Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hain, I think this is a rather good Bill, although I agree respectfully with him that these amendments, particularly those on international law, merit careful consideration by the Minister and the Government. I say that essentially for three reasons, and I can be brief.

First, the general approach in this country is that public bodies do not have their own interpretation of international law. It is the Government who assess international law obligations, because they are binding on the United Kingdom as a state.

That leads me to the second point, which might in part answer that made by my noble friend Lord Deben. The effect of the Bill as drafted is to introduce, by the back door, potentially vast swathes of international law into our domestic legislation. As I never tire of saying in this House, we have a dualist system: international law is not part of domestic law unless and until it is incorporated. So the answer to my noble friend’s point may well be this: if somebody were to say in a domestic court that a public authority was in breach of “the law” because it had not complied with some international law obligation that was not part of our domestic law, the public body’s obvious retort would be to say that it is not subject to that obligation.

The third point is a practical rather than legal one. My concern is that, in the real world, if the Bill is left as drafted it will in practice drive a coach and horses through what it really seeks to achieve, because the courts will be clogged up with arguments, even if they are entirely unmeritorious, as to the scope of international law. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, about Richard Hermer KC’s opinion: it is something of a curate’s egg, and I will perhaps come back to that in a later group. But I agree that, on this point, he is absolutely right to sound a note of warning and to highlight that the Bill as drafted risks undermining the Government’s ambitions for it.

I gently invite my noble friend the Minister to reconsider the Government’s approach to this international law question, which we can perhaps come back to at a future opportunity.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee because I did not participate in previous days in Committee or at Second Reading, but as these groups touch on the areas that I speak on from these Benches—international trade and international relations—I want to ask the Minister for clarity on a couple of areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I do not think there is a difference between us and the FCDO. If I may, I will move on to the other amendments, because I am trying, as I always do, to answer the questions noble Lords have asked. There are a number of different amendments in this group, and I think we should look at them in the round. I will turn to Amendments 18, 28 and 29.

I will start with Amendment 28, which is a probing amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, which would remove paragraph 6 of the schedule. She said that was a direct approach. I thank her, more generally, for her support for this legislation and for providing this opportunity to explain why this provision was included in the Bill. Paragraph 6 of the schedule makes an exception to the ban for considerations that a decision-maker in a public authority reasonably considers to be relevant to compliance with the UK’s obligations under international law.

Amendments 29 and 18, as the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, has explained, would remove the existing exception and replace it with a narrower exception that would only allow public authorities to consider international law in a way that is influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct, in line with regulations made by the Secretary of State. I would like to thank him, and my noble friend Lady Noakes, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for raising this matter. I acknowledge the noble Lord’s and my noble friend’s valuable expertise in this area— of course, they have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is not in his place, my noble friends Lady Altmann and Lord Wolfson.

There are very limited examples of when this clause might be relevant to public authorities, such as when abiding by sanctions under international law. It is therefore intended as a safeguard. I appreciate the noble Lord’s concern that public authorities could make their own subjective interpretations of foreign policy that are not aligned with the foreign policy of the UK Government. This exception can only be exercised by public authorities in a way that is “reasonable”. It would be up to the enforcement authority, or the courts, to determine whether the exception was exercised reasonably.

However, I appreciate noble Lords’ various concerns on this matter, including the impact on the courts, and the Government will consider these. We will no doubt return to the international law issue on Report. I thank noble Lords for their insightful contributions—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Can I press the Minister on that? My understanding is that, under the Bill, in the absence of a Minister or the Government coming to a determination that international law has been breached, a decision-maker in a public authority can make the decision that there is the potential of a breach. Therefore, a decision-making body at the moment, for example—because Ministers are warning the Israeli Government that their actions in the West Bank and Occupied Territories are potentially in breach of international law—would be permitted under Schedule 6 to make a decision not to invest.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am not sure that I entirely understand the noble Lord’s question, but I will reflect on it. We will come relatively shortly to a group that will look at these issues more broadly. If I am able to do so, I will come back to him at that point.

As I have already said, various concerns have been raised, which we will consider. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that we value this House’s expertise, as I said at Question Time only last week. The Government will continue to think carefully about the important points that have been made. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I have it in print, from many years ago, but I am glad that it is no longer the case. I can share it with the noble Lord. The analogy should not be pushed that far.

I also note that a group called Muslim Vote, which has put 18 demands to Sir Keir Starmer, has as the 17th demand the throwing out of the Bill, which I think shows what the group understands the point of the Bill to be: simply that it might stand in the way of whatever its aims are in relation to Gaza.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, part of the concern about the Bill is not its narrow scope but that it is extremely broad in its scope. Indeed, it would have a chill effect on decisions made across the country by decision-makers, fully consistent with their human rights obligations. I therefore support the thrust of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Collins.

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggests that it is not possible to define human rights. I think her Front Bench and previous Front Benches, going back a very long time, will disagree with her; the FCDO publishes annual human rights reports. Her disagreement is not necessarily with the Bill but with the Government.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I merely said that it was not defined in Amendment 19.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

It does not need to be defined in Amendment 19 because it would adopt the normal practice of human rights, as defined in the definitions at the front of the Government’s annual report on human rights—which I am sure the noble Baroness reads on an annual basis, as I do.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, indicated, those human rights reports refer to a separate category of countries, the priority countries, and he named them: the A to Z is Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. The thrust of the Bill seems to suggest that, unless the Government, through legislation, put sanctions to limit trade with certain countries, any decision-makers would not be able to make any decisions about investing in that country. That is contrary to current practice with countries from A to Z on the priority list.

For example, other than the sanctions that exist against certain elements of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the Bill would prohibit a decision-maker in the United Kingdom deciding not to invest in a Taliban state-owned enterprise. That is extraordinary. Under this legislation, a decision-maker would be prohibited from making a decision about investing in a mining or a gold company in Zimbabwe, which has had many concerns over human trafficking and other human rights concerns. That is also extraordinary, because unless the Government have put in trade sanctions, the Bill will prohibit any other decision-making.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

I very much support what the noble Lord said about Zimbabwe. He will know that there was a lot of corruption in the Marange diamond mines, with Government Ministers taking a rake-off from those diamonds. We should be boycotting diamonds from conflict zones such as that, or where corruption is involved—there are many other examples in Africa. I very much support the noble Lord’s point. The Bill would stop public authorities doing that.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. Not only do I agree with him but it goes beyond that. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the point for me. Where bribery or labour-related misconduct are concerned, unless the Schedule relates to those, and there are general human rights concerns stated in the priority countries list, a decision-maker who uses the priority list—or, indeed, those issues that have been campaigned on, such as blood diamonds as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and my noble friend Lord Oates—would be in breach of law. That cannot be right, so I would be grateful if the Minister could put my mind at rest.

[Lord Warner (CB)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord; I am trying to be helpful. It seems to me that it is even worse than he is saying. Clause 4(1) means that a democratically elected person could not even publish a statement saying that, had it been lawful, he or she would have done X or Y. It is not just that they cannot do it; they cannot even talk about doing it, even though they have been democratically elected by much of their population to take action in a moral and ethical way.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord as that leads on to my next question. It relates to those who are democratic figures in those countries and, indeed, our country.

As regards this country, my reading of this legislation is that, if I, in Parliament, call on the Government to sanction, let us say, a foreign Government’s Minister, or an enterprise or a body operating in another country—as I have done regularly in relation to the Wagner Group, by calling on British enterprises not to trade with those enterprises owned by the Wagner Group —I would be a person under this Bill whom a body would have to disregard. Not only are the Government seeking the nonsense that decision-makers should set aside due diligence on human rights, they are seeking to neuter parliamentarians raising the very concerns that we have raised on a regular basis.

I remind the Minister why this is so important: on 12 occasions, I had called for the proscription of the Wagner Group, and called on any British enterprises to desist from having any relationship with it, before the Government made the decision to proscribe it. Up until the point that the Government made the decision to proscribe the group, which I supported, I was in contravention of this Bill. I was in contravention of it on all the occasions that I called on the Government to do what I asked them to do, which they then did.

The nonsense of this legislation gets serious when it comes to Parliament raising human rights concerns about other countries. One country on the list is the DRC. A country not on the list is Rwanda. I have raised human rights concerns about the March 23 group in the conflict between Rwanda and the DRC. I am prohibited from calling on any British bodies not to trade with a group that is not currently proscribed by the British Government.

I refuse to be neutered in this Chamber, by this Bill, on raising human rights concerns. The Leader of the House is shaking his head from a sedentary position as to how I might be neutered by this Bill. I am sure that he has read the Bill. I am allowing him to intervene on me to explain why I am wrong in my interpretation of this Bill.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am talking about not the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, but the Leader. No, the Leader prefers to shake his head and not to intervene. In his absence, I can think of no better deputy than the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I will answer the noble Lord’s question: he is not a “decision-maker” for the purpose of this Bill.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am not a decision-maker for the purpose of this Bill but, under Clause 1(7)(b) of this Bill, I am considered to be a “person”. A decision- maker making a decision based on what I asked them to do would be prohibited. Now the noble Baroness is shaking her head. Why would I not be considered a “person” under Clause 1(7)(b)?

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I am not going to waste the time of the House getting into these nitpicking debates. The noble Lord is not covered by this Bill.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I do not think that it is nitpicking. I would be considered a person when a body was making a decision based on what I called them to do. I know that I am not a decision-maker, nor am I a Minister of the Crown, nor am I an exempted officeholder, but I would be considered a person calling on bodies to act. If bodies choose to act on what I say, they are currently prohibited under this from acting.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

The central point the noble Lord is seeking to make is that he will not be neutered. He would not be neutered because this Bill does not prevent any person seeking to influence a decision-maker. What it will do is prevent the decision-maker acting on those considerations if they are contrary to the Bill. The noble Lord can say what he likes here, in the street or anywhere else. This is a totally futile point.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful that Hansard will record the contradictory nature of the noble Lord’s intervention on me, when it comes to the nonsensical nature of the point of seeking to influence groups. Let me turn to why—

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am hesitant to interrupt an interruption, but I will. One of the issues we have discussed—it is about Clause 4 as well—is what hat somebody is wearing. For example, a leader of a council might go to a political conference and argue a particular policy. He is a decision-maker but is not performing a decision-making function. The people who might hear his speech at that political conference might think, “He is our leader; he will influence us”, so there is an impact on people being able to advocate particular policies. Is that not true?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I think it is. Other noble Lords may think not. I am looking forward to the Minister’s response to make sure that this is clear.

