Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th February 2023 Public Bill Committees

Division 18

Ayes: 5

Noes: 9

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 103, in clause 41, page 29, line 10, at end insert—

“(5A) Where a direct award justification applies, before making a direct award to a supplier a contracting authority must satisfy itself that no preferential treatment has been conferred on the supplier by virtue of any recommendation made by a Member of the House of Commons or the House of Lords.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 104, in clause 44, page 30, line 23, at end insert—

“(c) any connections between the supplier and any—

(i) registered political party,

(ii) Ministers of the Crown, or

(iii) Members of the House of Commons or House of Lords

where such connections are of a nature likely to be relevant to the direct award of the contract.”

Amendment 111, in clause 44, page 30, line 25, at end insert—

“(4) 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 in that supplier within 5 working days.”

This amendment would implement the recommendation of the National Audit Office that any contracts awarded under emergency provisions or direct awards should include transparency declarations.

[Kirsty Blackman]

These amendments arise mostly, although not entirely, as a result of what happened with PPE during covid. I would be less inclined to move the amendments if the Government had shown any contrition about the situation we find ourselves in. They tend to stand up and say, “Well, we needed to procure things in a rush, so we have no regrets about the situation.” It would be much better for them to stand up and say, “We needed to procure in a rush, but lots of mistakes were made along the way and therefore we believe that we need to do better next time.” A full investigation would also be helpful.

The situation we find ourselves in is this: a significant amount of PPE, of significant value, was unusable; the VIP lane has been considered unlawful; and those who made recommendations—one person, certainly, who made a recommendation—have personally benefited from Government contracts that were awarded. In the light of that situation, it is incredibly important that the procurement rules we set up ensure that such a situation cannot happen again—that there is both a requirement for the people making direct awards to satisfy themselves that no preferential treatment has been given on the basis that the person has been recommended by a Member of the House of Commons or the House of Lords, and that, should there be any connections between the supplier and a registered political party, Ministers of the Crown or Members of the House of Commons or House of Lords, that information is laid out in the transparency notice.

That is not asking too much. We all have a register of interests that we are supposed to keep up to date—the ministerial one slightly less often, or very much less often, than that for MPs. Asking for a higher level of transparency, when we know that those links occur, is not asking too much.

The Conservatives have a tendency to point to the fact that, “Well, we have people in the House of Lords who have come from business, therefore of course they will continue to have business interests.” I am not suggesting that they should not—that is absolutely fine—but we should be transparent about it and we should know if a contract has been granted to somebody who will benefit as a Member of the House of Lords. Is the supplier, or the person receiving the procurement contract—the beneficial owner—a peer or a Member of the House of Commons? Are they linked, in some way, to a political party?

We know from Sky’s investigation that a number of Members of Parliament receive money from companies. That is registered, but there is no requirement in the Bill, as it stands, for it to be noted; there is no requirement, when the contract is being given, for that which is open and registered already. Members of Parliament have to register if they receive a certain amount of money from a company, so it should follow that, if the company is being given a procurement contract, it is registered as part of the transparency notice. That should be noted up front.

That is not asking too much, particularly in relation to amendment 104, which is specifically about transparency notices and ensuring that that stuff is clear. It should not be too much work for anyone doing the transparency notice. Absolutely, it will create a little bit of extra work, but all they will need to do is cross-reference the registered interests, and then put that in the transparency notice so that we are all aware of the links.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The hon. Lady is raising some important points about how mistakes were made during the covid period. It is important to note, however, that those same mistakes were not made in Labour-controlled Wales or SNP-controlled Scotland, where transparency seemed to be much higher and fast-track schemes were not implemented. Is there a case for greater light to be shone in this place, where the rot seems to have truly set in?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree. In fact, that adds to the case that we should be willing for there to be an investigation. It shows that, actually, we can do it right and in such a way that individuals do not benefit from that.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I look forward to her supporting Scottish Conservative calls for transparency on certain procurements—of ferries and suchlike—by the Scottish Government.

The hon. Member said that it should not be too much to ask. I have heard that argument many times about making amendments, not just to this Bill but to others. She said herself that the registers of Members’ and Ministers’ interests already exist. Does she not feel that making “shouldn’t be too much to ask” amendments to any Bill risks diluting its effect?

[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?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree. The former Chancellor and chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), did not update his list of ministerial interests for a significant period after he was put into his role. In fact, some of the most egregious issues did not come to light properly until he updated the list of ministerial interests in January, some three months after he became the party chairman.

I agree that the lack of transparency is a significant issue, and I was disappointed in the Government responses. They do not seem keen to move on the register of ministerial interests being updated more regularly. Surely, given the amount of Executive power in this place and the post-Brexit creep towards increasing the amount of ministerial or Executive power—taking power away from Members—it is even more important for ministerial interests to be registered.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Does the hon. Member agree that the proposal would be in the interests of a governing party that is facing so many scandals—from Baroness Mone to the Randox lobbying affair—that have almost brought down Prime Ministers? It would help to protect the Conservative party from some “bad apples”, as Conservatives might put it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I agree and would add to that: how many former treasurers of the Conservative party who have given significant amounts to the party have just happened to end up in the House of Lords? Who knows how that has happened? We know that there are people in this House and in the other place with significant business interests, and the amendment is not a criticism of that; it is not a negative thing, but it is about ensuring transparency.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

The nub of the issue is that people have been appointed to the House of Lords and, in a particular case—I do not want to mention the name—they are not then taking an active part in proceedings in the other place. We could mention a number of peers who have hardly spoken since they were appointed, or not spoken at all. Rather than using that position to serve the Executive of this country, they have used it to lobby for contracts from the Government. That needs to be stamped out. Does the hon. Member agree that it is now time to look at how we appoint people to the Lords, and perhaps remove appointment to the Lords from the honours system altogether?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

I agree that it is of the utmost importance to ensure that no supplier receives unfair advantage due to a private interest, whether related to a party, Minister, peer or civil servant. I reassure the Committee that the Bill is clear on that. 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. The Government are committed to managing conflicts of interest in all contracts, not just direct awards. We have demonstrated that in the strong provisions throughout the Bill. I respectfully request that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I thank the Minister for his response. I would like to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 2nd February 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Burghart]

New clause 1 would legislate for the establishment of a committee to consider the threat to national security and cyber-security from suppliers in supply chains delivering public contracts. The Government take national security considerations extremely seriously, and we understand the importance of countering threats to our security throughout our supply chains. We recently demonstrated that through our action to remove Chinese surveillance equipment from sensitive sites across the Government estate. The inclusion of the national security exclusion ground in schedule 7 to the Bill will bring about a significant improvement to the existing EU-derived regime. It will allow a supplier to be excluded on national security grounds, even when the procurement does not meet the bar for exemption on those grounds.

We understand the intention behind the hon. Lady’s new clause, but it duplicates aspects of the new procurement regime underpinned by the Bill. I have already mentioned the ability to exclude a supplier on grounds of national security. The Bill requires any contracting authority that wishes to rely on those grounds when excluding a supplier or rejecting their tender to first notify a Minister of the Crown, who must be satisfied that the supplier should be excluded.

The notification not only ensures that the Minister agrees to the exclusion, but serves to alert them, if they are not already aware, that there may be security concerns about the supplier. The Minister may accordingly decide to investigate the supplier under clause 60, which could lead to the supplier being placed on the debarment list under clause 62. Furthermore, if a supplier already holds a public contract and is found to meet any exclusion ground, clause 77(2)(b) enables the contract to be terminated. Clause 77(2)(c) extends that to subcontracts. As with exclusion, any proposed termination on the grounds of national security must be brought to the attention of the Minister for a decision; again, that could trigger debarment from future procurements.

Under the new clause, the proposed committee would also consider threats to cyber-security. Existing policy in this area is detailed in procurement policy note 09/14. That mandates that where contracts have certain characteristics, suppliers must meet the technical requirements prescribed by the Cyber Essentials scheme. That applies when ICT systems and services supplied by the contract either store or process data at official level. In addition, the MOD, through the defence cyber protection partnership, has developed the cyber-security model that is to be applied to its procurements to ensure cyber-security-related risks are adequately managed throughout the life of the contract.

In short, contracting authorities are already alive to the need to consider national security, including cyber-threats, when procuring public services, and are well placed to review their contracts and supply chains for such threats, bolstered by the provisions of the Bill. However, I am mindful of the concerns raised by colleagues on Second Reading, and those concerns will continue to inform Government thinking as we move forward.

Amendments 15 to 19 seek to make exclusion on national security grounds mandatory, rather than discretionary. Any risk to national security should of course be taken very seriously indeed, but it is right that we leave some scope for nuance and flexibility in the application of the exclusion ground. Suppliers may pose a risk in some contexts, but not in others. For instance, in a relatively innocuous procurement, the exclusion of a supplier might not be merited if the contracting authority was confident that there was no potential for harm. A company that might raise concern in the manufacture of one technical device might also produce paper clips, which would not be a threat to national security.

It is important to note that contracting authorities must consider all exclusion grounds, mandatory and discretionary, against every supplier in each procurement. Any decision not to exclude a supplier that poses a national security risk must be weighed against that risk, and I am confident that contracting authorities will do so carefully.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I understand what the Minister is saying, but if the contracting authority is spending public money on those paper clips, it is funding a company that can breach national security and do things that are against the national interest. The contract may not be a risk to national security, but the company is, so surely it should be a mandatory, rather than a discretionary, exclusion.

[Alex Burghart]

There would be a balance of risks. Not all security threats are proven. Of course, it is up to the authority to assess the concerns at the time.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

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.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Amendments 20 and 21 seek to ensure that preliminary market engagement explicitly refers to SMEs.

I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall for her support of the changes that Baroness Neville-Rolfe made in the House of Lords. We are all committed to improving options and opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises to take advantage of the substantial amount of public procurement that exists in this country. We fully agree that preliminary engagement is an important part of that. That is why we have included the new duty to have regard to SME participation in the procurement objectives.

The duty will apply in relation to pre-market engagement just as it will cover the whole of the procurement life cycle. Consequently, we do not consider it necessary to clarify in the pre-market engagement clause that the word “suppliers” captures SMEs. It clearly does, and in view of the broad application of the general duty to support SMEs, there is no need for any drafting changes to be made.

