Lord Keen of Elie (Con)

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for moving the amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. I understand the desire for the definition of public authority and public official to clearly include subcontractors of various kinds. I understand the Government’s definition to draw on the Human Rights Act case law and to include bodies that have public functions, while excluding the private functions of those bodies. We on these Benches are not satisfied that expanding the definition is required, but we will continue to listen carefully to the arguments made by noble Lords as the Bill progresses through your Lordships’ House. I wish to raise certain concerns with the Minister with regard to the Government’s attempts to ensure that the application of the duty of candour to non-governmental organisations will not have unintended consequences. In particular, bearing in mind the cost involved in government procurement, to what extent have Ministers engaged with, first of all, potential contractors to the Government as to the cost and impact of these provisions on their attempts to carry out government contracts? Secondly, what engagement has there been with existing contractors to the Government to determine what they consider to be the potential impact on their discharging of existing contracts by reason of these duties being placed upon them? Over and above that, what assessments have been made of the potential cost to government contractors for the legal advice and related advice that they as businesses will require, their employees will require and their own subcontractors will require in determining the consequences of being subject to the duties in the Bill? I would appreciate it if the Minister could either address those points in his response or undertake to write to me.