I wish to move the Committee on to a specific question about British International Investment. That is a body which receives its funding from government—from the taxpayer—but it is charged with making investment decisions in emerging economies. It operates under its ethical investment policy. It has a toolkit and operates under its own set of compliance rules when it comes to how it defines human rights. It takes international obligations under its co-ordination. That policy is not set by Ministers and is not determined by the Government. It makes its own, independent decisions on which countries it invests in.

British International Investment could choose, under its toolkit, not to invest in any of the human rights priority countries. My reading of this Bill is that this will be prohibited. Unless the Government specifically state that BII should not make investment decisions, BII would be in the scope of this Bill. That would be another very retrograde step for the UK with a development institution such as BII leading the charge on international human rights determinations for investments. I would be grateful if the Minister could state that BII is specifically exempt from this Bill.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I was not at Second Reading because, as some of you know, I have been away for six months for reasons I will not explain.

The argument goes on from side to side, but the simple answer for me lies not just in the Bill but in the Explanatory Notes on economic activities of public bodies overseas. In the background to this legislation, we are told by those who prepared it that, if people argue that there should be no investment in Uganda—let me just give that as an example, as it is the country I come from—because of a number of human rights questions, the public body should not agree to that if the Government’s policy is different.

I find the Explanatory Notes absolutely disturbing for any democratic body. Many noble Lords know that I led a campaign against Robert Mugabe’s regime. In fact, I cut up my dog collar and never wore it for nine years and nine months. Some people would have said, “You are an archbishop of the Church of England, so you are part of a public body. The Government have not stated that you could do such and such a thing; therefore you will be in breach”. I find this sentence disturbing. There may be those who want, for example, to say that we must disinvest from a particular body, country or place because it is breaching part of our understanding and that sanctions should be brought, but paragraph 6 states:

“The Government has set out its view that it is not appropriate for public bodies to accede to such campaigns except where to do so is positively consistent with the UK’s foreign policy as determined by the Government. The Conservative Party manifesto for the 2019 Election included a commitment to ‘ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries.’ This Bill is intended to fulfil that commitment”.


Friends, in a free democracy, should we rule out public bodies that may feel, for example, that they should not invest such an amount of money and have our people working with a Government who are oppressing their people from doing so unless it is consistent with government policy? Sometimes opposition to certain things tells us who we are. I trust, I think because of our parliamentary democracy, that things will be challenged in both Houses but, for heaven’s sake, why impose such a thing on a public body? Are we simply saying that the Government cannot err, cannot turn a blind eye, cannot behave in a way that their citizens may find quite difficult? Some of us campaigned against the South African apartheid Government. At that time, there was a particular sort of Government who did not agree with sanctions. I remember arriving in Cambridge. We wanted to boycott green apples from South Africa. There was no way of doing this, but some of us decided to go to Sainsbury’s and announce as loudly as we could, “We are not buying these green apples from South Africa”. Do you know what happened? We never saw those green apples any more in Sainsbury’s. That is democracy. You cannot ban a public body from engaging in an activity which those who belong to it may feel very strongly about.

The Bill is trying to do something, but it is the way it is drafted. The explanation given has a chilling effect on a lot of us, because it suggests that the Government, of whatever shape, will always get it right, that, somehow, they have become omnicompetent and omniscient, and that there are no areas where because of political pressure they will not do it. I know where the Bill is trying to go, but it needs far greater revision if we are going to protect the rule of law in this country and not suggest that the Government always get it right. Some of our foreign policies have not been good. Somehow, we have spoken. Noble Lords have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said about some people from Africa. I find it disturbing that they would think that Ukraine should not be supported because all of them—and I am being honest—are getting a lot of money from Russia and are being supported by China, so any criticism of China and Russia, as far as the African continent is concerned, is very bad, but they will find it very easy to say, “What about Gaza? Why aren’t you doing so much about it?”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Why is British International Investment singled out as a body which is able to operate its own independent human rights impact assessment for where it chooses to invest, while other decision-makers cannot?

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I will need to write to him on the specific case of BII, as I do not have the details to hand.

In answer to one of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, the Bill is fulfilling a manifesto commitment to prevent BDS influencing public authorities in undermining community cohesion, which is why Israel is named in the Bill and why there are currently, as I believe, no exemptions. As I think the noble Lord is aware, we are intending to add exemptions under statutory instrument following the passing of the Bill.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, all I am doing is highlighting that, when it comes to gross breaches of human rights around the world, Israel is treated differently, both in the manner that I have described and, if I may say so respectfully, by the noble Lord in his contributions to this House. When people stop treating Israel differently, Clause 3(7) will not be needed, but until then it is a necessary and essential part of this Bill.

I am disappointed to see His Majesty’s Opposition supporting the amendment. I echo the comments of my noble friend Lord Leigh about the regard that many of us have—certainly I do personally—for the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury. He will understand that, when I say I am disappointed at the Opposition’s stance, I am not making a personal comment, but I am disappointed at the substantive position that they are taking.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The noble Lord knows that I listen attentively to what he says. Earlier he said that the Occupied Palestinian Territories were being afforded a protection under the Bill. He is aware that existing trading and investment relations are covered by a UK-Palestinian Authority bilateral agreement. Is he aware that the Palestinian Authority has asked for this protection?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I am looking at the time. I am happy to continue this conversation elsewhere, but I will say this: I would be happy if Clause 3(7) encompassed not only Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories but the Palestinian Authority, because I do not want anybody using divestment or boycotts as a lever in the Middle East. We should all be working for peace, and we do not work for peace through BDS. I hope that the Opposition will reconsider their position but, in the meantime and with apologies to the House for overstaying my welcome a little, I support the Bill as drafted and therefore oppose the noble Lord’s amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I have one more thought. Recently I was the chair of Christian Aid and we did quite a lot of work in Gaza—there was a lot on educational health. I am no longer the chair, but the memory that I have is of people who somehow were in a very difficult place. Now, I do not know how you can describe it, because it is just horrendous. How do we as legislators find a way of never losing sight of our hope that the State of Israel will ultimately one day live in peace, the Palestinian people will have their own self-determination, and the neighbours around Israel will not intimidate it in whatever way? How do we create the thing that has eluded all of us? I suspect in the end that this legislation has to be extremely careful that it does not scare the horses or give assurance which you cannot actually physically deliver, because that is what can happen. It does not change the footprints on the ground. One last thought is from Martin Luther King, Jr. He said that, in the end, what we will remember are not the terrible actions and words of our enemies but the silence of our friends.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, inevitably this group has raised the wider issues that we have debated within it. A week has not gone by without either Statement repeats or Questions that I have contributed to. Since 7 October, I have visited the region; I have visited the kibbutzim, the hostage families and the illegal outposts and settlements. I say, in the most sincere way I can, to the Minister, that I do not believe that this particular part of the Bill and the Bill as a whole will reduce any of the tensions or make a complex situation any simpler or clearer. For many people, it will make the situation even more complex and divisive at the very time when we need there to be more common ground. So it is with regret that I need to support the amendments in this group.

Paragraph 20 of the impact assessment states:

“The intended outcome of the Bill is to ensure there is a consistent approach to”


UK Government foreign policy. However, it should also be noted that there has been inconsistency in the statements of Ministers over recent months. On 12 March, the Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, replied to my question on the occupation of Gaza:

“It is our legal position, and has been for some time, that Israel is the occupying power in Gaza”.—[Official Report, 12/3/24; col. 1913.]


However, on 24 April, a Home Office Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, replied to my question on Gaza:

“I might dispute the noble Lord’s premise there: I am not sure that I would characterise it as an occupying power”.—[Official Report, 24/4/24; col. 1466.]


So there is inconsistency even between government departments.

I would have thought that the definitive position on the topic would be the statement from the Government in their document on the strategic objectives of a UK-Israel free trade agreement, which sets the parameters for UK trade and investment with the State of Israel. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, is listening, as it states in very clear terms:

“The UK is clear that it does not recognise the Occupied Palestinian Territories as part of Israel, including the settlements. The UK is clear that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal under international law. As set out in FCDO guidance on overseas business risk, there are clear risks related to economic and financial activities in the settlements”.


This Bill is a very substantial change to government policy that is still extant in the discussions between the UK Government and the Government of Israel over an FTA. I have no opposition to those discussions when it comes to UK free trade—as we said at Second Reading, these Benches do not support the BDS campaign and never have—but we cannot have this Bill and that statement at the same time. Which is the superior element? We know, I think, that when this Bill becomes legislation, it will trump the statement, but there needs to be a change in government policy so that the Bill does not state simply that authorities must adhere to government policy, because the Bill is changing government policy.

Currently, a business choosing to invest or carry out business in the Occupied Palestinian Territories will be referred to the business risk and it can make its own judgment as to whether that risk will outweigh the benefit—or it may be liable for legal considerations. This Bill will prohibit it from making that decision, which is wrong and makes no sense for our relationship with either the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the State of Israel.

It is doubly wrong because, as many noble Lords may know, the issue is not just about the settlements. There are also outposts. The fastest growth recently has been in outposts in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. For Members of the Committee who may not be aware, outposts—the fastest-growing element—are illegal under Israeli law. This Bill would prohibit anyone making a decision to invest in something which is illegal under Israeli law. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that point, because it is a very significant issue.

My noble friend Lord Oates made a very convincing argument about the inclusion in Clause 1(7) of an equivalence in law, notwithstanding the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. I am not going to make a semantic argument about whether there is a comma, or an “or” that should have been an “and”. The issue of substance is perfectly clear. It is the argument that the noble Lord said he would reflect on when I asked him about this question.

Why does this Bill provide protections to the Occupied Palestinian Territories when they have not asked for that? Indeed, they have specifically asked not to have it, because it is not a protection; it is an inhibitor for the British authorities to police the current British approach of advising on risk for investments in the illegal settlement areas of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It removes protection, and the concern about the subsection is that it removes it in perpetuity, because it does not allow Ministers to change the schedules when it comes to singling out the outposts that I referred to before. We might have to rely only on the element of sanctions when we have designated individuals who are settlers. That is the only time there would be the prevention of having an economic relationship with them. So, instead of offering a protection, the Bill singles out a diminishing of the ability of those within the Occupied Palestinian Territories to protect themselves effectively.

I can inform the Committee that this is not an esoteric or theoretical argument; it is active now. Every six months the British consul writes to the Israeli Government seeking compensation for settler violence—compensation which seeks redress through the Israeli courts. The investment risks are real, but the Bill would prohibit any British decision-maker from taking that into consideration. That cannot be right.

