Oral Answers to Questions

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

As I have said, if the House of Commons has indicated its will by the amendment, that piece of legislation moves to the House of Lords and the Government will respond at that point. That is the week after next. That is the process of the House. I have recognised the need to ensure that we get the clinical, legal and care experts in place. They are in place, and they are working on some of the complex issues the hon. Lady alludes to. The psychological support is now in place, but I am doing everything I can in every dimension of this complicated problem to deliver as quickly as I can.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have just listened to the Minister’s response, and I appreciate that the situation is complex, but people are dying. My constituent contacted me earlier this week. He has renal failure and cirrhosis of the liver. He wrote asking for

“faster resolution to the infected blood scandal compensation before it is too late for myself and others to see full and final resolution”.

It might be too late for my constituent—he cannot wait two more weeks—but can the Minister outline how many people have received interim payments and how many are still outstanding?

[John Glen]

A large number of payments were made available quickly in the last quarter of 2022. I fully recognise the absolute tragedy that this is. Every death is a tragedy. This is the biggest scandal in the NHS’s history. I recognise and acknowledge that. The victims’ organisations said that there were 141 deaths last year, and I am doing everything I can to find solutions as quickly as possible.

Israel and Gaza

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Those hostages should be freed unconditionally—they should never have been taken in the first place. We will continue our diplomatic efforts to ensure not just their wellbeing but their safe release. That is why our conversations with the Qataris, among others, are so important, and evidence that that diplomacy is paying off has been demonstrated in the past few days. However, there is clearly considerable work to do, given how many more hostages are being held against their will. These people were kidnapped from Israel. They are innocent people. They should not be there, and they should be unconditionally released.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

I received an email from a constituent the day after the horrific terrorist attack in Israel. She was worried about the safety of her brother and his friend, who are also both Vauxhall constituents. Working with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, they thankfully made it to the border with Jordan, and are now back home. However, I recognise that this is not the case for so many people. So many people are still worried for their loved ones. The killing of innocent people at a music festival should shock us all, and the kidnapping of innocent children should be condemned. Every night that I put my six-year-old and eight-year-old to bed, I think of those innocent children, kidnapped without their parents. We should all call this out.

Israel has the right to defend itself, and how Israel does so matters. The Prime Minister has touched on the humanitarian work that he has been doing, which I welcome. However, having listened to Members this afternoon, and given the volume of emails I have received from Vauxhall constituents, does he agree that a temporary humanitarian corridor will help get that urgent aid through to Gaza?

[The Prime Minister]

We are working on efforts to get more humanitarian aid into Gaza. The crossing is now open, aid is being pre-positioned to el-Arish and neighbouring areas, and we are intensifying our conversations on logistical support as well as further financial support. I am pleased that the hon. Lady’s constituent’s family were able to exit—I assume via the west bank. Just for Members’ information, we are also working on that side of the conflict to ensure we can support those British nationals who have registered with the Foreign Office in their safe departure from the west bank, should they so choose. Border Force teams and others are engaged on that side of the conflict as well.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I apologise to the House, but we are out of time. For those watching, I would like to place on record the fact that a significant number of Members have not been able to be called, but the fact that that is so does not mean they are not interested. I thank them all very much for their patience.

[Florence Eshalomi]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Is it connected to the statement?

[Florence Eshalomi]

It is, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Earlier this afternoon the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) mentioned some of the horrific chanting this weekend. He also mentioned that a London Underground tube driver had said the word “jihad”. To ensure clarity—at this really sensitive time, our words matter—should the hon. Member not come and correct what he has said, because it has been stated that the London Underground staff member actually said “Free Palestine”, not “jihad”?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Lady is well aware that all hon. Members are responsible for their own words in this place. If the hon. Gentleman feels that he has something that he wishes to amend, he will do so, but that is not a matter for the Chair.

G20 Summit

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Monday 11th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right about the need for global co-operation when it comes to AI safety. It is obviously a technology that does not respect national borders. Again, this is an area where the UK is demonstrating leadership, building on our expertise and our leading position in AI research. We are having the conversation with partners about what that principles-based approach to regulation would look like, to ensure consistency across jurisdictions. We are also seeing what we can do to make sure that the UK is the leading place for that AI safety research, and that is the work of our AI taskforce, which is currently under way and proceeding well.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the African Union as a permanent member of the G20. Africa is one of the fastest-growing economies in the world and it is important that her voice is at the table discussing major global issues such as climate change, security and economic stability. My own country of origin, Nigeria, is one of the largest in Africa; it has over 223 million people, which is rising daily. Can the Prime Minister outline what steps his Government are taking towards a strategy for the continent?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for her excellent question and join her in saying that we were delighted to agree the African Union’s membership of the G20. She is right to highlight the increasing importance of Africa in global affairs. Over the next decade or so, Africa’s population will double to 2.5 billion people, with 60% of them under the age of 25. Also, Africa contributes just 4% of global emissions but is home to 35 of the 50 countries most at risk from climate change, so it is important that we are engaged and supportive. I can tell her what we are doing. Now that we have left the European Union and are in charge of our trade policy, we have changed our tariff structure so that 98% of goods imported into the UK from Africa will enter tariff-free. We are making sure that our just energy transition partnerships help countries such as South Africa with their transition, mobilising billions of dollars of support. Next year, we will be hosting the Africa investment summit with over 20 different countries, because the UK, as measured by foreign direct investment, is the largest investor in the continent.

Draft Official Statistics Order 2023

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2023 General Committees

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the Minister for his very brief opening speech. Since the start of the year we are just 15 short of 1,000 references to statistics in Hansard—I hope that our debate today will make it 1,000.

The frequency with which statistics are used in our debates shows the tremendous power and influence that they have over our politics and political system. They provide a vital pulse on the education of the nation, helping us to determine the success and failures of policies and concentrate minds on the areas of concern.

The statistics referenced in the Commons come from a variety of sources, from charities and lobbying groups to data collected by the Government and many arm’s length bodies. That is perfectly healthy. Statistics should not be excluded from the official sources that we are discussing today. Statistics from unofficial sources allow for a variety of opinions, novel methods and original research beyond the purpose and scope of official statistics, but it is also useful to highlight when statistics are from official sources, as they come with certain guarantees of methodology and central authority that are rooted in the public good. This measure allows us to have a certain understanding about the country, and forms the basis of the commissioning of statistics by the Government and Ministers.

I am pleased to say that we do not oppose the specification of “official statistics” as continued under this instrument, and we understand the need to update what counts as statistics as and when public bodies transform in structure, or where there is a need for or redundancy of statistics in certain areas. As the Minister pointed out and the explanatory memorandum outlines, the vast majority of the changes in this order are simply organisational, representing names, mergers and similar changes in structure.

I would just like the Minister to respond to one question. The only outlier on the list is the Natural Environment Research Council, which the Minister briefly touched on. NERC has been merged into UK Research and Innovation without UKRI being granted the official statistics change. It seems strange to drop an official statistics status for an environmental research body without replacing it, but I understand that NERC did not produce much in the way of statistics. I also understand why it may not be appropriate for UKRI as a whole to be included at the moment and that there are no great calls to change that. However, will the Minister confirm that sufficient statistics will be produced in the environmental field through bodies such as the Environment Agency?

More widely, although we do not disagree with the concept of official statistics, it is important to highlight that they still have limitations with consequences that we should be aware of in policy development. Statistics can reveal a great deal of information about the state of the nation but, if we are honest, they can also leave out a lot of nuance and things that are hard to measure or quantify. It can be easy to fall into the trap of finding the easier-to-quantify measures in a subject area and then work to simply reduce that number, while failing to address the root cause of the problem or help those who fall through the cracks. We do not need to get into specifics today, but it is important that we treat all statistics with caution and study the methodologies and gaps as much as we study the headlines. I will leave it there, but I would be grateful if the Minister could briefly address the omission with respect to the NERC.

Oral Answers to Questions

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Wednesday 14th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

Yes, I would be happy to meet the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

T3. This London Tech Week, I pay tribute to King’s Maths School in my constituency, which provides tutoring for 16 to 19-year-olds. The Government promised £300 million for mathematical research in 2020, but now, despite that, they are abandoning the commitment. When does the Minister expect Britain to stay competitive and when can the Government guarantee that funding?

[The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation (George Freeman)]

As the Prime Minister has made clear, we are putting maths at the heart of our curriculum. I am ensuring that maths is properly funded to our research ecosystem. I will happily meet the hon. Member and talk to her about it.

