Public Services: Workforce (Public Services Committee Report)

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Friday 16th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the report and the introduction to it by my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top. It is wide-ranging and authoritative, and issues have been raised clearly by earlier speakers. It will be no great surprise that I shall focus on recommendation 18, which is about pensions. It calls for

“a comprehensive review of how pensions operate across the public services workforce.”

The wording implies “comprehensive” in the sense that it will look at flexibility and changing jobs within and outside the public service, and how pensions interact with the need to achieve an adequate and effective workforce.

I want to choose my words carefully in saying —I hope, helpfully—that this is not necessarily the strongest part of the report. It appears to be based on misconceptions raised in evidence sessions. In this respect, the Government’s response to the report has been most helpful—that is not something I say very often. Nevertheless, questions remain. One is about the plan for consolidating smaller schemes, which has been on hold—it would be useful if the Minister could say a bit about that—and, in particular, whether this process is to be undertaken in negotiation with the relevant trade unions and whether members’ benefit expectations are protected.

The main question is whether the Government can say explicitly that a comprehensive review of public service pensions as a whole is not required, at least until the agreement freely entered into by the Government following the Hutton review, which took place only just over 10 years ago, has expired. Public service pensions are controversial, but we do have a deal and the deal was promised for a generation. It would be useful if the Government could make it plain that they do not have any plans to look again at public service pensions. I shall come on to explain why they are so important in the context of maintaining an effective workforce in the public service. I would be content with a “the Government have no plans” formulation; it would just be useful to hear it in those words.

The report refers to public service pensions as being “attractive”—I prefer “attractive” to “generous”, which is often used in the context of public service pensions. The word “generous” is quite wrong. It implies a motive on the part of the employer that I have never come across in the negotiations in which I have been involved. It is part and parcel of the terms and conditions of employment. It is part of a deal and part of the contract of employment: you provide the work, and you get the benefits of employment—generosity has no part in that process. In the public service, we have good pensions—I prefer “adequate”—but that does not make them generous. Truly, the sort of pension which public service workers receive is what all workers should be able to look forward to. There is a clear objective of levelling up; we do not want to see public service pensions dragged down to the level which is still all too prevalent in the private sector, where it is generally agreed that automatic enrolment contributions are inadequate and need to be increased.

The cost of a pension has two elements: the cost to the employee within the employment package—they provide a service and get a package of benefits—and the benefit to the employer of having a pension scheme. Therefore, a good pension scheme serves the interests of not just the employee but the employer. Employers, including those in the public services, need to recruit and retain staff, and an attractive pension scheme is clearly a big element in achieving that. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, referred to making changes to the scheme to encourage people to leave a particular employment, but that is not why employers provide pension schemes: they provide them to keep people in.

It used to be the case that people who left their pension schemes lost all, or virtually all, of the value of their benefits. It was only after the introduction of legislation, which changed the rules, that people who leave employment now get a decent deal from their pension. It used to be the situation that, when you left employment, you got a worse deal than if you stayed; and, if you stayed in public service pension schemes, your pay increased in line with your earnings. However, that changed following the Hutton review, and pay now increases because of the average salary-type scheme, which is in line with prices. In fact, because prices are going up faster than wages in the public sector, people are actually better off with the prices revaluation. That issue needs to be looked at, and I would welcome hearing the Government indicate that they are prepared to have those discussions, rather than producing a fundamental and comprehensive review of all public service pensions.

Economy: The Growth Plan 2022

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by reminding the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, that his Government were in power for the 10 years he referred to and some of the guilt must attach to him and his colleagues.

I want to ask about two of the specific proposals in the so-called plan for growth; first, on the change to the IR35 freelance rules. I find this proposal to give up on the effective enforcement of tax rules both extraordinary and wrong. The reopening of opportunities for employees to exploit tax rules does nothing for growth—the purported purpose of these proposals—let alone levelling up. It also severely undermines the wider integrity of the tax system. It should be understood that the Government are actively making mugs of the majority of independent contractors, who follow the rules and pay the tax that is due. I recognise that the whole treatment of freelance workers is a mess and needs to be sorted out, particularly the issue of employment rights. I note the conclusions of the Finance Bill Sub-Committee from two years ago but it should be understood that the Chancellor’s proposal here falls far short of the comprehensive approach that was proposed by the sub-committee.

It is particularly extraordinary that the Chancellor should make such a proposal now, when, inevitably, on the one hand we have no idea of the eventual cost, because it depends on individual actions, while on the other we know that the Treasury has set a figure of £6 billion for the cost of this change over the next four years. That is an extra £6 billion that will have to be borrowed to pay people who are seeking to avoid paying the tax that is due. Therefore, my first question to the Minister is: why do the Government think that this reversal of policy is justified on its own terms, let alone at the current time?

