Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [HL]
Baroness Jolly Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I feel that I should make a declaration at this stage as I have been a member of a credit union for many years. In order to become members of such a union we first had to set one up, so we set up a credit union in Cornwall; Cornwall is its common bond.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield for bringing forward the important issue of credit unions and congratulate them both on championing this cause. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has outlined, credit unions are not-for-profit financial co-operatives owned and controlled by their members and they must have a defined “common bond”. This could be a shared geography, such as Sheffield or my own county of Cornwall, or a shared job or employer, such as employees of BAE Systems, members of a police force, or even members of the clergy. Credit unions provide savings and loan products designed to meet the needs of their community. They are designed to instil a culture of regular saving, and thence access to affordable credit when needed. In effect they are ethically based, democratically controlled, community-owned financial institutions that offer an alternative to high-cost payday lenders and conventional banking.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Government actively support credit unions and have been working to increase access to affordable credit. We have invested £38 million in the Credit Union Expansion Project and are working with the Association of British Credit Unions to look at how credit unions might be expanded to benefit a broader section of the community. The Government’s commitment was underlined in a recent House of Commons adjournment debate. For the record, I would like to highlight some of the key points from that debate. Credit unions do have a role to play in supporting our Armed Forces communities. Financial pressures exist within service households just as they do in the wider community. But for too long there have been factors that exacerbate the problems faced by the Armed Forces community. Often this is nothing to do with people’s creditworthiness, but reflects the nature of a peripatetic career that prevents them developing a proper credit history.
The Ministry of Defence has recognised these difficulties and has undertaken a great deal of work, under the Armed Forces covenant, to address the disadvantages. We are working with the financial services industry to ensure that it understands the unique circumstances of the Armed Forces community and to ensure that it is not unfairly disadvantaged. As part of this we have introduced UK postcodes for overseas locations to help Armed Forces personnel serving overseas to maintain a UK credit history that is recognised by financial service providers and to allow improved access to financial products. In partnership with the Royal British Legion and the Standard Life Charitable Trust, we have developed the MoneyForce financial capability programme, which delivers training and briefings, and provides resources and online support to help the Armed Forces community manage its money and financial affairs better.
Despite this support, there are still those in the Armed Forces, as among the public at large, who end up requiring a loan but get into difficulty with debts at high interest rates owed to payday lenders. Members of the Armed Forces and their families can of course already, providing they meet the common bond for membership, apply to join an existing credit union to access the range of financial services offered. However, unlike in the US, as we have heard, and some EU states, coverage in the UK is not national and the services vary. Therefore, significant thought has been given to whether to create a dedicated Armed Forces community credit union.
UK credit unions traditionally grow organically from small beginnings which may take many years to cultivate their membership. Several thousand members are required for a credit union to achieve long-term self-sustainability to offer a tailored suite of products which meets the needs of its members. What makes credit unions unique and makes them work is their independent spirit. They are created by the people for the people and they offer products that their customers want, because their customers are also their members. Credit unions grow steadily and organically from small beginnings, and normally take many years to cultivate their membership. To give one example, the Glasgow Credit Union Limited was founded by two members in 1989 as the Glasgow District Council Employees Credit Union. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will recognise that type of model. Over its 25 years, it has grown to a membership of 32,000 and some £100 million in assets.
Unlike payday loan companies, credit unions are a positive force in the community around them. They benefit members and local economies alike. However, it would not be in anyone’s interests—the taxpayer, the UK financial services industry or members themselves—to try to shoehorn such an institution of this kind into a Whitehall department. The savings of our service personnel should be properly stewarded, managed and regulated. As noble Lords will appreciate, this is not core business for the Ministry of Defence and would involve financial, reputational and resource risk.
Out of the corner of my eye, I see my noble friend Lord Deben suggesting that this is an “I told you so” moment—but there is some light here. The Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans met interested members of the House, including the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Credit Unions, representatives of the Association of British Credit Unions Limited and the chief executive of the Plane Saver Credit Union, to discuss how the MoD might support access to credit unions by the Armed Forces. Officials are now actively exploring the support that the MoD could offer. A number of issues are being considered, including the criteria a credit union should achieve to receive MoD support and the education of the service community in order to facilitate informed choices. To add a personal note, when we set up our credit union, one of the most difficult things was to inform people what a credit union does and how it works. Further issues being considered are how credit unions can be accessed by service personnel and the potential for payroll deduction to reduce the administrative costs of running a credit union.
The organisation of credit unions has always been, and must continue to be, the remit of the private and the voluntary sectors. However, the Ministry of Defence will support organisations with the wherewithal to put in place a credit union to support the men and women who have served this country with such distinction.
I hope that this has provided noble Lords with some assurance on the Government’s position on credit unions. However, I think that including specific provision on credit unions is unnecessary in this Bill and would take us away from the primary purpose of Clause 4, which is to provide the legal basis for funding charitable, benevolent and philanthropic organisations that support members of the Armed Forces community throughout the United Kingdom. On that basis I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. However, we will take away the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, of a meeting with Anna Soubry and see what can be done before Third Reading.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I am not entirely pleased with the Government’s response. I do not understand the reputational risk to the MoD. It is the same reaction I got when I raised the issue of a credit union in Parliament a year or two ago. I was told by officers in both Houses that because of the reputational risk and all the problems I would have it would not happen. Finally, we got there and it now happily works in both Houses of Parliament, with no particular risk. I do not understand the risk in facilitating a voluntary body that provides affordable credit to our Armed Forces community. I think that is quite disappointing. I hope that we can have a meeting before Third Reading and I hope to be able to bring something back at Third Reading as I think this is an important issue.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield for his support. I very much agree with the comments he made about Navy Federal. It is the biggest credit union in the world. It happily serves the whole of the armed forces of the United States. There are no problems there at all. I am sure that it would give us some assistance and support in getting a credit union fully established in the UK for the military community. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for his comments. He made the case for supporting credit unions much more eloquently than I could make it. I was very hopeful when he spoke that maybe he knew something that I did not know and that we would be able to get a better answer from the Government. Clearly that was not the case. I was also pleased with the support of my noble friend Lord Rosser from my own Front Bench.
I am disappointed with the response. I think we should do more than this. I hope I can bring the amendment back at Third Reading. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [HL]
Baroness Jolly Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments. I shall try to tease out issues around process and demonstrating effectiveness for the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the composition of the panel and what a “person” is for my noble friend Lady Garden.
The proposed amendments would affect Clause 4, which deals with financial payments to charities and other organisations that support the Armed Forces community. As my noble friend the Minister made clear at Second Reading, this Government have made a commitment to all those who serve or have served in the Armed Forces of the Crown and their families. This commitment takes the form of a covenant. The Armed Forces covenant has two key principles: that those who serve in the Armed Forces, whether regular or reserve, those who have served in the past, and their families should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services; and that special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given most, such as the injured and the bereaved. This obligation involves the whole of society. It includes voluntary and charitable bodies, private organisations and the actions of individuals in supporting the Armed Forces. Recognising those who have performed military duty unites the country and demonstrates the value of their contribution. This has no greater expression than in upholding this covenant.
Over the past four years, the Government have committed £105 million to deliver on the commitments of the covenant—£55 million has been distributed through the community covenant grant fund, which strengthens ties and understanding between the Armed Forces and the wider community, and through the £35 million LIBOR fund, which backs projects supporting the broader aims of the covenant. A further £10 million of community covenant funding and a final £40 million veterans’ accommodation fund is set to be distributed this year. We are also developing proposals for the management of the future Armed Forces covenant fund, which is set at £10 million per year from 2015 onwards.
Organisations working with the Armed Forces community are based throughout the United Kingdom and we want them to benefit from these funds, wherever they are located. However, the use of covenant funding is currently constrained by two pieces of legislation. Section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003 confines payments to local authorities in England and Wales and Section 70 of the Charities Act 2006 limits financial assistance to charities and other benevolent institutions that provide a direct or indirect benefit to England. We have temporarily navigated around these constraints by making payments under the appropriation Act. However, this is not a long-term solution. Clause 4 therefore enables financial assistance to be given to organisations that support the Armed Forces community, wherever they are based.
The Secretary of State is already required to produce and lay before Parliament an annual Armed Forces covenant report under Sections 343A and 343B of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which I believe satisfies the intent behind the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in respect of the obligation to report publicly. As noble Lords will know, the Armed Forces covenant report is about the effects of membership or former membership of the Armed Forces on service people, specifically in the fields of healthcare, education and housing, and in such other fields as the Secretary of State may determine. Clearly, then, it could and does cover the areas in which we currently provide financial assistance under the community covenant and LIBOR funds and the veterans’ accommodation fund.
Throughout the most recent Armed Forces covenant report, published in December 2013, the Secretary of State provided examples, including figures, of how financial assistance was provided to the Armed Forces community, reflecting the twin principles of the Armed Forces covenant. It is intended that the 2014 report will similarly detail how financial assistance has been provided throughout the year. Further to that covered in the annual report, the financial assistance provided by these three funds is also subject to the usual parliamentary scrutiny of government expenditure.
The National Audit Office has access to annual reports and to date has not expressed any negative views on how Armed Forces covenant funding has been allocated, the propriety of the financial assistance that has been provided or the rigorous scrutiny and governance processes that support it. This is provided by regional panels for community covenant schemes, and a central cross-government panel for the Armed Forces covenant (LIBOR) fund and the veterans’ accommodation fund. The scrutiny and governance processes have been explained in detail to noble Lords in the financial assistance brief that was circulated to all Peers recently. In addition, the management of funding for Armed Forces covenant schemes is also subject to the established governance procedures set out in Managing Public Money, a publicly available Treasury document that provides guidance on all aspects of how to handle public funds.
