Heatwave Response

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, again, I am tempted to speak outside my brief. Perhaps I could express a personal response: the water that

“droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven”

is a precious resource given to us and to people in every nation, and we have the duty to do the best that we conceivably can to preserve that precious resource in our own nation, as well as an enormous responsibility to bring the gift of clean water to every person and nation of the world.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Could the lessons learned, or the resilience strategy, study the weather this week in detail and the local impacts and assess the likely frequency of future heatwaves? Has the Gulf Stream changed; is hot weather more likely to be pushed up from Europe than before? We need to invest in the right things and not the wrong things and I think a proper assessment of the weather, rather than ex cathedra statements about climate change, are really needed if we are to do the right thing.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend has just made a point, as did so many noble Lords who have contributed, that should not be characterised as a sceptical point, or whatever, as so often those kinds of responses are. Our response should certainly be scientific and based on information and I am not going to talk at this Dispatch Box, as a member of this Government, about what might be the meteorological reasons for this particular invasion of Sahara air. Obviously, the jet stream this year is deflected in an unusual way, but I agree that we should study these things carefully and I hope that my colleagues and the Government’s scientific and meteorological advisers will continue to do so.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 18th July 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened to the debate and rise to address the Question that Schedules 6 and 7 be agreed. I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Moylan, although he cannot be here today.

As the Committee knows, I speak from the perspective of someone who has worked in business and as a company secretary and a chair of the compliance committee in a British multinational business employing half a million people in several regions of the world, as well as in smaller for-profit and not-for-profit operations. I have also worked in government as a civil servant and a Minister. I worry intensely about the perverse effects of these provisions. My fear is that they will exclude good, dynamic and honest operators from contracts and serving the public good through procurement. Some firms and social enterprises could be put out of business. Many others, especially SMEs, will be persuaded to have nothing to do with procurement; and of course this Bill is immensely wide-ranging and covers at least £300 billion-worth of UK value added, including most utilities, which I have argued against.

The lists in Schedules 6 and 7 are very wide. Some exclusions are entirely new compared to the EU law they replace. Others have been promoted from the discretionary category to become mandatory. The new mandatory exclusions include corporate manslaughter, theft and fraud, and failure to co-operate. Schedule 6 also brings into the Bill offences in areas including money laundering and competition law, which are dealt with perfectly well in existing and separate regulations. There have also been several extensions to the grounds for discretionary exclusions; for example, a breach of contract, poor performance and “acting improperly in procurement”—goodness knows what that means.

I ask the Minister to think again about every new item and consider whether this gold-plating is justified, as I think it may be in the case, for example, of national security, assuming that is not covered in other regulations. Each and every firm and social enterprise will be involved in more red tape in having to verify compliance with every item across their organisation.

Clause 54, defining excluded suppliers, is key, so I want to play devil’s advocate. First, it gives contracting authorities a lot of discretion, so they can be difficult if they want to favour a particular bidder. Secondly, a mandatory exclusion applies to a supplier or an associated supplier, so compliance checks have to be spread into the nooks and crannies of their supply chains, over which prime suppliers have no direct control—that will help the French, by the way, who have more integrated supply chains. Finally, if there is a contravention such as a tragic manslaughter on a major building project, a theft or a fraud, a single conviction for modern slavery, or a tax or cartel offence a firm is pushed into settling by the regulators, that firm will then have to operate a tick-box system across all its operations to demonstrate in the words of Clause 54 that the circumstances giving rise to the application of the exclusion are not “likely to occur again”. How will they be able to do that?

Of course, I am against most of the evils listed in the schedules, but they do not need to be in this statute. In trying to do the job of the policemen, we risk seriously undermining the procurement sector and choking it with red tape. If we want to nationalise procurement, we should be more honest about it.

For large companies in many climes, compliance with these two schedules will be a nightmare, so they could decide not to bid and stick to non-public sector activities. Firms focused on procurement alone will be in constant fear of a contravention which will write off the value of their company, as they would be excluded from bidding in future, although officials reassured me that they would be allowed in again after five years.

This is not the public sector; a company cannot hang around for five years without any new business. I know from my own experience that small firms may be put off completely. We will see the loss of small suppliers to prisons, local authorities, transport systems and even defence, as we have already seen in the City and in housing because of complex regulation in financial services and delays in planning. Small firms do not have the risk capital needed to operate in such high-risk environments. This negative behavioural change is not costed in the impact assessment, although there is a brief non-monetised discussion on page 36. My concerns about Schedules 6 and 7 are not discussed at all; more unscrutinised guidance is suggested as the answer.

I feel that this is cross-compliance of the worst sort. It is inconsistent with a productive economy, and the people who will flourish will be lawyers and their counterparts in the public sector trying to apply these complex, wide-ranging regulations. I think that the schedules will have chilling effect. I ask my noble friend the Minister to look at both schedules again in the light of my comments on practicality, and devise arrangements that will avoid the perverse effects I have outlined.

As regards the other amendments, as I think I am speaking last, we had a good debate on small business last week, for which the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, was sadly absent. I think we all agreed that it is an area that needs to be looked at again. However, for the reasons I have stated, I am a little nervous about a further exclusion to achieve the noble Lord’s objective, as proposed in Amendment 174, but we must come back to this issue.

As to further extending exclusions by SI, as proposed in Amendment 184, this is far too wide-ranging and vague, and could be abused. It could also cast yet a further chill on procurement by honest and good organisations and lead to retaliation against our own UK exporters. The more political we make procurement, the less vibrant the sector will be, hitting our growth and productivity, which already sadly lags behind that of many other countries. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hain, can find another way forward at his prospective meeting with the Minister of State.

My questions about compliance and resources also apply to Amendment 353, however well intentioned. I worry a bit that we are over-influenced by our experience on PPE, which was poor. However, we are now looking forward, of course, not backward. I am sorry to be critical.

In conclusion, there are many problems with this Bill. The easiest and best thing would be for it to be withdrawn, to look at the various points that have been made in recent days, and for the new Government to think again. In the meantime, I stand by the points that I have made as a practitioner.

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

I just want to respond to my noble friend’s comments about Amendment 353 and underline a comment that my noble friend Lord Alton made. Actually, this is something that has already been done in the United States of America; there is already an Act that has been passed there. There has no chilling effect at all on government procurement. In fact, their Act is significantly stronger than anything we are proposing here. I ask my noble friend to be mindful of that. Companies are appreciating more and more being able to be confident and to tell their customers that they are in fact free of slavery in their supply chains.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The point is well made. I would be interested to know how long that Act has been in operation in the United States. One of the concerns I have had, looking at these various provisions in all their complexity, is that we are actually continuing relatively new EU requirements; they came into our law between 2014 and 2016 with a directive and a number of regulations. I am not clear to what extent they have been reviewed to be effective. You need them to be fair and effective, and you need to consider the people who are excluded as well as those who happily champion them—as one does if one works for a big multinational; I have worked for one. My comments are intended to encourage the Committee to look at the detail to ensure that perverse effects are minimised and excluded where they can be.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a fascinating discussion on a number of amendments that are grouped around what I would call value-based procurement. The values should allow £300 billion of taxpayers’ money to be used to create good business and a solid foundation. We wish to see public money spent in a way that is based on the values we hold as a nation, not just in the UK but elsewhere.

