My Lords, there is a wide gamut of public policy that enables a Government to achieve the objectives on which they stood for office; that is a broader philosophical argument. I am not certain whether the noble Lord opposite wishes to have more in Schedules 6 and 7—he has certainly mentioned one aspect—or whether he makes a plea that something should be taken out. If the Labour Party wants to make a submission to change things and excise individual aspects of Schedules 6 and 7, no doubt we will look at that as our discussion advances in Committee.
8.30 pm
I have been asked before about how we achieved the list. The noble Lord must understand that, although I accept the responsibility to answer for the Government
and seek to do so, this pudding was mixed before I became responsible for this Bill; I was not there when it was decided which raisin and which sultana should be put into the pudding. None the less, a rational, serious and thoughtful process went into this. The Green Paper featured seven questions on exclusions. Together, they attracted a total of 2,603 responses. In addition, a series of workshops was held with internal and external stakeholders, including SMEs and strategic suppliers, to test the details of the proposals. So it is not that something just came out of the air.
Where the noble Lord is absolutely right, as other noble Lords have said, is that the grounds for the exclusion of suppliers are some of the most important elements of the Bill. I am not surprised that there has been such a high level of interest in them; I have listened carefully and will examine carefully the wide range of points put forward. It is because the grounds are significant that it is important that we have the process of review and challenge, which the noble Lord spoke about in our debate on a previous group.
Exclusion and debarment are different processes, obviously: exclusions are applied by individual contracting authorities in each procurement that they undertake whereas debarment, which is quite draconian, is where the Minister decides that a supplier must or may be excluded by all contracting authorities. Both are assessed against the same range of circumstances, as set out in Schedules 6 and 7, but the debarment list is intended for only the most serious cases whereas exclusion must be considered for all suppliers on all procurements.
I referred to the review process in our debate on an earlier group in relation to the exclusion process. So far as debarment is concerned, when a Minister decides to investigate a supplier—I have been asked in this Committee whether the Minister will and should investigate suppliers—the supplier will be notified and invited to submit the self-cleaning evidence and other representations. The Minister then considers whether the exclusion ground applies and whether self-cleaning has been sufficient such that the circumstances are unlikely to occur again. They then decide whether to add the supplier to the debarment list. A report is published, with a summary of the case and reasons for the decision. The supplier is added to the debarment list and may then appeal to the courts, as I explained earlier on the exclusions regime. The supplier can also ask for a review if its circumstances have changed, for example if it has undertaken new self-cleaning activities.
Before I come on to the main points made in the debate, I ought briefly to address the government amendments in this group. Amendment 302 would ensure that any reference to the debarment list in the entire Bill, rather than just this section, is to mean the list kept under Clause 59.
Amendment 303 would remove from the exclusion grounds offences relating to notification in Section 54 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. This is to ensure that only substantive terrorism offences are captured.
Amendments 304 and 305 would ensure that the equivalent offences in Northern Ireland and Scotland to those specified in Schedule 6 are covered by the mandatory exclusion grounds.
Amendment 309 would replace the tax evasion offences specified in Schedule 6 with a broader concept that covers these but also any other offences involving tax evasion. This will ensure that all tax evasion offences are caught by the mandatory grounds for exclusion, including any tax evasion offences that might be created in future.
Amendments 311 to 314 are technical amendments to ensure that the mandatory exclusion grounds on misconduct in relation to tax align with the relevant finance legislation.
Amendment 316 would ensure that the exemptions to the competition-related mandatory exclusion grounds apply only where appropriate. The provision exempts from exclusion individuals in receipt of a “no action” letter from the Competition and Markets Authority. These individuals do not need the exemption since the mandatory exclusion ground to which it relates can apply only to undertakings. Only undertakings that were themselves an immunity recipient should benefit from an exemption.
Amendments 324 and 325 are technical amendments which are necessary to ensure the clause reads appropriately. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, towards the end of the debate, put in a sort of counterpoint to some of the other requests that were put in by other noble Lords who spoke. Indeed, I think the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I are on the same page in understanding there is a difference here in terms of the philosophical approach to the Bill and whether the Bill should be encrusted with an even wider range of provisions.
My noble friend set out her concerns about adding to the existing exclusion grounds transposed from the EU directive. The exclusion grounds in Schedules 6 and 7 are the product of extensive consultation, as I said at the outset, and the consensus was clear that the scope of the exclusion grounds needed to be clearer and more consistent. We believe that we have achieved both of these objectives. Where we have introduced new exclusion grounds or widened the scope of certain grounds, it is in order to address more consistently the risks faced by contracting authorities. Clause 55 provides that remedial evidence demanded from suppliers must be proportionate to the issues in question.
However, I point out to my noble friend that we have also narrowed the scope of certain grounds where appropriate. For instance, the current discretionary ground for violations of applicable obligations in the fields of environmental, social and labour law is so broad that suppliers face exclusion for relatively trivial breaches. We have boiled this down to target the most serious cases of labour and environmental misconduct. That may not please all, but the Government are seeking to find a balance. Overall, Schedules 6 and 7, in our submission, represent a significant refresh of the grounds in the EU directive, and we contend it was a much needed one. However, I say to my noble friend that we are obviously ready to engage on the details in the schedule between now and Report.