Secondly, I want to ask the Minister about the announcement of the change in the pensions regulatory charge cap. This is particularly relevant following the events of the last few days that arose directly from the investment policies of private sector pension funds. The Bank of England has stressed the significance of the problems that the whole system faced, so I ask the Minister: is this really the time to make these changes, which are intended to have the effect of reducing the liquidity of these private sector pension schemes? Does he understand that the crisis was a crisis of liquidity and not about solvency? This measure is aimed at further reducing the liquidity of these schemes. Therefore, before proceeding with these proposals, we need, at least, a far better understanding of what went wrong following the Budget and the impact that it had on the investments of pension schemes.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 13th July 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord True (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. This has been an extremely interesting and thought-provoking debate, and I thank noble Lords for it.

There have been various strands in this debate, one of which is the last one alluded to by the noble Lord. There appears to be a suspicion in some minds about whether this lies in the may/must thing and whether there will be a national procurement policy statement. We have published a draft statement, which I will come back to later in my speech. I will not read any of it out, because the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, was kind enough to read out some of it—although I do not think that he quoted this specific bit—about

“contributing to the UK Government’s legally-binding target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050”.

I know that noble Lords are saying, “Oh well, yes, but, et cetera”—

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

The Minister referred to that document as a “draft statement”. My understanding is that it is a non-statutory document, which is something slightly different. Is it a draft of what we are going to get later this year?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

I remember well when we were debating the then Climate Change Bill how important it was to include a list of conditions that needed to be taken into account when setting the climate change budgets, including economic competitiveness and all sorts of other things. All we are asking for here is to have a reciprocating set of policies to ensure that the same things happen the other way around. I do not mean to be provocative, but there is a purpose for having a Government, and it sometimes feels as if the people in government do not really want to be there. If you are in government, you have levers, so use them.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

On a serious note, I add the example of pension schemes. The Government have laid a series of responsibilities on pension schemes to have regard to matters such as climate targets. The Government have accepted the principle of doing it this way and the Minister seems to be ignoring that.

[Lord True (Con)]

In the real world, we are dealing with a Bill which relates to contracting authorities. The counterparties to contracting authorities are would-be suppliers. The more one lays a duty on contracting authorities to do something, the more a small business which is seeking to enter the procurement process will have to come forward with pages and pages of compliance documents. Noble Lords may think that is not the case. On a personal note, my wife, who is far greater than me, runs a small business. When she started, the compliance requirements were about an inch thick, but now they are much thicker. The danger is always that, in the desire to do good, one ends up creating barriers to entry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 528C, which my noble friend Lady Brinton has already spoken to. Like her, I am a little perplexed about the Government’s view, according to the Minister, that public sector procurement should be based on value for money and that there should be a co-ordinated approach to public sector procurement so that businesses understand the rules in which they are working but also have flexibility, yet the health service seems to be excluded from that.

For the convenience and understanding of the Committee, we need to look particularly at Section 79 of the Health and Care Act 2022, which says:

“Regulations may make provision in relation to the processes to be followed and objectives to be pursued by relevant authorities in the procurement of”


services. Relevant authorities in this legislation are: NHS England; NHS England foundation trusts; an NHS trust established under Section 25; interestingly, a combined authority, which is a combination of local authorities; and a local authority in England. A relevant authority is not just an NHS body; it is a relevant authority if it is purchasing or procuring

“(a) health care services for the purposes of the health service in England, and (b) other goods or services that are procured together with those health care services.”

Ministers have said previously from the Dispatch Box that all that the provision applies to is the provision of healthcare services in England. They have not spelt out that it also applies to other goods or services that are procured together with those for healthcare services. If, for example, a care village was being procured where there was predominantly a capital spend on housing and where services for healthcare were to be procured at the same time, which set of procurement rules would apply? Would it be the rules within this Bill, those within the Health and Care Act, or a combination of both?

It is important that Section 79 of the Health and Care Act says that

“Regulations under subsection (1) must, in relation to the procurement of all health care services to which they apply, make provision”


for the following:

“(a) ensuring transparency; (b) ensuring fairness; (c) ensuring that compliance can be verified; (d) managing conflicts of interest.”

There is nothing about value for money, yet the Minister has said repeatedly at the Dispatch Box in this Committee that the Government’s view is that public procurement should be based on value for money. If that is the view of the Government—not of the Cabinet Office, but of the Government—why is value for money not in the Health and Care Act as a factor for public procurement of healthcare provision in England and other goods or services that are procured together?