It was interesting listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who just said very distinctly that a value-based approach could have the effect of destroying competitiveness and productivity for certain companies and exclude them. All the businesses I have worked with—big ones, small ones, social enterprises, small and medium-sized enterprises—want a nudge from government at times to be able to do the right things. When the Government nudge in their procurement, they send a signal to the market that enables business to make decisions based on things other than the bottom line. I tend to find that that is a useful thing for them, rather than a negative thing. Therefore, I think that value-based procurement is really important.

I start by speaking to Amendment 331, signed by my noble friend Lord Fox—as you can see, I am struggling so I will not go on at great length, like the Minister did last week. Clause 59 creates a centralised debarment list that allows Ministers to prohibit suppliers from contracting with public bodies if they fall under the certain exclusionary grounds in Schedules 6 and 7. However, a supplier’s involvement with serious human rights abuses is not listed even as a discretionary ground for exclusion. I am sure that that is an omission by the Government and not a deliberate exclusion. Human rights abuses should be on the face of the Bill as a reason for debarment. You can argue whether it should be mandatory or discretionary—personally, I would like it to be mandatory—but it has to be at least discretionary. The purpose of this amendment is to allow Ministers to debar companies that have proven involvement with serious human rights abuses. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said about listing genocide there.

I have a particular interest in Gulf states, particularly human rights abuses in Bahrain. I could keep the Committee for hours on the significant human rights abuses in that country. A number of companies in the UK, both large and small, trade with some of the organisations that are directly linked to human rights abuses in Bahrain. However, under this Bill on public sector procurement, there would be no way of debarring them, even though these companies are sponsoring or are directly involved in working with organisations that are implicated in death, torture and the deprivation of liberty—for at least 20 years, in some cases. So I ask the Minister: why is this exclusion there? Has there been an oversight in not having human rights abuses on the face of the Bill?

I come to a couple of the other amendments that noble Lords have addressed. Amendments 174 and 179 on payment are really interesting and quite important, because cash flow is king, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. Within the Bill are assumptions about 30-day payments to public sector organisations. There is an implied assumption in the Bill that the same subcontracting arrangements will take place between the major contractor and the subcontractor, but there is no mechanism for sanctions if that does not happen. That is why I think Amendments 174 and 179 are an interesting way of saying that there will be sanctions, in debarring people from getting public sector contracts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I will try to be reasonably brief in summing up some of the points made. I start by welcoming my noble friend’s Amendment 174 about late payment. It is a point he has made continually and this important amendment should not get lost in these great debates about serious international issues. His point about trying to support small and medium-sized businesses through dealing with late payments deals with the point that my noble friend Lady Hayman and I are also trying to deal with in Amendment 179. I would not want that to get lost.

In speaking to Amendment 329, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hayman, and Amendment 331, in my name and those of my noble friend Lady Hayman, and the noble Lords, Lord Bethell and Lord Fox, I want to wrestle with whether the group is too big or not. At its heart it has the discussion and debate we have had through the Committee—and no doubt will have again on Report, when there will be votes on it—which is on what the Government are trying to achieve through their procurement policy. We are saying that, as well as being efficient, effective, value for money and all those things, there are certain social, economic and other objectives that the Government should also pursue. When we look at this group of amendments, which is about exclusion grounds, a whole range of different issues can be raised to say that, if a firm or supplier does this, it should be excluded from consideration when the contracting authority comes to make its procurement decisions.

Maybe the Government will say that these amendments are not necessary and that they do not want to add them to the Bill. A question then arises for the Minister—I do not believe he believes in accepting serious human rights abuses. If that is not going to be put in the Procurement Bill, how will the Government pursue their objective of trying to do something about serious human rights abuses through the Bill or will they not? Will they just leave it to the market to do?

That is the point of Amendment 331, which my noble friend Lady Hayman, the noble Lords, Lord Bethell and Lord Fox, and I have put down. We have listed just some of the grounds, and we think that, if a supplier is guilty of those human rights abuses as listed in the amendment, and others, the contracting authority should not procure from them. If that is not the right way of going about it, how will the Government ensure that contracting authorities do not purchase from those who have been guilty of serious human rights abuses such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, forced sterilisation and so on? I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that perhaps genocide needs taking from that; that may be helpful and is obviously something that can be looked at.

It is not just us in this Committee; the Foreign Affairs Committee has also said that the Government and the contracting authority need to take these things into account when it comes to purchasing. The Government’s response to the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report, published in November, says:

“The forthcoming Public Procurement Bill will further strengthen the ability of public sector bodies to disqualify suppliers from bidding for contracts where they have a history of misconduct, including forced labour or modern slavery.”


There is a lot of pressure from lots of different bodies to do something about this.

I thought my noble friend Lord Hain made a brilliant speech on his Amendments 184 and 187. He talked about Bain with respect to South Africa. If his amendments are not the right way of going about things, what will the Government do about it? These are the Committee’s questions.

The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, made a very important point about environmental considerations in Amendment 310 and so on. The Government will say, “We are very concerned about the environment; we agree with the thrust of the amendment.” If that is true, and the amendment is not going to be accepted and go into the Bill, how will that aim be achieved? That is certainly the frustration that I feel, and I want the Minister to answer on how it will be achieved if this is not in the Bill.

I come to Amendment 353 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and me. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, also came in on that. I thank him for his kind remarks about my report at the Council of Europe; I appreciated that. That amendment is, again, about supply chains and how we ensure that contracting authorities do not contract with those who have modern slavery, exploitation and all those things that we would object to within their supply chains. If the Government do not agree with Amendment 353 and think it is unnecessary, how are they going to achieve what that amendment seeks to achieve? That is an important question for the Government to answer.

In other words, why are all the amendments in this group unnecessary? Why do they not matter? Why are they irrelevant? Why do we not need them in the Bill? How will the Government achieve all these objectives if they are going to say that all these amendments are not acceptable?

On the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, made—she also picked up one or two of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made—Schedules 6 and 7 are massive. To be frank about it, whatever the rights and wrongs of those schedules, they have huge implications. All I want to ask the Minister is: how have the lists in Schedules 6 and 7 both been arrived at?

You could pick up a number of examples. Why, for example, does Schedule 7(15) set out a discretionary ground for exclusion for threats to national security? I find that quite difficult to understand. No doubt there is a good reason for it but you would have thought that a national security threat would be a mandatory ground for exclusion. The reason is probably in there somewhere but I could not find it. If you look at Schedule 7, there is a whole list of slavery and trafficking offences that are discretionary. It might be that they should be so but you would have to do a lot to convince the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and me—let alone the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud—that they should be discretionary.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, noted, whatever the rights and wrongs of these schedules and whether they should be there or not, how have the lists been arrived at? The purpose of Committee is to try to understand what the Government are doing so that, on Report, we can make our minds up on whether amendments that can be voted on should be taken forward.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for taking up the point about the extent of the schedules and the shared detail that people who are procuring—they are sometimes quite small organisations —will have to comply with. We have also heard that there will be guidance, so not only do you have the nightmare of a complicated Bill with rules that are different from the EU ones that, with great difficulty, people have become used to; you also have extra guidance that I do not suppose will be scrutinised by Parliament. That creates further difficulties for the people on the receiving end who are trying to do a good job. I emphasise that I am as keen as anybody to have companies doing the right thing but we have to find a way of getting this through, in not too complex a fashion, so that this can go forward smoothly.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is a point well made. Indeed, the whole issue of the increase in the use of regulations by the Government is something that various Select Committees and other committees have commented on. It is a real difficulty because you do not know what the regulations will be. The legislation just gives the power to the Secretary of State to make regulations; you then wonder what they will be.

