Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Florence Eshalomi and Kirsty Blackman

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th February 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Florence Eshalomi]

As the Minister highlighted, amendment 87 would sadly overturn Lords amendment 91, made on Report, in relation to forced organ harvesting. I agree with the Minister that there can be no doubt that organ harvesting is an abhorrent practice, but we should be careful when saying that this measure would just result in additional bureaucracy and time in contracts and procurement.

The practice of forced organ harvesting involves the removal of organs from a living prisoner, which results in their death or near death. It is something that none of us should stand by and watch. Linking this back to taxpayers’ money, no taxpayer would expect a single penny of their public money to go to a company explicitly linked to this practice. Tragically, there is evidence that forced organ harvesting may not be a particularly niche issue.

The Minister highlighted that the measure, although well intended, would add more time and another layer of bureaucracy. I want to go back to the debates in the other place, and some of the powerful words from Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who moved the amendment that led to our discussion today. Both made moving and compelling arguments for the inclusion of the measure against forced organ harvesting, providing examples of evidence that the practice is taking place on an extremely depressing scale in China.

The excellent speeches made by Lord Alton and Lord Hunt have been backed up by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, which stated that serious human rights violations have been committed in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region,

“in the context of the Government’s application of counter-terrorism and counter-‘extremism’ strategies. The implementation of these strategies, and associated policies in XUAR has led to interlocking patterns of severe and undue restrictions on a wide range of human rights. These patterns of restrictions are characterized by a discriminatory component, as the underlying acts often directly or indirectly affect Uyghur and other predominantly Muslim communities.”

The OHCHR also stated that the treatment of persons held in the system of so-called vocational education and training centres—VETC facilities—is,

“of equal concern. Allegations of patterns of torture or ill-treatment, including forced medical treatment and adverse conditions of detention, are credible, as are allegations of individual incidents of sexual and gender-based violence. While the available information at this stage does not allow OHCHR to draw firm conclusions regarding the exact extent of such abuses, it is clear that the highly securitised and discriminatory nature of the VETC facilities, coupled with limited access to effective remedies or oversight by the authorities, provide fertile ground for such violations to take place on a broad scale.”

That is damning. It shows there is evidence of this already happening. In an April 2022 paper published in the American Journal of Transplantation, Matthew P. Robertson and Jacob Lavee stated:

“We find evidence in 71 of these reports, spread nationwide, that brain death could not have properly been declared. In these cases, the removal of the heart during organ procurement must have been the proximate cause of the donor’s death. Because these organ donors could only have been prisoners, our findings strongly suggest that physicians in the People’s Republic of China have participated in executions by organ removal.”

As a country, we must stand steadfast against these practices and ensure that any supplier with ties to forced organ harvesting is not allowed anywhere near our procurement system. I do not think taxpayers would expect anything less. No one wants to be linked to these horrific practices.

I fully understand and appreciate that the Minister may have covered these and other concerns in his remarks, but we may want to consider that there is no doubt this practice is an exclusion ground. In Committee in the Lords, the Minister, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, said it was almost certain that it would be covered by paragraph 12, but I think we have to ask ourselves, how many times have we heard that something is almost certain, only for it not to be covered when the Bill passes? We cannot and should not take chances on this issue. It is a fundamental and critical issue of human rights. If the Committee is to do its job, we cannot support the attempts to remove forced organ harvesting as a discretionary exclusion ground. For those powerful and valid reasons, I will not be supporting the amendment.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is tempting to think that forced organ harvesting is so far removed from anything that we consider human, or a normal occurrence, that it does not happen—but it does. As the shadow Minister laid out, the issue was discussed in significant detail in the other place. We know it occurs.

The Minister has given some level of assurance that other parts of the Bill cover this practice. Could he be explicit that he does not believe that any supplier involved in forced organ harvesting would be eligible to receive a public contract through the procurement framework set out in the Bill? If he can give that explicit assurance that he believes the practice is covered elsewhere in the Bill, and that provisions elsewhere in the Bill adequately do the job of this provision, I would be happy not to oppose the amendment. That assurance from the Minister would give us a measure of reassurance and comfort that the Bill covers everything that he intends and expects.

Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Florence Eshalomi and Kirsty Blackman

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th February 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman]

I do not think that that is the case. We should not have such an issue that we need journalists, such as those at Sky, to shine a light and make those links. There should be a requirement for that transparency to be in place. Although we have the registers of Members’ and Ministers’ interests, they stand alone and are separate from the procurement contracts. If we end up in situations where people are benefiting significantly, having that in the transparency notice is important.

[Florence Eshalomi]

The hon. Member makes a valid point. Does she agree with my concern that only the other week the Paymaster General said that Ministers’ interests will be updated, but not until May, whereas we as Members have to update our entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests within 28 days? Why the delay?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree. Each former Prime Minister is able to put forward whoever they want to the House of Lords, so we end up in this situation of having 850 peers and counting. The numbers are increasing drastically because the Government keep putting in more people to balance the politics in that place.

On the amendment, it is important for the Government to be willing to consider how best to improve transparency. So far, they have shown no willingness to improve transparency or to accept that there have been issues and that mistakes have been made. We need to change the system.

The UK has fallen in Transparency International’s corruption index, which has nothing to do with the Financial Action Task Force one. The FATF index is about corruption when it comes to money laundering, but Transparency International’s is about corruption in the public sector. It looks specifically at such issues as breaches of the ministerial code—in particular, ones that have not been investigated—and the scandals we have seen and continue to see.

The Prime Minister cannot keep sacking people who breach the code; we need to change the system so that they never get to that position in the first place—so that they can never commit the egregious breaches of trust we have seen and can never profit as individuals as a result of their position in this place or the other place. If the rules and systems are changed—which they clearly need to be—the Prime Minister will not need to sack people, because they will never be able to breach the rules and will never be able to profit as individuals simply as a result of their links to this place.

I will push amendments 103 and 104 to a vote when we come to that point and am happy to support amendment 111, tabled by the Labour Front-Bench team.

[Florence Eshalomi]

We fully support amendments 103 and 104, tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, which consider how we embed transparency into the system of direct awards. The two amendments highlight why we need additional layers of scrutiny to address glaring areas of conflict of interest in respect of Members of both the Commons and the Lords. It is vital to have additional checks in place.

Throughout the proceedings on the Bill the Minister has talked about the principle of impartiality, and said that the Bill will make VIP lanes, such as those we have seen, illegal and that it is all going to be fine. But that is just not the case. We need only to look at the pandemic to see why we desperately need to make sure that our procurement system is more agile and more transparent. The Tory VIP lane exposed a weakness in the system.

We must remember that we are talking about taxpayers’ money. We are at a time when so many people are feeling real difficulty in their choices and are seeing their household incomes reduce. Council and social housing tenants dread their rents going up. A number of councils have already highlighted how they are going to increase their council tax, including a borough in south London that is proposing to increase council tax by 15%.

Taxpayers’ money was wasted on contracts that were not fit for purpose and wasted as profits for unqualified providers. Worryingly, the Government have written off £10 billion of public funds that were spent on PPE that was either unusable, overpriced or undelivered, and it is worth bearing in mind that we are still spending £700,000 of taxpayers’ money a day on storing unused gloves, goggles and gowns. That money could pay for spaces in after-school clubs. It could pay for 19,000 full-time nursery places. It is public money.

The Bill does not pass the Mone or Paterson test; that waste could still be allowed to happen, over and over again. Handing more power to Ministers in respect of direct awards is not the way we want to go. We support the two amendments, because it is important that we empower local authorities to be able to ask the necessary questions when it comes to conflicts of interest. The current procurement system is not working, and we need to include new checks.

The amendments could be further strengthened by placing the onus on individual Ministers, civil servants and special advisers to make the necessary declarations but, as we have seen, when the onus is on them, they still do not make those declarations. Essentially, they have to be dragged kicking and screaming. We are in a situation in which we will not see the declarations of Ministers’ financial interests updated until May, if we are lucky. Anything could happen before May.

I draw the Committee’s attention to amendment 111, which we think further addresses the aims of amendments 103 and 104. We have an opportunity to learn from past mistakes and to tighten the freedom of Ministers to award direct contracts. It is about hardwiring transparency into our system. That should be a good thing and something we should all support. Instead, it seems the Minister wants to continue to have a back door and a VIP entrance. We must be clear that the Bill offers us a chance to clear that up.

