Procurement Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 11th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, in moving this Motion I will speak to Amendments 1, 4, 5, 81 and 82. I am very pleased to bring this important Bill back to the House today for consideration of amendments made in the other place. It is, I believe, a key Brexit dividend, making it possible for us to develop and implement our own procurement regime, which will be simpler, more transparent, better for small businesses and better able to meet the UK’s needs. I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House who contributed to the lengthy discussion on the original Bill, first introduced to this House in May last year.

In the other place, we made a number of important changes to the Bill, including a debarment appeals process, clarification of the City of London’s status under the Bill, at its request, and provisions to address trade disputes relating to procurement. Importantly, we also took significant steps to strengthen national security provisions in the Bill, creating a new mechanism that will allow us to protect public procurement from risky suppliers. We also committed to removing Chinese surveillance equipment from government departments’ sensitive sites and dedicating additional resources within the Cabinet Office to scrutinise suppliers for potential national security threats. It is now crucial that we take the Bill through to Royal Assent, so that we can implement its many useful provisions.

This first group of amendments focuses on procurement rules for healthcare services and the national procurement policy statement. They overturn amendments made to the Bill on Report in this House. Amendments 1, 81 and 82 are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the Bill and the regulation of healthcare procurements. Engagement with the NHS has identified the requirement for a bespoke regime for healthcare services to drive the integration of healthcare and the development of better, more joined-up patient pathways through healthcare systems. This responds to the idiosyncrasies of the health system, as identified by those who work in it.

The forthcoming provider selection regime is a free-standing regulatory scheme of procurement rules which commissioners of healthcare services in the NHS and local government will follow when arranging healthcare services in their area. Parliament accepted this when passing the Health and Care Act 2022, which was debated for many days in this House. The DHSC published the results of its latest consultation in July and aims to lay the regulations in Parliament this Autumn. It would be incredibly unhelpful at this critical stage for both schemes, when both the healthcare regulations and the Procurement Bill are on the cusp of delivery, to start attempting to unpick it all. Doing so would add unacceptable and entirely avoidable costs and delays to both programmes for no tangible benefit.

Amendment 1 removes from the definition of a public authority in Clause 2(2)(a) the words “including the NHS”. This addition is unnecessary because it clearly meets the test for a public authority set out at Clause 2(a), which is that it is publicly funded. This is backed up by the fact that the relevant NHS bodies to be covered by this Bill as central government authorities are identified in draft regulations to be made under the power at Schedule 1(5). These regulations were consulted on over the summer and have been welcomed in this regard. Setting out the list of central government authorities in regulations is appropriate, as updates are needed from time to time as organisations inevitably change. Moreover, the NHS is not a single legal entity and does not have a clear meaning in law, so the naming of the NHS as a public authority in Clause 2 would have reduced clarity.

I turn now to Amendments 81 and 82. The version of what was then Clause 116 inserted on Report in this House needed to be removed and replaced with a provision that enables the DHSC to proceed with the provider selection regime. This is crucial for the reasons I have already set out, and I emphasise that this House will have the opportunity to scrutinise the new affirmative regulations when they are laid. I hope that I have been able to provide the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, whose Motions 1A and 81A deal with these matters, with sufficient reassurances and that she will not press her amendments today.

Amendments 4 and 5 removed two amendments from Report stage in the Lords relating to the national procurement policy statement. These required that, prior to publishing an NPPS, the Minister must give due regard to a number of specified principles and mandated the inclusion of a number of priorities in the NPPS itself. In respect of the first amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has subsequently tabled a modified version of it—in Motions 4A and 4B in lieu—which, as before, would require the Minister drafting the NPPS to have regard to a set of principles. The modification suggests a set of principles more in line with those we have already established in Clause 12, and I am happy to set out the Government’s stance on this issue now.