There is a gaping hole which is not clear. It is so deep that I do not think the Minister can explain the contradiction between this Bill and the Health and Care Act in terms of procurement provision. So, particularly on joint procurement in something like a care village, which provision would apply? If the Minister cannot answer that very clearly from the Dispatch Box, I feel that this is going to come back on Report. Clearly, there is confusion not just in terms of legislation but for those businesses which wish to be part of a contract for a joint provision between health and other services.

My final question is this: why is it that combined authorities in a local authority in England are in the Health and Care Act but it says here that local authorities will be driven by the provisions in this Bill? Which one would a local authority have to adhere to in terms of the confusion that is around it?

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to make a point about proportionality. It arises under the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and runs through much of the Bill. In a sense, I am asking a general question but hanging it on the hook of Amendment 120. It is a point of some concern to small organisations; we are talking here about small charities and local voluntary organisations. In much of the debate, people have referred to businesses and enterprises, but this will also apply to local voluntary organisations and charities, which clearly do not have the resources or staffing to deal with the scale in the way that an organisation such as Oxfam, for example, could. They have their local job to do; to a certain extent, spending a lot of time drawing up a bid to provide a service will be a diversion from their work. Proportionality must have a role in assessing a contract. I am intrigued and ask the Minister to give some indication of an overall perspective on proportionality as it affects local organisations, charities and voluntary organisations.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, with apologies for missing some of this debate, I will speak briefly to my Amendment 129, which relates to Clause 22 and the incompatibility of subsections (2) and (5). Clause 22(2) states:

“In setting award criteria, a contracting authority must be satisfied that they … are sufficiently clear, measurable and specific”.


Clause 22(5) then sets out those “clear, measurable and specific” elements. In paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), it is indeed specific: they deal with

“the qualifications, experience, ability, management or organisation of staff”

et cetera. However, over the page, Clause 22(5)(d) sounds as if the drafter was late, tired, exhausted and gave up. It refers to

“price, other costs or value for money in all the circumstances.”

I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is not here to tell us how one might legally interpret “in all the circumstances”.

What we have drafted as an amendment is one that is as specific as paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) on what those circumstances might be. It sets out the standard phrases that have been used in the Government’s previous documents and draft statement. I merely suggest to the Minister and those behind him that paragraph (d) simply is not fit for purpose as it stands. The phrase “in all the circumstances” should not be in a Bill of this sort. It either needs to be cut or to be expanded to the sort of specificity that (a), (b) and (c) include. My amendment suggests what that might be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for another interesting debate that I have enjoyed listening to. Some thoughtful points have been made. I must say at the outset that Ministers are responsible for many things but we are not responsible for groupings. We just get told what we must do. It would have been quite possible, through the usual channels, to agree to de-group those amendments and put them separately but, as we say, “Them’s the breaks”.

Notwithstanding the illogicality that has been pointed out, I will address what is before us. By the way, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for what she said about the official Bill team, who support us all in Committee on the Bill. I fully endorse what she said. Many of them are here to hear it; if they are doing their job, they will probably notice it in Hansard but, none the less, I will make sure that they do.

Amendment 101A, 528A and 528B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and Amendment 528C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, cover health and procurement, as we just discussed. I candidly acknowledge that, sometimes in life, there are minor frustrations. I know that the Committee is understandably wrestling with the issue. My noble friend Lady Scott—I am sorry, I always call her Jane—tried to answer the question asked by the noble Baroness on two occasions but I will come on to say what we have tried to do about this; indeed, I will now read out the answer that I have been given.

These amendments would significantly extend the rules in Clause 18 by imposing additional requirements on authorities to have regard to a range of health sector-specific issues when awarding contracts for the research, development or supply of health services or health products. As we have already touched on at various points in the debate, contracting authorities need to make procurement decisions on a case-by-case basis. It would not be appropriate to include wider policy objectives, such as those suggested, in primary legislation. This could jeopardise the achievement of value for money and make it harder for small businesses to bid for these health services and health products contracts.

Amendment 528C would override the healthcare procurement regulation-making powers set out in the Health and Care Act and make the Bill apply instead to all healthcare purchasing—the challenge set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. The position is that the Department of Health and Social Care is currently preparing regulations, following public consultation, which will implement a new provider selection regime specifically designed for the procurement of healthcare services delivered to individual patients and service users. Obviously, noble Lords will have the proper opportunity to scrutinise and debate the implementation of these powers when they are laid in Parliament, through the affirmative procedure.

On the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, the recent DHSC consultation on proposals for its new provider selection regime acknowledges the need for integrated procurement for health and social care services. Existing procurement legislation recognises and provides for mixed procurement approaches, and relevant details will be included in the DHSC’s forthcoming regulations and guidance. Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise these under the affirmative procedure.

