Lords consideration of Commons amendments to the Procurement Bill - Sep 11
|
Motion on Amendment 1 Moved by Baroness Neville-Rolfe That the
House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1. 1: Clause 2,
page 2, line 13, leave out “including the NHS” The Minister of
State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con) My Lords, in
moving this Motion I will speak to Amendments 1, 4, 5, 81 and 82. I
am very pleased to bring this important Bill back to the House
today for consideration of amendments made in the other place. It
is, I...Request free trial
Motion on Amendment 1 Moved by
Baroness Neville-Rolfe 1: Clause 2, page 2, line 13, leave out “including the NHS”
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con) In the other place, we made a number of important changes to the Bill, including a debarment appeals process, clarification of the City of London’s status under the Bill, at its request, and provisions to address trade disputes relating to procurement. Importantly, we also took significant steps to strengthen national security provisions in the Bill, creating a new mechanism that will allow us to protect public procurement from risky suppliers. We also committed to removing Chinese surveillance equipment from government departments’ sensitive sites and dedicating additional resources within the Cabinet Office to scrutinise suppliers for potential national security threats. It is now crucial that we take the Bill through to Royal Assent, so that we can implement its many useful provisions. This first group of amendments focuses on procurement rules for healthcare services and the national procurement policy statement. They overturn amendments made to the Bill on Report in this House. Amendments 1, 81 and 82 are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the Bill and the regulation of healthcare procurements. Engagement with the NHS has identified the requirement for a bespoke regime for healthcare services to drive the integration of healthcare and the development of better, more joined-up patient pathways through healthcare systems. This responds to the idiosyncrasies of the health system, as identified by those who work in it. The forthcoming provider selection regime is a free-standing regulatory scheme of procurement rules which commissioners of healthcare services in the NHS and local government will follow when arranging healthcare services in their area. Parliament accepted this when passing the Health and Care Act 2022, which was debated for many days in this House. The DHSC published the results of its latest consultation in July and aims to lay the regulations in Parliament this Autumn. It would be incredibly unhelpful at this critical stage for both schemes, when both the healthcare regulations and the Procurement Bill are on the cusp of delivery, to start attempting to unpick it all. Doing so would add unacceptable and entirely avoidable costs and delays to both programmes for no tangible benefit. Amendment 1 removes from the definition of a public authority in Clause 2(2)(a) the words “including the NHS”. This addition is unnecessary because it clearly meets the test for a public authority set out at Clause 2(a), which is that it is publicly funded. This is backed up by the fact that the relevant NHS bodies to be covered by this Bill as central government authorities are identified in draft regulations to be made under the power at Schedule 1(5). These regulations were consulted on over the summer and have been welcomed in this regard. Setting out the list of central government authorities in regulations is appropriate, as updates are needed from time to time as organisations inevitably change. Moreover, the NHS is not a single legal entity and does not have a clear meaning in law, so the naming of the NHS as a public authority in Clause 2 would have reduced clarity. I turn now to Amendments 81 and 82. The version of what was then Clause 116 inserted on Report in this House needed to be removed and replaced with a provision that enables the DHSC to proceed with the provider selection regime. This is crucial for the reasons I have already set out, and I emphasise that this House will have the opportunity to scrutinise the new affirmative regulations when they are laid. I hope that I have been able to provide the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, whose Motions 1A and 81A deal with these matters, with sufficient reassurances and that she will not press her amendments today. Amendments 4 and 5 removed two amendments from Report stage in the Lords relating to the national procurement policy statement. These required that, prior to publishing an NPPS, the Minister must give due regard to a number of specified principles and mandated the inclusion of a number of priorities in the NPPS itself. In respect of the first amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has subsequently tabled a modified version of it—in Motions 4A and 4B in lieu—which, as before, would require the Minister drafting the NPPS to have regard to a set of principles. The modification suggests a set of principles more in line with those we have already established in Clause 12, and I am happy to set out the Government’s stance on this issue now. The Government recognise that these principles are important to procurement, which is why they are already reflected throughout the Bill. For example, value for money, integrity and maximising public benefit are set out as procurement objectives in Clause 12, which I have already mentioned. Contracting authorities must have regard to these when carrying out procurements, and transparency requirements already run throughout the Bill.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) There are other specific requirements in the Bill that place obligations on contracting authorities regarding the fair treatment of suppliers and non-discrimination in decision-making. On value for money, I know there is concern from across the House that it is often interpreted to mean lowest cost. We have sought to address this through the move from most economically advantageous tender to most advantageous tender at Clause 19, which stakeholders tell us is a powerful signal in this regard. Including a similar set of principles in respect of the NPPS risks creating duplication and confusion when we are looking to simplify the regime. However, while the NPPS should focus on the priorities of the Government of the day, many of them are already reflected in the current non-statutory NPPS introduced by this Government, and we have consistently demonstrated our commitment to them through measures such as the strengthening of social value policy following the collapse of Carillion and the procurement policy on carbon reduction introduced in 2021. In addition, the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 will continue to exist alongside the new regime established by the Bill. I hope that this will satisfy the noble Baroness. The second amendment made by this House added a sub-section which required the inclusion of specific priorities in the national procurement policy statement relating to achieving targets set under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021, meeting the requirements set out in the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, promoting innovation among potential suppliers and minimising the incidence of fraud. I believe that these issues are already addressed in the Bill—for example, in Clause 12—or elsewhere outside of this legislation. For example, the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 requires contracting authorities to consider the economic, social and environmental well-being of an area when planning specified procurement, and there are additional obligations imposed by the Environment Act 2021. From 1 November 2023, Ministers will be under a statutory duty to have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement when making policy and will be subject to this duty when preparing the NPPS. Finally, the scope and extent of the NPPS needs to be flexible, and these things should not be set in stone. Noble Lords have highlighted net zero, social value and innovation, but new challenges arise, such as the security threat from the Russia-Ukraine war. The Government of the day need to be able to respond to each major new challenge in an appropriate manner, without needing to change primary legislation. I beg to move. Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 1 Moved by
