Procurement Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th October 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendments 415 and 419 in this group. In addition, I will speak to Amendment 417, which is in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan but originated as an amendment tabled by my noble friend the Minister.

Amendments 415 and 419 are somewhat narrower than the other amendments in the group, which the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has spoken to. They simply probe how the Bill has been drafted in relation to the term “conflict of interest”. Under Clause 75 contracting authorities have a duty to mitigate conflicts of interest, and under Clause 76 they are required to carry out conflict assessments. In each case, the clauses define the term “conflict of interest” by reference to Clause 74. Under Clause 74(2), a conflict of interest exists if someone has a conflict of interest—hence the Bill basically says that the definition of a conflict of interest is that it is a conflict of interest, which is not entirely helpful.

While “interest” is defined in Clause 74, “conflict” is not. Clause 74 says who might have a conflict but not what a conflict actually is. Is it an objective test or can conflicts include subjective perception? Does it have to be an actual conflict or just a possible one? Clause 74 is no help whatever. Clauses 75 and 76 have tried to define “conflict of interest” by reference to Clause 74, but in doing so they have merely highlighted that there is no definition in that clause. I have not attempted to define the term myself as my amendments today are obviously probing ones, but some attention needs to be paid to the drafting.

Amendment 417 would delete Clause 76(4), which deals with conflict of interest assessments. Subsection (4) takes the contracting authorities into the realms of fantasy. They have to think about what they know that might cause “a reasonable person” wrongly to think that there are actual or potential conflicts of interest. It is often hard enough to identify the range of potential conflicts of interest; getting into the territory of trying to work out what a so-called “reasonable person” might wrongly think is a potential conflict of interest is mind-blowing.

Having worked out what this reasonable person wrongly thinks, the contracting authority must take steps to demonstrate that the imagined wrong thought by the imagined reasonable person does not in fact exist. This is beyond parody. For good measure, there is no definition of “reasonable person”. We do not know whether this reasonable person is assumed to have any knowledge of public procurement or the workings of contracting authorities. Those of us who live in the world of politics know that otherwise reasonable people often believe extraordinary things and their capacity for thinking extraordinary things wrongly is infinite.

I very much look forward to hearing how my noble friend the Minister will defend subsection (4).

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and congratulate her on the first half of her contribution, which clearly identified a crucial problem that has undoubtedly been missed by numerous other eyes.

However, I entirely disagree with the second part of her contribution, which referred to Clause 76(4). I do not often find myself in the position of defending what is potentially the Government’s position—perhaps I am about to pre-empt entirely what the Minister is about to say—but subsection (4) says:

“If a contracting authority is aware of circumstances”.


It does not say, “We expect the contracting authority to be clairvoyant and know of every single circumstance where a reasonable person might”. We all know this. Think about local councils. Having been a local journalist on another continent, I think of a case where a large city authority kept commissioning a certain architect to do a whole series of projects. That ended up raising considerable public concern. If that is happening, noble Lords can see why it would make sense to pre-empt the explanation of why there is no conflict of interest and therefore no problem here. It is also worth pointing out that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said that this was a subjective judgment that would affect the letting of the contract. In fact, it would not; it just says that there must be details of the steps included. So I would defend Clause 76(4), if the Government feel that it needs to be defended.

Before I get to what I chiefly want to say, I want to apologise briefly. I attached my name to a number of amendments in the previous group; I meant to be here to speak to them but events unfortunately intervened and I could not be. I still stand behind them.

Coming to this group, I have attached my name to a number of amendments in various combinations of the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, clearly outlined—I will not go over the same ground—the Boardman review reported in May 2021, which has allowed plenty of time for this issue to be included in this Bill, despite all the hurry and rush that we know there has been around it. I would also point out something that the noble Lord did not say: when the Boardman report came out, the Government said, “We accept all of these recommendations”. If the Government have accepted them, they should surely be incorporated in this Bill.

I want to pick up on one amendment that I did not sign, although I would have had I noticed it: Amendment 413 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that

“a donation or loan of more than £7,500 to any political party in a calendar year”

should be declared. We are talking about transparency and trust. This is obviously a practical, simple step that would not be very hard to implement and would be well worth while.

Amendments 421 to 423 are about preventing undue influence. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I shall concentrate on Amendment 423. There is huge public concern about the revolving door, and I note that my honourable friend in the other place, Caroline Lucas, has done a huge amount of work, dating back in Hansard to at least 2013, on the revolving door in the defence and energy sectors.

That concern is not restricted to the Green Party. I was just looking through some of the reports. In 2011, Transparency International UK issued a press release headed

“Revolving door between Government and business is ‘spinning out of control’”.

If it was spinning out of control in 2011, we are at jet engine speeds by this stage. In 2016, the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, in a report entitled Redefining Corruption, said that the public want a ban on the revolving door. This amendment provides much less than a ban; it is a modest six months, and I am not altogether sure that it should not be longer, but there is certainly great public concern about this. In 2017, the Committee on Standards in Public Life expressed concern about the revolving door.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, set out one disturbing case. Here is another. In 2020, We Own It highlighted the interaction between Serco and NHS Test and Trace, and the degree to which there has been a revolving door between Serco and the senior Civil Service, to the point where a former head of public affairs of Serco became a Health Minister—I am not sure how many Health Ministers back, but at some point, anyway.

