment that changes what clause 90 says, but the amendment also says:

“Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a Minister of the Crown considers, or the Scottish Ministers consider, that the regulations are necessary in order to ratify or comply with an international agreement to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.”

The “or” is what I have a problem with, on the basis that it still allows the UK Government to act in devolved areas. I recognise the restrictions put in place by the rest of the amendment in terms of the breadth of the action that can be taken, and I recognise that the UK Government Minister has worked with colleagues in the Scottish Parliament to ensure that we are getting a bit closer together; indeed, it is closer than in the Bill that originally came to us from the Lords. However, I still feel that amendment 102 is necessary to protect the devolution settlement, because we should not have UK Government Ministers acting in devolved competencies. They should not be able to take this decision wherever they feel it is necessary to do so.

We are not for a second suggesting that we would not act in concordance with our international agreements, because we would. I am sure the Minister would not suggest otherwise, as the Scottish Government do stick to their international agreements—regardless of whichever Government signed up to them, we do our very best to fulfil them. However, this is about the implementation of procurement rules and ensuring that that works in the best possible way for Scotland.

The Scottish Parliament is writing legislation on procurement for Scotland, which, as has been noted a number of times in this Committee, is distinct and separate in Scotland. We already have our own procurement system, which works on a different basis to the procurement system down here. We have already talked about the real living wage running through our procurement rules, where it is not in the rest of the UK. We already have a distinct situation. The UK Government are not elected to take this action in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament is elected to take this action in Scotland and to implement it in the way that will work best for our procurement systems and for the people of Scotland, who elected the Scottish Parliament to do that.

Amendment 102 says:

“A Minister of the Crown acting under subsection (1) must acquire the consent of Scottish Ministers.”

I do not think that is too much to ask on the basis that this is a devolved area. Actually, if the UK Government are making new procurement rules that relate to Scotland’s implementation of its international agreements, ensuring the consent of Scottish Ministers means those rules will work within our procurement frameworks, systems and situations in order that those agreements can be properly implemented.

The Scottish Government want and intend to implement these international agreements properly. However, in order for that to happen as written, the UK Government will need a significant understanding of the Scottish procurement system, which is distinct from that of the rest of the UK. Our system will continue to be distinct in order to be able to write appropriate legislation that will apply in Scotland and work within our devolved legislation. It seems like a burden for UK Government Ministers to have to learn that, when actually, they could just say to Scotland, “How would you like this to be written?” and the Scottish Government could say, “This is how we would write it.” We could then have a discussion about whether or not that implements our international agreements. I am certain that it would, because the Scottish Government are good at acting in compliance.

Lastly, respect for the devolution settlement is an important tenet of our democracy. Devolution to Scotland is what the Scottish people voted for. We have the Scottish Parliament, which is significantly more popular than the Westminster Parliament in terms of the actions taken on behalf of the Scottish people. It is also significantly better regarded in terms of accessibility. I do not mean accessibility simply in terms of the building; I mean accessibility in terms of people being able to come and speak to Ministers and to have Ministers or civil servants listen and take action that improves their lives. It is much closer to people, and people feel that. Moving this process even further away seems like a real negative for people in Scotland.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

I am listening to the hon. Member very carefully. Given her assertion that only people who are elected to the Scottish Parliament should make these decisions, should not she and I, and indeed the Chairman of the Committee, get our coats and head home early today?

[Kirsty Blackman]

As I mentioned in previous speeches, we are taking decisions here for the entirety of the UK. Like it or not, I have been elected in the same way as the hon. Member has, as a UK member of Parliament. We therefore have the right in this place to take decisions on procurement in England and procurement in Wales. We do not have the right to take decisions on procurement across the UK, given the agreement that the implementation of procurement and how it works in Scotland is devolved.

In fact, this Bill does not confer any rights on Members of Parliament to make decisions for the people of Scotland. It confers the power on Ministers to make that decision, which is very different from conferring it on Parliament. I have spoken before about the Executive power creep of recent years, which continues to give more power to the Executive and less to parliamentarians and MPs in this place. It is therefore important that the Scottish Parliament gets to take these decisions. I do not think the UK Government should be allowed to override the devolution settlement whenever they feel it convenient to do so, as we saw recently when they used section 35 to stop legislation put through the Scottish Parliament on a cross-party basis.

Again, the Bill is a further overreach of the UK Government’s powers. We are not suggesting for a second that the UK does not have the right to sign up to international agreements. It absolutely does, but we have the right in Scotland, as part of the devolution settlement, to implement those rules in devolved areas. In that regard, I would like to push amendment 102 to a vote. I am not convinced that I will get terribly much support, but I will do my best anyway. Hopefully the Minister will move Government amendment 59, which is a step forward, as I have said, and I hope he will also agree to the inclusion of our amendment.

[Alex Burghart]

To address the most pressing issue in this group, I must confess to having a Celtic heritage. Indeed, my grandfather was from south Wales, and his grandfather was born in the workhouse, not terribly far from the constituency of the hon. Member for Islwyn, so he has found me out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Minister is suggesting that clause 90 will be used only in extremis. Do I read that correctly, or is that not his suggestion?

[Alex Burghart]

Certainly, if there was an international agreement and the Scottish Government wished to legislate or regulate to implement it, that would be our preference. As I say, it is important that we put safeguards in the Bill. On the hon. Lady’s point about burdens being placed on officials by having to keep up with procurement regulations in Scotland, I can assure her that my officials welcome the burden, and that their understanding of such regulations is so strong that they would not notice the extra weight at all. I hope that she will not move her amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 88 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 9 agreed to.

Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 90

Treaty state suppliers: non-discrimination in Scotland

Amendment made: 59, in clause 90, page 60, line 32, at end insert—

“(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) may only include provision that is equivalent to provision in—

(a) subsection (1), (2), (5) or (6) of section 88 (treaty state suppliers),

(b) section 89 (treaty state suppliers: non-discrimination), or

(c) Schedule 9 (specified international agreements).

(1B) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a Minister of the Crown considers, or the Scottish Ministers consider, that the regulations are necessary in order to ratify or comply with an international agreement to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.

(1C) In subsection (1B), the reference to being a signatory to an international agreement includes a reference to having—

(a) exchanged instruments, where the exchange constitutes the agreement;

(b) acceded to the agreement.”—(Alex Burghart.)

This amendment would mean that a Minister of the Crown or Scottish Ministers, in making regulations under clause 90, may only make provision equivalent to provision in Part 7 and if the Minister considers, or Scottish Ministers, consider it necessary in order to ratify or comply with an international agreement.

Amendment proposed: 102, in clause 90, page 60, line 32, at end insert—

“(1A) A Minister of the Crown acting under subsection (1) must acquire the consent of Scottish Ministers.”—(Kirsty Blackman.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th February 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Florence Eshalomi]

As the Minister highlighted, amendment 87 would sadly overturn Lords amendment 91, made on Report, in relation to forced organ harvesting. I agree with the Minister that there can be no doubt that organ harvesting is an abhorrent practice, but we should be careful when saying that this measure would just result in additional bureaucracy and time in contracts and procurement.

The practice of forced organ harvesting involves the removal of organs from a living prisoner, which results in their death or near death. It is something that none of us should stand by and watch. Linking this back to taxpayers’ money, no taxpayer would expect a single penny of their public money to go to a company explicitly linked to this practice. Tragically, there is evidence that forced organ harvesting may not be a particularly niche issue.

The Minister highlighted that the measure, although well intended, would add more time and another layer of bureaucracy. I want to go back to the debates in the other place, and some of the powerful words from Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who moved the amendment that led to our discussion today. Both made moving and compelling arguments for the inclusion of the measure against forced organ harvesting, providing examples of evidence that the practice is taking place on an extremely depressing scale in China.

The excellent speeches made by Lord Alton and Lord Hunt have been backed up by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, which stated that serious human rights violations have been committed in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region,

“in the context of the Government’s application of counter-terrorism and counter-‘extremism’ strategies. The implementation of these strategies, and associated policies in XUAR has led to interlocking patterns of severe and undue restrictions on a wide range of human rights. These patterns of restrictions are characterized by a discriminatory component, as the underlying acts often directly or indirectly affect Uyghur and other predominantly Muslim communities.”

The OHCHR also stated that the treatment of persons held in the system of so-called vocational education and training centres—VETC facilities—is,

“of equal concern. Allegations of patterns of torture or ill-treatment, including forced medical treatment and adverse conditions of detention, are credible, as are allegations of individual incidents of sexual and gender-based violence. While the available information at this stage does not allow OHCHR to draw firm conclusions regarding the exact extent of such abuses, it is clear that the highly securitised and discriminatory nature of the VETC facilities, coupled with limited access to effective remedies or oversight by the authorities, provide fertile ground for such violations to take place on a broad scale.”

That is damning. It shows there is evidence of this already happening. In an April 2022 paper published in the American Journal of Transplantation, Matthew P. Robertson and Jacob Lavee stated:

“We find evidence in 71 of these reports, spread nationwide, that brain death could not have properly been declared. In these cases, the removal of the heart during organ procurement must have been the proximate cause of the donor’s death. Because these organ donors could only have been prisoners, our findings strongly suggest that physicians in the People’s Republic of China have participated in executions by organ removal.”

As a country, we must stand steadfast against these practices and ensure that any supplier with ties to forced organ harvesting is not allowed anywhere near our procurement system. I do not think taxpayers would expect anything less. No one wants to be linked to these horrific practices.

I fully understand and appreciate that the Minister may have covered these and other concerns in his remarks, but we may want to consider that there is no doubt this practice is an exclusion ground. In Committee in the Lords, the Minister, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, said it was almost certain that it would be covered by paragraph 12, but I think we have to ask ourselves, how many times have we heard that something is almost certain, only for it not to be covered when the Bill passes? We cannot and should not take chances on this issue. It is a fundamental and critical issue of human rights. If the Committee is to do its job, we cannot support the attempts to remove forced organ harvesting as a discretionary exclusion ground. For those powerful and valid reasons, I will not be supporting the amendment.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is tempting to think that forced organ harvesting is so far removed from anything that we consider human, or a normal occurrence, that it does not happen—but it does. As the shadow Minister laid out, the issue was discussed in significant detail in the other place. We know it occurs.

The Minister has given some level of assurance that other parts of the Bill cover this practice. Could he be explicit that he does not believe that any supplier involved in forced organ harvesting would be eligible to receive a public contract through the procurement framework set out in the Bill? If he can give that explicit assurance that he believes the practice is covered elsewhere in the Bill, and that provisions elsewhere in the Bill adequately do the job of this provision, I would be happy not to oppose the amendment. That assurance from the Minister would give us a measure of reassurance and comfort that the Bill covers everything that he intends and expects.

[Alex Burghart]

We are assured that the absolutely abhorrent practice of forced organ harvesting would qualify as serious unethical behaviour. Consequently, that would mean that, in the Bill, it would be covered by the grounds of professional misconduct. Within the Bill, we have that provision; outwith the Bill, we have the Health and Social Care Act, to which I referred in my remarks. I hope that no one will take away anything other than the fact that the Government are strongly opposed to this practice and to the people who conduct this practice and that we wish public procurement to have no part in it.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

I do not think that we can see ourselves being weaned off such technology overnight, otherwise what we are discussing would be an easy task. The beauty of the clause, however, is that it mandates the Secretary of State to lay out a clear timeframe for its removal. Bodies would even have six months in which to do that. Given that Hikvision is already banned in the US for links to internment camps in Xinjiang and banned in Whitehall, the timeframe could easily be met for the rest of the procurement supply chain. I urge the Minister to reconsider that.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Throughout the discussion of Hikvision and other companies in relation to human rights abuses, genocide and crimes against humanity, the Minister has missed the point. The shadow Minister has absolutely got the point.