If I understood her amendment right, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked why some provisions in the schedules, perhaps really important ones, do not apply if a supplier contravenes them before the Bill becomes an Act. It strikes me that the self-cleansing we talked about earlier would have to be pretty dramatic if, on 26 February 2023, a firm was found guilty of breaking some of the mandatory conditions laid out in Schedule 6 then, on 3 March, it said it had dealt with those but you could not take into account the five days before when it had broken a lot of the conditions because it was before the Bill become an Act. Is that really what the Government intend? I am not sure because, when I read it, I could not quite make this out. I think that the point of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is to try to understand exactly what the Government are getting at. What does “before” mean? There are a range of things in that.

The central point I want to make in speaking to our various amendments is that, if all these things are unnecessary around all these things that are really important, how are the Government going to achieve these objectives, many of which are part of their own policies? Many of us wish to see the Procurement Bill used as the vehicle to achieve that but the Government are resisting, and will resist, that. How will they be achieved if not through this Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

However, I point out to my noble friend that we have also narrowed the scope of certain grounds where appropriate. For instance, the current discretionary ground for violations of applicable obligations in the fields of environmental, social and labour law is so broad that suppliers face exclusion for relatively trivial breaches. We have boiled this down to target the most serious cases of labour and environmental misconduct. That may not please all, but the Government are seeking to find a balance. Overall, Schedules 6 and 7, in our submission, represent a significant refresh of the grounds in the EU directive, and we contend it was a much needed one. However, I say to my noble friend that we are obviously ready to engage on the details in the schedule between now and Report.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

As it is still Committee, can I just ask a question about tax and competition offences? I am not clear whether those are forward-looking or backward-looking, so if you are a company that, for example, has had a competition or a cartel offence—a minor offence in a subsidiary—are you saying that those groups will be on a debarment list and can no longer be engaged? Similarly, if somebody has had a tax argument, which people have had in the past, and that has been settled—I think there have been some big brands in the past, not that I have been involved, that have had such settlements—are we somehow now saying that those are pariahs, and they are not allowed to engage in procurement for the future? I would just like to be clear about this because my worry is about the perverse effects of this debarment list you are going to have.

[Lord True (Con)]

My noble friend makes an important point. There are elements in here which are looking back and there are elements which are about the present. Legal issues are raised here, and it is important that I come to my noble friend and the Committee with a very specific definition and response to her question in relation to tax and finances.

Amendments 174 and 317 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and Amendment 179 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, seek to bring matters related to prompt payment performance into scope of the supplier exclusion regime. Prompt payment is important; it is lifeblood, in many cases, to small enterprises. The Government are committed to ensuring prompt payment of suppliers, and there are a number of ways in which the Bill does this. For example, 30-day payment terms will apply throughout the public sector supply chain, regardless of whether they are expressly written into the contract. In addition, payment performance can be assessed as part of the award criteria, providing it is proportionate and relevant to the contract.

The Government encourage suppliers to sign up to the Prompt Payment Code. However, we submit that requiring every potential bidder to become a signatory to the Prompt Payment Code is too onerous on some suppliers and would discourage them from bidding, undermining the ability of contracting authorities to achieve value for money.

The noble Lord, Lord Hain, with support from others, proposed Amendments 184 and 187, which seek powers for Ministers to exclude suppliers which have acted in any way unlawfully or unethically. The noble Lord was abundantly clear about what he had in mind when he spoke to his amendments, although he did not stop there; he made broader points about multinational behaviour which I also listened to and took in. We believe that, in the way the proposal is drafted, the threshold is too low for such a serious measure of acting in any way unlawfully or unethically. Exclusion should be reserved for suppliers which pose a serious risk to contracting authorities or the public. We believe that it is also appropriate that the decision to exclude suppliers falls in general to the contracting authority running a procurement.

However, the exclusion grounds cover unethical conduct. Any serious breach of ethical or professional standards applicable to a supplier is deemed to be professional misconduct, whether or not those standards are mandatory. The noble Lord will be pleased to know that professional misconduct is a ground where a debarment case could be made, as drafted in Schedule 7, paragraph 12(1), although I make it clear that I am not commenting on any individual case. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, told the Committee, I understand that he is meeting my right honourable friend the Minister to discuss this issue. The review led by Cabinet Office officials into the case that he asked for—and indeed the Prime Minister instructed to be done—is now complete and is currently being considered by the Minister. Unfortunately, I cannot say any more at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I referred to the position where there may be no relevant national laws. The Government’s submission is that this Bill greatly strengthens the defences we have against modern slavery and the vile abuse of individuals in these circumstances. As I said, this will apply whether or not there has been a conviction or a breach of an international treaty.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

On modern slavery, the Minister is surely saying that there has to have been a conviction for somebody to be on the debarred list. The first person prosecuted under the Modern Slavery Act—I almost hesitate to say this—was Sainsbury, so they had a case against them. Sorry, I am just trying to understand this; is the Minister saying that they would therefore be on the debarment list? I do not think that is the intention.

[Lord True (Con)]

No: I said that the current rules are too weak. They do require the supplier to have been convicted. I am saying that we are moving beyond that to a different evidential base and test. I recognise the strength of feeling among noble Lords on this issue. I commit to engaging further with my noble friend and other Members of the Committee on this prior to Report. On that basis, I respectfully request that these amendments are not pursued.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 11th July 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I return to Amendment 37 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. He made the point that the words at the end of Clause 10(1),

“except in accordance with this Act”,

are a hostage to fortune. The words range right across the whole of this complicated Bill and of course a disaffected client will invite his lawyer to search through all the provisions to find some flaw in the way in which the procurement exercise was carried out, which he can then attack.

I wonder whether the words

“in accordance with this Act”

are wider than they need to be. First, Clause 10 contains a prohibition, but Clause 10(2) contains a definition of procurement and Clause 10(3) tells you that

“a contracting authority may only award a public contract in accordance with”

the four matters set out there.

In my mind, that raises the question of whether the words at the end of Clause 10(1) should really be

“except in accordance with this”

section, the purpose of which is to describe the framework or scope of the power, before Clause 11 tells you that that power must be exercised in accordance with the procurement objectives set out there. It would make sense if Clause 10 simply said what may be done in accordance with that section. If I am wrong about that, the Minister might like to reflect on whether the words

“in accordance with this Act”

go further than they need to.

Choice of words, as I say from time to time, is always very important and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raises an important point. What he wishes to put in place at the end of Clause 10(1) is already in Clause 11 and will have to be complied with. I understand that the Minister may be reluctant to go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has invited him to go, but he has raised an important point. That is why I suggest that the word “section” might be a more sensible and less dangerous word to use than “Act”, at the end of Clause 10(1).

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who is always so brief and makes such constructive suggestions. The more I listen, the more I feel that this Bill in many respects strikes the wrong note. It is overregulatory and calls for a rethink, which I hope the Government will be thinking about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has a difficulty with his throat, and I commiserate with him on that. He also has a difficulty with the Bill. He wants to have a Bill which is highly prescriptive, but his answer to those who wish to amend it is that that would make it too prescriptive. The question is: what are the bounds of prescription, and has he given an adequate defence of them? It may be the heat, but I suspect we are condemned this afternoon to receiving a series of responses from Ministers which are not as adequate and embracing of our original ideas as one might hope.