Baroness Brinton
Baroness Brinton (LD) During the passage of the Health and Care Act 2022, the very short Clauses 79 and 80 gave the NHS exemption from this Bill, with procurement rules to be introduced in secondary legislation by the Health Secretary. Seventeen months on, this still has not happened. When she spoke just now, the Minister relied on government Amendment 82. However, in the consultation—it is, I believe, still open—the NHS provider selection scheme that she referred to sets out some general principles only. During an earlier stage of this Bill, in response to my earlier amendments, the noble Lord, Lord True, referred to clinical contracts being exempt. However, that is not so; in fact, I note that, today, the Minister has been referring to healthcare. Every single time I ask a Minister a question, the definition changes. In the NHS provider selection scheme, the flexibility rests with NHS bodies to make their own decisions about which scheme they use. The consultation document says:
“This is intended to remove unnecessary levels of competitive
tendering … the Provider Selection Regime is intended to make it
straightforward to continue with existing arrangements for
service provision where those arrangements are working well and
there is no value for the patients, taxpayers, and population in
seeking an alternative provider”. Those phrases—“remove unnecessary levels of competitive tendering”, “working well” and “no value in seeking an alternative provider”—are worrying, frankly. The problem, as we have discussed at length in our debates on this Bill, is that poor practice creeps into a culture where people believe that things are working well. The rules that this Bill sets out are there to ensure that every public body putting out a tender has carefully thought through what is appropriate, not just working well. There is evidence that the current practice in NHS procurement has a mixed record, whether at the highest level or right down at the level of local trusts and CCGs, which is often covered by the specialist press. Despite a blunt National Audit Office report in 2011 on value for money in NHS procurement, the experience during the pandemic showed that some of the deep-seated culture of things not being value for money and not being completely open and transparent continues. The NAO has commented on this and the NHS recognised it in its response paper, Raising Our Game, in which it said:
“Recent reports suggest NHS procurement is lagging behind
industry procurement performance”. Unlike Ministers, the Civil Service and staff at many other public bodies, who are constrained by conflict of interest rules, it is possible for NHS staff, including directors, to use a revolving door to move from the NHS and join a company that contracts with the NHS without a gap. Last year, a deputy director and the head of AI at NHS Digital both left and immediately joined the technology firm Palantir just as it was bidding for further contracts, some without open tendering; Palantir is known to be bidding currently for the federated digital platform contract, which is worth an estimated £360 million and is due to be awarded imminently. Only 10 days ago, the chief operating officer of the NHS left on a Friday and joined Doccla, the virtual ward company that is bidding for substantial NHS contracts, the following Monday. It was also reported in July this year that NHS Digital had spent £7 million on “irregular” payments to external contractors while, last year, the Treasury flagged “irregular” spending by the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS worth £1.3 billion. Let me say that again: £1.3 billion. Last year, the Technology and Construction Court found that staff from three CCGs in the south-west had manipulated a £2 million contract knowing it to be improper. Many of these incidents are not reported widely. I thank in particular the Health Service Journal and other technology and health reporters for shining a light on this poor practice, even if it is not regular, wherever it has happened. This is not about those individuals nor the contracting companies. It is about the culture of procurement in the NHS. My amendment would ensure that by including the NHS in this Procurement Bill it would share robust regulations with other bodies and would be accountable and transparent even if there is a need for some subsequent special arrangements for complex clinical contracts. Not doing this will not change the culture of NHS procurement but including it in this Bill will. I beg to move. 17:45:00
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) My amendment asks that due regard be given to a number of priorities and principles. The first is “maximising public benefit”. Public benefit is mentioned in the Bill but we feel that it is too vague, which is why we want to pin it down more within another amendment. Maximising public benefit would include “the achievement of social value, through the securing of environmental objectives”; many noble Lords were concerned at the lack of environmental objectives in the Bill. It would also include “promoting innovation amongst potential suppliers”. We also think that it is important to have “value for money, by having regard to the optimal whole-life blend of economy, efficiency and effectiveness that achieves the intended outcome of the business case”. In our previous debates, the Minister spoke strongly about the importance of value for money, so I hope that she understands why the second part of our amendment is clearly important and would strengthen the Bill. The next part of my amendment deals with transparency. We think that it is important that we act “openly to underpin accountability for public money”, tackle corruption and ensure that all procurement is fully effective in achieving this. We also think that good management should be in place in order to have proper integrity, prevent misconduct and exercise “control in order to prevent fraud and corruption”. Importantly, we have added in “fair treatment of suppliers”. I thank the Minister for her work on improving the Bill for small and medium-sized enterprises, but we feel that more could be done to ensure that “decision-making is impartial and without conflict of interest”. The final part of my amendment concerns non-discrimination—that is, “ensuring that decision-making is not discriminatory”. The reason why we have had such a debate about this matter is that the principles were originally in the Government’s Green Paper and were consulted on. Our concern is that those principles were then left out of the Bill even though the objectives were included. So, my amendment would bring those principles back into the Bill. We believe that social and public value are important requirements for any contracting authority to consider in order, for example, to encourage anyone contracting to work with local suppliers; to encourage contractors to reduce their CO2 emissions; to encourage the hiring of more apprentices; and to encourage greater diversity. We believe that, if the Government are to deliver their ambitions of levelling up and net zero, it will be important to include these principles in the Bill. We know that social value is included in the national procurement policy statement—the Minister made much of the NPPS in our previous debates—but it is not referred to in the Bill. We also know that public benefit is mentioned in the Bill, but it is not clear to us how social value would sit within that framework. How will it all come together to ensure that it works for the public benefit? We know that the NPPS will include the Government’s strategic priorities but, again, we do not know clearly what those are. Further, the Bill does not mention innovation, which is why it is an important part of my amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said when we previously debated the Bill:
“When our current Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer,
he put innovation at the forefront of his economic approach to
improving productivity”.—[Official Report, 28/11/22; col.
