Procurement Bill [HL]

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 18th July 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 449A tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I support the two amendments to which my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath has just spoken. Amendment 449A covers much the same ground as his Amendment 449, but it probably goes a bit further in arguing for the need for transparency. It relates to public service contractors and where information about them should be available under FoI.

The Bill’s disclosure provisions are very limited in comparison with what would be available under FoI. Authorities responsible for contracts worth over £200 million would be required to set and publish key performance indicators, but they do not give the same information, there is a delay of probably up to one year in them and they do not help members of the public and others who might be interested in getting the information.

The amendment sets out that the FoI Act should be extended to cover information held by public sector contractors about these contracts. At present, it allows access to such information only if it is held on behalf of the commissioning authority, which normally applies only where the contract specifically entitles the authority to obtain particular information from the contractor. Where it does not, the information held by the contractor is outside the scope of FoI provisions.

There are many examples of this. Some of those cited by my noble friend probably also apply here but I shall mention one or two others. The first is a report on potential fire safety defects at Hereford County Hospital, constructed and managed under a PFI scheme by Mercia Healthcare Ltd under an agreement with the NHS trust. The report was commissioned by Mercia Healthcare from the now-defunct contractor Carillion, which was still operating at the time. The request to the trust for information about this was refused on the grounds that the report was not held by or on behalf of the trust. There are many such examples. I could explain at length some of the contracts that HS2 has got into; I shall not, but the same comments apply. There is a complete lack of transparency about information on that.

The extension to cover information held by contractors about contracts with public authorities has been supported by the Information Commissioner, the Public Accounts Committee, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Justice Committee, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information, set up by the Government to review the FoI Act in 2015, and the Institute for Government. There are many other examples from around the world where transparency is thought necessary and desirable. I believe the UK FoI provisions should be extended to allow access to such information via a request to the public authority responsible for the contract.

While I am on my feet and while we are talking about transparency, I should like to ask the Minister about a Written Statement giving guidance to Ministers participating in government commercial activity. It comes from the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency and says that the Bill we are discussing

“creates a simpler and more flexible commercial system that better meets our country’s needs while remaining compliant with our international obligations. Ministers have the opportunity to participate fully in this system with certain safeguards to protect them from the risk of legal challenge.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/7/22; col. 17WS.]

I could add that it does not protect the taxpayer and does not seem to protect anybody from the Minister making lots of money out of NHS contracts, as we have heard. It is odd that this Statement has come out in the middle of our deliberations on this Bill. Could the Minister explain when we can see the guidance—I have asked the Library and it does not have it yet—and how it fits in with the Bill we are discussing?

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 449 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and Amendment 449A from the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Clement-Jones, which deal with transparency. The Minister will not be surprised that I will use this opportunity to raise the blocking of information about the purchase of Hikvision cameras, which are used all over the United Kingdom; he was good enough to meet me twice to discuss this and I am very grateful to him for the time he gave. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised this in a Motion to Regret debate in February. I raised it at Second Reading, quoting the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, Professor Fraser Sampson, who said he was

“encouraged to see reports … that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has now prohibited any further procurement of Hikvision surveillance technology by his department”.

I asked the Minister at the time whether he would be willing to share his own department’s response to that letter to the Cabinet Secretary from Professor Sampson, and to explain why, if it was the right thing to do in the case of the Department of Health—and I believe it was the right thing to do—to give information to Members of Parliament in parliamentary Questions, which it was, because the Minister answered Questions from me specifically on this on 25 and 26 May, it was not possible on security grounds to give the same answers it was possible to give in connection with the Department of Health.

Even more relevant, in conjunction with these amendments, is the fact that only last week the information requested in a freedom of information request about Hikvision in connection with HS2—which I will come back to—was denied. That raises quite a lot of serious problems, I think, in the minds of any member of the public, let alone parliamentarians anxious to discover the truth about why particular things are being ordered, how much they cost, whether they pose security risks and what the dangers are to the United Kingdom.

I think we have a serious problem in our procurement supply chain when it comes to the problem of Chinese technology companies—blacklisted, I might add, by a Five Eyes ally, the United States, as a threat to national security and yet allowed in the United Kingdom —who are known for their complicity in human rights violations taking place in Xinjiang against Uighurs, and I declare a non-pecuniary interest as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uighurs. When I met the noble Lord to discuss the legislation before us, he noted that there are over 1 million Hikvision and Dahua Technology cameras in the United Kingdom —I repeat, over 1 million. The noble Lord outlined that the Government do indeed have concerns regarding the security of these cameras and their links to the concentration camps in Xinjiang.

Now as many will be aware, a number of civil society organisations, including Free Tibet and Big Brother Watch—through freedom of information requests —have found that a number of government departments, local authorities, NHS trusts, schools, police forces, job centres and prisons use cameras manufactured by Dahua Technology and by Hikvision. What is not clear is the extent of the issue across the public procurement supply chain, and that is why these amendments are so important.

I have asked the Cabinet Office how many departments have cameras manufactured by Dahua Technology and Hikvision and, as I have explained, Ministers—with the exception of the Department of Health—have refused to reply. I welcome the decision made by the former Secretary of State at the Department of Health to commit to removing Hikvision cameras from his department, but when will we have a timetable for other departments to follow suit? How can we justify doing one thing on national security grounds in one department and not elsewhere?

I have asked Ministers how many of these cameras are at UK ports, airports and train stations and, again, I have been rebuffed on the grounds that the Government will not speculate on the security provisions on our transport network. When you apply through freedom of information requests for that information, it is declined. So, sadly, the debate around the use of Hikvision and Dahua in our public procurement supply chain is shrouded in secrecy. I hope Ministers unwilling to be transparent about the issues that we have faced hitherto will see that they are wrong to have been so and will remedy that.

Nowhere is this issue more evident than when I was recently approached by a concerned party who had reported to me that Hikvision may have received a contract from HS2 to install its cameras along the entire length of this new high-speed rail network. Following this information, I submitted a freedom of information request to HS2 asking for information on whether Hikvision has any contracts with HS2, and I was informed that HS2 does not centrally hold information regarding contracts with its suppliers. This is clearly an unacceptable state of affairs. Phase 1 of HS2 is to cost taxpayers—and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I am sure will correct me if I am underestimating this—some £44.6 billion, and that includes substantial procurement contracts. It is well within the public interest to ensure that taxpayers’ money is not going to Chinese technology companies that have been accused of complicity in gross human rights violations and the use of forced labour—slave labour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for not rising sooner; I never know how many spokesmen are going to rise from the various Benches. This has been another interesting and informative debate. It has also been extremely wide-ranging, as has become our custom in this Committee. I will try to answer as many points as possible, but there are things coming from various areas that we will look at carefully. This is your Lordships’ Committee and therefore it is perfectly reasonable for points to be made. My aspiration is to answer, but I may not be able to answer them all.

Before I get on to the main amendments, I will address various things I was asked about. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, asked about the Palantir contract. I am advised that this is a DHSC NHS contract. I am not informed in my department of the details she asked for, but I will ask my officials to follow up and respond to her later.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about a Written Ministerial Statement made last week. The timing of the publication of the participation in government commercial activity guidelines for Ministers referred to in that Statement is not connected to this Bill. The guidance sets out how Ministers can be appropriately involved in commercial activity, including procurements, under the current procurement rules.

I was anticipating in a later group—indeed, there are some relevant amendments—a debate about Hikvision. I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, as well as for the opportunity to speak to him about this matter, which, as he said, has some security considerations. So far as the actuality of what might or could happen is concerned—that is a potential rather than a loaded spin on it—it is ultimately up to contracting authorities to apply the grounds for exclusion under this Bill on a contract-by-contract basis. The national security ground is discretionary, meaning that authorities can take into account a range of factors, including the nature of the contract being tendered. However, the debarment regime will allow for the central consideration of suppliers on the grounds of national security. As the noble Lord knows, the Government’s security group is working with the National Technical Authority and the Government Commercial Function on the government security aspects of this issue.

I appreciate the noble Lord’s impatience, given the sensitivities of the issue. Policy options are being worked out for how to mitigate the security risks posed by this type of equipment; they range from primary legislation to ban certain companies from the government supply chain to issuing more advice and guidance for contracting authorities. The Cabinet Office has also published guidance setting out the steps that all government departments must take to identify and mitigate modern slavery and labour abuse risks throughout the commercial lifecycle, focusing on the areas of highest risk. We may well return to this issue in debate on a later group, but I can assure the noble Lord that the matters he raised are ones that the Government are not minimising but currently considering.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister. Without pre-empting our debate later in the Committee’s proceedings, is he in a position now to respond to the letter to the Cabinet Secretary from Professor Sampson, which I referred to in my remarks earlier? If not, could that correspondence be made available to your Lordships between now and Report?