I know that noble Lords have said that they not entirely satisfied with this. It is the situation that clinical services for individual patients are with the health service. My noble friend highlighted—as I said on day three in Committee—that we would write to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on how the interface between the Procurement Bill and the health Act will work in practice, I reassure noble Lords that that is being prepared. We will seek to pick up many of the questions that noble Lords have asked on each day of the debate so far, in this area. That will be put before your Lordships before we get to group 14—I hope it is not group 13—or whenever we get to it. It is being done, but I have heard what noble Lords have said. I can tell the Committee that I am also writing personally to the Secretary of State for Health to seek further clarity on when the regulations will be available for scrutiny. I have heard the requests from your Lordships in this area.

I turn now to Amendment 118 tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, whose appearance varies today—I will not hurt him by saying it is improved today. This amendment would modify Clause 20 to require the tender notice to provide a period during which “suppliers may ask questions” and have the answer provided “to all potential suppliers”. Under the Bill regime, there is nothing preventing potential bidders asking for further information or clarification of matters within the tender notice or associated tender notice documents; in fact, this is standard practice in procurement procedures. There is a risk that including a specific provision to this effect might suggest that questions cannot be asked outside that window. We would not want to suggest that there comes a point at which interested suppliers can no longer ask questions of contracting authorities. With that in mind, I hope I have reassured my noble friend—when he comes to read this section—that the Bill already allows for the circumstances he wishes to see.

Amendment 119 and others relate to the Prompt Payment Code. Amendment 119 seeks to require being a signatory to the Prompt Payment Code to be used as a condition of participation in the award of a public contract. We are committed to ensuring prompt payment to suppliers. However, requiring that every potential bidder becomes a signatory to the Prompt Payment Code to participate in the procurement would be too onerous a requirement. Therefore, while we encourage suppliers to sign up to a Prompt Payment Code, we do not consider it proportionate for us to legislate for it in this Bill.

Amendment 120, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, would extend the consideration of whether conditions are proportionate for the purposes of subsection (1) to include the accessibility of the contract to as broad a range of suppliers as possible. This is an abiding theme in your Lordships’ Committee. The primary purpose of Clause 21 is to ensure that the suppliers that participate in the procurement are capable of delivering the contract, but also that these conditions are restricted to only those which are needed to deliver the contract.

The noble Lord asked what we are doing to stop unreasonable requirements of SMEs and others, and I include in this broad range social enterprises and charities. As I say, the intention of Clause 21 on conditions of participation is to prohibit disproportionate or unreasonable requirements being put on contracts that would end up excluding SMEs. The authority must be satisfied that conditions of participation consider only the legal and financial capacity and technical ability of the supplier to perform the contract in question, and that there are proportionate means of doing so. We will look carefully at the noble Lord’s words. That is the intention behind Clause 21, but we will bear in mind what he said.

On the previous day of Committee, we discussed the importance of creating opportunity for SMEs and others. There was a broad ask from your Lordships. We think the clause as drafted helps with that, as conditions are pared back to focus on delivery. I have already committed to holding an engagement during the Recess about what more we can do to support SMEs. In the meantime, we consider that this amendment is not required, but we will give it some reflection. Is “reflection” a parliamentary word? It sounds like a word that one of the right reverend Prelates might use.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

Will the Minister make it clear: when he says SMEs, does that embrace small charities and voluntary organisations, which I know are anxious about their situation under the process?

[Lord True (Con)]

Yes, my Lords, I believe I did say that. In parliamentary terms, I am reiterating what I said. SMEs cover, for the purpose of this, voluntary organisations, social enterprises and charities. I think I have made clear my profound personal belief that these are part of the vital warp and woof of our society.

Amendment 121, proposed by noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, aims to ensure contracting authorities take reasonable steps to verify that the supplier and any subcontractors are able to deliver the contract. Although we absolutely agree that contracting authorities need to do this in practice, we do not think it is necessary to add this provision into legislation, as the very operation of procurement is geared to this—the setting of conditions of participation, award criteria and evaluation processes, to name a few. While, as part of the Bill, we are improving supply chain visibility, we do not want to overengineer—noble Lords must have heard me say this too many times—legislative requirements for contracting authorities to investigate these matters in every procurement process as a box-ticking exercise.

Amendment 122A, which was proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and supported by others, would give the Minister the ability to exempt contracting authorities from the tests that must be satisfied when setting award criteria in order to allow policy priorities to take precedence to create additional public value. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee might have something to say about such an amendment if it were put forward by a Minister. It sounds very much as if certain rules need not apply in this particular place or contract. It certainly has a whiff of the dispensing power that the Glorious Revolution was designed to do away with, although I know noble Lords will say there is too much Henry VIII in too much legislation. So, in a technical sense it would be a difficult thing to do, but we think it would be undesirable.