Finally, I regret the fact that Ministers have given inconsistent statements on the position of the Occupied Territories. There is confusion about the investments. I ask one final question of the Minister. There may well be—and in fact there are—public-private partnerships that include British investors in enterprises both in Israel and in the Palestinian Authority area. If their partner in Israel or the Palestinian Authority area chose to stop that activity as a result of their own Government’s policy—we know that that is happening, particularly in Tel Aviv—the British partner would be prohibited from ending that agreement. Surely that is a nonsensical position. So my appeal to the Minister is to pause and reflect, even at this late stage, not only the diplomatic consequences of this measure but on its practical implications, which could be considerable.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I echo a number of the noble Lord’s comments. I must admit I find it difficult to understand how, at a moment of crisis in the Middle East, the Government have allowed Michael Gove to proceed with this reckless diplomatic and cavalier approach. How can we be a credible voice for a two-state solution when they legislate at home against their own foreign policy? That is the key issue.

I said repeatedly at Second Reading and in many groups that I recognised that there was a problem. My party recognises that there is a problem. We do not support BDS; we oppose it. How, in this very delicate situation, do we deal with it? You do not deal with it by undermining the very thing that would bring about peace and stability for Israel. Sadly, as we have heard from across the House, the Bill means a protracted legal battle in the courts. It will create more uncertainty than it addresses and, worse, it simply fuels yet more division. It will have achieved nothing. In fact, it could make matters worse. That is my position, and my party’s position.

On my previous amendment, we hoped to find a way forward where we could work together without causing those divisions. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, too; I have seen his work in action in Israel. I have seen my noble friend Lord Turnberg’s work trying to build intercommunity respect, peace and activity. I applaud that work and want to see it continue.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for his comments. I feel a bit left out as the only person who has not been to Palestine or Israel. I was due to go on 7 October. As we have discussed, this amendment would remove Section 37 from the Bill so that Ministers could by secondary legislation allow public authorities to carry out their own boycott campaigns against Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the occupied Golan Heights. I am keen to make progress on our line-by-line consideration of the Bill, but I think I should briefly repeat that this legislation has three objectives: first, to uphold the integrity of British foreign policy decided by the Cabinet collectively on advice from the FCDO and others; secondly, to enable public authorities to focus on their core functions when delivering for the public on investment and procurement and to avoid damage to community cohesion; and, thirdly, to prevent the most divisive of these campaigns by public authorities which target Israel in particular and promote anti-Semitism in the UK.

We have seen the disturbing things happening in our universities today, with Jewish students not feeling safe, and what has happened in some local authorities in recent years. Our manifesto commitment and this Bill seek to address one aspect of the current troubles, including divestment campaigns. We need to find a way through. I am grateful for the suggestion of meetings between now and Report.

This amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, would allow Ministers to negate by secondary legislation the key objective of our primary legislation. That would not be right. We have heard from the Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Leigh, about how the BDS campaign singles out the world’s only Jewish state for unique treatment, and we heard in the Public Bill Committee of the distress felt by the Jewish community when Israel is targeted in such a manner by public authorities that, it seems to it, in no other case attempt to pursue foreign policy. These anti-Israel BDS campaigns do very little to promote peace in the Middle East, while sowing division and distrust in the UK.

I want to take the opportunity of our discussion of international issues to return briefly to the question raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. He asked whether public authorities would make the judgment of whether a procurement or investment decision risked putting the UK in breach of international law. Public authorities would make that judgment. They would need to do so to the existing legal standard of reasonableness and would be subject to the enforcement powers in the Bill if they did not. I have committed to taking away and considering carefully the points made about international law today, and I look forward to returning to that issue on Report.

Let me return to my overall case. The purpose of Clause 3(7) is to give Parliament the ability to scrutinise a future ministerial decision that would reverse a core objective of this legislation. Such a decision could have a very harmful effect on community cohesion while doing very little to advance peace and security in the Middle East. The amendment would allow Ministers to use secondary legislation to negate the key objectives. That would undermine parliamentary sovereignty. Should a future Government wish to allow such campaigns by public authorities, they should go through the same legislative scrutiny that this Government are going through to prevent them. The Government have ensured in the Bill that the scope of delegated powers is appropriately limited and that the core of the Bill cannot be altered by statutory instrument. In addition to this clause, we have limited the ability of the Secretary of State to remove local authorities, UK and devolved government Ministers and local government pension schemes from the scope. I also want to highlight that we have not received any challenge from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee with regard to the Bill.

We should be in no doubt that preventing BDS campaigns by public authorities against Israel, the Occupied Territories and the occupied Golan Heights is a core part of the Bill. This is due to the impact that such campaigns can have in contributing to and legitimising anti-Semitism, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.

However, it is important to note that nothing in the Bill changes our foreign policy in regard to these areas. We do not recognise—I emphasise this—the settlements as part of Israel. Our position is reflected in our continued support for UN Security Council Resolution 2334. The Government’s position is that the Bill is in compliance with that resolution. My noble friend Lord Wolfson explained well why this is the case, and why Israel can, and should, be treated differently, reflecting the way that it is often singled out for unique treatment by many others.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She is responding very carefully to this debate. It is the Government’s position that the Occupied Palestinian Territories are a separate legal entity that the Government of Israel do not represent. Indeed, the UK has its own direct bilateral relationships with the representatives of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Have they asked for the particular protections under this clause?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, our position on the Middle East peace process, which I am not sure entirely answers the noble Lord’s question, is that we support a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel, living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states, and a just, fair, agreed and realistic settlement for refugees.

My noble friend Lord Ahmad updated the House earlier on Gaza. The Prime Minister has told Prime Minister Netanyahu and regional leaders that we are deeply concerned about the prospect of a military offensive in Rafah. The immediate priority must be a humanitarian pause in the fighting, which is the best route to secure the safe release of hostages and significantly step up aid to Gaza.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. With respect, she has not answered my question. The Government do not recognise the Government of Israel to represent the Occupied Palestinian Territories in our discussions with their representatives. I ask in clear terms, since we are at the stage in this legislation where it has to be crystal clear, have the representatives of the OPTs requested the protections under the Bill in this clause?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am clear that the Occupied Territories are separate. I think that that three-quarters answers the noble Lord’s question but let me reflect further. I certainly would not want to mislead him on such an important point.

Ministers: Legal Costs

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The statement the Secretary of State made this morning was full and clear. I have a great deal of respect for the Secretary of State. The action she took in the aftermath of 7 October was very understandable. We have now moved forward and resolved this. We should be caring about how we improve science and technology in this country.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The Secretary of State told the Select Committee that she is now clear that she should have sent the letter privately. Was she advised by her officials working at that time of night that it would be appropriate to send part of it on X? If she was not then she was acting with her own personal judgment on the issue, so why is the taxpayer having to pay for that error?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I have explained the circumstances about why the taxpayer gets involved in legal expenses. I note the noble Lord’s point.

Nuclear Test Veterans: Medals

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Government said in their Statement, 70 years ago the UK undertook its first nuclear test, and in doing so confirmed our status as the world’s third nuclear power. Critical to that success, as the Government acknowledged in the Statement, were those who took part in the nuclear testing programme. By taking part in that programme, they made a huge contribution to our national security and that of many other nations. They did so out of duty and pride in their country, but not without consequences. It is right that, at long last, their bravery and sacrifice are to be recognised. Tuesday’s announcement was a huge victory for our nuclear test veterans and their families. Finally, they will receive the long-overdue recognition that they richly deserve through this nuclear test veterans’ medal.

We should also recognise and congratulate all the campaigners who have campaigned over so many years for such recognition. It cannot be overstated that we owe them a huge debt of gratitude for their service far away from home and for the fact that, because of their service, we have a nuclear deterrent. As I said, this deterrent has contributed to the defence and security of our democracy and the values we hold dear. We should never forget that and always pay homage to them.

We should also remember that their commitment to our country often came at great personal cost to those individuals and their families. We should never forget that reports state that nuclear test veterans have a legacy of cancers, blood disorders and rare diseases, with their wives and partners reporting three times the usual rate of miscarriage. Their children also have higher rates of various conditions, including infant mortality. That is and was the cost of our nation’s safety. These veterans and their families have paid for that safety.

Given that it is estimated that only 1,500 of the 22,000 service personnel who took part are still alive, does the Minister hope, as I do, that their families and descendants will feel that a historic injustice has at last been recognised? Given that, rightly, the medals can be awarded posthumously, will the Minister ensure that sufficient resources are put into finding the living descendants of nuclear test veterans so that all who served are recognised? Will the Minister also commit to ensuring that the criteria for eligibility for the nuclear test veterans’ medal are made as wide as possible?

It has been reported that some blood test results have been withheld from veterans’ families seeking answers about the long-term effects of their service. Will these records be made available if these reports are accurate? Could the Minister comment on this?

There have also been media reports that the advisory military sub-committee had recommended that the nuclear test veterans should not get a medal but, rightly and thankfully, it is reported that this was overruled by Ministers and the Government. Does this suggest to the Government that there needs to be a wider review of the system of awarding medals to serving military personnel and veterans?

Finally, it has been 70 years since these military personnel doing their duty gave this service to their country. It should not require campaigns, media articles and the bravery of the veterans’ families and the veterans themselves to get their own country to recognise their sacrifice. We very much welcome this announcement from the Government and the subsequent announcements associated with it that the Government have made. In doing so, we at last recognise the campaigners and the families but, above all, the veterans, as their country thanks them properly for their service. It will not be forgotten and, through this medal, it will be honoured.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the very valid questions he asked. I welcome this move. It was a change of heart from the Government, but nevertheless a welcome move for those military and civilian personnel who served their nation and now will, finally, be properly recognised. Notwithstanding views about the weapons system itself, these people served their country and recognition—unfortunately, as the noble Lord indicated—has come too late for many. However, it will provide some comfort to their families that an often-disregarded service is now being recognised.

How many civilians will be eligible for recognition and the medal? On support, which the noble Lord asked so clearly about, in replying to questions on the Statement in the Commons, the Veterans Minister, Mr Mercer, indicated that pensions were available. But, of those who are eligible for pensions, what is the Government’s estimate of the proportion who are receiving them? Often, this is, in effect, an opt-in. There is the very valid point about promoting material through the various networks. Some of these veterans will be part of veterans’ associations and others will not, so how will the Government disseminate and promote this information?

My final question is on the indigenous communities in the areas where these tests took place. The indigenous communities in Australia did not voluntarily offer their land for British nuclear tests, and they too have been impacted. The Minister in the Commons indicated that the UK Government provided £20 million then to clear this up, but the legacy is much longer. I met with the acting high commissioner of Australia this week, and she raised with me the good work now being done with the new Prime Minister of Australia in seeking to enhance recognition of the indigenous communities. We can play our part with our allies and friends in the Australian Government by increasing our recognition of the impact on their communities of something that has made our country safer, as the Government say, but which has unfortunately made many of those communities less safe. So, what do the Government plan to do for the indigenous communities in places where these tests took place?

