Procurement Bill [HL]

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 25th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, the other place has now been clear, for the second time, that it is firm in its position on this amendment. Noble Lords asked the Commons to reconsider, and it has reached the same decision.

The Bill creates new rules for suppliers and contracting authorities that will stay on the statute book for the foreseeable future. We therefore need to be measured and prudent in our approach and avoid imposing further unnecessary bureaucracy on UK businesses that duplicates both the existing provisions in the Bill and the steps being taken outside the legislation.

I commend the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for the debates he has led on organ harvesting. We share a unanimous view that organ harvesting is an abhorrent practice that has no place in our supply chains. Accordingly, if a supplier or one of its connected persons fails to comply with the established ethical or professional standards within its respective industry, including relating to the removal, storage and use of human tissue, the supplier could face exclusion on the grounds of professional misconduct. However, as far as I am aware, no supplier to the UK public sector has been involved in forced organ harvesting. Given that the exclusion grounds in the Bill have been selected based on the areas of greatest risk to public procurement, it is not necessary to single out organ harvesting in this Bill.

The Government are already actively addressing this awful practice. For example, it is an offence to travel outside the UK to purchase an organ, by virtue of new offences introduced by the Health and Care Act 2022. In addition, the Government continue to monitor and review evidence relating to reports of forced organ harvesting and maintain a dialogue with leading non-governmental organisations and international partners on this very important issue.

I make one further remark concerning an issue which, while out of scope of today’s debate, is of significant importance to this Bill and the country’s security. It relates to concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, following recent press coverage regarding surveillance equipment, which I look forward to discussing with him in person tomorrow. On 24 November 2022, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made a Statement in the other place instructing government departments to cease deployment on their sensitive sites of surveillance equipment produced by companies subject to the National Intelligence Law of the People’s Republic of China.

During our last debate in this House, I set out the definition of “sensitive sites” to which our commitment would apply and which I am happy to reiterate today. As I said on 11 September, our commitment will apply to government departments and cover their sensitive sites, which are any building or complex that routinely holds secret material or above, any location that hosts a significant proportion of officials holding developed vetting clearance, any location routinely used by Ministers, and any government location covered under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. I went on to reiterate that our commitment does not extend to the wider public sector. However, in no way is this an endorsement of the use of such surveillance equipment by these organisations or by organisations in the private sector. Indeed, these organisations may instead choose to mirror our action. I believe that some of them already have, including the police.

I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the explanation behind the Motion. She kindly referred to the amendments I tabled on Report following our debate in Committee, which focused on the appalling practice of forced organ harvesting, principally in China, which involves the removal of organs from living prisoners of conscience for the purpose of transplantation, killing the victim in the process. It is state sanctioned, widespread throughout China and has become a multi-billion-pound commercial operation.

We know that the victims are mainly Falun Gong practitioners, but more recently, evidence has indicated that Uighur Muslims are also being targeted on a massive scale. Further to that, there are several pieces of evidence suggesting that Tibetans and house Christians are as likely to be the victims of forced organ harvesting. As the noble Baroness said, my amendment was passed by your Lordships’ House on Report and went to the Commons, where it was rejected. We had another go in September and again, I am afraid, the Commons has reinserted the original provisions in the Bill.

I regret that this has happened for three reasons, the first being the scale of the atrocities being carried out in China and specifically in Xinjiang province. Secondly, Ministers are wrong to dismiss the need for the amendment. Above all else, its passage would have been a powerful signal in the UK and globally of our abhorrence of these awful practices. Thirdly, you cannot consider my amendment on forced organ harvesting without setting it in the context of the Government’s approach to China more generally. The Prime Minister has talked quite tough in recent weeks on the Government’s approach to China. However, the overall approach, to put it at its kindest, is clouded in inconsistency, ambiguity and sometimes downright confusion. That has been reflected in any number of Select Committee reports over the last year or two.

However, I recognise that this has gone as far as I could expect it to go. I am grateful to all those who supported me, particularly my Front Bench, the Lib Dems and many noble Lords around the House. I particularly pay tribute to Lord Bernie Ribeiro, who retired from the House on Monday. He has been a tower of support to me on this very worrying issue over many years. I wish him all the best in his retirement.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for bringing this issue back on a number of occasions. We share the great disappointment that the Government have not seen fit to use their majority to include this in the Bill. As the Minister herself said: at this point there is no such practice going on, so there is no jeopardy, but it puts down a marker and it makes a very important point about ethical procurement and this particularly horrifying issue. I hope the comments that Ministers have made in this place, and in the other place, are used to emphasise the need for ethical process during procurement; this is perhaps the starkest example, but there are many others. It is with regret that it leaves your Lordships’ House without the noble Lord’s amendment, which we supported.

I thank the Minister for her comment on sensitive sites and Hikvision. It is somewhat intriguing because I suspect that the reason this has come up is because Hikvision is circulating material to its potential clients—and I imagine these are the non-sensitive clients—which seeks to use the Government’s language as an implicit endorsement of its continued operation in this country. I suspect that is why the Minister has stood up and made that comment. I hope that the Government can explain to Hikvision that this is an inappropriate use of their language, to try to sell its product in the face of a very particular problem, which has been highlighted, and one that is also a problem in non-sensitive sites across the country. I am interested to understand—either offline or online from the Minister—how they are taking this up with Hikvision.

This Bill has been on a journey since it started in your Lordships’ House. The next Bill is the exception, but rarely has a Bill received so many amendments. In the main, we have substantially improved the quality of this Bill through co-operation; through the hard work of the Minister, the Minister’s team and, of course, your Lordships. The normal character of these things is that we leave matters in a jovial and hearty way, but I am afraid I am not going to because I will return to an issue.

This is not in reference to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but the fact is this Procurement Bill was constructed to guide procurement across the whole country. It is supposed to be the way in which all procurement proceeds, with one exception: the largest single area of procurement in the country, the National Health Service. That would be allowable if there was a gold standard procurement process in place in the NHS. Quite clearly there is not. The Health and Care Act 2022 has not set out a gold standard procurement process, and there have been no processes that we can see which deliver that.

Since the last time we discussed this Bill—since the last time the Minister was standing at the Dispatch Box telling us that we do not need proper procurement processes for the National Health Service—there has been further evidence of huge abuses of procurement in the NHS. We do need this, and in the absence of an actual system that sits in the NHS, this system should apply. By not applying it the Government will preside over the waste of hundreds of millions of pounds that could have been spent on necessary services, due to very poor procurement practice. In that vein we are extremely disappointed that the Government have not seen fit to take the advice of your Lordships and include the NHS in this Bill.