We want all award criteria to be clear, measurable, relevant, non-discriminatory and proportionate to avoid unnecessary burdens on suppliers. We believe that this, together with our plans to publish a national procurement policy statement, which we debated earlier, and the requirement for authorities to maximise public benefit, will be sufficient. I have heard scepticism, but we believe that is the case.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 11th July 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 46, which comes from a slightly different angle. In our report AI in the UK: Ready, Willing and Able?, our AI Lords Select Committee, which I chair, expressed its strong belief in the value of procurement by the public sector of AI applications. However, as a recent research post put it:

“Public sector bodies in several countries are using algorithms, AI, and similar methods in their administrative functions that have sometimes led to bad outcomes that could have been avoided.”


The solution is:

“In most parliamentary democracies, a variety of laws and standards for public administration combine to set enough rules to guide their proper use in the public sector.”


The challenge is to work out what is lawful, safe and effective to use.

The Government clearly understand this, yet one of the baffling and disappointing aspects of the Bill is the lack of connection to the many government guidelines applying to the procurement and use of tech, such as artificial intelligence and the use and sharing of data by those contracting with government. It is unbelievable, but it is almost as if the Government wanted to be able to issue guidance on the ethical aspects of AI and data without at the same time being accountable if those guidelines are breached and without any duty to ensure compliance.

There is no shortage of guidance available. In June 2020, the UK Government published guidelines for artificial intelligence procurement, which were developed by the UK Government’s Office for Artificial Intelligence in collaboration with the World Economic Forum, the Government Digital Service, the Government Commercial Function and the Crown Commercial Service. The UK was trumpeted as the first Government to pilot these procurement guidelines. Their purpose is to provide central government departments and other public sector bodies with a set of guiding principles for purchasing AI technology. They also cover guidance on tackling challenges that may occur during the procurement process. In connection with this project, the Office for AI also co-created the AI procurement toolkit, which provides a guide for the public sector globally to rethink the procurement of AI.

As the Government said on launch,

“Public procurement can be an enabler for the adoption of AI and could be used to improve public service delivery. Government’s purchasing power can drive this innovation and spur growth in AI technologies development in the UK.


As AI is an emerging technology, it can be more difficult to establish the best route to market for your requirements, to engage effectively with innovative suppliers or to develop the right AI-specific criteria and terms and conditions that allow effective and ethical deployment of AI technologies.”


The guidelines set out a number of AI-specific considerations within the procurement process:

“Include your procurement within a strategy for AI adoption … Conduct a data assessment before starting your procurement process … Develop a plan for governance and information assurance … Avoid Black Box algorithms and vendor lock in”,


to name just a few. The considerations in the guidelines and the toolkit are extremely useful and reassuring, although not as comprehensive or risk-based as some of us would like, but where does any duty to adhere to the principles reflecting them appear in the Bill?

There are many other sets of guidance applicable to the deployment of data and AI in the public sector, including the Technology Code of Practice, the Data Ethics Framework, the guide to using artificial intelligence in the public sector, the data open standards and the algorithmic transparency standard. There is the Ethics, Transparency and Accountability Framework, and this year we have the Digital, Data and Technology Playbook, which is the government guidance on sourcing and contracting for digital, data and technology projects and programmes. There are others in the health and defence sectors. It seems that all these are meant to be informed by the OECD’s and the G20’s ethical principles, but where is the duty to adhere to them?

It is instructive to read the recent government response to Technology Rules?, the excellent report from the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. That response, despite some fine-sounding phrases about responsible, ethical, legitimate, necessary, proportionate and safe Al, displays a marked reluctance to be subject to specific regulation in this area. Procurement and contract guidelines are practical instruments to ensure that public sector authorities deploy AI-enabled systems that comply with fundamental rights and democratic values, but without any legal duty backing up the various guidelines, how will they add up to a row of beans beyond fine aspirations? It is quite clear that the missing link in the chain is the lack of a legal duty to adhere to these guidelines.

My amendment is formulated in general terms to allow for guidance to change from time to time, but the intention is clear: to make sure that the Government turn aspiration into action and to prompt them to adopt a legal duty and a compliance mechanism, whether centrally via the CDDO, or otherwise.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am speaking to my Amendments 128 and 130, although the issues raised there have already been addressed by earlier speakers. I fully support the amendments spoken to by the Front Bench and Amendment 57 tabled by the Liberal Democrats.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 6th July 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I was not going to intervene in this debate, and my questions are effectively procedural. As I understand it, these amendments are to Schedule 2, although according to the Marshalled List, Schedule 2 has already been debated. We also have the report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which made a number of trenchant criticisms of the contents of the Bill, including a provision in Schedule 2. Where and how do the Government respond to the points raised by the committee and where and how should we, as members of this Committee, raise the issues that were raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee? As my noble friend said, we have a mountain of paper here, and quite rightly we have been focused on all these government amendments, but I do not want the issues raised to pass by default. Does the Minister respond and, if so, when?