To be clear, the new SME duty will lead contracting authorities to consider not only whether they have engaged with SMEs in their preliminary market engagement, but whether their procurement process and timelines are accessible to smaller businesses, supporting them to win and deliver more public contracts. It is nice to hear the hon. Member for Aberdeen North support small and medium-sized enterprises in England—would that the SNP in Scotland had supported the Bill, giving those same opportunities to SMEs in Scotland. I once again extend my invitation to her and the Government at Holyrood to join us on this journey.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Minister keeps talking as if Scotland does not have procurement legislation, and will not have procurement legislation going forward. It is absolutely the case that we will continue to have procurement regulations and rules, and a fairer procurement system—one in which we do things such as mandate the real living wage, for example.

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Lady has previously given some good examples of things that are going wrong with current procurement. The SNP has not tabled any reform to procurement in Scotland, and I am afraid that, without reform, Scotland will be stuck with the old regime, whereas from spring next year, small and medium-sized enterprises in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will be taking advantage of the regime set out in the Bill.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I hope the Minister is not suggesting that when the Scottish Parliament passes procurement legislation, the UK Government will again levy a section 35 order to stop us changing our procurement legislation.

[Alex Burghart]

Certainly not, because I am sure that there would be no need, whereas it was very clear that there was a need in the case to which the hon. Lady refers. She will know that the Government used that constitutional power reluctantly, but very well advisedly.

Amendment 25 would require contracting authorities that have stated in the tender notice that a contract is suitable for small and medium-sized enterprises to, in the event that no SMEs submit a tender, withdraw that tender notice and engage with small and medium-sized enterprises prior to republishing it, unless they can show that such engagement took place prior to the original publication. The Bill supports—indeed, it actively encourages—buyers to conduct preliminary market engagement. We have gone further than existing regulations: clause 17 requires the publication of a preliminary market engagement notice, and clause 12 contains a duty to have regard to reducing barriers facing SMEs. That should lead to increased openness and greater inclusion of SMEs in preliminary market engagement.

However, amendment 25 would add an extra layer of bureaucracy and delay for procurers to manage, and could well frustrate suppliers who have prepared a tender, only for it to be withdrawn if no qualifying bids are received. It is far better for us to increase SME participation in procurement by reducing barriers and highlighting the many benefits they bring to the public sector. I respectfully request that the amendment not be moved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

From July in Scotland, grants will require that the real living wage is paid, and it is already included in procurement rules. That has led to Scotland now having fewer, in percentage terms, workers earning less than the real living wage than in England. We in England and Wales deserve the same. It pushes up wages across the sector. For too long, public authorities have used procurement as a way to undermine salaries and salary rates. It is an ideological viewpoint that the private sector is always best but, in reality, far too often, what “best” means is paying poverty wages. Sometimes innovation from the private sector and the charity and third sector is important, but if it is on the back of paying wages that are below standard, it is not acceptable. That is why I beg to move amendment 95 and linked amendments 96 to 99. Hopefully, they will start to redress the balance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) asked the Minister’s colleague previously about the Government’s position on this, and the Government said that they do not believe in dictating employees’ wages. The reality is that by not setting a minimum floor—no one is suggesting a maximum—we are undermining good companies that pay good wages. Decent employers can lose out from people playing fast and loose with wages. We have seen numerous scandals, including fire and rehire, TUPE rules not being enforced and collective bargaining being undermined.

Wages below the real living wage require universal credit support. Let me be very clear: if someone is paid below the real living wage, the Government subsidise them. That is, in reality, a subsidy for that piece of work—that procurement. That puts companies whose workers do not receive that subsidy in a worse situation. To create a level playing field, all should receive the real living wage. That would mean that no employees in those companies have to receive a state subsidy for their work. That basic principle—that level playing field—must be enforced in this Bill.

Procurement bodies can incorporate a number of tests relating to the real living wage, but they cannot require that absolutism in contracts. If a company does not fulfil the living wage requirements set out in its procurement tender, but it does fulfil the other requirements, it is required to be offered the contract. That directly undermines the small and medium-sized organisations that work hard to pay the real living wage.

In Brighton, we have a great collaboration between the chamber of commerce, which requires all its members to pay the real living wage, and the trade unions. That kind of collaboration between businesses and unions needs to be supported. People who are not members of a chamber of commerce-registered body should not be able to come in and undermine those contracts.

The Minister might say that this proposal endangers international obligations, or that it means that UK workers are more fairly treated, but because Scotland has already incorporated it, we know it is not a breach of international agreements. It is important to ensure that British workers are respected when British money is being paid out—I should say English and Welsh money, because that is what these rules will be for. We need to ensure they get their just desserts and are not undermined by offshoring with low wages, and companies that are paying their fair share must not be undermined by universal credit subsidies. I commend these amendments to the Committee.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown on these excellent amendments. I am glad that he mentioned what is happening in Scotland, and I will talk a bit more about that.

It is interesting that the Government say they do not believe in dictating employees’ wages, given that they literally set the national minimum wage and they refuse to lift it to the level of the real living wage. They absolutely could lift it to a level people can afford to live on, but they refuse to do so. They chose to change its name, rather than changing the amount and sorting out the significant age discrimination in the national living wage.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct that in Scotland, 91% of people are paid at least the real living wage, which is significantly higher than the minimum wage in the other UK nations. In October 2021, we started to routinely mandate payment of the real living wage in Scottish Government procurement contracts. In 2022 we published updated statutory guidance under the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 to reflect the change and the extension of the Fair Work First criteria to include specific reference to provision of flexible working and no use of fire and rehire. We have gone even further than the real living wage; our public money must be spent in a way that requires fair work practices. That is incredibly important because we have the opportunity to spend public money in a way that supports workers and ensures people are best placed to manage the cost of living crisis that we currently face. It ensures that people are fairly paid.

We are not asking for much. Ensuring that people are paid a wage that they can live on and does not need to be subsidised quite so much by universal credit is not a big thing to ask for. We are asking for dignity and respect for people. We are asking for people to be paid a fair wage and to be treated fairly.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

There is an alternative to these amendments, which is for the Government to adopt Labour’s policy to change the rules of the national minimum wage so that they take into account the cost of living in this country and therefore adopt the standard of the real living wage. I am sure the hon. Lady would support that Labour policy.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Absolutely. We have for a long time been calling for the UK Government to change their national pretendy living wage to an actual real living wage. We have also asked for the age discrimination to be removed, because it does not cost a 17-year-old with one child any less to run a house than it costs a 32-year-old with one child; people face exactly the same costs. The UK Government are trying to require people to live with their parents, which is exclusionary and discriminatory because not everybody has that option.

The Minister is right to say that the Bill applies in England and Wales and also in reserved functions carried out in relation to Scotland, so there will be some impact on Scottish procurement, or on procurement that affects Scotland or is in Scotland. But I fear that he misunderstands the devolution settlement and the constitution when he suggests that perhaps I, as a Scottish MP from a Scottish constituency, elected to this place that makes laws, should not express an opinion. I was elected to this place in the same way as he was. There are not two tiers of MPs in this place, or so we were told by the Conservative Government when they put through the English votes for English laws rules. There is no two-tier system, so it is appropriate for me to comment on these situations and support amendments, and to consider whether the impact on workers is important. Whether they are in England, Wales or Scotland, it is important.

It is also appropriate for me to consider the Barnett consequentials of any decisions made. For example, if there is a change in the way that procurement legislation works so that more people are paid the real living wage, we might see a situation where procurement ends up with slightly higher costs and universal credit ends up with slightly lower costs, meaning that we end up with more Barnett consequentials for the Scottish Parliament to spend and greater flexibility within our very limited budgets.

If the Minister is going to continue criticising the Scottish Government’s and the Scottish Parliament’s approach to procurement—he is within his rights to do so—he has no high ground in talking to me if I talk about the England and Wales approach to procurement. I am perfectly entitled to do so. In fact, he has not been elected to the Scottish Parliament, which has power over procurement in Scotland; he has been elected to this Parliament, which does not.

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady that there are not two tiers of Members in this House. She mentioned a 17-year-old. Can she expand on that? I am looking at the Living Wage Foundation website, which states:

“Living Wage accreditation does not require employers to pay the Living Wage to volunteers or apprentices.”

What impact, if any, has the introduction of a real living wage as part of the procurement rules in Scotland had on apprentices in Scotland?

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Transparency International’s corruption index has recorded a sharp fall in the UK’s score. This has been affected by factors such as the VIP lane and the claim that 40 potential breaches of the ministerial code were not investigated. Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster agree with the international business leaders that under his Government, the UK is more corrupt?

[Oliver Dowden]

I completely disagree with the assertion from the hon. Lady. This Government have upheld high standards of transparency, and we have advanced transparency since we came into office. The idea that this country could be compared to the sort of states to which she refers is completely preposterous.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I did not refer to any states. When will the Prime Minister appoint the anti-corruption champion? This vacancy has gone unfilled for seven months. Given the sharp fall in international views of the UK’s level of corruption, when will this person be appointed?

[Oliver Dowden]

I simply do not recognise the kind of caricature being pushed by the hon. Lady. Of course we will make that appointment, but this Government have taken steps throughout their time in office to increase standards of transparency and accountability.

Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

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 ---

[Alex Burghart]

As the hon. Lady knows, transparency sits throughout the Bill. As I have just said, there are far greater requirements to publish than ever before, on an online platform that the Government will provide. She gave the important example of Ukraine. She will remember that we talked about this on Second Reading: the Ukrainians were advisers to the UK Government when we were putting our ideas together, so we are very much building on what they did in Ukraine. This will be an extraordinary step forward for transparency in the nations that are taking it up.

The Bill also requires contracting authorities to have regard to acting, and being seen to act, with integrity. That will oblige them to consider how to prevent fraud and corruption through good management, prevention of misconduct, and control. Failure to take anti-corruption steps or measures will be an indication that the contracting authority did not have a regard to the importance of acting and being seen to act with integrity.

Contracting authorities will also be required to comply with the provisions in the Bill on conflicts of interests and the exclusion of suppliers, preventing contracts from being awarded to inappropriate suppliers. That provides further opportunities to directly address transparency and anti-corruption issues within the context of a procurement. I hope that we all agree that it is essential that the procurement regime commands the trust of suppliers, the public and our international trading partners. In our view, the Bill already provides for those matters as it stands.