The facts and figures speak for themselves. Some £3.4 billion of taxpayers’ money, in the form of contracts, went to Conservative donors and friends. A former Conservative Minister lobbied for Randox, which then provided 750,000 defective tests that had to be recalled, all while he was being paid £100,000 on top of his salary. Globus (Shetland), a business that has donated £400,000 to the Conservative Party since 2016, received £94 million-worth of PPE contracts.

Millions of people struggled during covid-19. The Government did some good things—including the furlough scheme to help people not to lose their jobs and the support for businesses—but a large group of people missed out on any money, including the 3 million people who form ExcludedUK. For those people who paid their taxes, submitted their returns and did not receive any money to have seen contracts dished out to friends, when those contracts were not even viable, was a slap in the face. When millions of people struggled during covid-19, it was not fair for them to have seen friends and donors of the Tory party prosper. As it stands, the Bill would continue to allow that to happen.

Our amendment 111 takes an important step, with amendments 103 and 104, towards addressing the situation, by asking Ministers to act, ensure genuine transparency in the system and restore trust in public money. This is about trust in the system. A number of members of the public do not trust our system; this is about restoring some of that trust and ensuring that, after years of waste and mismanagement, we do not find ourselves in this situation again.

Our amendment is based on a proposal by the independent National Audit Office and would mandate that:

“Any Minister, peer or senior civil servant involved in recommending a supplier for a contract under section 41 or 43 must make a public declaration to the Cabinet Office of any private interest”.

I hope we all agree that that is a straightforward, pragmatic proposal. It is not about layers of bureaucracy for business; it is about layers of additional scrutiny on Ministers to help to give the public confidence that another PPE Medpro scandal will be stopped and that we will not see a situation in which handfuls of millions of pounds of public money are redundantly spent on equipment that we cannot use.

The three amendments would outlaw VIP lanes once and for all, ensuring that we stop corruption. They would introduce a timeframe for transparency around declarations so that we can have information about conflicts of interests, instead of it being drip fed through the media or journalists. They would ensure that these scandals are not allowed to build up gradually over months and continue the erosion of trust. I hope the Minister agrees that Members of Parliament and the Government should have nothing to hide. If there is nothing to hide, they should support these reasonable amendments, which will help us to clean up our procurement system.

Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Debate between Florence Eshalomi and Kirsty Blackman

Committee stage
Thursday 2nd February 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

The shadow Minister is making a powerful and well-researched case that builds on the case she made in Committee on Tuesday. I do not want to test the Committee’s patience by making a speech on this, but I want to let her know that I am willing to support her amendment should she push it to a vote.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the hon. Member for her support.

At the moment it is clear that SMEs find the process frustrating and time-consuming. In his written evidence to the Committee, Colin Cram, who set up the conference company Open Forum Events Ltd to run conferences to support the delivery of improved public services, outlined his experience of the procurement system for SMEs. He stated:

“Tendering is expensive and time consuming. The way the UK’s public sector operates all too frequently inadvertently discriminates against SMEs, which will include the most innovative of suppliers on which the UK’s economy and future global competitiveness will depend. Many SMEs—which means most businesses in the UK—do not know how to tender properly and they don’t have the time to do so. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, at the end of 2021 there were 5.5 million SMEs employing fewer than 50 people each. Their average turnover was £1.25 million. However, only half were registered for VAT, so most will have a turnover well below that. Many of these will be capable of delivering contracts greater than the thresholds”.

He continued:

“Having to tender for every contract that might interest a small business would prove prohibitively expensive. To illustrate the point, a mid-cap business sought my advice. It was winning just 1 tender in 20 and was thinking of withdrawing from the public sector. I suggested that it should employ 2 full time tenderers. It took my advice, and its win rate went up to 1 in 4—without changing either the products or services that it was providing...To put together the simplest of tenders will cost not less than £1000 if properly costed. So, 4 attempts at tendering for the simplest of contracts would cost £4000 and 20 in order to win at least 1 contract would cost £20,000.”