For a start, the US has already blacklisted Hikvision. If the US believes that there is enough evidence to do that, and the Scottish Government are getting rid of the Hikvision cameras we have in Scotland, I do not see why the UK Government are unable to act in that regard. Two other jurisdictions have found enough evidence to debar Hikvision from providing cameras involved in our public life, yet the UK Government feel that there is still not enough evidence. They are somehow suggesting that perhaps the situation is over-egged, but it appears that the Foreign Affairs Committee does not think the situation is an over-exaggeration, and that it thinks that there is actually a risk and danger.

This is not just about the threat to our national security, although that is obviously incredibly important, and the Labour Front Benchers have been clear about national security throughout our discussion of the Bill. This is also about supporting a company that is committing human rights abuses. It does not matter whether a company is committing them here or elsewhere; the reality is that through public procurement, we are funding a company using facial recognition in mosques and committing atrocities against Uyghur Muslims in the Xinjiang region. How is that okay just because it is not causing any problems here?

Even if the company were not causing any threat to national security, this is about the direction of travel. On modern slavery, for example, the Government are pretty clear that no matter where that is happening, we do not want to be entangled with suppliers involved in modern slavery and enslaving people. We should not want to be involved with, and companies and suppliers should not be giving public money to, the people committing these crimes. Just because this is not modern slavery, it does not mean that they are not creating significant problems and putting people in severe danger as part of the extreme regimes that they are working for.

I do not see the justification in allowing public money to be given to any of these organisations. As I said last week, it is not as though this is a high bar; it is a low bar. We are saying that modern slavery and genocide are crimes against humanity. Those are pretty much the most serious things we can think of. Any organisation involved in those should not get public money, whether or not it is a threat to national security.

I am slightly pleased that the Government and the Minister seem a bit more willing to look at the possibilities regarding Hikvision. I appreciate that removing it from secure and sensitive sites, particularly, is a priority for the Government—they have agreed that they will do that—but that is not enough; we should not fund these organisations at all. Asking the UK Government to make a move in that regard in order to remove this technology and ensure that Hikvision does not get any more of our money is incredibly important, and not too much to ask.

I stress again the point made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall: the clause does not ask for immediate removal. It gives the Government six months to publish a timeline for removal—it is not giving them six months to remove the stuff, but to produce a timeline. They are not being asked for something entirely unreasonable. There are other camera providers and technologies out there that could be used instead to provide safety and security for places that we want to be safe and secure, without our supporting a company propping up a regime that is profiling and committing crimes against humans just because they happen to be Muslim. That is completely unacceptable, no matter where in the world it is doing that. Whether or not this is being done in the UK, the Government should take action on that.

I will therefore strenuously resist any attempt to remove clause 65 from the Bill. I used this phrase earlier, but it should not be too much to ask for the Government to take action on this issue. I am pleased that the Minister seems to have moved his language slightly since our previous debate, but it is not good enough and we are not there yet. We need a firm commitment from the Government to remove this technology that is causing so much harm to the lives of so many and to remove the support for the people causing such harm.

[Alex Burghart]

I thank hon. Members for their remarks. As I said, we think that the clause as drafted would be unworkable. On what the hon. Members for Vauxhall and for Aberdeen North said, we are moving to a new debarment regime, and I am not able to prejudge who will be covered by that regime. Suppliers will be considered for addition to the debarment list based on a rigorous and fair prioritisation policy. That policy is under development, and it is too early to say which suppliers will or will not be added to the debarment list.

We should remember that the new regime will give broader exclusion powers to authorities that have primary responsibility for applying the exclusions regime. The sorts of crimes we have touched on this afternoon, such as organ harvesting, modern slavery and the like, are very serious crimes against people and humanity, and no doubt that will have a bearing on future judgments. I appreciate where the amendment in the Lords came from, but we do not think the clause is workable. As a Government, however, we continue to consider the issue carefully.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th February 2023 Public Bill Committees

Division 18

Ayes: 5

Noes: 9

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 103, in clause 41, page 29, line 10, at end insert—

“(5A) Where a direct award justification applies, before making a direct award to a supplier a contracting authority must satisfy itself that no preferential treatment has been conferred on the supplier by virtue of any recommendation made by a Member of the House of Commons or the House of Lords.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 104, in clause 44, page 30, line 23, at end insert—

“(c) any connections between the supplier and any—

(i) registered political party,

(ii) Ministers of the Crown, or

(iii) Members of the House of Commons or House of Lords

where such connections are of a nature likely to be relevant to the direct award of the contract.”

Amendment 111, in clause 44, page 30, line 25, at end insert—

“(4) Any Minister, peer or senior civil servant involved in recommending a supplier for a contract under section 41 or 43 must make a public declaration to the Cabinet Office of any private interest in that supplier within 5 working days.”

This amendment would implement the recommendation of the National Audit Office that any contracts awarded under emergency provisions or direct awards should include transparency declarations.

[Kirsty Blackman]

These amendments arise mostly, although not entirely, as a result of what happened with PPE during covid. I would be less inclined to move the amendments if the Government had shown any contrition about the situation we find ourselves in. They tend to stand up and say, “Well, we needed to procure things in a rush, so we have no regrets about the situation.” It would be much better for them to stand up and say, “We needed to procure in a rush, but lots of mistakes were made along the way and therefore we believe that we need to do better next time.” A full investigation would also be helpful.