1619.] So why not include it in this Procurement Bill? As the Minister said in her previous response to similar amendments, innovation and competition have an important part to play here. Procurement should be an enabler of innovation. It is important that there is clarity around these principles and objectives. How will innovation be part of it, for example? The Bill will shortly become legislation. We must revisit these concerns and we want to persuade the Minister to consider very carefully what we have been saying and why we are saying it. From her responses, we do not believe that at previous stages there was adequate explanation of how all this would operate. Good sentiment from the Government and the Minister, and promises around an NPPS we have not seen, are not sufficient to ensure that we have the best procurement legislation possible, which we all want to see. Our amendments would help achieve that end. Sadly, the Minister has again disappointed me with her introduction on these issues, although I thank her for all the work she has done as we have progressed so far. It is my intention to move my amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con) Like other noble Lords, I am grateful for the time and effort that my noble friend the Minister has given to listening to what we had to say. On Commons Amendment 5—which would get rid of the reference to “strategic priorities”—I was focused on innovation, as she knows. Innovation is essential to the quality and effectiveness of procurement. Also, public procurement is a substantial part of this country’s economic activity. If it promotes innovation, it can make a significant difference to our overall economic performance and to reconciling our productivity problems. The fact that, in the absence of Amendment 4, the Bill would make no reference to innovation is such an omission that, on those grounds alone, Amendment 4A should be added back to the Bill. When we tabled our amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and I tried to ensure that the national procurement policy statement was clear about what we regarded as enduring strategic priorities. We have backed off from that. My noble friend and the Minister in the other place were clearly told that we must have maximum flexibility. I still do not understand why the Russian invasion of Ukraine might mean that public procurement in the United Kingdom should not have regard to social value; none the less, leaving that to one side for a moment, I accept that there is an ideological commitment in government to the idea that everything that government does must be so flexible that you cannot even predict some of the basic principles within it. We have dropped the strategic priorities; we have made them principles. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, rightly has it, we have moved from “must include” to “have regard to”. Therefore, Ministers are not constrained to include in the statement innovation, the achievement of social value, the achievement of environmental objectives or, for that matter, transparency, integrity, fair treatment, non-discrimination and value for money. However, the idea that any of these things would be left out of a national procurement policy statement is wholly unacceptable. I come back to the essential question: what are we trying to do? We are trying to set the framework for contracting authorities to undertake public procurement. From our point of view, the statement should include whatever the Government think it should include but it should not exclude such basic central principles of public procurement. We have only to ask ourselves what conclusion we would draw if the Government were to send a draft of an NPPS to Parliament which left these things out. In my view, we would have to reject it. What is the benefit of that? Better to put it in the Bill now, make it clear to Ministers and, frankly, officials, that it should be in the statement so that, when the draft of the NPPS comes, we can tick the box, send it forward and approve it. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, will add matters on social value. I just say that we may have left the EU public procurement regime but, when you look at the centrality of social value to public procurement in other jurisdictions across Europe, the idea that you would not seek social value through public procurement seems wholly unacceptable. I was quite struck by the paucity of argument presented in Committee in the other place when our amendment to the Bill was deleted. In addition to:
“It needs to be as flexible as possible”,—[Official Report,
Commons, 31/1/23; col. 54.] which was predictable, what irritated me especially, as my noble friend on the Front Bench is now aware, was that references to integrity, transparency and value for money are already in the Bill, in Clause 12. The Committee in the other place clearly paid no attention to the Bill in front of it, since Clause 12 relates to covered procurement. As we noticed in our debates in Committee, the national procurement policy statement is not confined to covered procurement. It extends to all procurement by government, though not including the NHS, which for these purposes seems to be excluded from “public authorities”, which is a curious definition in itself. We knew that the NPPS was wider. The Committee at the other end seemed somehow to imagine that covered procurement was enough, but it excludes everything under about £112,000 in value. Therefore, many small procurements would not be affected by it. It simply is not acceptable. We need to go back and ask the Commons to think again about the exclusion of such central principles from the national procurement policy statement. It has been a long time coming back. We are nine months on from the point at which we sent the Bill to the Commons. We took some time getting it to the point that we did. Noble Lords will recall that on the first day in Committee we received 50 government amendments, this clever idea of covered procurement arising only at that point and not in the original draft of the Bill. To make a final, acerbic comment, I find it somewhat astonishing that during the passage of the Bill the Government have been able to make many hundreds of amendments that they chose to make. At this stage, we are asking for only a small handful that the Lords want to make. The Government at this point might just bend and accept those amendments.
The Earl of Devon (CB) The recognition of social value now returns for our consideration with Amendments 4A and 4B. I am again grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for taking the lead and so succinctly gathering in one place the essential priorities and principles to which regard should be given. Chief among them from my perspective is public benefit through the achievement of social value. I should at this stage disclose my membership of the APPG for Social Enterprise and explain that I was privileged to chair its inquiry into the performance of social enterprise during the dark days of the pandemic. The conclusions of that report were compelling, revealing without doubt that social enterprises—that is, enterprises committed to the delivery of social value alongside more commercial ambitions—performed considerably better during the pandemic than their competitors, be they charities or strictly commercial enterprises. Social enterprises were more resilient, lighter on their feet and more diverse in their employment and service delivery. They delivered a lot more of the smaller contracts—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, identified, would not be covered by Clause 12—and they performed better economically. Where they performed much worse than their competition was in their ability to secure support and funding from local and central government through public procurement. We noted that this was a particular issue in England, as compared with Wales and Scotland, because in those jurisdictions social enterprises and social value are identified as priorities within their public procurement strategies. With this amendment we will achieve the same and ensure that the delivery of social value is a priority for government. I urge that it is supported. 18:00:00