The Government recognise that these principles are important to procurement, which is why they are already reflected throughout the Bill. For example, value for money, integrity and maximising public benefit are set out as procurement objectives in Clause 12, which I have already mentioned. Contracting authorities must have regard to these when carrying out procurements, and transparency requirements already run throughout the Bill.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Before we proceed further in relation to Clause 12, will my noble friend confirm that the procurement objectives in Clause 12 relate to covered procurement only—that is, procurements that are in excess of the threshold—and therefore does not include exempt contracts, whereas the national procurement policy statement applies to all procurement?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

If I may, I will come back to that when I have finished presenting. I did ask that question today; I do not think there is that much difference, but I will come back to my noble friend.

There are other specific requirements in the Bill that place obligations on contracting authorities regarding the fair treatment of suppliers and non-discrimination in decision-making. On value for money, I know there is concern from across the House that it is often interpreted to mean lowest cost. We have sought to address this through the move from most economically advantageous tender to most advantageous tender at Clause 19, which stakeholders tell us is a powerful signal in this regard.

Including a similar set of principles in respect of the NPPS risks creating duplication and confusion when we are looking to simplify the regime. However, while the NPPS should focus on the priorities of the Government of the day, many of them are already reflected in the current non-statutory NPPS introduced by this Government, and we have consistently demonstrated our commitment to them through measures such as the strengthening of social value policy following the collapse of Carillion and the procurement policy on carbon reduction introduced in 2021. In addition, the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 will continue to exist alongside the new regime established by the Bill. I hope that this will satisfy the noble Baroness.

The second amendment made by this House added a sub-section which required the inclusion of specific priorities in the national procurement policy statement relating to achieving targets set under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021, meeting the requirements set out in the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, promoting innovation among potential suppliers and minimising the incidence of fraud. I believe that these issues are already addressed in the Bill—for example, in Clause 12—or elsewhere outside of this legislation. For example, the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 requires contracting authorities to consider the economic, social and environmental well-being of an area when planning specified procurement, and there are additional obligations imposed by the Environment Act 2021. From 1 November 2023, Ministers will be under a statutory duty to have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement when making policy and will be subject to this duty when preparing the NPPS.

Finally, the scope and extent of the NPPS needs to be flexible, and these things should not be set in stone. Noble Lords have highlighted net zero, social value and innovation, but new challenges arise, such as the security threat from the Russia-Ukraine war. The Government of the day need to be able to respond to each major new challenge in an appropriate manner, without needing to change primary legislation. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 1

Procurement Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Report stage
Monday 28th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My noble friend used the important word “security” in relation to security contracts, but surely Clause 11 and the procurement objectives apply to security contracts that exceed the threshold set in Schedule 1. In what sense is it inappropriate for the objectives or principles set out in Clause 11 to be applied simply because those thresholds fall below about £5 million?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I should reflect further on this. Clearly, some parts of the Bill are carved out. We have discussed this in relation to the NHS and we will discuss it on Wednesday in relation to the Ministry of Defence. We have to be very careful about national security—there is agreement on that across the House. I have been advised that the sheer breadth of Clause 11 would have a damaging effect if we apply this right across the board on procurement, and I am disturbed about that. I am happy to look at that further and talk further to my noble friend Lord Lansley.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, earlier today, we discussed government Amendment 34 on covered procurement, and, as promised, I have reflected on the contributions made by noble Lords. They will have noted that I left the Bill to my noble friend Lady Bloomfield for a while for this very purpose. I have looked at the implications of not proceeding with this amendment with my experts, and I still intend to move it. It is the Government’s view that, if it is not agreed, the objectives will still have to be considered for all procurements, including exempted procurements under Schedule 2, which would create the perverse situation I mentioned of needing to consider transparency in those exempted security contracts or—to give another example—contracts with law firms, which would include legally privileged information, and that would not be appropriate. It will also extend to small, low-value contracts, including those let by small authorities such as parish councils.