The enduring £10 million per annum that the Government have approved for Armed Forces covenant commitments will be specifically ring-fenced for these activities only. Work is currently under way to develop plans for the new fund and how it will be managed. Expenditure will be reported on both in the MoD’s annual report and accounts, for which the department’s Permanent Secretary is held personally accountable by Parliament, and in the annual Armed Forces covenant report that the Secretary of State is legally required to produce. The National Audit Office will also scrutinise both documents. In addition to the comprehensive governance framework described above, funding for Armed Forces covenant schemes is also subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Anyone, if they wish, can submit a request to receive information on Armed Forces covenant funding.
A combination of all the activity described will continue to provide the assurance that any financial assistance that is provided under the Armed Forces covenant meets the criteria listed in Clause 4(5) of the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill, which we are currently debating.
I shall now address Amendment 19. It is essential that the money allocated to the covenant meets the aims of the Armed Forces covenant. Noble Lords will have seen the briefing note that was circulated recently, which set down proposals for how the community covenant grant scheme, the £35 million LIBOR fund and the veterans’ accommodation fund have managed the allocation of funding.
For each of the previous schemes, it has been essential that applicants meet a tightly defined set of conditions, including a clear demonstration of how they meet the aims of the Armed Forces covenant, a clear demonstration of how a project will benefit the Armed Forces community, a clear demonstration of the need and associated benefits, a clear demonstration of how the project will provide value for money and confirmation that the project will not generate any profit. Even where an application meets these terms, a final decision is subject to the agreement of a board of experts.
Funding for the community covenant grant scheme is administered regionally. This reflects the aim to focus on local initiatives, based on a local assessment of need. Bids are first considered by the local joint civil/military partnership board, or where this is not established, the local authority and military signatories of the community covenant, before being referred to the regional grant panel. The membership of the regional grant panel consists of a chair with a rank equivalent to colonel or brigadier, a member of each service with a rank at least equivalent to major, one or two external members from organisations—the Families Federation, for example—the local authority or charitable partners, and a regional administrator, who is the secretary.
Where bids exceed a set level, currently £70,000, these are referred to a central panel for consideration. This includes a representative from HM Treasury and members of the Ministry of Defence Armed Forces covenant team, representing the Chief of Defence Personnel. Applications to the £35 million LIBOR fund and the veterans’ accommodation fund have been administered centrally by the Chief of Defence Personnel. The board that considers applications to these funds includes representatives of the MoD, which chairs the panel, and the Treasury, representatives of the Covenant Reference Group, including the devolved Administrations and selected service charities, such as the Families Federations and either the Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations or a cluster lead. There are already in existence boards that oversee and manage the distribution of the financial assistance for the Armed Forces community. A detailed explanation of all of these arrangements is widely available through the gov.uk internet site, but I hope I have demonstrated that there is already in place a rigorous governance process to ensure that funding attributed to the Armed Forces covenant is managed effectively.
With regard to the more recent £10 million LIBOR fund, the MoD is currently developing proposals for how the future fund will be managed. If possible, we will bring additional rigour to the process through the appointment of a professional grant-management organisation. This will ensure professional expertise and independence in the grant-making process. This is very much work in progress but I assure noble Lords that the criteria for applications and the rigorous scrutiny process will be retained, and will include a representative panel of experts who can ensure a continued focus on the principles enshrined in the Armed Forces covenant. The priorities for the future fund will also be agreed each year through the Covenant Reference Group.
Furthermore, as set out earlier, the Armed Forces annual report, which the Secretary of State is required by Parliament to produce, will also explain in a transparent way how financial assistance has been distributed to the Armed Forces community through the year in line with the Armed Forces covenant’s twin principles. Most notably in this regard, it is the right of the independent members of the Covenant Reference Group to express their unexpurgated comments in the report. This in itself will provide significant scrutiny of how the funding is allocated.
Approval of the legislation in Clause 4 will give the MoD the flexibility and agility that it needs to provide financial assistance to the Armed Forces community anywhere in the world. The intention is that the schemes should remain discretionary, as opposed to being placed on a statutory basis, but subject to the established governance procedures set out in the document that I mentioned earlier, Managing Public Money. As we continue to strengthen and improve this process, it is essential that we are able to retain sufficient flexibility over the composition of future decision panels, bringing in expertise and specialists.
My noble friend asked for clarification on matters of governance and I hope that she is satisfied with what I have outlined. She also asked for clarification of what a “person” is. The term is technical. The word “person” relies on the definition of the word used as a general tool of statutory interpretation, provided in Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978, where a “person” is stated to include,
“a body of persons corporate or incorporate”.
These can be companies and unincorporated associations.
While in theory any individual could apply for financial assistance, they would not meet the criteria for any of the current schemes or the terms laid out in Clause 4. It is also most unlikely that an individual could apply to the Secretary of State for financial assistance simply to benefit themselves. The requirement is for the person to undertake activities which are for a charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purpose, and in such circumstances the individual would not appear to be undertaking any activity other than spending the money for their own personal needs.
Lord Rosser
I, too, thank the Minister for her reply. As I understand it, the response to my amendment is basically that the issues I raised in it are likely to be covered in the annual report on the Armed Forces covenant.
Defence Reform Bill
Baroness Jolly Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, explained, the intent behind the proposed amendment is to increase the independence of the SSRO by giving BIS responsibility for the regulations relating to qualifying defence contracts. As we have made clear on countless occasions during the progress of the Bill, and indeed in positive meetings with noble Lords—we have met quite frequently to discuss this, so I am glad the noble Lord found that helpful—the Government are fully committed to the independence of the SSRO in order to achieve value for money for the taxpayer. The SSRO will succeed only if it is, and is seen to be, fair to both parties. If it is too biased towards the MoD we risk driving the best suppliers out of the market. It is precisely the need for an independent moderating authority that led the MoD to propose the creation of the SSRO in the first place.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, pointed out that the SSRO chair and other non-executive directors are appointed and potentially reappointed by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State sets the budget for the SSRO and can abolish it if he, or she in the future, so wishes. The noble Lord considers that that gives the Secretary of State considerable leverage. It would perhaps help if I were to explain in detail the context of our approach to the SSRO. In framing the legislation, we wanted to give the SSRO as much freedom as possible, including the ability to recruit its own staff. We did not want the SSRO to be a servant or agent of the Crown. These requirements have led to it being designated a non-departmental public body—NDPB.
Considerable public attention has been paid to NDPBs over the past few years, and substantial guidance has been developed. This includes the requirement that they must be allocated to a department, and the Secretary of State of that department must appoint the chair and the non-executives of that body. This department must also pay for the NDPB, which is why the MoD must set the budget for the SSRO. As to the ability to abolish the SSRO, this has been included in Clause 40 which relates to the termination of the whole of Part 2. This power will be used only if there is a desire to repeal the entire framework and revert to a non-statutory approach. In either case, the SSRO will no longer have a role, so the power will exert no leverage over the SSRO.
I turn now to what we have done to ensure the independence of the SSRO. The independence of the chair and other board members is essential, so I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I describe the recruitment process in detail. To ensure that this appointment will result in a suitably independent and unbiased person, we are running the process in full accordance with the guidelines of the Office of the Commissioner of Public Appointments—OCPA. The recruitment panel for the chair is headed by a public appointments assessor, who has been chosen for us by OCPA. Also on the recruitment panel is an independent person suggested by OCPA and approved by the public appointments assessor. There are two others on the panel—one MoD official, and a representative from industry, Mr Paul Everitt, the CEO of ADS, one of the industry trade bodies for the defence sector—so only one of the four members of the interview panel will be from the Government.
A similar recruitment panel, with the addition of the chair, will be used to select the other non-executive directors. There are additional requirements for suitable candidates. They must not have come recently from the MoD or a defence supplier. Together they must represent a balance of private and public sector experience. They must have between them a variety of relevant experience: for example, legal or regulatory expertise, and experience of acquisition within the price sector. This is a rigorous appointment process, and I am confident that the result will be an independent SSRO board.
Having a suitably independent and strong chair will safeguard the independence of the framework, and we have tried our best to achieve this. This is further backed up by guaranteed freedoms. The SSRO is largely free to determine its own procedures, including making committees. The exceptions to this are where procedures are laid out in the Bill, and the requirement to run a full public consultation in support of the quinquennial review, which will be included in the framework document between the MoD and the SSRO.
In addition, the SSRO, like all public bodies, will be subject to external scrutiny by organisations such as the Competition and Markets Authority and the National Audit Office. Moreover, the SSRO chair can be brought before a parliamentary committee at any time. All these points highlight the considerable efforts we have made to ensure that the SSRO will be independent and subject to appropriate public and parliamentary scrutiny. The fact that the Secretary of State appoints the chair and that he can dissolve it are not what will determine the independence and impartiality of the SSRO. While we fully share with the noble Lord his aspiration of protecting the independence of the SSRO and the framework, we do not believe that this amendment is a necessary or effective means of achieving it.
In terms of practicalities, the Ministry of Defence will be the sole government user of the single-source procurement framework. It already has the technical expertise, the understanding and the necessary contacts with the defence industry to understand how the framework will operate in the real world. While the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills would undoubtedly be able to develop the required level of knowledge and expertise, it would take considerable time, effort and cost to create and would, in effect, duplicate the existing capability of the Ministry of Defence.