Amendment 89 seeks to define value for money. Clause 12 specifically does not define value for money to leave a degree of flexibility for different types of contracting authorities to adapt the concept for their own procurements. Contracting authorities should be able to select the most advantageous tender that prioritises things that deliver value for money for them. There are many precedents on the statute book where the term is left undefined, and that allows for a degree of flexibility. I could point to the Communications Act 2003, the Energy Act 2004, the Defence Reform Act 2014, the Bus Services Act 2017, and so on.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Minister has answered the question in relation to value for money not being defined in this Bill because it is mentioned in other measures without that kind of definition. Regarding the term “public benefit”, is it also the case that it is widely used in other legislation without being defined? If the Minister does not have an answer now, I would be happy to hear something afterwards.

[Alex Burghart]

No, I am happy to say that it is already set out in the social value Act, I think, which I mentioned at the start of my remarks. Similarly to amendment 9, we feel that amendment 89 is unnecessary, as “public benefit” already allows for those factors to be considered, where appropriate and relevant to the contract being awarded.

New clause 2, also tabled by the hon. Member for Vauxhall, seeks to oblige contracting authorities to follow the six principles that the Government consulted on in the Green Paper. Now, the Green Paper was just that; it was a Green Paper and it formed the basis of what came subsequently. The six principles in the Green Paper were subsequently refined and then translated into the objectives and specific obligations that now exist in the Bill in the light of the responses to the Green Paper.

The language of a Green Paper is not the language of legislation, and one of the main lessons from the Green Paper and the consultation was the need to reflect the principles in a way that helps contracting authorities understand how they will implement them. That is what we have done. However, I assure the Committee that each of those principles remains within the Bill in an appropriate form. “Value for money” remains a fundamental tenet of the procurement regime. It is well understood by contracting authorities so does not need to be elaborated on.

“Public good” was focused on the delivery of strategic national priorities, so we revised it to the objective of “public benefit” to address the concerns raised in the public response to the Green Paper that it was solely about national, and not local, priorities. The revised principle supports wider consideration of social value benefits.

As we have discussed, “transparency” remains as an objective to encourage information sharing with suppliers, and “integrity” also remains an objective. The public response to the Green Paper indicated that “fair treatment” was too subjective for contracting authorities to determine by objective standards, so we introduced the concept of “treating suppliers the same”, which hon. Members will find in clause 12(2). Finally, “non-discrimination” has been converted from an objective to a hard-edged obligation in clauses 88 to 90.

The combination of the objectives and specific legal obligations in the Bill deals with procurement principles more effectively than the broad principles that the Government consulted on in the Green Paper. I therefore respectfully request that the amendments be withdrawn.

[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.

[The Chair]

We will come to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am quite happy to support these amendments, which are clever and necessary. They would both improve the process and make clear the direction of travel and intention behind the Bill. Procurement legislation and processes, and the tender processes that organisations have to go through in order to win a contract, are sometimes quite exclusionary. They are difficult. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall mentioned, they are easy to navigate for companies with significant teams of lawyers and tender-writing experts, but much more difficult to navigate for small organisations, which may be doing a huge amount of good but unable to translate that into writing the best possible tender. That is not to say that some of them do not write excellent tenders—I am sure some of them do—but it is important that we take that into account and include a presumption to consider such organisations.

Charities are struggling at the moment. Every charitable organisation that I have spoken to has mentioned its concerns about how it will carry on. We know that during the cost of living crisis, people are reducing their discretionary spending; they do not have any money left to spend on things such as charitable giving, and therefore charities are really in need of contracts to be able to continue to provide their services. Charities have workers—people work for charities. Without securing sensible, value-for-money contracts, charities will not be able to give their staff the uplift they need in order to avoid the cost of living crisis. It would be helpful specifically to include charities in the Bill and define that.

On co-operative societies, I have thought a fair bit about how we encourage those businesses and organisations that are not currently co-operatives but may benefit from becoming a co-operative. How do we make that landscape easier? How do we make it easier to understand how to become a co-operative organisation? I represent Aberdeen, where we have a significant number of companies that grow to a certain size and then get sold off. Some of those companies continue to flourish under some multinational, international umbrella, but some of them are just subsumed and disappeared, because the multinational is doing its best to buy up the intellectual property so that there are fewer competitors. In some of those situations—I am not saying it is the case in all situations—a co-operative would be the best way forward for the company. I do not think enough is being done to smooth the path for that and to put it on a more level playing field.

--- 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?

[Alex Burghart]

Amendment 22 would require the Government to publish a national procurement policy statement rather than just allowing them to do so. We have had a lot of debate about the nature of procurement policy and the associated important elements of procurement, such as driving social change.

As has been demonstrated by the sheer number of topics that we have touched on, procurement is often used to transact wider policies. That is correct, but we have to be realistic about the fact that those policies shift over time. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North gave a couple of examples of that. Indeed, the Government demonstrated how quickly we can change our procurement policies in the light of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. It is therefore both preferable and necessary that procurement policy is aligned with wider Government objectives. As such, the publication of an NPPS is a decision based on the strategic policy priorities relevant to the Government at that time. It needs to be as flexible as possible, and mandating a Minister to publish one takes away some of that possibility.

However, I assure the hon. Lady that the Government absolutely intend to publish an NPPS. They are working on it at the moment, and I look forward to bringing it to the House and discussing it when the time comes. She is right that it will be possible for Administrations to update their national procurement policy statement, but it will also be possible for them to withdraw it. One reason for not mandating is that there may be times when the Government are working on a new one, and there is a hiatus between the two. I therefore do not see that changing the drafting of the clause and mandating the statement is necessary. I respectfully request that the hon. Member for Vauxhall withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 105 in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North seeks to add provisions to ensure that no supplier involved in modern day slavery, crimes against humanity or genocide is granted contracts. That is a valid concern and similar to those addressed in amendment 111. We are definitely minded to support her amendment. I look to her to introduce her amendment and to the Minister to hear his response.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I will cover the amendments in the order that seems more sensible to me, which is probably not the order in which they appear on the selection list and amendment paper—apologies. I will do my best not to go over the same ground that has been covered by the shadow Minister in her excellent extensive speech. We are discussing a significant hefty chunk of the Bill and a number of different issues in one section.

The terms of Government amendment 28 are almost the opposite of new clause 2, which we discussed earlier. As I said then, I think it is one of the most important Labour amendments. I still believe that to be the case, and I think the withdrawal of the 33 principles would make the Bill poorer. This is one of those moments when you read a Bill—I am not sure how many people read Bills—and you think, “Hey, this is pretty good.” And then the Government take out the clauses that you actually liked. That is not helpful. The Government did exactly the same thing in the Online Safety Bill Committee. Before sending that Bill to the Lords, they took out some of the most useful and helpful clauses, which would have made most difference to people’s lives. I will therefore resist the Government amendment to this Bill vigorously.

Amendments 7 and 11 were tabled by the shadow Minister. I will not add too much on those, other than to say that cyber-security is one of the biggest risks facing us as Members of Parliament, the United Kingdom, the devolved Administrations—all of us. At this moment, that risk is only increasing. To have a conversation about cyber-security and national security in Committee is important, but they must also be considered during any procurement decisions. We want to improve cyber-security and national security and to take them into account, rather than forgetting them or hoping that they do not exist.

Amendment 107 on the fair treatment of workers struck me as one of the places where Government spending—public spending—could have the best benefit. Spending public money delivers not only great services for citizens, but high-quality jobs. It delivers jobs that are well paid and that have, in a lot of places, comparatively great terms and conditions. It is incumbent on us to ensure that the principles of fair work are held throughout all the decisions made on public spending. It is incredibly important that, when we use public money to create jobs, those jobs are good, well-paid jobs and, where possible, they financially recognise the increased cost of living—that the Government make the uplifts they should be making in the negotiations with various trade unions, which are struggling at the moment on behalf of workers and their members.

I will also strongly resist Government amendment 29. The shadow Minister explained it well. This is a pretty low bar. Clause 13(4) states:

“The strategic priorities to be included in the statement must include, but are not limited to…achieving targets set under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021”.

The Government passed those Acts. Why do they not intend them to be a strategic priority? Were they just things they passed in order to tick a box? If tackling climate change is a priority, clearly it should be part of the national procurement priorities.

Last week or the week before, in a Westminster Hall debate on public procurement, we heard the percentage of public money spent on public contracts; it is something like £1 in every £3. That is so much money! The clause as drafted is asking the Government to include a piece of their own legislation in the Bill as one of the strategic priorities. I do not think that that is asking too much.

I have just covered subsection (4)(a) and, in earlier discussion, we covered paragraph (b) at some length—again, I agreed with that. Paragraph (d) covers:

“minimising the incidence of fraud, waste or abuse of public money.”

That is very important. We saw the issues caused by the covid PPE contracts and the resultant massive waste of public money. It is totally inconceivable for the Government to open themselves to getting into that mess again, or for us to end up with another illegal fast-track lane, no matter how urgent the circumstances. The circumstances meant there was an urgent need for suitable PPE, not an urgent need for the Government to procure a whole lot of unusable PPE, or to prioritise recommendations from those in the VIP lane above companies that had a track record of producing PPE. It has not worked. It has failed our doctors, nurses and those working on the frontline. It has failed all of us who contribute towards public money and want it spent in a good way. It is therefore important to minimise instances of fraud, waste or abuse of public money. That should not need to be stated, but it does.

Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

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 ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

Will the Minister give us some examples of bodies that could be included or excluded by the continued inclusion of those words?

[Alex Burghart]

I am delighted by the hon. Lady’s enthusiasm to hear my next paragraph.

The relevant NHS bodies that are covered by the Bill will be specifically identified in regulations made under the power in schedule 1(5). This is exactly the same approach as under our existing procurement regulations, which is appropriate and helpful as it enables the list of central Government authorities to be updated from time to time as organisations change. There is absolutely no doubt that NHS trusts and various other NHS bodies are contracting authorities. This is because they clearly meet the test for a public authority set out in clause 2(2)(a), which is that they are publicly funded. That test is how we determine whether an entity is a public authority.

Clause 116, which was inserted in the other place, needs to be removed and replaced with the original clause. As it stands, the clause would delete the power agreed by Parliament in the Health and Care Act 2022 for the Department of Health and Social Care to make healthcare procurement regulations that are appropriate for patient care—otherwise known as the provider selection regime. NHS England and the Government have consulted extensively on proposals for the provider selection regime since 2021, and it has received strong support from health and care stakeholders.