Finally, we should not forget the Greensill scandal. Just look at the mess that arose in part because of a revolving door—indeed, in some cases people were stuck in the same door at the same time, apparently representing both private interests and public, government interests. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments noted that there were thousands of potential cases, but initially looked at only 108. There is lots of discussion about limits to that committee’s power; it cannot possibly cover this issue. We must start from the other side of the contracts.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be relatively brief, because I sense that some of the drive and energy has gone out of the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. I will not continue with the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, as it sounds as though the Committee is familiar with that. Having experienced it, I would say that it is quite effective.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

To take us back 30 seconds, to Amendment 413, about political donations over £7,500, I take the Minister’s point that yes, that register exists, but this amendment requires the supplier to take reasonable steps to make the declaration. If the supplier is not required to do that in their bid application, does that mean that every commissioning authority must add to their list of things to do, “Go and check the donations register every quarter to see what is happening”? Would not structuring it in this way make it much easier for the commissioning body?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I will start by trying to answer the point that the Civil Service has rules and this Bill is far wider in its application, which we accept. If we are too prescriptive in listing every relevant person in legislation, we may miss persons who should be considered. We think guidance provides a comprehensive list; Peers should see the guidance for commercial professionals in PPN 04/21, for example. As we have discussed in relation to other parts of the Bill, we have to have a combination of the Bill and guidance.

--- Later in debate ---

to make such regulations ensures compliance with the provisions of the Scotland Act. I hope that my noble friend will be able to clarify the situation, if not this evening then in writing.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, being aware of the hour, I will be extremely brief, but I just want to express support particularly for Amendment 441, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I think we have to look at this in the context of, as the Committee may be aware, the current movement in relation to the Energy Charter Treaty and the way in which increasing numbers of states—most recently France but also the Netherlands, Spain, Poland and Italy—have found that this treaty that they entered into years ago has really restricted their ability to act on the kind of environmental, social and labour matters identified here. It is really important that we do not bring in new laws that create further restrictions.

On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, there has been lots of criticism of the CRaG process and that it was essentially designed for long ago when trade treaties were something very different from what they are today. Just to illustrate that point, this morning I was with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for a visit of Canadian lawmakers. We learnt then, very interestingly, that Canada had wanted to include the issue of frozen pensions—the fact that the UK does not uprate its pensions for people in Canada while it does so for people in the United States. That is the kind of way in which trade deals can become far more complicated today. Unfortunately, on the account we heard this morning, the UK Government refused to countenance this being included in the trade deal, but it is really important that we see how broad trade deals can be today and that they have the maximum democratic scrutiny. That is what I think this amendment seeks to achieve.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 436, from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and to my noble friend’s Amendment 441. It is a pleasure to follow both of them.

I want to talk a bit about some of the problems that we face inside our own government structures and Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and I spent quite a bit of time earlier this year on the Health and Care Act. Indeed, there was a section in there about healthcare arrangements with other countries. But that was the end of a story, and at each stage from 2014 onwards we kept finding people trying to relax the EU directive on procurement rules, which we had to abide by then, in order to enlarge the gift that we could give under a treaty. For health, this is an extremely important matter.

The EU procurement directive, which governs all public sector procurement in member states, defines fair process and standards to ensure that all businesses, including the NHS, have fair competition for contracts. It also, incidentally, prevents conflicts of interest through robust exclusion rounds and protects against creeping privatisation. It is that latter point that is really important in particular for the NHS, but there are other sectors of the public realm where that matters too.

On 18 November 2014, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Livingston of Parkhead, whether the EU procurement directive protected the NHS. He replied:

“Commissioner de Gucht has been very clear:

‘Public services are always exempted ... The argument is abused in your country for political reasons.’”

The noble Lord, Lord Livingston, went on to say:

“That is pretty clear. The US has also made it entirely clear. Its chief negotiator—

this was in relation to TTIP—

said that it was not seeking for public services to be incorporated. No one on either side is seeking to have the NHS treated in a different way … trade agreements to date have always protected public services.”—[Official Report, 18/11/14; col. 374.]

Again in 2018, I raised these points with the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, in a debate and he said:

“I can tell them that we have implemented our obligations under the EU directive. The Government are absolutely committed that the NHS is, and always will be, a public service, free at the point of need”—


and the current Government repeat that point.

“It is not for sale to the private sector, whether overseas or here. That will be in our gift and we will not put that on the table for trade partners, whatever they say they want.”—[Official Report, 29/3/18; col. 947.]

That was very helpful because it came in advance of President Trump’s attempt to broaden what could be in a possible trade agreement, which would definitely have included health. Those of us who are concerned about these matters therefore relaxed a bit, until the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill came before your Lordships’ House, which was intended to replicate the reciprocal healthcare arrangements that we used to have under EHIC. The problem was that it had a clause that also gave rights under international trade agreements for health services to be part of those trade agreements, with no reference back to Parliament. It was an expedited process but, during the passage of that Bill, we managed to revert to it being just about reciprocal healthcare arrangements in the European Economic Area and Switzerland.

However, this year, we went through exactly the same process again when the Health and Care Bill was introduced, as it contained a much looser series of clauses that would have allowed health to become part of trade agreements. During the Bill’s passage, a cross-party group of Peers fought very hard and were really grateful that the Government recognised the risk that they were putting the NHS under and conceded. Now, the provisions under the Health and Care Act are the equivalent of EHIC but for other countries.

I wanted to raise these points because it seems to me that we must have Parliament’s involvement before things are signed and sealed. We also need to let those people who are negotiating our trade agreements understand where some of the clear red lines remain across Parliament—and certainly across this nation—for certain public services, including the NHS.