For these reasons, and those I set out earlier, I move Amendment 34. Should your Lordships disagree, the House can make its view known.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

If that is the argument, why will the national procurement policy statement be applied to all procurements and not just covered procurements?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

As we have discussed, the national procurement policy statement is wide-ranging. In the Bill, we have tried to set up a framework and lots of rules for contracting authorities to try to ensure that they are adopting procedures that will improve and simplify procurement, which, as we all agree in this House, is not in the state it needs to be in. We believe that not moving Amendment 34—that is, not restricting procurement in certain respects—will lead to a great deal more difficulty for contracting authorities, particularly in these exempt areas. We have looked at the exemptions carefully and, contrary to what I think my noble friend thinks, individual procurements would have to be considered in a much more detailed way as a result of the perverse effect without this amendment.

As I said, should your Lordships disagree, the House can make its view known, should it wish. I beg to move Amendment 34.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th October 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

And a three-month review. The point about inflation is that if you build it in—this is a wider economic point—and then it goes up further, you can get an inflationary spiral. We have to try to find a way for people to come together and think about how we can best handle that, and I think the current system does that well. That is certainly my own experience, having been involved in procurement on both sides of the divide.

You can write in three-monthly reviews, but the difficulty is that this is an all-embracing Act and putting that into the Bill could lead to a lot of extra meetings and reviews that might not fit in with simplicity. But obviously this is Committee and we will be reflecting further on the right thing to do. I thank my noble friend for, as always, pursuing her point with such clarity and doggedness.

Finally, this is not in my script but I would like to confirm that I and the team are looking back at the undertakings made on earlier days in Committee to make sure that balls are not dropped. I confirm that we will be arranging meetings on the SME angle, even though I am not able to champion them. I have already had a round table with SMEs and the official team to see what can be done. I do not want to overpromise, but we want to do our best. I respectfully request that the various non-government amendments be respectively withdrawn or not moved.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Thank you. That was a long group so the reply was necessarily substantial, and we are most grateful for that. I was happy to have the confirmation that KPIs must be quantifiable. I am still slightly uncertain whether 10% works very easily—maybe it would have been easier to express it as one month in a year or something like that to deal with time—but still I am grateful.

If the question of force majeure is taken up through the general terms and conditions, I just ask that it requires the system, as it were, to say that we have standard terms and conditions and, as a result of some of the debates on the Bill, we also need to look at our general terms and conditions, and how things are to be expressed in future. As far as Amendment 268 is concerned, I was grateful for the Minister’s response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I think the greatest brains behind me have not managed to answer the noble Baroness’s question—she has bowled another good ball. Perhaps we can add that to the list for our discussions.

With that, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, only 110 amendments to go, so, with the benefit of that promise of further discussions, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 436.

Trade Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, said, this short debate follows on from the debate that we had in this House on the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill on 17 December. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I am most grateful to the Minister for his letter of 4 January.

There are just two things that I want to say following on from that. The first is that I am grateful, but not surprised, that in his letter the Minister said that, although the wording in the amendments that we are now making to the Trade Bill varies slightly from the wording of the clauses in the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act, the legal effect is exactly the same. I do not think we ever thought that the legal effect would be different. What we find somewhat surprising is that, to achieve the same effect at virtually the same time in two pieces of legislation, the wording is not the same. That was a slightly surprising aspect of the drafting that we were presented with when we saw the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill last month.

Secondly, I raised the question of what is meant by, and what is the purpose of, the amendments that put into the Bill the saving provision in Clauses 8 and 9 —that

“nothing in this section authorises the making of a disclosure which … contravenes the data protection legislation”

or aspects of the Investigatory Powers Act. The purpose of the government amendments is to ensure that, when these pieces of legislation and their constraints on disclosure are considered, Ministers can also take into account the powers conferred in this clause.

The Minister’s letter refers to the Supreme Court case of the Christian Institute and others v the Lord Advocate in 2016. I have had the chance to read the judgment and it does indeed refer to the situation where there is in effect, under legislative provisions such as the data protection legislation, a statutory gateway that allows those provisions to be escaped from in circumstances where there are powers for disclosure in other enactments. In the absence of these provisions, the data protection legislation and the Investigatory Powers Act might well make it very difficult for the necessary disclosures to be made in certain specific circumstances. Therefore, it allows for them to be seen together.