We look forward to seeing how this Bill is applied across the country and, I hope, to seeing some benefit from its practices.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 11th September 2023 Lords Chamber

I started my speech by paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the departmental officials who have worked on the Bill. I should like to end it in that spirit as well. I greatly appreciate the concerted engagement from the Minister, the quiet diligence of officials and the Government’s openness to moving on this important issue. In conjunction with that, I also thank Sam Goodman of Hong Kong Watch, of which I am a patron, as I have said, for some helpful background work. Given the commitment today by the Minister at the Dispatch Box to the publication of a timeline, a definition of sensitive sites and the allowance of some parliamentary oversight, I will not be moving this amendment to a Division. However, the House can be sure that I will watch this with an eagle eye and return to it, should the need arise in the future.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 102A and 102B. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I very much agree with the thrust of what he said and look forward to the results of his eagle eye, which I am sure will come to your Lordships’ House over the next months and years. Like him, I also thank the Minister for her stewardship of the Bill. It has taken so long that I recollect that on our first day in Committee, the noble Baroness herself had laid many amendments which she seemed to have to refute later on in proceedings on the Bill. At least she knows how it feels to have a government Minister reject so many well-argued points.

I thank the Minister also for what she said about the Government’s view of the appalling atrocities being committed in China, with the removal of organs from a living prisoner of conscience for the purpose of transplantation, killing the victim in the process. It is state sanctioned and widespread throughout China. The victims at the moment are known to be primarily Falun Gong practitioners, but most recent evidence suggests that Uighur Muslims are also being targeted on a massive scale, particularly in Xinjiang.

My amendment was supported by noble Lords all around the House on Report. Essentially, it gave a discretionary power to exclude suppliers from being awarded a public contract if they have participated in forced organ harvesting or unethical activities relating to human tissue, including where they are involved in providing a service or goods relating to such activities. The effect of the amendment would have been to prevent any service or goods that may have been involved in, or developed off the back of, the forced harvesting trade entering the UK. When it went back to the Commons, the Government took the provision out in Committee. This was challenged on Commons Report, led by my honourable friend Marie Rimmer. Despite support from MPs of all parties, that was not successful, so I am asking noble Lords to send it back to the Commons for further consideration.

My reasons, briefly, are threefold. First, the scale of the atrocities being carried out in China, specifically in Xinjiang, are becoming ever clearer and more horrific. Secondly, I believe that Ministers were wrong in dismissing the need for the amendment, both in the response they gave in the Commons to my colleagues and in the comments that the Minister has given tonight. Thirdly, I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that the context in which this is being debated is, frankly, that government policy towards China is completely inadequate to the threats that country poses to the interests of the United Kingdom.

On the scale of the atrocities, I can do no better than to quote what Sir Iain Duncan Smith said on Report in the Commons. He referred to the 2022 UN report, which found serious human rights violations in Xinjiang. He said:

“They seem to be about the most significant human rights abuses currently happening in the world,”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/6/23; col. 205.]


whether we use the term “genocide” or not.

What the Minister has essentially said is first that we do not need to do this because there is a discretionary power in the Bill already, and secondly that there is no evidence, as far as the Government are aware, that a supplier to the UK public sector has been involved in forced organ harvesting. On the first point, I believe that there is considerable merit in making explicit reference in the Bill to this matter, so that public authorities are in no doubt whatever that they can use a discretionary power to deal with companies that may be dealing, maybe inadvertently, in this abhorrent trade. Secondly, I think there is evidence of taxpayers’ money being spent on companies involved in forced organ harvesting. For example, pharmaceutical companies may be supplying immunosuppressant drugs to hospitals that have been reported to remove organs from prisoners of conscience.

As I have said, we cannot consider these matters without seeing them in the context of UK policy towards China. I am not going to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, nor to requote. We have now had our Lordships’ Select Committee, then chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, in its report only last month on the Indo-Pacific tilt policy. They all draw attention to the Government’s woefully inadequate response to the threat that China presents and to the very ambiguity there is in policy. We can see the obvious tension between our security, on one hand, and the willingness and wish of the Government to trade with China and to encourage Chinese investment, but I am afraid that, in trying to get a balance, we have ended up with a Government with a wholly inadequate and incoherent policy.

My amendment is very modest. All it does is give the decision-maker discretionary powers to exclude a supplier from a procurement contract if it

“or a connected person has been, or is, involved in … forced organ harvesting, or … dealing in any device or equipment or services relating to forced organ harvesting”.

It would be the first piece of UK legislation to include and define forced organ harvesting. It would be a huge step in preventing UK complicity in forced organ harvesting, and I urge the House to support it.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I was a signatory to earlier amendments and we have just heard the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, make a very cogent case for the Commons to think again about his amendments. I will be very brief, given the hour. The noble Lord built on what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, outlined just now, and his case is backed by international investigation and evidence. Thus, for example, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, not an institution that would say this lightly, concludes in relation to Xinjiang:

“Allegations of … torture … including forced medical treatment … are credible”.


The Minister in the Commons and now the Minister in the Lords have argued that current legislation covers the problem identified in this amendment, but noble Lords will have heard the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, make a very persuasive case that this is not so. My noble friend Lord Fox will comment further shortly but, if the noble Lord decides to put this to a vote, from these Benches we will support him.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

At end insert “and do propose Amendment 102B instead of the words so left out of the Bill—

102B: Schedule 7, page 110, line 31, at end insert—
“Involvement in forced organ harvesting
14A (1) A discretionary exclusion ground applies to a supplier if a decisionmaker determines that the supplier or a connected person has been, or is, involved in—
(a) forced organ harvesting, or
(b) dealing in any device or equipment or services relating to forced organ harvesting.
(2) “Forced organ harvesting” means killing a person without their consent so that their organs may be removed and transplanted into another person.””

Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete: Public Buildings

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am grateful to hear from the noble Baroness about the situation in the university sector. Of course, they will be taking their responsibilities seriously. As I know from having been involved in these sorts of organisations, the governors always spend a lot of time being concerned about, and taking professional advice on, the safety and state of buildings. Universities and hospitals, where RAAC mitigation work has been going on since 2019, are a bit different from schools, because the estates are usually concentrated in a smaller number of buildings and there are usually dedicated teams of trained estate professionals who are able to monitor and maintain the buildings.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, when the noble Baroness says that public bodies should accept their responsibilities, is she not aware—of course she is—that capital expenditure limits in the public sector are set by central government? Very often, the specifications for building materials are specified through government machinery and advice. After the survey of the NHS in relation to RAAC, why is the target to get rid of it 2035? Why will it take another 12 years?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

One of the reasons for that is that some of the hospitals in which we have identified RAAC need a full replacement. They will be part of the rebuilt hospitals programme, which is due to mature by 2030. DHSC has published a media fact sheet on RAAC in the NHS, which I think the noble Lord might find very helpful in the health context.

