My Interventions on the Public Procurement Motion (1)

Sir John Redwood:

Does the Minister think the regulations are duly simplified so that it is feasible for the self-employed and very small businesses to have access to contracts? Is there any provision for breaking down contract sizes so that the self-employed and small businesses have more opportunity?

Alex Burghart:

My right hon. Friend asks a pertinent question—one that was at the forefront of Ministers’ minds when the legislation was drafted and as it made its way through both Houses. A number of provisions in primary legislation are there specifically to increase the chances that small and medium-sized enterprises, which are more likely to be British, get a bigger share of the £300 billion-worth of public procurement. Those provisions include everything from the online procurement system that we are building—which will increase transparency and allow greater notification of pipelines, helping small and medium-sized enterprises to prepare for those procurements—to reduced red tape, which will take the burden off those SMEs and reduce their barriers to entry. We are hopeful that a lot of local businesses in his constituency and in mine will benefit from this landmark piece of post-Brexit legislation.

The contents I was describing would typically include the contact details for the contracting authority, the contract’s subject matter, key timings for the procurement process, and various other basic information about a particular procurement that interested suppliers would need to know. The provisions also cover the practical measures that authorities must follow when publishing those notices, such as publishing on a central digital platform and handling situations in the event that the platform is unavailable.
Beyond transparency, the instrument includes various other necessary provisions to supplement the Act that will be relevant in certain situations. We provide various lists in the schedules so that procurers are able to identify whether certain obligations apply in a particular case, including a list of light-touch services that qualify for simplified rules, and a list of central Government authorities and works that are subject to different thresholds. The regulations disapply the Procurement Act in relation to healthcare services procurements within the scope of the NHS provider selection regime, which has set out the regulatory framework for healthcare services procurement since its introduction in January this year.

The regulations also set out how devolved Scottish contracting authorities are to be regulated by the Act if they choose to use a commercial tool established under the Act or procure jointly with a buyer regulated by the Act. The provisions of the regulations apply to reserved procurement in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, and to transferred procurement in Northern Ireland. The Welsh Government have laid similar secondary legislation that will apply in respect of devolved procurement in Wales, and if the devolved body carrying out that procurement mainly operates in Wales, elsewhere.

The Government have consulted carefully with stakeholders throughout all stages of the reform process, and we published our response to the formal public consultation on these regulations on 22 March. That consultation was a great success, evoking a good response from the various representative sectors, and confirmed that the proposed regulations generally worked as intended. Many stakeholders urged that certain matters be clarified and explained in guidance and training, which is a key part of our implementation programme that is being rolled out across the UK. The Government response demonstrates that we have listened to feedback, and confirms a number of areas in which the consultation led to technical and drafting improvements.

Once the instrument has been made, contracting authorities and suppliers will need time in order to fully adapt their systems and processes before go-live. As such, the Government have provided six months’ advance notice of go-live of the new regime before these regulations come into force, which will happen on 28 October this year.

7 Comments

  1. Peter
    May 15, 2024

    During Covid lockdown it was simplified. A lot of small businesses and self-employed people got contracts because they were pals of politicians. No questions were asked.

    Reply Not so. All contracts were awarded by independent civil servants. MPs of all parties wrote in with local company contacts from those who said they could help fill the PPE gap.

    Reply
  2. Nigl,
    May 15, 2024

    As ever looks possible from the reply but even that is so full of bureaucratic jargon that only worse will come when SMEs engage.

    Firstly economies of scale means that only larger companies can compete on price, HMG tends to go for the cheap, whoops I meant value for money option, size of contract, again only larger companies geared up and finally the massive cost/bureaucracy around having green and diversity policies/targets etc.

    So massive barriers to new entrants, maybe a little easier for those already in the market.

    So Sir Johns, jingoism 1 overall effect on the economy 0.

    Reply
  3. Bloke
    May 15, 2024

    If the government goes to great lengths to reduce red tape, WHY does it produce so much of it in the first place? Legal challenges add even more with overpriced wishy-washy pink tape binding bundles of added bungle.
    Bisan offer 10 yards of 48mm wide red tape on Amazon @ £9.99. Citizens using that to insulate themselves from Alex Burghart’s ‘notification pipelines’ leaks and inefficiency gain good value for just £10, INCLUDING change!

    Reply
  4. Ian B
    May 15, 2024

    Sir John
    On both counts of your ‘interventions’ the missing link is ‘reciprocity’ when talking competitive tenders etc. This Conservative Government has a strong bias towards financing foreign states with UK Taxpayer money. i.e. moving UK Wealth out of the Country never to return

    Competition is good and needed, that is not the same as giving market access to those that are protected in their ‘home markets’. Allowing these protected entities the equivalent access to a UK based paid up Company organizations is putting a target on the backs of UK business to be destroyed. The first question is would a UK Business be granted the same in this Organization home market?

    The lesser price from larger corporates doesn’t mean it is the less costly. The US mode of taxpayer procurement has a ‘what-goes-around-comes-around’ structure at its heart. Taxpayers are funding purchases to those that consume from the local communities and then refill the tax in with tax out. It’s a trickle down of the Countries Wealth being recycled.

    Many, many of those that get treated as equals in the UK are charging their UK end of the operation administration fees back to their home market the equivalent to what others in the UK would be paying in Corporation Tax. The money doesn’t go around it leaves free and gratis. Therefore the cost to the UK its Treasury, the Taxpayer is greater than the headline sum.

    One of the main keys to this is then is ‘reciprocity’. Could a UK Organisation be awarded/rewarded the same tax breaks and access in the competitors home market?

    Reply
  5. Original Richard
    May 15, 2024

    New regulations won’t make a scrap of difference when you’ve allowed the fifth column communist Civil Service to be in control.

    Reply
  6. a-tracy
    May 15, 2024

    Your party has had 14 years. Please tell us how many more small businesses with less than 50 staff have had contracts awarded compared to those in the ten years before 2010, even if you only compare 2000 to March 2010 and April 2010 to March 2020. Did you make progress?

    Reply
  7. Mickey Taking
    May 15, 2024

    What contracts have smallish businesses in UK won from French or German Governments?
    …just asking?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.