I am pleased that we have made progress on SMEs, but Labour Members fear that, without more clarity and market engagement, SMEs will still be put off by the cost of applying for contracts that they think they have little chance of getting.

SMEs should not have to employ two full-time tenderers to improve their chances of winning contracts that they know they can do. Pre-tender marketing engagement can help to establish contracts that are more easily digested through the bidding process. We understand that some contracts will not be suitable for SMEs, but early engagement can help in figuring out where that is the case and hopefully open up more contracts to a variety of companies. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North for supporting our amendment, and I hope other Members and the Government will support our amendments 20 and 21.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there is an issue with that, because the national living wage is set differently for apprentices. He is correct that the Living Wage Foundation’s rules on apprenticeships are different. I do not have the figures on whether the wages of our apprentices have risen as a result of the changes that have been made. However, I am sure that the fair work procedures and the rules around that—the inability to fire and rehire, for example—are applicable to apprentices and ensure that they have a higher level of protection than they did previously. In exactly the same way, we have greater requirements with respect to flexible working requests.

Although I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact details on figures and wages, I can say that working conditions are, as standard, better as a result. I am sure that many people who were putting procurement contracts out to tender required the real living wage and great working conditions. The amendments would mandate that, so that it is set in stone and everyone is brought up to that minimum standard, although some will well exceed that.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North for their remarks. The amendments are important because so many people are having to take the difficult decision to take strike action as their wages cannot sustain them. We are seeing situations where people are unable to feed their children and heat their properties. People who work in our core public services are relying on food banks. Instead of demonising those people, we as politicians, and the Government, should be looking at how we can help them.

I am proud to be a member of GMB and Unison. We should remember that trade union members are ordinary people. They pay their union subs, yet they are losing a day’s pay by going on strike to show the Government that their wages cannot sustain them. People are effectively on poverty wages. During this cost of living crisis, it is important that we listen to their valid concerns.

We see a number of employers still not doing the right thing by recognising the issues that their employees are going through, while still making millions of pounds in profits. As I said in my remarks on amendment 107, Labour is committed to delivering fair treatment for all workers, and that must include fair pay and conditions, workplace wellbeing and the development of workers’ skills. We believe that procurement offers a great opportunity to increase social value. Our later amendments will make it clear that we do not want to see those who are breaching the rights of their workers awarded public contracts.

Our ambitions on the minimum wage should not be limited to workers in procurement. Instead, Labour believes we should increase the minimum wage for everyone across the economy. An incoming Labour Government would want to ensure that everyone across the economy is paid a fair day’s wage. We would instruct the Low Pay Commission to factor in living costs when it sets the minimum wage, ensuring that it covers the cost of living.

The cost of living continues to increase for many people and, as inflation continues to rise, their salaries are not keeping pace. These measures would put hundreds of pounds into the pockets of the lowest-paid workers. We would also scrap the low pay category for workers aged 18 and 19.

Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Florence Eshalomi and Kirsty Blackman

Committee stage
Tuesday 31st January 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend for that example of why social value is so important. That contract was a missed opportunity to employ local people. We all want those local benefits, and employment in our constituency, so it is important that contracts be awarded to local companies, as well as the big ones.

Amendment 10 would require public value to be among the procurement objectives. That would complement our amendment on social value; together, the amendments would add real teeth to the Bill, and would give contracting authorities the mandate to make decisions that would benefit not only their area but the whole country. That is important because we spend £3 billion a year on procurement, and although the Bill is a step forward, without clear mandates on social value and public value, contracting authorities may miss out on the chance of creating tremendous value for the public through their procurement processes. Amendment 89 clarifies that by explicitly providing a wider definition of value for money. The Bill does not define value for money, nor does it set out what can or should be considered when an assessment is being made of which is the most advantageous tender.

Legislation allows for wider considerations of value, but the determining factor too often remains the low unit cost. That is problematic because it can lead to services being procured that do not effectively meet needs, and it can drive higher costs in the long term, particularly when it leads to a spiral of support needs. People do not get the support that they need, and their need for support escalates as a result. They are forced to keep going to services that cannot give them the help that they need, or cannot address the root causes of their issues.

