My Lords, I have listened with great interest to this debate and seen the tension between those who want what they call a flexible and open framework and those who want a more principles-based framework with an understanding of what public procurement is about. We have to be clear that the public procurement is not just about the monetary bottom line; it is about ensuring that social good comes from every pound that the public sector spends. It is not just about ensuring that value for money is the bottom line—the pounds and pence; it is about the environment, the local economy and trying to ensure that people have opportunity, and ladders of opportunity are sown in communities so that people can grow.
I have worked as a public sector employee, I have worked in the private sector on procurement, I procured in the public sector as a health service manager and, like others here, I have been a politician who set the framework for public procurement, particularly when I was the leader of Sheffield City Council. I think that, sometimes when we speak, we are divorced from reality. Most suppliers use a legal challenge not on the process but on the criteria and how those criteria have been judged for the award of a particular contract. I cannot think of any time in my life when I have been involved in procurement that a legal challenge has been brought against an organisation that I either worked for or have been a senior politician in where the criteria have not been the particular legal point on which a supplier challenges; it is not normally the process.
Interestingly, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, gave many examples of why suppliers might not be able to do anything. Nothing in the Bill would stop that; in fact, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has an amendment in a future group that talks about having a more of an outcome approach to procurement, which would allow innovation. It would allow that innovation to be seen as something that it brought into the tendering process right at the beginning by going out to talk to suppliers about what outcomes were required, as the noble Lord suggests. So we have to be careful about how we frame this discussion and about saying that being less clear about principles and what is required will somehow stop legal challenge.
I would argue the other way: if there is no definition in the Bill of such things as value for money, that is a charter for lawyers to start saying, when a contract has been awarded, “What did you mean by value for money?” If over 400 different procurement authorities have a different view of value for money, and I am a supplier looking for a contract in 100 of them and
everybody is giving a different definition, then legally there may be more challenges to come. There have to be clear definitions in the Bill of certain aspects, such as what we mean by value for money—or, interestingly, social value. Again, if there is no national definition of that, it is a lawyers’ charter.
The tension between what is in the Bill and having more flexibility has to be thought through. It comes down to what a number of noble Lords have said, namely that this Bill is very confused. It is complex and contradictory. It has not been thought through, particularly the elements which need to be clearly defined so that it does not become a lawyers’ charter. I ask the Minister, in replying, to say what we actually mean by social value. Once this Bill has passed, if I was a supplier, how would I know what value for money was? Will value for money be defined for every contracting authority and understood by every supplier? Or will it be open to local interpretation to determine what social value is? The Bill is contradictory and has some holes, but we should be very careful of saying that being more flexible stops lawyers challenging. Sometimes not having things in the Bill means that lawyers will challenge more.