Also, has the Minister had a chance to look at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee’s report, which called for a total prohibition of Hikvision, and the decision not just of the United States Administration but of the European Parliament to ban Hikvision from their public procurement policies? Given the national security implications, as he said—earlier, I referred specifically to the suggestion that HS2 might procure and use Hikvision cameras on the whole of its new network—does the noble Lord not agree that this is something on which we should shine more light rather more urgently?

[Lord True (Con)]

Perish the thought that I might comment on the shelf life of HS2, but I do take what the noble Lord says very seriously. The fact is that some of the factors he mentions are taken into consideration. This issue is live. I accept his chiding. I will look carefully at his words and at what he has asked to be published or not published, but I hope that we may get a resolution of this matter, because I understand the demand, the request and the desire for a clear and public solution to the points put forward by the noble Lord. We will see what we can do, if not before the next group then certainly before we come back to this issue on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 448, proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Fox, was the amendment on which Hikvision was mentioned. I am advised that in relation to the specific letter to the Cabinet Secretary, we cannot publish it at this stage but, repeating what I have said, we cannot comment on security arrangements on the government estate. As I said, these are matters under consideration.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, before the noble Lord continues, I hope he will go back to the original statement to reflect further on whether this information could be published. This was an open letter from Professor Sampson that was published—it appeared in the national newspapers that the letter had been sent to the Cabinet Secretary—and I would have thought that most of the issues raised in that letter are things to which Members of your Lordships’ House should certainly be privy.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I have given further information. The noble Lord referred to a whole range of factors which he asked to be considered and asked me to respond to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report and so on. I said I would reflect on all he has said and come back, but I gather there has been some reflection on this aspect of his menu. We will no doubt maintain this dialogue.

The amendments we were talking about—Amendments 448, 449 and 449A—all relate to freedom of information and seek to bring external suppliers into the scope of the Act. In practice, the Government do not believe that the amendment would add much and could impose burdens on businesses that would make public contracts unattractive. The public authority will already hold all the details of the tendering process and the resulting contracts, and that information can already be requested under the FoI Act. The desire has been expressed in some quarters to reform the FoI Act, but we are looking at the proposals before us.

Furthermore, information held by a supplier or subcontractor on behalf of a contracting authority is already within scope of the Act. The amendments also introduce unhelpful limitations on the ability of contracting authorities to withhold commercially confidential information. This is a point of debate, but the FoI Act sets out the duties on public bodies when they receive requests for information under the Act. Restating the operation of that legislation is not necessary in this Bill. The Bill sets out in detail what information is required to be published and the triggers for publication, as well as requiring contracting authorities to explain why they are withholding any data.

Amendment 449A also seeks to extend the enforcement powers of the Information Commissioner to suppliers and subcontractors and open them up to criminal prosecution. The Information Commissioner already has enforcement powers in relation to public authorities and therefore in relation to the information held by others on their behalf. We believe that transparency is a sanction for authorities that fail to fulfil their obligations to publish as the failure will be obvious to the public. Failure to publish information required by the Act could be subject to judicial review, and there is also potential for a civil claim for breach of statutory duty pursuant to Clause 89 if the supplier can demonstrate that it suffered loss or damage arising from a breach of a publication obligation. Additionally, an appropriate authority has a power under Clauses 96 to 98 to investigate a contracting authority’s compliance with the Act, make recommendations and, if appropriate, provide statutory guidance to share lessons learned as a result of the investigation. Recommendations issued under Clause 97 come with a duty on the contracting authority to have regard to those recommendations when considering how to comply with the Act, and failure to do so would also leave the contracting authority open to judicial review.

Where a contracting authority is required to publish something that includes sensitive commercial information, it may withhold or redact that information only if there is an “overriding public interest” in doing so. Where the commercial confidentiality exemption is used to withhold or redact information, this must be publicly recorded. As such, there will be full transparency about what has been withheld and why, and interested parties can always challenge such decisions by requesting the withheld information under FoI law. This process is subject to the oversight of the Information Commissioner. Interested parties can also complain to the procurement review unit, which we discussed the other day.

Amendments 450 and 451 are from the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Fox. They are absent, and I send them best wishes for their respective aliments. Expertus dico: I have just had an aliment as noble Lords saw in the last Session, and I very much feel for all noble Lords. These amendments would make it harder for contracting authorities to withhold information in instances where there is sensitive commercial content. The overall result could be the inappropriate disclosure of sensitive information or fear of such disclosure, both of which are likely to have a chilling effect on suppliers bidding if they cannot be confident that their commercial secrets will be respected by contracting authorities. This could lead to a reduction in choice, quality and value.

Amendment 452, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Worthington and Lady Boycott, and Amendment 455, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—which I think is intended to address the central digital platform, not the data on the supplier registration system—propose to introduce various requirements about the accessibility of published information and how it is licensed. The Government have already committed to a publicly available digital platform which will allow citizens to understand authorities’ procurement decisions. This data will be freely available. It will remain subject to data protection law and redaction under the exemptions set out in Clause 85.

However, not all information should be published on the central digital platform. For example, some associated tender documents produced under Clause 20 in certain procurement exercises may need to be circulated to only a limited group of suppliers, for instance, where that information is sensitive. As set out in the Green Paper, we will apply the open contracting data standard, and specify this in more detail in secondary legislation. Published data will be covered by open government licence where possible; personal data contained on the platform will be available without any licence.

Amendments 452A and 452B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would amend Clause 86 to ensure that regulations require publication on a single digital platform. These amendments are unnecessary as the Government have already committed to providing this platform.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has tabled Amendment 456, which imposes obligations on an appropriate authority in relation to standards and quality of data on the platform. Clause 86(1)(a) already makes specific provision for regulations to set out both the form and the content of information to be published under the various notices required by the Bill. This power is there to ensure that regulations can establish the very standards and formats that I believe the noble Lord is seeking.

On the noble Lord’s proposed new paragraph (b), a notice is usually a snapshot of a moment in time. Most notices should not be updated after the initial publication and it is the legal responsibility of the contracting authority publishing the information to ensure that it is timely, accurate and complete. The appropriate authority—a Minister of the Crown, a Welsh Minister or a Northern Ireland department—will not be in a position to verify all that information, which is why it is the responsibility of the contracting authority.

--- Later in debate ---

The fundamental point is that we all want defence equipment programmes to be successful. We all want our country defended properly. I know that that is what the Government want—this is not a deliberate attempt not to do so—but why is it that continued reviews and resets still reach a position where this is happening? The fundamental point goes back to where I started: why will this Procurement Bill, which includes Clause 6, headed “Defence and security contracts”, and Clause 105, headed “Single source defence contracts” and goes to Schedule 10—it reforms various aspects of this procurement programme—work this time? Why will it be different this time? Why will this Procurement Bill mean that, in five, 10 or 15 years’ time, instead of a report that goes on about improving the performance of major defence equipment contracts, we have a report that asks how the MoD did it and reformed its contracts to ensure not only that there was value for money but that we got the equipment we needed to defend our country?

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has made a telling and persuasive case. I hope it will convince the Committee to support the tenor of Amendment 485 in particular; I added my name to it on Friday last. I strongly agree with what the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, are arguing for in that amendment, specifically on the role of the National Audit Office; it is long overdue.

I want to develop the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, a little further for the Committee. Here are some headline points: £4.8 billion has been wasted on cancelled contracts since 2010. Some £5.6 billion has been overspent on MoD projects since 2010, and £71 million spent on unplanned life extensions. Some £2.6 billion has been wasted on write-offs: there are 20 cases of wastage by write-off in the report that was referred to, contributing to some £2.6 billion—or 20% of total wastage—since 2010. Some £64 million has been wasted on admin errors, including £32.6 million in HM Treasury fines almost uniquely imposed on the Ministry of Defence for poor accountancy practices.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to the ongoing International Relations and Defence Select Committee inquiry into future defence policies, not least on procurement; indeed, I mentioned at Second Reading on this Bill. Last week, we heard from Professor John Louth, who was the director of RUSI’s defence, industries and society research programme from 2011 to 2019. Today, he is a private sector consultant. He shared several important insights into the peculiarities and particularities of defence procurement, not least the need to work with significant uncertainty, because of the speed with which technology moves, and how to strike a reasonable balance between insisting on value for money and having appropriate flexibility. The committee also explored associated issues, such as whether there is an optimal balance between indigenous development and off-the-shelf purchases in defence procurement; what considerations would have to be made; how the Government would intervene to prioritise them; how much of our defence capability needs to be supplied by the state itself, and what can and should be sourced from private suppliers; and who the legitimate partners are in the UK’s defence enterprise—manifestly not companies owned or controlled by countries such as Russia or China.