Although the Cabinet Office is planning training to be rolled out alongside the legislation to encourage culture change, it is important that the legislation goes as far as possible in encouraging better practice. Further defining value for money is an example of how it could be done.

The aim of amendment 89 is to help to prevent the false economies that arise when we take value for money on a short-term and shallow basis. When we are considering such massive parts of public spending, crossing many levels, it is vital that every penny spent ties together. We do not want a situation where saving a penny in one pot loses a pound from another. By defining value for money in the way that the amendment does, we could ensure that contracting authorities consider the wider impact of their decisions. Again, that could lead to significant efficiency savings for this and future Governments, and to stronger public services for all to enjoy.

New clause 2 would place the procurement principles on the face of the Bill: promoting the public good; value for money; transparency; integrity; fair treatment of suppliers; and non-discrimination. In their December 2020 Green Paper, “Transforming public procurement”, the Government proposed enshrining those principles in law. In responding to the consultation, the Government stated that 92% of 477 respondents agreed with the original desire to put the procurement principles in the Bill, so I was not the only one surprised when the principles were missing from the Bill when it was published in the other place.

Our new clause 2 seeks to accomplish the original aim of the Bill. I know that we will hear from the Minister that we should trust the Government on such issues, and that we should wait for the national procurement policy statement, rather than looking to put things in the Bill. The principles are so important to how we carry out procurement, however, and perhaps the best source for why that is so comes from the Government. In the Green Paper, the Government say of the public good:

“The decision to invest public funds into policies, services, projects and programmes is subject to analysis and appraisal to assess the public good that is expected to accrue as a result of the expenditure. For national spending this will have been conducted in accordance with the HM Treasury Green Book guidance and subject to National Audit Office scrutiny. Procurement should draw a clear link between the objectives, outcomes and anticipated benefits that underpin the investment decision and the selection of contracting parties to deliver those benefits…Public procurement should also be leveraged to support strategic national priorities. Commercial teams should have regard to the Government’s national priorities when conducting public procurement. These will be set out in the National Procurement Policy Statement…This is consistent with international practice where public procurement is regularly leveraged to achieve social and environmental value beyond the primary benefit of the specific goods, services and capital works through operational delivery that contributes additional social value.”

The Green Paper goes on to say of value for money:

“The Government is making clearer the ways in which value for money is assessed at the point of the investment decision, which will be set out in a revised Green Book. A critical element of the assessment is a strong strategic case that sets: a clear objective aligned to government priorities, a rationale for intervention, and/or robust evidence and analysis for how different options for delivering that intervention will advance that objective…The role of procurement is to translate the desired outcomes into the right contracts and select the supplier or suppliers that will deliver these in the way that offers best social value for money. For many procurements there may only be a single contract, but for complex major projects there will be many hundreds of separate contracts of different types, sizes and sectors that need to be packaged and procured in such a way as to deliver the whole project successfully. Whether there is one contract or many it is critical to maintain the ‘golden thread’ from government priorities via the business cases through to procurement specifications and the assessment of price and quality when awarding contracts.

Value for money does not therefore mean simply selecting the lowest price, it means securing the best mix of whole-life quality and effectiveness for the least outlay over the period of use of the goods, works or services bought. Value for money also involves an appropriate allocation of risk and an assessment of the procurement to provide confidence about its probity, suitability, and economic, social and environmental value over its life cycle.” On transparency, the Green Paper states:

“The principle of transparency in public procurement is central to the integrity and accountability of the system and the fight against corruption. This is consistent with best international practice. It ensures business opportunities are accessible and processes and decisions can be monitored and scrutinised. It ensures that decision makers are held accountable for spending public money and helps open up public procurement to more effective competition that in return can deliver better value for money.”

On integrity, it states:

“The principle of integrity is key to strengthening trust and combating corruption. Procurement professionals must always bear in mind the needs of the ‘customer’ or ‘user’. Planning a public procurement must promote good governance, sound management of public money, and a professional relationship between buyer and supplier, e.g. managing conflicts of interest, protecting intellectual property and copyrights, confidential information or other standards of professional behaviour.”

