National Health Service (Procurement, Slavery and Human Trafficking) Regulations 2025 Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateEarl of Effingham
Main Page: Earl of Effingham (Conservative - Excepted Hereditary)National Health Service (Procurement, Slavery and Human Trafficking) Regulations 2025
Earl of Effingham Excerpts
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations, which seek to extend and strengthen the framework for addressing modern slavery and human trafficking risks in NHS supply chains. This is an issue on which there is—and must always remain, ad aeternum—cross-party consensus. No public body, least of all our flagship National Health Service, should ever be associated, however indirectly, with the exploitation of vulnerable people.
The Minister confirmed that this will not be an easy task. We must acknowledge the scale of the challenge to be addressed; this is absolutely not a storm in a teacup. The department’s own review in 2023 found that 21% of NHS suppliers were assessed as being at high risk of slavery or human trafficking, particularly in the supply of gloves, gowns and surgical instruments—essential items that are used day in, day out in our hospitals to save lives. The findings were deeply troubling and underlined the need for consistent, enforceable action.
When we were in government, we took the first steps to make this situation good through Section 81 of the Health and Care Act 2022, which provided the legal foundation for these regulations. We therefore welcome the fact that this Government have now chosen to bring that framework into effect. However, it is not entirely clear cut; we therefore request further clarity from the Minister on a number of areas.
First, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, highlighted implementation and enforcement. The regulations will require public bodies to take “reasonable steps” to address modern slavery risks, but what will that actually mean in practice? What exactly will constitute a reasonable step? Who will be monitoring compliance with the regulations? What benchmarks will they use to judge whether a body is meeting all of its key performance indicators—indeed, who will set those key performance indicators? The Explanatory Memorandum refers to judicial review as a possible route of challenge, but surely the system should not have to rely on the courts to act as a last line of defence and to identify failings. Who will actually be the first line of defence?
Secondly, on guidance and accountability, Regulation 11 gives NHS England the power to issue guidance, but, as noble Lords know, NHS England is about to be abolished. Can the Minister confirm, therefore, which body will assume those obligations and when that transition will occur? A responsible and decisive Government would want to ensure that there is no period of uncertainty or inconsistency in oversight.
Thirdly, on support for NHS procurement teams, many procurement officers are already under pressure and, understandably, may not have the expertise or know-how to assess complex global supply chains. What specific training and resources will the department provide to help them meet these new legal duties effectively?
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, also flagged up the impact on suppliers. It is obviously essential that the new requirements do not create unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape or deter smaller, ethical businesses from bidding for NHS contracts. Can the Minister assure the Committee that the Government’s approach will be proportionate and sensitive to the realities of different markets?
Modern slavery is one of the most serious human rights abuses of our time; the NHS, as a symbol of our national values, should lead by example in confronting it. The previous Conservative Government laid the groundwork and this Government are now taking the next step. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition therefore support the intention behind these regulations but, as ever, the devil is in the detail. Principles must be matched by effective implementation, proper scrutiny and absolute, measurable outcomes. This is a matter not of political division but of national responsibility. We will hold the Government to account in ensuring that these regulations deliver the changes that they promise.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Earl. I apologise that I will have to write on a number of issues, but I will try my best.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked what the difference is between PPN 009 and the regulations. PPN 009 sets out policy expectations, but the new regulations provide a statutory basis for enforcement, ensuring stronger accountability and compliance in NHS procurement.
On the impact on SMEs, the regulations do not impose direct duties on suppliers, including SMEs. We cannot accept any amount of modern slavery in our supply chains. The regulations allow for a proportionate approach to avoid deterring SME participation. Early market engagement and tailored procurement design will help SMEs compete fairly.
I turn to implementation, training and support. Guidance, training and tools, such as a central risk assessment tool, are being provided to support NHS bodies. The Department of Health and Social Care will take over guidance responsibilities from NHS England. I was asked what will happen and how the expected powers will be used when NHSE is abolished. All the powers will transfer to the Department of Health and Social Care. They have worked together so far and will continue to do so.
On compliance and monitoring, compliance checks are integrated into the NHSE procurement system that is used by more than 300 NHS bodies. We are encouraging commercial teams to embrace these checks as part of good governance. Line managers have real-time data monitoring, which enables effective oversight and accountability. Procurement regulations allow bodies to exclude suppliers and terminate contracts where risks are not remediated.
On the general concern, I understand totally the pressure on the NHS and on local authorities, which was not raised but is in the back of our minds. It is important that we use the NHS’s purchasing power—estimated at £35 billion—to raise standards across the globe without harming domestic suppliers. Ethical supply chains can still be cost effective in the long term by avoiding scandals, litigation and sudden supply collapse. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, on the point about NHS burdens and the impact on suppliers.