It has been a very important debate because it is about the principles underlying the Bill. My noble friend said that there was a degree of confusion and contradiction in the debate. There is often confusion in debate when you have a broad range and number of topics to discuss, but I do not think there was any contradiction if one understands that the debate on principles has been taking place on two levels. The first is about what the principles should be—whether they should involve what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has suggested should be incorporated and whether they should involve a certain interpretation of value for money. We all agree that has to be an element of it, but what does that actually mean? That has been the tenor of part of the debate. I have said that I intend to remain neutral in a sense on that question.

The second level on which we have been debating the principles is: on the assumption that we can agree what the principles are, what role do they then play? What purchase or leverage do they give in the procurement process? In particular, should they be a basis on which disappointed contractors should be able to nitpick through this procedural Bill in order to bring complaints when, in my view, it would be better if they were limited to doing that only if the broad principles of the Bill—which we might have agreed on—had been breached? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, clearly grasped that point, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, heartily agreed that we should ensure that there is a degree of flexibility in the tendering process so that unforeseen circumstances that lead to idiotic outcomes can be handled in a sensible way.

My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe made a similar point, but I am going to quibble with her very slightly, because she used the word “frequent” in reference to frequent legal challenges to procurement processes. In my experience, they are not very frequent, because what happens is that precise attention to the detail of the process is often prioritised over sensible outcomes in order to avoid those legal challenges in the first place. The structure of the approach that we are taking often leads to poor outcomes in procurement terms precisely to avoid legal challenges, but we congratulate ourselves on having gone through a successful procurement even though we have a suit with a pair of trousers with one leg shorter than the other, or something like that.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

On the business of frequent challenge, I think it would be quite useful to have some information before we discuss this again. My experience—I have worked in the industry, although admittedly not as an executive—is that there are quite a lot of challenges, and they absorb a lot of resources. However, if they are rare, that is important as well.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I heartily second that call for information.

To conclude, my noble friend the Minister said that he thought that flexibility in response to the sort of circumstance that I am describing is desirable. To that extent, he agreed in principle with me and with my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and it is for him, as we go forward, to show how he intends to instantiate that in his own amendments, so as to give us that sensible, practical outcome. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

38: Clause 10, page 8, line 5, at end insert “, unless tenders will only be considered from suppliers with an annual turnover of less than £5 million.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to reduce the burden on business of the Bill’s provisions.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 38, on helping small business, would free up procurement for those businesses with a turnover of under £5 million. I am particularly grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady Noakes, and I am glad of the opportunity to endorse her review amendment, Amendment 534, which she will introduce later.

I shall also speak to my Amendment 50, which aims to keep the bureaucratic burdens on small businesses as low as possible, and to Amendments 97 and 100, which seek to exclude small businesses from complex competitive procedures. Finally, I will also speak to Amendments 290 and 295, which seek to exclude SMEs from the bureaucratic burden of cross-compliance in Schedules 6 and 7, which give long lists of reasons for excluding suppliers from bidding.

--- Later in debate ---

Overall, I hope that I have assured noble Lords that this Bill is a good deal for SMEs and that there is good reason why we cannot go as far as noble Lords would like. As I have said, the Government support SMEs, the third sector and the voluntary and community sector. This is something on which we will have a number of meetings between now and Report to discuss what we can do further, if we can. I respectfully ask that these amendments be withdrawn or not moved.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I start by thanking everyone in this Room for taking part and for the widespread support for my amendment and for doing something in the Bill for small business.

I was sorry to get such a disappointing reply from the Minister. She repeated the positives that I had already identified and given the Government due credit for, but she did not offer a lot else. She said all bidders must be treated in the same way; I think that is at the heart of the problem. We have to find some way to help SMEs. The Minister mentioned the billions going to SMEs, but that is compared to the £300 billion opportunity. There is a huge opportunity to grow the SME and social enterprise sector in the procurement area and to do it in a way that represents value for money—I am coming from that angle as well.

I also thank my noble friend Lady Noakes, who made a very strong case for a regular, five-yearly review of procurement to be written into the Bill. I remember that we did this in the intellectual property area and it has worked well. She rightly fears that SMEs will be discouraged by the new laws and SIs—there are so many SIs coming through—and that that might heighten the barriers to entry that deter small business from bidding. This was reinforced very strongly by the noble Lords, Lord Wigley, Lord Aberdare and Lord Coaker. The killer line from my noble friend Lady Noakes—I am going to embarrass her—was like something from Oscar Wilde: “SMEs find engaging with public procurement daunting.” It is wonderfully understated, but it summarises the issue beautifully.

My noble friend also persuasively presented the capacity building amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and attracted support for that from across the Committee, both in relation to SMEs and social enterprise. I strongly agree that capacity building is the way to improve productivity in the economy, so it would be great if we could encourage it in some way or another.

We also heard about social value from the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Bennett. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, reminded us that care is covered by this Bill, but I do not agree that you cannot have improved productivity in care. I have noticed how, as in Bupa homes, the distribution of medicines to old people is much improved as a result of private sector innovation in trying to make sure that they are not taking the wrong pills and that the nurses are giving them the right ones. There have been other improvements in the care area, with wheelchairs and so on, as well as the use of internet-enabled things, which can be really helpful. It was great that the noble Baroness reminded us of care even though, as usual, we come at this from slightly different angles. As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, productivity and quality actually go hand in hand with good procurement in care.

It is clear that we need to do more for SMEs and social enterprise, and—not or—we need to put a review clause into the Bill or be assured that there will be a review of it, given its novelty. I very much appreciate the offer of a meeting with those of us who are interested in moving this forward with the Government during the Recess, before we come back to look at this gargantuan Bill again, presumably in October. With the leave of the Committee, I would like to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 38 withdrawn.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 6th July 2022 Grand Committee

It is quite clear that Ministers want to see competitive tendering, which is the normal way of getting good value for money. I cannot see any reason why buses, trains or the air service, which is in a later amendment, should not be put out to competitive tendering. There may be reasons for this, but we need the Minister’s explanation, because it all sounds so easy: “Everything will go fine. Ministers can be trusted”. I am sure that they can, but we do not know what will happen in five years’ time, when things could be very different. I believe that there will be a good reason for not applying the principle of competitive tendering in the railway legislation—the buses are slightly different—but we need the Minister to explain why all of these powers are necessary. I hope we can persuade him that a small reduction in the powers would give us better scrutiny and make sure that everything was above board.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I put my name to Amendment 18, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, did so too and that it is being debated with many other amendments about which I have a similar concern. It is right that this is a cross-party challenge to the Bill. It reflects the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, now chaired by my noble friend Lord McLoughlin, and of course previously chaired by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. I do not think that I have ever seen such an excoriating report on the abuse of delegated powers.

This is a hugely important piece of legislation, affecting £300 billion a year of public money and its impact on those who supply it. That is nearly as much as the enormous sums spent and misspent on Covid. We now need much more information on the secondary legislation and regulations to be made under the Bill. Even if this is clarified and information is provided, my noble friend needs to bear in mind that he cannot bind a future Government or Prime Minister and their teams. Frankly, the regulatory and other delegated provisions before us are extremely dangerous and need to be reconsidered in the light of the DPRRC report and of course today’s debate and the answers that we are given. I am just sorry that we are not on the Floor of the House.

I will give a few choice quotations from the report. First, paragraph 20 says that

“in general [the relevant provisions of the Bill] leave the content of such notices, etc to be set out in Regulations”.

This includes notices about awards made without competitive tendering, the exclusion of suppliers and modifications or terminations.

Secondly, paragraph 23 says:

“We are also disappointed that the Government have provided no illustrative regulations. Illustrative regulations would have been very helpful and, without them, scrutiny of clause 86 is considerably hampered.”