On the fair treatment of suppliers, it states:

“The principle of fair treatment of suppliers means all suppliers must receive fair and reasonable treatment before, during and after the contract award procedure so as to encourage participation by suppliers of all types and sizes. Suppliers should have timely access to review mechanisms to ensure the overall fairness of the procurement process.”

And on non-discrimination, the Green Paper states:

“The principle of non-discrimination applies to procurement under the new regulations and means contracting authorities cannot show favouritism among domestic suppliers. This principle also applies to suppliers who have rights under an international trade agreement that covers the procurement. Non-discrimination in this context means that suppliers, goods and services from any other party to the agreement are given no less favourable treatment than domestic suppliers, goods and services.”

Thank you, Mr Efford, for indulging me; I felt it was really important to outline the very same principles that the Government put in the Bill, but on which they have now reneged. I do not think anyone in this room would disagree with those principles, but the treatment of the procurement principles during the lifetime of the Bill shows why we are keen to make sure we get this down in legislation. We cannot rely on just words and expect to trust the Government when they have already changed their mind on the Bill so much.

Delegating so much responsibility to regulations and statements risks taking the Bill further away from its original intentions, and I do not think that even the Minister wants that. I hope he has listened to those key statements, as outlined by his Government. I urge him to live up to the pledges in the Green Paper, which were supported in the other place, and to support our amendment.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Thank you for chairing our sitting this afternoon, Mr Efford; we appreciate it. I am going to talk about my amendment 101 and also the Labour party’s amendments 9, 10, 89 and new clause 2.

I am happy to support all the Labour party’s amendments. It is particularly important to put new clause 2 in the Bill. I cannot find a definition of value for money or of public benefit in the Bill. If the Government are making suggestions about how contracting authorities should proceed, they should be clearer about what that means and what outcomes they are seeking in the Bill, rather than in a national procurement statement to come at a later time. I understand that the Government’s priorities will change, which is to be expected, particularly when we expect a change of Government. That will happen and they will definitely have different priorities, but the principles that we are talking about in new clause 2 will surely not change. They are the threads that should run through everything we do and all the decisions we make.

I want to mention integrity specifically. The Prime Minister has said that he wants his Government to be marked by professionalism, accountability and integrity; it is very clear that integrity is one of the Government’s priorities in this regard, so not having it on the face of the Bill when the Government have been very clear that they support it seems odd to me. Adding it to the Bill through new clause 2 would be incredibly useful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi]

I heard the Minister’s response, and I think, again, that it is disappointing that there is a total shift between what was introduced by the Government in the Green Paper and what we now see in front of us. That was also noted in the other place.

I welcome the aim of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. That is something that we do support, and I know that she highlighted it in a Westminster Hall debate just last week. Climate change is something that we are very much concerned about.

On ensuring that we think about the next generation, we can only do that if we protect the environment and the Earth that we are on now. We only have one opportunity. We cannot do it later, because there will be nothing left. That is a key issue that our young people are concerned about, and it must be front and centre in this Bill.

The climate elements of the Bill are really important. They touch on social value and on public value. There is an interwoven link showing why that is important, and that should receive due consideration, so it is a shame to hear the Minister not wanting to take those measures forward.

[Kirsty Blackman]

If possible—I did not indicate this before—I would like to push amendment 100 to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi]

I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 13, page 10, line 2, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require a Minister to publish a National Procurement Policy Statement.

The amendment seeks to mandate that the Government “must” publish a national procurement policy statement, instead of just “may”. I am sure the Minister will tell me that the amendment is unnecessary as, of course, the Government will seek to publish a national procurement policy statement. However, as has been stated, the change that we have seen in the Bill from the Green Paper to today means that we can take nothing for granted when it comes to the Government’s word on procurement.

The amendment is identical to the one tabled in the other place by Lord Lansley. When Baroness Noakes introduced it, she said that the clause’s current wording leaves the door open for a statement not to be published. Given the importance of the policy statement in setting rules for covered procurement, it would be deeply damaging for it not to be published. I urge the Minister to ensure that that cannot happen by supporting our amendment.

[Kirsty Blackman]

It seems to me that this is probably the easiest amendment for the Government to accept. They have made it clear how important the national procurement policy statement will be, and how a significant proportion of the decision-making processes in the Bill will flow from that statement.