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I would like my noble friend to respond to a point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on Monday, which is pertinent to the remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, just now. I am confused about whether paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 relates to military contracts only. I think that was the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on Monday, and I do not know that we got a satisfactory answer. I am very confused about whether paragraphs 19 and 20 of Schedule 2 should be read together with paragraph 26. I think I am right that, on Monday, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised whether the international agreements under paragraphs 19 and 20 relate to defence contracts only or whether they are more general.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 4th July 2022 Grand Committee

If the amendment which the Minister has introduced but not spoken to has consequences that go far beyond simply the below-threshold—as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, had to indicate—the Minister must explain it. This set of amendments should be withdrawn or not moved so that, before the next day in Committee, explanatory statements can be attached to them. The Minister must give me the commitment now that the impact assessment will be updated and that there will be a new, entire set of explanatory statements. That is the least that the Minister could do, as other Ministers have done in situations far less bad than this.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I totally agree with everything that has been said. The rubric “technical amendments” has been bandied about in these discussions. The next group of government amendments, and the one after that, are described in the email from the Whips’ Office as “technical”. This group is not described as technical. If it is not technical, my presumption is that there are substantive changes involved and that no one, least of all the Minister, has told us what they are. I cannot see how we can agree the amendments today unless we are told what the substantial changes involved are.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise for not having spoken at Second Reading. I have taken a keen interest in the Bill, particularly in the devolution aspects. I will speak to government Amendments 355, 392 and 433.

I share the concerns of my noble friend Lord Fox, who speaks for the whole Lib Dem team, and other Peers who have spoken about the manner in which the Bill has been presented to us. Like others, I am particularly concerned about the large number of new government amendments tabled last week, the vast majority of which had no Member’s explanatory statement attached to them. The confusion over the weekend, when some amendments were removed from groupings and others were duplicated, must have been as stressful for staff as it was for Members trying to prepare for today. I echo my noble friend Lord Fox’s admiration for the efforts of the Government Whips’ Office staff.

Had the Government withdrawn the Bill after Second Reading, taken some time to incorporate the 300-plus amendments into the body of Bill and presented us with an entirely new document, life would have been so much easier for us all, including the Minister. Of course, it is not the Government’s job to make life simpler or easier for us, but it is their job to help us make good legislation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said. We have the potential to be, as we are now, in a situation fraught with difficulties, confusion and recriminations.

Having made my own personal protest about the Bill, I must commend the UK Government and the Welsh Government on the working relationship between them as they work together on issues in the Bill. We heard from the Welsh Finance Minister about the excellent working relationship and the efforts of all concerned to approach discussions in a cordial and constructive manner. I thank the Minister for that.

I understand that a number of amendments have been agreed between the two teams and that some of them are in this group, but I am slightly worried that in all the confusion with the tabling of 342—or is it 350?—new government amendments, key agreements might be missed out or overlooked. It would help us greatly to scrutinise the devolution aspects of the Bill if we could receive a list of the agreements between the two Governments and the amendments to which they refer.

I am pleased that the three amendments I am speaking to recognise the role of the Welsh Ministers. In Amendment 355 to Clause 64, “An appropriate authority” is replaced by the more specific

“A Minister of the Crown or the Welsh Ministers”,

recognising the role of Welsh Ministers in the publishing of payment compliance notices.

Amendment 392 adds new subsection (12) to Clause 70:

“A Minister of the Crown or the Welsh Ministers may by regulations amend this section for the purpose of changing the percentage thresholds.”


In Amendment 433 to Clause 80, the reference to

“A Minister of the Crown or the Welsh Ministers”

confirms the amending power of Ministers in relation to changing the number of days within which sums may be paid.

All these are very welcome, but I would have been grateful for explanatory statements to help me decipher which of the other 300-plus amendments have implications for devolution. Can the Minister confirm that all the amendments requested by the Welsh Government have been included? Are there any outstanding issues that would prevent the Senedd passing an LCM for the Bill?

Procurement Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been an interesting, wide-ranging debate. I will base the bulk of my speech on the Government’s Green Paper, Transforming Public Procurement, published in December 2020. My interest is in what has been described as contract compliance by public authorities. It must be understood that public authorities, those covered by this legislation, have a range of objectives that come into play when they procure goods and services. Obtaining the goods or services at the lowest possible price is only one of a range of objectives they could follow.