This is delightful in its politeness, but it is very strong.

Thirdly, paragraph 33 says:

“The Government have failed to adequately explain”—


split infinitives would not be allowed in my day—

“why Ministers are to be given such a broad power to override the existing statutory bar on public authorities”.

This is an open-ended power to override primary legislation by order. The matters covered include: “conditions of employment” of a contractor’s workforce, “industrial disputes”, countries of origin and—this stuck in the gullet—

“political, industrial or sectarian affiliations or interests of contractors or their directors, partners or employees”.

This is utterly over the top, unless you are Mr Jeremy Corbyn, I suppose.

Finally, paragraph 53 says:

“The Government have failed to provide any justification for leaving entirely to regulations the question of which concession contracts for air services provided by air carriers are to be exempted from the Bill.”


From sitting in the Competitiveness Council of the European Union for several years, I can tell noble Lords that air services are big politically, and decisions need to be properly scrutinised by Parliament and not concluded by officials who tend—in my considerable experience—to exercise the power once matters are put into delegated legislation. There is also a vast shareholder base in aviation that should be quaking when it sees this Bill, if I have understood it correctly.

I apologise to my noble friend the Minister, with whom I have worked so well over the years, but resolving our challenge to these delegated powers is a real test of his mettle and of this Committee’s competence. They mean that the Bill is, in practice, regulatory, not deregulatory as we all hoped. I very much look forward to supporting my noble friend the Minister and others in making some very necessary changes to the Bill.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and after listening to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. They have gone through each of the individual recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee’s report and each of the amendments, which saves me having to quote from them as well, so I will speak in more general terms.

I did not speak on Second Reading, because a quick look at this Bill convinced me that the delegated powers report would be worth waiting for—and what a scorcher it turned out to be. Now that I am no longer committee chairman, I can speak more bluntly than I have in the past, even though I might not now get a phone call from No. 10 asking me to form a Government of national unity tonight. I fully support the concept of the Bill, but it is an appalling mess. I exonerate my noble friend the Minister, who had no part in drafting it, but how on earth can officials and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel—the OPC—spend two years coming up with these shambles where 345 government amendments—my count on Monday—are necessary? However, what concerns me today is not the shambolic drafting but the abuses of parliamentary protocols as evidenced in the Delegated Powers Committee’s report.

Last year, the Delegated Powers Committee and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee published two reports: Democracy Denied? and Government by Diktat. We produced countless examples of legislation presented to the House with very wide regulatory powers granted without any justification for them, but with the usual excuse: “just in case they might be needed one day”. The reports cited “skeleton legislation” and clauses where the policy had not been thought through. In addition, powers were being taken to fill in, not just the details, but the general principles which should have been in the primary legislation and not in secondary legislation.

Then we have the negative procedure applied in completely unacceptable cases where the affirmative should be used, such as increasing penalties or charges, for example. Then, of course, we have the dear old Henry VIII powers attached almost automatically now to almost every Bill without any thought. No, I correct that—the thought among Bill teams and drafters is that the department can change any primary legislation it likes in future without having to go through the hassle of producing new primary legislation and getting approval for it. What a marvellous “Get out of jail free” card this is: change any legislation at the stroke of a Minister’s pen.

In this Bill, the Delegated Powers Committee has drawn attention to all these gross abuses and—let us face it—they are abuses. Just because Governments have got away with treating Parliament with contempt in the past does not mean that this should be the norm. I will quote only one paragraph from the Delegated Powers Committee’s report. Before doing so, I note that the committee is not hostile to this Government or any Government; indeed, it is now chaired by one of the longest-serving Commons Conservative Chief Whips in history, and so it is not a partisan committee. Paragraph 7 says:

“This report identifies multiple failures in the Memorandum to adequately explain and justify very broad delegations of power which enable implementation of significant policy change by delegated legislation. This would give us cause for concern at any time but is particularly disappointing as it comes so soon after the publication of our report, Democracy Denied? The urgent need to rebalance power between Parliament and the Executive, in November 2021, and of revised guidance for departments on the role and requirements of this Committee.”


The new guidance by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was circulated to all departments, and, in the first week of January, I personally wrote to every Minister and every permanent secretary giving them copies of the revised guidance. This is a Cabinet Office Bill, so I want my noble friend the Minister to go back to the Cabinet Office and call in Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary, Alex Chisholm, the Permanent Secretary, and Elizabeth Gardiner, the First Parliamentary Counsel, and ask them why they seem to have deliberately ignored every word of the guidance with which they were issued.

Worse than that, they have reneged on their promises to the committee. In the response to our report, they said that the Government agreed that the statement of principles of parliamentary democracy set out in both our reports should be included in the Cabinet Office’s Guide to Making Legislation. We reported way back last December, so they have had five months to adjust the Bill taking that into account. Why have they not done so?

The Government agreed that the routine use of just-in-case powers was not appropriate, so why include them in the Bill? They agreed that guidance should not be used to create rules that must be followed, should not be relied on for interpretation of legislation, and should describe the law accurately. They said that the Cabinet Office’s Guide to Making Legislation would be strengthened to reflect the committee's revised guidance. Will my noble friend the Minister ask why that has not happened? I am tempted to ask the non-executive board member, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, to maybe conduct an investigation into the Cabinet Office, but I will keep that in reserve.

Of course, the Government justified skeleton legislation, Henry VIII powers and the negative procedure even when there were alternatives that would not subtract from the thrust of the legislation. Not one single item in any of the DPRRC reports would stop any Government of any persuasion driving through their programme. At worst, it would mean a Minister—usually a Lords Minister—perhaps having to do a few more 90-minute SI debates.

I conclude with something the Government did agree on. They welcomed the end-of-Session report that the Delegated Powers Committee said it would produce. The committee has now produced the first end-of-Session report, even though it covers only half or less than half of the last Session, and it makes for some very uncomfortable reading for some Bill teams and OPC drafters. It criticises the quality of delegated powers memoranda by the Ministry of Justice, and two of those by BEIS and the Home Office each. If we cannot trust the delegated powers memoranda, how can we trust the rest of the departments’ assertions?

The report highlights serious deficiencies in the Health and Care Bill, describing it as

“a clear and disturbing illustration of how much disguised legislation a Bill can contain and offends against the democratic principles of parliamentary scrutiny.”

However, by far the most egregious and insidious example was the Subsidy Control Bill, which had a delegated power which enabled the Government to disapply the Bill’s subsidy control requirements by a direction that had to be kept secret from Parliament. Added to which, the delegated powers memorandum had the effrontery, and indeed the honesty, to justify this absence of parliamentary scrutiny on the grounds of

“the potential for non-approval by Parliament”

—in other words, a risk of defeat.

Can noble Lords believe that? Noble Lords who were on the committee can believe it, because they had it removed eventually. Officials drafted provisions to enact a law in secret and not tell Parliament in case Parliament voted against it. We do not have that in this Bill, but I am quoting some general examples to show how appalling some of the general delegations of power have been.

Of course, Ministers have ultimate responsibility, but we all know that Ministers were not responsible for the 345 government amendments in this Bill. Nor are they the ones who have devised and insisted on inserting all these parliamentary abuses into legislation. I suspect that my noble friend the Minister was as shocked as the rest of us when he was handed this Bill and saw the extent of the completely inappropriate delegation of powers.