It was clear that there were other factors which distort procurement in the case of defence contracts. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, enjoys the sympathy and understanding of this Committee that it is not an easy world in which to operate. Professor Louth suggested to our Select Committee last week that there had been some successes, mainly around innovation. However, when asked about this Bill, specifically the measures before us now, he said:

“I tried to read as much into the Bill as possible. But it proved hard to identify the end state which the Government was looking for”—


the very point the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, just made. Professor Louth continued:

“Seeing the approach as an attempt to streamline is sensible but we need an Act that identifies the sharing of risk. There are lines and lines of rhetoric; lines and lines of legal reform—some of it incomprehensible even for those of us who are academics.”


He saw the Bill and its provisions as a missed opportunity, saying that

“quite often the private sector does things best and mixing it directly with what the state does would help enormously.”

He pointed to a high degree of private wealth that is funding our defence research and emerging capabilities but said we would get more value for money if a combined commitment was identifiable.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to Ajax. During last week’s Select Committee proceedings, I asked Professor Louth about this, to which he replied,

“Ajax has been a disaster.”


As we heard from the noble Lord, in June the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee warned about the delays to Ajax, a programme which has already been running for 12 years, a point picked up in this admirable amendment about projects that overrun and the costs to the public purse. It said, and I am sure we all agree, that this risks national security and compromises the position of our defences.

Ajax was intended to produce a state-of-the-art reconnaissance vehicle for the Army. It has cost a staggering £3.2 billion to date and yet it has failed so far to deliver a single deployable vehicle—not one. The vehicles were supposed to enter service in 2017, but Ajax has been subject to what the Commons committee describes as “a litany of failures.” The failures included noise and vibration problems that injured soldiers who were testing the vehicles. As the MoD has been unable to say, even now, when Ajax will enter service, perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us whether she has any further information on that, whether the safety issues have been resolved and if it is likely that they will ever be resolved.

Last week, I reminded our Select Committee that the Public Accounts Committee says the programme has been “flawed from the outset”, but also said it was illustrative of a deeper failing, commenting that the MoD had

“once again made fundamental mistakes”

in the planning and management of a major defence programme. Pulling no punches, it accused the Ministry of Defence of “failing to deliver” vehicles which the Armed Forces need to

“better protect the nation and meet … NATO commitments.”

In the current situation, with one eye eastwards on Ukraine, this is a very serious statement by a senior committee of this Parliament.

Meg Hillier, who chairs the Public Accounts Committee, spelled it out in these terms:

“Enough is enough—the MoD must fix or fail this programme, before more risk to our national security and more billions of taxpayers’ money wasted. These repeated failures … are putting strain on older capabilities which are overdue for replacement and are directly threatening the safety of our service people and their ability to protect the nation and meet NATO commitments.”


Some 324 hulls for Ajax-family vehicles have been built, along with 74 turrets, and 26 vehicles have been handed over to the Army for training purposes. The PAC report points to “operational compromises” which the Army has been forced to make, which include the prolonging of the use of ageing Warrior armoured vehicles which came into service back in 1987 and are expensive to maintain.

In total, the contract with General Dynamics is worth £5.5 billion, and the PAC says that it doubts whether the programme can be delivered within existing arrangements. We have a duty to make a forensic examination of what Professor Louth told us in the International Relations and Defence Committee last week has been a “disaster” and what lessons might be applied via this Bill, especially lessons about poor project management and inadequate contract performance, soaring costs and lengthy delays even before contacts were signed.

As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the same issues have been raised again and again in various attempts to reform procurement. This has all been at great cost to the public purse and, as I have argued, at a risk to our national security. This Bill should be much clearer about how it intends to put flesh on the bones of a strategic relationship with industry, focusing on delivery within the budget and on time. What a pity it is that this Bill is not in draft before both Houses, being examined by parliamentarians during pre-legislative scrutiny, rather than being placed in the context of the many other diverse issues that we have been considering.

In conclusion, Ajax was a heroic figure from Homer’s Iliad. Apart from Agamemnon, he was the only principal character who received no substantial assistance from any of the gods—perhaps they will come to the aid of the Minister today. She can at least be heartened that Poseidon struck Ajax with his staff, renewed his strength and joined in Ajax’s prayer to Zeus to remove the fog of battle to see more clearly the light of day. I have no doubt that the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, will do precisely that. I hope we will lift the fog and support these amendments.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 485. I will also speak to Amendment 101, which was not signed by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, although there is clearly some interest in the issue of whether we use British suppliers for defence. There were some reservations from the trade team, the international team and the business team about whether we should be focusing solely on looking at British suppliers for defence contracts.

One particular question I would like the Minister to consider, which may be something on which the Labour Front Bench also has view, links to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about whether it is more appropriate to have bespoke defence contracts or whether sometimes it is better to have off-the-shelf procurement. In that context, I would very much like to hear the Minister’s response to Amendment 101.

The reason for not signing this amendment was not that we do not support British industry; clearly there are a huge number of opportunities in particular where we might be looking for small and medium-sized enterprises to be very closely involved in the delivery of defence contracts. Most of the high-level contracts we have talking about—the catastrophe of Ajax, the major extensions, the cost and time overruns and the failures of defence procurement—are about the high-level programmes, but there will be many subcontracts within them. Trying to support our small and medium-sized enterprises is clearly desirable. If there is a way of doing that, alongside ensuring best value for money, there could be some interest in this amendment. However, it needs a lot more exploration and perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, it would have been better having pre-legislative scrutiny to explore how we look at procurement.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, stole many of my lines, including many of the notes I made during, and the points I raised at, Second Reading, to which the Minister did not have the opportunity to reply, because her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord True, was responding instead. In line with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I am very much looking forward to hearing a series of answers from the Minister which will enable us to understand in what way this Bill is intended to help defence procurement. In many ways, the idea of having a single Bill that deals with all types of procurement is superficially very attractive, yet, as the Grand Committee has already heard, it is not clear in any way, shape or form how this Bill is going to improve defence procurement.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)]

I am endeavouring, my Lords, not to tip my water down the back of my noble friend’s neck, although he might welcome that refreshment.

First, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I am in no doubt about the genuine interest which your Lordships have in defence. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, articulately expressed that, and I respect that. I thank him for the way in which he expressed his sentiments. I know that he speaks for the other contributors to the debate.

I shall try to address the principal points which have come up, so I want in the first instance to address Amendments 101 and 485 and then proceed to speak to the government amendments in the group, Amendments 520 to 526 inclusive. As I have said, I shall endeavour to address the issues which have been raised.

I turn to Amendments 101 and 485, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and, in relation to Amendment 485, also by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. They relate specifically to defence and security contracts and Ministry of Defence procurement.

Amendment 101 would require a contracting authority to disregard any tender from a supplier which is not a supplier from the United Kingdom or a treaty state or which intends to subcontract the performance of all or part of a contract to such a supplier unless there is no other tender that satisfies all the award criteria. I understand the sentiment behind the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which is laudable, but I will explain why I think this amendment is neither necessary nor indeed desirable.

The Bill already provides a discretion for the contracting authority to exclude from procurements suppliers that are not treaty state suppliers and extends this to the subcontracting of all or part of the performance of the contract to such suppliers. This includes defence and security procurements. It is important to note that, for the majority of defence and security procurement, market access is guaranteed only to suppliers from the United Kingdom, Crown dependencies and British Overseas Territories. For those procurements, a supplier established in another country would not be a “treaty state supplier”.

However, due to the nature of defence procurement and the defence market, a discretion to go outside of UK suppliers or treaty state suppliers is required where doing so would best meet the requirement that the contract is to serve—there may be an immediacy about that—and would offer best value for money. Further, to exclude non-treaty state subcontractors would probably make some defence and security procurement much less effective and, in some cases inoperable, as it would exclude, for example, suppliers from the United States, Australia, France, Sweden or Canada from the supply chain.