Procurement Bill [Lords]

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 13th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

My hon. Friend will know that is a length of a piece of string question. In setting up the unit and providing it with resource, we are mindful of the need for it to be able to respond swiftly to emerging threats and to new entities. The unit will not serve its purpose if investigations go on too long. I cannot give him any guarantees on maximum length of time for investigation, but I can assure him that those concerns are very much in our thoughts as we go about establishing this new way of working.

The new unit will also have a role in supporting and upskilling contracting authorities. By directly engaging with them and providing guidance, the unit will help contracting authorities confidently implement the national security exclusion and debarment regime correctly, maximising its effectiveness.

Amendments 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35, 38, 53, 54 and 55 are minor and technical amendments to ensure that the exclusions and debarment regimes can function effectively.

I take this opportunity to thank all colleagues who have engaged with us on this, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who is not in her place today. She has been instrumental in helping us to formulate these ideas in regard to national security and in particular our commitment to the national security unit for procurement.

The Government are taking national security extremely seriously, as the Bill and the amendments just mentioned make clear. Concerns have been expressed in the House regarding the use of surveillance equipment provided by entities subject to the national intelligence law of the People’s Republic of China, the risks of which we fully understand. I take this opportunity to remind the House that, in November, the Government published a written ministerial statement asking Departments to consider the removal of visual surveillance equipment from Government sensitive sites and to cease any future procurement of such equipment.

Today, we are going further. I commit to this House that, within six months of the Bill’s Royal Assent, the Government will set out the timeline for the removal of surveillance equipment supplied by companies subject to the national intelligence law of China from sensitive sites. I make it clear that we are taking firm and decisive action on this important matter and that we will be held to account for that action. That is why we will provide a clear plan for delivering on it, adhering to the timeline requested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. I hope that addresses his and other Members’ wishes that the Government take appropriate action.

If I may, I will address two final points. First, I thank each of the devolved Administrations for their constructive engagement during the drafting and passage of the Bill. I am pleased that the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament have agreed to the procurement aspects of the Bill, which are the vast majority of the clauses. However, despite our best efforts and several amendments, we have been unable to secure full legislative consent motions for the concurrent powers in the Bill relating to the implementation of international obligations. That is disappointing, but not unexpected, given that it is consistent with the position taken by the Scottish and Welsh Governments on the recent Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023.

I reassure the House that, as with current practice, we will continue to engage and consult with the devolved Administrations if they choose not to legislate for themselves in implementing the UK’s international obligations, in so far as they relate to areas of devolved competence. In the absence of a Northern Ireland Executive, a legislative consent motion for Northern Ireland was not possible. However, the permanent secretary for the Northern Ireland Department of Finance has written to the permanent secretary of the Cabinet Office to welcome the Bill as drafted and the close working relationship that has developed between officials.

Secondly, I take the opportunity to clarify the rules for private utilities where they have been directly awarded rights, for example, through a directly awarded contract at the request of the Department for Transport. Private utilities are within the scope of the Bill only where they have been granted a special or exclusive right to carry out a utility activity, effectively creating a monopoly situation. Clause 6(4) clarifies that the right is not special or exclusive where the right is granted following a competitive tendering procedure under the Bill or otherwise on the basis of a transparent procedure and non-discriminatory criteria. That has the effect, for example, that, if a contract for a utility activity with an incumbent supplier is renewed or replaced without competition, the supplier will have been granted a special or exclusive right. The supplier would therefore be classed as a private utility under the Bill. An example would be where an incumbent train operating company awarded a contract following competition has been directly awarded a new contract under DFT legislation.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

Three years ago, in the aftermath of the covid-19 pandemic, vital frontline staff across our NHS were struggling against dangerously low stocks of personal protective equipment. We all heard the stories of frontline workers in the early stages of the pandemic. These stories show us the impact of not procuring adequate reserves for a pandemic such as covid-19, and they show us why we need the right culture to rapidly respond to emergency procurement demands whenever they may show. Sadly, what we saw during the pandemic did not live up to standards. What followed, with the horror stories of frontline workers in the early stages of 2020, was a case study in wasteful and inefficient emergency procurement.

In January, the National Audit Office found that nearly £15 billion was wasted on unused covid supplies. That is £15 billion that could be going towards tens of thousands of full-time nursery places. It is £15 billion that could be going towards clearing the backlog in our NHS. It is £15 billion that could hand every single person in this country £220 and still have change left over. Instead, the incompetence we saw from this Government cost this country a fortune. In fact, the Government’s record keeping was so flawed that the Public Accounts Committee’s July 2022 report on the awarding of contracts to Randox during the pandemic stated it was

“impossible to have confidence that all its contracts with Randox were awarded properly.”

It is not just incompetence that costs the country. During the pandemic, the Government created a VIP lane for those offering to provide PPE. The system was extremely useful for some suppliers, with the Public Accounts Committee finding that one in 10 suppliers coming through the high-priority lane were awarded a contract. That compares with just one in 100 for the ordinary lane. The Cabinet Office and the Department of Health and Social Care also accepted that leads that went through the high-priority lane were handled better. Who was in that lane?

In the Public Account Committee’s report on PPE procurement, it stated

“The British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing told us that their organisations did not have access to the high-priority lane, even though they were being contacted by, and therefore would have been able to put forward, credible leads based on the knowledge of their members. The British Medical Association also noted that suppliers which had contacted them, including suppliers trusted by doctors, tried the normal channels of reaching out to the Government but had ‘hit a brick wall’. Care England told us that it had similarly shared the details of potential suppliers but there had been no follow-through.”

Instead, those with contacts with Government Ministers and officials, MPs and Members of the House of Lords were given access to this VIP lane. That included PPE Medpro, a company set up only a few days before but—surprise, surprise—with links to a Tory politician, which was awarded more than £200 million of public money. In total, £3.4 billion of taxpayers’ money in the form of contracts went to Conservative donors and friends. At a time when we were asking people up and down the country to come outside and clap, the Tory Government were giving cash to their donors. The Bill must be used to ensure that that never happens again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I applaud what the hon. Member is saying about SMEs. She is absolutely right that it is important that we support the small business sector. However, she has tabled amendments that would favour the insourcing of public services. She seems to think that we should require the public sector to deliver public contracts, rather than SMEs. Which is it?

[Florence Eshalomi]

The hon. Member is absolutely right: those SMEs will work with local councils in a local area, and they know the local area. In some cases the contracts that are outsourced are not value for money. This is about ensuring that, in public contracts, public money is spent in the right way. If we are to lower the risks faced by SMEs seeking to enter the supply chain, it is vital that the measures in the Bill have an impact.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

One of the biggest problems during the pandemic, which came out of China and became a global pandemic, was the question of everybody scraping around trying to find PPE, most of which was manufactured in China. Is it therefore part of the hon. Lady’s argument that we should have strategic manufacturing of PPE—either here or certainly in democracies that we can trust—to which we get earlier access, or will we just leave it to be produced somewhere else?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I agree with some of the amendments the right hon. Member has tabled on the issue of China and national security. Throughout the Committee stage, we argued consistently for removing risks from countries with a high national security risk, but we have concerns about the approach of naming specific countries in the Bill. It is important that we work with the whole House to get the right framework. I urge the Minister to consider our amendment 17, which is a careful mechanism for assessing the impact of the new rules that he is championing.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, national security has been an issues of extreme interest to the House. On Second Reading, we heard a tour de force from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), on national security. In Committee, I raised multiple concerns with the Minister about the place of national security as a discretionary exclusion ground and its role in the debarment system. I am pleased that the Minister was listening to all those points, and we welcome amendment 57 and similar Government amendments, which we believe will address many of the concerns raised in Committee. I welcome the amendments originally tabled by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, which will establish a list of high-risk suppliers as part of the Bill. Our amendment 15 would exclude suppliers identified as a security threat from public contracts. Although that offers some benefits over alternative proposals, there is a balance, so we are not minded to press amendment 15 to a Division.

Procurement practices affect not only our services, but the many workers who rely on procurement-related roles for their jobs and livelihoods. Public money, and the jobs that will create, should not be given to those who treat their workers unfairly. Our amendment 18 would give contracting authorities the power to exclude suppliers that have significantly and repeatedly breached the rights of their staff. It would affect only those who have not taken self-cleansing measures to correct their conduct and the causes of breaches. The amendment would ensure that authorities have the right to turn away the worst offenders on workers’ rights, and would ensure that publicly funded jobs are protected jobs.

