Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes a very sensible point. As time goes by, verifying what it takes for a person to qualify, if they are not currently registered, is something that the new body will need to clarify. Through the process of meaningful engagement in the coming weeks, I hope that some of these issues will be satisfactorily resolved.

We want to be as accessible as possible to all those who qualify, and we want to make the verification process for those who qualify as straightforward as reasonably possible. That is the guiding principle. I cannot give the details here today, but I will return to my hon. Friend’s point in future.

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

I pay tribute to my constituent Mark Ward, who is here today. He contacted me soon after I became a Member of Parliament and, like many, has continued to be a dogged campaigner. This report is some vindication, but justice will not be served until the campaigners have seen all aspects of the report being implemented.

I want to ask a few specific questions. The Minister said that he could not set the interim payments above £210,000 because of a fear of the safety of those payments. Is he therefore implying that £210,000 is the potential minimum payment that he expects? It is lower than the minimum interim payment for sub-postmasters, so I would like some clarity on what that means.

The Minister also says that he expects the payments to start within 90 days. Does he mean 90 days from now, to be completed by the summer, or a 90-day period in the summer? That was not quite clear.

Finally, public inquiries are at the gift of the Prime Minister. There is no formal way of agreeing to an inquiry, apart from campaigners and Members such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) forcing the Prime Minister to take action, which does not seem like a coherent way to right wrongs in this country. Will we start to think about a proper public inquiries reform that includes a duty of candour, a public advocate and a way for Committees of this House to launch such inquiries when serious matters occur?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before the Minister answers those questions, I make it clear that, after a statement of this kind, each Member has the opportunity to ask a question. I am very anxious that everybody who wishes to ask a question should be able to do so on behalf of their constituents, but it really has to be one question per Member. I have been lenient with the hon. Gentleman, and I suspect that the Minister will want to answer all his questions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Commons Chamber

The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

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

1. What progress he has made on considering the recommendations of the second interim report of the infected blood inquiry.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

2. What progress he has made on considering the recommendations of the second interim report of the infected blood inquiry.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (John Glen)]

The Government recognise the urgency of the issue and are committed to progressing the work as quickly as we can. For that reason, we have appointed an expert group to advise the Cabinet Office on detailed technical considerations. On Monday in the other place, the Government committed to bring forward an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill on Report, with the intention of speeding up the implementation of the Government’s response to the infected blood inquiry.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

My constituent Mark Ward, a haemophiliac, contracted HIV after being given contaminated blood at the Royal Free Hospital. He was 14. He is now 54, and it is four and a half years since he gave evidence at the inquiry and a year since the initial recommendations came out. It is a scandal, is it not, that the Government were forced to give in by a defeat in the other place? Frankly, the Government have been complicit in people’s lives continuing to be lost. How long before compensation will be paid? What date should I give Mr Ward? How many people’s lives will be lost while we wait for the Government to get into action?

[John Glen]

There are 54 working days before the report is published on Monday 20 May. The Government have committed to respond to it within 25 sitting days, but I will do everything I can to bring forward as substantive a response as possible as soon as possible after that date.

Ministerial Severance: Reform

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

I will make a bit more progress, and then I will give way.

We are talking about severance payments today. Government Members may wish to speak about red herrings and other issues, but let us talk about the abuse of the severance payments system that we have seen over the past few years, because we should take a clear-eyed look at it. We are not seeking to scrap those payments, nor should we. As Geoffrey Howe said, they were introduced so that Ministers who had given long and dedicated service to their country could adjust to the loss of that salary. I do not think anyone on the Opposition Benches has any quarrel with that. Over the 40 years that those payments have existed, there has never been any previous occasion where it has been open to question that the rules by which those payments were made were wrong. Then, however, we came to 2022-23. It was a year of chaos in our politics, unprecedented in modern times. Sadly, it was a year in which the current severance scheme had its flaws suddenly exposed and its loopholes shamelessly exploited.

Before I address what went wrong with the system in that financial year, I will do something that I find personally unusual, which is to praise some members of Conservative Cabinets. It will be hard for me, and I feel my ancestors starting to shift uneasily in their graves, but I want to give credit where credit is due, and that credit goes to a small collection of Secretaries of State who, for want of a better phrase, did the right thing when it came to severance entitlements during that year of chaos. I praise the current Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), who was sacked as Health Secretary in September 2022, but reinstated by the current Prime Minister seven weeks later. What did he do with his severance payment? He returned it in full when he regained his old job, so he deserves praise for that.