Cabinet Manual

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Monday 24th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, following on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will this work also look at Written Questions that remain unanswered after 10 working days? I refer to page 10 of today’s Order Paper, which lists more than 11 questions, one of which, from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, goes back to 19 June. That simply is not acceptable.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I share the noble Lord’s concerns about delays to answering Parliamentary Questions, which we all try to do our best to answer in time. When departments get behind, we are rightly chided, and I will certainly look at the point. The Cabinet Manual is perhaps a little broader and more strategic, but that is not a reason not to make sure that we are respecting Parliament through the speed with which we answer Questions, which we all find so useful in keeping us up to date on many matters.

Public Service Ombudsman for England

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to create a new single Public Service Ombudsman for England (and reserved UK matters) with modernised powers in line with the Venice Principles of international best practice standards, endorsed by the United Kingdom in United Nations resolution A/RES/75/186.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have no plans at this time to create a new single public service ombudsman for England. The Government are supportive of the ombudsman institutions and the general principles of the Venice Commission, and will consider specific proposals on ombudsman reform. We do not currently view large-scale ombudsman reform as a priority for this Parliament.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, that is a very disappointing response. We have 20 ombudsmen. It is often very confusing for members of the public taking a complaint to find which one applies to them, particularly where complaints straddle boundaries between, say, health and local government—on a delayed discharge from the NHS into social care, for instance. Putting them all together, alongside the local government and housing ombudsmen, would ensure a much more co-ordinated response and provide much better value for money. Will the Government reconsider this?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The trouble is that combining the existing public services ombudsmen—there are several, as the noble Lord explained—would be a complex and substantial undertaking. It could lead to a reduction in the quality of service for people relying on that service during the transition period, and staff would worry about their futures. I am not sure quite what just putting them together would achieve. The key thing is to have expertise and effective ombudsman decisions, which we have increasingly seen in recent years.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 30th November 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

91: Schedule 7, page 106, line 41, at end insert—
“Involvement in forced organ harvesting
15A (1) A discretionary exclusion ground applies to a supplier if a decision-maker determines that the supplier or a connected person has been, or is, involved in—(a) forced organ harvesting,(b) unethical activities relating to human tissue, including anything which involves the commission of an offence under sections 32 (prohibition of commercial dealings in human material for transplantation), 32A (offences under section 32 committed outside UK) or 33 (restriction on transplants involving a live donor) of the Human Tissue Act 2004, or under sections 20 (prohibition of commercial dealings in parts of a human body for transplantation) or 20A (offences under section 20 committed outside UK) of the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006, or(c) dealing in any device or equipment or services relating to conduct mentioned in paragraphs (a) or (b).(2) “Forced organ harvesting” means killing a person without their consent so that their organs may be removed and transplanted into another person.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is designed to give a discretionary power to exclude suppliers from being awarded a public contract who have participated in forced organ harvesting or unethical activities relating to human tissue, including where they are involved in providing a service or goods relating to such activities.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 91 I will support all the other amendments in this group.

In the Prime Minister’s speech to the Lord Mayor’s Banquet two days ago, he said that China posed a

“systemic challenge to our values and interests … a challenge that grows more acute as it moves towards even greater authoritarianism.”

I want briefly to draw the House’s attention to one aspect of that country’s behaviour in relation to the appalling forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience and to ask the Government to accept my very modest amendment as a small but important measure towards, I hope, ending this practice. This would give a discretionary power to exclude suppliers from being awarded a public contract who have participated in forced organ harvesting or unethical activities relating to human tissue, including where they are involved in providing a service or goods relating to such activities.

Forced organ harvesting in China is the removal of organs from a living prisoner of conscience for the purpose of transplantation, killing the victim in the process. It is state-sanctioned and widespread throughout China, with the Chinese Communist Party targeting individuals because of their religion, spiritual beliefs or ethnicity. The victims are known to be primarily Falun Gong practitioners and Uighur Muslims. There are also several lines of evidence to show that Tibetans and house Christians are likely victims of forced organ harvesting.

With regard to the Uighurs and other minorities in Xinjiang, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights published its report into Xinjiang in August this year, which stated:

“Allegations of patterns of torture or ill-treatment, including forced medical treatment and adverse conditions of detention, are credible, as are allegations of individual incidents of sexual and gender-based violence.”


Both Uighurs and Falun Gong practitioners are arbitrarily arrested, detained in camps, tortured, face sexual violence, disappear while in detention and are murdered on a vast scale for their organs.

The evidence is now explicit. In April this year, a paper by Matthew Robertson and Dr Jacob Lavee was published in the American Journal of Transplantation titled “Execution by Organ Procurement: Breaching the Dead Donor Rule in China”, which was cited in the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China Annual Report 2022. Their paper found that, in 71 different Chinese medical studies published between 1980 and 2015 and sourced to 56 hospitals in 33 cities, brain death could not have properly been declared, and therefore the removal of the heart during organ procurement must have been the cause of the donor’s death. The authors state in a recent article in the Tablet that

“the act of execution was joined with the act of heart removal, and was carried out by surgeons on the operating table.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

They are mandatory grounds for exclusion, so if you find that you have a security issue—as we obviously found in relation to Hikvision—those become mandatory exclusions. On modern slavery, again, they are mandatory exclusions. Clearly, if a company is able to self-clean and has shown that it has changed the arrangements, it will not necessarily stay on the debarment list. I do not want to mislead the noble Lord.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, this excellent debate has been both moving and profound, because it has dealt with horrific human rights abuses in China but has also attempted to develop an argument about our strategic relationship with that nation.

The Minister said that she was disappointed by some of the remarks. She gave us a full reply, which I am very grateful for, but I too was rather disappointed by her response. Essentially, she said that our concerns are legitimate but that this Bill is not the right place for them to be expressed. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and my noble friend Lord Coaker both suggested, this is a Procurement Bill, setting the regime for government procurement for a number of years ahead. Where better to place values—not just the issue of the lowest common denominator price—than in this Bill, which sets the parameters under which billions of pounds are going to be spent by government and government agencies over the next decade?

The arguments that the Minister put forward were technical, and the Government could have come back and tabled their own amendments, which might have met the technical issues she faces. However, ultimately, the Government have set their face against expressing some profound values in this legislation, but I think that we should do so. I would like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 91.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 28th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

The millions and the thousands can multiply very rapidly in this debate. I apologise, but I think you get the point. It is over £20 million in the course of a year—£770,000 each and every single day.

I gave the noble Baroness notice of my intention to ask about this. Who authorised those acquisitions? Who decided that they should stay there? How much has it cost to date to store these items? How much has been budgeted to keep them in store at that cost of £770,000 every day, and for how long will they be stored? How much of the PPE that has been bought has proved to be defective and unusable? I would also like to know, first, how the Government intend to report the money returned to public funds by defaulting PPE suppliers through the actions of the faulty contract PPE recovery unit. Secondly, individual settlements are protected by commercial secrecy, so how will Parliament and the public be notified about money returned to public funds by defaulting PPE suppliers through the actions of the faulty contract PPE recovery unit? Thirdly, how do the Government intend to provide transparency and accountability in relation to money returned to public funds by defaulting PPE suppliers through the actions of the faulty contract PPE recovery unit?