I assure noble Lords that industrial consequences and commercial strategies will be given case-by-case consideration—that is already how we conduct business—taking into account various factors, including the markets concerned, the technology we are seeking, our national security requirements and the opportunities to work with international partners, before we decide the correct approach to through-life acquisition of any given capability. Where, for national security reasons, we need industrial capability to be provided onshore or where we need to exclude a particular supplier on national security grounds, we will not hesitate to make that a requirement.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised the specific matter of fleet solid support ships. He will be aware that in the refreshed National Shipbuilding Strategy there is specific reference to the fleet solid support ships. The procurement is in train; the first ship is scheduled to enter into service in 2028 and the last in 2032. I hope that reassures the noble Lord that the matter is under active consideration.

I turn now to Amendment 485. In a sense, this amendment was preceded by a general observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. In essence it was: what difference does this make? That is a fair question and one that deserves an answer. I would say that the Bill provides greater flexibility to the MoD and includes the use of a single system to encourage participation by small and medium-sized enterprises. That is an area not just of significance to the economy but of particular significance to such smaller entrepreneurial organisations. They have sometimes felt out in the cold when major contracts were being awarded by the MoD, principally because, traditionally, the structure was to have a very large primary contractor, with the primary contractor subcontracting various aspects. This is designed to encourage greater participation by small and medium-sized enterprises, which I think is to be applauded.

MoD derogations, and the Bill itself, provide more flexibility to deliver the defence industrial strategy—I will not rehearse that; your Lordships are familiar with it, but I think it is a very positive strategy and one which I think received support from across the Chamber. That strategy replaces the previous defence procurement policy of defaulting to international competition. I know that was of concern to many of your Lordships and, as I say, the strategy has altered that, and I think that is important reassurance on where we are in defence and the greater flexibility we now have. That is why I said earlier that industrial consequences and commercial strategies will be given much more case-by-case consideration, taking into account the various factors which I previously mentioned.

Amendment 485 would require the Ministry of Defence to commission a report from the National Audit Office setting out instances of procurement overspend, withdrawal or scrapping of assets, termination of pre-paid services, cancellation or extensions of contracts, or administrative errors with negative financial impacts. I would suggest the amendment is unnecessary, as what it seeks to achieve is already being delivered through existing processes or initiatives; let me explain what these are.

The National Audit Office already conducts regular audits across defence, which we know to our discomfort because the National Audit Office is an independent entity in that it does not spare its comments when it comes to the MoD, and that is right—that is exactly what it is there to do. In these audits, it regularly includes recommendations for improvement to which we pay very close attention. These include value-for-money studies, such as the yearly audit on the defence equipment plan, regular audits on defence programmes such as Ajax—which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned—and carrier strike, as well as financial audits. As I say, MoD pays close attention to what the NAO says.

The Infrastructure and Projects Authority also publishes an annual report. That tracks progress of projects currently in the Government Major Projects Portfolio and it provides an analysis of how they are performing. The MoD has successfully introduced several initiatives following on from such recommendations to improve capability and deliver and obtain better value for money, including the defence and security industrial strategy, the defence and security 2025 strategy and the introduction of the Single Source Contracts Regulations 2014.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. On the question of the National Audit Office, I was wondering whether the Minister could tell us whether there had been any formal discussions between her department and the NAO about whether something more formalised—as anticipated in the amendment before your Lordships—would be beneficial. If not, might she consider having such a discussion before we return to this issue on Report?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

What I think is important is that we accord the National Audit Office the absolutely critical character of independence, which is necessary for it to do the job it does. I think that part of that independence is that it is quite separate from government departments, and, with the greatest respect, I think that is what the MoD should not be doing. The National Audit Office should be saying, “If we think you’ve got dirt lying under the carpet, we’re going to rip the carpet up and have a look at the dirt”, and I think that is the freedom we expect the National Audit Office to have and that is the freedom it has got. As I say, everyone, I think, will understand that the Ministry of Defence knows well the feeling of being on the receiving end of a National Audit Office report which makes uncomfortable reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Boycott and to associate myself with the remarks she has just made, and also with the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who made an important contribution to the proceedings of the Committee this afternoon. We will all be interested to hear how his meeting with the right honourable Jacob Rees-Mogg goes on Wednesday.

I shall speak to Amendments 331 and 353. Amendment 331 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lords, Lord Coaker, Lord Bethell and Lord Fox, deals with serious human rights abuses. When the Minister responds I hope he will bear in mind the very helpful conversations he and I had when he agreed to meet me to discuss modern-day slavery and genocide. I should mention that I am a trustee of the anti-modern-day-slavery charity the Arise Foundation and a patron of Coalition for Genocide Response.

It concerns me that the word “genocide” has been put in a list that simply states that

“‘serious human rights abuses’ includes, but is not limited to”,

and then sets out a list from (a) to (f). It is not that any of these things are minor questions. Winston Churchill said that the horrors committed during the Nazi regime constituted a crime that had no name. It took Raphael Lemkin, the Jewish Polish lawyer, to create the name “genocide” to describe what had been done. Indeed, the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide came from that. Your Lordships will recall that the amendments to earlier legislation I moved specifically on the procurement of technology via Huawei and later on the Health and Care Bill, which the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, referred to, were careful to set aside the word “genocide” from other questions.

I have one specific and, I hope, helpful remark to make to the noble Baroness and others, which is that if this amendment is to be pursued later, perhaps these questions can be separated, because there are many people who would be willing to vote on genocide not only in your Lordships’ House but in another place but who would not be willing to support something that was simply a list of serious human rights violations. I think that some further thought should be given to that.

On Amendment 353 on supply chain resilience against economic coercion and slavery, I shall try to be brief because I set out some of the arguments about this in our earlier debate about Hikvision and the role that companies such as that have played throughout procurement processes. They are surely what the Bill is dealing with, yet they operate with impunity from their base inside the People’s Republic of China and have been directly associated with the enormities that have been committed in Xinjiang, where it is estimated that more than 1 million Uighurs are held in concentration camps. All of us have read appalling accounts of their treatment, and anything we can do at any stage, we should try to do. I know that the noble Lord, Lord True, is sympathetic to this argument.

Therefore, let me briefly set out some of the arguments that have perhaps been put to him by officials or others who would oppose the excellent amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, which is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and me. First, will this not have a chilling effect on government procurement? Yes, there will be a chilling effect on government procurement of slave-made goods—and so there should be. Businesses that do not rely on slavery for sourcing have absolutely nothing to fear. The amendment sets the bar low but establishes certain minimum standards. It is noteworthy that the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act goes much further than this proposal—I drew it to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord True, during our discussions—and there has been no “chilling effect” documented in the USA. I will add that that legislation enjoyed significant bipartisan and bicameral support in the United States.

Secondly, will this not discourage competition and therefore crush markets? No. On the contrary, the amendment will incentivise business to raise its human rights game and encourage competition among entities which meet basic human rights standards. We should be using our purchasing power, this phenomenal amount of money, more than £300 billion, to nudge the business world. This amendment helps us to achieve that. It removes disadvantage for lawful performers, and that is something we should all welcome.

Thirdly, is this not just another anti-China amendment? No. The amendment does not even mention China. Forced labour is a global issue, whether it is exploitation in Brazilian mines or Malaysian tech factories or indeed Uighur slave labour. It is morally imperative that taxpayers’ money does not fund slavery, wherever it is and wherever it is practised.

Fourthly, does this not turn civil servants into police for business supply chains? Civil servants already assess those bidding for government contracts against certain criteria, and that is exactly how it should be. All the amendment seeks to do is to make the criteria more robust. Civil servants generally do not have the resources to inspect supply chains. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, probably knows better than any other noble Lord in this Committee, assessing what is going on in a supply chain is an extraordinarily complex, time-consuming and resource-ridden process. The amendment recognises that, and seeks instead to provide civil servants with more tools to ensure better anti-slavery standards around disclosure and transparency of sourcing inputs.

I wonder whether the noble Lord has had it put to him that we are presuming the guilt of businesses by blacklisting entire countries or areas. No, the amendment does not presume that a business operating in a particular area is de facto guilty of perpetrating slavery, although this is the assumption of the United States legislation, which imposes a rebuttable presumption. I admit that that is something that I personally favour, but it is not what is in the amendment. In the United States, that targets goods produced in the Uighur region because it is assumed that they are tainted.