I praise the current Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, the right hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), who resigned after two days as Education Secretary in July 2022, but turned down the £16,000-plus severance payment for which those two days had made her eligible, and she deserves praise for that. I even want to praise the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson), the former Chief Whip, the former Defence Secretary and the former Education Secretary. He claimed his £16,000-plus severance in 2019 when he was sacked for leaking top-secret information. He claimed his £16,000-plus severance again in 2021, when he was sacked for all his various school fiascos. However, he finally turned down his severance payment in 2023 after two weeks in the Cabinet Office, because he recognised that it would be inappropriate to accept it while under investigation for bullying. So let us praise him for that—if for nothing else.

What those examples show is that it is entirely possible for individuals to choose to waive their severance payments, or return them, when they feel that accepting them would not be right. Perhaps those individuals even reflected that, at the height of the cost of living crisis—which had been greatly exacerbated by the actions of their Government—it would seem inappropriate to accept thousands of pounds from the taxpayer as a reward for the contribution they had made to the chaos. Perhaps they realised how much like a smack in the face that would feel to their constituents. Either way, those individuals did do the right thing.

However, the hard fact is—numbers bear this out—that, for every one case in the last financial year where a Tory Minister decided that accepting that severance payment would be inappropriate in the circumstances, in at least six or seven other cases the opposite was unfortunately true. That is why we find ourselves here, trying to fix a system of ministerial severance that has been brought into disrepute by dozens of its most recent beneficiaries.

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

My right hon. Friend has mentioned many Secretaries of State. We also had a short-lived Prime Minister, who is entitled to some payments for the rest of her life. Should we not also look at whether it is appropriate for people who leave in disgrace to end up with lifelong pay cheques?

[Emily Thornberry]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is an important argument that will need to be considered.

Ministerial Code: Investigation of Potential Breach

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

I of course agree that there is a difference there, but I would not wish to speculate about this particular circumstance, as my right hon. Friend will understand.

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

If the Prime Minister is gathering the evidence and asking for more information, what is so wrong with just launching an investigation properly through the correct channels?

[Jeremy Quin]

There is nothing incorrect with the process, which is being conducted properly and professionally. The Prime Minister will gather the information and then decide the next steps. It is very simple.

Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st February 2023 Public Bill Committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Florence Eshalomi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) service quality and accessibility;

(b) value for money of the expenditure;

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

(d) resilience of the service being provided;

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

(f) implications for public accountability and transparency;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order. I will call Lloyd Russell-Moyle next, as he was referenced in the shadow Minister’s speech.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

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

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

[Florence Eshalomi]

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

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

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

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

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

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

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

[Alex Burghart]

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

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

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

Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th February 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Florence Eshalomi]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mr Efford.

Amendments 13 and 14 reiterate our amendments 15 to 19 to clause 29, which we debated last week. We think that competitive and due process should be followed as much as possible, and that the bypasses enabled by clause 41 should be used as little as possible. Although we understand why direct awards might be needed, we believe that they must be used with caution.

One element of the clause that we find troublesome is the provision on excludable suppliers and the public interest test. The rationale for direct awards can be related to defence, as under paragraph 18 of schedule 5, and the matters listed in the “overriding public interest” test in clause 41(5) are serious. We understand why the Government may look to bypass many of those grounds should the issues be serious enough, but we do not believe that it should ever be the case that threats to national security are awarded contracts, in particular under direct awards.

Previously in Committee, we attempted to move national security concerns from discretionary to mandatory grounds. We feel that the necessary amendment would require us to go beyond the public interest test for excluded suppliers and exclude suppliers with national security concerns across the board. The fact is, as we go further up the food chain of security sensitivity, the risk to our country from exposing our supply chain to national security threats becomes more severe.

To take the public interest test on constructing, maintaining or operating critical national infrastructure, we understand that that is of the utmost importance for the country, but we should not expose our network to security threats if the need for such a test is so great. The risk of doing so is catastrophic. It could mean malign surveillance in vital infrastructure undermining our entire security system and the fundamental safety of the state. In such cases, there must be a clear instruction for contracting authorities to look for alternative provisions that do not put the state at risk.

We feel that our amendments address such proportionality concerns. They would ensure that we never turn to national security threats for procurement, preventing the threat that those could cause to critical infrastructure. The Minister will say that we need flexibility in the system and that decision makers can assess the threat where necessary, but the reality is that we cannot expect procurement officers to be national security experts and to spot every threat that could be present with a supplier with national security concerns.

It is worth bearing in mind that, in high-pressure situations when wrong decisions can have hugely damaging unintended consequences, proper and strong legal checks and balances are critical, even at urgent times. Again, we may want to remember what happened during the covid pandemic. The National Audit Office investigation into Government procurement during covid-19 found:

“General guidance issued by the Crown Commercial Service recommends that awarding bodies publish basic information about the award of all contracts within 90 days of the award being made. Of the 1,644 contracts awarded across government up to the end of July 2020 with a contract value above £25,000, 55% had not had their details published by 10 November and 25% were published on Contracts Finder within the 90-day target.”