The 2022 Act and the powers within it were approved by Parliament and received Royal Assent as recently as April 2022. Parliament recognised then that the procurement of healthcare services provided to patients is a special case and would benefit from procurement rules that would allow for the further integration of services and more joined-up care for patients. The provider selection regime is designed to support the reforms made by the 2022 Act by having flexible and robust procurement rules to support greater collaboration and integration in the NHS.

If clause 116 remains unamended, DHSC will be unable to proceed with its plans to foster the greater integration of healthcare services that better serve patients. If this power is not reinstated, procurement for NHS healthcare services will end up with a confusing scheme of double regulation under the Department of Health and Social Care’s healthcare procurement regulations and under this Bill. It is also likely to lead to greater competition and less collaboration for those healthcare services. I am working closely with colleagues in DHSC to ensure that the provider selection regime is compatible with, and not used to circumvent, the procurement obligations in the Bill, which properly apply to much of the NHS procurement landscape. Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the provider selection regime regulations through the affirmative procedure when they are laid by DHSC in due course.

New clause 13 provides a power for a Minister of the Crown to make regulations disapplying the Bill in relation to areas covered by healthcare procurement regulations made under section 12ZB of the National Health Service Act 2006, as inserted by section 79 of the Health and Care Act 2022. Hon. Members will recall from the debate on the Health and Care Act that a separate but interrelated process of reforms is under way for the procurement of certain healthcare services. Using the powers in that Act, DHSC is currently preparing regulations to govern its proposed provider selection regime, with the aim of improving collaboration in the sector and removing barriers to integrating care. The Bill, following enactment, will therefore need to be disapplied to the relevant extent to enable that scheme of regulations to exist and achieve its intended purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

Will the Minister clarify that legal point, as well as the point on housing associations? They are just two cases in which the lines between public and private may be blurred, and there are countless other examples in which that ambiguity may exist. I will save him the trouble of our opposing the Government’s amendment, but I expect some responses from the Minister on the issue.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Thank you for chairing this sitting, Mr Mundell, and I thank your fellow Chair, who will be responsible for overseeing us and ensuring that we behave ourselves, which I am sure we will. I appreciate the opportunity to take part in the Committee and look forward to positive discussions about improving the Bill. I am not terribly hopeful that the Government will listen to much of what we say, but I hope they will listen even if they do not necessarily take it on board. In previous Bills, the Government tabled amendments that we had tabled. I hope the Minister will listen to some of what we say and that we can get clarity on some matters in response to our questions.

I want to make a couple of comments on the NHS. I am glad to hear the Minister’s confirmation that NHS trusts will definitely be included in the definition. It is good to have him say that in Committee, and it is helpful to the wider understanding of how the Government intend the Bill to work.

Let me comment on how procurement rules are intended to apply, and how the NHS and NHS trusts in England are moving. We need NHS reforms and NHS procurement reforms to result in two things: the best outcomes for patients and the best outcomes for people working in the NHS. Those two things are not mutually exclusive; they go hand in hand. If people have good terms and conditions, and pay that they can afford to live on, they will do a better job than if they are struggling to make ends meet and therefore worrying.

If decisions around NHS procurement are best for businesses—putting businesses’ interests first—those decisions will directly conflict with those other two aims. It may be that having some private-sector input is the best option in some situations, but it should never be the first port of call. We should run and manage the NHS so that we have fair pay and terms and conditions for people working in it, and the best possible outcomes for patients. We should outsource as a last resort. It will be interesting to see the further guidelines and the statutory instruments put forward by the Department of Health and Social Care in that regard.

It may seem odd that I am commenting on this issue, as an MP from Scotland whose NHS is entirely separate, but it has a significant impact on Scotland’s budget. How the NHS is funded in England gives rise to Barnett consequentials that allow the Scottish Government to fund the NHS in Scotland, so the less the Government are willing to spend on the NHS in England, the less the Scottish Government have to spend on our priorities, particularly in the NHS but also in other areas. I look forward to seeing the future statutory instruments and I will not oppose any of the suggestions under consideration.

[Alex Burghart]

Again, I thank the Opposition for their support for the amendments.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall asked an important question about housing associations. On the question of whether the definition of contracting authority includes housing associations, the proposed definition, as with its predecessor, does not address all individual bodies or categories of bodies explicitly. It is the same for multi-academy trusts. There are simply too many bodies that exist and that change over the course of time to address it that way. Rather, the definition uses a number of tests that determine whether a particular body is covered or not. As we go through the Bill line by line, we will come across those tests over and over again. Registered providers of social housing are included in our coverage schedules to the WTO Government procurement agreement under the indicative list of bodies that may be covered. The new definition aims to ensure consistency with those international commitments.

It is the case that under normal circumstances, simple oversight would not meet the test for management and control. However, in the case of registered providers of social housing, it is well understood and documented that the Regulator of Social Housing has more than simple oversight, carrying out regulatory activity that does meet this threshold—as under the existing regime as a body governed by public law. I reassure the hon. Lady that the Bill does not change that position.

I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North for her interest in the English NHS. We are also committed to having an excellent NHS that both supports the people who work in it and is free at point of use for all citizens.

Amendment 27 agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Public contracts

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- 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.

--- Later in debate ---

We have an opportunity to create a procurement system that is fit for purpose, fit for our armed forces and fit for British business. As the war in Ukraine continues, we must continue to support our allies and fulfil our NATO commitments, but without risking our country’s capabilities. With a reformed, fit-for-purpose procurement system, we can achieve all this, but changes need to be made. Waste needs to be reduced, and British businesses must have the first bite of the cherry. I look forward to working with the Minister on the Bill to ensure our country and our armed forces get the best and most efficient system of procurement.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I want to focus on the last point made by the hon. Member for Islwyn on local content and contract value. The value of these contracts, even when they are within budget, is significant. A huge number of jobs are being created and massive amounts of Government money are being spent, but I do not feel that the MOD is utilising it in the best possible way, not only because of the problems of budgets being overrun, the amount of time being taken, and equipment not necessarily being fit for purpose when it arrives, but also because of the fact that the way the contracts system works is that the MOD is dealing with tier 1 suppliers.

The system is not hands on enough. We need to look at the suppliers that will be subcontracted and ensure that local content is used and local jobs are created. If the MOD is only looking, for example, at the tier 1 contractors and not digging underneath, and if the majority of the contract are then being subcontracted, there is not adequate oversight or steering of the contract to ensure that best possible use is being made of public funds, so we get both the best equipment and the highest quality jobs created and funded as a result.

In Scotland, one of the things that the MOD is not doing quite as well as it could be is working with the supplier development programme. That programme literally links public authorities and public contracting authorities with suppliers, but it has not had as much input from the MOD as it would like. No matter what the situation is with the reserved nature of the MOD, the reality is that it has lots of places in Scotland, and lots of those require procurement. That conversation between the local contractors and the MOD itself is not happening on the scale it should be. Local suppliers do not have the access to the contracts that they should or would like to have. One way this could be improved is by the MOD becoming more involved in the supplier development programme, which is specifically about making those links.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

I acknowledge the existence of the supplier development programme, but can the hon. Member explain why those suppliers would not ordinarily or necessarily interact directly with the MOD? Is it possible that having a Scottish version of that interaction is getting in the way?

[Kirsty Blackman]

No. A number of these contractor organisations went along to a training session that was run by the supplier development programme on applying for MOD contracts. But the thing is, those tier 1 suppliers were being given the contract. The MOD is not looking at local suppliers in the first instance in the way that it could.

I am not saying that local suppliers should always get every contract. Such a blanket approach would not be appropriate; but even those that have gone through training and have a better understanding of how to apply for MOD contracts are not necessarily being included. The supplier development programme is, for example, running a major event on 17 May this year where companies are put in touch with public authorities, but the MOD has not confirmed that it is willing to attend the event, or suggested that its tier 1 contractors should attend. I am absolutely not saying that the MOD should exclusively work with the supplier development programme. However, this is specifically about making those links. If the MOD were to get involved, it would have a better understanding of the companies out there that it would be able to contract from, the companies would have a better understanding of how best to put in tenders for the MOD, and that link would be better made between the two organisations.

I am not seeing this from the point of view of the MOD being a reserved organisation so I do not like it or agree with the way it works. The supplier development programme has not raised the same concerns with me about other reserved functions that happen in Scotland. It is specifically finding this issue with the MOD, which does have significant numbers of bases and places in Scotland, but is not as willing to engage as it could be. I am just pushing gently—I am not trying to have a big argument about this—to suggest that the MOD could do better in this regard. One of the best ways to do that would be to open that conversation and ensure that it is getting involved.

[David Duguid]

Genuinely, in the spirit of trying to resolve the issue the hon. Lady brings up, I would be interested to talk to her offline about this. I have suppliers in Banff and Buchan who have in the past, and perhaps still do, provide services to the MOD—in fact, I know at least one of them still does. As far as I know, those suppliers deal with the MOD directly. If there is a way that we can get more businesses from our constituencies to the MOD, I would be more than happy to help.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am happy to have a conversation with the hon. Gentleman afterwards and ensure he has the contact details for the supplier development programme, so that it can lay out some of its concerns to him. Hopefully, he can similarly provide a gentle push in the background to ensure that everybody—both the people looking to contract and the contracting authorities looking to have the best possible contract and tender applications made—is getting the best possible outcome from this scenario.

[Alex Burghart]

It is a pleasure to be opposite my friend on the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for Islwyn. I am sorry to say that such was the scale of his knockout defeat in that debate that it appears to have blurred his memory—we established without controversy that, as I defended, Lennox Lewis was the greatest British fighter of all time.

To the hon. Gentleman’s point, we certainly agree that it is absolutely important to get these contracts right. The spirit running through the Bill is to have a streamlined process that makes it easier for everybody to understand their opportunities and responsibilities. On the point made by both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, we will see as we go through the Bill that there are many opportunities through transparency and clauses put in to support SMEs to enable British businesses of different sizes to be able to avail themselves of opportunities in procurement, generally, but also in defence. In that spirit, I look forward to having specific conversations with the hon. Gentleman on those clauses as we progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Julie Marson.)

Public Procurement Processes

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mick Whitley]

Public procurement is for all, not just the Government or privateers. This is all about social value.