Moreover, it is normally the case that a single government department acts as the sponsor for a regulatory authority. This amendment would have the effect of splitting this between BIS, which would be responsible for the regulations relating to qualifying defence contracts, and the Ministry of Defence, which would be responsible for all other aspects, including the application of civil penalties. This would create an unhelpful degree of confusion and inconsistency, especially with regard to relations between the Government and the SSRO.
By creating the SSRO, we will increase the number of parties involved in single-source procurement from two—the MoD and the supplier—to three. Adding BIS as a fourth party would add confusion. For example, a supplier might lobby BIS for a change rather than the SSRO, and BIS might seek the MoD’s opinion on a matter rather than trust the SSRO’s recommendations. It is true that BIS has a similar role with regard to other regulators, such as Ofcom, but in such cases BIS is acting as a moderating body between the privatised suppliers and the public. In the case of the SSRO, however, the proposed amendment would place BIS in the position of setting statutory pricing and procurement rules of which the MoD is the sole user. BIS would thereby become the moderating body between private industry and another government department. This would create a potentially unhelpful relationship.
I will make a final point on premises and the issue of independence. I reaffirm what I said in Committee, which was that the SSRO, although it will be on government estate, will not be co-located within the Ministry of Defence. In developing this piece of legislation, the MoD has consulted extensively with industry over a prolonged period. There has been no suggestion from industry that it would see any advantage in having BIS own these regulations. Indeed, the Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology, Mr Philip Dunne, recently met with Mr Paul Everitt of ADS, who said that industry no longer had any concerns over the independence of the SSRO.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about a couple of points, including performance targets. Targets are there to ensure the efficient operation of the framework and the organisation. They are likely to relate to how quickly the SSRO responds to opinions or determinations made by the MoD or the supplier. He requested clarification on communications between the Secretary of State and the SSRO. If they are not on ruling, what sort of communications will they be? The SSRO will be responsible for keeping the framework under review and this will require communication with the Secretary of State or his officials to discuss any matters relating to the performance of the framework of the SSRO. The SSRO will have similar communications with industry.
On Amendment 3, as I stated, the purpose behind Part 2 is to ensure that in exchange for providing suppliers with a fair and reasonable price, the MoD will receive value for money for the goods and services it obtains through single-source procurement. Here we are in complete agreement. This works in two ways. First, it does this by establishing pricing rules that must be followed by the MoD and suppliers and by giving the SSRO the power to adjust the contract price if these rules are not complied with. This places a direct obligation on suppliers to use only appropriate and reasonable pricing assumptions.
Secondly, the Bill imposes transparency requirements which will allow the MoD to monitor suppliers’ costs: for example, ensuring that cost increases are highlighted in good time. These transparency provisions will allow the department, over time, to generate pricing benchmarks for goods and services. In turn, this will help the MoD to negotiate with industry over prices and to press for tough but reasonable efficiency targets. As it is in the interests of the MoD that these two features are applied as widely as possible, we fully expect that the Secretary of State for Defence will use the powers of exemption set out in Clause 14(7) only on an infrequent basis.
In Committee, I provided examples of where we envisage that the use of exemptions might be justified. However, I will summarise them again for the benefit of the House. The first circumstance is where there is no market failure. The framework addresses the situation where a contract price is not subject to the competitive pressures of the market. If those pressures are evident in the contract price, the framework is not required. An example is the purchase of additional items that are already available in the civil market, such as computers.
The second circumstance is one of national security. The Bill provides for some categories of contracts to be automatically excluded from the framework. One of the categories identified in the draft regulations is when the contract is for the purpose of intelligence activities. These exclusions apply only if the whole contract is covered by one or other of the excluded categories. So in the case where a significant part, but not all, of the contract is for intelligence activities, the contract would not be automatically excluded from the framework. As transparency is a significant part of the framework this is unlikely to be appropriate, so the whole contract may require exemption by the Secretary of State.
The third circumstance concerns our relations with other nations. Some of the standard reports would give us sight of a supplier’s plans for the key industrial sites sustained by MoD’s single-source procurement, which could result in a supplier having to reveal the forecast throughput assumptions of facilities that are used predominantly by a foreign Government, thereby exposing that country’s defence planning assumptions. This is likely to be treated with considerable reluctance by the foreign Government and therefore may require use of the exemption.
These are strong, valid reasons for the Secretary of State requiring this exemption power. However, not all the potential cases might be classed as being exceptional, as set out in the proposed amendment. Let us take, for example, the case where the market failures addressed by the framework are not present. It might be useful if I quoted the hypothetical but plausible example of where the department wishes to buy additional desktop computers. In the interests of operating only a single type, an open competition might be undesirable. However, in this example we do not need the full protections Part 2 offers to confirm that the price being offered to the department is fair and reasonable; we can simply compare it with the market price. This may be an unusual case as it requires a contract to be single-sourced yet fully priced using market prices. There would be a valid case for using the exemption powers, but it would be hard to argue that this constitutes exceptional circumstances.
We do not wish the Secretary of State to be constrained by how the new regime is applied in this way, but given that it is in the department’s interests that as much single-source procurement activity as possible is covered by the framework, the fewer exemptions there are, the greater the benefits there will be to the MoD.
I hope that this explains our position and therefore I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I thank all Peers who took part in this debate, and in particular the Minister for her various assurances. I have faith that the people currently in the Ministry of Defence will undoubtedly use the right mechanisms to select the chairman of the SSRO and the individuals who are its non-executive directors. The pressure, which I am sure the present Administration would not bring to bear on the SSRO, will nevertheless come from all the subtleties. I speak as somebody who has chaired a nationalised industry, and who has been the chief executive of one and therefore on its board. The most subtle pressure comes from something that is entirely within the discretion of the appropriate Secretary of State. The Commissioner for Public Appointments, whom the Minister quoted, stated in a recent press release:
“The Public Appointments Commissioner plays no part in a decision not to re-appoint someone at the end of their term of office. That is a matter for Government”.
As we have seen recently in the case of Ofsted, the Government exercised that privilege without recourse to any mechanisms or checks. Everybody will try to do the right thing in these circumstances, but at the end of the day “not being reappointed” is a code for being fired, and being fired can engage the mind rather firmly. I believe that we should do more to distance the SSRO from the Ministry of Defence; the solution that we have chosen is the best one, and because it is important that the Government understand the wisdom of our words, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Defence Reform Bill
Baroness Jolly Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, has raised in a variety of ways the issue of the independence of the SSRO from government. I raised one further point on that at Second Reading. I got a reply, but I was not absolutely confident that it provided the right answer. The point I made was that the SSRO has an interest in value for money, but so has the Treasury throughout government. I asked to what extent the SSRO stands free of, or is supervised by, the Treasury. For the record, it would be helpful to have that point covered once again. If I remember correctly, I got a very full answer from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, but I was not absolutely happy that it gave a feeling of the pure independence of the SSRO from the Treasury.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments at the beginning of this fourth day in Committee. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and commend him for his preparation for the scrutiny in this Committee stage. I apologise in advance to noble Lords because some of my earlier speaking notes are quite lengthy, but they get shorter. The purpose of the length is that we need much of this on record.
Clause 13 is at the heart of the reforms to single-source procurement. It establishes the Single Source Regulations Office, a small, arm’s-length body responsible for keeping the new framework under review, monitoring adherence and providing expert determination between the MoD and single-source suppliers. It is therefore essential to the success of these reforms. Clause 13 also establishes in law the overriding aim of the SSRO to assure that good value for money is obtained in government expenditure on qualifying single-source defence contracts and that defence suppliers are paid a fair and reasonable price under those contracts.
The creation of an independent body is absolutely central to the success and longevity of the framework. I cannot say this too strongly. The purpose of this body is to be independent and transparent, thus giving confidence to both parties who need to play in this area. It was a key recommendation of the independent review conducted by the noble Lord, Lord Currie. The SSRO will replace the existing Review Board for Government Contracts, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Currie, identified, has, through no fault of its own, failed to evolve to reflect changing circumstances, largely because either party can block any change that it regards as contrary to its own interests.
Clause 13 brings into effect Schedule 4, which establishes the governance structure of the SSRO. In this we have closely followed guidance published by the Cabinet Office on executive non-departmental public bodies and have considered existing governance arrangements for similar bodies, such as Monitor. So we have not started with a blank piece of paper and, as the Committee will see, with the following key characteristics of the SSRO, the structure we have created is in common with other similar public bodies. It has a separate chair and chief executive and a board which has a majority of non-executive directors, which is aligned with best practice in the Financial Reporting Council’s UK Corporate Governance Code and Cabinet Office guidelines. Non-executive members of the SSRO should be appointed for a period of between three and six years to assure a staggered process of appointments to the key positions. There will be a process that allows the Secretary of State to remove or suspend a member from office on the grounds of failure to carry out his or her duties, incapacity, such as ill health, or misconduct, which rightly follows Cabinet Office guidance on the creation of public bodies. The SSRO will have the ability to appoint its own employees, which is consistent with Public Bodies: A Guide for Departments, produced by the Cabinet Office; and, in accordance with the Cabinet Office’s guidance on good corporate governance in executive NDPBs, the SSRO’s committee structure will be the body that makes key binding determinations, including where there is an appeal from one of the parties to a qualifying defence contract. We have listened to industry requests in this area, and have agreed that committees can contain members who are not employees or members of the SSRO.
The SSRO will also have separate responsibilities to the Secretary of State, the Auditor-General and Parliament. These, which are set out in Schedule 4, include the provision of annual accounts which are consistent with international finance reporting standards, which will be audited by the National Audit Office. These accounts will be prepared between three to six months of the end of the financial year. An annual report on its activities must be provided by the SSRO to the Secretary of State, who in turn will lay the report before Parliament.