The situation we find ourselves in is this: a significant amount of PPE, of significant value, was unusable; the VIP lane has been considered unlawful; and those who made recommendations—one person, certainly, who made a recommendation—have personally benefited from Government contracts that were awarded. In the light of that situation, it is incredibly important that the procurement rules we set up ensure that such a situation cannot happen again—that there is both a requirement for the people making direct awards to satisfy themselves that no preferential treatment has been given on the basis that the person has been recommended by a Member of the House of Commons or the House of Lords, and that, should there be any connections between the supplier and a registered political party, Ministers of the Crown or Members of the House of Commons or House of Lords, that information is laid out in the transparency notice.

That is not asking too much. We all have a register of interests that we are supposed to keep up to date—the ministerial one slightly less often, or very much less often, than that for MPs. Asking for a higher level of transparency, when we know that those links occur, is not asking too much.

The Conservatives have a tendency to point to the fact that, “Well, we have people in the House of Lords who have come from business, therefore of course they will continue to have business interests.” I am not suggesting that they should not—that is absolutely fine—but we should be transparent about it and we should know if a contract has been granted to somebody who will benefit as a Member of the House of Lords. Is the supplier, or the person receiving the procurement contract—the beneficial owner—a peer or a Member of the House of Commons? Are they linked, in some way, to a political party?

We know from Sky’s investigation that a number of Members of Parliament receive money from companies. That is registered, but there is no requirement in the Bill, as it stands, for it to be noted; there is no requirement, when the contract is being given, for that which is open and registered already. Members of Parliament have to register if they receive a certain amount of money from a company, so it should follow that, if the company is being given a procurement contract, it is registered as part of the transparency notice. That should be noted up front.

That is not asking too much, particularly in relation to amendment 104, which is specifically about transparency notices and ensuring that that stuff is clear. It should not be too much work for anyone doing the transparency notice. Absolutely, it will create a little bit of extra work, but all they will need to do is cross-reference the registered interests, and then put that in the transparency notice so that we are all aware of the links.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The hon. Lady is raising some important points about how mistakes were made during the covid period. It is important to note, however, that those same mistakes were not made in Labour-controlled Wales or SNP-controlled Scotland, where transparency seemed to be much higher and fast-track schemes were not implemented. Is there a case for greater light to be shone in this place, where the rot seems to have truly set in?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree. In fact, that adds to the case that we should be willing for there to be an investigation. It shows that, actually, we can do it right and in such a way that individuals do not benefit from that.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I look forward to her supporting Scottish Conservative calls for transparency on certain procurements—of ferries and suchlike—by the Scottish Government.

The hon. Member said that it should not be too much to ask. I have heard that argument many times about making amendments, not just to this Bill but to others. She said herself that the registers of Members’ and Ministers’ interests already exist. Does she not feel that making “shouldn’t be too much to ask” amendments to any Bill risks diluting its effect?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I do not think that that is the case. We should not have such an issue that we need journalists, such as those at Sky, to shine a light and make those links. There should be a requirement for that transparency to be in place. Although we have the registers of Members’ and Ministers’ interests, they stand alone and are separate from the procurement contracts. If we end up in situations where people are benefiting significantly, having that in the transparency notice is important.

[Florence Eshalomi]

The hon. Member makes a valid point. Does she agree with my concern that only the other week the Paymaster General said that Ministers’ interests will be updated, but not until May, whereas we as Members have to update our entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests within 28 days? Why the delay?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree. The former Chancellor and chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), did not update his list of ministerial interests for a significant period after he was put into his role. In fact, some of the most egregious issues did not come to light properly until he updated the list of ministerial interests in January, some three months after he became the party chairman.

I agree that the lack of transparency is a significant issue, and I was disappointed in the Government responses. They do not seem keen to move on the register of ministerial interests being updated more regularly. Surely, given the amount of Executive power in this place and the post-Brexit creep towards increasing the amount of ministerial or Executive power—taking power away from Members—it is even more important for ministerial interests to be registered.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Does the hon. Member agree that the proposal would be in the interests of a governing party that is facing so many scandals—from Baroness Mone to the Randox lobbying affair—that have almost brought down Prime Ministers? It would help to protect the Conservative party from some “bad apples”, as Conservatives might put it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I agree and would add to that: how many former treasurers of the Conservative party who have given significant amounts to the party have just happened to end up in the House of Lords? Who knows how that has happened? We know that there are people in this House and in the other place with significant business interests, and the amendment is not a criticism of that; it is not a negative thing, but it is about ensuring transparency.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

The nub of the issue is that people have been appointed to the House of Lords and, in a particular case—I do not want to mention the name—they are not then taking an active part in proceedings in the other place. We could mention a number of peers who have hardly spoken since they were appointed, or not spoken at all. Rather than using that position to serve the Executive of this country, they have used it to lobby for contracts from the Government. That needs to be stamped out. Does the hon. Member agree that it is now time to look at how we appoint people to the Lords, and perhaps remove appointment to the Lords from the honours system altogether?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree. Each former Prime Minister is able to put forward whoever they want to the House of Lords, so we end up in this situation of having 850 peers and counting. The numbers are increasing drastically because the Government keep putting in more people to balance the politics in that place.

On the amendment, it is important for the Government to be willing to consider how best to improve transparency. So far, they have shown no willingness to improve transparency or to accept that there have been issues and that mistakes have been made. We need to change the system.

The UK has fallen in Transparency International’s corruption index, which has nothing to do with the Financial Action Task Force one. The FATF index is about corruption when it comes to money laundering, but Transparency International’s is about corruption in the public sector. It looks specifically at such issues as breaches of the ministerial code—in particular, ones that have not been investigated—and the scandals we have seen and continue to see.