It can only be right that those seeking public contracts in the UK are transparent about where they pay their tax. The public would not expect their hard-earned money to go to those seeking not to pay into the system themselves, but a study from the Fair Tax Foundation found that, between 2014 and 2019, one in six public contracts were won by companies with links to tax havens. Our new clause 10 would mean that multinational companies bidding for large public contracts need to provide information about their tax arrangements in the UK. That would be open to the public and create greater transparency on how public money is spent. Amendment 16 would create a discretionary exclusion ground for suppliers that have violated UK sanctions or export controls, ensuring that authorities have the power to exclude from the procurement system those who continue to profit off businesses in places such as Russia. New clause 11 would require authorities to undertake a public interest test whenever deciding to outsource public services, to ensure that it truly offers value for money. Finally, new clause 14 would allow public authorities to choose not to buy goods or services from countries on the basis of their human rights records. That would give authorities the power to set clear policies, not to hand public funds to those committing atrocities around the world.

I pay tribute to members of the Committee for their engagement on this very long Bill. We have definitely shone a light on it, and had many discussions about paperclips. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), who embellished the Committee with a wealth of examples of procurement practices from their constituencies. I hope the Minister will listen to us on why additional amendments are important to strengthen the Procurement Bill in the interests of all taxpayers across the country, and I look forward to hearing from other Members.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I rise to speak to the amendment in my name and those of 26 others in the House of all parties.

The real issue here is the existence of a specific law in China that makes pretty much all companies in China, but particularly those involved in technology, a public risk in procurement to the United Kingdom. Article 7 of the People’s Republic of China national intelligence law 2017 states:

“Any organisation and citizen shall, in accordance with the law, support, provide assistance, and cooperate in national intelligence work, and guard the secrecy of any national intelligence work that they are aware of.”

In other words, under the Chinese national intelligence law, they must completely comply with all demands and requests for information in the business they are in, and deny they have done that to any other country or authority that asks. We have had Chinese companies coming to the House and lying to Select Committees about what they are doing, all saying that they have no obligations under the national intelligence law. They do have obligations under that law and they will lie for their country as a result.

We need to start by understanding the problems, and I thank my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench for having listened to the arguments and changed the terms, first by referencing the national intelligence law, which is very important, because many Departments will play fast and loose unless what they must do is made very clear. We have been encouraging the Government, who came out with views on Hikvision, Dahua and other companies supplying surveillance equipment to the UK, knowing that they are a surveillance risk not because they are cameras in a particular fashion but because what they glean is available completely to the Chinese authorities under the national security laws.

We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) about the small devices—a growing threat that I have not referenced but which also gets caught by the national intelligence law. China is leading in this technology, which is one way in which it can keep track of its own people, but they are now using it more broadly. I had a suspicion and heard that the cars that my hon. Friend was referencing were Downing Street cars. There is a very good chance that the Prime Minister and others may have been tracked by the Chinese Government without our knowledge.

We must therefore remember that first and foremost China poses a significant threat to us, our interests and the way we live our lives. Until we all agree and come to those terms, we simply cannot move on; that is the key. Government Departments and the Government have dragged their feet over this because we do not want to upset the Chinese—but it takes a lot to upset the Chinese because they carry on as before. The amendment is intended to get the Government to accept that we should reference the national intelligence law because that defines all Chinese business and companies and therefore they are a threat.

There are other Chinese companies that are a problem that will not be named, and surveillance cameras are part of this. I must confess that when my brother-in-law went around an area of a farm looking at the surveillance cameras, he spotted that they were Hikvision cameras—they are not listed in the contract because the contract provider is a UK organisation, but we discovered that they are everywhere.

Once I heard the news that the Government clearly wanted Departments to get rid of those cameras, I made a set of freedom of information requests to all Departments about whether they had cameras, where they were, whether they were on their buildings, and what plans they had to get rid of them, having spotted that a lot of Departments still had them, including the Ministry of Defence. All Departments—bar I think the Wales Office, which came clean and said it did not have any or was getting rid of them—claimed that, under section 24 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, they did not have to answer because it was a security risk. The security risk is having the cameras, not answering the damned question! Excuse my language, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is all about where the cameras are and what they are doing, and that is the point of the amendment.

I hope that Ministers will take this matter forward and tell Departments to stop obfuscating. If they are asked a direct question they should tell the honest truth and explain that under the new rules under the Bill they will be getting rid of those cameras, which is absolutely critical.

Oral Answers to Questions

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Thursday 11th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

Our civil servants are impartial, committed and hard-working professionals. They deserve our respect for keeping this country going during the pandemic. Instead, what we are getting from Ministers is unacceptable workplace behaviour and accusations of being responsible for Government failure. It is not civil servants who have put us through the Tory psychodrama and the disastrous Budget, so will the Minister take responsibility for the backlogs that constituents are facing up and down the country and stop shifting the blame on to hard-working civil servants?

[Jeremy Quin]

The hon. Lady will not find me criticising civil servants who are hard-working, who do their job, who are committed and who continue to provide tremendous expertise to our country, but I take issue with her earlier points. We take any allegations of bullying seriously, and we need to ensure that they are all followed up. I do not know if the same can be said of the Labour party—people in glass houses should not throw stones. I think there were more allegations even today about activity inside the Labour party. There was five years of antisemitism that was not addressed, and I do think the Labour party should sort out its own issues before trying to sort out the Government’s.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Government may offer warm words on SMEs, but small businesses need those opportunities to thrive. Let us look at the evidence to see whether those warm words are backed up. In Brentwood, SMEs missed out on £3 in every £4 of viable suitable Government contracts in 2022. In Hertsmere, they missed out on 79%. In Horsham, SMEs got less than 5% of suitable public money. That amounts to £8.6 million. The Tories may talk about being a party of small businesses, but this Government have had 13 years to help small businesses—why have they not?

[Alex Burghart]

I am very pleased that the hon. Lady has been paying attention in the Committee stage of the Procurement Bill, where she has heard that we have done a great deal of work to overhaul the archaic regime that the EU left us with. It is precisely because of that Bill that small businesses will get contract pipelines, a single digital platform, prompt payments and a single regime that reduces bureaucracy and administrative burdens. With transparency, simplicity and fairness, this Government are delivering for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Oral Answers to Questions

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

In November, it was revealed in The Guardian that the company Infosys was still operating in Russia, eight months after it announced that it would withdraw. Just a month later, that company was awarded a lucrative contract worth £1.7 million of taxpayers’ money. Was the Minister aware of that when that contract was awarded, and do the Government believe that public money should be going to those who are operating in Russia?

[Jeremy Quin]

We set out in policy procurement note 01/22 our approach to public procurement and links with Russia. That PPN speaks for itself, and I am sure the hon. Lady is familiar with it. It requires contracting authorities to check from whom they are receiving goods and services. It is primarily aimed at those who are Russia or Belarus-based, or who have significant control. I do not know the particulars of the circumstances that she mentions, but the Government’s approach through PPN 01/22 is very clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Fair Tax Foundation revealed that between 2014 and 2019, one in six public contracts were won by businesses connected to tax havens. That means that billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is going towards those who try to avoid paying tax. It is fair that the public have a right to know how their money is spent, so will the Secretary of State support Labour’s measures to increase tax transparency in our procurement system?

[Oliver Dowden]

We already have high levels of transparency, and the Procurement Bill is going through Parliament. The most important thing is to crack down on tax avoidance through tax havens, which is what we saw in yesterday’s Budget and what we have seen previous ones—for example, by addressing the double Irish issue.

Civil Service Pay

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Pritchard. I, too, pay a big tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) for securing this really important debate. Her passionate opening remarks highlighted why we are having the debate. I want to go back to some of the points that she highlighted.

In the recent survey conducted by the PCS union, 85% of its members said that the cost of living crisis had had a big impact on their mental and physical health. If people are not in a fit position to go to work, how are they supposed to carry out even the basic functions that they are employed to do? When we talk about people using food banks, some Members of this House basically say that that is incorrect, but the figures do not lie: 40,000 of that union’s members say that they are using food banks. That should shame us. Those are staff members, people in work and with a salary, having to rely on food banks. That should not be happening in 2023. Of those PCS members, 18% said that they had missed work because of their inability to afford transport or fuel—the energy companies and fuel companies are making record profits but not passing the benefit down to people who are filling up at the petrol stations—and 40% said that they had had to use credit for essential shopping. We saw what happened a few years ago with the rise of loan companies and loan sharks. If we are not careful, the number of people who have to rely on credit for the basic necessities—for basic bills—will creep up. That is what is happening to people who are in work. In-work poverty should not be happening.