As the sponsoring department of the SSRO, the Secretary of State will make payments to the SSRO to finance its operations. This is in common with Cabinet Office guidance on the funding of ENDPBs. There will be a framework agreement established between the MoD and the SSRO that sets its budget, in accordance with HMT’s guidelines in Managing Public Money and performance targets. The SSRO will be jointly funded by the MoD and industry, but we have agreed with industry that the MoD will pick up its costs over the first three years, as it is established and until we determine its precise annual running costs. The SSRO will be allowed to borrow money only on a temporary basis up to an overdraft limit set by the Secretary of State. There may be occasions where the SSRO has a higher number of adjudications or determinations that it is administering, where it may require additional resources to meet its objectives in a timely fashion.
We have given the SSRO the ability to pay pensions to its non-executive members. This is not because we intend to pay a pension to every non-executive member the SSRO appoints; rather, we have done this to give the Secretary of State the flexibility to recruit non-executive members from both the private and public sectors who may have existing pension arrangements. Other elements of Schedule 4 ensure that the SSRO will be a body that is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, allow the parliamentary commissioner to investigate the SSRO, and ensure that its staff are not civil servants.
This clause is therefore crucial to the overall establishment of the SSRO and the functioning of the new framework. The SSRO will, over time, become an independent expert in defence single-source pricing, ensuring that we do not need to wait another 45 years for this framework to be reviewed again. It is therefore crucial that this clause is retained in the Bill.
Amendments 18G and 18H revolve around a concern, primarily expressed by industry, but also by the noble Lord, about the independence and impartiality of the SSRO. I assure noble Lords that we are committed to ensuring that the SSRO will be both independent and impartial. The credibility of the new single-source framework rests upon this. For example, the SSRO can act as an independent adjudicator in the event of disputes between parties and it is the appeal body to which industry can refer if we apply a civil penalty to it. Perhaps even more significantly, it annually recommends the profit rate and recommends changes to the framework as part of the quinquennial review process. It is the guardian of the new framework and its impartiality is at the core of the dual aims under Clause 13 of ensuring a fair and reasonable price for contractors and value for money for the Government.
If the SSRO was perceived as being partial, this would create great difficulties. If the perception was that it was too biased towards the Government, shareholders could decide that the defence sector was no longer worth investing in and our suppliers could be driven to leave it. If the perception was the other way—as too biased towards our suppliers—we would seek to change the framework entirely or we would exempt our contracts from it and thus lose the protections we are establishing in this Bill. Neither of these outcomes serves either the MoD or our single-source suppliers. It is the need for independence and impartiality that has led to our desire to set up the SSRO in the first place. The current framework requires consensus to change. This has meant that for 45 years, any change that one side has felt puts them at a disadvantage has been blocked. This is the principal reason why the old system has remained frozen in time for so long. Consensus will not serve us. The alternative, a statutory framework determined entirely by the MoD, would always be resisted by industry. There would be a risk that over time the framework would become steadily more one-sided and that industry would be driven out of the sector, so this option is also not desirable. What we need is an independent body, namely the Single Source Regulations Office.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I am sorry that I have not answered specific questions. I should have flagged up as many as possible as I was going through my brief. However, I am happy to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I am sorry that I did not make a closing speech because the idea of HMT having performance targets and a bonus culture does not fill me with enthusiasm. I may write to the Minister on that.
In moving Amendment 18J I shall speak also to Amendment 18K and to oppose that Clause 25 should stand part of the Bill. The issue here is essentially one of transparency. The offending subsection in Clause 14 is subsection (7), which states:
“The Secretary of State may direct that a particular contract to which subsection (3) applies is not a qualifying defence contract even though the contract otherwise meets the requirements of subsection (2)”.
One loves legislation that contains such clauses because they mean something like, “Never mind the whole of this document because the Secretary of State can decide it does not apply”, which roughly speaking is what this says. Amendments 18J and 18K recognise that there will be circumstances in which, frankly, this whole part of the Bill is excluded by the Secretary of State. It invites the Secretary of State to bring full details to Parliament and explain why the decision has been made. I should like the Minister to set out the circumstances in which subsection (7) would be used. I have asked the question privately and was given a general answer saying, “It is about the peculiarities of government-to-government contracts”. It seems to me that my amendments are entirely reasonable in those circumstances. It is entirely reasonable where there is some other assurance process, such as, “The Americans are going to do it for us” or that there is a treaty with the French which lays out the provisions to do this. That would be when this clause is used.
The Grand Committee is a small group today and we are discussing a very dry subject, but it is one that concerns the moving about of hundreds of millions and, indeed, billions of pounds. If a chunk of money of that order is moving about, Parliament should know under what circumstances it is being moved about, why the SSRO is not involved, and what assurances the public purse can be given by the Government as to what is being done. I expect that in her response the noble Baroness will talk about government-to-government contracts and I look forward to her touching on the detail of that.
The other area that came to light only when I delved into this with more care is the fascinating area of critical industrial capability. I am not sure whether that is the favourite way of referring to the concept these days, but I am sure that my meaning will emerge. Critical industrial capability is a concept whereby the taxpayer shovels out an awful lot of money to various contractors, a substantial part of which goes to BAE Systems, in order to keep workers on the books who are not doing work so that they are available to do work later. I am not even saying that that is wrong. I can see precisely why it makes sense. A more holistic view of the problem might be to schedule one’s procurement in a smoother way so that they are working continuously, but, conceptually, I can see why the former concept is necessary. However, it is important to realise just how substantial this is. We had a recent Statement on aircraft carriers. I read what the Minister said but the BAE Systems press release is in some ways even more interesting in that it is quite revealing. It states:
“BAE Systems has reached agreement in principle with HM Government on measures to enable the implementation of a restructuring of its UK naval ships business”.
The perception of BAE Systems is that this is about the naval ships business. The press release goes on to say:
“In 2009, BAE Systems entered into a Terms of Business Agreement (ToBA) with the Ministry of Defence that provided an overarching framework for significant naval shipbuilding efficiency improvements in exchange for commitments to fund rationalisation and sustainment of capability in the sector. The agreements announced today, together with an anticipated contract for the design and manufacture of the Type 26 Global Combat Ships programme, will progressively replace that ToBA”.
This is about maintaining capability. A couple of paragraphs later, it states:
“Under the new Target Cost contract the industrial participants’ fee will move to a 50:50 risk share arrangement”—
it is talking about carriers—
“providing greater cost performance incentives. The maximum risk to the industrial participants will continue to be limited to the loss of their profit opportunity”.
This clearly—at least in my view—is not compatible with Part 2 of the Bill. Apparently, Part 2 allows risk-sharing only under Clause 16, as far as I can see, and that in no part talks about limiting the loss to the profit component. It implies that the loss would go down the middle and deeper into it.
The press release refers also to the three offshore patrol vessels. Noble Lords may recall that the Secretary of State’s speech made it clear that these were pretty cheap because, frankly, they were being paid for by the industrial capability budget. The press release goes on:
“Following detailed discussions about how best to sustain the long-term capability to deliver complex warships, BAE Systems has agreed with the UK Ministry of Defence that Glasgow would be the most effective location for the manufacture of the future Type 26 ships”.
We should remember that the press release is written for shareholders, not the public, so it re-emphasises:
“The cost of the restructuring will be borne by the Ministry of Defence”.
It seems to me that these sorts of contracts do not come within the proposed framework that Part 2 talks about. In order for such a contract to be completed or negotiated in the future, Clause 14(7) would have to be invoked. Essentially, I am asking whether I am right in those presumptions. I am very happy to be written to because I accept that I have raised rather a new point. If that subsection is to be invoked, and if this capability and that sort of contract is to be involved, costing hundreds of millions of pounds, and probably the odd billion, it seems to me that the public and government should know about it in a rather more open way. Our amendments would require this to happen: the public should know and Parliament should know.
On Clause 25, essentially I am asking the Minister whether I am right that this is the only reference in the Bill to the issue that I have been talking about. Clause 25 seems to stand out as not being cross-referenced anywhere else in the Bill. It suddenly pops up on the subject of overheads and forward planning. I assume that this relates to the reporting structures. I should have said at the beginning that the reporting structures in the Bill are in many ways the essence of it, and the fact that I have no amendments on them is an acknowledgement that I commend the reporting structures and what they do. However, regarding Clause 25, I ask whether this relates to this concept of critical industrial capability and, if it does, in what circumstances Clause 25(8) would apply. Those of us who are required to study legislation always look for this paragraph:
“The Secretary of State may direct that a particular contract is not to be taken into account in determining whether the ongoing contract condition is met in relation to a financial year”.
In other words, if it gets very difficult, the Secretary of State can determine that it shall not be taken account of.
I hope that the Minister will be able to help with these questions and I am content that she may need to write to me. I beg to move.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I will consider Amendments 18J and 18K together and then move to the clause stand part debate.
These amendments relate to the Secretary of State’s power to exempt contracts from the new framework, provided for by Clause 14(7). Amendment 18J has no impact in its own right other than to add scope for a limitation to the Secretary of State’s exemption power. That limitation is provided by Amendment 18K. Subsection (7) gives the Secretary of State the power to exempt individual contracts that would otherwise be subject to the new regime. While it is not possible to foresee all future circumstances, this power is considered necessary for a number of reasons.
