That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 12 December 2024 be approved.

At the end: “but this House regrets that the draft Regulations do not simplify the procurement process; that they hinder economic growth; and that they impose unnecessary burdens on small and medium-sized enterprises, thereby stifling innovation and competitiveness.

My Lords, I was reading this weekend about the Prime Minister’s comments about various things that are coming forward, and it seemed to me that this was something that needed to be addressed. The regulations address the Procurement Act 2023. It is a Commons question. What are we to think?

Are the drafts okay? Are the pieces that are subject to the regulations to be cancelled? The amounts put forward are extremely good—but are they? Noble Lords will understand that people have concerns about the changes that have been made. How much can be seen?

How much is numerable and how much is qualifiable and noticeable? Then we look at the occupational pension schemes regulations. What about the lenient one? Leaping on to Regulations 42D, 42E and 42F—what is all that about? The amendment on branded health services—what is that?

What about the amendment of the Competition Act 1998 order 2022? What about the healthcare services regulations to exclude a provider that is a threat to national security? Why is this necessary? Then there is debarment in Regulation 20D. It seems okay, but is it?

What about Part 6 and Regulation 33(1)? Finally, we have repeals and revocation. Can the Minister tell us what all this is about? It seems good—it seems not too bad. We would like to be certain that this is not a problem. Could the Minister please tell the House how this is to be proceeded with?

To be fair, I think that there is a possibility of revocation. Will the Minister please tell us what this is before we let it through?

My Lords, I may be the only person here who actually took part in the Committee and Report stages of the Procurement Act, to which we are considering this SI. The Minister may remember that it was one of the worst-drafted Bills I have seen since coming into this House.

The Conservative Government introduced more than 300 amendments between Second Reading and Committee. The amendment to Clause 1 they produced in Committee was so badly drafted that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, intervened to say that it would be wonderful for the legal profession.

Therefore, between Committee and Report, the Government had to produce an amendment to its amendment to Clause 1. That was not an easy experience for the Conservative Government nor, I have to say, for the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.

She began looking at the Bill as a critical Back-Bencher and then, after the resignation of her predecessor, she found herself as the Minister who had to defend the Bill she knew had many flaws.

She did her best to struggle through Committee, which included three previous Conservative Ministers, who were very critical of the Bill. In terms of transparency and simplification, we are struggling with an Act that is imperfect and very complicated. This SI does not make matters much better.

I think we are all agreed that transparency and simplification are what we need to pursue, and we do not have them currently.

I think we also agree that having public procurement rules which end up unintentionally favouring consultancies which are very good at writing applications and multinational companies that have the staff to write detailed applications over small and medium enterprises and others is not what you want.

The Covid experience showed the very worst of that. I recall the early contracts for setting up testing sites which were given by the Government to two multinational companies, one of which had its headquarters in Miami.

Surprise, surprise, it put a lot of the local testing sites in the wrong places because they did not know much about where the best places in local communities were.