The fact that a vital local employer in Birkenhead, a deprived constituency, was at the mercy of a Dutch company is a very good reason why the public procurement process needs to be reformed. Social value is not an empty phrase. Cammell Laird is the largest employer in my constituency. Birkenhead has an above-average number of benefit claimants, who struggle to survive, so work flowing into Cammell Laird is vital to turn despair and poverty into hope and prosperity, yet the opportunity to create such work was hindered by the legal restrictions surrounding the existing procurement process. That problem is not addressed by the Procurement Bill, because it excludes social value—a key measure of the overall value of any contract.

Value for money has come to mean the cheapest bid, not the best bid. As a result, Cammell Laird and the workers in my constituency suffered a blow. The bulk of the work of the ferries contracts goes through a Dutch company, which I have been told will be keeping its costs low and its profits high by outsourcing work on Mersey Ferries to Romania. That is a glaring example of how public money has not served the public good. I am pleased for the workers of Belfast and Devon that Harland & Wolff and BMT were included in a winning Team Resolute bid, but there is no guarantee of the amount of work they will get as a result of the contract.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

On that point, is the hon. Gentleman concerned about the climate change impact—the carbon impact—of getting stuff and people from further away, the social issues that that causes, and the effect on the people who live locally?

[Mick Whitley]

The hon. Lady makes a good point, which I will cover a bit later.

Team Resolute is led by a Spanish ship company called Navantia, which is guaranteed to get at least 40% of the work, worth about £640 million. Ministers have confirmed that there is no limit on the jobs it can create in Spain. As for Navantia being part of a UK consortium, it is true that the bid includes Navantia UK, but here’s the rub: Navantia UK was created only in May last year as a subsidiary of the Spanish firm. It has no trading history, and its two directors live in Spain.

At the very heart of the problem lies the fact that a social value calculation is not included in the public procurement process. My call on the Government is simple: make it a compulsory component—make its inclusion in the consideration of all bids compulsory.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Trickett]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to ask that question. No convincing answer has been provided as to whether value for money was achieved. In fact, it is as plain as the nose on your face that there was no value for money, and I will come to that in a second.

In recent decades, there has been a presumption in favour of outsourcing. That was never the case before. Britain used to be proud of its public service and of the high standards of ethics in the civil service and in politics. It is hard to share that pride these days. The presumption in favour of outsourcing contracts and obtaining services from the private sector has gone through the leadership of all the political parties, and it is time it stopped.

There are seven separate reasons why one should be cautious about that presumption. I hasten to say, though, that there will always be a case for some procurement from the private sector—for instance, police motorbikes will not be nationalised in the immediate future, so one can see that there is a case there—but the presumption should end. Let me briefly refer to the seven issues that it is important to consider.

First, the Government Procurement Service is not as professional as it needs to be. It is possible to get a university degree these days in good procurement practice. That is a necessity to ensure value for money for every penny spent, but the service is under-resourced and not as professional as it needs to be. That is not to criticise the civil servants who do a difficult job in difficult circumstances, but they are in danger of being flooded by the provision of contracts.

I worked in the private sector, as a plumber in the building industry. We were monitored by the main developers to make sure that we provided value for money. Quite often, I confess, we would see whether we could get extras built in on top of the money in the original contract. It was for the quantity surveyors who worked for the developers and builders to make sure that we did not get away with anything. Can we honestly say that every single line in every contract is monitored in the same way as in the private sector? I do not think we can. The reason is because staff are under-resourced, and we are under-resourced because we are outsourcing as an ideological decision rather than anything else.

Here is my second point. More often than not, there is no public comparator. When I was the leader of Leeds City Council, I would ensure that if something was going out to the private sector, there would be a public sector bid made by the council, which would not have a slice on top for profitability. I would then see whether the private sector could compete with the public sector bid. That is one thing that might be done, but there are no public sector comparators under the present neoliberal economic settlement, which we regard with despair, to be honest. Therefore, there is no guarantee that a cartel or group of racketeers is not fixing prices between them to rip off the taxpayer. We cannot be clear about whether that is happening, although without a proper procurement service, I am sure that it is.

My third point is this. No evidence has been produced anywhere in the world that outsourcing is cheaper than insourcing. It has been looked at by the Public Accounts Committee and various bodies throughout the world. What is striking is that larger global companies are now insourcing. They were outsourcing, buying in accountancy and legal services and so on. That is stopping. Why are they insourcing? Because it is cheaper and more effective, and delivers better value for money. Yet here we are with a Government that seem hellbent on outsourcing, for ideological reasons rather than to protect the public purse.

My fourth point is that the private sector puts in prices, but the first thing it does when it wins the contract is to drive down the pay and conditions of the staff employed. Wherever one looks, that is the case. I have experience of that in my constituency. We had a service for cleaning a school a few years ago. The first thing the company did was to cut wages and try to get rid of some of the staff. The staff went on strike, which went on a long time, and the school was filthy. That contract was frankly a disgrace. We all know that that happens everywhere. We see wages falling as a share of GDP. What is the process behind that happening? There are a number of processes, but one is outsourcing, driving down wages in order to increase profits.

My fifth point is this. A service provided in the public sector is motivated by the single ethos of public service. It tries to provide a service to the public without a mind to delivering profits and dividends to shareholders. There are two contesting ethoses—if that is the correct plural—in play. One is serving and enhancing shareholder value as a private sector provider; the other is public service. Well, I know what I want for the staff who treat me, my family or my constituents. I want people who are motivated by one thing only: providing the highest possible quality service. That is what motivated people. The three women I just talked about, who were cleaners and went on strike, were treated in a really shabby way. Their greatest concern was the kids left in the school. The toilets were not being cleaned. They would talk to me regularly about their guilty consciences at being unable to provide the service. They were interested in only one thing: providing a service to those children.

[Kirsty Blackman]

On the point about wages, does the hon. Member share my concern that, although we have control of public sector wages, the Conservatives are not keen on negotiating fair pay settlements? That means that public sector wages are actually being reduced and done down, compared with where they should be.

[Jon Trickett]

I totally agree with the hon. Member. We are seeing a fragmentation of the labour market and the driving down of people’s incomes—particularly of manual workers and others—and I resent it, on behalf of those people. It is not right for the country; after all, if wages are in long-term decline, the economy itself will be in long-term decline as well.

My sixth and penultimate point is about pay and pay ratios. What happens in the public sector—although we would have to say, if we were living in a purely ethical economic environment, that certain public servants are probably paid more than they ought to be—is that pay ratios accelerate the minute a service is outsourced, to the point where we see people earning massive multiples of what the lowest paid in the same service receive. That is not congenial to providing a public-oriented service, which is what we would want to see. Pay ratios in the public sector are accountable through Parliament to the public in a way that they are not once they have been privatised. Indeed, once a service has been privatised—outsourced—it is no longer subject to all the constraints that the public sector has to operate under. Indeed, one further point to make is that if I want to understand why a public sector service in my constituency or the country is deteriorating, I can submit a freedom of information request or ask questions in Parliament. The minute that service has been privatised, we cannot do that, so it is not accountable.

My final point is about the impact on the local and national economy. If we do not control procurement in a proper way, we are unable to direct it to local providers of services in a way that we would expect to be able to do with taxpayers’ money. That has an impact, too, on the local economy.

For all those reasons, this is an important debate, and I am glad that it was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead. It is beyond the legislation that is before us. We need an ideological shift; we need a presumption in favour of the public sector, not the private sector, and I hope that I have contributed in a small way to making an argument for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Thank you for chairing this meeting so admirably this morning, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) on securing the debate. I also thank all those who have spoken for having such easy-to-pronounce constituency names. I very much appreciate that none of them is a mouthful; that has worked out very well for me this morning.

I want to talk about a number of things that we are concerned about in the Procurement Bill, and that we are concerned about more generally in how public procurement works. Public procurement is devolved in Scotland; we are able to set our own procurement rules and legislation. None the less, the Bill impacts Scotland. Also, while we are part of this place and while we are part of this United Kingdom, for however short a period of time that may be, we very much want to improve the situation and ensure the utmost levels of fairness and transparency in the public procurement regime, whether or not we continue to be involved in it.

[Hywel Williams]

Of course, Scotland can chart its own course on this matter. Does the hon. Lady share my surprise that the Welsh Government have consented to the UK Government’s legislating on their behalf?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely do. It is disappointing, especially given some of the excellent things that are happening in Wales, particularly around the work of the Future Generations Commissioner and how that is embedded in what the Welsh Government do. To hand that over to Westminster seems a real dereliction of duty, and I am concerned that that is the direction that has been chosen.

The biggest concern that we have about the Procurement Bill is its significant impact on Scotland in relation to devolution and the implementation of trade deals, including the Australia and New Zealand trade deals. We agree that trade deals are reserved. Obviously, we want to be independent, and we will be signing our own trade deals then, but while they are reserved, we agree that that is what the devolution settlement looks like. However, the implementation of trade deals in Scotland touches on devolved areas. We should be able to implement the procurement rules that come out of trade deals ourselves. The Procurement Bill will allow UK Ministers to implement, through secondary legislation, procurement practices in Scotland, as well as in the rest of the UK. That should be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers, and the UK Government should put that in the Bill rather than reserving that additional power.

[Peter Dowd]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the Bill is taking back control to Westminster, not to the places that actually need it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree. It is a further power grab, just like the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. We have an agreed settlement that was put to a referendum in the first place. We have the Scotland Act 1998, which gives the Scottish Parliament its powers. This is within those powers. It is our responsibility—a responsibility that our parliamentarians in Scotland were elected to carry out—and that the UK Government are trying to take that back means that people in Scotland are not getting what they voted for. They voted for politicians in order to direct this, but their politicians are unable to do so because the UK Parliament is trying to take back control.

Turning to the issues that have been raised today, I will touch first on the EU principles that have been written into the Procurement Bill, which concern transparency, equal treatment, non-discrimination and proportionality. We agree that we should remain as closely aligned with the EU as possible in this regard, and that keeping those principles is absolutely the right thing to do.

[Jon Trickett]

I wonder whether the hon. Lady agrees with those learned commentators who said that EU rules actually preclude the use of procurement to achieve social objectives, and that that was an argument for Brexit rather than for remaining in the European Union.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I think a number of other states have done procurement in a more flexible way even though they are in the European Union. It is not necessarily the case that the way the UK did procurement prior to Brexit is the only way to do procurement within the EU, as a number of states manage to do it very differently. We all have to work within the global procurement agreement. That is part of the World Trade Organisation, which sets rules that, similarly, the EU procurement rules abide by. I am not aware that anybody has suggested that we should step outside that global procurement framework; whether or not they support Brexit, people are still keen to remain part of that.