The Prime Minister cannot keep sacking people who breach the code; we need to change the system so that they never get to that position in the first place—so that they can never commit the egregious breaches of trust we have seen and can never profit as individuals as a result of their position in this place or the other place. If the rules and systems are changed—which they clearly need to be—the Prime Minister will not need to sack people, because they will never be able to breach the rules and will never be able to profit as individuals simply as a result of their links to this place.

I will push amendments 103 and 104 to a vote when we come to that point and am happy to support amendment 111, tabled by the Labour Front-Bench team.

[Florence Eshalomi]

We fully support amendments 103 and 104, tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, which consider how we embed transparency into the system of direct awards. The two amendments highlight why we need additional layers of scrutiny to address glaring areas of conflict of interest in respect of Members of both the Commons and the Lords. It is vital to have additional checks in place.

Throughout the proceedings on the Bill the Minister has talked about the principle of impartiality, and said that the Bill will make VIP lanes, such as those we have seen, illegal and that it is all going to be fine. But that is just not the case. We need only to look at the pandemic to see why we desperately need to make sure that our procurement system is more agile and more transparent. The Tory VIP lane exposed a weakness in the system.

We must remember that we are talking about taxpayers’ money. We are at a time when so many people are feeling real difficulty in their choices and are seeing their household incomes reduce. Council and social housing tenants dread their rents going up. A number of councils have already highlighted how they are going to increase their council tax, including a borough in south London that is proposing to increase council tax by 15%.

Taxpayers’ money was wasted on contracts that were not fit for purpose and wasted as profits for unqualified providers. Worryingly, the Government have written off £10 billion of public funds that were spent on PPE that was either unusable, overpriced or undelivered, and it is worth bearing in mind that we are still spending £700,000 of taxpayers’ money a day on storing unused gloves, goggles and gowns. That money could pay for spaces in after-school clubs. It could pay for 19,000 full-time nursery places. It is public money.

The Bill does not pass the Mone or Paterson test; that waste could still be allowed to happen, over and over again. Handing more power to Ministers in respect of direct awards is not the way we want to go. We support the two amendments, because it is important that we empower local authorities to be able to ask the necessary questions when it comes to conflicts of interest. The current procurement system is not working, and we need to include new checks.

The amendments could be further strengthened by placing the onus on individual Ministers, civil servants and special advisers to make the necessary declarations but, as we have seen, when the onus is on them, they still do not make those declarations. Essentially, they have to be dragged kicking and screaming. We are in a situation in which we will not see the declarations of Ministers’ financial interests updated until May, if we are lucky. Anything could happen before May.

I draw the Committee’s attention to amendment 111, which we think further addresses the aims of amendments 103 and 104. We have an opportunity to learn from past mistakes and to tighten the freedom of Ministers to award direct contracts. It is about hardwiring transparency into our system. That should be a good thing and something we should all support. Instead, it seems the Minister wants to continue to have a back door and a VIP entrance. We must be clear that the Bill offers us a chance to clear that up.

The facts and figures speak for themselves. Some £3.4 billion of taxpayers’ money, in the form of contracts, went to Conservative donors and friends. A former Conservative Minister lobbied for Randox, which then provided 750,000 defective tests that had to be recalled, all while he was being paid £100,000 on top of his salary. Globus (Shetland), a business that has donated £400,000 to the Conservative Party since 2016, received £94 million-worth of PPE contracts.

Millions of people struggled during covid-19. The Government did some good things—including the furlough scheme to help people not to lose their jobs and the support for businesses—but a large group of people missed out on any money, including the 3 million people who form ExcludedUK. For those people who paid their taxes, submitted their returns and did not receive any money to have seen contracts dished out to friends, when those contracts were not even viable, was a slap in the face. When millions of people struggled during covid-19, it was not fair for them to have seen friends and donors of the Tory party prosper. As it stands, the Bill would continue to allow that to happen.

Our amendment 111 takes an important step, with amendments 103 and 104, towards addressing the situation, by asking Ministers to act, ensure genuine transparency in the system and restore trust in public money. This is about trust in the system. A number of members of the public do not trust our system; this is about restoring some of that trust and ensuring that, after years of waste and mismanagement, we do not find ourselves in this situation again.

Our amendment is based on a proposal by the independent National Audit Office and would mandate that:

“Any Minister, peer or senior civil servant involved in recommending a supplier for a contract under section 41 or 43 must make a public declaration to the Cabinet Office of any private interest”.

I hope we all agree that that is a straightforward, pragmatic proposal. It is not about layers of bureaucracy for business; it is about layers of additional scrutiny on Ministers to help to give the public confidence that another PPE Medpro scandal will be stopped and that we will not see a situation in which handfuls of millions of pounds of public money are redundantly spent on equipment that we cannot use.

The three amendments would outlaw VIP lanes once and for all, ensuring that we stop corruption. They would introduce a timeframe for transparency around declarations so that we can have information about conflicts of interests, instead of it being drip fed through the media or journalists. They would ensure that these scandals are not allowed to build up gradually over months and continue the erosion of trust. I hope the Minister agrees that Members of Parliament and the Government should have nothing to hide. If there is nothing to hide, they should support these reasonable amendments, which will help us to clean up our procurement system.