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

My Lords, as the noble Lord said, Tuesday’s announcement was a huge victory for the nuclear test veterans. Since the very positive announcement by the Minister for Veterans on Tuesday was taken as read, I will make three points by way of introduction before I answer the noble Lords’ questions.

As the noble Lord said, the UK undertook its first nuclear test 70 years ago and, in so doing, confirmed our country’s status as the world’s third nuclear power, which has helped to keep peace since World War II. Critical to the success were those who took part in our national testing programme. There is a direct line between their service all those years ago and the safety and security of our nation today, which becomes ever more important.

Secondly, in recognition of their service and the 70th anniversary, the Government are undertaking a wide programme of recognition to pay tribute to all service personnel, and civilians—that is so important—who took part in the testing programme in Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Kiribati. We owe them a great debt of gratitude. The programme of recognition began this week with the UK Government’s first commemorative event at the National Memorial Arboretum, with the Prime Minister himself announcing the creation of a new medal for military and civilian participants in the testing programme. It was wonderful that Ministers, veterans and their families gathered at the arboretum to thank all those who were present and the families of those whom we have lost.

Thirdly, this has been a cross-party matter, as the Veterans Minister said in the other place. It is not only people like the Secretary of State for Defence who have been involved in all of this; so have Rebecca Long Bailey, John Baron and Sir John Hayes. People from across the parties have been involved, which is unusual and well worth celebrating.

Clearly, I am new to this subject, but I will try to answer all of the questions and I will follow up on those I do not. We will of course need resources to find who should be given the medals, and it is clear that the process has to get under way. I do not think we have given an estimate of the numbers, but we are keen to make this a success and look generously at who should be awarded.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, talked about pensions. The question was raised in the other place and the Minister for Veterans indicated that he would be writing on this issue. What I can say is that I will ensure that a copy of that letter also gets sent to noble Lords engaged in this debate, and I will try to add to the request the percentage of those eligible, which I think is an additional one. We will do what we can. It was quite a long time ago and it is often quite difficult to find answers to these questions, but we can certainly look at the pensions. Of course, veterans who believe they have suffered ill health due to service can apply for no-fault compensation under the war pension scheme, and more information is on the Veterans UK pages on GOV.UK, including specific guidance for the nuclear test veterans.

I was asked about plans for reviewing medals more generally, and I have to say that there are currently no plans to review the assessment process; it is a well-established process. The Advisory Military Sub-Committee is an independent committee; it has robust processes in place to review historic military medals and claims against the military medals framework.

Finally, I will say how important it was to acknowledge the indigenous populations, whose traditional lands and territorial seas were used for nuclear testing. As the noble Lord said, this has already been the subject of a £20 million ex gratia payment to Australia to help rehabilitate former lands and seas. I was very interested to hear about the discussions he has been having with the Australians, and I look forward to catching up further on that.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Developed Countries

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

In my experience, you can only get action, especially in an international context, if you have constructive discussion. In terms of our contribution, the UK spent £2.4 billion on our international climate finance between 2016 and 2020 on adaptation and investment in areas that needed to address loss and damage. The Scottish Government fund is £2 million.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, there is no point in offering the least-developed countries support for loss and damage if our Government are removing funding from other areas of that community. For all the figures that the Minister has stated today from the Dispatch Box, how much is new money and how much of it is simply reallocated from the arbitrary cap of 0.5%?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

We made very generous commitments to funding on climate change last year. We are sticking to those; the Prime Minister made it clear on the steps of Downing Street that he regarded protecting the environment as very important. Sometimes you change the priority which you give to different aspects of the climate change matter, but that is the way to move forward and do things better, and the announcements that have been made today are directed exactly at that. I am delighted at the progress that is being made today, but the question is whether the discussions will deliver what we want over the next two weeks. We look forward to reporting on that when COP 27 ends.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th October 2022 Grand Committee

This amendment is to get confirmation from the Minister that all such agreements and all such additions to Schedule 9 would be in relation to international agreements laid before Parliament under CRaG. I beg to move.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord’s endeavours. He and I have debated with Ministers on many occasions the interaction between the CRaG process, our international negotiations and the regrettable times when there has been, to some extent, circumvention of that approach. Therefore, I am glad he has put forward his amendment to seek clarification, as he outlined.

I have Amendment 441 in this group, which is a probing amendment to test a little further the Government’s thinking about the interaction with treaty state suppliers. It is my understanding that the countries in the schedule are only those with which we have an agreement where there is a procurement chapter or some procurement elements. It has not entirely been spelt out; I will be grateful if the Minister can confirm that this is the case.

When I looked through those countries, I noticed that there is not a single country from Africa in any of these arrangements. It may be that none of the EPAs we have rolled over have procurement chapters. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked a question, and I ask the Minister whether that is the case. For example, in the SADC agreement, we have a chapter for co-operation which may lead to formal procurement agreements. I will be grateful if the Minister can simply clarify the reasons why those countries are in Schedule 9 and others were left out. It may lead to a couple of jarring interactions on the approach, but I am sure the Minister will be able to clarify that point.

My second question relates to our debates on the interaction between the UK system now, including guidance, and treaty state supplying nations. In a debate on Monday, I asked questions relating to exclusions. For example, on human trafficking and slave labour, why is it only a discretionary ground if a supplier would have met a threshold of having a prevention order, whereas if they had met the threshold of a conviction, it would be a mandatory exclusion ground? We in the All-Party Group on Human Trafficking and Modern Slavey have lobbied hard to ensure that, where there are serious allegations of modern slavery, forced labour or human trafficking, there are mechanisms that UK purchasing bodies and supply chains can automatically trigger. This could bring in some grey areas. I do not believe that is the Government’s intention, but it could be an unintended consequence, especially when it comes to very large frameworks and supply chains within those countries.

I will give an example regarding one of the countries in this list, Colombia. We have debated the human rights situation in Colombia with regard to the agreement we have signed. The EU paused the agreement, but the UK did not. There are very few mechanisms in this Bill where we can use the rest of the text of the Colombia agreement on human rights as a triggering mechanism when we procure from organisations or state enterprises in Colombia.

This is just my ignorance, so the Minister might be able to clarify this: are state-owned enterprises in treaty state countries treated the same as private sector companies? I assume they would be, but it opens up a different area of concern for me.

The second linked area is on human rights elements. We have an agreement, and are looking for future agreements, with Israel. The Minister will know that, under the European agreement that we have rolled over, there had been a clear dividing line when it came to the illegal occupation of Palestine. As I understand the Bill, when it comes to technology companies or other companies, it will be very hard for contracting bodies in the UK to consider whether services provided will meet the equivalent criteria for goods imports for those within the Occupied Territories. I would be happy if the Minister would write to me on that specifically, rather than give me a response at this moment.

There is a wider concern regarding this Bill when it comes to how a contracting authority would consider fair competition in procurement. On the Australia agreement, we debated whether produce that came from Australia that was manufactured or reared in different ways and on industrial scales provided unfair competition for UK suppliers. Australia also uses pesticides that are banned in the UK. There is an interesting clause in the Australia agreement that allows for those contracting bodies to

“take into account environmental, social and labour considerations throughout the procurement procedure”.

My amendment lifts text from the Australia agreement and suggests that this should be uniform across all agreements, if that is what the Government consider a gold-standard agreement, as they told us it was. The Australia agreement is broadly in line with what we inherited in the European directive, which had the requirement to take into account social criteria and environmental and labour factors. We have adopted that for the TCA, but it is absent for other treaty state suppliers.

For example, our agreement with Japan has no social or labour considerations in the procurement chapter in Article 10.9. I do not know why—that is a separate issue; we have debated the Japan agreement—but I have not been able to find any consistency in any of the treaty state suppliers. I understand that this Bill will then provide that consistency, and it will either be above or below treaty obligations, which I find curious. For example, unless my amendment is accepted by the Government and the Bill is changed, our legal requirements will be less than our treaty obligations in our Australia agreement. I do not know how that is going to operate when it comes to legal challenges.

It is also potentially the case that there will be inconsistency in application. I simply do not know how contracting bodies are going to navigate their way around this, especially as the Minister says so much is going to rely on guidance. In many of the areas, when it comes to the previous group that we were debating on conflict of interest and on other requirements in the Bill, a contracting authority will have to satisfy itself that the treaty supplier meets all of the criteria in this Bill. I do not know how it will do that when it comes to taking into consideration the other ethical factors or conflicts of interest—what are they going to ask a treaty supplier from Colombia, for example, unless there is some stronger mechanism?

The Minister might also help me with something that has been puzzling me. I do not know why, when it comes to operating no discrimination in relation to treaty state suppliers, that does not apply to Scotland. For Scotland, the Bill provides only that there “may” be regulations which mean that there cannot be discrimination. With the Government’s amendment requiring consistency with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, which means that there cannot be any internal discrimination, I do not how that is going to interact. The Bill currently allows Scottish Ministers, for example, to say that they will be able to discriminate against certain treaty state suppliers on the basis, perhaps, of the overall human rights record of that treaty state—of which Colombia or Israel may be an example. I do not know, so I am hoping that the Minister might be able to help me with that.

Finally, I am not sure how investigations will be carried out when it comes to treaty state suppliers. Of all the areas we discussed previously regarding the grounds for the investigations by the PRU, which the Minister said will be a non-statutory element that will pursue these, I do not know what powers the PRU will have to secure information from treaty state suppliers. There is no mechanism under this Bill, and unless the provision of information is provided for, as happened in the Australia agreement, I do not know how the PRU will get that information. On all those areas, I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me, because at the moment I am fearful that there is a rather high level of opaqueness.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 443A, in my name, to Clause 83. The amendment is, very simply, to leave out

“A Minister of the Crown”,


and its purpose is to remove the power from Ministers of the Crown to make regulations under Clause 83. It may be the case, because this relates especially to the situation in Scotland, that my noble friend the Minister is not able to reply this evening, so I would be very grateful if she could write to me, and I can then share that with the Law Society of Scotland, which has raised this matter with me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, this group seeks to deal with amendments relating to treaty state suppliers. There are three minor government amendments either to improve the drafting or to ensure the proper functioning of the clauses, Amendments 438, 440 and 442. As the time is late, I will not go into detail, but I am happy to explain them to noble Lords on another occasion if they wish.

Amendment 436, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, proposes that regulations could be made only in relation to agreements that had been laid before Parliament under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. The use of regulations in the Procurement Bill in relation to implementing international agreements is limited to two circumstances. The first is to give effect to the procurement aspects of new trade agreements. For these, the Committee will know that treaties requiring ratification follow the established domestic scrutiny process set out in the CRaG Act. However, not all agreements will necessarily require ratification, and the amendment would place the implementation of such agreements outside the scope of this power. For the agreements that fall within the Act, the Committee will be aware that the Government have previously made commitments in our response to the International Agreements Committee, of which my noble friend is a prominent member, concerning the submission of international agreements to Parliament for scrutiny.