Many hon. Members have highlighted issues across their constituencies, and I think about my own constituency, just over the bridge, where a significant number of civil servants live. Many Members have highlighted how hard our civil servants worked during the pandemic. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the fact that, if we are honest, a job in the civil service is no longer a job for life. I will be honest: when I graduated, I applied for the fast stream, but I failed at the first hurdle and I thought that that was the end of my career. A number of people who have worked in the civil service feel that they have no career progression. Their pay is stagnating, and they are leaving. He is right; it is no longer a job for life.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) highlighted the fact that the 2% increase is an insult—nothing more—because inflation is skyrocketing and the cost of everything is going up for our civil servants. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) highlighted the really big issue that civil servants are having to rely on food banks. I totally agree with him that the situation is grim. To repeat his words, we are forcing people into abject poverty because they are having to choose. That should not be happening. I also agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) that as a result of what the Government are proposing and the fact that they are not negotiating, fewer people will be doing more work for less pay. That should not be happening, either.

My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) raised the issues with the DVLA, which we all remember, and the shameful way in which the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), handled that situation, with hard-working staff not being treated right. These issues are happening while the Government refuse to negotiate with our civil servants. If we look back to the pandemic, civil servants kept the country going and on its feet, whether by putting emergency measures in place, adjusting to new realities or taking on the mammoth task of dealing with so many different schemes, including furlough. Let us be honest: even now, those civil servants are still working to clear up backlog Britain. We have all seen that backlog in our casework, whether it is with the Home Office, the DVLA or passports. The civil servants are still working to clear it up, and trying to fix the problems of the past 12 years that have been caused by the Government’s mismanagement.

Our public services are at breaking point. That is not the fault of the hard-working public sector staff; it is the fault of the Government, who have failed and let down our valued institutions—the Government who do not value our staff, and who have failed to recruit and retain staff across the public sector. We are now in a situation where civil servants feel that they have no choice but to go on strike. Like many people, they are seeing their bills and the cost of food rise. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North mentioned pasta, potatoes and rice; whenever I get updates from the food banks in my constituency, those are the key items that they want people to drop off. Those basic items are now so expensive, and the truth is that civil servants’ pay is not keeping up with those increases. The Government are more determined to scapegoat workers and avoid fixing a mess that they created than they are to get around the table and negotiate, including in the civil service.

We cannot expect the civil service to be attractive to external employees when civil servants are expected to withstand threats to their jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) highlighted the fact that just over a year ago, the Government threatened to cut 91,000 jobs across the civil service. That caused endless sleepless nights for those who were worried about the future of their jobs. Thankfully, those plans have been shelved, but given the merry-go-round of Ministers that we have had, how can anyone joining the civil service now be sure that that proposal will not come up again? That uncertainty and real-terms pay cuts are hindering the civil service’s ability to retain and recruit staff. Too often, that results in the false economy of having to rely on external contractors and consultants within the civil service. Year after year, public money is being spent on external consultants, rather than attracting the knowledge that we need in-house and training people to have that knowledge. We have simply outsourced the pay rise that our civil servants need to keep up with the cost of living to the profits of consulting firms. That is a horrific waste of money, resulting directly from 12 years of Government neglect and ideology-driven pay decisions.

When we consider civil service pay, we must look at its impact on equality. There are around half a million civil servants, who are responsible for delivering vast amounts of our public services. It is critical that our civil service is representative of our society as a whole, but we cannot expect it to be representative when pay across the civil service is unequal. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley mentioned the shocking issues that PACAC explored around racism in the civil service—I hope the Minister and his colleagues will be looking at that—and the shocking fact that the gender pay gap in the civil service increased drastically in 2022, with the median pay gap increasing by almost 70% in just one year. We cannot tackle inequality in society if inequality is entrenched in our civil service.

One point I would like the Minister to come back on is whether he agrees with the Women and Equalities Committee, which reported last year on the ethnicity pay gap—another key issue within the civil service. Does he agree that the first step in addressing the pay disparity is to ensure that ethnicity pay gap reporting is mandatory? I urge him to outline the measures he is taking to address the pay gap in the civil service.

The Government have a responsibility to ensure our public services are run well and our public sector workers are treated fairly. The next Labour Government’s mission will be to grow our economy, ensure that we have high-quality public services and ensure that our workers have better pay and conditions. Labour’s new deal for working people looks to deliver on this mission for the civil service and across society. The cost of living crisis is driving our civil servants to breaking point. It must be a priority for the Government to get to grips with this crisis and ensure that working people do not continue to suffer. Working people need a fair deal. The Government must get around the table to ensure that our public services are not ravaged by the outcomes of 12 years of Conservative failure and mismanagement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that we consider there to be many advantages to this model.

The purpose of Westminster Hall debates is for the Minister to come and listen to what colleagues in the House have to say. It was interesting, listening to the hon. Member for Vauxhall, to hear that a lot of the positions from the Labour Back Benches do not necessarily accord with the position of the Labour Front Bench. I wonder whether one of the things that is happening in this Westminster Hall debate is an internal debate within the Labour party being aired in public. There was no position from the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson on collective bargaining, on the pay offer, or on PCS strike actions.

[Florence Eshalomi]

On this side of the House, we will make sure that we negotiate—sit around the table and address the concerns. It is not for me to say, “This is what we will offer.” It is about sitting down with the unions, outlining the concerns and then coming to a decision.

[Alex Burghart]

I respect the hon. Lady’s position. However, that is not the position that many of her colleagues have taken here today. It is important that the Labour party comes to an agreed position before the next election. If it does not, we will be sure to remind the public that the Labour party does not have a position on this, whereas the Government do.

Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st February 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to [e-mail]. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.

Today, the Committee will consider new clauses tabled to the Bill. We will begin with the Government new clauses, all of which have already been debated.

New Clause 9

Debarment decisions: interim relief

“(1) A supplier may apply to the court for suspension of the Minister’s decision to enter the supplier’s name on the debarment list.

(2) Proceedings under subsection (1) must be brought during the debarment standstill period.

(3) The court may make an order to—

(a) suspend the Minister’s decision to enter the supplier’s name on the debarment list until—

(i) the period referred to in subsection (3)(b) of section 64 (appeals) ends without proceedings having been brought, or

(ii) proceedings under that section are determined, discontinued or otherwise disposed of, and

(b) if relevant, require that an entry in respect of the supplier be temporarily removed from the debarment list.

(4) In considering whether to make an order under subsection (3), the court must have regard to—

(a) the public interest in, among other things, ensuring that public contracts are not awarded to suppliers that pose a risk,

(b) the interest of the supplier, including in relation to the likely financial impact of not suspending the decision, and

(c) any other matters that the court considers appropriate.

(5) In this section—

‘the court’ means—

(a) in England and Wales, the High Court,

(b) in Northern Ireland, the High Court, and

(c) in Scotland, the Court of Session;

‘debarment standstill period’ has the meaning given in section 62 (debarment list).”—(Alex Burghart.)

This new clause, to be inserted after clause 62, would allow a supplier to apply to suspend a Minister’s decision to add their name to the debarment list. If the decision is suspended, the supplier will not be able to be excluded from procurements on the basis of that entry until the suspension is lifted.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10

Debarment proceedings and closed material procedure

“Part 2 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 (disclosure of sensitive material) applies in relation to proceedings under sections (Debarment decisions: interim relief)(1) (interim relief) and 64 (appeals) as if, in each of the following provisions, each reference to the Secretary of State included a reference to the Minister for the Cabinet Office—

(a) section 6(2)(a), (7) and (9)(a) and (c);

(b) section 7(4)(a);

(c) section 8(1)(a);

(d) section 11(3);

(e) section 12(2)(a) and (b).”—(Alex Burghart.)

This new clause, to be inserted after clause 64, would allow the Minister for the Cabinet Office to apply in place of the Secretary of State to allow closed material applications to be made to the court in proceedings for interim relief or an appeal against a debarment decision.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 11

Trade disputes

“(1) This section applies where there is, or has been, a dispute relating to procurement between the United Kingdom and another state, territory or organisation of states or territories in relation to an international agreement specified in Schedule 9.

(2) An appropriate authority or the Scottish Ministers may by regulations make such provision relating to procurement as the authority considers, or the Scottish Ministers consider, appropriate in consequence of the dispute.

