My Lords, this has been another interesting debate, with that clash of views the noble Lord, Lord True, reminded me about over how far the state should interfere with the market. Some think it should interfere more; some think it should interfere less. No doubt, the noble Lord will pursue the Government’s objective of ensuring that we have a social market which operates for the benefit of the many. We look forward to continuing that debate, and I am sure he will respond in due course.
On a serious point, I will start this slightly back to front in terms of the amendments. The really important amendment—apart from my noble friend’s Amendment 75B, which I will speak to in a moment—is Amendment 534, which looks at reviewing the procurement rules to see whether they have made any difference or not. You can argue what those rules should be and how far something should go, and the Government will say, “Of course we will have a review; it is a matter of course. We keep under review all the legislation that is passed and look to see how effective it has been”, but this is really important.
The amendment refers to the awarding of contracts to small and medium-sized businesses. I appreciate that it does not deal with all the various points that have been raised, but the general point of reviewing what takes place and whether what is passed by the Bill has the impact we think it should have—or any impact at all—is an important principle that we should not lose sight of. However, Amendment 534 is much more narrowly drawn than that, and I suggest that six years is too long.
I will try to be reasonably brief in closing the debate, but I thought there were some really interesting suggestions in Amendment 38 from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. They went to the heart of what the Government need to do; there has clearly been a procedural problem, but the Committee is trying to address and support the Government to achieve their own objectives. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, supported the point about 30 days in Clause 63(2). Is it immediate payment or late payment? Is it sufficient? Is it too long or not long enough? It raises the point that there are a whole series of measures about supporting small and medium-sized businesses with public procurement that need to be looked at and addressed. That is one example.
The point that there are thresholds in Schedule 1 and that below-threshold contracts can be reserved for small contracts was really interesting—if I have understood what the noble Baroness said. She raised the possibility of whether there was the opportunity to have a below-threshold business amount. That is quite an interesting concept for the Government to address and look at.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, pointed out, we are trying to look at how we can expand this and ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises—as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, argued—will benefit from the public procurement provisions in the Bill. Everybody wants that, but is it going to happen? Will the measures on public procurement make any difference or not? It is in everybody’s interests that they should.
6.45 pm
As to Amendment 86, put down by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, how do you ensure that the barrage of big business and the huge money that it can spend on winning contracts does not drown small and medium-sized businesses? They cannot compete with that professional body of people, who have all set out to win those contracts. This goes to the heart of it. The Government will say, “Of course that is what we want to happen. Nobody could be against that.” That is true, but how will it be made a reality? Why will passing this Bill make any difference? How will this Bill becoming an Act mean that, in three, four or five years, we all turn around and say, “In the Grand Committee of the House of Lords, a procedure started that meant that small and medium-sized businesses benefited from a change in procurement policy”? That is what the whole debate is about: some of us want the Government to go further; others think that, if you reduce burdens, as some of these amendments do, you can change that.
I want to say something about Amendment 75B, introduced by my noble friend Lady Thornton, which is also in the names of my noble friend Lady Hayman and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Members of the Committee will know that, although this amendment talks about market stewardship, it also deals with small and medium-sized businesses, which proposed new subsections (1)(a) and (2)(a) refer to. In a different way, my noble friend Lady Thornton is trying to ensure that market stewardship means that all contracting authorities must consider the impact of their procurement policies on small and medium-sized businesses, but also on social enterprises and voluntary organisations. They should be looked at.
The importance of that is shown in the briefing that Social Enterprise UK sent us, which tells us that there are over 100,000 social enterprises in the UK, contributing £60 billion to the UK economy and employing 2 million people. That is a massive contribution. Everybody would agree with that, but Amendment 75B seeks to ensure in the Bill that we consider the impact of procurement systems on them. Proposed new subsection (2) is particularly important because the contracting authorities must consider how they can use procurement policies to improve the diversity of firms and businesses. This is to be supported by the procurement policy decisions of the Government and others, which is vital.
If I were the Government, I would be parading this. If you want a levelling-up agenda and to have business growth in many of the poorest parts of the country, including in parts of London and across the country—in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, if this is cross-border or whatever it needs to be to be in scope of the Bill—if you want rural businesses to expand, much of that is not big business or massive enterprises. Small and medium-sized businesses, particularly small businesses, are at the root of that economic prosperity. Any levelling-up agenda has to ensure that the procurement policy will achieve the social and economic objectives of the Government to ensure that growth is across the country and tackles problems of inequality and all those things. Amendment 75B is crucial to the achievement of those objectives.
The amendments in this group, like many other amendments, differ in how far the state should intervene, how much it should be neutral or whether it should just allow businesses to get on with it. If they get off their backs, they can get on with it. To be fair, in some circumstances that is right, but there will be a debate about that and how it can happen. It is up to the Government to look at Amendment 38 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Amendment 75B and all the amendments in this group and explain how, if they do not have to be in the Bill, the objectives within them that the Government agree with will be delivered.
I finish where I started: in the end, the Government will need to review all this—the various clauses and the bits that they will end up with when this becomes an Act—and, whether six years later or less, try to understand what difference has been made as a result of the Bill. This group of amendments, like many of the other groups that will be debated and discussed, is crucial for the success of the Bill and for the objectives that we all want to achieve.