The second set of circumstances is to give effect to any changes to trade agreements over their lifetime. These are envisaged to be small technical changes, such as updating schedules following machinery-of-government changes or modifications to market schedules. In such circumstances, those more administrative matters may not trigger the CRaG procedures and, as such, the amendment would prevent them being implemented using this power. Any such updates and modifications would therefore require new primary legislation to implement, at a huge cost in time and resources. However, I reassure noble Lords that the Government intend to keep the relevant Select Committees aware of any changes during the life cycle of a free trade agreement.

Amendment 441, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Wallace, seeks to provide that a contracting authority does not discriminate against a treaty state supplier if it takes into account environmental, social and labour considerations and indicates in the notice of intended procurement or tender documentation how such considerations are defined. The impact of this would be that a contracting authority could, within the rules, apply environmental, social and labour considerations in a way that breached a treaty state supplier’s entitlement to no less favourable treatment, and that would risk breaching our international obligations. For example, if a contract can be delivered remotely from an overseas base, our obligations to ensure no less favourable treatment for treaty state suppliers mean that it would not be appropriate for a contracting authority to require socioeconomic or environmental criteria that could not be performed from overseas. However, I assure the Committee that the Bill as drafted allows contracting authorities to include social, environment and labour considerations when setting award criteria, as long as they are non-discriminatory.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful for that response. I struggle with the first part of what the Minister said because I lifted the wording from Articles 16 and 17 of the Australia agreement. If we have those obligations with Australia, how are we not able to provide that with all the other treaty state suppliers in the schedule where we do not have that language? Japan is lower than that, for example. I am struggling to understand why that would be the case. If she is reassuring me that the power provided by my amendment is already within the Bill, she has basically contradicted her own argument that we are not providing that to all the other countries. I do not understand.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The noble Lord’s question was why social considerations are not in the Japan agreement but they are in the Australia agreement. The answer is that every trade deal is unique. The noble Lord is trying to apply one principle to all trade deals.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

That is what the Government are doing. All the other requirements in the Bill are not in the trade agreements with other countries. That is the point that I was making. The Government are introducing a whole set of requirements under the Bill that are not in treaty obligations. I am just trying to say that it would be better if this were consistent.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The honest truth is that we seem to have a bit of a disagreement on this; maybe a bilateral discussion would be helpful. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, also raised a question on which we should have a further discussion; I will write to him on that on the points he was raising. We had advice from the people involved in trade agreements in preparing our response.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am very grateful for that offer. I am very happy for it to be multilateral rather than bilateral if that assists the Committee. If the Minister wants to make officials available for the discussion, I will be happy with that, or she may want to write to me in advance of that. It will be helpful if she is able to write to Members before we have a discussion, so that we get a bit more information from the Government first. I will then be more than happy to have the discussions with her about this before Report.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th October 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

A chilling effect on corruption is obviously positive but a chilling effect on people being prepared to engage in government procurement is not, particularly smaller suppliers, which might be put off by some of these rules. That is why we brought in Schedule 6, which will bring a certain clarity. There may be some further discussions to be had on Schedule 7 and exactly how it works.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I too welcome the Minister to her position. My question relates to a later group in which I have an amendment. Given that the Bill will allow for there to be no discrimination against any treaty-state supplier, how will a contracting body or procurement body operate under Schedule 7 for any of the suppliers from any of the countries with which we have a trade agreement? This comes back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. It is not simply the case that businesses are going to have to work through Schedule 7 to satisfy all the grounds for this; they are going to have to do it with every single country with which we have an FTA for the suppliers coming from them. How is that making the job easier?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

As the noble Lord said, we will come on to discuss those aspects, and I will try to answer that question when we get there. I have probably said enough on that.

Amendment 328 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Fox, provides for a new discretionary exclusion ground in relation to deferred prosecution agreements. This issue was explored in the Green Paper. Due consideration was given to feedback from the public consultation, as well as discussions with the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service. The Government’s response to the Green Paper set out the rationale for their decision not to include a separate exclusion ground on deferred prosecution agreements. In brief, the actions taken and commitments made by suppliers as part of the DPA typically constitute good evidence of self-cleaning. Reaching a DPA requires a supplier to accept culpability for the offence, co-operate with the relevant authorities and make reparations. Prosecuting authorities typically will not consider a DPA appropriate unless the supplier has already made reforms, such as proactive changes to corporate structures or the replacement of personnel.

DPAs will involve judicially approved terms that the supplier must commit to—for example, on actions to improve compliance and audit functions within the company, and external reviews to test those improvements to ensure that further misconduct does not occur. Non-compliance with a DPA is unlikely to be something that contracting authorities are equipped to assess. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, will understand and accept that.

Compliance is for either the Serious Fraud Office or the Crown Prosecution Service to assess, depending on which is the owner of the DPA in question. If a supplier fails to comply with a DPA, there are a number of options open to the enforcing body, including the prosecution of the supplier for the original criminal misconduct, but that cannot be part of procurement law, or for enforcement by the many differently sized authorities engaged in buying goods or services in the public sector.

Finally, Amendment 443 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, seeks to remove

“a British Overseas Territory or a Crown Dependency”

from the definition of a UK supplier. The Bill confers rights on UK suppliers in a number of places, including, in Clauses 18 and 19, an entitlement to be considered as part of a competitive tender, or, in Clause 89, to access remedies. They are also used as the basis for an assessment of no less favourable treatment in the non-discrimination provisions, in Clause 82(2). This amendment would remove this guaranteed access to the UK’s procurement markets from suppliers from Gibraltar, which is the only overseas territory or Crown dependency whose suppliers currently enjoy access under the existing procurement regime.

Although overseas territories and Crown dependencies are not part of the UK constitutionally, they do not become party to treaties in their own right. The UK must extend the territorial scope of its ratification of treaties to include them. As such, overseas territories and Crown dependencies are unable to secure rights to markets in the United Kingdom in the same way as other states. That is a long way of saying that in view of the special nature of the trading relationship between the UK and overseas territories and Crown dependencies, it is right to include them in the definition of a UK supplier.

This discussion has been useful and illuminating to me. I respectfully request that the amendment be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I look forward to getting delayed in the Lobby in the next Division.

I am aware of the concerns regarding Hikvision and other Chinese technology companies; we take these concerns extremely seriously, as the noble Lord knows. We are taking action in the Bill to introduce a new ground for exclusion, specifically to address situations where a supplier poses a threat to national security. The new exclusion ground allows a contracting authority to reject bids from suppliers that the authority considers pose a threat to the national security of the United Kingdom.

It is the long-standing policy of successive British Governments that judgment as to whether genocide has occurred is for a competent national or international court. It is not for the contracting authorities. Genocide is a crime and, like other crimes, whether it has occurred should be decided after consideration of all the evidence available in the context of a credible judicial process.

This has been an important debate. I have learned a lot but, for today, I respectfully request that this amendment be withdrawn.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify a little her argument as to why organ trafficking—which is prohibited under the UK’s statute book—cannot be mentioned in Schedule 6 under the mandatory exclusion grounds. Under labour market, slavery and human trafficking offences, there is a fairly comprehensive list of UK domestic offences that are mandatory grounds. I do not see why that list cannot be added to, as I cannot see where the ethical grounds are included within Schedule 6 on the mandatory grounds.

Can the Minister also clarify why, in Schedule 7, on discretionary grounds, those offences are included for prevention orders? The Government seem to be suggesting that for a company that is subject to prevention orders for these heinous crimes—or could be subject to them, if it were a foreign supplier—this is simply discretionary. A contracting body would have to make a judgment itself as to what it considers would be the likelihood of a supplier meeting the threshold for a prevention order, rather than an offence. That does make any sense to me. I would be grateful if the Minister could address those two points.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I will need to take the noble Lord’s first point away and look at it. His explicit point is that there is a bit of legislation, so why do we not refer to it? His second point is tied up with how this discretionary schedule works and how we define “professional misconduct”, which, in our interpretation, includes ethical issues. I thank him for raising these issues again.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I would be grateful if the Minister were willing to consider this. It is not about the ethical point. It comes under paragraph 1 of Schedule 7, which is headed “Labour market misconduct”. Sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) specifically refer to slavery and trafficking prevention orders and trafficking and exploitation prevention orders. If a supplier is considered to be acting in a way that would satisfy a prevention order in the UK, it would be a discretionary exclusion ground rather than what I consider it should be: a mandatory exclusion ground. I am happy for the Minister to reflect on it and write if she cannot answer today.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Clearly, I have learned during this debate. I will obviously have to learn a little more about how we have tackled this issue. As was said right at the beginning of the debate, there is clearly some difficulty around the principle of how much detail to include and how many things to cross-reference in the Bill but, in the light of the noble Lord’s helpful clarification, I will go away, look at the various areas and come back to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I will have a little more to say about this later on, so why not let me finish? If I do not answer the noble Lord’s questions, we will try to get at what is needed.

Amendments 477 to 480 seek to examine why government departments have been excluded from the appropriate authority’s investigatory powers. The definition of “relevant contracting authority” in Clause 96 is in recognition of existing governance. Ministers already have the authority to investigate government departments without the need for statutory powers; I think I have said that already. There are also established routes for co-operation with investigations.

Amendment 477A was tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton—it is good to see her in the Committee—Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon. Amendment 482 was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. These amendments would expand the scope of the statutory oversight powers beyond compliance with the Bill, straying into areas of policy. The scope of the statutory powers provided by these clauses has been carefully drafted to maintain the boundary between law, which must be adhered to, and policy, where some leeway is allowed in terms of its implementation.

Expanding Clause 96 and/or the Section 97 recommendations to include social value, as well as considering how contracting authorities have chosen to meet obligations to have regard to policy and principles, would blur that boundary and start to erode the autonomy of contracting authorities, which we recognise are best placed to make policy implementation decisions that are appropriate for their business. It would also move the statutory regime away from objective and measurable concerns into more subjective areas of debate, which could impact the effectiveness of the oversight system. We believe that the scope of Clauses 96 to 98 creates a proportionate, effective and compelling incentive for improvement. It is worth noting, however, that the drafting of Clauses 96 and 97 does not prevent the Minister from making observations regarding a contracting authority’s policy implementation. Policy guidance can indeed continue to be provided to contracting authorities.

Non-statutory procurement policy notes, which we have discussed before, are currently released to guide contracting authorities. In the new regime, under Clause 98, statutory guidance, which may be published as a result of investigations, can also address matters of policy. Contracting authorities will be required to have regard to any guidance released under Clause 98; I think this helps to deal with the social value issue. The removal of Clause 97(3) would result in the appropriate authority having the power to intervene in specific procurements.

