The decision by the Welsh Senedd to refuse legislative consent for the UK Procurement Bill has been met with mild controversy in procurement circles. The Bill, which seeks to modernize and streamline procurement processes in the post-Brexit procurement landscape, was opposed by some in the Senedd on the grounds it may reduce the accountability of public bodies in Wales and could result in a reduction in the amount of public money spent on Welsh businesses..

The UK Procurement Bill was introduced in December 2020 and aims to create a single, unified post-Brexit public procurement regime for the UK (excluding Scotland) replacing the current patchwork of regulations that differ between public contracts, utilities, concessions and defence and security procurements.

While the bill has received support from some quarters, the Welsh government has been an opponent of aspects of the legislation, arguing that it would undermine Welsh control over public procurement and does not reflect Welsh priorities, such as social partnership and operation of the Welsh NHS.

In refusing to pass a Legislative Consent Motion for the bill, the Senedd has sought to block the bill’s application to Wales, albeit such ambitions are merely symbolic in nature due to the nature of the devolution settlement. Whilst the refusal of legislative consent has been criticized by some as a political maneuver, it is important to recognize that the UK Parliament retains sovereignty over this legislation.

As confirmed by the UK Supreme Court in 2017, following refusal by the Scottish Parliament to grant legislative consent to the European Union Withdrawal Bill, the UK government has the power to pass bills without the consent of the devolved administrations, although doing so has strained relationships between the devolved nations and the UK government.

The issue at the heart of the dispute is one of devolution and sovereignty. Since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly in 1999, the devolved administrations have been responsible for certain areas of policy, including health, education, and the environment. However, Westminster has retained ultimate authority over issues that fall within its remit, including public procurement, foreign policy, central taxation, and defence and security amongst other matters.

The UK government argues that the Procurement Bill is necessary to modernize procurement practices and reduce red tape for businesses seeking to bid for government contracts. The bill would establish a single set of rules and procedures that would apply to public procurements in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, making it easier for businesses to navigate the procurement process.

In conclusion, the decision by the Welsh Senedd to refuse legislative consent for the UK Procurement Bill highlights the tensions that can arise between the devolved administrations and the central government in Westminster.

While the Welsh government is right to raise concerns about the potential impact of the bill, it is important to recognize that the UK Parliament retains ultimate authority over this legislation.

The outcome of this dispute will have implications not just for public procurement in Wales, but for the political relationship between the devolved administrations and the central government more broadly without affecting the central tenant of the devolution settlement that ‘power devolved is power retained’ (Tony Blair, c. 1997).