Before considering the limitation introduced by Amendment 18K, it might be helpful to noble Lords if I outline and give examples of the key circumstances in which we expect this power to be used. The first circumstance is where there is no market failure. The framework addresses the situation where a contract price is not subject to the competitive pressures of the market. If those pressures are evident in the contract price, the framework is not required. An example is the purchase of additional items that are readily available in the civil market, such as computers. To ensure compatibility with our existing infrastructure, we might want to use a particular manufacturer, so the procurement would be a single-source procurement. However, the item might have a price that has been established in a competitive market. In such cases, there would be no requirement for standardised reporting and open book rights to ensure value for money, because it would be self-evident from the marketplace. Applying the framework in such a case would not represent value for money, as the additional costs of making the contract a regulated contract would not be outweighed by the benefits of transparency.
Lord Tunnicliffe
I take it that that was an offer to write to me with the one-and-a-half-page response.
Lord Tunnicliffe
It might help, because the noble Baroness will probably have to put it into the record anyway, on Report.
Baroness Jolly
The framework provides for a range of reports to be specified in the single-source contract regulations upon both specific contract costs and upon supplier costs that relate to wider capabilities and capacity. It is estimated that around a third of the costs of single-source contracts relates to so-called overheads. These account for some £2 billion a year of expenditure under single-source contracts. These costs do not relate to any one individual contract but, it is said, represent the costs of providing particular industrial capabilities and capacity. Not all of the costs of this capacity will be reflected in the costs recovered through single-source contracts. Some may be recovered through MoD contracts won competitively, or through non-MoD customers. However, in some sectors where single-source activity is particularly concentrated, these costs may represent the majority, if not all, of the costs of capacity.
The new framework has six reports relating specifically to these costs. These include reports on the estimated costs that are used to price contracts, the assumptions that underpin those estimates and the actual costs that are subsequently incurred. The requirement for suppliers to keep relevant records in relation to costs and the MoD right to examine those records also apply equally to these overhead costs, as they do to any other allowable costs. In addition to these transparency rights, the pricing principles set out in relation to allowable costs also apply to these overhead costs. Such costs must be appropriate in nature and reasonable in value.
The transparency provided by these reports, the access to records supporting them and the requirement to follow the pricing principles will further enhance the ability of the MoD to act as an intelligent customer when considering the cost of the capacity it requires. The single-source contract regulations will also provide for a further report that specifically considers the industrial capacity provided by our key suppliers. This report will supply senior individuals in the department with consistent information across suppliers when considering capacity requirements, contributing to the alignment between requirement and the industrial capacity we have to pay for. I hope that the noble Lord will now consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that response. We have used different terms but I think she has gone half way to meeting my concerns over what I have called the critical industrial capability. I did not of course put down a clause stand part debate in order to not have a clause, but to understand it better.
However, one area still concerns me. The sort of deals that I described from the BAE Systems press release are very large, and I have great difficulty in seeing how you would fit them, in future, into Part 2, which is full of pricing mechanisms, profit share and so on. It is quite detailed and there is a framework. I am happy for the Minister to write to me rather than give me an answer now, but one of the questions is whether she envisages that such deals will be fitted into Part 2 or whether it will be necessary to use Clause 14(7) or some other exception—as the Minister has pointed out, there are other exceptions in that clause. Does the Minister envisage there needing to be an exception for those sort of deals or is it envisaged that future deals of this nature will be somehow compatible with Part 2 in ways that, at the moment, I am incapable of understanding? I would be very grateful for a response to that detailed question, although I would not encourage her to give me one now. With that, I am content to withdraw Amendment 18J.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, we are considering in this group of amendments three related changes to the power under Clause 18 for a referral to be made to the SSRO for a determination to adjust the price of a contract. On a minor drafting point, the proposed amendments address only the SSRO’s adjustment of the profit element of the price and, indeed, to only three of the six steps that set contract profit rate. However, I shall assume in my response that the intent of the amendments is also to limit the ability of the SSRO to adjust the cost element of the price as outlined in Clause 20 rather than the profit element alone.
The contention behind these amendments is, I believe, that this price determination introduces an unacceptable degree of uncertainty to the price of a contract, and so they seek to restrict the scope of the determination in three ways: by restricting the grounds on which a referral may be made, as set out in Amendment 18L; by restricting the period in which a referral may be made, as set out in Amendment 18M; and finally by restricting the determination that the SSRO may make. We do not consider that any of these restrictions are necessary or desirable, and placing such restrictions on the determination will significantly weaken compliance with the pricing rules of the new framework. I think it will be helpful if I outline the purpose and scope of the SSRO’s price determinations before we consider the individual amendments.
The new single-source framework is essentially a deal between suppliers and the Government. Suppliers get a fair and reasonable price and we get the protections we need to ensure value for money. This is a good deal for both parties. We have a duty to ensure taxpayer value for money and an efficient and thriving defence sector that gets a fair price, which is good for defence as a whole. It means that our Armed Forces get the equipment and support they need and the wider economy benefits from an efficient defence sector that can drive innovation and exports. Determining a fair price is thus a key component of Part 2, and Clauses 15 to 21 set out how this is to be done. They set out, for example, that the price must be determined on the basis of allowable costs—costs that are reasonable, appropriate and relate to the contract. They also set out that on top of these costs, the supplier is entitled to a fair and reasonable profit rate. Following these pricing rules will result in a price that is fair and reasonable. The rules on profit ensure that suppliers are adequately compensated for their expertise, and the rules on costs ensure that taxpayers do not pay more than they should. There would be no point in having these rules if they were not enforceable. Indeed, it would undermine the deal that is central to the framework.
This is the situation we have at the moment. Even though the current Review Board for Government Contracts annually recommends a profit rate, there is no obligation to use it, and it is being used less and less on our larger contracts. It may be asked why we need price enforcement provisions at all. Why would anyone sign a contract with a price that is not fair and reasonable? The answer stems from the market failures inherent in single-source procurement. This form of procurement is used when there is no alternative supplier. It means that we cannot walk away from the supplier without also walking away from the essential military capability that that supplier provides. This is not a strong negotiating position, as our suppliers are only too aware. In addition, we are sometimes under time pressures, so that any delay to signing the contract puts lives at risk. This compounds the problem, and partly explains why we may not always get the best deal.
Another reason why we might sign a contract with a price that is not fair and reasonable stems from the fact that in single-source procurement there is only one supplier pricing the work. The knowledge that there is no one who can put forward a cheaper, more competitive price puts a supplier in a highly unusual and privileged position. Instead of a healthy market incentive to price keenly, our single-source suppliers are under a direct financial incentive to do just the opposite, and the current framework encourages this. This is not to say that our suppliers always, or even routinely, do this. However, it cannot be denied that an environment where suppliers are rewarded for inflating their price is hardly conducive to getting value for money.
The MoD, of course, has a duty to challenge a supplier’s price estimates. As a brief aside, I will note that this price challenge has not been a level playing field historically. Suppliers’ commercial staff, for whom financial incentives are paramount, typically outnumber our commercial staff, and they employ specialist consultants to help them—which, under the current system, they can often charge back to us. Returning to the market failures of single-source procurement, a substantial difficulty in challenging suppliers’ costs is that they always know more about them than we do. Clearly we need to see their cost assumptions before we agree a price. This is what we should get under the current system, although it is not legally binding. Under the current system we can also challenge their price up to two years after the contract has ended, if we can prove that they did not show their assumptions to us.
This brings me to Amendment 18L. This seeks to introduce a single and specific ground for a price referral to the SSRO—namely, that the SSRO can amend the price only if the initial pricing assumptions were not shown to the MoD. However, seeing suppliers’ price assumptions is not sufficient. Suppliers are in a strong position and can present a convincing case—for example, by showing that their costs forecasts are aligned to historic expectations even if these represent poor value. It requires specialist knowledge and experience to challenge this. It is not enough for a supplier to show us their assumptions, and to put all of the duty on to the MoD to check that each and every one is reasonable, as with the current approach. This encourages a supplier to add extras to their price and hope that the MoD does not find them all. This is an appalling pricing incentive, far removed from a healthy market, and we must address it if we want to get value for money. Again, I do not say that this always happens but I am sure that it is not conducive to getting value for money.
We want suppliers to be encouraged to use good quality pricing assumptions in the first place; assumptions that are fit for purpose. If the cost is worth hundreds of millions of pounds, then they should do a certain amount of due diligence to support this estimate. If they do not, they should be at risk of a future price change when it transpires that outturn costs bear little resemblance to the original estimates. Equally, and just as importantly, I accept that the MoD has a duty to check these estimates. If we fail in our duty, any SSRO-determined price change will take this into account.
The SSRO price referrals, in the way that they are currently drafted, will replace the current misaligned pricing incentives with incentives that act as a proxy for the missing competitive pressures. We have chosen to give the SSRO, in its role as an independent expert of single-source procurement, the function of acting as an independent adjudicator in the event that these pricing rules are not followed. One alternative might have been the courts. However, the technical and specialist nature of single-source procurement means that this route might be more complicated and time consuming for both parties, and probably much more expensive.
So the SSRO, under Clauses 18 and 20, can make a determination that the price of the single-source contract must be adjusted. It will make this assessment if it considers, for example, that a contractor’s assumptions were misleading or not fit for purpose at the time of pricing; in other words, that they were not fair and reasonable.
The SSRO will not penalise either party for getting an assumption wrong—no one can be expected to know the future—but if it considers that a party provided misleading assumptions or withheld crucial information known to that party at the time, such as, for a supplier, known efficiency measures, then the SSRO can adjust the price. If the SSRO considers that the MoD should have asked more questions, it will also take this into account in its determination. Industry has raised concerns that this adds uncertainty into single-source procurement. My challenge back is that it is an uncertainty that can easily be mitigated. If you follow the pricing rules and keep an audit trail of your assumptions, then any uncertainty will be minimal.