The result was that £10 billion-worth of PPE was written off, with auditors rebuking the Department of Health and Social Care for its management of taxpayers’ money during the pandemic. The Government are now locked in legal battles with the companies that failed to deliver on their contractual obligations. In the first quarter of 2022-23, the Government are still disputing 176 contracts worth nearly £3 billion. It is fair that even in an emergency we must abide by solid procurement principles if we are to avoid unintended consequences that put public finances and our national security at risk.

I think it is fair to say that we cannot be so arrogant as to assume that this would not be done inadvertently. During her speech on Second Reading, which I have alluded to already, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) highlighted several issues that point to the need for tightening up in this area. She said:

“At the moment I have local authorities from around the country writing to me saying, ‘Alicia Kearns, can you please give me advice on whether or not we as the local council should procure from this company?’ That cannot be the way we do this. We must ensure local government is not the entry point for hostile states.”

She added:

“Finally, on supply chains, public authorities need to be able to investigate, and we must ensure that this goes high enough up the chain. Canadian Solar is looking to build a solar plant in my constituency. It sounds lovely—'Canadian Solar? What a great company’—but when we actually look into it, it is GCL-Poly, a Chinese-owned, Chinese-run company that is complicit in Uyghur genocide. We must ensure that the burden to investigate is properly addressed.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 363.]

I do not want to say that all these companies are necessarily a national security threat and need to be addressed by the Bill, but the points made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton and others show how easy it is for suppliers that may be of concern to the state to slip through the cracks. All these things concern us, and they should concern the Minister. With such risks present, I do not think there can ever be a proportional use of a national security threat in direct award procurement.

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

My hon. Friend is making very good points. We have the Committees on Arms Export Controls, which scrutinise not just Government sales but commercial sales abroad. Is there not a case for a similar Committee, or for the existing Committees to have a wider scope, to look at imports that might be national security threats? Would that not be a way to shine some light on this?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and I hope that the Minister responds to it. It shows the many different angles from which, inadvertently, we could see national security threats coming into the country. We must make sure that we avoid that. We need to look at the issue of national security threats when we are directly awarding procurements.

There is very little in the clause in legal terms preventing the use of national security threats in direct awards; as my hon. Friend highlights, there is no guarantee that they will not be used. Our amendments 13 and 14 would prevent threats from entering the system via direct awards. I hope that the Minister will support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[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. 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 ---

[Chris Evans]

Clause 53 sets out the need for the publication of contract details for all contracts over £5 million. According to the Government’s own figures, one in every three pounds of public money—some £300 billion a year—is spent on public procurement. Ultimately, the taxpayer deserves to know that money from the public purse is being well spent.

I know from my time on the Public Accounts Committee—sooner or later, we will start doing PAC bingo, as every time I stand up I seem to mention how long I was on that Committee. I was there for five years. I promise that I am not going to speak for five years, Mr Efford—

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Go on.

[Chris Evans]

Fidel Castro was the master—I think 18 hours was his minimum. If you want me to do that, Mr Efford, I can. With lunch coming up, I think I would be the most popular member of the Committee.

I know from my time on the Public Accounts Committee that transparency leads to improved Government spending. There should be no place to hide poor contract decisions or, in the worst cases, possible cronyism. Unfortunately, there have been several scandals relating to procurement and Government spending. We have already heard this morning about the questions surrounding the procurement of PPE during the pandemic, which led, unfortunately, to the huge sum of £10 billion of public funds being spent on unusable, overpriced and even undelivered PPE.

At a time when so many families are struggling with the cost of living crisis, we cannot allow the public to feel that their hard-earned tax money is not being spent properly, and we all must work to restore public trust in Government procurement. The Government’s own “transparency ambition” document outlines a concerning failure to provide transparency in our procurement system. These reforms are long overdue and I am pleased that we are able to talk about them today. I think we can all agree that it is important that we increase trust in Government, and one of the key ways we can do that is through transparency. Labour would go further in government than the present Conservative Government. We would introduce a Ukraine-style publicly accessible dashboard of Government contracts tracking delivery and performance.

I am pleased that the Government have made some commitments to increasing transparency on large projects. The reforms—particularly the introduction of a number of new procurement notices covering the entire procurement lifecycle from planning through to contract expiry—are a welcome step forward. However, there are a few areas where we need clarity on implementation.

For example, at clause 53(2), the Bill states:

“A ‘contract details notice’ means a notice setting out—

(a) that the contracting authority has entered into a contract, and

(b) any other information specified in regulations under section 93.”