Baroness Noakes (Con) Having said that, I am afraid I cannot support the noble Baroness’s amendments. Parliament has already decided, in the shape of the Health and Care Act 2022, that the NHS should be subject to a bespoke regime. In effect, the other place was asked to think about that again when this House sent the Procurement Bill there for consideration, and it has sent it back with its response—it wants to keep a bespoke regime for the NHS—so I think we have the answer to that. My noble friend the Minister has made clear that much work has already been done on the interface between the two regimes to make sure that nothing will fall through the cracks. This boils down to a simple difference of view; the Government want to do it one way and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, wants to do it another way. I wonder whether this is really the kind of issue that should be the subject of a prolonged battle between the two Houses. I cannot see that there is a real point of principle here. Also, as my noble friend the Minister pointed out, implementation of that new system in the NHS is already quite a long way advanced and it would appear wasteful to try to undo all that. I turn to Motion 4A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. She has tabled a list of what she calls “priorities and principles” that Ministers must consider before publishing a national procurement policy statement. At first sight these look wholesome and unobjectionable, as one might expect. I have two main reasons for not supporting her amendment. First, the amendment is unnecessary. Government Ministers and their officials are already focused on value for money, transparency, integrity and even, I say to my noble friend Lord Lansley, innovation. It is government policy to pursue innovation; it is already part of the day-to-day life of government. Many of these items are either implicitly or explicitly already in the law, either administrative law or general law. As has been pointed out, some already feature in the objectives for covered procurements. My noble friend the Minister explained all this in her introductory remarks. Thinking that the Government need a special list of things to think about, in statute, misunderstands the processes of government. Secondly, the list of items always reflects today’s concerns and is not future-proofed. While some issues such as transparency seem like eternal issues, they were not always unambiguously so. Today’s obsessions with things such as environmental matters will, I predict, be overtaken by other issues of concern, whether Russia and Ukraine or something that we have not yet thought about. I am not clever enough to predict what those other things will be; I just know that the world changes and the orientation of government policy will change with it. The inclusion of a list runs a real risk of being overtaken by events, which is why it is not good legislative practice to put such lists in statute. I hope that both noble Baronesses will not feel it necessary to pursue their amendments and divide the House.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) My noble friend Lord Lansley is correct that the objective in Clause 12 applies to cover procurement. The NPPS clause allows an NPPS to cover all procurement, but in practice its scope will be determined by the contents of the statement. In my opening remarks I explained at some length the position on the coverage of the NHS. I will come back to one or two of the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for all that she said. Concerning principles that need to be considered by Ministers in preparing the NPPS, these principles are already covered through other commitments and legislation, as I have already set out. The amendment is therefore not necessary, as my noble friend Lady Noakes said. In addition, our fundamental view is that the Government of the day should not be constrained by the Bill in their ability to prescribe something more specific. They are free to do so—and I think this is the charm of the Bill—through the NPPS rather than through primary legislation. The Bill is about clarity and simplicity, not layering rules on rules. To understand how it works in practice, I refer my noble friend Lord Lansley—I think I have already discussed this with him—to the current non-statutory NPPS, which covers innovation and social value. Attempting to drive innovation, which I am as keen on as he is, in every single procurement will not always be relevant or proportionate. Our Bill drives innovation through, for example, our new competitive flexible procedure, pre-market engagement and our duty for contracting authorities to have regard to reducing barriers for SMEs—which will also benefit social enterprises, as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, referred to. Future NPPSs will also be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and consulted on as appropriate. The consideration of environmental targets and objectives relating to social value in preparing the NPPS, and the other principles set out in this amendment, are duplicative and would render the Bill more complex and confusing for contracting authorities and suppliers. Singling out specific objectives for Ministers to consider will create the impression that they trump others, which could unduly constrain flexibility for a Government to set priorities in future, which they will do through the NPPS. This is a principle seen in other legislation, where you have framing legislation and then statutory guidance. Finally, regarding environmental considerations—as highlighted in discussions during the REUL Bill debates, although perhaps I should not remind noble Lords of those as they took a long time—Ministers will now be under a legal duty to have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement when making policy, including the development of policies in accordance with the Bill. On the NHS amendments championed by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I am grateful for the meetings that we have had but I believe that they stem from a confusion. NHS bodies are contracting authorities and therefore already covered by the Bill; we had a good conversation about mixed contracts and so on, which I think was helpful to us both. It would be inappropriate to remove the power to make the provider selection regime regulations, especially given the benefits that they will bring to patients. In response to a question about the definition of healthcare services, the scope of services in the PSR has been consulted on and will be further supported by reference to a list of common procurement vocabulary codes, set out clearly in the PSR regulations. An indicative list of those codes was included in DHSC’s recent consultation on the PSR. The noble Baroness made a point about conflicts of interest. Our Bill strengthens existing legal duties on conflicts of interest and embeds greater transparency throughout the commercial life cycle. This has been welcomed and, I think, is important. Furthermore, the provider selection regime regulations will clearly set out provisions for the effective management of conflicts of interest. The PSR is designed to ensure transparency across all procurement decisions to which it applies, including how the decisions were made. This transparency will help ensure that there is proper scrutiny and accountability of decisions to award contracts for healthcare services. Finally, an independently chaired panel will provide expert review and advice concerning decisions made under the PSR, helping to ensure that procurement processes are transparent, fair and proportionate. I very much hope that that additional information about our plans for the PSR will enable this debate about just how these two regimes, both of which have been discussed constructively and at length in this House, fit together, and that noble Lords feel able to support the government amendments and withdraw the amendments that they have put forward.
Baroness Brinton (LD) For all the reasons that the Minister outlined, we are where we are. When we were working on the Health and Care Bill, it was absolutely evident that the secondary legislation changes would be outlined quickly thereafter—I am looking at others who were in the Chamber at the same time—and agreed by last autumn. We are now 17 months on and there is no sight of them at all. The Minister outlined the NHS provider selection scheme and all its arrangements. That it is not looking for a culture change worries me most. In my earlier speech I gave examples of the behaviour of three senior managers at three CCGs, which the public would not have known about if the losing company had not gone to the Technology and Construction Court. This revealed that it is all too easy, where the culture is poor, for people to believe that the rules are being followed when they are not. I appreciate that we have a point of difference on this, but on our Benches we believe that there is much benefit in this Procurement Bill and do not understand why the NHS is excluded. It is perfectly possible to include some special arrangements for it, but nothing has happened since the Health and Care Act was enacted. At the moment, nothing we are hearing from the NHS is about that culture change. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Division 3 18:23:00 Motion on Amendment 1 agreed. Motion on Amendments 2 and 3 Moved by
Baroness Neville-Rolfe 2: Clause 2, page 2, line 16, leave out “subsection” and insert “subsections (8A) and”