--- Later in debate ---

I agree that it is of the utmost importance to ensure that no supplier receives unfair advantage due to a private interest, whether related to a party, Minister, peer or civil servant. I reassure the Committee that the Bill is clear on that. Clause 81(3) states that if a conflict of interest puts a supplier at an unfair advantage, and if steps to mitigate cannot avoid that advantage, the supplier must be excluded. The Government are committed to managing conflicts of interest in all contracts, not just direct awards. We have demonstrated that in the strong provisions throughout the Bill. I respectfully request that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I thank the Minister for his response. I would like to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 2nd February 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Burghart]

New clause 1 would legislate for the establishment of a committee to consider the threat to national security and cyber-security from suppliers in supply chains delivering public contracts. The Government take national security considerations extremely seriously, and we understand the importance of countering threats to our security throughout our supply chains. We recently demonstrated that through our action to remove Chinese surveillance equipment from sensitive sites across the Government estate. The inclusion of the national security exclusion ground in schedule 7 to the Bill will bring about a significant improvement to the existing EU-derived regime. It will allow a supplier to be excluded on national security grounds, even when the procurement does not meet the bar for exemption on those grounds.

We understand the intention behind the hon. Lady’s new clause, but it duplicates aspects of the new procurement regime underpinned by the Bill. I have already mentioned the ability to exclude a supplier on grounds of national security. The Bill requires any contracting authority that wishes to rely on those grounds when excluding a supplier or rejecting their tender to first notify a Minister of the Crown, who must be satisfied that the supplier should be excluded.

The notification not only ensures that the Minister agrees to the exclusion, but serves to alert them, if they are not already aware, that there may be security concerns about the supplier. The Minister may accordingly decide to investigate the supplier under clause 60, which could lead to the supplier being placed on the debarment list under clause 62. Furthermore, if a supplier already holds a public contract and is found to meet any exclusion ground, clause 77(2)(b) enables the contract to be terminated. Clause 77(2)(c) extends that to subcontracts. As with exclusion, any proposed termination on the grounds of national security must be brought to the attention of the Minister for a decision; again, that could trigger debarment from future procurements.

Under the new clause, the proposed committee would also consider threats to cyber-security. Existing policy in this area is detailed in procurement policy note 09/14. That mandates that where contracts have certain characteristics, suppliers must meet the technical requirements prescribed by the Cyber Essentials scheme. That applies when ICT systems and services supplied by the contract either store or process data at official level. In addition, the MOD, through the defence cyber protection partnership, has developed the cyber-security model that is to be applied to its procurements to ensure cyber-security-related risks are adequately managed throughout the life of the contract.

In short, contracting authorities are already alive to the need to consider national security, including cyber-threats, when procuring public services, and are well placed to review their contracts and supply chains for such threats, bolstered by the provisions of the Bill. However, I am mindful of the concerns raised by colleagues on Second Reading, and those concerns will continue to inform Government thinking as we move forward.

Amendments 15 to 19 seek to make exclusion on national security grounds mandatory, rather than discretionary. Any risk to national security should of course be taken very seriously indeed, but it is right that we leave some scope for nuance and flexibility in the application of the exclusion ground. Suppliers may pose a risk in some contexts, but not in others. For instance, in a relatively innocuous procurement, the exclusion of a supplier might not be merited if the contracting authority was confident that there was no potential for harm. A company that might raise concern in the manufacture of one technical device might also produce paper clips, which would not be a threat to national security.

It is important to note that contracting authorities must consider all exclusion grounds, mandatory and discretionary, against every supplier in each procurement. Any decision not to exclude a supplier that poses a national security risk must be weighed against that risk, and I am confident that contracting authorities will do so carefully.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I understand what the Minister is saying, but if the contracting authority is spending public money on those paper clips, it is funding a company that can breach national security and do things that are against the national interest. The contract may not be a risk to national security, but the company is, so surely it should be a mandatory, rather than a discretionary, exclusion.

[Alex Burghart]

There would be a balance of risks. Not all security threats are proven. Of course, it is up to the authority to assess the concerns at the time.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 2nd February 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

The shadow Minister is making a powerful and well-researched case that builds on the case she made in Committee on Tuesday. I do not want to test the Committee’s patience by making a speech on this, but I want to let her know that I am willing to support her amendment should she push it to a vote.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the hon. Member for her support.

At the moment it is clear that SMEs find the process frustrating and time-consuming. In his written evidence to the Committee, Colin Cram, who set up the conference company Open Forum Events Ltd to run conferences to support the delivery of improved public services, outlined his experience of the procurement system for SMEs. He stated:

“Tendering is expensive and time consuming. The way the UK’s public sector operates all too frequently inadvertently discriminates against SMEs, which will include the most innovative of suppliers on which the UK’s economy and future global competitiveness will depend. Many SMEs—which means most businesses in the UK—do not know how to tender properly and they don’t have the time to do so. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, at the end of 2021 there were 5.5 million SMEs employing fewer than 50 people each. Their average turnover was £1.25 million. However, only half were registered for VAT, so most will have a turnover well below that. Many of these will be capable of delivering contracts greater than the thresholds”.

He continued:

“Having to tender for every contract that might interest a small business would prove prohibitively expensive. To illustrate the point, a mid-cap business sought my advice. It was winning just 1 tender in 20 and was thinking of withdrawing from the public sector. I suggested that it should employ 2 full time tenderers. It took my advice, and its win rate went up to 1 in 4—without changing either the products or services that it was providing...To put together the simplest of tenders will cost not less than £1000 if properly costed. So, 4 attempts at tendering for the simplest of contracts would cost £4000 and 20 in order to win at least 1 contract would cost £20,000.”

I am pleased that we have made progress on SMEs, but Labour Members fear that, without more clarity and market engagement, SMEs will still be put off by the cost of applying for contracts that they think they have little chance of getting.

SMEs should not have to employ two full-time tenderers to improve their chances of winning contracts that they know they can do. Pre-tender marketing engagement can help to establish contracts that are more easily digested through the bidding process. We understand that some contracts will not be suitable for SMEs, but early engagement can help in figuring out where that is the case and hopefully open up more contracts to a variety of companies. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North for supporting our amendment, and I hope other Members and the Government will support our amendments 20 and 21.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Amendments 20 and 21 seek to ensure that preliminary market engagement explicitly refers to SMEs.