I want him to go back to the Cabinet Office and tell officials and parliamentary drafters that if they do not want their names on the list of bad boys and girls when the DPRRC publishes the full report at the end of this Session, they had better bring in the changes on Report, as suggested by the Delegated Powers Committee. They should amend the Bill not only to keep their noses clean but because it is the right, democratic thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I want to express a concern. Although the Minister’s argument seems to be that the powers are already rather limited and that there are natural limitations—for example, the GPA—I am not convinced that we actually need to put all this into delegated legislation. In some places, we could decide things and make it clear in the Bill. Then, if there is future evolution of the market or the development of technical regimes, as my noble friend suggests, we should come back to the House and look again at legislation in those areas.

Obviously, I come from a business background, and, as I said, the thought that officials can effectively make major changes that will affect the market in which you are operating is actually quite worrying. We had an example of this on Monday. The example we received from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, about

“a tool to cover imperfect policy development”

was a quote from the report in relation to private utilities. Therefore, I did not repeat it, but it is a good example of where there might be a changing market, which might then generate quite substantial uncertainty in the procurement field and be a big problem for our companies.

I took four egregious examples out of a respected cross-party report to try to be constructive, but my noble friend has unfortunately tried to explain why the Bill is as it is, rather than to respond to these individual examples. I really need his response to these examples because I need to know how much to press on things such as notices and concessions when we get to those parts of the Bill. If it is clear that the delegated powers cannot be misused, it makes it a lot easier to agree to other parts of the Bill. I apologise to the Committee for speaking at length, but I feel very strongly about this.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, it is Committee and my noble friend and all other noble Lords are entitled to intervene as much as they wish. She makes an important point, and I was just on that paragraph in my speech—it is slightly small compared to the rest of the speech—and was trying to set out the Government’s rationale for why the balance is probably right.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 4th July 2022 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out sub-paragraph (iii)
Member’s explanatory statement
These amendments would remove private utilities from the ambit of the Bill which at present allows the government and devolved authorities by order to regulate industry and its procurement practices.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad that we have been able to move on to this group of amendments, all of which were tabled in good time. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his apology, tone and constructive response on the last group. I have some sympathy with him since, when I was on the Front Bench, I used to do Lords starters and they can be difficult because you have less stakeholder involvement and input than in the Commons. However, there is more scope to change a Bill that starts in the Lords, and that can be a good thing. I thank the Bill team for passing me its copy of the Keeling schedule, and I look forward to the child’s guide to procurement.

I apologise for not having spoken at Second Reading. If I had been able to, I would have brought my experience of procurement in government and in the EU, and in buying and selling everything from services to beans at Tesco. We were even stopped from selling cars alongside groceries by EU rules. I am a former director of Capita, and I register a current interest as chair of Crown Agents, the not-for-profit international development company with considerable expertise in procurement.

First, I am particularly interested in delegated powers and in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, on that issue. Secondly, I am keen to find a way of helping small businesses to better access procurement opportunities and encourage productivity and growth. Thirdly, as ever, I am concerned about costs to businesses and citizens—I know the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, is too.

I also want to understand and test the reach of this legislation, which is the subject of my 12 amendments on private utilities, starting with Amendment 2. It is kindly supported by my noble friend Lord Moylan and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. We all sit on the Built Environment Committee together and are steeped in the problems of public transport in towns and cities at present.

In his Second Reading speech, my noble friend Lord Moylan questioned whether we needed this Bill at all, certainly on its current scale, and he bemoaned the bureaucratisation of procurement. I also worry about this, because of its enormous cost both to the state and to bidders and deliverers of contracts. When I was in retail, we always tried to reduce red tape and cut costs, and pass on the benefits in lower prices, which helped to attract customers. There is less sign of that here than I had hoped. There are fewer regulations, but I fear that the burdens imposed are in fact greater than those being removed, particularly in this area of public utilities. In my direct experience, it is not only the number of rules that matters but their impact.

It seems wrong for a Bill about public procurement to cover private utilities. I appreciate that there is an EU directive and UK implementing regulations that the Government want to replace, but I am not entirely sure that this should be done here. Indeed, the Government seem a little hesitant themselves, as they have taken a power to remove private utilities from the scope of the Bill or alter the rules as and when they legislate elsewhere. This is wrong and novel. As the excellent report by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee says, this appears to be the use of

“a tool to cover imperfect policy development.”

I compare the situation to my time as a civil servant heading a Bill team—imagine it—when we were generally obliged to have the subordinate legislation in draft to accompany a Bill and, as a result, we avoided a lot of errors that would have required corrective Bills or regulations later. In the EU, many utilities are in public hands, as some are here, which I am sure explained the need for the original utilities directive. In the UK, many transport, water and telecoms utilities are in private hands and make a huge contribution to the economy as a result. I see that electricity has already been taken out in Schedule 4, at least in some respects.

Some might say, “Why not cover private utilities and force them to embrace transparency and comply with the many cross-compliance measures set out in this Bill?” “Government knows best” seems to be the modern approach. Because they are in private industry, not government or local government, we should be extremely careful about regulating private utilities. If I worked in a private utility, my advice to my shareholders on reading the Bill would have been to get out of the sector. It is proposed that they should embrace public sector bureaucracy—which is still very substantial, despite all the good efforts of the Cabinet Office in putting the Bill together—but they continue to have a private sector degree of risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I hesitate to appear to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkely, but I shall humiliate myself by doing so. I venture to suggest that there is a definition of a “private utility” in Clause 5. It is only to be understood in its fullness if read with Schedule 4, at page 84, which specifies what “utility activities” are. If one looks at Clause 5 and Schedule 4, one can see what the Government are trying to do. However, I am not sure that what the Government are trying to do is worth while or appropriate. To that extent, I support the comments of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe.

The background is that we are starting from an EU procurement directive that applied to the whole single market of 27 states, and which needed to take account of the fact that most utility activities in most of those states are effectively provided by arms of the state, whereas in the UK we have blazed a successful path of privatisation, so many utility activities that in other parts of the single market are carried out by the state are carried out here by private companies. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, makes a very important point when he says that those private companies are, in nearly all instances, subject to some form of regulation.

Before I go further, I draw attention to Schedule 4, which specifies those activities. The subheadings, which I know are not technically part of the Bill, include “Gas and heat”, “Electricity”—

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I think electricity is later taken out, as I mentioned.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Oh well. I shall just work on the text I have; I mean, what is one meant to do? There is “Water” and “Transport”. “Ports and airports” and “Extraction of oil and gas” are also mentioned, but it is the first few that matter. It is striking that the rollout of broadband, the internet and such things do not count as a utility; I should have thought that they were characteristically examples of a utility. My noble friend will no doubt be able to give me a compelling rationale why they are not included.

I come back to the point I made a moment ago about the regulator. I read out the subheadings because noble Lords can see that the activities we are discussing are nearly all regulated, funded by the commitment of private capital with an assumption that private capital will be reasonably efficient in procurement, even if simply for the benefit of shareholders. This does not preclude defalcation, fraud, bribery or giving contracts to your best mate but, as I explained at Second Reading, the Bill does not deal with those issues. If they arose, be it in a public authority or a private company, they would be dealt with through the criminal law because they are all criminal offences. One would not pursue them for a trivial breach of a procedural requirement under the Bill; one would go after them for fraud, taking bribes or all these other criminal things, which are nothing to do with the Bill.

All that makes me think that including private utilities is not entirely appropriate. If it were felt that procurement undertaken by private utilities needed some form of statutory control it would be better in a separate Bill that actually focused on the principles, rather than the procedure, allowing private companies to pursue those procedures appropriate to achieving their shareholders’ ends, just as we allow Tesco to do—with the exception of selling cars next door to fruit. I cannot contemplate for a moment why the European Union should take exception to that, but apparently it did. Essentially, we leave Tesco to decide what procurement processes to follow because it is a private company risking private capital. That is the essential ground on which I make my point.