I was struck that the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, referred to that word when discussing earlier legislation the House passed, the Health and Care Act, which includes the word “tainted”. I think the Minister will forgive me for saying that that legislation was strengthened by civil servants from his department, who gave advice to the Department of Health. It would be absurd to have legislation that applies purely to the National Health Service, despite the fact that we spent £10 billion on PPE, but does not apply to other departments. You cannot have legislation, especially a procurement Bill, which is weaker than legislation already on the statute book. The amendment merely requires that the origins of goods and their constituent parts are disclosed.

What difference will this really make? Do we need more regulation? The Health and Care Bill was amended precisely because there was acceptance—the Government knew—that the existing regulation was not strong enough. It is to the credit of Sajid Javid that he recognised that and did something about it. The Government are widely suspected of procuring goods and services that may be tainted with slavery. In 2020, the Daily Telegraph reported that, for one contract alone, £150 million of PPE originated in factories in the Uighur region with a documented slavery problem. If stronger standards are good enough for the Department of Health and Social Care, they are surely strong enough for the whole of government, and this Bill gives us the opportunity to do something about it.

Finally, it is often said, “Not this Bill, not this time. There is a modern slavery Bill coming; why can we not just wait for that?” The amendment before your Lordships addresses government procurement and this is the Procurement Bill. It is entirely appropriate that an amendment seeking to improve certain standards regarding government procurement should be debated during the passage of this Bill. Moreover, we do not know what is likely to be in the modern slavery Bill; we were told a lot about it during the course of the Nationality and Borders Bill, which pre-empted its provisions then, but we still do not know what will be in it—and, after all, we are in the midst of a change of Government.

Engagement with the Government and this Secretary of State has been good and, as I finish, I pay tribute again to the noble Lord, Lord True, for his patience in putting up with representations constantly being made to him on this subject. But there is no guarantee that will continue. While Ministers smile on these efforts, we are keen to make the progress we can now, while Ministers such as the noble Lord are in place.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I have two small amendments in this group, Amendments 330 and 332. I must say that this group contains far too many issues to be debated effectively. My own are minor, so I did not degroup them, but I hope that in future other noble Lords will exercise their right to degroup so that we have sensible groupings to enable a proper Committee debate. I will probably get into trouble with my Chief Whip for encouraging noble Lords in this direction, because I think there is a view that large groupings are more efficient. However, I do not believe that; I believe in effective scrutiny in your Lordships’ House.

Amendment 330 probes the relationship between the mandatory exclusion of suppliers for improper behaviour in Clause 30 and the discretionary exclusion found in paragraph 14 of Schedule 7. I do not understand why the Bill has to have improper behaviour as an exclusion ground dealt with in two places. The definition of “improper behaviour” is virtually identical in each case, and they certainly seem to be aimed at the same behaviour. The processes are very similar, with rights given to suppliers in both cases, and they are both aimed at exclusion decisions. There are wording differences between the two parts of the Bill, but I cannot see anything of substance involved. It just looks as if two parliamentary draftsmen have been involved in different bits of the Bill and they have not known what was going on in the other bit.

Schedule 7 requires only that the decision-maker—which is usually the contracting authority, as in Clause 30—“considers” that there is improper behaviour, while Clause 30 requires a determination. However, in this context, I cannot believe that that is a distinction with any real difference attached to it. The main difference of substance is that Clause 30 results in mandatory exclusion, while paragraph 14 of Schedule 7 does not necessarily lead to exclusion. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can explain the subtleties of why improper behaviour has been dealt with in this way. My own view is that it would be easier to understand if Clause 30 were placed in the Schedules 6 and 7 structure of the Bill, since it deals with exclusion, and could have options of mandatory or discretionary exclusion. I certainly look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say on that.

Amendment 332 is slightly different; it concerns paragraph 16 of Schedule 7, which itself sets out exclusions from the discretionary exclusions in Schedule 7. Under paragraph 16(4), there are four exclusions from some of the Schedule 7 things which have happened before the schedule came into force. It is my understanding that the existing procurement rules already contain three of the grounds for exclusion. So it does not seem logical that, when we shift to this new Procurement Bill, we disregard things that happened in the past that were exclusion grounds because they happened before the Act came into force—it seems to be an unnecessary discontinuity.

I believe that the new ground is “national security”, under paragraph 16(4)(d). For that, it is probably reasonable to disregard behaviour that occurred prior to the Act coming into force. I invite my noble friend the Minister to explain the logic behind paragraph 16(4).

Procurement Bill [HL]

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, with his customary thoroughness in opening today’s debate, the noble Lord, Lord True, outlined the purpose of this Procurement Bill with its 13 parts, 116 clauses and 11 schedules. We have just heard a very incisive speech from my good friend the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, about defence procurement. I will not follow her on that particular line of argument today—I certainly will be interested in amendments later on—but I simply draw to her attention, and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Lord, Lord True, the evidence given this morning by Sir Nick Carter, former Chief of the Defence Staff, and expert witnesses on procurement by the Royal Navy to the International Relations and Defence Select Committee, which I think will have a bearing on what the noble Baroness has just said to the House.

At the very outset, I thank the noble Lord, Lord True, for setting aside time to meet on two occasions to discuss the Government’s policy in connection with the procurement of goods made in states credibly accused of genocide and states using slave labour. I particularly welcome what he said at the very outset of the debate, following that Urgent Question earlier on about John Sudworth’s harrowing documentary, which was broadcast by the BBC, documenting the terrible excesses taking place in Xinjiang. He, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, are right that work is being done across both Houses already to bring forward amendments to tackle ethical procurement, slave labour and national resilience. So, although I welcome this Bill, and the intentions which lie behind it—not least the ambition outlined in the Green Paper and in the Explanatory Notes that value for money must always be conditioned by the public good, transparency, integrity, equal treatment and non-discrimination—I would add to that list, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, added in his remarks, words like “ethical” and “resilience”.

In drawing attention to my non-financial interests in the register, I think the House will not be surprised to learn that, as the Bill proceeds, I would like to return to the purchase of products made by slave labour in terrible conditions by Uighurs in the genocidal state of Xinjiang, which I have pursued as an issue with others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, during the passage of recent legislation. I see the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is in his place, and it has been a pleasure to work with him too on the Health and Care Bill, the Nationality and Borders Bill, the telecommunications Bills and the Trade Bill, in bringing in amendments on this theme.

The very welcome decision of Parliament to insist that the eradication of slavery is a lodestar for the National Health Service procurement is a curtain-raiser for this Bill, and I congratulate the Government on that. Some of these issues are addressed in the—still undebated—report of the International Relations and Defence Committee, published in September last, on China, trade and security, which we subtitled A Strategic Void. This Bill offers an opportunity to fill some of that void, and I would commend the report to the noble Lord, Lord True, as a very good background document to these specific issues.

Essentially, procurement should strengthen national resilience. It should reduce dependency on states which pose risks to our national security. It should protect British manufacturing from competitors that use slave labour, or grossly exploited labour, and send a signal to the private sector that it is simply unethical to buy cheap goods from states where citizens are being subjected to appalling inhumanity, including genocide. After all—this is not hyperbole or some piece of sloganeering or virtue signalling—it is the Foreign Secretary, Elizabeth Truss, who has said that a genocide is under way.

A third of all UK public expenditure, around £300 billion a year, is earmarked for public procurement. This is a staggering amount of money, which—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was quite right to say —can be used to achieve a great deal of public good. I know the noble Lord well enough to know that he is not lighting a bonfire of 350 regulations simply to create a fertile ground for anarchy. It is a perfectly reasonable public policy objective to try and accelerate and simplify public procurement, but we must use this opportunity to do more than that. I know that the noble Lord shares my strongly held belief that we should tackle the strategic void, the incoherence, and in some quarters the unwillingness to squarely face the threat posed by rising authoritarianism. I am certain that this Bill provides an admirable opportunity to put flesh on the bones.

When it comes to challenging authoritarianism and ridding companies and actors that do their bidding from our procurement supply chain, we are streets behind our Five Eyes partners, like Australia and the bipartisan approach now being evidenced in the United States. We must better co-ordinate procurement policies with our allies. Let me give just two examples. Two years ago, the US Government blacklisted Hikvision and Dahua Technology from their procurement supply chain and, alongside Australia, has actively been removing Chinese cameras and technology from sensitive government buildings.