(3) Any provision made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (2) must relate to procurement—

(a) carried out by devolved Scottish authorities, or

(b) under devolved Scottish procurement arrangements.

(4) Regulations under this section may include provision modifying primary legislation, whenever passed (including this Act).

(5) In subsection (1), the reference to an international agreement specified in Schedule 9 does not include a reference to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the one part, and the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the other part, signed at Brussels and London on 30 December 2020.”—(Alex Burghart.)

This new clause, to be inserted after clause 90, would provide that an appropriate authority or the Scottish Ministers could make provision to deal with the procurement consequences of a trade dispute under a treaty implemented by way of Schedule 9 (other than the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the European Union, which is dealt with under existing legislation).

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 12

Part 9 proceedings and closed material procedure

“Part 2 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 (disclosure of sensitive material) applies in relation to proceedings under this Part as if, in each of the following provisions, each reference to the Secretary of State included a reference to the Minister for the Cabinet Office—

(a) section 6(2)(a), (7) and (9)(a) and (c);

(b) section 7(4)(a);

(c) section 8(1)(a);

(d) section 11(3);

(e) section 12(2)(a) and (b).”—(Alex Burghart.)

This new clause, to be inserted after clause 103, would allow the Minister for the Cabinet Office to apply in place of the Secretary of State to allow closed material applications to be made to the court in proceedings under Part 9.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 13

Power to disapply this Act in relation to procurement by NHS in England

“(1) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make provision for the purpose of disapplying any provision of this Act in relation to regulated health procurement.

(2) In this section—

‘regulated health procurement’ means the procurement of goods or services by a relevant authority that is subject to provision made under section 12ZB of the National Health Service Act 2006 (procurement of healthcare services etc for the health service in England), whether or not that provision is in force;

‘relevant authority’ has the meaning given in that section.”—(Alex Burghart.)

This new clause would be a substitute for clause 116 and allow a Minister of the Crown to make provision excluding from the scope of this Bill procurement that is within the scope of regulations under section 12ZB of the National Health Service Act 2006.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 15

Debarment decisions: appeals (No. 2)

“(1) A supplier may appeal to the court against a decision of a Minister of the Crown—

(a) to enter the supplier’s name on the debarment list,

(b) to indicate a particular date as part of an entry in respect of the supplier under section 62(3)(b), or

(c) not to remove an entry in respect of the supplier from the debarment list, or revise a date indicated as part of such an entry, following an application under section 63 (application for removal).

(2) Proceedings under subsection (1)—

(a) may only be brought by a United Kingdom supplier or a treaty state supplier,

(b) may only be brought on the grounds that, in making the decision, the Minister made a material mistake of law, and

(c) must be commenced before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which the supplier first knew, or ought to have known, about the Minister’s decision.

(4) Subsection (4) applies if, in proceedings under subsection (1)(a), the court is satisfied that—

(a) the Minister made a material mistake of law, and

(b) in consequence of the mistake, a contracting authority excluded the supplier from participating in a competitive tendering procedure, or other selection process, in reliance on section 57(1)(b) or (2)(b).

(5) The court may make one or more of the following orders—

(a) an order setting aside the Minister’s decision;

(b) an order to compensate the supplier for any costs incurred by the supplier in relation to participating in the procedure or process referred to in subsection (3)(b).

(6) Otherwise, if the court is satisfied that the Minister made a material mistake of law, the court may make an order setting aside the Minister’s decision.

(7) In this section—

‘the court’ has the meaning given in section (Debarment decisions: interim relief) (interim relief);

the reference to a supplier being excluded includes a reference to—

(a) the supplier’s tender being disregarded under section 26;

(b) the supplier becoming an excluded supplier for the purposes of section 41(1)(a), 43(1) or 45(6)(a).”—(Alex Burghart.)

This new clause would be a substitute for clause 64 and replace the power to make provision about appeals relating to debarment with detailed provision for their operation.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

Public interest

“(1) Where a contracting authority is considering outsourcing public services that are at the time of consideration delivered in-house or where contracts are due for renewal, the contracting authority must ensure that outsourcing or recontracting passes a public interest test and provides greater public value than direct service provision.

(2) As part of the duty in subsection (1), the contracting authority must demonstrate to the public, service users and its employees that it has thoroughly assessed the potential benefits and impact of outsourcing the service in question against a public sector comparator with assessments being based on criteria to be set by the Secretary of State from time to time, including taking a five year consideration of—

(a) service quality and accessibility;

(b) value for money of the expenditure;

(c) implications for other public services and public sector budgets;

(d) resilience of the service being provided;

(e) implications for the local economy and availability of good work in relevant sub-national labour markets;

(f) implications for public accountability and transparency;

(g) effect on employment conditions, terms and standards within the provision of the service to be outsourced and when outsourced;

(h) implications for public sector contributions to climate change targets;

(i) implications for the equalities policies of the contracting authority and compliance with the public sector equality duty.

(3) The contracting authority and the supplier of the outsourced service must monitor the performance of any contracted service against the public interest test and the stated objectives set by the contracting authority pre-procurement to demonstrate that outsourcing the service in question has not resulted in a negative impact on any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2)(a) to (i).

(4) The Secretary of State must from time to time set budget thresholds for when a public interest test would be required.”—(Florence Eshalomi.)

The new clause would create a process to ensure that contracting authorities safeguard the public interest when considering whether or not to outsource or recontract services.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mr Mundell. It is good to see all hon. Members back and raring to go on our favourite subject, the Procurement Bill. The new clause, which we think is really important, would introduce a public interest test when contracting authorities are considering outsourcing public services that are currently in-house, and when contracts are up for renewal.

The Opposition strongly believe that there is a place for the delivery of public services by private companies. Many private companies deliver services efficiently, save the taxpayer money and represent the best of our procurement network. When outsourcing is done well, both the public and companies benefit. I highlight to the Minister that the new clause is not intended to stop good outsourcing practice, nor is it intended to harm suppliers providing public services. However, we have to remember that we are talking about public money and it is critical that we outsource only when it offers value for money for the public—not just in relation to the contract, but for the wider public sector.

When it is done wrong, outsourcing has the potential to offer poor value for money, erode rights and deliver poorer services. In effect, more public money can go to companies that are just making a profit off the taxpayer, while services could be delivered to the same or a better standard in-house, without the profit premiums. Decades of relentless outsourcing have seen hundreds and thousands of staff transferred from employment by local councils, NHS trusts, police authorities, universities, colleges, schools and utility services to external providers, such as companies or charities.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making very good points about outsourcing. It is quite right that we support outsourcing to good companies that pay good and fair wages and offer good terms and conditions, but savings are far too often made by treating workers poorly, by undercutting their pay and terms and conditions, and by trying to offload workers who are needed for the service. This test would allow councils to check whether they could do it better in-house.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend for that really valid point. It is important that we look at what has happened. Over the years, there have been many examples of outsourced services in which staff working conditions have been eroded and staff pay has not kept in line with inflation. The situation that we are seeing now is that staff are walking—they are voting with their feet and choosing to lose a day’s pay by going on strike. That is a result of some areas of outsourcing. From catering to social care, from cleaning to IT and HR services, almost no area of public services has been left untouched.

Too often, outsourcing is accompanied by deterioration in the pay, pensions and terms and conditions of the staff delivering the service. That almost creates a two-tier workforce of directly employed staff working alongside contractor staff, as well as a two-tier workforce within the contractor. The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations can offer some limited protection for staff who are transferred to an outsourced contract, but staff recruited by the contractor after transfer have no such protection. Those inferior conditions can translate to lower costs for contractors, which can play a crucial role in their offering a cheaper tender and winning contracts.

A major flaw of this model is that it creates a false economy. The cost of the service is superficially low, but over time, staff have to claim universal credit. People retire without enough to live on and have to claim pension credit. Lower pay and insecure work have a negative impact on mental health. The decline in the number of decent public sector jobs in the community has a chilling effect on the local economy. The dots are not joined and the wider economic costs not considered.

In some regards, the supposed benefits of outsourcing have been eroded by the reality of contracting out services in recent years. There has been a notable turn towards insourcing—the process by which a public authority takes a service that has been contracted out and brings it in-house to be delivered by directly employed staff. However, we are still a very long way from the presumption that services should be outsourced only if it can be shown that the work cannot be delivered just as effectively in-house. Hundreds of thousands of carers, cleaners, porters, security staff and catering staff in our public services workforce are among the worst-off and most insecure workers in the UK.