It is clear that the NHS should be subject to far greater scrutiny, transparency and accountability. For all those reasons, I support Amendments 3 and 173 spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which include the NHS in the definitions of a public authority for the purposes of the Bill.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton. When he speaks about the frailty of the NHS supply chain—I must declare my past presidency of the Health Care Supply Association—I am sure he is absolutely right to put these penetrating questions to the Minister.

I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 171 and 172, but I also want to speak to Amendments 3 and 173 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. She has rightly pointed to the potential confusion between two pieces of legislation in relation to the National Health Service and the procurement regime that it is to adopt in the future. The difficulty is compounded because, of course, we have not seen the draft regulations in relation to Clause 111, nor have we seen the draft regulations in relation to the amendment made in the Health and Care Act 2022 to the National Health Service Act 2006, after Section 12ZA. The 2022 Act gave huge powers to Ministers to establish their own procurement regime through regulations.

Clearly, there is every potential for confusion as to how these two sets of legislation are to work together, particularly if only NHS clinical services are to be covered by the disapplication in the Bill. That leaves a lot of questions for those working in the health and social care sectors as to how they are to operate the new processes. Given the nature of NHS commissioning and services, there are big questions about what happens if a contract incorporates clinical and non-clinical services. Under which set of regulations is procurement to be undertaken? Large hospital contracts—PFI contracts—often contain a mixture of clinical and non-clinical services, and the terms of the contract can sometimes last for 20 or more years.

Indeed, the more fundamental question is how we define “clinical services”. Some hospitals contract with private sector operators to provide, say, laboratory services the staff of which are employed by the private sector contractor. I would have called those clinical services; they are clearly directly related to clinical outcomes for patients. I am not at all sure how that is going to be covered by the two separate pieces of legislation. Of course, the NHS Confederation, which represents the bodies that operate the health service at the moment, including integrated care systems and NHS trusts, is obviously concerned about the confusion and potential distinction between the two sets of legislation.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th October 2022 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

177: Clause 30, page 19, line 24, at end insert—
“(aa) failing, in the case of a supplier with two or more enterprises that are resident for tax purposes in two different jurisdictions with a group turnover of more than €750m, to provide a copy of a tax report which meets the requirements of the Global Reporting Initiative Tax Standard;(ab) failing, in the case of a supplier that is currently under investigation for tax offences in the United Kingdom or abroad, or where the company has reached a settlement with a tax authority following an investigation for a tax offence, to disclose details of the investigation;(ac) failing, in the case of a supplier which has a group turnover of less than €750m, to disclose that the supplier—(i) is based in a tax haven, or(ii) is a subsidiary of a person based in a tax haven, or(iii) has a subsidiary based in a tax haven.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that a supplier must be treated as an excluded supplier if it does not: report its economic activities in each country where they operate and the taxes paid in each country; report details of any tax investigations; and report where it is based in a tax haven or is a subsidiary of a person based in a tax haven.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 180. It seems a long time since we were in Grand Committee debating the Bill: quite a lot of things have happened since. I am sure the Committee would wish me to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to her position. I wish her a degree of permanence—at least until the next election. Of course, she still has some amendments in her name to come. I know we may have debated them, but it is her opportunity to re-educate her department and come back with rather more robust responses than she received from the noble Lord, Lord True, although I express my thanks to the noble Lord for his stewardship of the Bill and his willingness to engage in debate with your Lordships on this important legislation.

I move on to my amendment. A few months ago, the Centre for International Corporate Tax Responsibility and Research and TaxWatch published a report on Amazon’s most profitable segment, its cloud computing business, which they argue is increasingly indirectly supported by taxpayers through hundreds of billions of dollars and pounds in government contracts around the world. In the UK, it said that Amazon’s cloud computing business won almost £600 million in government contracts between 2018 and 2021. It also highlighted that in 2020 Amazon signed a master agreement which allows it to treat all UK central government agencies as one client, which will further increase the volume of its UK contracts.

Despite Amazon collecting public money through large and rapidly growing government IT contracts, the tax payments of this company remain opaque. Indeed, a 2021 research report into Amazon’s tax practice shows that only a fraction of the company’s UK sales are accounted for in its UK accounts. Sales in the UK and elsewhere appear to be channelled through subsidiaries in Luxembourg and, although Amazon says that UK revenues recognised in Luxembourg are reported to HMRC, there is no public accountability as Luxembourg accounts do not disclose how much tax, if any, the company is paying in the UK. Amazon’s practices are replicated by many multinational companies, and the aim of my amendment is to press the Government to use the Bill to start to take some action. The Bill offers a chance to ensure an increase in transparency around the tax affairs of potential suppliers of government contracts. It also offers the opportunity to ensure the exclusion of companies that have engaged or are engaging in egregious tax abuse.

Tax non-compliance has been a potential ground for exclusion from government contracts for some time. In 2013, the Cabinet Office issued Action Note 06/13, which sought to ensure that companies bidding for government contracts declared any tax non-compliance in the procurement process, but this has had no effect whatever. Following FOIs to more than 40 government departments by the think tank TaxWatch, not a single incidence of the supplier being excluded was reported. It was also clear that very little compliance monitoring was occurring. The majority of departments responded saying that there were no incidents reported, but not every department even provided that response; some said they were unable to answer as it would take too long to respond. Will the Minister tell me why departments are so weak in holding these companies to account?

The Bill currently includes misconduct in relation to tax as a mandatory exclusion ground in Schedule 6, Part 2, but mandatory exclusion grounds do not mean that the supplier must be excluded from a procurement competition. A supplier becomes an excluded supplier only if it qualifies for a mandatory exclusion ground and

“the circumstances giving rise to the application of the exclusion ground are likely to occur again”.

The legislation also covers participation in defeated avoidance schemes. The mandatory exclusion ground covering defeated tax avoidance schemes includes instances where a tax return has been amended due to the participation of the taxpayer in a tax avoidance scheme and where the taxpayer has reached a settlement with HMRC, in which case there is no need for the person to receive an adverse judgment in a tax tribunal. When it comes to individuals and companies that have engaged in tax avoidance, the provisions of the Bill are wide-ranging but mandatory exclusion grounds apply only where there has been an assessment by HMRC. That assessment is final, meaning that any appeal rights have been exhausted.

We know that tax litigation is often complex and sometimes takes an exceptionally long time to wind its way through the justice system. When it comes to large companies, including the multinationals, it is common practice for the tax authority to settle tax disputes without penalties being charged.

We know that major companies—Amazon, Google and General Electric—have been investigated in recent years by authorities around the world for committing serious tax offences, but in each instance they have settled rather than admitting guilt and receiving full penalties. As such, none of these companies is barred from procuring government contracts and, with that, taxpayer money. The exact terms of these settlements are not always available to the public. Often settlements between major corporations and tax authorities involve an adjustment to tax liability without an admission by the company engaged in any wrongdoing; the dispute is simply characterised as a difference of opinion over a tax treatment. One way to strengthen the Bill would be to require a company to disclose whether it was currently under investigation for tax offences in the UK or abroad, or where the company had reached a settlement with a tax authority following an investigation for a tax offence.

