Local Government: Ethical Procurement

Debate between Chloe Smith and Andrew Turner

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Chloe Smith]

If the hon. Gentleman will wait for the rest of my speech, he will hear that I intend my contribution to be about council expenditure of taxpayers’ money. I know that Labour Members are not so hot on the expenditure of taxpayers’ money, but perhaps he will allow me to make the rest of my comments.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Chloe Smith]

I am sorry, but I must continue because there is so little time left.

My second reason for believing that it is wrong for local government to make their own foreign policy is that local boycotts in and of themselves can damage integration and community cohesion. That is highly unfortunate.

Thirdly, to attempt to hold an item of foreign policy locally is likely to be unlawful. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman found it impossible to read procurement policy note 01/16, but I took from it very clearly that EU and UK procurement legislation, backed up by the World Trade Organisation, can result in severe penalties against the contracting authority and the Government. That takes me on to my answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt). It is at the heart of this debate that we should not seek to put taxpayers’ business rates or council tax at risk of substantial fines that could arise from unlawful treatment of suppliers. The Government are very clear in the note that they will always involve the relevant contracting authority in these proceedings, so there is nowhere to hide.

Finally, the other reason why such a policy is wrong is that it does not provide taxpayers with value for money. Procurement is quite simply for purposes other than political. It is the act of buying something because taxpayers need it, not because the council leader wants to wear a particular political pin badge that week. I want local taxpayers’ money to be used for the goods and services that they need, and only for what they need.

I do not know whether the Labour party really thinks there is any money to spare after they left the cupboard bare, but until public finances are back in order, the job in hand is to get the best deal for taxpayers. What I want in local procurement is the best possible value for money from the total spend, which may amount to tens of billions of pounds; a strategic approach to procurement rather than political whim, which may be ultra vires; reduced procurement bureaucracy, such as the welcome removal of pre-qualification questionnaires for low-value contracts and standardisation for high-value procurements; sound commercial and contract management of that spend; accountability for the services or goods bought; wherever possible, local SMEs benefiting from spending decisions because that value stays in the community and can often provide huge innovation; and prompt payment to contractors. Why do I want those simple goals? Because when budgets are squeezed, local taxpayers should come first. Every public body should do better for the British economy and not be distracted elsewhere.

Collective Ministerial Responsibility

Debate between Chloe Smith and Andrew Turner

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for securing the debate and all hon. Members for contributing to it so extensively. It will not surprise you, Mr Bayley, to hear that I will decline the offer that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) made at the end of her speech. That subject matter rightly belongs elsewhere, and she would expect me to do you no dishonour by going outside the scope of the debate. I want to address collective ministerial responsibility, as is correct, instead of other extraneous questions.

As I understand it, the central question among the many posed by my hon. Friend was about accountability for collective responsibility. I interpret that to mean that it falls to me today to explain the Government’s doctrine, and to articulate how the Government believe that it ought to be applied.

I shall start with the historical view, in brief. Collective ministerial responsibility has a long-standing place in the British constitution. As far as historians can tell, the doctrine came into being during the reign of George III, who had the perhaps rather dangerous habit of asking Ministers to come and see him individually to give him their views on important matters of state. I do not know whether he did that sitting on a sofa, or whether there were briefings later in the Red Lion. Who would know better than some Members in the Chamber where that style of government ends up, and what happens when senior Ministers cannot agree and go so far as to change their Prime Minister or Head of State without an election, which the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) suggested was a very bad thing indeed? To return to George III, the Cabinet realised that the King’s actions were an attempt to undermine their unity and work out who his supporters were. They therefore agreed that they would tell him exactly the same thing, taking collective responsibility for their decisions.

Clearly, we have moved on a long way since then, in historical terms. Collective ministerial responsibility is about how Ministers behave towards the public and Parliament, rather than towards the Crown. However, the basic point remains the same: Ministers need to be able to have frank discussions and disagreements in private, while maintaining a common purpose once a decision has been taken.

It is to maintain the principle of collective ministerial responsibility that the ministerial code states that the Government will not normally disclose the level at which, or forum where, a decision was taken—my hon. Friend has sought to discuss that matter through parliamentary questions. If the code were not applied, it would be possible to work out which Ministers were present at a meeting. It would also open up debates about which decisions were accorded a higher or lower perceived level of importance than others. That would detract somewhat from the policy quality of issues that might be scrutinised in that way.