Finally, I turn to transport, because I have more direct experience of it as a utility than I do the others. There are some distinctions to be drawn. I take as an example Transport for London; as noble Lords may know, I served on the board. Transport for London perhaps should be subject to procurement regulations of this character, but Transport for London is in part categorised as a local government body. It is covered by some local government legislation, as well as by its own Act. That might be the rationale for including a body such as Transport for London, or some of its equivalent bodies that have been created around the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

Yes, my Lords. I have committed to write in relation to that and I will pick up other questions that have been raised, including by the noble Lord. Obviously, there are existing international agreements that are, if you like, deposited, and which we have to work with, as well as issues of how we move forward case by case, but I will certainly address in a letter the point the noble Lord asks about. It is a legitimate question. The status of international agreements was also raised from the Front Bench opposite, and I will write to the noble Lord on that matter and copy it to colleagues in the Committee.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a workmanlike discussion, the unpeeling of the onion—the first of many unpeelings of onions, I think. I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for his support, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox—the philosophy of scope is a good phrase. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, made a strong point about the WTO, which leads me to ask the Minister whether in his follow-up letters he will be able to give us a little more feeling about what is in and what is out for each of the utilities.

I am concerned about that because when we come on to talk about what is covered, it makes a difference—for example, doing special things for small businesses, could we have rules that are not too bureaucratic? Schedules 6 and 7 look quite burdensome through the eyes of a small company. It seems that a lot is covered and then there are executive powers to decide what is taken out and excluded, so the power is with the Minister. I would like to come back to that when we debate the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, on delegated powers. It is an important issue.

Can we find a way of not making things too bureaucratic? The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made the same point from the other side. Can we improve productivity and growth, which we all desperately want to do in the current circumstances? Can this Bill be a vehicle for that and for improving our international competitiveness? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak on this set of amendments, particularly Amendment 42. It is the first time that I have been able to speak on the Bill. I was not able to participate in Second Reading, but I have followed the debate and, like many noble Lords, spent the weekend probably losing a little hair trying to make sense of the number of amendments that have come out. I thank the Minister for the withdrawal of Amendment 1 and for looking to find a way forward with some of the issues that those amendments made.

Particularly with Amendment 42, I raise my interests in the register, particularly as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as an adviser to the Robertson group of organisations, which does work with the public sector. Amendment 42 is genuinely probing. It addresses what is in, what is out and what is the autonomy and the role of local authorities within the Bill. In particular, when a local authority works with others, how do some of the provisions within the Bill work—whether it is a central purchasing authority or not—particularly when they overlap with other procurement legislation in, for example, the Health and Care Act?

I shall put a couple of scenarios to the Minister and genuinely look forward to hearing some of his replies. First, local authorities are being asked to significantly integrate social care and health. They will be part of integrated care boards, which are purchasing organisations. Some public sector money from local authorities will come forward as part of that. When they are purchasing as an integrated care board and significant amounts of local authority money is put in there, which provisions will the local authority be asked to enact? Will it be the provisions within this Bill or the provisions under Sections 79 and 81 of the recently enacted Health and Care Act? There will be potential conflicts of interest as to by which procurement rules two different partners procuring a public good will be bound. I hope the Minister can help to explain that scenario.

There are also lots of local authorities that have significant public-private partnerships. Again, what rules will the public-private partnership be bound by, particularly when the local authority purchases significant services or goods with a private sector organisation which are to be used for public procurement? How will the private sector organisation be bound by that? For example, what rules will there be for that public-private partnership when purchasing a good, depending on whether the 51% amount has been put forward by the public sector—the local authority—or by the private sector entity?

I understand from reading the Bill that there will be the national procurement policy statement. I just need to understand from the Minister what autonomy local authorities will have to move away from the procurement guidelines that will be in the NPPS.

Finally, it would be helpful if local authorities could be put in the Bill as centralised procurement authorities. Is there any particular reason why the Government did not take that on board in the Bill?

There are many general questions about local authorities; those are a number that I wish to probe. I genuinely look forward to the Minister’s answers.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the question of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, about local authorities. They are so often underappreciated and undervalued, and we need to know what can and cannot be done in a collective way—the question he is rightly probing. For example, a simple question would be: for planning services—where my committee has identified a huge shortage of talent and resources in some planning authorities—could you have a collective procurement, and would that be caught by this Bill?

I also ask what the GPA does on telecoms and the internet infrastructure. I must say that I tried in vain, as a Minister, to get contracts for the roll-out of infrastructure around Washington DC—there was not a level playing field. I fear that overseas interests will benefit preferentially from this Bill, as they have done in some other areas, such as contracts for difference in energy. Can the Bill help to hold the GPA to level the playing field?

I strongly support my noble friend Lady Noakes, both on her brilliant technical points, which I barely understand, and on ARIA. On the latter, I agree with her that it must be free from hassle—I think we agreed that in our debates in this House. It probably does not have enough money, but it is important to ensure that it can proceed without the benefit of lots of new regulations, which could be quite bureaucratic to them.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 7. I do not think I need comment on any of the other amendments in this group. I tabled this probing amendment to ask why this particular piece of text is here:

“This Act does not apply to Her Majesty acting in her private capacity.”


That is quite unusual in Bills. Usually at the end there is a clause that says something along the lines that Her Majesty and, often, the Duke of Cornwall have given their consent to that piece of legislation. Sometimes when I ask the Minister what relevance the Bill has to the Duke of Cornwall they cannot answer; no one seems able to because it is nicely confidential.

Obviously I can see why Her Majesty acting as the Crown is included in this Bill because effectively the Crown is the Government. However, why is the Duke of Cornwall not included in the Bill in his private capacity? He usually appears alongside Her Majesty. The Duchy of Cornwall has said it is in the private sector, which means, whatever we are going to call it, that it is a private sector organisation that presumably will have to comply with every other part of the Bill.

It is interesting to see where the sovereign grant for transport comes in. I happened to get a Written Answer today. I asked who funded the return charter flight of the Duke of Sussex from the United States for the jubilee. According to media reports, it was the most expensive charter plane that you could possibly get, and it seemed to me that, as in so many of these matters, they could actually have gone on the scheduled service. The answer I had was that it was not funded by the sovereign grant because that

“only covers expenses incurred by other Members of the Royal Family when they undertake official duties on behalf of Her Majesty”,

and clearly that was not the case. When it comes to the sovereign grant and the award of contracts for helicopters or planes across the world that the Royal Family—or even occasionally members of the Government—might take, presumably that will be subject to competitive tendering because they are acting in their public capacity.

It would be good to hear from the Minister what correspondence, if any, took place before Clause 1(9) came into the Bill. Are the Government quite happy with it? I look forward to hearing his answer.