The Global Reporting Initiative tax standard is a finance reporting standard that provides enhanced public transparency for companies and their tax payments. In particular, it provides for companies to report their economic activities in each country where they operate and the taxes paid in each country—country-by-country reporting. This is a transparency mechanism for revealing corporate tax avoidance. This often involves a company moving profits from higher-tax countries into tax havens. If a company is engaged in profit shifting, that will appear in country-by-country reporting by a company showing very high profits in low-tax countries where the company has little economic activity, and low profits in higher-tax countries where much more activity takes place. For example, Amazon does not provide a breakdown in its accounts of revenues, profits and tax payments in non-US markets by jurisdiction, making it difficult for investors, the public and tax authorities around the world to evaluate whether Amazon is engaged in responsible tax practices.

The implementation of the GRI would allow for some necessary scrutiny. A group of Amazon investors put forward a shareholder resolution at the Amazon AGM in May 2022 calling for greater transparency in the company’s tax affairs and to make disclosures in line with the GRI. That resolution was defeated but was backed by 21% of independent shareholders. Country-by-country reporting is mandatory for multinationals engaged in the extractive and logging industries under rules implemented by several legislatures around the world. Country-by-country reporting is mandatory in the banking sector under EU legislation. Numerous multinational organisations now voluntarily report using the GRI tax standard. My amendment would require all large companies bidding for government contracts to produce a copy of reporting under the GRI tax standard. In addition, the supplier should report details of any tax investigations and report where it is based in a tax haven or is a subsidiary of a person based in a tax haven.

My second amendment would provide for a Minister to lay regulations listing those jurisdictions that are considered to be providing a tax haven to suppliers. Clearly my amendments are not the whole answer to the issue of tax shifting by multinational companies, but using the Bill would be one of the stepping stones that we could take to a much fairer tax situation in this country. I hope the Government will be sympathetic. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I rise as a cipher for my noble friend Lord Wallace, who has tabled a number of amendments in this group. He is unable to attend this and the next day in Committee, so I will be deputising for him.

I too welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to her new role, and congratulate her on getting to complete this Bill, which must be regarded as the plum legislative job available—so I say “well done” to her. During a debate on the economy a couple of weeks ago, she said from the Dispatch Box that she was very keen on “simplification” and cited simplifying procurement as being in her sights—now, here she is. However, before her well-deserved promotion, on the third day in Committee on 11 July, “Back-Bench Lucy” was more strident. She said:

“The more I listen, the more I feel that this Bill in many respects strikes the wrong note. It is overregulatory and calls for a rethink, which I hope the Government will be thinking about.”—[Official Report, 11/7/22; col. GC 359.]


On those grounds, I suggest that she should exercise her new power, withdraw this poorly drafted Bill and come back with one more in keeping with simplification and with her aversion to overregulation.

In the absence of any enthusiasm from the Minister for doing that, I speak to Amendments 306, 307, 308, 320 and 328, tabled by my noble friend Lord Wallace, some of which I have signed; I do not support all of the others. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for their support for Amendment 320.

An effective debarment and exclusion regime protects the public purse from rogue actors and drives up corporate government standards. Exclusion and debarment from procurement are potent anti-fraud and anti-corruption tools. The issue of companies with long records of corruption winning public contracts in this country is appalling. Nearly a quarter of local councils experienced fraud or corruption in 2017-18. Fraud costs the public purse up to 5% of government spending overall. I thank Spotlight on Corruption for these numbers.

The UK’s record on excluding these types of companies from participating in public procurement is not good, at best. The list of companies either from the UK or operating here that have been shown to have engaged in serious corporate misconduct is unfortunately lengthy and well publicised; yet, under the existing debarment regime, it has been, in practice, all but impossible to apply a discretionary exclusion in the absence of a conviction. There has been very little use of exclusion in the UK to date under current EU-based rules, and the Procurement Bill is an opportunity to address the weaknesses in those rules that have prevented exclusion from being used effectively to protect the integrity of the public purse. I am sure that the Minister would approve of replacing an EU law with a better UK law—these are suggestions for how to make it better.

This Bill as formulated contains some significant issues and crucial gaps that could seriously undermine the effectiveness of the debarment register and exclusion regime. There is a risk that the register will stand empty for many years, which would undermine the reputation of the register and the UK’s anti-corruption efforts in general. It is therefore crucial to get this right at this critical stage of the Bill’s development.

Amendment 306 seeks to make criminal offences for sanctions evasion grounds for exclusion from public procurement. The Bill currently contains no references to criminal offences for sanctions evasion. Given the Government’s current policy of imposing sanctions to ensure its foreign policy goals in relation to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and their ambition to use sanctions to achieve important foreign policy goals to be a force for good globally, this is a major omission. Incorporating criminal offences for sanctions evasions in the Bill would make companies across the UK take their obligations to comply more seriously. This amendment redresses this omission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

As the noble Lord said, we will come on to discuss those aspects, and I will try to answer that question when we get there. I have probably said enough on that.

Amendment 328 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Fox, provides for a new discretionary exclusion ground in relation to deferred prosecution agreements. This issue was explored in the Green Paper. Due consideration was given to feedback from the public consultation, as well as discussions with the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service. The Government’s response to the Green Paper set out the rationale for their decision not to include a separate exclusion ground on deferred prosecution agreements. In brief, the actions taken and commitments made by suppliers as part of the DPA typically constitute good evidence of self-cleaning. Reaching a DPA requires a supplier to accept culpability for the offence, co-operate with the relevant authorities and make reparations. Prosecuting authorities typically will not consider a DPA appropriate unless the supplier has already made reforms, such as proactive changes to corporate structures or the replacement of personnel.

DPAs will involve judicially approved terms that the supplier must commit to—for example, on actions to improve compliance and audit functions within the company, and external reviews to test those improvements to ensure that further misconduct does not occur. Non-compliance with a DPA is unlikely to be something that contracting authorities are equipped to assess. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, will understand and accept that.

Compliance is for either the Serious Fraud Office or the Crown Prosecution Service to assess, depending on which is the owner of the DPA in question. If a supplier fails to comply with a DPA, there are a number of options open to the enforcing body, including the prosecution of the supplier for the original criminal misconduct, but that cannot be part of procurement law, or for enforcement by the many differently sized authorities engaged in buying goods or services in the public sector.