The Minister said on Second Reading that the Government

“will deliver world-leading standards of transparency in public procurement”—[Official Report, 9 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 343.]

and that there is a

“statutory obligation on the Government to deliver a single digital platform to host this data.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 348.]

However, it is unclear what a contract details notice will look like in practice, and how much detail will be required—in other words, how much transparency will actually be provided. It seems strange that there is no outline of how much data will be provided and what form it will take. I worry that will allow for only the very basic details of public contracts to be provided. Could the Minister explain his understanding of what transparency notices will look like and what information they will be required to contain?

A concern raised by the Local Government Association is that the clause risks contradicting other pieces of legislation, which, in turn, risks the ability to achieve one single digital platform for procurement. The LGA has suggested that the Transport Act 1985, the Service Subsidy Agreements (Tendering) (England) Regulations 2002 and the best value transparency code may have an impact on the implementation of the Bill. Could the Minister tell us whether that has been resolved, or what plans the Government have to ensure that other legislation does not interfere with the implementation of the single digital platform?

Overall, I welcome the goals of the clause, but I feel that it requires closer attention to ensure that it is properly implemented.

11 am

Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 2nd February 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Florence Eshalomi]

As the Minister outlines, the clause obliges authorities to divide larger contracts into smaller lots where that is appropriate for the contract. That is a useful and necessary power, and it is one that we hope SMEs will welcome. Breaking down contracts is a good way of making them more accessible for smaller companies. I mentioned the evidence from John Lichnerowicz, who said that it can be difficult for all but larger suppliers to take on bigger contracts that are not broken down. His written submission states that

“overstretched Procurement Departments would lump requirements into a single large procurement which would go to only the biggest companies in their field who would then have the freedom to pick their favourite sub-contractors effectively eliminating the contribution of equally capable sub-contractors and adding a main contractor’s margin into the sub-contractor’s costs for little benefit”.

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

In a number of contracts awarded recently by my council, the overall contractor ended up subcontracting people who had made separate individual bids but did not have the capacity to take on the bigger contract and therefore were not awarded it on that basis. Having big contracts is just a way of diverting money away from the taxpayer and into shareholders’ pockets, is it not?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend for that valuable point. What we want for SMEs, and what SMEs tell us they want, is fair access to Government contracts—public money that should be going back into local communities up and down the country. Unless we ensure that larger contracts can be broken up into smaller lots and awarded directly to smaller companies, there will be a repeat of what we see with those big contracts. No one wants those same practices to be employed all over the country. I want the Minister to stress what oversight will be put in place to ensure that the important provisions in the clause are carried out and to ensure that all our SMEs truly benefit from public contracts.

[Alex Burghart]

As the hon. Lady will see in clause 18(2), contracting authorities will be required either to arrange by lots or to report on that; they will be required to give a reason, so there will be transparency.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown characterised money from public contracts as going into shareholders pockets. Obviously, larger contracts are also going to very successful charities. I can think of lots of examples of that in areas where I have lived and areas where I work and live now, so I do not wish to give the impression that is always the case.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Even if it were going to these mega-charities, which are huge international organisations and firms, it surely is not right for them to come in and take a contract, and take the top slice off it if the work is still done by small, local organisations. Whether they be for profit or not, local, small organisations should have a chance of just getting the smaller elements of the contract directly, should they not?

[Alex Burghart]

It is wonderful to hear the hon. Gentleman supporting our Bill once more. Making contracts more accessible to small and medium-sized enterprises is a major purpose of the Bill. It is not always mega, international charities that are getting local contracts. In Essex, I see that is not the case.

[Alex Burghart]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Award of public contracts following a competitive tendering procedure

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I beg to move amendment 95, in clause 19, page 14, line 16, at end insert—

“(aa) must disregard any tender from a supplier that does not guarantee the payment of at least the Real Living Wage to all its own employees and contracted staff and those of any sub-contractors;”

This amendment, together with amendments 96 to 99, is designed to ensure that no public contract can be let unless the supplier guarantees the payment of the Real Living Wage to all those involved in the delivery of the contract.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 96, in clause 41, page 28, line 36, at end insert—

“(3A) A contracting authority may not award a contract under this section to a supplier that does not guarantee the payment of at least the Real Living Wage to all its own employees and contracted staff and those of any sub-contractors.”

See explanatory statement to Amendment 95.

Amendment 97, in clause 43, page 30, line 12, at end insert—

“(5A) A contracting authority may not award a contract under subsection (1) to a supplier that does not guarantee the payment of at least the Real Living Wage to all its own employees and contracted staff and those of any sub-contractors.”

See explanatory statement to Amendment 95.

Amendment 98, in clause 45, page 31, line 14, at end insert—

“(aa) permit the award of a public contract to a supplier that does not guarantee the payment of at least the Real Living Wage to all its own employees and contracted staff and those of any sub-contractors.”