Creating a check on such practices should be an objective of the Bill. That could be achieved through a public interest test to require contracting authorities to think holistically and outsource public services only when it is demonstrably in the public interest and when a robust assessment provides clear evidence that the services could not be better delivered in-house.

If a contracting authority is considering outsourcing public services that are currently delivered in-house, or where contracts are due for renewal, it should ensure that outsourcing or re-contracting passes a pre-procurement test and provides greater public value than direct service provision. The new clause would require the contracting authority to

“demonstrate to the public, service users and its employees that it has thoroughly assessed the potential benefits and impact of outsourcing the service in question against a public sector comparator with assessments being based on criteria to be set by the Secretary of State from time to time, including taking a five year consideration of—

(a) service quality and accessibility;

(b) value for money of the expenditure;

(c) implications for other public services and public sector budgets;

(d) resilience of the service being provided;

(e) implications for the local economy and availability of good work in relevant sub-national labour markets;

(f) implications for public accountability and transparency;

(g) effect on employment conditions, terms and standards within the provision of the service to be outsourced and when outsourced;

(h) implications for public sector contributions to climate change targets;

(i) implications for the equalities policies of the contracting authority and compliance with the public sector equality duty.”

Importantly, the public interest test would take place pre-procurement, and not all services subject to the test would eventually go to market. To increase transparency around those services that enter into the procurement process, the Bill should mandate information about outcomes of the associated public interest test to be published.

Under the new clause, the contracting authority and the provider of the outsourced service would also be required to

“monitor the performance of any contracted service against the public interest test and the stated objectives set by the contracting authority pre-procurement to demonstrate that outsourcing the service in question has not resulted in a negative impact on any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2)(a) to (i).”

Labour is clear that we would run the biggest programme of insourcing for a generation. We recognise the value offered by those delivering outsourced services, but we have concerns about the current scale of outsourcing. New clause 3 would lay out a clear test for outsourcing, ensuring it is done only when it is in the interests of the public, and that we do not hand out public services on the cheap.

We must create a culture of value for money throughout the public sector and avoid waste wherever we can. We believe that the new clause would help to create that culture. I hope that the Minister will give it due consideration and support it.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Mundell. I can feel an air of excited sadness in the room because there is a possibility that the Committee may finish its consideration of the Bill today.

May I begin with a small correction relating to remarks that I made on 2 February when discussing dynamic markets? I stated that the current regime for dynamic markets does not remain open for new suppliers to join at any time. I was confused when I was talking about that; I was talking about the new provisions that we are making for open frameworks, where it is now possible for people to jump on. I just wanted to put that on the record.

New clause 3 would require contracting authorities always to undertake a public interest test when considering whether to outsource or continue to outsource a public sector service. Following the collapse of Carillion in January 2018 and the ongoing difficulties of some companies in the outsourcing sector, the Government’s commercial function undertook a review of what we outsource, why we outsource and how we outsource. It concluded that

“when done well, the private sector can bring efficiency, scale and fresh thinking to the delivery of public services.”

In February 2019, we published the first sourcing playbook, which captured key policy reforms for better outsourcing that contracting authorities should follow when considering how best to deliver Government services. This applies whether the contracting authority decides to outsource and deliver a service in partnership with the private and third sector, insource and use in-house resources, or do a mixture of both. That includes carrying out a make-versus-buy assessment, now referred to as a delivery model assessment, which is mandatory for central Government services in certain situations, such as the introduction of new public services or where there is a need to re-evaluate an existing service, for example because of a deterioration in the quality of delivery. It is important to emphasise that the playbook supports a range of delivery models that should be carefully considered as part of a mixed-economy approach to service delivery.

As well as in-house delivery and outsourcing, different models, such as grant making, may also be available. Hon. Members will recall that when I spoke on clause 3, I referred to the types of contracts regulated by the Bill. In particular, contracts must be for pecuniary interest, which can encompass monetary and non-monetary consideration. Contracts merely for the reimbursement of costs and without further remuneration or other direct benefit to the supplier are not covered. We do not, for example, intend the regime to capture contracts for the deployment of grants.

The sourcing playbook, which is now in its third iteration, builds on policies set out in the first sourcing playbook and is a more agile and appropriate place for this type of provision. I recently met the Business Services Association, which was extremely supportive of the playbook approach.

The tests set out in the new clause would be hugely burdensome for any contracting authority every time it is considering outsourcing or re-letting an already outsourced service. For that reason, I ask that the new clause be withdrawn.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I understand the Minister’s hesitancy about supporting the new clause, which he claims is because of bureaucracy. Does he recognise that many local authorities and others are conducting a big wave of insourcing, including my local authority, Lambeth Council, which decided last year to bring back its cleaning and maintenance service? The feedback from residents was that the contractors providing the outsourced service were not delivering, so the council has now brought it back in-house.

A number of local authorities under different political parties are following in the same vein. The new clause would help us to help them to look at the key issue of value for money and ensure that every pound spent on contracts delivers value for money. The new clause is not about extra bureaucracy, but about taxpayers’ money being spent on the right contracts. Does the Minister agree that the new clause would help those organisations to do that?

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Lady gives a very good example of how the existing regime allows for outsourcing. We are building on that: the playbook that I described is there to help all contracting authorities to make better decisions about whether they want to outsource or to keep things in-house. She is quite right that there are circumstances in which keeping things in-house is a very good thing, but we feel strongly that the new clause would create a series of unnecessary requirements when the tools to insource are already at the disposal of authorities.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 5

Carbon reduction plans

“(1) Subject to subsection (4), contracting authorities must obtain, assess and publish a carbon reduction plan from all suppliers under consideration for qualifying contracts before entering into a public contract with any supplier.

(2) In this section, ‘qualifying contract’ means—

(a) a public contract with an average value of more than £5 million per annum (excluding VAT) over the duration of the contract,

(b) any contract to be awarded under a framework agreement anticipated to be greater than £5 million per annum (excluding VAT) in value, or

(c) any contract to be awarded by reference to a dynamic market which is anticipated to be greater than £5 million per annum (excluding VAT) in value.

(3) For a qualifying contract of the type referred to in subsection (2)(a), a ‘carbon reduction plan’ must contain—

(a) the supplier’s current greenhouse gas emissions,

(b) confirmation of the supplier’s commitment to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 for their UK supply chain, operations, products and services,

(c) intermediate targets for reductions in their greenhouse gas emissions at no more than 5 year intervals, beginning with the date of award of the contract,

(d) as far as they are able, the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to performance of the contract,

(e) as far as they are able, targets for reductions in those greenhouse gas emissions, and

(f) other environmental management measures in effect which will be applied when performing the contract.

(4) For the qualifying contracts of the type described in subsection (2)(b) and (2)(c), a carbon reduction plan should contain the matters specified in subsection (3)(a), (b) and (c) only.

(5) In complying with requirements imposed by the regulations, a contracting authority must have regard to guidance prepared from time to time by an appropriate authority.

(6) ‘Greenhouse gas’ has the meaning given in section 92 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and ‘emissions’ has the meaning given in section 97 of that Act.”—(Florence Eshalomi.)

This new clause would require company-level carbon reduction plans for bidders for certain larger contracts, including information and targets from suppliers on the emissions attributable to the performance of the contract. It also specifies that the Carbon Reduction Plan must be a key performance indicator for certain contracts.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Florence Eshalomi]

New clause 5 would introduce carbon reduction targets for certain large contracts, in general those worth £5 million or more. The new clause is inspired by the Government’s own procurement policy note 06/21, which outlines their intention to take into account suppliers’ plans to reduce carbon emissions when considering large contracts.

Climate change is the biggest threat we face as the human race. Everyone in this room must recognise and agree that we need to reduce emissions urgently if we are to avoid this crisis. We must not ignore or under-appreciate the impact that reforms to our procurement system will have on our carbon emissions. However, I fear that the Bill is a missed opportunity to deliver real change in environmental standards in the procurement system.

That is particularly true considering what the Government have already chosen to remove from the Bill. Removing amendments on social value and the procurement policy statement, for example, that would have incorporated emissions will do nothing to tackle climate change in our procurement system, and there is hardly anything else in the Bill to drive real progress on carbon emissions.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would disapply section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 where a breach of non-discrimination occurs under clause 89 and is caused by a representation to the contracting authority by a Member of Parliament, a Member of the House of Lords or a senior civil servant. In practice, this would ensure that relief is granted in the case of a court finding that there has been unequal treatment between traders as a result of the type of lobbying seen in the VIP lane scandal during the covid-19 pandemic.