I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall for her support of the changes that Baroness Neville-Rolfe made in the House of Lords. We are all committed to improving options and opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises to take advantage of the substantial amount of public procurement that exists in this country. We fully agree that preliminary engagement is an important part of that. That is why we have included the new duty to have regard to SME participation in the procurement objectives.

The duty will apply in relation to pre-market engagement just as it will cover the whole of the procurement life cycle. Consequently, we do not consider it necessary to clarify in the pre-market engagement clause that the word “suppliers” captures SMEs. It clearly does, and in view of the broad application of the general duty to support SMEs, there is no need for any drafting changes to be made.

To be clear, the new SME duty will lead contracting authorities to consider not only whether they have engaged with SMEs in their preliminary market engagement, but whether their procurement process and timelines are accessible to smaller businesses, supporting them to win and deliver more public contracts. It is nice to hear the hon. Member for Aberdeen North support small and medium-sized enterprises in England—would that the SNP in Scotland had supported the Bill, giving those same opportunities to SMEs in Scotland. I once again extend my invitation to her and the Government at Holyrood to join us on this journey.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Minister keeps talking as if Scotland does not have procurement legislation, and will not have procurement legislation going forward. It is absolutely the case that we will continue to have procurement regulations and rules, and a fairer procurement system—one in which we do things such as mandate the real living wage, for example.

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Lady has previously given some good examples of things that are going wrong with current procurement. The SNP has not tabled any reform to procurement in Scotland, and I am afraid that, without reform, Scotland will be stuck with the old regime, whereas from spring next year, small and medium-sized enterprises in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will be taking advantage of the regime set out in the Bill.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I hope the Minister is not suggesting that when the Scottish Parliament passes procurement legislation, the UK Government will again levy a section 35 order to stop us changing our procurement legislation.

[Alex Burghart]

Certainly not, because I am sure that there would be no need, whereas it was very clear that there was a need in the case to which the hon. Lady refers. She will know that the Government used that constitutional power reluctantly, but very well advisedly.

Amendment 25 would require contracting authorities that have stated in the tender notice that a contract is suitable for small and medium-sized enterprises to, in the event that no SMEs submit a tender, withdraw that tender notice and engage with small and medium-sized enterprises prior to republishing it, unless they can show that such engagement took place prior to the original publication. The Bill supports—indeed, it actively encourages—buyers to conduct preliminary market engagement. We have gone further than existing regulations: clause 17 requires the publication of a preliminary market engagement notice, and clause 12 contains a duty to have regard to reducing barriers facing SMEs. That should lead to increased openness and greater inclusion of SMEs in preliminary market engagement.

However, amendment 25 would add an extra layer of bureaucracy and delay for procurers to manage, and could well frustrate suppliers who have prepared a tender, only for it to be withdrawn if no qualifying bids are received. It is far better for us to increase SME participation in procurement by reducing barriers and highlighting the many benefits they bring to the public sector. I respectfully request that the amendment not be moved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

From July in Scotland, grants will require that the real living wage is paid, and it is already included in procurement rules. That has led to Scotland now having fewer, in percentage terms, workers earning less than the real living wage than in England. We in England and Wales deserve the same. It pushes up wages across the sector. For too long, public authorities have used procurement as a way to undermine salaries and salary rates. It is an ideological viewpoint that the private sector is always best but, in reality, far too often, what “best” means is paying poverty wages. Sometimes innovation from the private sector and the charity and third sector is important, but if it is on the back of paying wages that are below standard, it is not acceptable. That is why I beg to move amendment 95 and linked amendments 96 to 99. Hopefully, they will start to redress the balance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) asked the Minister’s colleague previously about the Government’s position on this, and the Government said that they do not believe in dictating employees’ wages. The reality is that by not setting a minimum floor—no one is suggesting a maximum—we are undermining good companies that pay good wages. Decent employers can lose out from people playing fast and loose with wages. We have seen numerous scandals, including fire and rehire, TUPE rules not being enforced and collective bargaining being undermined.

Wages below the real living wage require universal credit support. Let me be very clear: if someone is paid below the real living wage, the Government subsidise them. That is, in reality, a subsidy for that piece of work—that procurement. That puts companies whose workers do not receive that subsidy in a worse situation. To create a level playing field, all should receive the real living wage. That would mean that no employees in those companies have to receive a state subsidy for their work. That basic principle—that level playing field—must be enforced in this Bill.

Procurement bodies can incorporate a number of tests relating to the real living wage, but they cannot require that absolutism in contracts. If a company does not fulfil the living wage requirements set out in its procurement tender, but it does fulfil the other requirements, it is required to be offered the contract. That directly undermines the small and medium-sized organisations that work hard to pay the real living wage.

In Brighton, we have a great collaboration between the chamber of commerce, which requires all its members to pay the real living wage, and the trade unions. That kind of collaboration between businesses and unions needs to be supported. People who are not members of a chamber of commerce-registered body should not be able to come in and undermine those contracts.

The Minister might say that this proposal endangers international obligations, or that it means that UK workers are more fairly treated, but because Scotland has already incorporated it, we know it is not a breach of international agreements. It is important to ensure that British workers are respected when British money is being paid out—I should say English and Welsh money, because that is what these rules will be for. We need to ensure they get their just desserts and are not undermined by offshoring with low wages, and companies that are paying their fair share must not be undermined by universal credit subsidies. I commend these amendments to the Committee.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown on these excellent amendments. I am glad that he mentioned what is happening in Scotland, and I will talk a bit more about that.

