Noble Lords have more energy than me, then.
Having said that, we are discussing incredibly important issues. In his opening remarks about Part 5, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, was absolutely right. To be fair to the Government, Part 5 is undoubtedly a step forward and an improvement. For that reason, they are to be commended.
The amendments before us seek to improve what the Government have done and take it forward, and to provide clarity where it is lacking, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has done. These amendments are particularly good in challenging the Government to go further in achieving their objectives, but also asking whether they are sure they have defined things as well as they might have done.
7 pm
I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. This is one of the most important parts of the Procurement Bill. However procurement is organised, the public perception is frankly that, by and large, too many contracts are given to friends and acquaintances, and are not subject to proper process. Overall, I do not think that is true, at a local, regional or national level. It may or may not be true in every circumstance, but that is what large numbers of the public think. That is corrosive for our politics and corrosive for anything that we seek to do. That is why I say that this is one of the most important areas of the Bill and why many of the amendments, although clearly probing, are worth the Government’s consideration. I know the Minister will look at them to see, if they cannot be accepted, whether improvements or changes can be made.
Sir Nigel Boardman’s recommendations are really seeking to improve the Bill. If you read the whole report, he does not criticise the Government in great detail.
Actually, I would not agree with one or two of his conclusions, but I do agree with many of the recommendations that he made. The main amendment that I want to talk about concerns where those recommendations would be in the Bill.
There are a couple of amendments that I would like to highlight. Amendments 407 and 409, from the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, broaden the range of people to whom conflicts of interest in procurement should be identified. Sir Nigel Boardman recommends that. Can the Minister say something about this range of people—whether the Government consider it broad enough, and what consideration they have given to Sir Nigel’s recommendation that it ought to broader?
I agree, again, with the recommendation from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which is really about clarity. What do the Government mean by a conflict of interest? What is included in a conflict of interest? Is it just financial or is it rewarding somebody because they are a relative—your son, your daughter, your friend’s niece? Some people might say that it is obvious what it means, but clarity in that is quite important, so those amendments are important as well.
Amendment 421, again from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, ensures that there is no undue influence by former Ministers or senior civil servants on a procurement. It includes provisions to establish a register of interests for five years. The Government will say that there are rules to govern this and to prevent this happening. If there are rules, I am not sure that they are as effective as they should be—let us put it that way. Maybe there is an opportunity here for the Government to look at how things work and whether more can be done. As I say, this series of amendments allows the Government to make improvements or take other things forward.
Amendment 422, again from the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, concerns the management of conflicts of interest. It is really important for the Government to spell out in their Procurement Bill how they will ensure that the conflict of interest regime that they are introducing in the Bill will work. Who will monitor it? How effectively will it be monitored? Will there be regular reports to do that? Some of that, such as regular reports, is probably a step too far, but we can see what Amendment 422 is getting at. It is saying that a whole series of recommendations is being made, all sorts of guidance will be published and various other points will be made—but what will actually be done? How will the Government ensure that it is enforced and effectively followed? Whose responsibility will it be? If the Government can answer some of that, it will help restore some public confidence. People want to know that the rules laid out are followed, and seen to be followed, which requires transparency and proper monitoring of the regulatory framework that is set up.
Part 5 is one of the most important parts of the Bill. If we can improve it and get it right, it will start to address the very real lack of public confidence in how public procurement operates at every level. Again, far too many people think that there is one rule for those
who are in the system and one rule for people who are not. We have an opportunity to do something about it. With that, I hope the Minister will address some of these amendments and the points that have been made.