Finally, Amendment 443 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, seeks to remove

“a British Overseas Territory or a Crown Dependency”

from the definition of a UK supplier. The Bill confers rights on UK suppliers in a number of places, including, in Clauses 18 and 19, an entitlement to be considered as part of a competitive tender, or, in Clause 89, to access remedies. They are also used as the basis for an assessment of no less favourable treatment in the non-discrimination provisions, in Clause 82(2). This amendment would remove this guaranteed access to the UK’s procurement markets from suppliers from Gibraltar, which is the only overseas territory or Crown dependency whose suppliers currently enjoy access under the existing procurement regime.

Although overseas territories and Crown dependencies are not part of the UK constitutionally, they do not become party to treaties in their own right. The UK must extend the territorial scope of its ratification of treaties to include them. As such, overseas territories and Crown dependencies are unable to secure rights to markets in the United Kingdom in the same way as other states. That is a long way of saying that in view of the special nature of the trading relationship between the UK and overseas territories and Crown dependencies, it is right to include them in the definition of a UK supplier.

This discussion has been useful and illuminating to me. I respectfully request that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. I particularly welcomed her comments on SMEs and training rollout. I really agree about the importance of investment in training as the Bill is enacted. However, I remain concerned about the Government’s approach, which seems supine in many respects when dealing with these multinational companies.

Only this afternoon at Oral Questions, we had a fascinating exchange about the remarkable decision to award Fujitsu a £48 million contract to upgrade the police national computer, given the role of that company in developing Horizon software for the Post Office. We were told by a Minister that in effect, there was no alternative because of the continuing arrangements with that company. Listening to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about performance issues, corruption, competition infringements, which were added to by my noble friend, and the issues on tax, essentially the Minister has an ideological objection to the use of contracts to further government policy outside the narrow procurement interest. This is where I fundamentally disagree with her.

It is not good enough simply to say that it is down to HMRC. Procurement can be used to enhance policy in a number of areas. Many of these multinational companies are taking this country for a ride. We need to see tougher action. Having said that, I hope that we can continue to debate this important issue. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 177 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

185: After Clause 30, insert the following new Clause—
“Excluding supplier for involvement in forced organ harvesting
(1) Subsection (2) applies if a contracting authority determines that a supplier is located in a country categorised by a Minister of the Crown as at high risk of forced organ harvesting.(2) The contracting authority must treat the supplier as an excluded supplier in relation to the award of a public contract involving— (a) any device or equipment intended for use in organ transplant medicine or activities relating to human tissue, or(b) any service or goods relating to organ transplant medicine or activities involving human tissue.(3) A Minister of the Crown must by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision for the listing of countries considered to be at high risk of forced organ harvesting.(4) A country is at high risk where—(a) the country has high levels, or is suspected of having high levels, of forced organ harvesting or trafficking in persons for purposes of the removal of organs; or(b) the government of the country is directly or indirectly seen as supporting or indirectly supporting forced organ harvesting or trafficking in persons for purposes of the removal of organs.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment is designed to exclude suppliers located in a country at high risk of forced organ harvesting from being awarded a public contract involving any device or equipment intended for use in organ transplant medicine or activities relating to human tissue or any service or goods relating to organ transplant medicine or activities involving human tissue.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, in a sense, this amendment is very different from my first two. None the less, we are seeking here to use procurement legislation to advance government policy in relation to the awful practice of forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience in China. The practice was found by the China Tribunal—as advised by Edward Fitzgerald KC, who provided expert legal opinion to it—to be a crime against humanity and part of a possible genocide against Falun Gong.

Forced organ harvesting in China involves the removal of organs from a living prisoner of conscience for the purpose of transportation, killing the victim in the process. It is state sanctioned and widespread throughout China, with the Chinese Communist Party targeting individuals because of their religious and spiritual beliefs or ethnicity. The victims are known primarily to be Falun Gong practitioners, but more recent evidence indicates that Uighur Muslims are also targeted on a massive scale. Further to that, there are several lines of evidence showing that Tibetan and house Christians are likely victims of forced organ harvesting.

Regarding Uighurs and other minorities, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights published its report on Xinjiang in August, stating:

“Allegations of patterns of torture or ill-treatment, including forced medical treatment and adverse conditions of detention, are credible, as are allegations of individual incidents of sexual and gender-based violence.”


It also stated that the treatment of Uighurs and others in Xinjiang by the Chinese Communist Party

“may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity.”

That is a most important and profound statement, made only three months ago.

Both Uighur and Falun Gong practitioners are arbitrarily arrested, detained in camps and tortured. They face sexual violence, disappear while in detention and are murdered for their organs, on a vast scale. A study published in April this year in the American Journal of Transplantation investigated whether Chinese transplant surgeons established first that the prisoners are dead, before procuring their hearts and lungs, or whether the cause of death was the organ procurement itself. The study was based on the dead donor rule—the most fundamental ethical rule in organ transplantation. It states that organ procurement must not commence until the donor is formally pronounced dead; the procurement of organs must not cause the donor’s death.

The paper, entitled Execution by Organ Procurement: Breaching the Dead Donor Rule in China, was written by Matthew Robertson and Dr Jacob Lavee. Dr Lavee is a transplant surgeon and the founder and a former director of the heart surgery unit at the Sheba Medical Center in Israel. In 2005, a patient told him that his insurance company had scheduled a heart transplant operation for him that would take place in two weeks. The patient flew to China and received the heart as arranged. That would be impossible unless the time of death of the donor was known in advance. Following this incident, Dr Lavee spearheaded the organ transplantation law in Israel, the first of its kind in the world, which prevented insurance companies from reimbursing expenses associated with illicitly obtained organs. Along with a range of reforms encouraging domestic donation, this stopped the China-to-Israel organ-trafficking pipeline in its tracks.

During this recent research, Robertson and Lavee found, in 71 different Chinese medical studies published between 1980 and 2015, sourced from 56 hospitals in 33 cities, that brain death could not properly have been declared. Therefore, the removal of the heart during organ procurement must have been the cause of the donor’s death. The authors state in a recent article in the Tablet,

“the act of execution was joined with the act of heart removal, and was carried out by surgeons on the operating table.”

Just think of that.

My amendment is designed to exclude suppliers located in a country at high risk of forced organ harvesting from being awarded a public contract involving any device or equipment intended for use in organ transplant medicine or activities relating to human tissue or any service or goods relating to organ transplant medicine or activities involving human tissue. Essentially, it would prevent any service or goods that may have been involved in or developed off the back of the forced organ harvesting trade from entering the UK. This includes organ transplant training, such as the training of Chinese organ transplant services, related education and research, as well as organ transplantation equipment.

I have been very encouraged by the Government’s recent willingness to legislate on this issue, such as through my amendment to the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill last year, which included consent provisions for imported human tissue for use in medicines; and the amendments to the Health and Care Bill in April this year, prohibiting the commercialisation of organ tourism. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, have been huge supporters of this approach and I am glad to see them here today.

These legislative steps have set a good precedent, both in our country and as a signal globally. I emphasise to the Minister that passing amendments such as this into British law is significant internationally. Other countries observe what is happening, and we are part of a global movement to try to get action to stop this reprehensible behaviour.