See explanatory statement to Amendment 95.

Amendment 99, in clause 119, page 77, line 41, at end insert—

“‘Real Living Wage’ means the hourly wage rates for London and for outside London calculated annually by the Resolution Foundation and overseen by the Living Wage Commission (or their successor bodies);”

This amendment inserts a definition of the Real Living Wage for the purposes of Amendments 95 to 98.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

Amendments 95 to 99, tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds East, would place legal requirements on contracting authorities in respect of the Resolution Foundation’s real living wage in their procurements. That would ensure that no public contract could be awarded unless the supplier guaranteed the payment of the real living wage to all those involved in the delivery of the contract, including subcontractors.

While the principle behind the amendments is admirable, the Government cannot support them. It is imperative that all contracts are awarded on the basis of the best value for money for the taxpayer and that staff employed on the delivery of public contracts are paid fairly, in line with existing legal requirements. But using procurement rules to compel private sector employers to pay their workers beyond minimum legal requirements would be disproportionate.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown talked about a floor. There is a floor: for this Government, it is the national minimum wage, or the national living wage for workers over 23. He also mentioned insourcing. Obviously, procuring authorities are completely at liberty to insource if they so wish, and the Bill does nothing to prevent that. If procuring authorities feel that they can get better services, a better deal or better conditions by insourcing, they are entirely at liberty to do so.

I should also let hon. Members know that when constructing a contract, a procuring authority can stipulate pay and conditions as part of that contract. Procuring authorities have big levers at their disposal.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Can the Minister give me an assurance that the terms and conditions that procuring authorities can issue can be the sole reason for not awarding a contract, if a supplier does not fulfil that sole clause?

[Alex Burghart]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an absolutely categorical answer, but I can tell him that procuring authorities have it within their power to use that as part of a suite of conditions.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I am not quite clear whether the Minister is unable to give me an assurance from his position, or because procuring authorities cannot do so. If he just cannot give me an assurance from his position, I would appreciate his writing to me to confirm whether procuring authorities have the ability to put in a clause that says, “We can disregard contracts that do not fulfil our wages and conditions requirements.”

[Alex Burghart]

I will certainly let the hon. Gentleman know.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North raised a number of general points; I encourage her to go back and read Hansard. I am delighted that she is here; I am delighted that Scottish MPs are in the UK Parliament, and that the Scottish people voted to keep them here at the last referendum. I am very pleased that she is on the Committee and bringing her experience to it.

The hon. Lady will have heard me say in the Westminster Hall debate the other day that I wish the SNP was more involved in the running of the constitution of the United Kingdom. I wish, for example, that it was prepared to take up its seats in the House of Lords, in order to engage with debate there and further the interests of the people of Scotland. Alas, it would seem that the SNP has better things to do.

The hon. Lady said that I have said that she should not be talking about these matters. I really do not mind at all if she talks about these matters, but obviously, some amendments have Barnett consequentials and others do not. As long as she is happy for me to discuss what goes on in Holyrood and in Scotland, I am very happy for her to discuss what goes on in Westminster and in English authorities. I have no problem with that at all.

Returning to the issue at hand, as I say, it remains open to contracting authorities to include conditions or criteria around pay and remuneration in their tenders. Should they feel it is appropriate in the individual circumstances, they can design a procurement around those criteria. I respectfully ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I would have been willing to withdraw the amendment if the Minister had been able to give me a cast-iron guarantee that procuring authorities could reject a contract solely on the basis of a failure to meet a wage level. He has not been able to give me that guarantee—although I welcome that he will be writing to me to confirm the position—so I do want to test the water on amendment 95. I will not move the other amendments.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi]

While our response to amendments 30 and 31 is lukewarm, we think that they are important. We want all contracting authorities to consider value for money for the taxpayer when making procurement decisions, but there is a substantial risk of accepting below-value tenders for bids. Procurement has to be sustainable, and we know too well the risks when we get that wrong.

When considering the Bill, we must all remember 15 January 2018 and the collapse of Carillion. When it went into liquidation, it employed 42,000 people, including nearly 20,000 people in the UK. It also had a liability of £2 billion to some 30,000 suppliers and subcontractors, some of which sadly fell into insolvency themselves as a result of the collapse. While there are excludable grounds relating to poor procurement practices set out in later clauses of the Bill, I do feel that these amendments provide another check against the reckless behaviour of companies such as Carillion.

In 2018, following the collapse of Carillion, the then Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), said:

“It is staggering that the Government has attempted to push risks that it does not understand onto contractors, and has so misunderstood its costs. It has accepted bids below what it costs to provide the service, so that the contract has had to be renegotiated. The Carillion crisis itself was well-managed, but it could happen again unless lessons are learned about risk and contract management and the strengths and weaknesses of the sector.”