3: Clause 2, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) Amendments 2, 3 and 99 ensure that the City of London is appropriately regulated by the Bill and that its private sector activities are not inappropriately captured. Amendments 6 to 12 deal variously with abnormally low and unsuitable tenders, and the definition of disabled and disadvantaged people in contracts specifically directed to help them. Amendment 10, which I know is of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who I thank for his co-operation on this large number of amendments, requires that any procedural breach that results in a tender being unsuitable must be material. This tightens the circumstances in which a switch to direct award can be made. The transparency notice will ensure that any awards under Clause 43 are publicised, and, if the provision is abused, there will be opportunity for suppliers to bring a challenge and for the procurement review unit to investigate. Amendments 13 to 22, 48 to 56, and 61 to 64 deal with the publishing of KPIs, tendering timescales for utilities and non-central government contracting authorities, standards and accreditation, electronic communications, e-invoicing and payment compliance, and contract change notices. Amendment 60 and the consequential amendments—Amendments 76, 85, 88, 90, 91 and 92—introduce an enabling power which gives the UK the ability to take retaliatory action as a result of a procurement-related dispute with a country with which we have a free trade agreement on procurement. Amendments 65 and 66 strengthen the record-keeping obligations with the Bill, to reflect obligations under our international agreements. Amendments 83, 87 and 89 relate to financial thresholds, ensuring that, where thresholds for the publication of KPIs need to be changed, the affirmative procedure will apply. Amendments 95 and 96 clarify the reasonableness test in Schedule 2, following feedback from the Local Government Association. Amendment 104 extends the new power that the Bill will insert into the Defence Reform Act by allowing regulations to ensure that, under specified circumstances, certain existing contracts, when amended, can be treated as new contracts and brought within the scope of the single-source regime. Amendment 104 relates to single-source defence contracts entered into after the Act came into force but which were below the regime threshold and are subsequently amended to a contract value above that threshold. Amendments 23, 24, 26 to 28, 30, 32, 35, 36, 39, 43, 44 to 46, 68, 72, 73, 75, 84 and 103 strengthen and ensure that the debarment and exclusion regimes in the Bill function as intended by inserting a substantive debarment appeals regime to replace the enabling power. Noble Lords will remember that, in this House, we thought it was better to have that in the Bill rather than in regulations. Finally, the Government introduced Amendments 58, 59, 69, 70, 71, 74, 77 to 80, 86 and 93 in the other place at the request of the devolved Administrations. These amend how the legislation applies in relation to devolved procurement in Wales or Scotland and ensure that the regime runs effectively. They reflect constructive discussions. I apologise for the number of amendments but we have sent out a letter explaining exactly what these all entail. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD) I expect His Majesty’s loyal Opposition to press the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. We on these Benches will support that, in the event that she so does. 18:30:00
Lord Aberdare (CB) I take this opportunity to welcome Amendments 8 and 9 from the Commons and to thank the Minister, her colleagues and her officials for getting them included in the Bill. The Bill as it originally stood had the unintended effect of reducing the scope of existing provision for reserving certain contracts for supported employment providers. These amendments ensure that no such reduction will occur. I am most grateful to the Minister for listening to the concerns raised by Aspire Community Works—itself a supported employment provider—to address and, indeed, resolve this issue. Amendments 2 and 3 agreed. Motion on Amendment 4 Moved by
Baroness Neville-Rolfe 4: Clause 13, page 10, line 9, leave out paragraph (b) Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 4 Moved by
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
4B: Clause 13, page 10, line 8, at end insert—
Division 4 18:41:00 Motion on Amendment 4 agreed. Motion on Amendments 5 to 24 Moved by
Baroness Neville-Rolfe 5: Clause 13, page 10, line 29, leave out subsection (4)
6: Clause 19, page 14, line 21, at end insert—
7: Clause 19, page 14, line 23, at end insert— 8: Clause 32, page 23, line 22, after “operates” insert “wholly or partly”
9: Clause 32, page 23, line 24, leave out from “individuals” to
end of line 26 and insert “where— 10: Clause 43, page 29, line 40, leave out “19” and insert “19(3)(a), (b) or (c)” 11: Clause 43, page 30, line 1, leave out paragraph (c) 12: Clause 43, page 30, line 4, after “notice” insert “or associated tender documents” 13: Clause 52, page 35, line 24, leave out “and publish”
14: Clause 52, page 35, line 28, at end insert—
15: Clause 54, page 37, line 14, at end insert—
16: Clause 54, page 37, line 35, at end insert—
17: Clause 54, page 38, line 2, at end insert—
18: Clause 56, page 38, line 24, at end insert— 19: Clause 56, page 38, line 26, leave out paragraph (b)
20: Clause 56, page 38, line 29, at end insert— 21: Clause 56, page 38, line 36, leave out “such matters” and insert “the matters mentioned in subsection (4)”
22: Clause 56, page 39, leave out lines 9 to 12 and insert— 23: Clause 57, page 39, line 20, after “are” insert “continuing or” 24: Clause 57, page 39, line 28, after “are” insert “continuing or” Motion agreed. Motion on Amendment 25 Moved by
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
25: Clause 57, page 39, line 30, at end insert—
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) The new amendments will enable a Minister of the Crown to take a stronger approach in response to a specific risk profile of a particular supplier and make targeted decisions about whether the debarment should be mandatory for particular types of contracts, depending on the nature of the risk. If the supplier poses an unacceptable risk in relation to selected goods—for example, networked communications equipment—the Minister will be able to enter on the debarment list that the supplier is an excluded supplier for contracts for the supply or support of that type of equipment. The entry may also, or as an alternative, stipulate that the supplier is excluded from contracts relating to certain locations or sites, or from contracts let by certain contracting authorities. This removes discretion from contracting authorities regarding exclusions where a supplier poses a threat for particular contracts, thereby reducing the risk of a supplier being allowed to participate in those procurements. By allowing this type of targeted and proportionate approach, we can direct that suppliers must be excluded where the risks are unacceptable and allow contracting authorities to make appropriate choices where the risk is manageable—for example, for the provision of pencils or plastic furniture. Amendment 31 commits a Minister of the Crown to keep suppliers under review for potential investigation for debarment on national security grounds. This amendment commits Ministers to proactively consider new debarment investigations where there is evidence of risk so that the Government can act effectively and on time. We believe this would be highly advantageous in minimising the risk of those who pose a threat to our national security being awarded public contracts. 18:45:00 I am pleased to announce that the Government will create a new specialist unit, with dedicated resources within the Cabinet Office, to take on and manage this new approach. The new national security unit for procurement will regularly monitor government supply chains and review pertinent information to determine which suppliers should be investigated for debarment on national security grounds. It will be able to draw on the full range of expertise within government, access the latest intelligence, including that from Five Eyes partners, and respond swiftly to emerging threats. It will also carry out investigations of suppliers for potential debarment on national security grounds. The new unit will consider the findings and propose recommendations to the Minister for the final decision on whether the supplier should be added to the debarment list. The unit will also have a role in supporting and upskilling contracting authorities. By directly engaging with them and providing guidance, it will help contracting authorities confidently to implement the national security exclusion and debarment regimes, maximising their effectiveness. The amendments constitute significant steps to strengthen our approach to national security in procurement. They have been welcomed by the other place and I believe this House should also welcome them. Amendment 47 removes Clause 65, which was agreed to on Report in the Lords. The original amendment required the Government to publish a timetable for the removal from the Government’s procurement supply chain of surveillance equipment or other physical technology where there was evidence that a provider had been involved in modern slavery, genocide or crimes against humanity. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has tabled a revised version of the amendment—amendments in lieu, Amendments 47A and 47B—which would require the Government to publish a timeline for the removal of networked physical technology or surveillance equipment from the Government’s procurement supply chain where there was established evidence that a provider had been involved in modern slavery or the crime of genocide, or was subject to the People’s Republic of China’s national intelligence law. I am sure the noble Lord will want to speak to his amendment in lieu but, before he does, I hope he may allow me to make a few points. First, I agree with the intent behind the amendment, but the Bill’s new debarment regime makes huge progress on excluding suppliers who are unfit to deliver public contracts, including on modern slavery grounds. Secondly, I take this opportunity to remind the House that last year the Government published a WMS asking departments to consider the removal of visual surveillance equipment from government sensitive sites to ensure that no such equipment is connected to departmental core networks, and to cease any future procurement for such equipment. In the other place we committed that, within six months of Royal Assent for the Bill, the Government would set out the timeline for the removal of surveillance equipment supplied by companies subject to the national intelligence law of China from sensitive sites. I reiterate that promise today. Thirdly, the key issue here is where those cameras are located. The level of risk in recycling centres, leisure centres, schools or hospitals does not match the level of threat that we potentially face on sensitive sites. These are not the sites that would typically be of interest to a hostile state, and they do not contain the type of material that would be particularly useful to them. Lastly, replacing devices is not the only method for mitigating risk. We should look to strengthen protective measures to ensure that devices are less vulnerable to attack. The Government are working with the National Cyber Security Centre and the newly-formed National Protective Security Authority to provide organisations with a library of advice and guidance, enhancing the protection of these devices and reducing the likelihood of compromise. I thank the noble Lord for his constructive engagement since tabling his amendments. While regrettably I cannot support his amendment, I am happy to offer a clear definition of the sites that our commitments regarding physical surveillance will apply to. 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 which is routinely used by Ministers; and any government location covered under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. While our commitment does not extend to the wider public sector, public sector organisations may choose to mirror our action—indeed, I believe that some of them have chosen to do so. I am also happy to commit—and this is important—to an annual written report to Parliament detailing progress on our commitment to remove from government departments’ sensitive sites physical surveillance equipment subject to the national intelligence law of China. I hope that these commitments satisfy the noble Lord and that he will not be pressing his amendments. I thank him again for his contribution on this important matter. Amendment 102 removed an amendment which was added to Schedule 7 on Report in this House creating a discretionary exclusion ground for suppliers engaged in forced organ harvesting. Forced organ harvesting is an abhorrent practice and we are in full agreement that complicity in the abuses associated with the overseas organ trade must not be tolerated. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has subsequently tabled two amendments in lieu, Amendment 102B in Motion 102A. I take this opportunity to reiterate the Government’s stance on this important issue. The UK has been explicit that the overseas organ trade, or complicity in it, will not be tolerated. For example, it is an offence to travel outside of the UK to purchase an organ, by virtue of the Health and Care Act 2022. The Government continue to monitor and review evidence relating to reports of forced organ harvesting in China and maintain a dialogue with leading non-governmental organisations, and with international partners, which is equally important, on this very important issue. I do not believe that these amendments are necessary as the issue is already dealt with under the existing exclusion grounds. Under the Procurement Bill, any suppliers failing to adhere to existing ethical or professional standards that apply in its industry, including relating to the removal, storage and use of human tissue, could be excluded under the grounds of professional misconduct. To further reassure noble Lords, as far as I am aware no supplier to the UK public sector has been involved in forced organ harvesting—though if they were, the exclusion grounds would apply. Although I sympathise with the noble Lord’s concern—he has been very eloquent in this area in successive debates on the Bill—I am not convinced of the case for this amendment. I hope that, in the light of what has been said, he may decide not to press this amendment today, bearing in mind all that I have said about our approach to this abhorrent practice. I beg to move.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB) In parenthesis, before I begin—and because I will not weary the House with a second speech later, even if the opportunity is there—I would like to say how much I support what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of King’s Heath, is trying to achieve with Motion 102A and Amendment 102B. Again, I have spoken on those previously, along with the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, from the Conservative Benches, my noble friend Lady Finlay—who is unable to be with us this evening—and many others who want to support what the noble Lord is trying to achieve. I turn to Clause 65 and Amendment 47B in Motion 47A in my name. As the Minister said, it would require a timeline for the removal of surveillance equipment that is connected to the internet and subject to the People’s Republic of China’s national intelligence law. I did say that I would like to start my remarks, and I do, by paying tribute to the Minister’s own efforts and those of her officials, who have met with me now on several occasions—most recently on Thursday last—to discuss the concerns of Members of both Houses when it comes to the presence of Chinese-made surveillance cameras in our public procurement chain. As recently as yesterday, the Sunday Telegraph reported that the Co-op has decided to ban Chinese CCTV for “ethical and security reasons”. Given the Minister’s professional background in a previous life, she will know that, in doing this, it is following the example of Tesco. It would indeed be odd if supermarkets were ahead of public bodies in recognising the dangers posed by the CCP’s surveillance state. I was also very struck that the Deputy Prime Minister, the right honourable Oliver Dowden, speaking in another place this afternoon about allegations concerning espionage on the estate of your Lordships’ House and that of another place, made a point of saying that one of his first actions in Whitehall had been to have surveillance cameras linked to Hikvision removed from his department. This is something that Sajid Javid also said when he became Secretary of State for Health. I simply say that, if supermarkets and departments of state are not suitable places for these cameras, where is? It would indeed be odd if we did not think about the 60% of public bodies that are estimated to have Hikvision cameras in use. This is not a new question that I am putting to your Lordships’ House; this is something I have raised on over 40 occasions in the House or in Grand Committee since 2020. Both the Minister and the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord True, have taken this issue seriously. When the noble Lord was in charge of this Bill, in its earliest stages, we had a meeting to discuss Hikvision. Because I want to get on with seeing a resolution of this issue, I am able to welcome the clear commitment from the Minister, given at the Dispatch Box, for a timetable for the removal of this surveillance equipment and these cameras from sensitive sites. However, it is worth noting, as I have said, how we got here. As the Government have recognised, there are at least a million Hikvision and Dahua cameras in the UK, installed across our high streets, job centres, schools, police forces, hospitals, universities, local government buildings and even government departments. I gently say to the Minister that, although she is right that military barracks or GCHQ are clearly far more sensitive sites than, say, hospitals or schools, some of this is about data collection. That involves every single citizen of this country, so it poses dangers for them too. I commend to her the recent Channel 4 documentary on Hikvision and the fantastic work of IPVM, Big Brother Watch, Hong Kong Watch—of which I am a patron—and other organisations that have outlined the security risk that these cameras pose, particularly in those sensitive public sector sites, but not exclusively so. It is quite something to consider that, as a country, we have willingly handed over the majority of our surveillance infrastructure, which watches the often public and sometimes intimately private moments of our lives, not just to the police or local authorities but to an authoritarian Government that the House of Commons has found, on a resolution of the House, credibly accused of genocide. I declare a non-financial interest as vice chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uyghurs. How ironic it is that we are debating this on the day we have learned that an alleged CCP spy has been operating across Parliament, based in the office of a Member of another place. We urgently need a bicameral group of senior parliamentarians to investigate this shocking lapse. The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament has warned against the infiltration of our universities and other institutions. Only last week, the