I am grateful to the Government for their sympathy for our approach, but I want to go further. In April this year, it was stated in a ground-breaking business and human rights legal advisory, written by international law firm Global Rights Compliance, entitled Do No Harm: Mitigating Human Rights Risks when Interacting with International Medical Institutions & Professionals in Transplantation Medicine, that

“medical professionals and institutions who have collaborations with Chinese medical institutions involved in forced organ harvesting face a risk of being charged with complicity in international crimes, including crimes against humanity.”

It goes on to explain that

“aiding and abetting ‘consists of practical assistance, encouragement, or moral support which has a substantial effect on the perpetration of the crime’.”

Prestigious medical institutions, such as the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, are now taking action. In April this year, the society issued a policy that it would no longer accept submissions to its journal or for presentations at its conference related to transplantation and involving either organs or tissue from human donors in the People’s Republic of China. My forced organ harvesting amendment to the Procurement Bill is critical to protect our UK medical professionals and institutions from complicity. I beg to move.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in what was a powerful, disturbing and very thoughtful speech. I think all of us who are privileged to be in the Committee today are indebted to him for that and the way he introduced this group of amendments, to which I am a signatory, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff. She sends her apologies for not being able to be physically present today, but she strongly supports the amendment, as does the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro. It is worth bearing in mind that both of those noble Lords have held very high office in the medical institutions in this country and it is good that their names are attached either to the amendment or to the arguments that go with it.

I declare interests as vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uyghurs, who the noble Lord referred to, and on Hong Kong, as patron of Hong Kong Watch and as a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. This amendment deals with a gruesome and barbaric lethal practice that has been prevalent in China. Last Thursday, here in the Moses Room, a debate was held on the International Relations and Defence Select Committee report on China, trade and security. The noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, was present throughout proceedings and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was present and contributed to those proceedings, during the course of which a number of us referred to the levels of trade and, inter alia, the level of procurement that is carried out with China by the United Kingdom.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, pointed out that we have a £40 billion deficit in trade with the People’s Republic of China. That would be reason enough for considering, in the context of resilience and dependency, why procurement policies with a country designated by the Government as recently as last month as “a threat” to the United Kingdom should be radically readdressed. During the debate last Thursday in the Moses Room, I referred to earlier debates in this Committee on the Bill specifically about Hikvision. It is worth recalling that the noble Lord, Lord True, was gracious enough to have several meetings in his office to discuss this, as well as dealing with it at that stage. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, well enough—I congratulate her, as others have done, on her appointment as Minister—to know that she will take this as seriously as he did.

The company Hikvision is responsible for the surveillance cameras in Xinjiang referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. But these cameras were purchased through our procurement policies by great departments of state and are used in local government and by public authorities up and down the length and breadth of this country. These cameras are used to impose the surveillance state on the Uighur Muslims referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.

At the conclusion of our debate last Thursday, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, promised he would write to me in response to my question specifically about whether, during the next set of proceedings on the Bill—therefore, on Report—the amendments that many of us argued for at earlier stages will be agreed by the Government. I hope that the noble Baroness’s officials will talk to his officials before he writes that letter, so that we genuinely get joined-up government on this.

I hope they will also look at the Biden Administration’s legislation on goods made by slave labour, something that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I have raised in other legislation and that we both, as well as other members of the Committee, feel very strongly about. They should also look at legislation the Biden Administration introduced called the CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, which draw together the prioritisations of investing in domestic industry, tackling climate change and reducing dependency on authoritarian regimes. All those things should be done in the context of this Bill.

In parentheses, I remind the Committee that we bought 1 billion—not 1 million, but 1 billion—lateral flow tests from the People’s Republic of China and 24 billion items of personal protective equipment where China was recorded as the country of origin. The cost to the United Kingdom was a staggering £10.9 billion—about the equivalent of our now reduced overseas aid and development budget. This is British taxpayers’ money pouring through our procurements into the pockets of a country that stands accused of the appalling barbarism identified in Amendment 185, and indeed of genocide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Clearly, I have learned during this debate. I will obviously have to learn a little more about how we have tackled this issue. As was said right at the beginning of the debate, there is clearly some difficulty around the principle of how much detail to include and how many things to cross-reference in the Bill but, in the light of the noble Lord’s helpful clarification, I will go away, look at the various areas and come back to him.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and my noble friend Lord Coaker for their profound speeches. Of course, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, who cannot be here today.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, put a number of pertinent questions to the Minister, not just about the UK-China hospital partnership but more generally about the principles behind our trade with China. I must say that I find government policy inconsistent and incomprehensible. The new Administration, if I can call them that, need to get a grip on what exactly our relationship with China ought to be in terms of diplomacy, trade and strategic investment. Over the past few years, it has seemed completely all over the place.

There is an argument—my noble friend Lord Coaker referred to it—about the principle of how much we should use procurement legislation for wider, desirable policy aims. I believe passionately that it is right to use a Procurement Bill to try to influence this abhorrent practice. I am grateful to the Minister because she gave a careful response and appreciated the seriousness of this abhorrent practice, which we are doing our best to help eradicate. She also acknowledged the changes made in legislation in the past few years. However, she was critical of the amendment’s wording; she has quickly taken on the mantle of ministerial office again, by finding all amendments that do not emanate from her own department technically deficient.

The Minister’s key point around what is wrong with the amendment is that it is guilt by exclusion. I understand that but I believe that the amendment is tightly drawn. It is not just about excluding suppliers

“located in a country categorised … as at high risk of forced organ harvesting.”

It would exclude only in the event of

“a public contract involving … any device or equipment intended for use in organ transplant medicine or activities relating to”

that. That is tightly drawn and entirely justifiable.

The Minister also said that these practices would be covered by the exclusion grounds in the Bill. We have now had a debate on that; I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised some important questions. I accept that one can look to general provisions in a Bill and say, “Well, those cover it”, but I believe that there is sometimes a strong place for explicit provision on a practice that we find abhorrent. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to discuss this with us between Committee and Report because I am convinced; I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Coaker for his pertinent comment that we will come back to this on Report. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 185 withdrawn.

Carer’s Leave: Government Departments

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I think the Government should give attention to that. Regarding my being responsible for the Civil Service in this respect, it is a collective responsibility. The problem my noble friend refers to is one of which too many people are all too aware.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that one of the problems with the national insurance hike, which was allegedly to pay for social care, is that most of that money in the first few years will go to the National Health Service and very little, if any, will support carers, who are doing such a great job?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, it remains to be seen how that policy goes forward. Obviously, as the noble Lord said, the Government are implementing a comprehensive reform programme and investing £5.4 billion over three years from April 2022. He has expressed a certain cynicism about it, but I hope it will lead to improvements in social care more broadly.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 18th July 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, here I pay the penalty for the discussion we had before the Committee started: there are more government amendments that I must move in this group. I will beg to move a range of amendments today.