In the debate on amendment 103, tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, the Minister said:

“We understand—indeed, we agree with—the intent behind the amendment, but the Bill already covers such a scenario via robust requirements for contracting authorities to ensure equal treatment and address conflicts of interest. The bottom line is that if a conflict of interest puts a supplier at an unfair advantage, they must be treated as an excluded supplier and cannot be given a direct award.”––[Official Report, Procurement Public Bill Committee, 7 February 2023; c. 139.]

I do not doubt that VIP lanes would breach provisions relating to equal treatment of suppliers, and I do not doubt that those provisions were broken during the VIP lane scandal. In fact, that was at the heart of Mrs Justice O’Farrell’s ruling in the PestFix case last year, in which she stated that the operation of a high-priority VIP lane was

“in breach of the obligation of equal treatment”.

Despite that finding, the plaintiffs in the case were not awarded remedy, and it is unclear what checks and balances are in place to ensure that a future Government will not rely on VIP lanes, even when they know that their application will fall foul of the law. That is summed up by Mrs Justice O’Farrell’s closing remarks:

“In these proceedings, the Claimants have established that operation of the High Priority Lane was in breach of the obligation of equal treatment under the PCR. However, the court has found that, even if PestFix and Ayanda had not been allocated to the High Priority Lane, nevertheless they would have been treated as priority offers because of the substantial volumes of PPE they could supply that were urgently needed. Although there is public interest in the outcome of this challenge, the contracts in question have been performed (or expired) and it is sufficient that the illegality is marked by this judgment. Therefore the granting of relief does not meet the test in section 31(2B). In those circumstances, the court must refuse to grant the relief sought.”

I believe that, at its heart, that ruling shows the flaws in the current system. In debates on other amendments and clauses, I have argued for more transparency in the Bill in relation to conflicts of interest. The Minister knows that the Opposition believe that shining a light on proceedings as early as possible helps to limit the time in which illegal activities can occur. Surely, however, as the Government rejected our earlier amendments, they must see the need to tighten up the consequences of acting against the law. We know that the use of the VIP lane was illegal, and we know that companies that got into the VIP lane were 10 times more likely to win a contract, but the fact is that we do not know whether there have been any real consequences associated with the use of the illegal VIP lane.

I hope the Minister will agree that the public are rightly angry about the use of the VIP lane. They are angry that billions of pounds were wasted on personal protective equipment that was not up to standard. They expect to see justice when illegal activities are carried out. What is the point of putting laws in place if there are no consequences? New clause 6 would tighten up action against activity that breaches rules on conflicts of interest by ensuring that the courts are able to grant relief when lobbying by MPs, peers or senior civil servants results in unfair treatment. I hope the Committee will support the new clause.

[Alex Burghart]

New clause 6 would, in circumstances where a breach of the non-discrimination principle in clause 89 was caused by a representation to the contracting authority by an MP, lord or senior civil servant, disapply section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 in the context of any judicial review.

Section 31(2A) essentially prohibits a court from granting relief, including awarding damages, where it is highly likely that the conduct complained of did not make a significant difference to the contracting authority’s decision. In other words, the intention of the new clause is to enable a court to grant relief when lobbying for a contract to be awarded to a particular supplier has led to alleged unequal treatment, even where the contracting authority can demonstrate that it would have selected the chosen supplier regardless of any lobbying.

While I understand that the new clause is motivated by a desire to ensure consequences if an MP, lord or senior civil servant lobbies a contracting authority to award a contract to a certain bidder, resulting in the unequal treatment of other suppliers, the Bill is crystal clear with respect to conflicts of interest, and there are consequences if those statutory duties are breached. Clause 81(3) states that if

“a conflict of interest puts a supplier at an unfair advantage”

and if steps to mitigate cannot avoid that advantage, the supplier must be excluded.

Under part 9, suppliers may seek legal remedies, including relief, if they have suffered or are at risk of suffering loss or damages as a result of a breach of statutory duties. Suppliers that have lost out on contracts as a result of such unlawful behaviour are best placed to hold contracting authorities to account.

Additionally, in respect of suspected non-compliances with the Bill, including conflicts of interest that put a supplier at an unfair advantage, an appropriate authority can investigate upon the request of any party, using part 10 of the Bill or other powers, and issue recommendations if commercial practices do not comply with the Bill’s provisions. There is simply no need for the Bill, which has additional remedies for breach of statutory duty, to start interfering with the rule of law applicable to judicial review claims. As a result, we respectfully ask that the new clause be withdrawn.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would enable a future procurement system to mandate that procurement transactions be carried out in a specific way. It would build on the powers in clause 95 relating to procurement transactions, but take those powers further to ensure that everyone undertaking procurement under this regime uses a well-designed, specified system that is common throughout.

It is rare in a Bill Committee for the Opposition to propose giving unrestrained and optional power to the Government via an amendment or new clause, so I hope the Minister is delighted by our new clause. It is almost a knockout clause, I would say. We understand, and indeed welcome, the measures to introduce some degree of commonality across procurement through methods such as a single online system. Commonality within the procurement system brings many advantages. It can save contracting authorities the time, effort and money of running individual systems; boost the public’s understanding of procurement data and mechanisms, indirectly boosting transparency; and make our procurement system easier to navigate for suppliers, helping SMEs to bid for contracts efficiently, rather than having to shape-shift around the application process.

Around the world, increased commonality has been seen to increase efficiency and create a system that is the envy of the world. The Minister need only speak to one of his own party’s MPs, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), about Ukraine’s ProZorro procurement system. Systems such as ProZorro and the Republic of Korea’s procurement system bring in a specified system that is used by everyone and that uses cutting edge digital technology to reduce bureaucracy. That was referenced in the Government’s Green Paper on procurement, which said:

“This lack of standardisation, transparency and interoperability is preventing the UK from harnessing the opportunities that open, common and shared data could bring. The ability to analyse spend, manage suppliers, counter fraud and corruption and see inside the supply chain to ensure compliance with government policies. The experience of other nations (e.g. Ukraine and South Korea) is that driving forward with a clear digital procurement strategy focused on transparency results in greater participation and increased value for money driven by competition.”

There is already international precedent for the introduction of a specified procurement system, and the Government have stated these lofty aims, so why should the Bill not make provision to go further?

Our new clause would not mandate immediate action, because we know that this would be complex and take time to set up. However, should this Government or a future one want to introduce a Ukraine-style system, it would be a shame if they found that difficult under the Bill. I therefore hope that the Minister will agree with us and support the new clause.

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Lady’s new clause is on the procurement transaction system. We are absolutely delighted with the Opposition’s enthusiasm for our online system.

The Bill already contains provisions for the establishment of the online system for the purpose of publishing notices, documents and other information under clause 93. It also requires the online system to be free of charge and accessible for people with disabilities. Furthermore, as the Committee will remember, clause 95 requires certain information to be shared in a particular way, including through a specified online system, and requires contracting authorities to keep records of any communication between the authority and a supplier that is made for the purposes of, or in connection with, a covered procurement.

The online system will enable everyone to have better access to public procurement data, in particular because the detailed input received during the early design of the Bill from countries such as Ukraine and South Korea, which have specialist knowledge of designing procurement transparency systems. I am honoured to be able to say that my next meeting after this sitting is with the Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine, at which we will discuss this very issue. I will thank him for his country’s input to our work going forward in the Cabinet Office.

[Florence Eshalomi]

Does the Minister not feel that the meeting would be even more beneficial and fantastic if he were to tell the Deputy Prime Minister that he had accepted the new clause?

[Alex Burghart]

I will be delighted to tell our friends in Ukraine that, because of the advice they gave us earlier, there is no need for the new clause. We have a great partnership with Ukraine, which straddles many areas, and a growing number of them. We have benefited from the Ukrainians’ expertise, and from that of colleagues in South Korea, which has very advanced digital government and economy.