The restriction in Clause 97(3)(c) ensures probity of the procurement by, for example, preventing a Minister of the Crown from using Section 97 to exert influence over which supplier is awarded the contract. That is an important point. To remove this restriction would be concerning to contracting authorities and suppliers alike.

Finally in this group, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, tabled Amendment 486A. This seeks to stipulate that the expertise of SMEs, voluntary organisations and social enterprises is accessible to an appropriate authority that is conducting investigations under Clause 96. The PRU will be managed and delivered by a small, experienced team of civil servants based in the Cabinet Office, supported by a panel of experts, which can be consulted regarding investigations and any resultant Section 97 recommendations and guidance under Section 98. The Cabinet Office aspires to provide perspectives from procurement experts from across the Civil Service, local authorities and various types of private organisations, including SMEs and VCSEs, to benefit the oversight regime.

However, it should be recognised that having a panel which includes external procurement professionals is dependent on the availability of suitably qualified individuals and the ability to manage any potential conflicts of interest. I am therefore unwilling to make a legislative commitment of the kind proposed. However, the establishment of the panel will be transparent, and appropriate documentation will be published in due course, including on the process for appointing members. It seems to me that this is an important error, which is why I make that point.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Can the Minister clarify whether it is the Government’s intention that the PRU will be an appropriate authority, so that panel members themselves will have legal powers under Section 96? If not, I am really confused as to what legal powers the panel will have when it comes to calling for documents, and what duty will be on other contracting authorities to provide the panel with any information at all. At the moment, it does not look as if the panel is considered to be an appropriate authority, so it will not have any other legal powers under Part 10.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

We do have a social value Act; I think the answer is—subject to correction—that social value features in the NPPS, the policy guidance note, and that failure to have regard to the NPPS is challengeable via judicial review rather than by suppliers for breach of statutory duty under Part 9 of the Bill. That is more appropriate as the NPPS will inform procurement strategy, and failure to comply should not result in suppliers being able to seek compensation from the public purse in respect of an individual procurement. There is quite a lot of complication in that area, but that is the approach. There is a social value Act, but obviously I will listen to what has been said today.

To return to the PRU, the unit will exercise powers on behalf of an appropriate authority. The panel will consult the PRU when appropriate and, if the Government set up a panel, as Governments often do—we have various panels in different departments that I have been involved with, and in my experience they tend to endure; certainly this one will be useful—the PRU will make recommendations to the Minister, who is the appropriate authority and will make the final decisions. That seems to be the right approach constitutionally.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful for that response. To be clear, will the panel be the investigating body?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

No. The PRU, a Civil Service unit, will be the investigating body, which will consist of experienced people of the right kind. The panel will advise that body.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful, but Clause 96 says the “appropriate authority may investigate”. The Minister has been referring in this short debate to “investigations” with regard to the panel. I am grateful that she has clarified that it will simply be an advisory group, not an investigatory group, and will not itself have the legal powers to seek documents. I am therefore not entirely sure what the PRU will do other than what existing civil servants do, which is to advise Ministers.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

We have put together this whole new system of procurement, which includes various checks and balances. Panel members will be available for the procurement review unit to help regarding investigations and the unit’s work. Their reports and recommendations will help with moving forward on procurement and the complexities of this change of the law. Their advice can be published, and we will be able to reference the assistance that the panel has provided. That is the approach that we are proposing following a process of consultation. The PRU is central. I am sure we will revert to this issue.

Negotiating Objectives for a Free Trade Agreement with India

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I thank my noble friend for his contribution in the gap. He gives a very good example of why the agreement that we are likely to have with India will require strong human rights clauses. This House twice resolved that there should be a trade and human rights policy and passed amendments for it to be included in the Trade Bill, but they were turned away by the Conservative majority in the Commons. This agreement will be a litmus test when it comes to human rights and labour standards. My noble friend is not alone in raising that issue in this debate.

This debate has been characteristically sensible and serious. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that I have adjusted to the fact that contributions in Grand Committee do not always have the world’s eyes upon them and certainly cannot secure 10 million viewers like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. However, sometimes we make the news. After the noble Lord’s comments, I looked at Lords Grand Committee on Google News and two bits of news came up, other than the Parliament’s constant press releases promoting what we are doing:

“Chinese Embassy in the UK condemns wrong remarks on Taiwan by members of House of Lords”


and

“Peer voices concerns as Cumbria council restructure is approved”.


So we make the news in global ways from China to Cumbria.

I am very confident that this agreement will be a success according to the Government because we have not yet had an agreement under this Government that has not been gold-standard, world-leading, a Brexit bonanza or the most advanced ever signed—those are all quotes from government press releases about agreements. Therefore, I have great confidence that this will be amazing deal, in the Government’s press release anyway. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, indicated, with the former Prime Minister leaving, I wondered whether the boosterism would be toned down. I got a sign that that might not necessarily be the case because on 31 August the FT reported that

“Anne-Marie Trevelyan, secretary of state for international trade, told the Financial Times in an interview during a trip to Australia that the deals would help curb inflation in Britain”.


Given that this is likely to yield 0.00% to 0.08% over 15 years, I wonder exactly how that not-yet-ratified agreement is curbing inflation. I look forward to the Minister giving in his summing up an illustration of what the impact of the Australia agreement on UK inflation has been so far.

This debate has highlighted to me very clearly that negotiating objectives should be put to the Commons and debated there on a Motion for approval to allow there to be proper scrutiny of the important issues so clearly raised and illustrated by the committee’s excellent report. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and all members of the committee for this yet again gold-standard report.

This draws out the fact that either, as the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, said, we are going to be in “extremely challenging” negotiations, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, indicated, it is pretty much a done deal already and we are now debating it. I do not know what the current situation is. To be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, he was assiduous in keeping the Opposition Front Benches and committees informed of progress in rounds of negotiations, but the Government have been rather quiet on this, so I do not know what position they are in. I do not know what kind of chapters have been closed or not; I do not know whether our debate on this is utterly pointless or whether the Government can feed back from this House to the negotiators that there are emerging areas of concern. I simply do not know, so I hope the Minister can state where we are.

It also highlights, as we have asked today, the question of the trade rationale for Diwali. Obviously, there was a political rationale, which I understand, but I do not know what the strategic trade rationale was, especially in the context, in the intervening period, of the aggression and war in Ukraine and our strategic relationships with India. These are material circumstances which would of course have an impact when we discuss opening up significant UK markets which we have closed to Russia and which India now has policy positions to actively circumvent.

We know that some of these areas are significant, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, indicated. We know that India is not currently supporting the G7 consensus on an energy cap; we know that there is increased purchasing of oil; we know that, as the noble Lord indicated, there are Russian military war games and exercises which India is participating in at the moment. When I raised concerns to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, a couple of months ago that there would be a rupee/rouble swap, I was told that I was being premature. We now have that rupee/rouble swap mechanism to purchase increased levels of oil, which is a direct strategic difference from the UK.

These are material strategic interests of the UK. There is of course an argument that free trade should be completely separate from other areas of foreign policy, but when you intend a deep and comprehensive agreement, you cannot separate them. I would be interested to know from the Government whether, during the discussions on access to financial services and other areas, we have raised the foreign policy objectives of the UK.

We also do not start from a year-zero approach—or a 2016 year-zero equivalent—because we know, as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, indicated, that there were previous discussions on whether there would be an EU free trade agreement. Expanding what had been a trade and investment agreement had been problematic, because of Indian barriers on FDI and a lack of consensus on greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear energy, farming subsidy and policy, regulation of the financial sector and technology transfer. If the UK is now to have a full FTA covering all those areas which had been problematic previously, we need to understand how we believe these areas will be overcome.

I also recall that, for India, 20% of the trade with the EU 28 was with the UK. I have a perhaps incorrect recollection—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Frost, will correct me in due course—that during the negotiations it was the UK which was not in favour of mode 4 reforms on visas. I recall that it was the UK that did not want any liberalisation on movement of people at that time. It was not the case, as he sought to give the impression, that as a minor shareholder in the EU 28 we wanted an agreement but were overruled because of other interests from other European countries. It is patently not true, because we effectively vetoed the process because of the desire from India for visa liberalisation.

It also does not explain to me that if we were in such a poor position with our clout, why, as the Government indicate, we are 17th as a trading partner and why Belgium is ahead of us. Why is Germany sixth? Why is Belgium able to be two places higher than us as a trading partner and not feel utterly constrained by being part of the single market, whereas we are now suddenly able to make the benefit from when we were in the single market?

There are other valuable areas that the committee highlighted across different areas of public policy that will need to be addressed. This is not just about agriculture or rural areas, but I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Viscount raised pesticides. During the Trade Bill and subsequently, this has been an area where we have time and again raised concerns about not only the standards that our trading partners will be operating to but their practices. The Australia trade agreement effectively gave the game away: it allowed for products to come into the UK that have had pesticides banned here used on them. That, in effect, is a precedent, so we will need to look very carefully at whether the concerns of colleagues in this Grand Committee are realised, because I also fear that situation.

Obviously, we want a situation where we open up on services. However, without robust data agreements and robust legal frameworks to govern this, it is difficult to see how we will be able to have significant growth of this economic activity. In many respects, India has had ample opportunity to reform its legislation so that it is opened up for UK and EU data transfers, but it has chosen not to do so. Of course, we cannot determine or dictate to a trading partner its legislative framework, but in a trade agreement we can make sure that we do not offer concessions without there being a robust framework around them. That will be exactly the same on legal services or other areas of the service sector.

That is why, on agriculture and other areas, I very strongly but with respect disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Frost, when he spoke about the interaction with the devolved Administrations. One of the downsides of having this constrained period of negotiations for Diwali was the concern that has been raised, yet again, about what kind of consultation there will be. He is absolutely right that trade negotiations are reserved competences, but he is absolutely wrong to say that they are not the interest of the devolved Administrations and that he therefore does not see the need for them to be involved. Some of the founding documents of our constitutional arrangements since 1999 have been the concordats—he was a Minister, so I am sure he is aware of them—which state categorically that where there are policy areas that are reserved competences which have an impact on areas of devolved competence, there should be consultation and openness in that policy formation. This is a fundamental part of our devolved relationship. As the report clearly highlights, the fair position is that an agreement with India will have an impact on the devolved competences.

