§ 2.51 p.m.
§ Viscount Goschenasked Her Majesty's Government:
On how many occasions since 1997 the requirement for the Government to engage in a competitive tendering process has been waived on the grounds of national security.
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, central records are not maintained on individual procurements or the procurement routes used. Responsibility and accountability for procurement is delegated to the accounting officers of government departments, local authorities, NHS authorities and trusts and certain utilities.
§ Viscount GoschenMy Lords, is it not time that the Government gave a straight answer to a straight question? The national security exemption from the procurement directive is extremely narrowly drawn and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Is it not then extraordinary that the Government are unable to answer the Question about when the grounds of national security were used to exempt the Government from what are otherwise their legal obligations?
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, national security obligations under paragraph 6(h) of the supply regulations are, to my surprise, rather widely drawn. Indeed, exemptions from competitive tendering are extremely widely drawn. That wording states that there is an exclusion for contracts for,
work which is classified as secret or where the carrying out of services under it must be accompanied by special security measures in accordance with the laws, regulations or 765 administrative procedures of any part of the United Kingdom, or when the protection of the basic interests of the security of the United Kingdom require it".That is widely drawn, and the House can imagine the complication there would be if we started to give details of, for example, Ministry of Defence contracts that fell within that category.
§ Lord McNallyMy Lords, when those exemptions are invoked, is Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee asked to make a judgment on whether the powers have been correctly used?
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, not so far as I know.
§ Earl HoweMy Lords, as regards the smallpox contract, does the Minister agree that in the United States there was an open and competitive procurement process that was completed within six weeks, compared to that in the UK, which took more than four months without competitive tendering? Are there lessons to be learnt from that for future similar procurements, if only to ensure value for money for the taxpayer?
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, of course I cannot comment on the reasons for the United States decisions, but they carried out a procurement exercise for what is known as the New York version of smallpox vaccine, which is certainly viable and has been widely used in the United States and the Americas. Our requirement was for a vaccine that is equally viable and has been widely used in the World Health Organisation eradication programme. We have particular experience of its use in Europe, Africa and Asia.
The professional view taken by the Joint Committee was that we should choose that vaccine. We talked to five manufacturers considered capable of producing that vaccine. The outcome was that one supplier was considered to be able to meet our requirements for specification, quantity and delivery.