As a result of the work we have done and are doing, citizens will be able to scrutinise spending decisions, suppliers will be able to identify new opportunities to bid and collaborate, and buyers will be able to analyse the market and benchmark their performance against others on spending with SMEs. The Government have already committed to sharing procurement information through the online system, and the new clause would simply replicate requirements that are in the Bill already.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall asked how we know whether future Governments will be bound, but the proposal will happen within the lifetime of this Government. The Government are committed to it, to delivering on it and to learning from the experiences of colleagues abroad. We therefore respectfully ask that the new clause be withdrawn.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 16 would ensure that contracting authorities give mind to social value when considering violence against women and girls services. Throughout the course of the Committee, we have spoken at great length about social value. I remain concerned that the Bill does not give social value the prominence it needs. There are many areas that would benefit from the consideration of social value, but there is a particular case for it to be fully considered in violence against women and girls services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I rise to support new clause 16 because of what happened in Brighton, which showed that it is important to have overall guidelines rather than discretionary guidance on this issue. In that case, there were multiple contracting parties, including Brighton and Hove City Council. I have no doubt that, had it contracted the service on its own, it would have seen the value of the important work that RISE has done for decades in the city. RISE is led by women, for women. It fights domestic violence, saving and supporting women who have undergone it, and provides refuge as well as counselling support for the women and their children. However, the contract was given jointly by Sussex police, East Sussex County Council and, partly, West Sussex County Council, and the social provisions in Brighton and Hove City Council’s guidelines did not match up with the social provisions in East Sussex’s guidelines. My understanding is that there were no provisions in the Sussex police guidelines.

When the contract went out for joint tender, the sections that were not compatible with each other were removed, because they were voluntary. This new clause would prevent that from happening again. In the case of RISE, it would have enabled the service to be provided. Instead, the contract was given to a housing association. I am sure it is a lovely, well-meaning organisation, but it is a housing association, not a specialist domestic violence organisation or a women-led organisation. It is not an organisation that has any roots in the city.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving such a powerful reminder of why this new clause is so important. He said that the contract was given to a housing association. Does he agree that the women who need this specialist service may not feel comfortable going to a housing association, because part of their issues and problems arise from housing?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Quite right. This housing association had no footprint at all in Brighton and Hove and a very limited footprint in East Sussex. The women who were in that organisation’s housing might find it more difficult to go to them, because it is not a truly independent service.

Whether that is the case or not, what then happened was that the refuges and some of the counselling services that are provided in the city were sub-contracted out to some of the RISE people. So RISE picked up some bits of work, but not all of it. It could not offer the women wraparound support, just support in some very specific areas, so the service potentially became worse for women. A top-slice of the money has been taken out of the area for management and bid-writing fees and costs, which such organisations all take, and given to an organisation that is based nowhere near Sussex and does not have that specialism.

When women then complained and protested during covid, through covid-compliant protests, they were threatened by the police and told their protest was wrong and that they should not be protesting. Interestingly, the police allowed my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and me to address the covid-compliant demonstration. There was no problem with that; it was only as we left that the police pounced on the women organisers, in front of their children, and tried to fine them. That was particularly egregious. I represented those women and said that I would give statements to support them, and in the end the police dropped the case.

Even when women tried to speak up, they were abused and harassed by the police—they were women who have come through domestic violence and who have been RISE service-users. It was important to commission RISE, but it was also important that women themselves had their voices heard. At all stages—in the commissioning and the outcome—women’s voices were removed and shut down. New clause 16 would give that protection.

Even if the Minister does not support the new clause—I would like him to, but I assume he might not—I hope he will reassure us that he will strengthen the section in the guidelines on women-specific services, such as those who have suffered domestic abuse, and place additional emphasis put on ensuring that local women’s voices are heard, while also allowing some of the competitive tendering to be waived. That is already possible, but we need stronger guidelines, particularly for multi-authority procurement. We will push the new clause to a vote, but I hope the Minister provides those reassurances, as I suspect we all broadly agree on the issue.

[Alex Burghart]

New clause 16 seeks to ensure that authorities have regard to social value when carrying out procurement for services to support victims of violence against women and girls. Before I discuss the specifics, I should say that the Committee has debated over several days the centrality to this legislation of the fact that we are moving from a world of most economically advantageous tender to most advantageous tender—from MEAT to MAT. That gives contracting authorities the opportunity to make decisions that are not based solely on economic advantage. That will cover all areas, not just the specific area outlined in the new clause.

There is already a legal requirement in this area. Contracting authorities are already required to consider how social value might be improved for all types of service contracts under the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012. That Act requires the authority to consider when placing a public service contract

“how what is proposed to be procured might improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area where the authority primarily exercises its functions, and how, in conducting the process of procurement, it might act with a view to securing that improvement.”

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the Minister for his remarks, but does he understand the concerns raised by local and national women’s charities? They say that the current guidance does not go far enough and, in their experience, they feel the guidance is ignored in many cases or given very little weighting in the contracts that are then awarded. Does the Minister agree that those organisations have valid concerns?

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

As we have discussed at length, we feel that public procurement can be a hugely important tool in using the power of the state to drive specific outcomes. That is why the rules and framework that the Bill sets out are so important, and why it is right that the Committee scrutinises them.

Often, we think of the power of procurement simply in terms of outcomes, or perhaps in terms of the economic benefit that can be delivered by the right procurement decisions, but we must not lose sight of procurement’s ethical dimension. Ethical considerations should, and inevitably will, arise during discussions about procurement.

The power of procurement can be used to send a message that we as a country do not condone certain actions or wrongdoing by another country. It should be a totally legitimate position for our country not to procure goods from countries that have committed human rights abuses or war crimes. However, as it stands, the Bill fails to account for that.

New clause 18 seeks to set out a framework for ethical considerations during procurement decisions. It would enable public authorities to choose not to buy goods or services from countries based on their human rights records. In that respect, the new clause would allow for human rights abuses, specifically, to affect procurement decisions.

Human rights abuses are crimes of a different order, and I am sure that colleagues on both sides of the Committee agree that our country should condemn them. We have a proud history in the development of modern international humanitarian law, from the ashes of world war two and the creation of the United Nations, to the role we continue to play on the world stage. We have always defended the fundamental and absolute rights of all human beings. The new clause would further that endeavour and embed its principles in procurement law.

However, if procurement decisions made in respect of human rights are to have the greatest impact, it is vital that they are applied across the board. Indeed, it would be contrary to the spirit and letter of the proposed provisions if they were used to single out individual nations. Therefore, the new clause clearly states that contracting authorities must produce a document to set out their policy on procurement and human rights, which must be developed in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State. This will ensure that there is consistency in how contracting authorities decide on these matters.

The practical effect of that will be to make it clear and unambiguous that if a contracting authority does not wish to procure goods from Russia because of President Putin’s abhorrent human rights abuses in Ukraine, the law will be on its side. Equally, if the same authority does not wish to procure services from China because of the appalling treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, the law will be on its side. However, if an authority acted only against a particular state, while turning a blind eye to human rights abuses elsewhere, the new clause would make such actions illegal.

Our party is clear that actions that seek to isolate and target particular states are wrong and should not be tolerated. The new clause would therefore prohibit such actions. Human rights considerations must be applied fairly and consistently, and that is what the framework set out in the new clause would provide for.

The provisions of the new clause are reasonable and proportionate. They would embed our country’s proud humanitarian principles in procurement law. I hope that all Members will agree that this is a serious issue, especially given what is being played out across the world, and I hope that they and the Minister will support the inclusion of the new clause in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

Thank you, Mr Mundell, for chairing so ably and excellently. I thank the Clerks for their fantastic work. I thank my tireless officials, without whose expertise I would not know what to do. I thank Committee members on both sides of the divide. It is only fair to record in Hansard that the Committee has been good-natured, intelligent and at times almost enjoyable. I thank His Majesty’s loyal Opposition for supporting the overall thrust of the Bill, although they do not agree with every detail. We left it in better shape than when it arrived, and I look forward to working with everyone to take it through Report and to Royal Assent.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I echo the Minister’s comments. I formally thank the Clerks—Sarah, Chris and Huw—for their endless emails and helping me to understand the groupings and procedure. I will be honest and let hon. Members know that this is my first time leading on a Bill Committee. Many years ago, trying to tell a girl from a council estate in Brixton that she would be leading for the Opposition on such a technical Bill would have been out of the question.

The issues that we have discussed are so important. I hope the Minister will see from some of the points that we have made and the amendments that we have tabled that we have an opportunity to ensure that procurement works for everybody, including those from council estates, who may not understand it but will see the impact on their everyday lives. I look forward to discussing the Bill robustly with the Minister again as it goes through its next phases.

[The Chair]

Thank you. Of course, Ms Blackman put her thanks on the record on Thursday 9th. The great disappointment for me is that I am debarred from taking part in any future proceedings on the Bill. I, too, thank Committee members for the way in which they have engaged. I am sure we would also like to convey our thanks to Mr Efford for his chairing. I know that he will be deeply disappointed that there will not be a sitting this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.