Another objective—an overriding objective, I argue—is to encourage and secure a range of government policies through the contracts into which they enter. The Government’s support for this understanding of the role of procurement was clear in the Green Paper, which said:

“By improving public procurement, the Government can not only save the taxpayer money but drive social, environmental and economic benefits across every region of the country.”


I repeat: government policy is about not just price but achieving

“social, environmental and economic benefits across … the country.”

There is no indication of an order of priority of these different objectives.

The Green Paper states that

“we want to send a clear message that public sector commercial teams do not have to select the lowest price bid, and that in setting the procurement strategy, drafting the contract terms and evaluating tenders they can and should take a broad view of value for money that includes social value … We propose allowing buyers to include criteria that go beyond the subject matter of the contract and encourage suppliers to operate in a way that contributes to economic, social and environmental outcomes on the basis of the ‘most advantageous tender’.”

I anticipate that my noble friend Lord Hendy will not talk about bus shelters but emphasise how this approach can support improvements in employment standards.

Simply as another example, I emphasise how contract compliance, operated as part of procurement policies, can lead to improvements in environmental standards both in the UK and abroad. It is no exaggeration to say that this is a crucial element in what the Government need to do to achieve their goals for arresting climate change. It would be absurd if public authorities did not assess the impact on the climate of their procurement policies.

My concern is therefore that the Government’s position as set out in the Bill is now less clear-cut than it was in the Green Paper. For example, in paragraph 3 of the Explanatory Notes there is the statement of different goals, but paragraph 4 then goes on to talk only about

“value for money for taxpayers.”

We already have a national procurement policy statement, which was issued last year and is a sort of progenitor of the statutory statement we can anticipate later this year, I assume. Again, it sets out the range of objectives but then, in a separate paragraph, identifies and gives precedence to value for money. I am concerned that value for money is in some way seen as the key objective and the others as subsidiary. Do the Government still adhere to the approach set out in the Green Paper? This is obviously a key issue to consider in Committee, so will the Minister make the position clear: does the policy in the Green Paper still apply? In the explanatory statement and the statement of principles—the policy statement—it appears that at one stage there was a paragraph setting out the range of objectives, but then, unfortunately, someone read it and said, “This won’t do; we need an additional statement to emphasise money.” I really want clarity on that.

What role will there be within the national procurement policy statement for local policy objectives, even local objectives not fully in line with national objectives? The useful report, as ever, from the Library tells us that the Cabinet Office set out that the intention of the NPPS was not to impose the Government’s political priorities on bodies normally outside of their control, but rather to influence them. As you read through the paragraph however, it is clear that it is expecting its own democratically elected separate bodies to adopt the Government’s core principles. Will the Government make it clear that local authorities, which have their own democratic mandate, will not be dragooned by central government?

Finally, people may be surprised to know, a point about pensions. There is nothing in the Bill directly relating to pension schemes, but some schemes will end up being classed as contracting authorities and will be required to undertake procurement in the same way as government departments and local authorities. The Government say that attempts to introduce flexibility to simplify public procurement processes could impact on this sort of organisation. Great stress has been placed on the importance of simplicity in the process. I am not sure that simplicity is a good objective on its own. Clarity is an important objective, but simplicity can lead to confusion and difficulties for those organisations not regularly working through this process.

I am not expecting the Minister to respond on the impact on pension schemes at this stage, but it is an issue to which I think we need to return—smaller organisations caught within the remit. The Bill already includes provision for some exemptions, and we will need to look at whether waivers are required for some specific organisations.

Elections Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

Clause 11, as well as reflecting those things—and I am sorry to say this to some noble Lords who have spoken; I know that they do not like it—reflects the preference of British voters as expressed in the 2011 referendum. I am sorry this is the case. Two-thirds of people voted in favour of retaining first past the post for parliamentary elections in the 2011 referendum. Faced with that—

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

The noble Lord is characterising my vote. It was against the alternative vote system and not for first past the post. We voted on an alternative vote system. That is not what the Minister is suggesting the vote was on.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord has been here all through the debate, but I maintain the position that the Electoral Commission has reported. I have given the facts to the Committee on the problems that arose under the supplementary vote system.

Legislation: Skeleton Bills and Delegated Powers

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, this is an important issue in terms of controlling the Executive and establishing the role for your Lordships’ House. I very much welcome the fact that this debate has been introduced by the noble Baroness. It refers specifically to skeleton Bills, but by incorporating the two committee reports the debate is somewhat wider. I do not make any apology for that.

