I agree with a lot of that and I think it is something that we will discuss further. I thank the noble Lord for his ideas.
This will allow a longer-term open framework which will be reopened for new suppliers to join at set points, so SMEs are not locked out, and the new concept of dynamic markets which, like the current dynamic purchasing system, will remain always open to new suppliers. All these will provide greater opportunity for SMEs to join and win work.
Amendment 75B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, would insert a clause into the Bill on market stewardship, meaning contracting authorities must consider the impact of procurement on small and medium-sized businesses, social enterprises and voluntary organisations. They would also need to consider how to improve the diversity of their supply chains including, but not limited to, these organisations.
I have previously touched on how the Bill benefits SMEs and would also like to highlight Clauses 32 and 33 to your Lordships, which enable contracting authorities to reserve certain contracts to supported employment providers and public service mutuals. We indeed recognise the importance of diverse supply chains and the benefits to the delivery of public services, and that is why in Clause 63 we require that 30-day payment terms will apply throughout the public sector supply chain, regardless of whether they are written into the contract, ensuring SMEs and other organisations receive prompt payments and the increased liquidity they bring.
Amendment 86, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, would make explicit obligations on contracting authorities to consider small and medium-sized enterprises in preliminary market engagement. Contracting authorities are able, under the new legislation, to design their preliminary market engagement in a way which gives consideration to SMEs, but too many obligations on contracting authorities will discourage them conducting this engagement. I therefore suggest this amendment is not needed.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s Amendment 534 proposes a new clause that seeks to make legislation obliging a Minister of the Crown to carry out regular reviews to consider the Act’s performance in relation to the award of contracts to SMEs. I draw to noble Lords’ attention that the Government do capture SME spend data for those SMEs contracting either directly or in government supply chains.
7 pm
For 2021, spending through SMEs grew by £3.7 billion on the previous year, with £10.2 billion of the total spend with SMEs directly and a further £9.1 billion through supply chains. This transparency data on central government is published on GOV.UK by the Cabinet Office, so we already know where SMEs fit into this public procurement exercise.
As I said, Amendment 534 proposes a new clause to the Bill that seeks to make legislation obliging a Minister of the Crown to carry out regular reviews to consider the Act’s performance in relation to the award of contracts to SMEs—I have suggested that we already keep that data—and consider if any simplifications or reductions should be made to the procurement rules. It proposes that reports are put to Parliament and published.
We recognise that it is best practice to carry out continued benefits analysis, and we are committed to measuring the Act’s success against a range of indicators, including, but by no means limited to, the measure of spend with SMEs, in order to determine whether the benefits in the impact assessment have been realised. The results of that analysis will be used to shape the Act over time to ensure that it continues to deliver value for money for the public purse while meeting our international obligations.
This regime is new and will bring additional transparency to the whole lifecycle of public procurement, including access to the sort of data proposed in the amendment. The central digital platform will allow for free access to procurement data and allow interested parties to analyse and see the procurement policies and decisions of the contracting authorities in far more detail than they can at present. Over time, the volume of data will provide the opportunity for more complex data analysis, driven by the content of the notices and information on the central platform, allowing for detailed examination of the nature of the suppliers that the public sector is dealing with, including their beneficial ownership and size. The Minister must be able to keep the information generated under review to ascertain when performance measuring is appropriate, rather than meeting arbitrary timescales.
Finally, the scope of the review proposed is also problematic, as it includes procurements which were carried out under the National Health Service Act 2006 and, as such, may not be subject to the Procurement Bill, depending on the scope of forthcoming health procurement regulations, as we have been talking about. Any review of procurements subject to a different set of regulations would be inappropriate to enforce through this Bill.
Overall, I hope that I have assured noble Lords that this Bill is a good deal for SMEs and that there is good reason why we cannot go as far as noble Lords would like. As I have said, the Government support SMEs, the third sector and the voluntary and community sector. This is something on which we will have a number of meetings between now and Report to discuss what we can do further, if we can. I respectfully ask that these amendments be withdrawn or not moved.