Amendment 18L would reduce the grounds for referral to the SSRO. A referral could be made only if inaccurate or incomplete information had been provided by either party to the contract. If information was provided but was misleading or not fit for purpose, this amendment would prevent the SSRO reviewing and, potentially, adjusting the price of a contract. Similarly, if the adjustments had been determined without regard to the statutory guidance or there was an error of calculation, there would also be no ability to refer the matter. This amendment puts all the duty back on to the MoD to ensure that all the details of a price are fair and reasonable; all the supplier has to do is show its assumptions to us. It takes away from the supplier the duty to do its own due diligence and ensure its estimates are reasonable. This amendment is not an equitable arrangement, particularly given that suppliers have greater knowledge about their costs, and it frustrates our intent to put a proxy for market pressures back on to our single-source suppliers. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 18L.
Having provided a great deal of background for the first amendment, I will be brief with the next two amendments in this group. Amendment 18M seeks to restrict the ability of either party to a contract to make a referral to the SSRO for a determination. This amendment would limit the period in which such a referral could be made to the first six months after the price of a contract has been determined. As I discussed earlier, there are a number of reasons why an SSRO price determination might be appropriate: whether information was withheld from one party at the time of pricing, whether due regard was given to statutory guidance, whether the detailed calculations were performed correctly, or any other reason why the pricing assumptions may not have been fit for purpose. In all these scenarios, information will continue to emerge throughout the course of the contract. For example, the supply chain employed may be significantly different from that assumed at the time of pricing, and this may be a prompt to investigate whether information was appropriately shared or whether the pricing assumptions were fit for purpose. If a contract is for the design, manufacture and initial in-service support of equipment, this kind of information may not become apparent until several years into the contract. To restrict the period for this determination to six months is to restrict the ability to consider information that later comes to light, conduct investigations and assess whether an adjustment might be appropriate. We consider this an artificial and unnecessary restriction upon the SSRO’s aim of ensuring that the contract price is fair and reasonable and that good value for money is obtained. As before, any uncertainty can easily be mitigated by a contractor following the pricing rules and keeping an audit trail of its assumptions.
We however recognise that it is appropriate clearly to specify the periods in which opinions and determinations, including this determination under Clause 18, may be made. It was for this reason that we introduced in the House of Commons what is now Clause 41. This provides that the single-source contract regulations may specify time periods for all referrals to the SSRO, and the draft regulations do just that. The draft regulations are the subject of the ongoing consultation with industry, so we do not consider it necessary to single this one referral out to specify a period in the Bill rather than in the regulations.
Lord Roper
My Lords, I, too, was surprised to read these words. I had looked in the draft regulations to see whether there is anything within them which would help us. There is not. There is a reference to allowable costs in paragraphs 13 to 15, but that merely refers us back to Clause 20. It does not develop the concept of allowable costs, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, rightly suggested it should. I wonder whether the Minister will be able to tell me that this could be looked at in the final version of the draft regulations.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, Amendment 18P would have the effect of directing the Secretary of State for Defence to provide Parliament annually with a determination of the contract profit rate and, specifically, the process that is to be used to determine the profit rate. Before considering the amendment, it will be worth while outlining the existing process that the Bill provides for.
Under Clause 17, the contract profit rate is to be determined through six steps. Three of those steps will be determined with reference to rates that are to be calculated annually: step 1, the baseline profit rate; step 4, the SSRO funding adjustment; and step 6, the adjustment for capital employed by the contractor. Two of these steps are not new; steps 1 and 6 have their equivalents under the existing regime. The rates to be used in determining these three steps must themselves be determined annually as they will reflect the most recent accounts of companies and the SSRO in relation to the SSRO funding adjustment.
The process for determining these rates is provided for by Clause 19 and has several stages. First, the Secretary of State will issue statutory guidance containing the principles that should be used in determining the rates. Secondly, the SSRO must recommend rates, having regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance, by 31 January each year. Thirdly, upon receiving the SSRO’s recommendations, the Secretary of State must then determine and publish in the London Gazette no later than 15 March each year the rates to be used. In publishing the rates to be used, the Secretary of State must also publish the reasons for any differences from the SSRO’s recommendations.
I appreciate that at first sight this may appear to be an unnecessarily complicated process, but it has been carefully considered to fulfil a number of requirements: first, for the Secretary of State to be able to set out clear guidance on the principles that should be used in determining the rates; secondly, and crucially, for the SSRO as the independent and impartial body to be free to recommend rates in accordance with its statutory aim to set a framework that delivers a fair and reasonable price. While the SSRO must have regard to the principles established by the Secretary of State, it should also be free to consider any other matters that it considers relevant to the setting of the rates. It must be able to recommend the rates that it considers will provide a fair and reasonable return to contractors and value for money to the Government, even if that means not following the principles set out by the Secretary of State.
The amendment would require that the powers conferred by Clause 19 should be contained in regulations made by statutory instrument and therefore be subject to the same level of parliamentary scrutiny as the other regulations. While I appreciate that Parliament should exercise an appropriate level of oversight in these matters, I do not think that this proposal is proper in this instance. First, I note that this would form a potentially unhelpful precedent across government, since, as far as I am aware, none of the other regulatory bodies—such as for the railways or water—are subject to this degree of parliamentary scrutiny, even though they deal with issues of great national significance. Secondly, the Secretary of State for Defence is already subject to parliamentary oversight for his powers over the defence budget and is therefore accountable to Parliament for how he discharges these powers. The amendment would add an unhelpful degree of additional and overlapping scrutiny for this specific area of his responsibility.
In addition, this is clearly a very technical and complex issue and there is a risk that making this area subject to parliamentary debate would lead to the politicisation of profit rates which ought to be set through impartial and expert judgment. There would be scope for Parliament to be subjected to lobbying by the various interest groups, a factor that could result in pressure to set the rates either too high or too low.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I will speak to Clause 21 and to Amendment 23C. I must emphasise that our opposition to Clause 21 standing part of the Bill is not directed at the essence of the clause; it is to explore the clause. However, I fear that we must explore it fairly widely.
The concept in this clause, of a final price adjustment, comes out of the report by the noble Lord, Lord Currie. It addresses the key issue of profit that arises from the outturn. In my view, it is conceptually very sound. It is utterly meaningless without the regulations so I thank the officials and the Minister for sharing the regulations with me. After considerable effort, I think that I understood the early part of the regulations, particularly in relation to Clause 21(2), and they seem very sensible. They have a clawback of excessive profit of up to 75% and they support the supplier in a position of excessive loss at 50%, on the simplistic assumption that the profit rate is 10% of the allowable costs. There is quite a broad band, between 96% and 110%, where all variation falls to the supplier’s bottom line, which is a very strong incentive for the supplier to become more efficient and make more profit. I am not against suppliers increasing profit if that is achieved through efficiency. I am entirely in favour of it in this new open book, multi-reporting regime whereby the MoD can share in that experience through the reporting regime, understand it and help future suppliers understand how they can deliver at lower costs and more efficiently. It is a good regime.
Essentially, Amendment 23C simply argues that the regulations referred to in Clause 21(2) should be approved by Parliament using the affirmative procedure. Having recovered from the effort of understanding subsection (2), I gave up the ghost intellectually at that point and stopped reading the Bill. However, since then, I have started to read it again and I find Clause 21 a little difficult to understand, so I have a series of genuine questions for the Minister.
Clause 21(3) states:
“Provision made under subsection (2) must include provision for the amount of any adjustment to be determined … by agreement between the Secretary of State, or an authorised person, and the primary contractor”.
Does that mean that the regulations set out in subsection (2) may or may not be obeyed? In other words, can the Secretary of State agree to disregard the regulations under subsection (2), in which case it seems that the process of developing and publishing the regulations was valueless; or does it simply mean that the parties agree that the figures are right and so on? Is it a clause which simply invites the parties to agree, and if they do not agree the matter can be referred to the SSRO?
Given the precision of the regulations as I read them—I recognise that many thousands of man hours have gone into crafting them—I had some difficulty in understanding Clause 21(4), which states:
“Provision under this section may be expressed so as to apply … to particular kinds of qualifying defence contracts”.
What would be the differences and how would they apply? I genuinely have trouble envisaging what the different sorts of contracts may be like.
I assume that Clause 21(4)(b) is a simple de minimis provision—namely, that there should be a value below which you do not quibble because it is simply not worth doing so. I was fairly comfortable that it was a de minimis provision until I read Clause 21(5)(a) and (b), at which point I gave up the ghost because I could not understand what subsections (5)(a) and (5)(b) meant if subsection (4)(b) is a simple de minimis provision because subsections (5)(a) and (5)(b) seem to be super de minimis provisions. My general view of Clause 21 is that it is great in so far as I understand it, but I have to confess that I do not fully understand it and I seek enlightenment.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, this is a crucial element of the Bill because it protects the taxpayer against contractors earning excessive profits while also protecting industry from excessive losses.
The basis of the Bill is that contractors should get a fair return on single-source work, and even better returns if they can drive cost efficiencies which deliver long-term benefits to the MoD. However, they should not be entitled to super-profits just because, despite best intentions and efforts, both parties happened to get the pricing wrong. Likewise, in the same circumstances, suppliers should not be expected to suffer losses. This clause offers protection to both parties. The clause enables a final price adjustment on completion of a contract if the actual costs of the contract turn out to be markedly different from those agreed at the time of pricing. The mechanism will be applied to all qualifying defence contracts priced at the outset on the basis of a firm or fixed price.