I will use my brief time to highlight one specific issue identified by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee: that of the recent growth in the use of what the committee describes as “disguised legislative instruments”. This is dealt with in paragraphs 92 to 120 of its report. The committee provides various examples of this trend, but the common factor is that Ministers are being given the power to supplement primary legislation with what is, in effect, disguised legislation: instruments that are legislative in effect but not subject to parliamentary oversight. Examples have been quoted. The committee refers to

“powers to make a ‘determination’ … to determine ‘arrangements’ … to issue a ‘code of practice’, a ‘protocol’ or a ‘public notice’”,

and my major concern, to issue “directions”. The committee concluded that the

“the multiplicity of disguised legislative instruments is confusing to Parliament and to the public, and does not … promote the good law principles of law that is clear and accessible.”

The use of Treasury and other departmental directions in the context of the legislation on public service pension schemes sparked my concern, but I have subsequently come to understand that it is a wider problem, as highlighted in paragraph 101 of the committee’s report. It arises from Section 12 of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013, which provides a mechanism for what is called the cost cap as a limit on employer contributions. It provides that the cost cap should be determined in accordance with Treasury directions.

We have just had the McCloud and Sargeant case, which the Government lost, and there is a very expensive remedy. The Government have decided, by using directions, that the cost within the cost control mechanism should be borne by the members. I do not wish to argue the case for or against that decision, but it is manifestly a matter of public policy, where Parliament should have appropriate oversight over such an important decision.

Although we need to understand that there is not a hierarchy of significance in terms of different forms of legislation, some directions have a bigger and more immediate impact on individuals, their income and benefits than some pieces of legislation. Yet we spend a lot of time on the legislation and do not even get to see the directions. This is surely wrong. I think that is in accordance with the committee’s conclusions. It sets out a simple principle:

“In the absence of convincing reasons to the contrary”,


these devices “should not be used.” Will the Minister let us know whether he shares the concern about disguised legislation? If so, what steps will be taken to limit its use?

Budget Statement

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, with the leave of the Committee, I apologise for my late arrival but I was attending a meeting of the Finance Committee, and I understand that it is in order for me to participate. I have heard the majority of the contributions and benefited from what has been said.

I have a single, narrow but important point relating to pensions. the Chancellor said in his speech:

“I am announcing today that we will consult on further changes to the regulatory charge cap for pensions schemes, unlocking institutional investment while protecting savers”,—[Official Report, Commons, 27/10/21; col. 280.]


that took 25 words. It takes 29 words for the Red Book to say that

“the cap can better accommodate well-designed performance fees to ensure savers can benefit from higher return investments, while unlocking institutional investment to support some of the UK’s most innovative businesses.”

It goes on to refer to barriers to institutional investment.

I have three points to make in response. First, it would have been better for the Chancellor to have made it clear in his speech and in the Red Book that the charge cap on expenses applies only to default funds under automatic enrolment. Other forms of pension where people opt for other funds under automatic enrolment, or the many arrangements that take place outside the automatic enrolment arrangements, are not subject to the charge cap. It is up to the provider and the member of the scheme to arrive at their own provisions.

Of course, in practice the great majority of pension arrangements are default schemes under automatic enrolment. The number of schemes that have been taken up is testimony to the success of the automatic enrolment introduced by the last Labour Government. I think the default schemes are popular because people simply do not want to tackle what is inevitably a difficult decision. It could be characterised as great faith in pension providers, but I would put my money on inertia in the face of a choice for which most people do not have any training or experience and where there is limited or no independent advice.

Secondly, the situation where the default fund is the de facto standard arrangement places a particular responsibility on the Government not to play fast and loose with the trust, or the inertia, of the majority of people providing themselves with pensions. Over the many years that I have spent working on behalf of pension scheme members and promoting their interests, I have all too often encountered people with bright ideas, impressed with all the money that is held in the form of pensions, coming up with ideas to seek to use those resources for purposes other than providing pensions. The money in those funds is of course the members’ money and should be used in accordance with their wishes, not the wishes of Governments or others with other objectives.

That brings me to my third point. The Chancellor’s claim that

“savers can benefit from higher return investments, while unlocking institutional investment to support some of the UK’s most innovative businesses”,

is all too reminiscent of cold-call investment hucksters making promises that are too good to be true. If the potential returns are so attractive and so dependable, why are pension providers not able to promote them on their own terms, outside the default fund? Instead, they are all too ready to make unverifiable promises depending on future optimism. Make no mistake: this provision is about higher charges on workers’ pensions, with no guarantee of anything in return.

My advice to the Government is to be very careful here. They are, in effect, providing us all, the population, with investment advice. Of course, they are not authorised to do so. There is a history of pension scandals. Can the Minister assure us that he will take personal responsibility for making sure that we do not get another one?