Paraphrasing, I think, the language of the Supreme Court, it is necessary for anyone wanting to understand the effect of this clause to have this legislation in one hand and the data protection law—indeed, I would add the Investigatory Powers Act—in the other. It does not tell you how any particular instance would be resolved but it does tell you that both must be considered together, and that is entirely reasonable.

The only issue that one is left with when one reads both the legislation and the Supreme Court judgment is that the clauses we are looking at do not say that the disclosures made by public authorities must be necessary and proportionate. Therefore, I think that it would finally close the gap and make matters very clear if the Minister would confirm that, where these disclosures are made, or indeed where further public authorities have information disclosed to them for their trade functions, the disclosures must be necessary and proportionate to meet those functions.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the government amendments, which are technical in nature but allow proper co-operation between HMRC and the devolved authorities. As I was not able to be in the House in person during debates on the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act, I have probably not understood the purpose of Amendment 36A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara—but I have a question that perhaps he or my noble friend the Minister could kindly respond to.

I always worry about the wisdom of giving a power to amend primary legislation by order, particularly on the collection or disclosure of information by HMRC, which seems to be the issue in Clause 7(4). As a former international retailer, I know how commercially sensitive such information is and how onerous ill-thought-out form-filling requirements can be. I want to make sure that the power could not be misused by the Executive—we have seen a certain amount of evasion of scrutiny during Covid. I want an assurance from the Minister, assuming that the power to amend primary legislation is retained in what is now being proposed, that the power would be used sensibly. If it disappears, then that would also meet my concern.

Trade Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 4th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for interrupting him. Of course, there is a requirement to have proper appeals, as has just been elegantly explained by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, but I was interested in whether they had to be the subject of special tribunals or whether they could in fact be fitted into the existing court system. My main concern as a former business person is with speed. Sometimes tribunals, public interest tests and so on can be a field day for lawyers and the whole thing can take a very long time. That is not what we want. We want to be able to make sure that the interests of our industries and other players are properly protected.

[Lord Lansley]

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is absolutely right that the economic interest test is present in both Schedules 4 and 5 to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act. As set out there, the test seems to me to be capable of being, and is required under the legislation to be, taken down to the level of individual industries, looking specifically at affected industries and consumers and the likely impact on particular geographic areas or particular groups. It seems to me that the economic interest test is already capable of being disaggregated in the ways that the noble Lord is calling for.

The noble Lord and I have joined together on the issue of the public interest test in the past. I am not sure that you can define it in advance—that is the difficulty with it. Trying to write down what public interest the Secretary of State has to weigh up seems to be intensely difficult, as distinct from the economic interest test. It might include defence industries and security interests, and we see that coming through in relation to competition. We also see it in broadcasting and competition regimes. There are a range of competition-specific public interests, and I do not think that we are necessarily looking to restrict the test in that way in this legislation. Frankly, we might be better off simply looking at it and, if there are particular public interests that have to be protected as time goes on, we should perhaps have the power to add to them by way of regulation, as is the case with competition legislation.

Premium Bonds

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

We try to make sure that premium bonds are a reasonable deal in the market for savings. The noble Lord will probably know that we delayed reducing the rates on premium bonds until quite recently. They continue to be popular, and it makes sense to look at them in the round, aiming for a balance for savers and taxpayers, as well as stability in the sector, obviously, in which they have a role as part of NS&I’s work.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, will the Government consider giving pensioners who are eligible for the winter fuel payment the option of electing to receive premium bonds instead of a cash payment, thereby helping to meet the Government’s funding requirement and reducing the cash call on government?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That is another innovative idea for premium bonds. I will certainly think about it, but the basic point about premium bonds is that they have to be part of a portfolio of sensible savings, such as the investment bond that we are bringing in. That seems to me the right way to go. They are popular and successful, and they give people a bit of excitement, as well as easy access to saving, and there is a 100% Treasury guarantee.