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

To some extent, has that not already happened again on the east coast franchise? Twice, unrealistic bids have been accepted and then collapsed, requiring the Government step in. It is not unusual for that to happen, so the amendments are good but probably not strong enough.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that those lessons do not seem to have been learned.

The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex went on to say:

“Public trust requires that outsourcing better reflects public service values. The Government must use this moment as an opportunity to learn how to effectively manage its contracts and relationship with the market.”

The amendments will not fully solve the problems associated with Carillion, or the problem just mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown, and a culture shift in procurement should have taken place following the collapse of Carillion. However, they do provide a safeguard for authorities to use against abnormally low and unsustainable bids.

Finally, will the Minister outline the wider impact of changing “most economically advantageous tender” to “most advantageous tender”?

Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 31st January 2023 Public Bill Committees

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

Very often, these contracts consider only value for money and the relationship between the contracting parties, not the consumer. We have tabled other amendments that look at social value and the consumer, but is it not important, particularly in relation to utilities, that the consumer is key? The outcome of that is that the consumer gets a better service, rather than the contracting parties scrimping and saving, or slicing off money for their friends.

[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.

[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.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I want to raise the disastrous Southern Water and its continued spillage of sewage into our seas. Many of my constituents have become ill from sea and river swimming. Southern Water was prosecuted and found guilty of breaching water quality standards and pumping pollution into our rivers and oceans, but in the same year, the chief executive received a six-figure bonus. Clearly, there is something wrong with these utilities: there is no competition, never any procurement and they have the contract permanently, forever and ever. Does a clause that does not allow a company to be excluded from any form of procurement in the future simply let such a company continue to misbehave, as regulations are weak and shareholders run away with the profits?

[Florence Eshalomi]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. A number of these companies know that they can get away with it. What they are doing is effectively legal, yet for our constituents who have to suffer the consequences it is not fair. The Government have spoken about trying to make a Procurement Bill that is fair, transparent and value for money, but this is not value for money because our constituents will receive hefty fines if they are a day late with their water bill or even if they send a package without the correct postage. We see the situation with Royal Mail and the chief exec, who, when he appeared before the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee a few weeks ago, was not very clear about the bonus he received, even though the figures were there and the Chair quoted them back to him. It cannot be acceptable for managing directors, chief execs and CEOs to continue to receive big payouts and for their shareholders to be paid while the services that our constituents and the public rely on are not delivered.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The case of British Telecom and Openreach is another good one. In my constituency, they planned to make all the engineers redundant and to move them to a place in the midlands at lower pay through a fire and rehire scheme. Fundamentally, that means that people will not have well-paid local engineers ploughing money back into the local economy. Is that not the problem of trying to centralise services and underpay engineers and technical staff? The profits go to offshore companies and they do not get recycled into the local economy.

[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.

Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 31st January 2023 Public Bill Committees

I still believe the Government have an awful lot of work to do on this. They should be leading from the front in this regard, but they should also be saying to every authority and organisation that is responsible for spending public money that this is one of their top priorities—if not the top priority—and therefore must be followed when making procurement decisions.

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

I rise to support all the amendments in this group. I will talk a little bit about the importance of requiring people to consider social value. Currently, councils might consider it. It is an option for some, and many councils weave through the requirements and the paperwork to do so. I think about Liverpool City Council or Preston City Council; many Labour councils are leading the way in navigating the current system.

In Sussex, this situation causes real problems, where some councils are proactive and others not. A year and a half ago, our domestic abuse services, run by a local charity called RISE, went up for tender. RISE was created by women in the city, with support from the council. This time around, the contracting authority was East Sussex, West Sussex, Brighton and Hove, and the police trying to do it together. As only Brighton and Hove had social value as a key part of its procurement process, social value was dropped entirely. The procurement process did not consider RISE’s social value whatsoever.

Unsurprisingly, RISE lost the contract. That meant that decades of understanding the needs of women from an organisation that had grown out of the Brighton Women’s Centre—a successful centre that I have taken Justice Ministers to a couple of times—and the refuge support that was provided, was no longer there. A national organisation, with no presence in the city, came to take over. The problem is that not only is the money now taken out of the area and distributed elsewhere—an enterprise has the contract rather than a charity—but when procurement comes around next time, there will be no local competition because the experience will have been lost and RISE’s ability to bid again will have been depreciated.

The service could well have been within the council, so no procurement would have been needed. However, because we wanted women to run it themselves and for it to be women-led, it was an external to the council. That meant procurement rules were applied and the women’s organisation lost out to a housing organisation—not even an organisation specialising in domestic violence, abuse, refuge or any of the key areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi]

I oppose amendment 28; it would remove Lords amendment 46, which was added on Report. Clause 13 currently mandates the Government to give due regard to a number of important principles before publication of their national procurement policy statement. Those principles follow on from the procurement principles promised in the Bill— namely, promoting the public good, value for money, transparency, integrity, fair treatment of suppliers and non-discrimination.