At Second Reading in the House of Commons, statements were made to the effect that provisions such as this are undesirable because an agreed contract price should be an agreed contract price and that clauses like this remove pricing certainty and dampen supplier incentivisation. There is some truth in the observation, but I believe the clause strikes a good and proper balance between incentivising suppliers and protecting the public purse in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Currie, recommended it should. It should also be noted that on a number of occasions in the past when suppliers incurred very substantial losses, such as on the Nimrod programme, they have come back to us for more money. Since we need the capability they provide, it is not in our interest to let a supplier go bankrupt by holding it rigidly to its contract price.
I must also tell the Committee that this clause does not introduce a new idea into single-source contracting. Provisions for a final price adjustment have been in place since 1968 under the existing Yellow Book arrangements, and a mechanism very like Clause 21 has been in place since 2004. It is in many of our single-source contracts and has already been successfully used to recover excess profits from our suppliers on some contracts. However, because the existing mechanism is contractual and needs to be negotiated, sometimes suppliers refuse to agree to its terms. This happened on a recent large maritime maintenance contract where commercial officers had to give it up in exchange for another provision we desired. That is why we want to legislate to provide this protection. If Clause 21 falls, a significant protection for both parties falls with it.
Clause 21 also states that any adjustments to the final price will be determined by the Secretary of State and the contractor. However, if an agreement cannot be reached on whether an adjustment is required or on the amount of that adjustment, the clause enables either of the parties to refer the matter to the SSRO for a binding determination. The clause will be used for particular types of contracts—firm and fixed-price contracts, which account for 60% of our single-source contracts—and the SSCRs will set out the minimum value for applying these provisions.
Finally, the clause gives the Secretary of State a power, on a case-by-case basis, to exempt a QDC from any final price adjustment as long as the value of that QDC is within the range to be specified in the SSCRs, which is expected to be between £5 million and £50 million. When deciding whether to make such an exemption, the Secretary of State must have regard to any matters which will be specified in the regulations. The clause is an important element in protecting both parties in defence contracts: the Government against suppliers’ excessive profits and industry from substantial losses, which ultimately would not be in the MoD’s interest. It is therefore crucial that it remains in the Bill.
Amendment 23C is part of a group of amendments which relate to the regulations that are to be made by statutory instrument under Part 2 and the parliamentary procedure by which those regulations will be made. We have previously discussed this in relation to Clauses 19 and 20 and Amendments 23A, 23C and 23D. Amendment 23C would provide for regulations under Clause 21 to be subject to the affirmative procedure. These regulations are for the final price adjustment and are currently subject to the negative procedure. The final price adjustment is expected to apply to around half of qualifying defence contracts—those which are firm or fixed price—and will have effect only when the costs incurred under these contracts are significantly different from those estimated at the time of pricing. The mechanism provided for by the draft regulations under Clause 21 is a relaxation of an existing mechanism that has been in place since 2004 and follows one of the recommendations by the noble Lord, Lord Currie. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not recommend that regulations under Clause 21 need be subject to the affirmative procedure and we, too, do not consider that these regulations warrant it. I urge the noble Lord not to move Amendment 23C.
Clause 21(4)(a) applies only to a particular kind of contract. The final price adjustment applies to all firm and fixed-price contracts, but with “pain and gain share” contracts, where the MoD and industry agree sharing provisions such as 50:50, it would not be appropriate to have two sharing mechanisms running simultaneously. Clause 21(4)(a) allows us to exclude “pain and gain share” contracts from the final price adjustment. The noble Lord queried the effect of Clause 21(4)(b). It is only to provide for a de minimis level. I am advised that the effect of Clause 21(5)(a) and 21(5)(b) is complex, and I will write on that.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, Amendments 18R, 18S and 18T are prompted by industry, which seeks to argue that there should be a mutuality in obligation and a test of materiality. The industry argues that there should be a mutual obligation on the primary contractor and the Secretary of State to notify the other of events, circumstances and information that are likely to have an effect on, or relevance to, a contract. The MoD will have information that is likely to have an effect in relation to a qualifying defence contract, whether that affects its price or performance. The MoD should have a duty to disclose relevant information to the contractor, which must be reflected in the Bill. I understand that this duty was confirmed by the Government in Committee in the House of Commons but I would value further affirmation.
As a result of the broad scope of events and circumstances that are likely to have an effect on, or relevance to, a contract covered by Clause 26(1), it is realistic that the contractor or the Secretary of State should be required to notify only when they believe there is a likely effect or relevance. Without this restriction, the obligation to notify is extremely broad. Further, it is argued that it is not necessary to refer to the effect on costs per se; the important aspect is whether there is an effect on price, such that Clause 26(3)(a) is unnecessary. I beg to move.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, one of the flaws in the current Yellow Book framework is that it provides little transparency once on contract. A key objective of the new framework is that the MoD should be able to monitor the health of single-source contracts on an ongoing basis, receiving timely information so that it can take fast and effective action. This is very important. There have been too many examples in the past when the MoD has discovered cost or time overruns on single-source contracts far too late for remedial action to be taken. Receiving information throughout the course of a contract will give the MoD the opportunity to work with contractors to take early action to avoid or minimise the impact of issues as they arise. This clause is one of several that provide this transparency.
A supplier will always know more than the MoD about the issues affecting its their delivery of a particular contract. Some of our suppliers share information on an open basis, alerting us as issues arise so that decisions can be taken on a joint understanding of the best information available at the time, but not all of our suppliers do this.
The standardised reports that will be required under Clause 24 will provide periodic snapshots of contract performance. However, for contracts below £50 million in value, a report may be received annually or still less frequently, and even for our largest contracts a standardised report is only required quarterly. These periods are appropriate for standardised reporting, but three months can be a long time in managing a contract, especially complex contracts worth many millions, or billions, of pounds.
Clause 26 therefore supplements the regular contract reporting, placing a duty on contractors to let the MoD know, in a timely fashion, of matters material to the contract. Putting the onus on the contractor in this way means that the new framework can be “lighter touch” than it would otherwise be if the only means by which alarm bells could be sounded on a project was through periodic reporting and the MoD’s monitoring powers.
Amendment 18R would make the Secretary of State subject to the same duty, providing notifications to the contractor. Clause 26 will place a duty upon a contractor to notify the Secretary of State when the contractor becomes aware of the occurrence, or likely occurrence, of “events”, “circumstances”, or “information” that are likely to have a material effect on a qualifying defence contract. Applying this same duty would require the Secretary of State to notify the contractor of events, circumstances or information that are likely to have a material effect on the contractor’s costs—the subject of Amendment 18T—the contract price, or the contractor’s performance.
Let me first be clear that this does not concern changes to our contractual requirements. If the requirements of the MoD change, and this affects an existing contract, then we require a contract amendment to reflect those new requirements. This should be quite separate to the delivery of requirements already contracted for; if we wish to amend the contracted requirement, we will tell the contractor and begin the commercial process of amending the contract, and this is not a matter that requires legislation. The contractor is not forced to make the amendment, and they will charge us for any additional costs that might arise, or amend performance requirements if this is relevant. Until we seek a contract amendment, a contractor should be concerned with managing the existing contract.
For contracts which we are not in the process of amending, this duty would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact of events, circumstances and information across the department upon each contractor’s contracts. This is quite different from the duty placed upon a contractor when they are managing a contract in the normal course of business. It would require the Secretary of State to assess what might, or might not, affect a contractor’s cost or performance, to look beyond the contract and assess whether a contractor’s activities are likely to be affected. This duty would be impossible for any Government to discharge.
We agree that when a contract is being priced, the duty to share information should be reciprocal. Both parties should share their assumptions to ensure that the price agreed for the contract is both fair and reasonable and value for money. However, once a contract has been entered into, it is the contractor who must manage the delivery of the contract, and who is responsible for the performance of its business and costs. It is not the responsibility of the Government to second guess what is likely to have an impact upon how a contractor achieves their contracted requirements. We do not accept that Clause 26 represents an equal duty when placed upon the Secretary of State compared to a contractor. It would be inappropriate to place this duty on the Government and impossible for a Government to fulfil.
Amendment 18S is the second in this group, and it seeks to qualify the duty to notify by adding the requirement that, for each of the three elements under subsection (1), the contractor believes in the existence of the effect or relevance. Each element requiring notification under subsection (1) is expressed as,
“likely to have a material effect”,
or,
“likely to be materially relevant”.
This means that a contractor need only notify the Secretary of State if two tests are met: first, that an effect or relevance is likely; and, secondly, that an effect or relevance is material. If a contractor considers that an effect or relevance is not likely or not material, then no notification is required.
The effect of this amendment would be to add a third test: that an effect must be likely, material, and believed to exist. We do not think that an effect could be considered both likely and material and yet at the same time not be believed to exist. To put it another way, if it were not believed to exist, how could it also be considered likely to have a material effect? Without embarking on a debate on the nature of belief, it is not clear what this third test adds.
Where there is a disagreement between a contractor and the Secretary of State over whether a contractor should have provided a notification under this duty, the Secretary of State may issue a compliance or penalty notice. Ultimately, it will be for the SSRO to determine whether a notification should have been provided and, in doing so, it will consider the two conditions of “likely” and “material”. We consider that the two conditions already required for there to be a duty to notify are sufficient and that the third test of belief proposed by this amendment is unnecessary.
Moving on to Amendment 18T, Clause 26 provides for three matters that are the subject of the duty to notify; these are listed in subsection (3). They are the costs under the contract, the total price payable under the contract, and the contractor’s performance of material obligations under the contract. This amendment seeks to remove the first of these matters—the costs of the contractor under the contract. The effect of this amendment requires some explanation as there is some overlap between the first two matters—the cost and the price payable under the contract. For cost-plus and target-cost contracts, the costs incurred under the contract will directly affect the price payable under the contract, so there is a limited difference between the two matters for these contracts, which represent just under half of the single-source landscape. The rest are firm or fixed-price contracts under which the contractor’s costs may vary while the price payable may not. So it is firm and fixed-price contracts that would primarily be affected by this amendment.