Government Amendments 90 and 91 make improvements to preliminary market engagement notices. Together they ensure that, where a contracting authority chooses not to publish a preliminary market engagement notice, a justification must be set out in any subsequent tender notice. I know this will be welcomed, particularly by small businesses, which often rely on early market engagement.

Government Amendment 277 makes provision for contract details notices. It removes a superfluous reference to contracts awarded under this part, which is unnecessary as the definition of a public contract in Clause 2 covers that which needs to be covered.

Government Amendments 278 to 281 correct a timing error in relation to the publication of a contract details notice for a light-touch contract. This will ensure that the contract details notice is published first, within 120 days of entering into the contract. The publication of the contract is required within 180 days of entering into it, allowing time for the contracting authority to make any necessary redactions before publication.

Government Amendments 282 to 286 are at the request of Northern Ireland and exclude transferred Northern Ireland authorities from the obligation to publish contracts above £2 million.

Government Amendment 287 is a minor drafting change, which better reflects the operation of the provisions.

Amendments 355, 356, 357 and 359 make changes to the requirements in Clauses 64 and 65 for contracting authorities to publish information about, respectively, compliance with the prompt payment obligation in Clause 63 and payments made under public contracts. Northern Ireland has chosen to derogate from both those requirements, so these amendments reflect that policy.

Government Amendment 358 makes it clear that the exemption for utilities in Clause 65(4)(a) applies to private utilities only. Government Amendment 403 clarifies that user-choice contracts which are directly awarded are not subject to the requirement to publish a contract termination notice.

Government Amendments 429 and 430 are technical amendments to Clause 79 to reflect consistent drafting practice and the fact that Northern Ireland has chosen to derogate from the below-threshold rules in Part 6 and so does not require the threshold-altering power in subsection (7).

Government Amendments 446 and 447 to Clause 84 also relate to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has chosen to derogate from the requirement for its contracting authorities to publish pipeline notices.

Government Amendment 457 inserts a new clause entitled “Data protection” after Clause 88. This is a now standard legislative provision that reiterates the need for those processing personal data under this Bill to comply with existing data protection legislation. As we discussed on an earlier group, I look forward to engagement with noble Lords opposite on issues of particular concern relating to processing and holding data. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 445 in this group. This amendment is concerned with the challenge facing charities seeking to obtain contracts from public authorities. The Bill is ambitious in its aim to simplify procurement rules, which is very welcome, but it is important that it is done in a way which does not make it more difficult for small businesses and particularly charities successfully to bid for contracts.

We know from past experience with current contracting rules and law that charities experience some barriers here. I hope that in our discussions on the Procurement Bill it will be recognised that a large proportion of the voluntary sector is pretty fundamental to the delivery of public services—indeed, in some cases the voluntary sector is the leading provider of such services. For example, according to research commissioned by DCMS, voluntary and charitable organisations and social enterprises won 69% of the total value of contracts awarded for homeless services between April 2016 and March 2020, and 66% of the total value of contracts to support victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse.

We know that the voluntary sector can produce outstanding results; we know about its ability to build trusting and long-term relationships with communities that are often excluded, its focus on prevention, its versatility and its agility. So I welcome the requirement for contracting authorities to publish pipeline notices—the Minister referred to this in relation to one of his amendments today—but, given the utility of such notices for smaller providers and the market diversity and improved services that could be cultivated by giving smaller providers a chance to prepare the bid, we want transparency to be prioritised in the requirements to publish pipeline notices; hence my amendment.

My Amendment 449 is slightly different but it none the less raises issues in relation to the way in which public authorities engage with the private sector—or the independent sector, depending on how you look at it. This amendment arises from concerns that public bodies are failing to act within the spirit if not the letter of the freedom of information legislation in relation to procurement contracts.

I just want to refer the Minister to an openDemocracy report, published last year, which looked at the operation of the Freedom of Information Act in 2020. It found that

“2020 was the worst year on record for Freedom of Information Act transparency … Official statistics published by the Cabinet Office show that just 41% of FOI requests to central government departments and agencies were granted in full in 2020—the lowest proportion since records began in 2005 … The Cabinet Office is blocking requests from MPs about its use of public money to conduct political research … Stonewalling, a brutally effective tactic for evading FOI, is increasingly prevalent … Government departments are cynically exploiting a legal loophole to deny timely access to information in the name of the ‘public interest’ … Government departments are failing to comply with a legal requirement to work constructively with requesters”.

The FoI Act was meant to be a safety net for members of the public so that there would be as much openness as possible. However, there are two obstacles to that happening. The first is the operational aspect of policing the Act through the Information Commissioner. The commissioner has been seriously affected by huge cost-cutting. Last November, Elizabeth Denham, the former commissioner, told the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee that the ICO’s resources were “40% less” than in 2010 while, at the same time, the number of requests had increased by one-third. In its most recent annual report, published in July 2021, the ICO noted that there had been a build-up of the caseload over the financial year.

The other obstacle to the public being able to find out what is going on is the subject of my amendment. One exemption in FoI legislation relates to commercial interests in Section 43(2). This is a qualified exemption subject to the public interest test. Its application ought to be straightforward but, unfortunately, it is used regularly to refuse information in often the most absurd situations. The outgoing commissioner said:

“The reality of the delivery of Government services involves so much of the private sector now. The scope of the Act does not … cover private sector businesses that are delivering public services. I think that is a huge challenge. I have seen statistics that say up to 30% of public services are delivered under private sector contracts, but those bodies are not subject to”


FoI legislation.

I am afraid that the NHS is a frequent offender when it comes to this. We know that, over the years, the Government and the NHS have looked to expand private sector involvement. There is a long-established trend of trying to outsource some NHS functions to private contractors and a recent trend to set up what I can only describe as tax-dodging subcos, as they are called, to avoid VAT payments and reduce staff’s terms and conditions. This is where public health bodies set up their own subsidiary companies and transfer staff over. Basically, they do it to get around VAT payments, but we have also seen them use it to reduce the terms and conditions of the staff who are so employed.

What is so objectionable is that trusts frequently refuse to disclose information about what they are doing. Decisions are made in secret. In one example, an FoI request went in for the business case. In the decision-making record, the request was turned down on the basis of commercial confidentiality. This happens up and down the country. Section 42(2) is also used to refuse to disclose information long after any commercial considerations have gone.

This is a serious issue. As members of the public, we have a right to know when the NHS outsources services. The FoI legislation was never envisaged as getting in the way of transparency in those cases. When you combine it with the enforcement problem that we have, in essence we are seeing the FoI legislation not being effective. I am not sure how hopeful I am, but I am ever hopeful that the Government will see the error of their ways in relation to FoI. It was set up with the best of intentions and its principles still stand today in terms of transparency, but the more we see the public sector using the private sector, the more FoI considerations ought to come into play.