It is interesting that the Government say they do not believe in dictating employees’ wages, given that they literally set the national minimum wage and they refuse to lift it to the level of the real living wage. They absolutely could lift it to a level people can afford to live on, but they refuse to do so. They chose to change its name, rather than changing the amount and sorting out the significant age discrimination in the national living wage.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct that in Scotland, 91% of people are paid at least the real living wage, which is significantly higher than the minimum wage in the other UK nations. In October 2021, we started to routinely mandate payment of the real living wage in Scottish Government procurement contracts. In 2022 we published updated statutory guidance under the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 to reflect the change and the extension of the Fair Work First criteria to include specific reference to provision of flexible working and no use of fire and rehire. We have gone even further than the real living wage; our public money must be spent in a way that requires fair work practices. That is incredibly important because we have the opportunity to spend public money in a way that supports workers and ensures people are best placed to manage the cost of living crisis that we currently face. It ensures that people are fairly paid.

We are not asking for much. Ensuring that people are paid a wage that they can live on and does not need to be subsidised quite so much by universal credit is not a big thing to ask for. We are asking for dignity and respect for people. We are asking for people to be paid a fair wage and to be treated fairly.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

There is an alternative to these amendments, which is for the Government to adopt Labour’s policy to change the rules of the national minimum wage so that they take into account the cost of living in this country and therefore adopt the standard of the real living wage. I am sure the hon. Lady would support that Labour policy.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Absolutely. We have for a long time been calling for the UK Government to change their national pretendy living wage to an actual real living wage. We have also asked for the age discrimination to be removed, because it does not cost a 17-year-old with one child any less to run a house than it costs a 32-year-old with one child; people face exactly the same costs. The UK Government are trying to require people to live with their parents, which is exclusionary and discriminatory because not everybody has that option.

The Minister is right to say that the Bill applies in England and Wales and also in reserved functions carried out in relation to Scotland, so there will be some impact on Scottish procurement, or on procurement that affects Scotland or is in Scotland. But I fear that he misunderstands the devolution settlement and the constitution when he suggests that perhaps I, as a Scottish MP from a Scottish constituency, elected to this place that makes laws, should not express an opinion. I was elected to this place in the same way as he was. There are not two tiers of MPs in this place, or so we were told by the Conservative Government when they put through the English votes for English laws rules. There is no two-tier system, so it is appropriate for me to comment on these situations and support amendments, and to consider whether the impact on workers is important. Whether they are in England, Wales or Scotland, it is important.

It is also appropriate for me to consider the Barnett consequentials of any decisions made. For example, if there is a change in the way that procurement legislation works so that more people are paid the real living wage, we might see a situation where procurement ends up with slightly higher costs and universal credit ends up with slightly lower costs, meaning that we end up with more Barnett consequentials for the Scottish Parliament to spend and greater flexibility within our very limited budgets.

If the Minister is going to continue criticising the Scottish Government’s and the Scottish Parliament’s approach to procurement—he is within his rights to do so—he has no high ground in talking to me if I talk about the England and Wales approach to procurement. I am perfectly entitled to do so. In fact, he has not been elected to the Scottish Parliament, which has power over procurement in Scotland; he has been elected to this Parliament, which does not.

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady that there are not two tiers of Members in this House. She mentioned a 17-year-old. Can she expand on that? I am looking at the Living Wage Foundation website, which states:

“Living Wage accreditation does not require employers to pay the Living Wage to volunteers or apprentices.”

What impact, if any, has the introduction of a real living wage as part of the procurement rules in Scotland had on apprentices in Scotland?

[Kirsty Blackman]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there is an issue with that, because the national living wage is set differently for apprentices. He is correct that the Living Wage Foundation’s rules on apprenticeships are different. I do not have the figures on whether the wages of our apprentices have risen as a result of the changes that have been made. However, I am sure that the fair work procedures and the rules around that—the inability to fire and rehire, for example—are applicable to apprentices and ensure that they have a higher level of protection than they did previously. In exactly the same way, we have greater requirements with respect to flexible working requests.

Although I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact details on figures and wages, I can say that working conditions are, as standard, better as a result. I am sure that many people who were putting procurement contracts out to tender required the real living wage and great working conditions. The amendments would mandate that, so that it is set in stone and everyone is brought up to that minimum standard, although some will well exceed that.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North for their remarks. The amendments are important because so many people are having to take the difficult decision to take strike action as their wages cannot sustain them. We are seeing situations where people are unable to feed their children and heat their properties. People who work in our core public services are relying on food banks. Instead of demonising those people, we as politicians, and the Government, should be looking at how we can help them.

I am proud to be a member of GMB and Unison. We should remember that trade union members are ordinary people. They pay their union subs, yet they are losing a day’s pay by going on strike to show the Government that their wages cannot sustain them. People are effectively on poverty wages. During this cost of living crisis, it is important that we listen to their valid concerns.

We see a number of employers still not doing the right thing by recognising the issues that their employees are going through, while still making millions of pounds in profits. As I said in my remarks on amendment 107, Labour is committed to delivering fair treatment for all workers, and that must include fair pay and conditions, workplace wellbeing and the development of workers’ skills. We believe that procurement offers a great opportunity to increase social value. Our later amendments will make it clear that we do not want to see those who are breaching the rights of their workers awarded public contracts.

Our ambitions on the minimum wage should not be limited to workers in procurement. Instead, Labour believes we should increase the minimum wage for everyone across the economy. An incoming Labour Government would want to ensure that everyone across the economy is paid a fair day’s wage. We would instruct the Low Pay Commission to factor in living costs when it sets the minimum wage, ensuring that it covers the cost of living.

The cost of living continues to increase for many people and, as inflation continues to rise, their salaries are not keeping pace. These measures would put hundreds of pounds into the pockets of the lowest-paid workers. We would also scrap the low pay category for workers aged 18 and 19.