On transparency and the comments by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) about the kind of ideological shift that is required, I agree that this is ideology. We can do procurement in a number of different ways—we can focus on external companies in the private sector, or we can reframe that and focus on the public sector. We can think about the best way to do it. On the basis that they are trying their very best to defund it, I have concerns about the current UK Government’s willingness to use the public sector, which seems completely ideologically opposed to what they would be keen to achieve. However, I agree that we should go further in that direction, on the basis that we can better implement and embed fair working practices because we have much more control over the terms and conditions of people who are directly employed by local authorities or other public sector bodies and we can be more sure they are employed in a fair way.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned Hikvision, which is involved in the Chinese Government’s detention camps and what is happening with the Uyghur Muslims through its facial recognition technology. Some 61% of UK public authorities use Hikvision cameras. That is not a small number. In Scotland, we have committed to getting rid of Hikvision cameras and ending our work with Hikvision, and the US has blacklisted it. The UK Government still have not chosen to do that, so I would very much welcome a commitment from the Minister that they will look at Hikvision specifically and consider what actions they can take to ensure that they are not supporting a company that is committing human rights abuses. It seems to me that the Procurement Bill fails to take into account some of those abuses, despite pushes by the Lords to make that happen.

Again, climate change issues are not embedded in the Procurement Bill. It does not take into account the climate change targets in Scotland, for example. Every Government should be focused on the impact that every single thing that they do will have on the climate, and on future generations as a result of the climate change it will cause. The UK Government should be leading by example by having that thread running through everything thing they do, but they refuse to. There is no point in just talking about climate change; we need to make sure that we are focusing on it in every single thing that we do. The UK Government are failing to put actions in place; they are only using words.

I am aware that I am short on time, so let me briefly mention the Supplier Development Programme in Scotland, an amazing organisation that was set up to ensure that local companies are linked with public sector procurers. It works incredibly well, so I just wanted to plug it briefly. I thank the hon. Member for Birkenhead for bringing forward the debate, and I thank all those who have made contributions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman will get a final answer in Committee, but I can tell him that we have had nothing but productive and courteous conversations with our counterparts. I believe that we are going to end up in a mutually beneficial place, which is great news for people in Wales, England and Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman can join us in Committee if he wishes to hear the final read out on that. I look forward to seeing him there.

The hon. Member for Strangford is right: Northern Ireland must be included in these important opportunities. We are sad that our colleagues in Scotland have, unlike counterparts in Wales and Northern Ireland, not chosen to be part of the Procurement Bill. They are entitled to make that decision, but it is a shame. It adds a layer of complexity within the British Isles that need not be there, but c’est la vie.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) asked about trade deals and implementation. Trade deals are a reserved area. It is important that they are able to be implemented because otherwise we might find that the UK was in breach of an international agreement and that would be wrong. Yesterday, we made an amendment following discussions with the Scottish Government to narrow powers in this area and we will continue to work closely with them on implementation and, likewise, I look forward to discussing it with her in Committee; I do believe it will be her in Committee.

[Kirsty Blackman]

It will indeed.

[Alex Burghart]

Hooray.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I thank the Minister. I have not seen that amendment, so I will have a good look at it. I appreciate that he has taken some action.

[Alex Burghart]

Super. I look forward to debating that further in the weeks ahead.

The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Vauxhall, rightly highlighted that debarment is a crucial area of the Bill. In the past few days, we have tabled new amendments on debarment, which strengthen the regime. I am not going to go into all the details now because there is ample opportunity in the days ahead, but she is right to draw attention to it. On subcontractors and 30-day payments, there are implied payment terms within the Bill. Even if it is not a subcontract, the SME can demand this and raise it. Again, we could go into further details, but we have thought through the point she raised.

In conclusion, this is a great opportunity. We have come a long way from the starting point that we found ourselves in when we were in the EU. We are starting to make British procurement rules that will benefit British taxpayers, British employees, British public authorities and British suppliers. That is a good thing for all of us.

House of Lords Reform

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I come to this debate somewhat prepared and somewhat remembering my A-level classes, where we had to debate the idea of House of Lords reform. As I stand here now, a few years on from my A-levels, and think about the merits of the House of Lords, I fear that the wolves are circling.

When SNP Members turn up to a Westminster Hall debate and promise to improve the constitution of the United Kingdom, I feel they are somewhat acting like pandas: they want to eat, shoot and leave our constitution. I worry about that and about the damage the proposals from the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) might cause. In his typically erudite way, he came up with a whole host of reasons for some of the mistakes and problems that can be seen in the House of Lords. Of course, we can see mistakes and problems in the House of Commons, and we should not be outright opposed to some reforms or changes. However, what the hon. Gentleman typically forgot to do was to talk about some of the positive aspects of the House of Lords and the important work it does, or about many of the occasions on which the SNP has been led to support the House of Lords when it has checked the Government on important pieces of legislation.

I will start with a few points of rebuttal, since I do believe this is like an A-level debate.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, supporting something and agreeing with a decision are two very different things. Just because, on occasion—particularly during Brexit—the SNP has agreed with decisions that the House of Lords has made, that does not mean that we support it or have ever said that we support it.

[Anthony Mangnall]

I was not suggesting for a second that the SNP had done so. I was more making the point that, although I hope Scotland always remains part of the Union of the United Kingdom, if the SNP wants to not be part of it, perhaps it should not be making comments on this topic.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North made a point about opulence and tradition—that he was not so in favour of it and that he is lost for words when he stands in the House of Lords. I, too, am lost for words when I stand in the House of Lords—because of the sheer magnificence, the history and the tradition. No nation was ever weakened by a love of tradition; in fact, a nation can be strengthened and improved by it. We can use tradition to our advantage.

When we talk about that tradition and that opulence, we can also talk about the important pieces of legislation that start in the House of Lords and make huge differences to people across the land, not because those in the Lords have necessarily been elected by the people, but because they bring with them a specific understanding and knowledge of sectors that would never normally put individuals into the public eye to make pieces of legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Mangnall]

If I may, the hon. Member’s colleague, the hon. Member for Glasgow North, started off by saying that he was not going to be specific about individuals, and I do not think it is right that we are specific about individuals. However, if there is an individual who has done extremely well in business as a woman in the 21st century, I think it is important to note that. But I might also point out that the House of Lords has been a welcoming home to refugees, in the form of Baroness Helic, who fled the war in Bosnia. It also has extraordinary scientists, such as Lord Winston. These extraordinary people make an extraordinary contribution, and they are not the minority—they are the majority.

In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Glasgow North pointed out only a few small issues, rather than the vast majority of positive things that go on throughout the House of Lords. He made the point about cronies in the Lords; the House of Lords is still conditioned to the standards that Parliament sets, and it is still compliant with the rules that we too must follow. It is important to remember that it is not some lawless upper Chamber in which people can do what they want. It is set to the same procedures and scrutiny that we must follow. I do not think we should put that aside.

I have a few points to make. First, the House of Lords serves as an important check and balance. I notice that not a single SNP Member was at yesterday’s debate on the Procurement Bill, apart from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who was on the Front Bench. Dry, difficult and sometimes dull as procurement might be, it is a perfect example of how a Bill can be introduced in the House of Lords, shaped by fantastic expertise from across the Chamber and then brought to the House of Commons, where it passes its Second Reading, not with great confrontation and difficulty, but with acceptance that it is a good piece of legislation that will make a huge difference.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I would be interested to know whether the hon. Member thinks that the Government will undo some of the amendments the Lords put in and that the Bill will end up looking more like it did when the Government introduced it—rather than retaining what those experts in the House of Lords did to it?

[Anthony Mangnall]

It is perfectly acceptable to say that there will be scrutiny and change, as there always is, but that is not to say that the job has not been well done by Members of the House of Lords. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Aberdeen North may laugh about that, but that is exactly the point of the process. We want to be able to make use of that expertise in the House of Commons, and we want our legislative agenda to be scrutinised in the House of Lords. That is the way the system works.

Those important checks and balances have meant that pieces of legislation that have been passed on the fly—I have felt that, in some cases, they have perhaps been passed too quickly—have been checked and sent back by the House of Lords. When it comes to international development, which I am deeply concerned about, the House of Lords has been extremely effective in that regard. That is something that those on the Labour Front Bench might agree with me on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I appreciate you taking the time to chair this debate so excellently, Sir Gary. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) for securing this debate. When I was first elected to the House of Commons, I was made the SNP spokesperson on the House of Lords. It is the easiest job an SNP politician can do, because when they do something, we say, “Abolish them,” and when they do something else, we say, “Abolish them,” again. There is just one line you need to know. That is why this debate has been interesting. It has been a thoughtful debate with lots of issues and concerns raised about the House of Lords. Some Members have talked about how great they think the House of Lords is, but we have also discussed a number of different issues.

I will focus briefly on the issue of constitutional obsession. We all have a constitutional obsession. Indeed, hon. Members would not be here if they did not think that things that were not working needed to be changed. It is not just about improving a single constituent’s life by writing to an energy company to complain about a wrong bill. We can improve all of our constituents’ lives by changing the system. That is what all of us are here to do. We are all here to talk and think about the constitution and the changes we want to make to it and to the systems and the ways in which we operate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North is correct that Governments of any type, in any country, have less impetus to deliver change than anyone else. Governments are appointed by whatever system they work within. That means that the system works for them: it has put them there and entrenched their power. Why would they want to lessen their future chances of getting that power?

That point is neatly summed up by the fact that one in 10 Conservative peers have donated more than £100,000 to the party. I do not know which came first: did they donate money and then happen to become a peer, or did they become a peer and then happen to donate money? I do not know the order in which it works, but surely that is a symbiotic, beneficial relationship for both groups of people. It is great for the Conservative party that it can get so much in donations, and it is great for peers that they can get £332 a day, as well as the power and prestige that comes with being a Member of the House of Lords as a result of their relationships, patronage and appointment for life.

I will now talk specifically about how the House of Lords works and operates, and what it looks like. The most recent figures I could find in the Library are from 2019 and show that the average age of Members of the House of Commons is 51. That is not as young as it should be and does not reflect the general population or even the general voting population. However, the average age of Members of the House of Lords is 71. The hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) may be interested to know that he is younger than the youngest peer in the House of Lords. Although he and I are relatively young Members of Parliament, we are far from being the youngest MPs these days.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

As a 71-year-old Member of the lower House, I will not take offence at the hon. Lady’s ageism. I will just point out, however, that if people get to the top of their professions before they get seats in the House of Lords, where they can apply their expertise, they will tend to be older rather than younger.