University of Cambridge ended a partnership with a subsidiary company developing Chinese weapons and military hardware. The line between crass naivety and outright collaboration is a fine one. We recall the Cambridge spies and the Soviet Union, and some of the disastrous consequences. It should send a shiver down the spine of every freedom-loving person to see swathes of the public surveillance procurement supply chain handed over to Chinese companies that are blacklisted for complicity in gross human rights violations by the United States and which are legally compelled under the PRC national intelligence law to pass on data to the Chinese Communist Party state. As we debate the timeline for their removal from our public procurement supply chain, the definition of what we should consider “sensitive sites” and the oversight that Members of this House and another place will have should be high on our agenda. Surely, for too long government policy towards China has favoured investment and trade at the expense of our national security, our values and human rights. We have underestimated the PRC, ignored the voices of those Uighurs, Hong Kongers, Tibetans and others who have been persecuted by the CCP and know it best, and failed to produce a coherent strategy to deal with the threat that the PRC poses. I am always struck by the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, who knows a thing or two about China. He describes it as cakeism—wanting to have your cake and eat it—to want trade deals on the one hand, but recognise the country as a threat to your national interest on the other. 19:00:00 Despite the ongoing human rights crackdown in Hong Kong, China’s flagrant breaches of the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the recent targeting of Hong Kong activists living in the UK, the Government have failed to hold any Hong Kong or Chinese official to account with targeted sanctions. I suppose at this juncture I should say that I have a sort of interest, in being one of two Members of your Lordships’ House who have been sanctioned by the CCP. Most Ministers would privately concede, if pushed, that they share the view of this House that the treatment of Uighur Muslims is credibly genocide, yet they dare not publicly state it or take the kind of actions that the US is taking to ensure that the goods that we import from China are not made by Uighur forced labour. That is why I raised that very issue, linking it not just to slave labour but to genocide, in moving my original amendment. Last week, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP, who has championed this cause in the Commons, I met US Customs and Border Protection officials to discuss customs enforcement preventing goods coming to the US from China’s Uighur region where forced labour is present. It is striking how much the US is doing to tackle the issue of modern slavery, in comparison to our own rather lacklustre approach. These views are not mine alone but shared by the Foreign Affairs Committee in its recent report on the Indo-Pacific and the integrated review, and the joint Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on China, which both bemoan the woeful lack of a China strategy and seriousness from the Government over the security threats posed by the PRC. I commend to the Minister last week’s op-ed by Juliet Samuel, which made a forensic examination of what she described as the “King Kowtow” approach to trade with China—where, incidentally, instead of resilience we have a huge dependency and a trade deficit of over £40 billion. Procurement and a renewal of our own industrial capacity would make a dent in that. We need a national resilience strategy, not dependency. Surely that is one of the lessons that we should have learned from Ukraine. Sadly, the Foreign Secretary’s recent visit to Beijing reflects the wrong approach. He has embarked on a fixed pathway of engagement with the PRC at all costs, failing to protect our national security at home while being unwilling to learn the lessons from our key allies, who have far more developed strategies for dealing with the PRC. The commitment by the Government this evening will not change consecutive Governments’ woeful lack of a China policy overnight, but it does offer a glimmer of hope for the publication of a timeline for the removal of what the former Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner has described as “digital asbestos” from our public procurement supply chain. The Government should reflect on the worrying reasons for the resignation of the commissioner, Professor Fraser Sampson. When it comes to the Government’s commitment to prioritise the removal of this equipment from “sensitive sites”, which I welcome, I favour the clearest definition to cover our police forces, NHS trusts, schools, universities, government departments, military sites, transport networks and local government buildings. This clear definition will make it easier for the Government to readily identify the extent of the problem, and put in place a practical timetable for the removal of surveillance equipment that falls under the jurisdiction of the PRC’s national intelligence law after six months from the Bill receiving Royal Assent. I welcome the commitment from the Government—the most important thing of all in the concessions that the Government have offered—to a role for Members of this House and the other place in scrutinising annually the progress the Government have made in the removal of these cameras and this equipment, and hope that the responsibility for this will be given to the Joint Intelligence and Security Committee. Finally, it is my sincere desire that we can avoid such a public procurement supply chain fiasco in the future. I hope that civil servants and Ministers will learn the lessons from allowing Hikvision and Dahua cameras to spread across the public sector and avoid such a costly mistake for the taxpayer again. 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) 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)
“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.
Lord Fox (LD) I thank the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Hunt, for bringing forward these two amendments. I shall address them sequentially. I do not share the surprise of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about supermarkets being able to lead. I am sure the Minister will probably agree that supermarkets are in contact with their customers. They sense the morality and the feelings of their customers, so they do not just lead—they follow. Perhaps we are a bit slow in picking up the moral revulsion that people have out there, and also the fear of scrutiny from a totalitarian regime. I think both those issues play with the public, the public play those back to the supermarkets and the supermarkets have very good antennae for picking them up. We should share their sensitivity to these issues. The noble Lord made an excellent speech for which he is to be congratulated because, working from here back to the Commons, we have seen significant progress. We have seen a great deal of progress, and I support him in not having to move his Motion this time. He mentioned en passant the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I endorse what he said. The Cabinet Office is now responsible for the National Security and Investment Act—there is a team there working on that—and it now has a team working on this. It behoves those teams, if they are not the same people, certainly to be close to one another, close to the ISC and able to feed off the intelligence that the ISC can give them, which no other committees can. I hope the Minister is able to reinforce that. 19:15:00 I think the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is right in not pressing the Motion, but he is wrong to describe his eye as evil.
Noble Lords
Lord Fox (LD) Moving on, as my noble friend set out, we will support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. There can be no place in the UK supply chain for businesses that engage in this behaviour, and we have to be absolutely sure that there is no place, which is why the noble Lord is right to want to explicitly write this in. I regret that the fact that my noble friend Lady Brinton’s amendment was not accepted means that if the noble Lord is successful, his amendment will not apply to the National Health Service, which seems rather unfortunate as it would probably be the prime customer. None the less, getting it in writing and putting it in there is very important and will be enthusiastically supported.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) My noble friend Lord Hunt’s amendment clearly spells out why we need to be doing something about this. Reading his amendment, what struck me was the definition. I will read it, because I think it is at the crux of this:
“‘Forced organ harvesting’ means killing a person without their
consent so that their organs may be removed and transplanted into