Since January 2020, on 25 occasions in speeches and questions in this House, I have raised the UK’s decision to procure 1 million Hikvision cameras. Yet we continue to use them in government departments, local authorities, NHS trusts and schools. I am told that they may even be bought and placed alongside the entire length of HS2—perhaps the Minister could tell us if that is indeed the case. A negligent procurement policy means that we will ultimately end up stripping them out, as we did with Huawei, at huge public cost.

Last week, IPVM, the world’s leading video surveillance information source, released a 32-page white paper on Hikvision. It noted that the company has been

“contracted to design, implement, and directly operate Xinjiang surveillance”

as part of the network of concentration camps where over a million Uighur Muslims are detained until 2040. Hikvision even actively collaborates with the Chinese Government as a co-author of national and provincial standards of surveillance and the development of cameras that target Uighurs. More than 42% of Hikvision is owned by the Chinese state. During the first half of 2021, the company received RMB 223 million in state subsidies, and its chairman, Chen Zongnian, is a member of the National People’s Congress.

I believe the Government privately recognise the threat posed by Hikvision and Dahua Technology, and I welcome the steps taken by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Sajid Javid, who acted recently to remove their cameras and technology from his department. What is needed is a cross-departmental strategy to remove cameras not only from government departments but from the UK procurement supply chains as a whole. In a letter to the Cabinet Secretary dated 21 April, Professor Fraser Sampson, the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, said he was

“encouraged to see reports … that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has now prohibited any further procurement of Hikvision surveillance technology by his department”.

Will the Minister undertake to share his own department’s response to that letter from Professor Sampson, and will he explain why, if this is the right thing to do in one department, is it not right to do it across government? It cannot be right that the domestic surveillance market is dominated by a Chinese company which is complicit in genocide and has been blacklisted by our closest partner, and yet is able to use state subsidies to undercut its competitors.

On 2 February, in a debate on a Motion to Regret, I set out at length the arguments about Hikvision, and pointed out:

“In the 1940s, we did not allow the widespread use of IBM’s machines, or other tools of genocide used in Nazi Germany and manufactured by slave labour in factories and concentration camps, to be sold in the United Kingdom”.—[Official Report, 2/2/22; col. 987.]


This Procurement Bill should set a bar as high as that. Mass surveillance systems have always been the handmaiden of fascism. The Government should come forward with a timetable to remove these cameras and technology from the public sector supply chain, and campaign to encourage and support businesses in the private sector to do the same. We simply cannot allow the tools of genocide to continue to be used so readily in our daily lives.

My second and very brief point concerns resilience and dependency. I have regularly raised my concerns about the potential sale of Newport Wafer Fab, the country’s biggest producer of semiconductors and microchips, to a company with links to China and, inevitably, the CCP. We will always be purchasers of microchips and semiconductors; perhaps the Minister can tell us how many contracts it has had over the past 10 years with the Ministry of Defence, and their worth —and it is particularly helpful that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, is in her place to help him with that response. What is more, there is an urgent need for a strategic, joined-up and coherent approach.

To conclude, I hope the Minister will consider amending Part 2 of the Bill to include a duty to have regard to national resilience, and to reduce dependency on states with interests that are hostile to those of the United Kingdom. Like my noble friend Lord Stevens of Birmingham and the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, I have pointed regularly to the £10 billion we have spent with China on 1 billion items of PPE. That amount is about the size of our entire reduced budget for our overseas aid programme. A duty to have regard to national resilience might be a good way of challenging this.

I thank Minister for his courtesy and his time in meeting to discuss these issues and I look forward to participating during the passage of this important and timely Bill.

Spyware

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I have said something about the controls on our own intelligence framework. As the noble Lord will know, the UK’s use of any investigative powers—I am obviously going much wider than this Question—including equipment interference, is governed by the Investigatory Powers Act. That provides extensive and robust safeguards and oversight that is judicial, political and parliamentary.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in the light of the targeting of human rights activists, journalists—including 200 reporters from 21 countries—and lawyers, will the Government consider raising the use of this Pegasus malware at the United Nations Human Rights Council, of which we are a member, and confronting authoritarian Governments with violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, specifically Article 19 on the right to have unimpeded access to information and comment? Specifically, will they commit to examining the targeting of people close to Jamal Khashoggi, who was murdered in October 2018 while visiting the Saudi embassy in Istanbul, where his body was dismembered, and whose wife and the Turkish prosecutor investigating his death have been targeted by this malware?

[Lord True (Con) [V]]

My Lords, again, I cannot follow a specific case, but I fully endorse the sentiment of the noble Lord’s question. I repeat that we believe that the use of cyberespionage tools against civil society and political groups, including human rights activists, is unacceptable. I can assure the House that the UK continues to champion human rights, at home and abroad, and that where we have concerns on human rights issues we do not and will not shy away from raising them.

Covid-19: Debt Collection

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 23rd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB) [V]]

My Lords, returning to my noble friend’s Question, is the Minister aware that, last year, councils used court action 2.3 million times and bailiffs 1.4 million times to collect council tax debt? The bailiff fees added £200 million to people’s debts. Given the expiry date of 23 August, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wood, referred, will the Minister bring forward, in advance of the review, a specific examination of pre-action protocols?

[Lord True]

My Lords, again, I hear what the noble Lord says. I find myself in the position of answering on behalf of a department that manages the group in relation to government debt. Obviously I will pass on to my colleagues in MHCLG the points that he and noble Lords are making. I repeat that they had announced last year that they would update guidance to councils on collection and enforcement.

Covid-19: Infection Rate

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

I strongly agree with my noble friend and reiterate what I just said about paying tribute to all workers, and to businesses which have been patient through this difficult time and have now made arrangements to reopen—it is very good to see those businesses reopening. I am glad that, after 35 years of loyal custom, I was allowed to have a hair-cut on Saturday.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Lord is well known and respected for his own respect for Parliament. Will he therefore please ask his noble friends to fully answer the topical Written Question which I tabled on 28 April, about the decision taken, when Covid restrictions were already in place in Spain, to permit on 11 March a football match between Liverpool and Atlético Madrid? Can he say what lessons we have learned about the imposition and lifting of restrictions from what then followed?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I will look into this specific matter. I am aware of the event the noble Lord refers to. He will also be aware that, at the time, the advice on large-scale events was not necessarily what it is today. I will certainly undertake to pursue the matter and will ensure that there is a response to Parliament.

HS2

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord will know that the question of allocation of resources between a range of government departments is one taken collectively by the Cabinet and announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the appropriate time. It is not for a junior Minister to comment on the allocation of public expenditure between the Ministry of Defence and a whole range of departments, including those for transport and energy. On the last part of the noble Lord’s question, I think that it is right to go ahead with this project. It is expensive, but the phase 1 funding has not increased since the spending review settlement in 2015. Phase 1 is scheduled to cost £27.18 billion in 2015 prices and we are determined to keep it within that cost estimate.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, will the noble Lord—a much-respected and much-liked former Secretary of State, as well as a junior Minister in your Lordships’ House—comment at least on the prioritisation of railway needs and demands? He will have noted, following the resignation of Sir Terry Morgan, that the Mayor of Liverpool resigned last week from the board of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership citing as his reason for doing so the lack of rail investment to service the £1 billion renaissance of Liverpool dockside. Can he say where HS3 and the proposed linkage of northern cities now stands? Should not the revitalisation of the north be a much higher priority than HS2, which by comparison will contribute far less to northern regeneration?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord makes a powerful case for more resources for transport in addition to the money that we have already committed to HS2, in both phase 1 and phase 2. He wants additional resources to improve connectivity with Liverpool. A spending review is just starting in which I am sure the Department for Transport and those departments that have an interest in the northern powerhouse will make bids. I note his strong representations that improved connectivity for Liverpool should be a high priority.

Railways: Transport for the North

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My noble friend makes a good point: that it is important to bring responsibility for the trains and responsibility for the track closer together. If he looks at the proposals in, for example, the north, he will see that Network Rail is now setting up a board there to work closely with the train operating companies and the passengers to integrate train and track. However, I am sure that my noble friend is not proposing major primary legislation to undo the privatisation for which I and others bear some responsibility.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to east-west links across the Pennines. He might have seen the campaign launched in the north of England in February to reopen the Hellifield link, which I raised with him on a previous occasion. That link would restore passenger services on a line used every day for freight, for the first time since 1962. It would link Lancashire with Yorkshire and open up the possibilities of daily travel services to Skipton, Leeds and further north to Bradford, but also to Carlisle and Lancaster. Is that not something that could be done at relatively low cost that would make a huge difference to the connectivity of the northern areas?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am sure that the noble Lord is right, but one of the things TfN has responsibility for doing is to look at the various bids in the north and come up with a list of priorities. If, when it does that, it puts the scheme that the noble Lord referred to right at the top of its priorities, that would carry weight with the Secretary of State.

Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority (Election of Mayor) (Amendment) Order 2017

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I would put a different question to my noble friend. Given that we are going to have combined authorities—and I think that there is agreement that that is a good idea—is it better to have one elected mayor as the accountable person or what we used to have with the old metropolitan areas, where there was much less accountability than you would have with an elected mayor? As we have seen in London, an elected mayor increases accountability over and above the other alternatives that you could have in those areas.

I turn to the other specific questions that have been raised, as we are obviously not going to get agreement on that one. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, will understand that, although I do not want to get involved in a dispute between two local authorities—it is always regrettable when there is such a dispute, as it costs taxpayers money—I hope that what we have seen in this case is a one-off, and we do not have similar problems in future. In its judgment, the court did not quash the consultation, and what is needed now is an additional consultation on Bassetlaw and Chesterfield becoming part of the area of the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority. The noble Lord asked a number of questions. It is really for local people to come to a judgment on who has let their electorate down and who has not, rather than for Ministers to pontificate from the Dispatch Box. Local leaders are accountable to local people through the ballot box and, ultimately, it will be for their electorate to judge them.

The question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and other noble Lords—and I am grateful for what he said—was whether Sheffield City Region will still get its funding up front despite this hiccup in the process. The answer is yes. The combined authority is already in existence, and gain share funding, which is the name I understand has now been given to this pot of money, of £30 million a year can be paid to the combined authority once the consultation has been undertaken and it is clear that the councils are committed to the deal and an assurance framework agreed with government is in place. That can take place before the postponed elections of the mayor.

I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was suggesting that Derbyshire County Council should have a veto on whether Chesterfield should join. I am glad that she shakes her head, because I do not think that it would be right for a county council to prevent a constituent district from joining a combined authority if that is what was wanted.

Then we had the point which was reinforced by my noble friend Lord Cormack about whether a mayor could represent such a diverse area. I was around when the Greater London Council was started, which included bits of Middlesex and Surrey. London is very diverse, yet we have a Mayor of London. So I am not sure that I would buy the argument that it is impossible for a mayor to represent an area that has a diversity in it.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

Just before the Minister leaves that point, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was making the point that as we go forward it will be important to keep under review how the provision actually works out in practice. I fully support the order being laid before your Lordships’ House, and the next one, which deals with Liverpool and the Merseyside area, where there is agreement that we should have a combined mayor. But will the Minister have a dialogue in future with local councils about replication, whereby you can end up as Liverpool will with a mayor for the greater region, an elected mayor in the city and a lord mayor as well? That will cause confusion.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

There may be confusion, but this is what local people will have decided through their local councils. That is the system of running the area that they have chosen to have.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about turnout. If one looks at the turnout for directly elected mayors, one can see that it has been roughly in line with local elections so far. I hope that she takes some encouragement from that.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said that there was a patchwork. I explained at the beginning that this is basically a bottom-up approach—the Government responding to areas that want to go down this particular road. It is inevitable from that approach that there will be a patchwork. The alternative, which I am sure the noble Lord would not advocate, is for the Government to insist on this regime for the whole country. We do not want to go down that route at all—but that is why there is a patchwork.

In conclusion, this is an important order, which will allow us to progress the devolution for the Sheffield City Region, and once again I commend it to the House.

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2017

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Well, let us see if we have less trouble over this one.

The draft orders, if approved and made, will confer important new powers on the mayors and the combined authorities for the Liverpool City Region and the Tees Valley. The Government have of course already made significant progress in delivering their manifesto commitment to devolve far-reaching powers and budgets to large cities in England which choose to have directly elected mayors. In this House, we have now debated and approved a number of orders devolving powers to places including Greater Manchester, the West of England and more recently Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. We have also considered and approved an order enabling the Tees Valley mayor to take steps necessary to establish a mayoral development corporation; that is to be complemented by the order we are considering on Tees Valley today. We are grateful to the House for the attention it has given to these matters. Following our last debates, my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, has written to noble Lords, as he undertook to do. I hope that we are now drawing to the end of this first devolution journey, with possibly just a few more orders after those we are considering today.

The draft Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2017 brings to life the devolution deal which the Government agreed with the Liverpool City Region constituent councils in November 2015. We are taking that deal forward with the combined authority and its six constituent councils: Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral. The deal agreed between the Government and the Liverpool City Region means that the area will receive: a devolved transport budget and transport powers to help provide a more modern, better-connected network; new planning and housing powers to manage planning across the region; and control over an investment fund of £30 million a year for 30 years.

Noble Lords will want to know that the basis of the draft order is the governance review and scheme prepared by the combined authority and the six constituent councils of the Liverpool City Region in accordance with the requirement in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. The combined authority and the six constituent councils published that scheme in June 2016 and, as provided for by the 2009 Act, consulted on the proposals in the scheme. That was a public consultation entirely undertaken by the authorities concerned. They decided the approach, which was a matter for them. The consultation ran for six weeks and was undertaken through a variety of methods and media, including engagement with regional and local media, web content, social media, workshops with elected members, targeted letters to key stakeholders, as well as material available in libraries and local council town halls. As statute requires, the combined authority provided the Secretary of State with a summary of the responses to the consultation. Before laying the draft order before Parliament, the Secretary of State considered the statutory requirements in the 2009 Act, and considers that they have been met in relation to proposals to confer functions on the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority.

In short, having regard to the summary of consultation responses, which had been submitted to him, the Secretary of State concluded that no further consultation was needed. He considered that conferring the functions on the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority would be likely to lead to an improvement in the exercise of the statutory functions across the Liverpool City Region. In this consideration, he has had regard to the impact on local government and communities. Most significantly, the combined authority and six constituent councils have consented to the making of the order—that is, the democratically elected representatives of the area have agreed to the making of the order, if Parliament approves.

As required by the 2016 Act, we have in parallel with the draft order laid a report before Parliament which sets out the details of the public authority functions that we are conferring on the Liverpool City Region through the order. Noble Lords may recall that the requirement for this report was one of the additions that this House made to the 2016 Act during its passage. If approved by Parliament, the draft order will come into effect the day after it is made, except for the functions which are to be exercised by the mayor. The mayoral provisions will take effect on 8 May this year when the first mayor takes office.

The draft order gives effect to many of the proposals in the combined authority’s June 2016 scheme, which reflects the agreed devolution deal. If approved and made, it will confer the following powers and functions on the combined authority to be exercised by the mayor: a duty to prepare a Liverpool City Region Combined Authority spatial development strategy, enabling an integrated approach to spatial planning; powers on land acquisition, disposal and housing, including a compulsory purchase power—the same powers as the Homes and Communities Agency and councils; power to call in planning applications of potential strategic importance; power to designate mayoral development areas, leading to the creation of mayoral development corporations; powers to work with the combined authority to draw up a local transport plan, leading to a joined-up approach to transport across the area, recognising that efficient transport is fundamental to securing economic, social and environmental objectives; and powers to enter into agreements with constituent authorities, to establish and manage a key route network of strategic roads in the combined authority’s area. In addition to their existing transport and economic development powers, the combined authority will exercise powers and functions of: having the final say on the mayor’s spatial development strategy and local transport plan; promoting road safety; and regulation of traffic.

These new powers will enable the Liverpool City Region to take a strategic approach to driving development and regeneration and stimulating economic growth, supporting effective use of the £900 million devolved budget. The draft order also provides for the necessary constitutional and funding arrangements to support the mayor and the combined authority.

I now turn to the draft Tees Valley Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2017. This draft order will be another important step to bring to life the devolution deal that the Government agreed with the Tees Valley in October 2015. The deal agreed means that the area will receive: a devolved transport budget and transport powers to help provide a more modern, better-connected network; control over an investment fund of £15 million a year for 30 years; and new housing and regeneration powers for growth across the region. Noble Lords will recall that the implementation of the Tees Valley devolution deal agreed between local leaders and the Government has already seen three orders made in relation to the Tees Valley. The most recent of these was about devolving powers for a mayoral development corporation. We brought this last order forward in advance of today’s order, as the area is eager to establish a mayoral development corporation in South Tees on which an 11-week consultation had already been undertaken.