[Kirsty Blackman]

My issue is not with the actions of individuals at certain ages or with the fact that there are many 71-year-olds who could run rings around significant numbers of us younger ones—I absolutely agree that that is the case. My issue is that it does not represent the population. We are supposed to have a representative democracy but it fails to be so because its membership does not look like the rest of the population.

I will take a moment to tackle another thing that the hon. Member for Totnes said. Some 57% of Members of the House of Lords went to private schools, which is ridiculously high.

[Anthony Mangnall]

That number is going down.

[Kirsty Blackman]

It is going down, yes, but much more slowly than if we had an elected Chamber where Members were not appointed for life. Some 6% of Members of the House of Lords are from a minority ethnic background, whereas 13% of people in the UK are from such a background. Because the unelected Chamber is over 800 people large, every person appointed to the House of Lords over a period of years would need to be from a minority ethnic background in order for the membership to look like the population. The unrepresentative nature of the House of Lords is a problem that cannot be fixed easily or quickly because of the fact that people in that House are appointed for life.

The issue of attacking the House of Lords because of what it is rather than what it does has been raised. That is the opposite argument to the one we hear from the Labour party, which suggests that we should not attack the current constitutional arrangement because of what it is—that we should not attack the current constitutional arrangement. The Labour party says that just because the Conservatives are in power, that does not mean that the constitutional arrangement for the devolution settlement is less than perfect, and that once we have a Labour Government it will be grand and everything will be significantly better than it currently is. I am not going to buy that. I am going to attack things for what they do and what they are. It is completely reasonable for us to have issues with the actions of the House of Lords or of the Government in the House of Commons, and with the way that those institutions are set up and run. I see no contradiction in making criticisms of both those things and am quite comfortable doing so.

I do not think that anybody here believes—I really hope they do not—that the current constitutional settlement and the way the House of Lords currently works and interacts with the House of Commons is 100% perfect. I do not think that anybody is willing to defend the current system as absolutely the best possible system we could have. I do not think that is the case, because the system is indefensible. We have a massive House in the other place, and one of the things that frustrates me most about the House of Lords is the fact that it can originate legislation. It is a checking and balancing system; how dare they originate legislation? Lords are unelected. It is done for reasons of timetabling. That is completely shocking if it is to continue to be an unelected Chamber.

I very much appreciate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North having secured this debate and allowed me to have a bit of a rant about the House of Lords and my criticisms of it. Obviously, the way to resolve this—I am quite happy to eat, shoot and leave—is for us to leave the United Kingdom and leave youse to it. In the meantime, while we are members of this United Kingdom, although currently against our will, we would like to improve it. We would like to try to make it better, and to do that we need to abolish the House of Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

I do not think the hon. Member is alone in having questions about our policy, which is to have a conversation with the British people to decide what the future policies would be. I am not going to be outlining all the dotted i’s and crossed t’s of Labour party policy, because that would be wrong. We need to have further conversation about the result of our conversations. Later in my speech, I will go into what will underpin that.

The SNP has used this debate about the second Chamber for game playing, to undermine the strength of the Union, and has denied Scottish people a voice in the second Chamber by boycotting it—by just leaving it alone. It has no interest in making Westminster or devolution work. Labour will work with the Scottish people to give Scotland and other parts of the UK an even greater say in UK-wide legislation through a new second Chamber. Under a Labour Government, a second Chamber that is more representative will give Scottish people more of a mandate to deliver for Scotland and undo the damage caused by the SNP and the Conservatives.

There are three reasons why we need reform, the first of which is trust. Trust in Westminster is at an all-time low, and in many ways who can blame the public? Never before has the privilege of power been used and abused for personal gain so much and so frequently. The mantra of “It’s one rule for them and another for us” is said far too frequently; people should not feel like that about their elected bodies, and the Lords is a prime example.

Take the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). He recommended 87 new life peerages, but two of those people have not made maiden speeches, even though one was appointed in September 2019 and the other in July 2020. His brazen attempt to subvert democracy by rewarding donors, lackeys and friends makes him the latest in a long line of Conservative Prime Ministers who have gamed the system by installing a conveyor belt of their cronies into the House of Lords, undermining it as a result. Instead of rewarding Conservative donors, we should be rebuilding trust in politics.

[Kirsty Blackman]

How many peers did the most recent Labour Prime Minister recommend?

[Fleur Anderson]

I do not know, but we are talking about the system. It should not be the patronage of the Prime Minister that gets to recommend those who vote on our behalf; the people should decide who is going to make those decisions. That is the point I will be making, whichever party the Prime Minister comes from.

In the past seven years, every former Conservative party treasurer bar one has been offered a seat in the Lords, and 22 of the party’s biggest donors have been made lords since 2010. We cannot keep on sheepishly asking for the trust of the people: we need to show how things will be different. Reforming the second Chamber has to be part of that.

The second reason is democracy. Devolution was a major achievement of the last Labour Government, and the next Labour Government are committed to continuing that proud democratising tradition. We have shown that we will put our money where our mouth is when elected. We must go further than the devolution that has already taken place, which includes making the second Chamber of our Parliament fit for the 21st century. It must be more democratic and accountable, and therefore effective, and must accurately represent the people of our diverse regions and nations across the United Kingdom.

We need reform that retains expertise, yes, but the right expertise from throughout the country, not just expertise in knowing the right people. Consecutive Conservative Prime Ministers have ridden roughshod over the system of appointing people to the House of Lords. If things continue as they are, there will not be many experts left; instead, the House of Lords will be packed to the rafters with those who owe their place to favours and dodgy dealings rather than talent and expertise. For too many, a peerage is a fancy title or an Instagram photo opportunity, which undermines the work done by so many hard-working peers.

Hansard tells us all we need to know. There are 41 Members in the House of Lords who have only made one contribution since the beginning of the 1992-93 Session—one contribution in 30 years—yet those Members can claim more than £300 a day for attending and can vote on any issue, changing the lives of people up and down the country. They are not accountable; there is no check or balance. Those Members do not have to look into people’s eyes and be accountable for what they have done, how many times they have attended, what they have said and what they have voted on.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship today, Sir Gary.

I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on securing this very interesting debate. I often think that we do not spend enough time in the Commons debating our constitution in the broadest sense, although I know that the hon. Gentleman is more interested in the constitution in a narrower sense. If a party is a single-issue party, it is important for it to adhere to that single issue; otherwise, what is it? Nevertheless, it is genuinely interesting to hear what the SNP thinks about the House of Lords because, notwithstanding the fact that the party has a shadow Minister for the House of Lords, as I discovered today, we do not often hear its views on such broader constitutional issues.

That said, it is atheists musing on the divine, in that, like some sort of mystic panda, the SNP intends, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) put it in his truly excellent speech, to “eat, shoot and leave”. Were SNP Members proposing long-standing major constitutional reform with the intention of living in that new constitutional structure, I would probably have slightly more time for their arguments, but alas it is not to be. We heard today a range of complaints and grievances about the House of Lords without any alternative proposal other than that there should be an independent Scotland. The SNP is entitled to hold that view, just as it is entitled not to engage with the House of Lords by having SNP Members of it.

I cannot help but think that after the 2014 referendum which, as the SNP acknowledged at the time, was a vote for a generation, it was somewhat churlish of the SNP not to join the current House of Lords, even if it disagreed with the structure and wished to see it reformed. That would have been a way of representing Scottish views in the United Kingdom, which people in that country voted to remain part of. Because the Union continues, I am proud to say, I encourage the SNP to rethink its position of—I was about to say “abstinence”, but that is the wrong word entirely—abstaining, or staying out of, the House of Lords.

Much as I disagree with the SNP’s views, I think that the Lords Chamber would be richer for the presence of SNP Members. I would like to see more people from more parts of the United Kingdom represented there. Would that it were not so, but a lot of people vote for the SNP, and it would be good if there were SNP expertise in the House of Lords to seek to influence legislation that would have a bearing on people in Scotland. But that is a decision for the SNP. I did not come into the House of Commons to give advice to the SNP.

My own experience of the House of Lords is rather different from that of the hon. Member for Glasgow North, who is grudgingly prepared to acknowledge that maybe one or two Lords have some expertise and something to say. As a Back Bencher and as a Minister, I have attended a large number of debates in the Lords, and I am always struck by how well informed they are and their courteous nature. It is acknowledged that people on the other side of the argument are worthy of respect, even if one disagrees with their views. I have also been struck by the fact that in that forum there is a great deal of highly positive soft diplomacy on legislation. As a Minister I have seen that. You hear and absorb the views of learned folk in the upper House and you start to wonder how and whether they should be reflected in policy.

When I was first elected to the Commons, I had a conversation with—I hope he does not mind my mentioning his name—Lord Young of Cookham. I asked how he was getting on as a Minister in the Lords and he said, “Well, it is a bit of a change from being a Minister in the Commons. In the Commons you get your briefing pack from your officials, you stand up and you can feel fairly confident that you’re on firm ground. When you stand up at the Dispatch Box in the Lords, five former Secretaries of State, three former heads of the civil service and a whole bunch of expertise from the wider world are all waiting to hold you to account.” That is a level of scrutiny of which we should be proud and that we should think twice about before seeking to remove. This is a good-natured debate, but we cannot just chuck away the life experience and professional experience of people we all know are making a positive contribution to legislation in our country.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Minister is making a good case for a culture change in the House of Commons. There should be more listening to experts. When we consider the Procurement Bill, will he and his colleagues listen to the words of those giving evidence? Will he listen to their expertise and consider making changes? Or will the Bill come out with no amendment that any expert has put forward other than in the House of Lords?

[Alex Burghart]

We have already listened very closely to arguments made in the Lords, and we have already started to make policy improvements based on some of their recommendations. That does not mean that the Government will agree to all of the amendments that the Lords have made. The important thing is the debate, because iron sharpens iron. We can pretend that we will get similar expertise—as the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), said—from a democratically elected second House, but that simply is not true, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes made clear.