The reason that we wish to be notified in relation to both costs and price under the contract is the same as the overall requirement for Clause 26—to ensure that the MoD receives timely warning of matters affecting contracts. If the costs of a firm or fixed-price contract are likely to materially change, this is still important management information for the MoD. It may indicate a significant risk to the project or signal future performance issues. Just because it may not affect the price payable does not mean that this is not important information. For example, a contractor could manage a contract for a year in between standardised reports being provided to the MoD. In that year, a significant risk could be recognised and material costs could be incurred in trying to manage the risk in the expectation that performance under the contract will not be affected. However, despite the additional costs incurred, it finally becomes apparent that performance is likely to be affected after all, at which point a notification would be required.
It is a characteristic of single-source procurement that there is only one supplier that can provide the capability we require. If the contract fails we lose the capability we need. This has led suppliers in the past to seek price increases even though we have agreed a fixed price. Where the cost increases are very large, this puts the MoD in a difficult position. Seeking to keep to the fixed price can lead a supplier into great financial difficulty, putting not only that contract but others with that supplier at risk. If the supplier fails, then we lose the capability we need. This is a real risk that has arisen in the past, and thus we need the same transparency over the costs of fixed-price contracts as we do for other contract types. We do not see a benefit to applying a different notification requirement to firm and fixed-price contracts, so that for these contracts notification is only required once performance is likely to be affected, while for other contracts notification would be required at the point that costs, and therefore price, are likely to be affected. This is not the early warning that this provision is intended to provide.
For all these reasons, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jolly
Baroness Jolly
This group of amendments relates to the regulations that are to be made by statutory instrument under Part 2 and the consultation and parliamentary procedures by which those regulations may be made. There are seven amendments in this group, and I will deal with the government amendments first.
The Bill currently provides for two separate sets of regulations to be made by statutory instrument. The first is the single-source contract regulations—SSCRs—which are introduced under Clause 14(1). The SSCRs would contain all the regulations with the exception of those made under the second set of regulations, the penalty regulations, which are introduced under Clause 33. The penalty regulations would provide maximum penalty amounts under the civil penalty compliance regime provided for in Part 2. Drafts of both these statutory instruments were placed in the House of Lords Library on 22 January 2014.
The Bill provides for different parliamentary processes for these two sets of regulations, with the SSCRs to be made by the negative procedure under Clause 42(4) and the penalty regulations to be made by the affirmative procedure under Clause 33(7). I have previously discussed the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report on the Bill. The recommendations that the SSCRs should be subject to a first-time affirmative procedure and that the regulations made under Clause 14 should always be made by the affirmative procedure have been accepted, and the government amendments in this group make the necessary changes to the Bill.
In order to make the recommended changes to the parliamentary process, it was considered that simplifications could be made in order to allow all the regulations under Part 2 to be made in one statutory instrument rather than the two currently provided for, being the SSCRs and the penalty regulations. Amendment 19 therefore provides for provision about maximum penalties to be made under the SSCRs rather than in separate regulations. Amendments 20 to 22 make some simplifying amendments to accommodate the fact that there is now just one set of regulations, not two, and Amendment 23 provides for the new parliamentary process by which the unified SSCRs may be made. I will now address each of these amendments in turn.
Amendment 19 is a simplifying amendment. It removes the current provision for the maximum penalty amounts to be made via a separate statutory instrument—the penalty regulations—and instead provides for this to be done in the SSCRs as with all other provisions for regulations under Part 2. There is no change to the scope of provision that will be made under Part 2 as a result of this amendment, but using a single statutory instrument for all regulations under Part 2 allows for simpler provision for the parliamentary process to be used for that one statutory instrument.
Amendment 20 follows on from Amendment 19. Clause 33(6) currently provides for the penalty regulations, as a separate statutory instrument from the SSCRs, to vary the maximum penalty amounts for two purposes: first, for “different purposes” and, secondly, specifically by reference to the value of contracts. As a result of Amendment 19, the maximum penalty values will now be included in the SSCRs, while Clause 42(2) already provides for the SSCRs to make different provision for different purposes, which is a standard provision for regulations. Therefore the part of the current subsection (6) providing for different provision for different purposes is no longer required. This amendment replaces the current subsection (6) to provide only that different provision for the maximum penalty amounts may be made by reference to the value of contracts.
Amendment 21 deletes Clause 33(7), which dealt with the parliamentary process for the penalty regulations. It is no longer required because the provisions for maximum penalty amounts will now be in the SSCRs rather than in a separate statutory instrument. So this will now be covered by the parliamentary process for the SSCRs under Amendment 23.
Amendment 22 simplifies Clause 39, which provides for the review of Part 2 and the regulations made under it by the SSRO and the Secretary of State. As there will now be only one statutory instrument, the SSCRs, Clause 39(1) can be simplified to refer only to the review of the SSCRs, rather than the more general “regulations under this Part”.
The first four amendments of the group that I have now outlined make simplifying provisions in order to make all regulations under Part 2 via one statutory instrument, the SSCRs. Amendment 23 addresses two of the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee relating to the parliamentary process under which the SSCRs should be made.
To begin with, it removes the current Clause 42(4), which provides that the SSCRs should be subject to the negative procedure, and replaces it by a provision reflecting those recommendations on the parliamentary process for the SSCRs: first, that they should be affirmative the first time that they are made; secondly, that any changes to the regulations related to Clause 14 should always be affirmative, as this governs which contracts will be subject to Part 2 and thus sets the scope of Part 2; and thirdly, that the affirmative procedure will also apply for any changes to regulations made under Clause 33, which relates to maximum penalty amounts and was previously to be contained in the penalty regulations. These were always to be subject to the affirmative procedure, so there is no change to the procedure as a result of this amendment. Finally, the SSCRs will follow the negative procedure for all cases other than those just outlined.
Lord Roper
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s amendments to these various clauses. They are a very full response to the report of our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of last December, which was responded to by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, in his letter to the committee published earlier this year. It seems that in these amendments the Government have taken fully the points that were made by the report. We are very well served by that committee, which ensures that there is the technical scrutiny to ensure that parliamentary control is maintained when there are questions of delegated powers. I feel that the Government have responded fully to the proposals of the committee. I am not sure whether it has yet had a chance to respond to the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, or if there are any further points that we may need to come back to on Report, but I understand that it is generally satisfied with these amendments.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, at this point I have no objection to the government amendments, but that may be partly because I do not understand them. I shall find them easier to read when the Bill is reprinted for the Report stage but, as I say, I have no comment or objection at the moment.
I may be about to contradict myself when speaking to Amendments 22A and 23B. Amendment 22A is prompted by the industry, which has argued that the regulations arising as a result of the review should be made and updated in an open and transparent manner. It argues that an industry-wide consultation should be undertaken, the Secretary of State should have regard to that consultation and the regulations should be laid before Parliament. Amendment 23B argues essentially that the penalties regulations should be passed by the affirmative procedure on every occasion. These are penalties which could have dramatic effects.
I think that this is the last time I will speak, so I should like to congratulate the Minister on her marathon performance. I recall from when I occupied her place that it can seem a bit futile, but I know that what she has read into the record will be held to be of great value by both parliamentarians and those outside. I thank her and her officials for their efforts, and I look forward to reading with great care the products of our discussions. I also look forward to her letters.
Baroness Jolly
I thank the noble Lord for his comments and I am sure that I will get my pen out and start writing as soon as I have consulted with the gentlemen sitting behind me. On a slightly more serious note, I am sure that we will have meetings with the Bill team and people from the MoD.
I turn now to the amendments. Amendment 22A would place a statutory duty on the SSRO when performing its review of the single-source framework to consult with industry and to publish the results of the consultation exercise. As noble Lords will be aware, many aspects of the single-source framework under Part 2 will lie in regulations rather than in primary legislation, and many of the clauses in this part give the Secretary of State the power to make those regulations. This is to allow the regulations to be periodically updated to take into account changes in procurement approaches, the defence sector and what is being procured, without the need for primary legislation. I reassure noble Lords that we are aware that the new single-source framework represents an important change to single-source procurement. We have been consulting closely with the industry throughout the development of Part 2, including the Bill and the detail of the regulations.
In October 2011, the noble Lord, Lord Currie, published his report and we subsequently ran a full public consultation which completed in January 2012. In April of that year we started a defence suppliers’ forum subgroup with our top 10 single-source suppliers. These included BAE Systems, Finmeccanica, Rolls-Royce, Babcock, Thales, MBDA, QinetiQ and others. Over the past two years we have met with them more than a dozen times to share our proposed approach and understand their concerns. Beneath this forum we also established a number of technical working groups on specific matters such as confidentiality, the SSRO and risk, and most recently on the regulations themselves. In January alone this year we spent four full days discussing the draft regulations line by line with industry, and we expect further such discussions before the summer. This is a substantial level of consultation, more than is typical for new government policy, and it has resulted in our making some important changes to our framework, such as introducing the new criminal offence to protect industry information.
It is certainly not in our interests to create an unworkable framework. For one thing, we pay for any additional overheads our suppliers will incur, which will be incorporated into their single-source prices, provided that they are reasonable. We also need the capability they provide and have no desire to make it hard to do business with the MoD. Indeed, it is out of a desire to ensure that the framework is as practical as possible that we have consulted with industry to the extent that we have. Industry cannot claim that it has not been consulted prior to the first regulations being made.