I support the amendment, and I would suggest going even further in saying that every Government should publish a national procurement policy statement. We have had quite a lot of Governments recently, but after every general election and every first King’s Speech of a new parliamentary Session, the Government should be clear in a number of areas. They should set out their policy direction of travel, not just in procurement but in general. That is a key moment when the Government could refresh their national procurement policy statement.

I do not have a significant issue with the Government updating the statement based on priorities. We have seen what has happened in the last few years with covid, and in the past decade or so, we have developed a better public understanding of the impacts of climate change. Science has changed, and not only have priorities changed, but the social system has changed as a result of covid. It therefore seems that updating the statement would be a sensible thing to do. If the Minister is not willing to accept the amendment, I urge him to make it clear that the Government intend to publish the national procurement policy statement, no matter whether the clause says “may” or not.

We will come to the clause stand part debate, but the clause states that there is an intention to keep the statement “under review”. Does the Minister expect that if Government priorities were to change significantly, a new or a tweaked statement would be published? For example, if something major happened, as with covid or the war in Ukraine, priorities may change as a result. Does he expect Government Ministers to at least consider updating the national procurement policy statement in the light of drastic changes that may or may not come to us in future?

Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Florence Eshalomi and Kirsty Blackman

Committee stage
Tuesday 31st January 2023 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I start by paying tribute to Sarah, Christopher and Huw in the Public Bill Office for all their hard work in going through over 100 amendments tabled for Committee stage. I also thank the Minister for his opening remarks.

We have been clear that we want to work constructively with the Government to get the Bill into as good a state as possible. We all want procurement to work for British people, inspire confidence in the system and offer genuine value for money. I hope that the Minister will consider our amendments on their merits, as genuine attempts to get the Bill into as good a place as possible.

As we know, the Bill began its life in the Lords and underwent significant changes before reaching this place. While we expected the Government to table amendments to their own Bill—especially given that, sadly, we have seen four Chancellors of the Duchy of Lancaster since the Bill’s introduction in the Lords on 11 May 2022—I have to say that the scale of change between the Bill as drafted and the Bill before us today does not inspire confidence that what we end up with will be without significant loopholes. Even as we start Committee stage today, the Minister has put his name to 71 amendments. That is a noticeable number, following on from the hundreds we had in the other place. Of course, we welcome changes that bring the Bill into a more workable state, but if we are having to amend it on such a scale with just one stage of parliamentary scrutiny left, we cannot have much confidence that the end product will not be riddled with errors and inconsistencies that have gone unfixed.

When we are talking about a third of public spending and the livelihoods of countless workers rely on us getting this right, it is disappointing that the Government introduced a Bill that still clearly needs significant work in Committee and on Report. I know that several of the amendments have come as a result of the ministerial merry-go-round that the Government have subjected us to over the past year. We broadly welcome those changes, particularly in relation to the increased consideration of small and medium-sized enterprises within the Bill.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Lady share my concern that a lot of the evidence we have seen, such as the oral evidence given in the Lords, was provided on pretty much a different Bill from the one we are discussing today, and the one we will end up with after all the Government amendments?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point. It is so important, because we have seen what can happen when we do not get procurement right. We all know the impact it has on our local communities; we all have small businesses and organisations in our communities that are good at handling and dealing with public contracts but never get a look in. The fact that so many really good amendments were tabled in the other place but not taken up by the Government is quite disappointing.

What businesses ask us for is certainty, especially during these difficult economic times, but the mess the Government have made of the Bill does nothing but offer more confusion to the many businesses who rely on procurement. The Bill today is vastly different from the Bill introduced in the Lords, but it is also different from the Bill promised in the Government’s Green and White Papers and—who knows?—it may be vastly different from the Bill that ends up on the statute book. That does not scream strong and stable from this Government, and it is unacceptable when public services and livelihoods are on the line.

I am sure we will hear warm words from the Government that many of the amendments we discuss in Committee are unnecessary as they plan to address them in the national procurement policy statement. But how can the Government ask us, businesses and the people who rely on procurement for the day-to-day running of the country to trust them on their word after the year of chaos and uncertainty they have subjected us to, not least in the state of the Bill?