Collective ministerial responsibility does not abolish individual responsibility. Each Minister must decide for themselves whether they are happy to remain part of the Government and to support the Government’s decisions. There have been many cases of people feeling no longer able to stand behind the collective conclusion. Famous examples include the noble Lord Heseltine, who, when he was merely Michael Heseltine, famously walked out of Cabinet following the decision on the future of Westland, and the late Robin Cook, who resigned from Cabinet because he did not feel able to take collective responsibility for the decision to go to war in Iraq.

The current version of the ministerial code makes it clear that collective responsibility can be explicitly set aside on occasion. Even before the inclusion of that provision in the code, there was an established practice of doing so on specific issues. Most notably, it has long been the case that collective responsibility does not apply to issues of individual conscience. Most recently, there was a free vote of that kind on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill last week.

[Mr Andrew Turner]

Will the Minister take this opportunity to explain why we were not whipped on the major vote, but were whipped on such things as the business vote?

[Miss Smith]

I would be only too delighted to engage in that discussion with my hon. Friend, but as he knows, I no longer practise the dark arts carried out by what are known as the usual channels. I regret that I would not be able to do that decision justice; nor could I report back to those who make those decisions, if I even tried.

On the ministerial code, it is important to note that there is clear precedent, as has been said several times today, for suspending collective ministerial responsibility on specific issues, when the Government of the day decide that it is appropriate. A notable example, which we have discussed, is Harold Wilson’s decision on whether the UK should continue to be a member of the European Economic Community. He allowed members of his Cabinet to speak and campaign on both sides.

Let me offer the Chamber a few other historical examples. Shortly after the formation of the national Government in 1931, an “agreement to differ” was agreed. The terms of that were published in The Times in January 1932, and in February that year, the Home Secretary began a speech by commenting on the doctrine of collective responsibility:

“The House will have an opportunity…of discussing fully the departure from the doctrine of collective responsibility which is marked by my appearance at this Box this afternoon”—[Official Report, 4 February 1932; Vol. 261, c. 316.]

It is also helpful to note that in 1977, James Callaghan, the then Prime Minister, said:

“I certainly think that the doctrine should apply, except in cases where I announce that it does not.”—[Official Report, 16 June 1977; Vol. 933, c. 552.]

That demonstrates that the terms, duration and enforcement of the arrangement are ultimately a matter for the Prime Minister.

It is most important to add that the current Government have decided to set collective responsibility aside on some specific occasions. That is a fact of life in a coalition, and it shows how our constitutional practice can evolve to suit new situations.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Chloe Smith and Andrew Turner

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

Two points need to be made in response to that question. We here in Parliament, taking due account of our responsibilities to legislate on such matters, do so cautiously. We have used a pragmatic number, and I have tried to explain from where we have derived that number. We think that it is cautious and pragmatic. However, I also referred to the notion of the people who come within the scope of the Bill also exercising wisdom, good sense, pragmatism and caution. I suggest that it would not be beyond the realms of possibility for a person who is No. 7 or No. 8 to be careful in such matters. That is perhaps as far as I ought to go on that, but I do not think that that is beyond the bounds of reasonableness. However, the fact is that we in Parliament have to fix a number. I have tried to explain why we think that number ought to be six.

[Mr Andrew Turner]

Will my hon. Friend help me, because I simply do not understand what she means by five, six or seven. For example, what was Queen Victoria’s number in relation to the previous King?

[Miss Smith]

Putting blood relationships to one side, as I understand it Queen Victoria was the fifth in line to the point at which those consents were sought. We want the current monarch to be able to look ahead six times. It is the case that the throne has never passed to anyone more than six steps away in the line of succession. I hope that those two points answer my hon. Friend’s question.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chloe Smith and Andrew Turner

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

I will tell you what is not available at this time, Mr Speaker: an Opposition policy to deal with any of that.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Will the Government tell me how many small and micro-businesses are engaged nationally or regionally?

[Miss Smith]

I do not have the number to hand, but I am happy to write to my hon. Friend to help him.