Those principles are important. We know that public good allows us to put what we believe is best for the country at the heart of procurement. When we also consider the huge amount of money spent on procurement —ultimately, it is the public’s money going towards delivering goods and services—it is right that the Government expect the money to be spent in the public’s interest. Procurement must always have that idea in mind, and it cannot be driven by any other aim of individuals in Government or other private individuals.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

It is particularly important to include these principles in the Bill. Although we all agree with them, have there not been many accusations that during covid, the principles were not followed? We know that a huge amount of reclaimed money has still not been discovered. There were fast-tracks for mates and friends with no experience. People lobbied and pushed for their mates to get contracts—we know that because one Member of Parliament has had to resign over it and the scandal is ongoing. Without having these principles in the Bill, there is a danger that even if Conservative or other Governments are whiter than white, the public will not believe it and think that something murky is going on? That destroys trust in politics, so including them will protect us all.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important point; I will highlight that further as I make progress.

It would be completely wrong, especially when households up and down the country are struggling to put the heating on during this cold winter, to not carry out the due diligence and get every bit of public value out of our procurement budget. Again, this is public money and, as my hon. Friend highlighted, transparency is even more critical now. The Government must not take money from the taxpayer and then be opaque about how it is spent. As has been highlighted, we saw during the pandemic why that principle was so important. Shining a light on our procurement not only is fair, but makes it more efficient and helps to achieve more value for money for the public.

During the pandemic, we saw billions of pounds of personal protective equipment written off. I believe that greater transparency in the process could have helped prevent some of that waste and some of the scandals that unfortunately lie at the Government’s doorstep today. We have concerns about transparency in the Bill as it stands, and I want to speak about that at greater length.

Integrity ties all this together. Ensuring good management and fighting against fraud and corruption is critical in ensuring public trust in the system and ensuring we get value for money. That links closely with transparency—we need a transparent system where integrity naturally flows and corruption is highlighted. It also links to ensuring that the public get their money back when contracts are not carried out or are carried out to a poor standard. Too often in the current system, those who deliver poor services get away with it. They are even awarded further contracts despite poor performances. We do not see enough money clawed back: just before Christmas, the figure was just over £10 million from fraudulent PPE contracts during the pandemic. Perhaps the Minister can update us on that; I hope that it is far more, considering the amount of waste in that area.

Fair treatment of suppliers is also vital to maintaining the best possible procurement system. I know that that may be frustrating at times when considering wider policy goals. It is always tempting to mandate certain procurements to support groups such as SMEs or to follow agendas such as levelling up, yet this is equally as important as the other principles.

We cannot have favouritism in the system or decide what is best based on the supplier and not the merits of the offer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown highlighted, we saw that during the pandemic, with the VIP lanes ultimately being ruled unlawful in court. In her ruling in January last year, Mrs Justice O’Farrell said the Good Law Project and EveryDoctor had established that the VIP lane system was

“in breach of the obligation of equal treatment”.

She went on:

“There is evidence that opportunities were treated as high priority even where there were no objectively justifiable grounds for expediting the offer.”

It is clear that that cannot happen again. I hope the Minister will outline what steps are being taken to ensure that that principle is adhered to and that there are consequences for going against it.

Similarly, non-discrimination is an important principle to ensure we show no favouritism among suppliers. That is particularly important when we sign up to trade agreements and want to ensure respect between partners. I expect the Minister to say that we should trust the Government and that it will be in a policy statement, but if the Government can go against their own words in the Green Paper, why should we trust them now?

More importantly, the amendment ensures that future policy statements from any Government would have to follow these principles in procurement. I think we all agree that the principles are important, and should a future Government want to go against them, that should be done via primary legislation and not through a policy statement with far less oversight. Primary legislation can always be introduced, so we are not tying a Government to the principles for life, but given their importance to the system that runs through the Bill, any policy note brought by this piece of legislation should take this into consideration. I urge the Government to think carefully and withdraw amendment 28.

I will now speak to amendment 7 and urge the Government to go further to strengthen the procurement principles in the policy statement. Our amendment 7 would introduce cyber-security as a strategic national priority for the Government. The past 12 months have reminded us of the risks to our security from every corner of the globe—from nation states, criminals and rogue actors. This year’s National Cyber Security Centre annual review confirmed that cyber-crime continues to be the most significant threat for consumers and small businesses. Looking at the big picture, it is clear that the cyber-security threat is not at the forefront of minds when it comes to risk, despite the recent joint warning from the heads of MI5 and the FBI that commercial organisations on both sides of the Atlantic are increasingly being targeted by state-sponsored hackers. This is a challenge that requires us to raise our game domestically and collaborate more effectively internationally.