When it comes to areas of protection, I thought the noble Lord might have raised whisky, which I would probably strongly agree with him on; I know his experience with that. But, as has been mentioned before, we have not been able to protect geographical indications in the Australia agreement, so I wonder how we will do it in the Indian agreement. Indeed, we had the nonsense in the Australia agreement that the only way that UK GIs will be protected is if Australia signs an FTA with the EU in order for the EU to protect our GIs. I am not certain that that was the control we sought to bring back.

The final element, on which I want to close, is one of the most fundamental of those from the Government’s documentation. I commend the Department for International Trade’s officials on some of their documentation and understand the vagueness and opaque nature within it but, as is my wont, I often look at the technical papers. Page 36 in annexe 9 gives a table that fundamentally demolishes the Government’s case for this agreement and the benefits of it. That helpful table—I will come to this in a moment but it did not have a tabulated element to it—shows what the trade diversion of other countries would be under the assumptions of this agreement. The Government say that we are likely to have £5 billion of extra UK trade over the next 13 years and that there will be a £5.2 billion increase in imports from India for consumers, who the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, said should be paramount. That, from the summary page, is all well and good.

The Government did not then take into consideration the net impact from the trade diversion and the reduction in imports and trade with other countries. In annexe 9 of the technical paper, they listed what the experience of preference erosion and trade diversion would be—the negative impact. It is £3,262.1 billion. You have to discount every part of the benefit and take from it the loss of import trade of that £3.25 billion. This is not from insignificant countries. This is important because they are developing countries; they are exactly the countries, mostly in the Indo-Pacific, with which we want to increase our strategic relationships.

I will close on this. The countries that will have a negative impact are Botswana, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Kenya, Senegal, Ghana, Indonesia, the Philippines and Jamaica. The impact on Bangladesh is £1.5 billion less trade. The Government need to be much clearer on how they discuss net benefit because this agreement not only will have potential concerns for our public policy but is likely to cause a direct negative impact on a swathe of other countries. We need to debate this with our eyes very widely open.

Functioning of Government

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, obviously that is covered by statute. So far as I understand it, if the Prime Minister, or a Prime Minister, chose to reappoint a Minister within three weeks, they would not receive a severance payment. In the case of someone who has been there briefly, I believe there is a statutory requirement, but I understand that in the case of the individual concerned—I will correct the record if this is not correct—she has indicated that if she were given money, she would give it to charity.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, apparently, for weeks, if not months, we will have a half-time Government on full-time pay. Further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, these resignations were not by virtue of the performance of the Ministers concerned, and nor were they were removed from office because of performance. They chose to resign because of the choice of leader of the Conservative Party. Is it therefore not outrageous that taxpayers will be paying, according to the BBC, up to £420,000 in severance pay? Surely, there is discretion within the regulations to allow this to be offset, simply because it is to do with Conservative Party management and not the performance of government. The taxpayer should not be paying this.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, there is not a part-time Government; there is a full-time Government, and the work of the Queen’s Government will carry on. Regarding the position on severance pay, some of these Ministers may come back to public office, some may not. There is a statutory position which has applied under successive Governments, and that will be applied according to the law and under the guidance of the Cabinet Secretary.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 6th July 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I shall add some questions to those posed so far on this group. Before I do, I thank the Bill team for the technical briefing this morning that I took part in remotely and for the further information that the Minister promised and which was provided and circulated with the explanatory statements. They were helpful. Of course, they do not answer all the questions, but that is the purpose of Committee.

Overall, it begs the question as to where we stand on the overall proportion of procurement that would be under covered and non-covered areas, and what is now under exempted areas. The Minister rejected my call for an updated impact assessment. At the moment, we have no information as to what level of procurement we are dealing with in these new areas. It would be helpful if the Minister could say what proportion of the procurement is now likely to be within the covered, non-covered and exempted areas.

With regard to ownership and persons, I posed a question to the technical team this morning, so I hope they have had time to provide some information to the Minister. There seems to be an assumption in the drafting that contracting authorities are either public or private bodies, but it is less clear on the other areas within the broad public sector, where there are, effectively, trust models for the delivery of services. These do not fall neatly into the category of a public or private body. Indeed, I am aware of procuring bodies that delivered services in the Scottish Borders, my former constituency area, that were hybrids between purely public authority bodies, charitable bodies, pension funds and public interest vehicles. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether Amendment 11 will cover all these areas. If it does not, there will still be gaps when it comes to some of the consortia which are both traditional centralised bodies, as we discussed on Monday, and those that are other trust models.

I turn now to my second question, which I also posed to the technical team—to be fair to them, I got some form of answer. It relates to contracting authorities acting jointly when one is English and one is Scottish. What legal framework will they be operating under? The Bill team—I hope I relate this correctly; they have no right of reply, so I hope I am fair in what I say —noted that, later in the Bill, there are regulation-making powers to cover these areas. However, my concern is that, presumably, we would not be expecting regulations to be brought forward to suit individual contracting authorities acting jointly where one is Scottish and one is English. This is a slightly different point from which the Minister said on Monday he would write to me, because it relates directly to this amendment. I did not receive a letter clarifying these cross-border issues. The Minister may say that he was rather busy—

[Lord True (Con)]

The noble Lord has generously acknowledged, as others have, that the officials have been extremely busy. There will be a response to the noble Lord’s question, as I undertook. With respect to the officials, it is unreasonable to complain that a letter has not been received, given all the other activities going on. I repeat the undertaking. The noble Lord will receive a letter, but I must defend my officials.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I hope the Minister will reflect on his comments. At no stage did I criticise officials for not receiving a letter. This is a ministerial responsibility. A Minister gives an undertaking to write to a Member in Committee. A Minister brings forward and moves amendments in Committee which are pertinent to the issue I raised when the Minister said that he would write to me. I was not criticising any officials. If any criticism to be laid, it is against the Minister. I simply said that, in the absence of the letter he promised to send me, I am asking these questions for clarification. That is reasonable.

On exemptions, there has been some reference to legal services. I understand the point that has been raised about making sure that there is a distinction from Scottish legal services as appropriate, and I certainly support the Government doing that. However, my understanding is that, for some of the treaty suppliers, there are obligations under some of the treaties on the mutual recognition of professional and legal qualifications. My understanding is that the exemption for legal services under this Bill will cover those other areas where the mutual recognition of professional qualifications in carrying out certain legal services will also be excluded. I understand that a body would be unable to procure legal services that are separate from those exempted, but they are then covered in other areas of professional qualifications. This will leave certain gaps in our treaty obligations.

I reviewed the Australia agreement on the carve-out on legal services. It is broadly the same, so I understand where the Government are coming from as far as these exemptions are concerned, but it is not exactly the same. Perhaps the Minister could give some further explanation as to what is likely to be allowed under the provision of legal services by certain providers of legal services that have mutual qualification recognition, because the position on legal services is still uncertain. If the Minister could respond to those points, I would be grateful.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord True, those who have been working with him and the officials for the briefing we received this morning and for listening to the anger, frankly, that there was on Monday about the situation. We were where we were; we are grateful to the Minister for doing what he could to degroup the amendments and sort things out as best he could. Clearly, there are still a number of issues, and many of us are still struggling to put together the various mountains of paper we have to try to make sense of it.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on her extremely important Amendment 11A. I must say that, in my reading of Schedule 2, I had not picked that issue up, which shows part of the problem—I know that the Minister accepts this—of not having enough time. The noble Baroness’s point was on decisive influence and what that means. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, the definition of particular words and phrases bedevils us at the present time. I pray in aid because, later on, I will point out one word in a couple of phrases that I think makes all the difference; I hope the Committee will bear with me and recognise that I am not being trivial—changing one word would make a significant difference to the meaning in the Bill. As well as pointing something out to us, the noble Baroness has made an extremely important point about what “decisive influence” means in paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3) of Schedule 2.

I would add to what the noble Baroness said. This is really important because is it not only

“a decisive influence on the activities of the person”;

it is also “directly or indirectly”. You then really get into the question of what on earth it means. To be frank, when you get into “decisive influence” and “indirectly”, it becomes extremely difficult. Again, I thank the noble Baroness. Like her, I look forward to listening to the answer the Minister gives with respect to that.

I agree with most of the remarks made by the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Fox, and others. I have decided not to read out my notes, because I want to try to get to the heart of this for the benefit of those who read our proceedings. If I get this wrong, the Minister will need to correct me. We need to understand where we are and what is happening.

My understanding is that the current procurement regime—not the regime envisaged by the Procurement Bill—operates under the existing Public Contracts Regulations 2015. Because we left the EU, the original Procurement Bill sought to transpose the 2015 regulations into British law. Unfortunately, in doing that, the Bill made a series of errors, and in particular around the Teckal exemption—however it is pronounced; I do not have the same mastery of languages as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. That exemption was not actually in the original drafting. The Local Government Association and all the other bodies were horrified—from what I have seen of the statements they have made to the Government—because it meant that many of the things they were able to do under the 2015 regulations with the Teckal exemption would no longer be allowed and they would have to change their procurement processes. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who gave the very good example of the transport initiative, of which he was proud, but the LGA and other bodies were worried that these sorts of arrangements would not be operational in the same way as was drafted in the original Procurement Bill.

The Committee will correct me if I am wrong, but this is the million-dollar question for me, and the reason I abandoned my notes: do the Government amendments in this group, led by Amendment 10, mean—as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, other noble Lords, the LGA and many other organisations which have made representations to us are concerned it does—that the 2015 regulations have been transposed into the amended version of the Bill, along with the Teckal exemption to those regulations? That is what people will be looking for, because British law, as it will stand when this Bill becomes an Act, will mean that they can operate the various arrangements that they have either vertically with an entity in themselves, or horizontally with other local authorities or bodies.

If we look across the country, we see that in all the areas in which we live—including, I presume, Wales; I am not sure about Scotland, about which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, may wish to say something—there are hundreds upon hundreds of models of procurement that have been adopted and worked on to deliver services in the way that a local authority, body or entity has decided to follow. The Minister will know this better than me, because of his experience. What they will be looking at is whether the Government’s amendments mean that their concerns have been met. That is why I decided to put down my amendment. I cannot debate law as well as many other noble Lords, but if I were someone from the outside looking at this, I would ask whether this means that I can carry on procuring in the way that I have been able to procure previously. That was my concern with the way that the Bill was originally drafted. That is the million-dollar question for the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken. Of course, this is Committee in your Lordships’ House, the whole purpose of which is to probe, challenge, ask and seek greater definition. I make absolutely no complaint about that; indeed, I welcome it. The issue is how and when most effectively we can give the appropriate response. I and my officials will always try to do that in the best possible way and the best possible time to enable your Lordships to do your work. That is the aspiration. I have no doubt that I will fall short of that aspiration and that I will be caned for that.