There are a great many people in the Lords with huge experience, perhaps towards the end of their careers, who will not want to stand for democratic election. They will not want to put themselves through that and on the doorstep, and I have sympathy with them. I understand. It would be terribly sad if we lost those people from our legislature and if we did not have their expertise. Also, alongside that expertise, there is space for people in our legislature who are of no party affiliation. I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow North has a passionate, political viewpoint. He is a passionate member of his political party, but not everyone in the country is; not everyone in the world is. There are a great many sensible, intelligent people who have a lot to give our democracy, but who do not wish to stand for election under the flag of a particular party. If we were to move to a system of proportional representation, they would have to. There would be no independence in the Commons or the Lords. That, too, would make our Houses poorer and, I think, weaker.

The Government accept, as I think everybody here accepts, that our constitution evolves. It has been in a constant state of evolution for centuries. We are alive to the fact that we will always need to consider changes. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and the Opposition spokesperson spoke in favour of radical reform. Were a future Government to undertake that radical reform, it would bring major risks with it. There would not just be the loss of expertise, but a conflict of mandates, as described by the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), who is no longer in his place. It is very easy to brush that aside and pretend that we will deal with it later or that it does not matter. I can guarantee that in the event that we had a fully elected upper House, it would start to use its mandate against the mandate of the Commons from day one, and voters would not know how long the mandate in one House would last over the other. We would very likely find ourselves in a constant cycle of elections, rather than being in a position where one party or a coalition of parties could be elected for a term and deliver based on their mandate. Those are all risks that we as parliamentarians must be alive to and aware of.

I have greatly enjoyed the debate today. It is important that from time to time we engage in debate on these major issues.

Procurement Bill [Lords]

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Happy new year to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to everyone in the Chamber. Thank you for calling me to speak on Second Reading of the Procurement Bill.

I will take the tiniest bit of leeway at the beginning of my speech to thank my predecessor as the SNP Cabinet Office spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), for his hard work in this role. He does not leave an easy gap to fill as he moves on to lead for us on international development, but I will do my best to learn as quickly as possible, and what better way than with the Second Reading of the Procurement Bill and the subsequent Bill Committee. That is not a joke—the Minister will be totally fed up with me by the time the Bill Committee has ended.

Both the SNP Westminster group and the Scottish Government have significant concerns about the content of the Bill as currently written. I am disappointed by how the Paymaster General put forward his views on the Scottish Government’s action, given that constructive discussion is going on about how best to amend the Bill. I hope he is going into those discussions in a more constructive manner than it sounded like from his tone at the Dispatch Box when he spoke about the views of the Scottish Government. Corrections need to be made before the legislation can be considered acceptable, because the Bill undermines the devolution settlement.

We have not tabled a reasoned amendment to the Bill on the basis that the Scottish Government hope they can resolve the issues with the UK Government. However, should the UK Government fail to fix the Bill, we absolutely will oppose the legislation at future stages. The Bill seeks to confer a power exercisable concurrently by UK and Scottish Ministers to implement the Government procurement chapters of the agreements with Australia and New Zealand by secondary legislation. Although the negotiation of international agreements might be a reserved matter, their implementation in devolved areas, such as Government procurement, is a devolved matter.

The correct constitutional solution would be to amend the Bill to grant the implementation powers solely to Scottish Ministers in Scotland—obviously not in the rest of the UK. If the UK Government refuse to make that concession, at the very least the Bill must be amended to require the consent of Scottish Ministers when UK Ministers act in devolved areas to implement international agreements. It is a vital issue of principle. Devolution must not be undermined every time a sitting Westminster Government fancy doing so.

The Scottish Government are working to resolve these issues with the UK Government, and that is why we have not tabled a reasoned amendment to reject the Bill, but I and my colleagues urge the UK Government to continue that work. They often claim that they want to work with the Scottish Government, and we want to ensure that this Bill is not added to the litany of devolution-undermining legislation that has been put through since Brexit.

We have further concerns about the Bill, and I hope the Minister will accept them in the constructive spirit in which they are meant. We believe that the UK Government must ensure that supporting environmental objectives is clearly and explicitly included in the Bill’s objectives. Those objectives should be compatible with the Scottish Government’s more ambitious climate change reduction targets. If the UK Government are to act in such a way on reserved matters, they need to take account of the fact that the devolved legislatures have different and more ambitious climate change targets.

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

The hon. Lady referenced the devolution agreement, and she has just mentioned reserved matters. Can she clarify whether she is referring to the Scotland Act 1998 and devolution as set out within its terms?

[Kirsty Blackman]

Yes, I am referring to the devolution settlement and how devolution works. Within the Scotland Act, there are matters that are the competence of the Scottish Government and ones that are the competence of the UK Government. In that regard, the implementation of international agreements in relation to how public procurement works is a matter for the devolved legislature, and we would prefer that the UK Government recognised that, rather than giving a power in this Bill that could overrule that.

The Bill includes a discretionary exclusion group for environmental misconduct, but I am not clear why that exclusion should be discretionary. The UK Government are failing time after time to embed environmental objectives in legislation. They refused to do so with the Subsidy Control Act 2022 or with the creation of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, despite the Opposition pushing them to include it. It is as if they are keen to have big headlines on climate change targets, but not actually to embed them and do the actual work, and not to put those targets where it matters, which is explicitly in legislation that this place is putting forward, without exclusions and without discretionary rules. It should be embedded in every single thing we are doing, because it is the most important issue for this generation and for future generations. The Bill must explicitly commit to taking environmental considerations into account when awarding contracts, and that should be a core consideration, not a pointless box-ticking exercise.

We welcome the retention in the Bill of the principles that underpin EU procurement rules: transparency, equal treatment, non-discrimination and proportionality. However, having the principles included in the Bill is utterly meaningless if they are not upheld. It is vital that the principles are practised. As was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), the UK Government’s shambolic handling of the covid contracts is a stark reminder of the danger of not upholding these principles. Transparency International’s report on the public contracts awarded during the pandemic noted that critical safeguards to prevent corruption were suspended “without adequate justification” during the pandemic procurement processes. It also found “systemic bias” towards those with connections to the UK Government. The rush to try to get more PPE has already been mentioned. It was vital that PPE was procured; the issue is how that was done, which explicitly favoured those who had close links to the UK Government. That is not how it should have been taken forward.

We need measures in the Bill to ensure that the UK Government cannot unilaterally decide to suspend the safeguards and principles that are in place. The horrendous nepotistic waste of taxpayers’ money should not have happened once, and we absolutely cannot allow it to happen again. The opportunity should have been taken to include the measures put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) in his Ministerial Interests (Emergency Powers) Bill.

Lastly, but no less importantly, the UK Government should take this opportunity to ban malicious actors and organisations involved in human rights abuses from the supply chain. During the Bill’s passage in the other place, several peers tabled amendments that sought to cut companies responsible for or complicit in slavery, genocide and crimes against humanity out of the supply chain. That is a noble principle and it should be adopted regardless of circumstances. It is unfortunately necessary that this needs to be explicitly included, as products from companies with horrific records are widespread through UK procurement chains.

The UK Government have shown that they can, after delaying, dithering and being publicly shamed, remove Huawei from the UK’s telecommunications infrastructure, and there is no reason why they cannot do the same with other companies, such as Hikvision, which is directly involved in the Chinese Government’s detention of Uyghur Muslims. More than a million cameras from Hikvision are present in the UK and they are used by as many as 61% of public bodies. The US Government blacklisted it in 2019; the UK Government have not yet taken comprehensive action against this company, despite making clear that they are aware of the issue. The SNP would like to commit to working with others across the House who seek to protect the supply chain from harmful actors and ensure that public procurement does not work to enrich those who profit from crimes against humanity.

I look forward to the Public Bill Committee—I really do—and I hope we can hear evidence from those who are expert in public procurement. I have no doubt that we will table amendments to ensure that the Bill respects devolution, that human rights are protected and that environmental priorities are actually prioritised.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. My guidance is creeping down more towards seven minutes.

Draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2022 General Committees

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I appreciate you taking the time to chair the Committee today, Ms Fovargue. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the intentions behind the regulations. It is disappointing that the Scottish Government do not have the powers to do this ourselves. We do not have the information because we are not in full control of all of these things, including HMRC and DWP. We would certainly have a significantly better social security system than the UK has at present.

As a former local authority councillor—like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith—I can say from experience that local authorities in Scotland are very used to working with a lot of highly sensitive data. They have responsibilities for social care, social work and nursing provision, for example. They deal with all that data in accordance with the law and treat it with the sensitivity with which it needs to be treated.

The regulations are sensible and should be passed, in order to ensure that councils have the information and can say to parents of eligible two-year-olds, “Here is your funded childcare place, please take it up and here is more information about how to access it.” Between September 2020 and September 2021, we saw a 25% increase in the number of two-year-olds taking up those places, and we hope to see that increase further so that all of those eligible can access those services if they choose.

Lastly, the provision of free and accessible childcare is important because it gives parents the opportunity to choose whether to work. I and others like me could not make that decision because we did not have access to the same amount of funded childcare as people across Scotland and, indeed, the UK now have. It has made a significant difference to the lives of families, and I am pleased that this data-sharing agreement will allow even more families to benefit from funded childcare.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I do not intend to delay you, Ms Fovargue, or the Committee for much longer.

I welcome the speech made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. The purpose of the regulations is to improve funded childcare in Scotland, but I hope that Scotland will not have the same experience as we have had in England. In 2015, I served on the Childcare Bill Committee, which introduced the funded childcare arrangement. In the 2015 election, my party proposed a funded and costed policy for 25 hours of free childcare. The Conservatives, under the leadership of David Cameron, decided to trump that by offering 30 hours. It was a fine political move, but it had not been costed and they had not thought about it. Even by the time of the Bill Committee—Sam Gyimah, our former colleague, was the Minister—they had no clue where the money was going to come from or where it was going to go.

I am very concerned that we will put these regulations through—my party supports them and is not seeking to block them—but that Scotland will experience the same problems as those experienced by England and, I am guessing, Wales. The problem is that the principle will be agreed to, but without any mechanism or funding.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we already provide funded childcare for two-year-olds. These regulations will allow us to address those who do not have the funded places for which they are eligible. The way in which local government in Scotland works means that a concordat is signed between the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Government about things such as how this will be delivered, and this is being signed as part of the concordat.

[Christian Matheson]

I am really grateful to the hon. Lady for that information, which reassures me a little. I only hope that the Government will now look south of the border to try to improve the provision of childcare in England, which is still chaotic and hit and miss.