EU Retained Law

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, we are at the stage now where the dashboard has been published; submissions and comments will be made on it, and it will be refreshed quarterly. We will then have to consider the mechanisms. If it is decided that the regulation needs to be either repealed or substantially altered, we will have to consider the legislative mechanism, which would have to be case by case. When we publish the Brexit freedoms Bill, it will include elements that allow for the Government to implement their policies. At that stage, noble Lords will obviously be able to debate the appropriateness of the proposals that we put before them.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

It is agreed by everyone that we have a productivity problem in the UK. As we have seen from history, one way of dealing with that is to sweep away anti-competitive legislation, including some that has been referred to in the debate. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that some operators benefit preferentially from their very existence and that it is essential to have the toughness needed to face them down? That can help small businesses, as my noble friend has said, and growth, and can, I hope, reduce bureaucracy. I am in danger of speaking for too long, but I mention that I have worked for most of my career in business and particularly welcome the promise to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, of an impact assessment on the Bill.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. It seems quite a long time ago that we were working in Downing Street on the aspiration of reducing regulation. She makes interesting points which one does have to bear in mind in consulting on and considering the way forward.

It is important that we make it easier for small businesses, and it is also true—I am not criticising anybody or any organisation in particular—that familiar regulatory environments, particularly complex ones, are not necessarily as perturbing to very large organisations which have large departments to deal with them as they are to small businesses and would-be innovators and entrants. That is a balance one has to consider across the regulatory environment, including in this exercise before us today.

Office for Demographic Change Bill [HL]

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 4th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the perceptive remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon. I also look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lord True, from his pivotal position in the Cabinet Office.

I support my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and his Bill. It is simple, will cost little and deals with a subject of the first importance; I say “of the first importance” because, in the long term, the effects of demographic change are perhaps the most important factor in the world.

By way of illustration of the truth of that proposition, I draw the House’s attention to a recently published book, Youthquake, by Edward Paice, which deals with the demography of Africa. In it, I learned that, by the middle of the century, Nigeria is expected to be more populous than the United States; that the extraordinary rate of growth of population in many African countries shows no signs of lessening, so far, at any rate, and despite forecasts to the contrary by those believing that increases in prosperity inevitably lead to a slowing birth rate; and that, by 2035, the African workforce is likely to exceed that of both China and India—today’s huge battalions—and be increasing at a greater rate. I defy anyone to say that all that will not have an impact on global and national politics, including in countries far from Africa, such as the UK.

I will increasingly focus on these trends—both the challenges and opportunities—in my work as chair of Crown Agents, a development organisation, and chair of the UK-ASEAN Business Council, both of which listed in my register of interests. However, we lack a strong foundation of accessible and objective data on demographics.

The UK’s demographic position is of course different, but the importance of demography in policy formation is every bit as important. I have the honour of chairing your Lordships’ Built Environment Committee. We recently produced a report on housing that drew heavily on all sorts of population estimates, including on ageing, on household formation—hence on divorce and other social mores—and on many other factors. Policies in almost all areas are influenced by demographics

I have on many occasions debated, particularly with my noble friend Lord Hodgson, my concern that the lack of proper dynamic projections of population means that these are not taken properly into account in policy-making and planning in key areas of importance to citizens. These include schools and universities, hospitals and primary care, transport provision, flooding, energy security and, of course, housing and green spaces. The new office would help to fill that gap.

If you do not know the facts, you will in general adopt worse policies. Arguing for the advantages of ignorance is always a hard task, yet when my noble friend has suggested a demographic office previously, that is effectively what the Government have done. Perhaps I am being a little unkind, in that the actual argument given was that such an office was unnecessary—no doubt said with a straight face.

The real reason why the suggestion does not commend itself is political fear, and we all know why. Among many concepts conjured up by the word “demography” are immigration and race, and they have rarely been linked with political advance. However, to my mind demography is much wider than that, and I urge the Government to show some courage, even if that might not follow the advice of Sir Humphrey. Government policies need the firmest possible foundations in fact and they need long-term thinking, not the short-term, narrow, business-led approach of the Migration Advisory Committee, which was mentioned the last time the matter was debated. Some of us are already tiring of the relentless short-term decision-making fuelled by 24-hour rolling news, Twitter and other social media. I think the new office would provide a powerful antidote.

In conclusion, the establishment of an office for demographic change of the kind recommended by my noble friend Lord Hodgson would be a good way of providing firm foundations in fact. It would bring new long-term thinkers and experts into government to the benefit of us all, and it would publish objective, impartial data on which we could all draw. The House of Lords should certainly be behind that.

[The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s Bill and congratulate him on bringing it to your Lordships’ House.

European Union: Border Control Checks

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I think it is reasonable that we should bring in controls as we see fit, in a staged and controlled way over time, so that companies have time to adjust to them. That staging means that the process is spread over a year or two, but that is reasonable and makes life as easy as it can be for businesses both exporting and importing.

The noble Baroness is correct to refer to the substantial sums we have spent on implementing the Northern Ireland protocol. That demonstrates that the accusation sometimes made against us that we are not interested in implementing the protocol is not correct. We have spent a lot of money in an attempt to mitigate the burdens, but there are obviously simpler ways of mitigating the burdens than requiring every good moving to Northern Ireland to go through a customs process and paying the heavy costs of that—and it is those new solutions that I hope we can find in the coming months.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for all he has done in very difficult circumstances this year. What positive news can we expect on EU and UK matters in the years ahead?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I think we are ending the year on a positive note. We have had a year’s experience of running the Trade and Co-operation Agreement; we have the governance arrangements in place; all the disasters predicted about threats, problems and the collapse of trade—one set of difficulties after another—have not materialised and we end the year in a good place. It is my hope that we will have a constantly improving and very friendly and warm relationship with our EU neighbours, based on free trade and friendly co-operation. That is where we want to get to, and that is where, I am sure, the Government will be taking things forward next year.

EU Relations

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

The noble Lord makes an extremely important point. I have said before, and say again, that Article 16 is not an on/off switch for the protocol. It is not a sort of self-destruction mechanism for the protocol; it is a safeguard. There are constraints on what can be done with a safeguard. The legal limits of it are to be defined but, if you use Article 16, it is clear that you are left with a protocol with safeguards operating. That is why we find it so difficult to really understand the volcanic reaction that we get to the suggestion of using the safeguards provisions. It is a safeguard, and it is designed to support stability and ensure that the protocol fulfils its task of supporting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. If we do use the safeguard and Article 16, that will be the spirit in which we do so.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for giving us an update, and for doing so in prime time, not at 7.30 pm. I also refer to the helpful reply that he gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, about contingency arrangements on R&D. Could he talk more widely about contingency planning in the event that Article 16 had to be triggered? What conversations have he or his officials been having with interested businesses and Northern Ireland interests, about, for example, the impact of any tariff or bureaucratic changes that the EU might implement here or on the island of Ireland, and what we might do by way of response?

Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Impact on Trade

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I think the question is based on a slight misconception that the legal text that we sent in represents some new stage or evolution in our position. It does not. It reflects the position that was set out in the Command Paper on 21 July and puts it into legal form. It is a negotiating document for the purposes of negotiations. It does not change the UK Government’s position in any way. Of course we discuss with elected politicians in Northern Ireland all the time what our position is, and we did that while preparing the Command Paper.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am interested in trade and especially in exports, because they are vital to UK growth and success. We heard from the Minister about trade within the island of Ireland, but how does he expect the pattern of UK trade within the EU 27, both in goods and services, to change in the years ahead?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend identifies an important point, which is that trade in both goods and services is subject to a lot of noise at the moment—the ongoing Covid pandemic, the effects of leaving the customs union and the single market, stock building and so on—and it is difficult to isolate trends. Nevertheless, our goods exports are nearly back to the levels of 2019. Services exports and imports are down somewhat, but of course the huge impact on the movement of persons, tourism and so on has very significantly affected those figures. So it will be a long time before we reach a steady state, but I have huge confidence in the ability of our exporters and traders to manage that situation.