another person”. I cannot think of many things more appalling than that, so we fully support my noble friend. He deserves the thanks of the House for bringing this forward. He has our full support, but I wish the Government would consider amending the Bill in this way.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) On the use of surveillance equipment—to respond to one point the noble Lord made—in the wider public sector, I should add that if the Government consider the risk to be intolerable, they are able to take action. That does not have to be enshrined in primary legislation. On the point about parliamentary scrutiny, the Government carefully consider and respond to all Select Committee recommendations. The annual written report on surveillance cameras, once laid in Parliament, will be available to all committees. I am sure it will receive appropriate scrutiny and a great deal of interest. Turning to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Hayman, we all agree that organ harvesting is a horrific practice. However, given that we already have provisions in this Bill relating to professional misconduct—which will cover organ harvesting—it would seem inappropriate and odd to single out this particular, albeit horrific, practice in this Bill, and not others, especially given that the risk of this practice occurring in public contracts is low. While the issue is of key importance, the amendment itself largely duplicates the Government’s existing efforts. I cannot agree with the criticism of this given all we have done to try to improve this Bill and make the arrangements better. As I have said, there is a reference to organ harvesting in the NHS legislation. To pick up on the various security areas we have now in the Cabinet Office, they will work closely together. That is how you defeat the enemy on these things. The Deputy Prime Minister has spoken in the other place on these issues today, and the Leader of the House will be repeating the Statement shortly when we finish this business. Obviously, that is some context. This Government have already taken steps to act on the risk from foreign influence and demonstrated that they are willing to act when the risk is intolerable. Our action on the risk of using certain surveillance equipment on government-sensitive sites was necessary and proportionate. This Bill will help us further, as the national security debarment provisions will enable us to act in public procurements where we see malign influence. This is a major change that has been made to this Bill. It is very encouraging that this House has influenced it and then welcomed it on its return from the other place. This is how good legislation is made, I hope. It is crucial that we bring this most important Bill to Royal Assent as quickly as possible. I hope noble Lords will back us today, and I hope that in view of what I have said, the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment. In any event, we need to move forward and get this Bill on the statute book. Commons Amendment 25 agreed. Motion on Amendments 26 to 46 Moved by
Baroness Neville-Rolfe 26: Clause 58, page 39, line 40, after “are” insert “continuing or” 27: Clause 58, page 40, line 5, after “circumstances” insert “continuing or”
28: Clause 59, page 40, line 43, leave out “on the basis” and
insert “—
29: Clause 59, page 40, line 44, at end insert “, or 30: Clause 60, page 41, line 29, after “may” insert “, for the purpose of considering whether an entry could be added to the debarment list in respect of a supplier,”
31: Clause 60, page 41, line 32, at end insert— 32: Clause 60, page 41, line 33, leave out subsection (2)
33: Clause 61, page 42, line 36, leave out from “out” to end of
line 45 and insert—
34: Clause 62, page 43, line 30, leave out from “section” to end
of line 39 and insert “and, as part of that entry, must include
the relevant debarment information. 35: Clause 62, page 43, line 43, leave out “section (Debarment decisions: appeals)” and insert “sections 63 to section (Debarment decisions: appeals)”
36: Clause 62, page 43, line 44, at end insert—
37: Clause 62, page 44, line 1, leave out from “review” to end of
line 5 and insert— 38: Clause 62, page 44, line 11, leave out “an entry from the debarment list” and insert “or revising an entry”
39: After Clause 62, insert the following new Clause— 40: Clause 63, page 44, line 16, leave out from “for” to end of line 17 and insert “the removal or revision of an entry made on the debarment list in respect of the supplier.” 41: Clause 63, page 44, line 21, leave out from “since” to “, or” and insert “the entry was made or, where relevant, revised” 42: Clause 63, page 44, line 23, after “subsection (1)” insert “in relation to the entry or, where relevant, revision”
43: Clause 63, page 44, line 26, at end insert—
44: After Clause 63, insert the following new Clause— 45: Clause 64, page 44, line 27, leave out Clause 64
46: After Clause 64, insert the following new Clause— Motion agreed. Motion on Amendment 47 Moved by
Baroness Neville-Rolfe 47: After Clause 64, page 44, line 34, leave out Clause 65 Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 47 not moved. Motion on Amendment 47 agreed. Motion on Amendments 48 to 80 Moved by
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
48: Clause 66, page 45, line 30, at end insert—
49: Clause 67, page 46, line 33, at end insert— 50: Clause 67, page 46, line 36, after “address” insert “, or through an electronic invoicing system,”
51: Clause 68, page 47, line 18, at end insert “, or 52: Clause 74, page 51, line 5, leave out paragraph (c)
53: Clause 76, page 51, line 40, after “modification” insert
“— 54: Clause 76, page 51, line 43, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) 55: Clause 76, page 52, line 3, leave out “or a transferred Northern Ireland authority” 56: Clause 76, page 52, line 7, leave out “or a transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangement”
57: Clause 78, page 53, line 43, at end insert—
58: Clause 90, page 60, line 32, at end insert—
59: Clause 90, page 60, line 34, at end insert—
60: After Clause 90, insert the following new Clause— 61: Clause 94, page 62, line 37, after first “a” insert “covered”
62: Clause 94, page 62, line 42, at end insert— 63: Clause 94, page 63, line 1, leave out “Subsection (1)” and insert “This section” 64: Clause 94, page 63, line 2, after “communication” insert “, or the use of an electronic communication system meeting the requirements of subsection (2),” 65: Clause 95, page 63, line 13, leave out subsection (3)
66: After Clause 95, insert the following new Clause—
67: Clause 97, page 64, line 6, at end insert—
68: After Clause 103, insert the following new Clause— 69: Clause 107, page 70, line 3, leave out “only” and insert “wholly or mainly” 70: Clause 107, page 70, line 12, leave out paragraph (b) 71: Clause 107, page 70, line 14, after “section” insert “and section 123 (commencement)”
72: Clause 107, page 70, line 16, at end insert—
73: Clause 108, page 71, line 3, at end insert— 74: Clause 109, page 71, line 12, after “section 66” insert “or section 121”
75: Clause 109, page 71, line 30, at end insert—
76: Clause 109, page 71, line 32, at end insert— 77: Clause 111, page 73, line 4, leave out “A Minister of the Crown or”
78: Clause 111, page 73, line 5, leave out from “of” to end of
line 7 and insert—
79: Clause 111, page 73, line 8, at end insert— 80: Clause 111, page 73, line 13, leave out “those regulations” and insert “that legislation” Motion agreed. Motion on Amendment 81 Moved by
Baroness Neville-Rolfe 81: Page 74, line 16, leave out Clause 116 Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 81 not moved. Motion on Amendment 81 agreed. Motion on Amendments 82 to 101 Moved by
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
82: After Clause 116, insert the following new Clause—
83: Clause 118, page 75, line 21, at end insert— 84: Clause 118, page 75, line 23, leave out paragraph (f)
85: Clause 118, page 75, line 29, at end insert—
86: Clause 118, page 75, line 39, at end insert—
87: Clause 118, page 76, line 21, at end insert—
88: Clause 118, page 76, line 26, at end insert—
89: Clause 118, page 76, line 47, at end insert—
90: Clause 118, page 77, line 1, at end insert— 91: Clause 118, page 77, line 15, leave out from “under” to end of line 16 and insert “any of the following provisions”
92: Clause 118, page 77, line 18, at end insert—
93: Clause 123, page 81, line 14, leave out subsection (3) and
insert— 94: Clause 124, page 81, line 18, leave out subsection (2) 95: Schedule 2, page 84, line 11, leave out from “in” to end of line 17 and insert “this Part of this Schedule.”
96: Schedule 2, page 85, line 39, at end insert— 97: That paragraph 25 of Schedule 2 be transferred to the end of line 39 on page 85 98: That paragraphs 31 and 32 of Schedule 2 be transferred to the end of line 39 on page 85
99: Schedule 2, page 91, line 22, at end insert—
100: Schedule 6, page 102, line 11, at end insert—
101: Schedule 6, page 105, line 20, at end insert— Motion agreed. Motion on Amendment 102 Moved by
Baroness Neville-Rolfe 102: Schedule 7, page 110, line 33, leave out paragraph 15 Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 102 Moved by
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
102B: Schedule 7, page 110, line 31, at end insert—
Division 5 The Tellers for the Contents reported 158 votes, the Clerks recorded 156 names. The Tellers for the Not-contents reported 153 votes, the Clerks recorded 151 names. 19:35:00 Motion on Amendments 103 and 104 Moved by
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
103: Schedule 7, page 111, line 44, at end insert— 104: Schedule 10, page 116, line 18, leave out “subsection (4) or (5)” and insert “this section” Motion agreed. |