This draft order has been prepared on the same basis as I have described for the Liverpool City Region order. If approved and made, the order will come into effect on 8 May when the first Tees Valley mayor takes office, with the exception of the provision relating to the establishment of an independent remuneration panel, which will come into force on the day after the order is made to enable the combined authority to make any necessary arrangements.

Let me turn briefly to the detail. The draft order will confer the following powers, to be exercised by the mayor, on the combined authority: powers to pay grants to the five constituent councils of the Tees Valley Combined Authority, with the condition that the mayor has regard to the desirability of ensuring that the councils have sufficient funds effectively to discharge their highways functions; and powers to produce a local transport plan for the area. The draft order also provides that the functional power of competence, already exercisable by the combined authority, is also exercisable by the mayor. Finally, the draft order confers various powers on the combined authority: powers to provide local passenger transport services—these powers were already delegated to the combined authority by the Tees Valley Combined Authority Order 2016; the duty to review housing need in the area; and funding and constitutional provisions to support the powers and functions conferred, including the establishment of an independent remuneration panel to recommend the allowances of the mayor.

In conclusion, the two draft orders devolve new, far-ranging powers to the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and to the Tees Valley Combined Authority, giving effect to the bespoke devolution deal of each area, putting decision-making into the hands of local people, and helping the two areas fulfil their long-term economic and social ambitions. The draft orders are significant milestones contributing to greater prosperity in the Liverpool City Region and the Tees Valley and paving the way for a more balanced and successful economy and improving housing supply across the country. I commend the two draft orders to the House.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I shall be brief. I enthusiastically support the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Young, has just made, notwithstanding the minor caveat that I entered the Chamber as he was replying to the previous order and note the unnecessary duplication and replication which can cause confusion. I encourage him, and the Government generally, to stay in touch with the local authorities that will be affected by the implementation of these orders to see in what ways they impact on them and whether there can be further streamlining and clarification.

It is 45 years since, while I was a student in Liverpool, I was elected to represent an inner-city neighbourhood—a slum clearance area—in the Low Hill ward in the heart of Liverpool. I served that ward on both the city council and on the Merseyside County Council that was created by the then Government, and then abolished by the following Government. During those years, I saw more changes than I cared to see in many respects. I served as deputy leader of the city council and as its housing chairman and had to deal with compulsory purchase orders, which were often imposed centrally with very little say locally on what their impact would be on the neighbourhoods they affected. Therefore, I particularly welcome what the noble Lord said about the devolution of compulsory powers to the city region and the opportunities for development corporations. The great success story on Merseyside, following the riots in Toxteth in 1981, was the creation of the Merseyside Development Corporation. The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, has recently received some criticism in your Lordships’ House but he deserves great tribute for the work that he did during that period and the achievements that were made. The extraordinary regeneration and renewal of the city of Liverpool had its seeds in the work that he did. In my view the orders that have been laid before your Lordships’ House today with the agreement of the local authorities on Merseyside pave the way for the continued renewal and success story that Liverpool now is. Therefore, I very much welcome what the noble Lord said and commend the orders to your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be short. My noble friend’s explanation of the advantages that these measures will confer on Liverpool contains some very important lessons for central government. He talked about spatial planning which will bring together the whole range of interests in Liverpool. Would it not be a good idea if we introduced that nationally? We do not have spatial planning nationally; we have a ludicrous position in which planning lies with the department for local government. That is not a proper place for it given that local government makes appeals to the Minister for Local Government, which itself is wrong. All the other interests lie with other departments and we suffer from not having a department of land use.

We now have a Government who are busy giving local authorities powers to structure themselves in precisely the way we fail to structure ourselves centrally. The Government will look increasingly peculiar if their central structure is so far out of line with these new structures. However, the Government are not imposing them as they are welcomed by these larger, more powerful local authorities. We have looked afresh at how best to run local government in Liverpool and the Tees Valley and have come to the conclusion that it is better to do it this way. Although my noble friend may well argue that there is something unique about local government which means that it is, of its nature, to be organised differently, I suspect that the truth is that, looking at government, this is where you want to be.

I am reminded of the ability of Americans to ask other people to run their democracies in a way that they do not run their own. For example, they make sure that you do not have gerrymandering of boundaries, that you do not have Christmas tree Bills and that you restrict the amount of money that you spend. That is what the Americans do to other people but they do not learn to do it themselves. I do not want our Government to behave in that way. I hope that we too will learn from what we have seen from our reorganisation of local government—that some very serious reorganisations are necessary at the centre to enable us to look after our land and to have a proper policy of spatial planning, with the special word “joined-up”, which I heard several times from my noble friend.

Northern England: Opportunity and Productivity

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, along with 1 million private sector businesses, some 15 million people call the north of England their home. Compare those 15 million with the populations of sovereign countries: 11 million in Belgium, 5 million in Denmark or the 6 million combined population of the three Baltic countries. However, as we have heard, despite its significant population, and in the absence of devolution, the north does not punch its weight and many, especially those living in deindustrialised rustbelt towns, feel both disaffected and alienated.

Since 1855, when Elizabeth Gaskell published her famous social novel, North and South, the phrase has pointed to disparity, but in our own time austerity cuts have accentuated poverty, exclusion, educational failure, crime and lower life expectancy. It is a fact that a baby girl born in Manchester can expect to live for 15 fewer years in good health than a baby girl born in the London borough of Richmond. Consider that Londoners currently benefit at the rate of more than £65 per head from investment in cultural infrastructure, compared with less than £5 per head for the populations based outside the capital. Or take employment. UK employment rates are at an historic high: almost 2.4 million jobs were created between 2006 and 2015, but during the same period, across the north of England just 360,000 jobs were created. For too many workers in the north, wages have failed to increase in line with the national average.

Remedies might include the creation of a northern wealth fund, using new money saved or generated in the north for the north; a pan-northern digital platform; more innovative regeneration; and housing policies determined in the north, where Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Liverpool and Sheffield will face a shortage of 86,000 homes by 2030.

For me, two leading priorities are transport infrastructure, which has been referred to, and education. I should like to hear from the Government what progress is being made not only on the direct high-speed east to west line but on reopening and renewing local lines and dealing with gridlocked roads feeding our northern motorways. Last Sunday, it was reported that two more of the most senior managers of HS2—which is now said to cost some £56 billion—have quit their jobs. Andrew Tyrie MP, chairman of the Commons Treasury Select Committee, questioning its credibility, has said that it risks being “scarcely worth the candle”. It is an argument I set out in this House in October 2015. Compare that £56 billion, which the noble Lord, Lord Beith, mentioned, with infrastructure investment in the north.

Turning to education, my other priority, I am the first from either side of my family to have had the opportunity of higher education, in Liverpool, and I draw the House’s attention to my registered interests. Sadly, significant numbers of bright young people in cities such as Liverpool still do not get the same opportunity that I, and others who were beneficiaries of the post-war education legislation, had. We urgently need to improve life outcomes for children and young people in the north. Sir Michael Wilshaw, the head of Ofsted, said that the northern powerhouse will “splutter and die” if more is not done to improve performance in the region’s schools. He points out that four in 10 secondary schools in Liverpool are rated as inadequate, and that the number of teenagers gaining good grades is falling. He also said that “politicians need to act” and that,

“We cannot fight for social mobility with political immobility”.

A northern teaching premium to help schools struggling to recruit the highest-calibre teachers, and perhaps a “teach later” programme, might help.

The region’s 23 universities, six of which rank in the top 20 for research excellence nationally, should be empowered to become the drivers for transforming our region’s schools. The wonderful university of Liverpool John Moores, with its 21,000 students and 2,500 staff, has generated an estimated 2,493 jobs in industries across the north-west of England. By spending £186 million per year, it significantly contributes to the region’s economic and civic life. Manchester University has its own venture capital fund and has attracted £300 million of private funding to university spin-outs—crucial in creating jobs and leading-edge technology. The excellent annual Educate North & UK Leadership Awards and their conference celebrate these achievements. The whole sector is desperate not to see that success compromised by Brexit or by the Government’s higher education legislation. The Government must listen carefully to concerns that a dead hand is being placed on those crucial institutions.

I welcome today’s debate and am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for giving us parliamentary time to discuss these important questions.