Endpoint security is a major challenge, particularly for the public sector. The Government’s cyber-security strategy is very welcome, but fails to mention device security once. When it comes to cyber-security, everyone thinks about software, but the resilience of our PCs, laptops and printers is often under-appreciated. A lack of protection for hardware in our schools and hospitals leaves the UK vulnerable to malign actors, and data shows that the Government remain an attractive target for cyber-attackers, with 40% of cyber incidents between 2020 and 2021 affecting the public sector. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster recently acknowledged that the UK is now the third most targeted country for cyber-attacks, behind only the USA and Ukraine.

Combating fraud requires the Government, businesses and individuals across the UK to work together. Greater co-operation and knowledge sharing can make a real difference. Raising awareness of the different types of fraud we face and its impact on all corners of the UK is the first key step to arming us with the knowledge to stay safe online. The NCSC’s cyber aware campaign—which in the run-up to Christmas revealed that victims of online shopping scams in the same period last year lost an average of £1,000 per person—is a great move in the right direction. We need to ensure our policies and requirements have greater teeth to better protect UK plc, and there are three simple steps that the Government can take to do that. Now that the UK has left the European Union, we are in a much stronger position to defend our national interest within our own public procurement rules. If the Bill allowed the Government to exclude suppliers to the public sector on cyber-security grounds, that would send a strong signal to malicious actors around the world.

Our amendment would insert cyber-security requirements as a required purchasing criterion for public sector procurement into the national procurement policy statement, which sets out national priorities and guidance for contracting authorities. It would make cyber-security one of the strategic national priorities for procurement, and would strengthen the Bill’s national security focus. I hope it gets cross-party support and is accepted by the Government, as it would help to safeguard the UK from attacks from rogue actors and nation states, and would bring us into line with best practice from across the world.

Papers Relating to the Home Secretary

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

That is the problem. We have these reports in the papers and the allegations that have been made, and we must bear in mind that this is not simply about the security lapses that the Home Secretary herself has recognised and admitted to; it is also about reports of further leak investigations during her time as Attorney General. We are simply asking for factual information about whether or not these were raised as concerns and whether or not this was an issue of concern for the Cabinet Office and the Cabinet Secretary when the Prime Minister made his reappointment decision.

This goes to a wider problem about the way in which the Prime Minister appears to have been taking his decisions. The Government have confirmed that the Prime Minister knew about the complaint from the former Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), against the Cabinet Office Minister, the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson), which also involves very serious allegations, including about the use of language. We should remember, too, that that Cabinet Office Minister was previously sacked from the Government by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for leaking information from the National Security Council. He has now been reappointed to the Cabinet Office—the very office that is responsible for supporting the National Security Council and leading on cyber-security. This matters—maintaining standards, maintaining the ministerial code and showing leadership on security matters.

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

Is not the reason that we have to ask for these papers to be laid before the House and put in the public domain that, time and again, those on the Government Benches have shown that they lack any judgment on national security, probity and integrity? They had a Prime Minister who had to resign in scandal, and there have been numerous scandals and leaks and a dangerous lack of regard for national security. In normal times, the Prime Minister would be able to see these documents, and they would not need to be presented to the House because this would have been dealt with, but these are not normal times, because the Conservative party has shown that it does not regard national security in the same way that we do.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point: national security matters for all of us. This is a time when the national security threats that our country faces have changed. We face new threats from hostile states who wish to do our democracy harm. We face cyber threats from those who want to undermine our national interest. Cabinet Ministers are the custodians of that national interest, and we need all of them to take that seriously and not be careless about the risks that we face and the impact of a lack of leadership on these kinds of issue.

Sadly, the reality is that we have had a series of Conservative Prime Ministers who have not taken these issues seriously. The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), at the height of the Skripal crisis, as I said earlier, wandered off to a Russian villa in Italy, met an ex-KGB agent, took an unknown guest, did not report it to officials and still cannot remember whether Government business was discussed. The right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) was accused of using her private phone for sensitive Government business, and the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) has defended them all, reappointing as his Home Secretary someone his own Back Benchers refer to as “leaky”.

If this is all nonsense, then Government Members should support the motion and show us that there is not a problem—show us that the Prime Minister does take this incredibly seriously, has asked the right questions and has got the right reassurances. He has only been in post two weeks, and already we have this chaos. He said he wants to stand up for integrity, so enforce the ministerial code. He said he wants professionalism, so appoint people who can do the job. He said he wants accountability, so support this motion and show some accountability to the House.