I will speak to Amendment 11A, which was tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, in a moment. First, I have been asked questions on a number of matters, which I will try to address. I fear that the exemption list was drawn up before my time, but I am advised that it was drawn up in consultation with various stakeholders with the appropriate interests covered. Analysis of the exclusions in WTO-Government procurement agreements and responses that the Government received to the initial Green Paper were the leading informatives, as I understand from those who were involved at that stage. However, I will be happy to engage with the noble Lord outside the Committee between now and Report if there is a particular item in Schedule 2, or if he wishes to address it in an amendment on any of those exclusions. That is where we are coming from.

I will deal with a couple of other things because I want to get on to the matters that largely affect local authorities and the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, raised a question—this is also germane to the point made by my noble friend Lady McIntosh—about the nature of the relationship with, say, the Australia agreement, which he cited. I understand that he raised that in a briefing session this morning in relation to postal services. Indeed, that would not be a defence matter. My officials agreed to clarify this. Since it has been raised, this is the point where we are. By the way, no one should Pepper v Hart anything that I am saying at this stage because this is an exploratory Committee stage and it is important both in correspondence around Committee and in engagement that we get to the right point—I totally agree with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, made about the importance of definition, which is absolutely fundamental.

This is a complicated, technical matter, which requires us to understand both the Bill and how the Australia agreement is structured. However, I am advised that we are satisfied that the Bill is not required to cover postal utility activities. To determine whether a utility is covered by the Bill, one has to look at both the entity and the activities that it is carrying out. Utilities are defined as public authorities, public undertakings and private utilities that carry out utility activities. Utility activities are defined as activities of the type set out in Schedule 4—gas and heat, as well as transport, which we discussed briefly on Monday. It is true that the Australia agreement does not define the terms “utilities” or “utility activities”. However, it works on a similar basis. The agreement covers only the utility activities covered in section C of our market access offer and only for the entities set out in section C.

In the Australia agreement, section C of our market access schedule provides that only certain transport services are utility activities and that the only entities that are covered are public utilities. Section C does not include the postal sector or private utilities. Postal services in the Australia agreement are included as services only in section E. This means that those entities only are covered by the Australia agreement in annexes A, B and C of our market access schedule, which does not include utilities in the postal sector that are covered for the postal services in section E that they procure—for example, a local authority procuring mailshot services. It does not mean that entities such as Royal Mail that operate a private postal service are covered. That is the current advice that I have on that matter; I am sure that my officials would be happy to explore it further with the noble Lord.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that and for answering at this stage a question that I have not yet asked about postal services. Our understanding is that that would be in the group with government Amendment 24 on the expansion of utilities. We will be raising some of these issues, but I take note of what the Minister said. The main thrust of my questions in this group were about the joint groups and the different types of ownership for them, but I am grateful for what the Minister has said so far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I hear what the noble and learned Lord says. Those remarks might also be addressed to the First Minister in Scotland. I expressed regret—I think it is shared across the Committee—that the Scottish Government have not wished to take part in the constructive way in which the Welsh Administration have. We have had good co-operation with the Welsh Administration, and that has had an impact on the Bill. Clearly, if the policy changes, then a Bill can be amended, but I am about to reply to a series of complaints about the Government taking all sorts of potential regulatory powers to change this, that or the other, and that would be quite a substantial secondary power to take. It is regrettable, but that is the position.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Further to the point from the noble and learned Lord, I am less convinced at the response that this is discretionary as to the choice of Scottish Ministers. I understood that these provisions were for public passenger transport services that do not cross the border into Scotland. Therefore, these are for the provision of public transport services that begin and end in England.

If that is the case, they are within the scope of this legislation. If they are public passenger transport services which begin and end within Scotland, they would be under Scottish legislation. Therefore, this would not apply and the appropriate authority would not be Scottish Ministers. Would it not be better if the Bill simply stated where the public passenger transport services are? The area of concern for me is cross-border public passenger transport services, for which, under the 2016 legislation, there was further ministerial devolution to allow some form of regulations to be passed on cross-border public transport services. I declare an interest because I use them every week.

[Lord True (Con)]

I hear what the noble Lord says. I come to this House and I am asked to respect the position of the devolved Administrations. The position of the devolved Administration in Scotland is that they do not wish to be part of this legislation, so I am caught. If at a later stage, or even at this stage, the noble Lord wishes to put forward an amendment to change “appropriate authority” to include the Scottish Government, no doubt we can debate that matter, but the position now is the one I set out and I have given the explanation that is the policy decision of the Scottish Administration.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

We are making law so, for the record of the Committee, is the Minister saying that public passenger transport services under paragraph 17 of Schedule 2, for the exempted contracts, are public passenger transport services that begin and end in England? Is that correct?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right to raise the issue of cross-border services. We will come to that later in the Bill. I am not excluding discussion of cross-border. It is an overall policy position that I am stating. We will come to the cross-border issue later in the legislation. I do not want the noble Lord to think that we are having a kind of Sicilian motorway approach, where the Mafia money ran out. I fully understand where he is coming from on that. I was really replying on the broader point.

Time runs on and I must get on to the specific and very important points made not only by the Delegated Powers Committee but by noble Lords who have tabled amendments. I will try to persuade the Committee that the amendments are unnecessary and that the strictures of the Delegated Powers Committee were strong. I heard the word “a scorcher”, but perhaps I do not necessarily need that. I heard the remarks from all sides on that. We will carefully consider them, notwithstanding what I say now. Obviously, it believes it is a reasonable position, but we will consider those remarks.

Amendment 18 would remove paragraph 17 of Schedule 2, which has been alluded to. The effect of this would be to remove an exemption for certain public passenger transport services that exists in our current procurement legislation. The exemption exists and it is necessary as procurement for such services is governed by a separate regime operated by the Department for Transport. It is important that the Bill does not impinge on that separate regime and that the exemptions under the Bill fully align to ensure that public passenger transport services are regulated by the correct regime. There is no intention to exempt public passenger transport services beyond those currently exempt and governed by the Department for Transport regime.

Amendment 21, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, seeks to remove a provision that exempts concession contracts for air services provided by a qualifying air carrier. Removing this would bring those contracts within the scope of the Bill, which would be a fundamental change to the existing position.

Air services are separate markets driven and operated by the private commercial sector. The public sector does not generally procure or intervene in these services. Given the distinctive features of the air transport market, and the state’s historical limited intervention in it, it would not be appropriate to bring air transport within the scope of the mainstream procurement rules. However, I assure noble Lords that the power is limited to specifying the meaning of a “qualifying air carrier”, which is, in essence, someone licensed under the existing regime for air carriers. This power is not wide-ranging and is needed only to ensure that the definition refers to the correct regime. Therefore, I ask noble Lords not to press Amendments 18 and 21.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I start by clarifying what utilities are covered in the Bill. Utilities are defined in it as public bodies, public undertakings or certain private undertakings that carry out utility activities. Public undertakings differ from public bodies in that they do not have functions of a public nature; their activities are more economic and commercial in nature. While it is no longer one, before the Government sold their shares in 2015 Eurostar International Ltd was a public undertaking.

The Bill covers private utilities only where they have been granted a special or exclusive right to carry out a utility activity. These are rights that have been granted by a statutory, regulatory or administrative provision and that substantially limit other entities from carrying out those activities. Rights are not special or exclusive when granted by following a competitive procedure or where the opportunity was adequately publicised and the rights were granted on the basis of an objective, non-discriminatory criterion.

Private utilities which enjoy “special or exclusive rights” are effectively in a monopoly position and therefore they could, however unlikely it is, engage in preferential treatment that, for example, favours their own affiliates or strategic partners and discriminates against other suppliers bidding for the contracts. The Bill applies to utilities only where they are carrying out the utility activities set out in Schedule 4: specifically, gas and heat, electricity, water, transport services, ports and airports, the extraction of oil and gas, and the exploration for or extraction of coal or other solid fuels.

The two government amendments in this group are minor and technical in nature. Amendment 20 to Schedule 2 is consequential on government Amendment 231, which amends Clause 35(6) to ensure a single definition of utility is applied to the whole Bill. In Schedule 2, paragraph 28(2) is therefore no longer required. The definition at Clause 35(6) is exactly the same as that contained in the deleted sub-paragraph (2).

Amendment 24 amends Clause 5(1) to define a utilities contract as a contract

“wholly or mainly for the purpose of a utility activity”.

The addition of “wholly or” is to reflect the reality that a utility contract can include solely or predominantly utility activities. This amendment to the terminology ensures consistency with the approach to mixed procurement used elsewhere in the Bill; for example, with Clause 8(1) on light touch contracts, where the same principle applies. I beg to move.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s explanations. Her colleague the noble Lord, Lord True, previewed some clarification regarding the Post Office, so perhaps she was forewarned. I have two questions for clarification, further to what she said.

The more specific question relates to freeports, which I raised in the technical discussion this morning. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond now, but if not I would be happy if she does so in writing. There are a number of areas of government policy—I am not debating the rights and wrongs of this—which have activities linked to the provision of utility services but which are not directly, wholly or mainly a utility service. I am concerned, for example, about whether the more commercial activity of freeports, which are government policy and have the benefit of being linked with a utility but do not provide utility services, may well be exempted. That would not bring about the level of transparency in the thresholds that I believe there should be. I am still scratching my head about the status of freeports.

The element raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord True, on postal services is concerning. I am particularly interested in the status of Post Office Ltd. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, raised Parcelforce. I understand that Royal Mail and Parcelforce have a relationship with Post Office Ltd, and they provide different services. I understand that the Post Office is not considered a Schedule 4 utility, but clarification on whether it is covered under the public undertaking elements would be helpful. I ask because postal business of the Post Office is included under the procurement chapter, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord True, and annexe 16A of the UK-Australia agreement, as are postal services, which relate to letters, parcels, counter services and other such services. The classification under the WTO which the annexe uses links with the pick-up, transport and delivery services of letters, newspapers and journals, whether for domestic or foreign markets. I am not entirely clear about the status of that when it comes to Royal Mail services. They are covered within the procurement chapter of the Australia agreement, but I am not sure of their status in this Bill.

This speaks to the wider point that we are now in the realm of having to look at each of the 24 agreements in the schedule. Any authority or likely bidder for any of these works will have to study all these FTAs and all the procurement chapters, in addition to the EU-UK TCA, this legal framework, and the Scottish and Welsh ones. At the very least, we are now replacing one system with 25—or more likely with 27. That means it is not a more efficient way of covering it.

Finally—I asked earlier, because it is not clear in the impact assessment, and Ministers might write to me on this—now that the Government are clarifying their position in the Bill on those that are covered, not covered and the exemptions, I would like to see an update on the information about the likely number of contracts and the values in all these categories. I would be grateful for that information and for clarification on the Post Office.