Even this first clause had to be forced in by the Government in the other place due to confusion in the Bill originally introduced to the Lords. Labour did not oppose the introduction of clause 1, which narrows down the definition of procurement to cover public contracts, and we will not oppose it today. We understand why the definition has been included—to distinguish between the specified procurements and other general procurements, particularly as we know that certain procurements that are not meant to be caught by the full framework of this legislation are no longer automatically included. We also agree with the need to familiarise our language in respect of the World Trade Organisation’s agreement on Government procurement, which the United Kingdom became a part of on 1 January 2021.

However, I share some of the concerns expressed by Lord Coaker in the other place about the use of the term “procurement” in the Bill. In particular, amendment 34 moved in the other place took non-covered procurement outside the remit of procurement objectives. I understand why that is necessary for the purpose of the Bill, but I would like to think that all procurement, covered or not, is carried out along the principles of value for money, integrity and maximising public benefit. However, I read carefully the explanation from Baroness Neville-Rolfe in the other place and found her explanation convincing enough to not table an amendment on the issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi]

Hear, hear, and I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. We all remember the summer flash floods almost two years ago. People may think, “Actually, London is insulated from that”, but a number of my constituents were affected, and one issue that they outlined was the failure of Thames Water to maintain its pipes. Thames Water is another utility company that is essentially rewarding its shareholders instead of making sure that the public, which receives a vital and critical service from the company, is treated fairly. Customers see their water rates increasing and ad hoc repairs causing disruption on many roads, but all some of those companies think about are their shareholders, who continue to receive massive payouts. When we talk about procurement contracts, it is important that we think about the end users—the customers, the residents, our constituents—who all deserve value for money.

[Kirsty Blackman]

It is the case, though, that this Government are not keen to make a public service a public service. An awful lot of local banks have been closed, changes to Royal Mail since privatisation mean that people cannot get the services they need, and post offices have been closed. All that could be avoided by changing the mindset and ideology, and classing those things as public services for the benefit of the public, rather than for the benefit of shareholders.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the hon. Lady for making such a vital point. The Minister will wonder why I have so many examples, but just last week, I was notified that another local bank in my constituency, NatWest on Clapham High Street, will close and that a number of the branch’s customers had not been told. That is just another example of key services on our high streets, which many of our constituents rely on, disappearing. It is important that we remember the public element of those key services that continue to benefit from public contracts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend for making such a valuable point. I am sure that Members will remember the fantastic private Member’s Bill on fire and rehire promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), which we debated in the House. Sadly, the Government voted it down. Throughout the pandemic, up and down the country, we saw a number of big multinational organisations using the cover of the pandemic to fire their staff, make drastic changes to their work conditions and try to re-employ them on lower wages and weaker conditions. In organisations such as British Gas/Centrica and British Airways, dedicated levels of service from staff were thrown out of the window, yet those companies continue to receive big payouts for their shareholders and CEOs. We need to address this situation; the Government could have addressed it, but they failed to do so. We have a Procurement Bill in front of us that could help to address some of the loopholes, yet the Government are failing to take it on board.

Perhaps the most frustrating thing for our train passengers is the poor service that they continue to receive while they know that the train operating companies that do such a poor job will continue to be rewarded with those contracts. LNER runs the east coast main line and we might think that it would face similar logistics to Avanti, yet it has nowhere near the same problems. It is not just a timing issue. It is shameful that until 27 November 2020, Northern rail services between some towns were carried out using bus-like Pacer trains that were designed to be inexpensive temporary solutions in the ’80s.

We have heard a lot about levelling up, but we cannot level up when we have such inequal transport across the country. I say that as a Londoner, where we have Transport for London and regular buses. Whenever we leave—this issue is raised by many Members from all parties—we see that the level of service and transport provision across the country is not fair.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am lucky enough not to have to travel on the west coast main line terribly often, but when I did last year I ended up having to get an overnight Megabus because there were no trains. It has put me off ever visiting any of those places on the west coast that I would normally get to by train. Those communities are losing out as a result—not just the people who live there all the time, but the people who want to visit the really cool places on that line.