The UK general election has halted or postponed various projects and pieces of work, some of which will start up again but some may be lost forever. Well done therefore to Conservative (ex) MP Will Quince, who has published his report on UK public sector food procurement here on LinkedIn, because it could not be published through the official government channels now we are into the election campaign. He is standing down at the election so this is his final act as an MP.
Quince worked in the food industry as a young graduate, the became a lawyer, so he has some credibility to look at this topic, and it isn’t a “political” report, again to his credit. There are good “purpose” outcomes here for both buyers and sellers. Getting more local, smaller suppliers of food products into the supply chain can help with reducing emissions and supporting more sustainable farming techniques. And it would be good to think this might not actually cost more than using the biggest suppliers, and might provide fresher, more nutritious food to school children, hospital patients or prisoners!
A major theme in the Quince report is that the government’s guidelines on public sector food procurement, the “Government Buying Standard for food and catering services”, aren’t really proving fit for purpose. That is not so much about their content (although there are a few issues there we might debate), but more in terms of their implementation and monitoring, he says. The standards don’t apply to schools, for instance, and there does not appear to be any real monitoring of whether organisations are following the guidelines, or collecting relevant data.
It feels like the standard might be one of those “performative” publications, policies or projects where politicians felt it was important to be seen to “do something”, as opposed to actually doing something. There are many examples of this, and every ruling party has been guilty of such approaches. So you publish a document that makes it look like something is happening, but then you don’t actually invest and time, money or resources to follow up and drive compliance or change.
In terms of sustainability and purpose, the standards are also somewhat weak. In several instances, they say something good from a sustainability perspective, but then provide a way out for buyers or suppliers. For instance, this comment on animal welfare.
“If in any particular circumstances, this leads to a significant increase in costs which cannot reasonably be compensated for by savings elsewhere, the procuring authority shall agree with the catering contractor or supplier to depart from this requirement and the reasons for doing so shall be noted and recorded”.
Quince’s report actually does not really pick up on much in terms of sustainable farming. He does talk about the health aspects of food supply, and certainly wants to see more local suppliers, smaller farmers and producers being able to supply public sector bodies. But, as we might all have suspected, procurement rules and processes often get in the way. Buyers often aggregate requirements, or look for national contracts, or erect other barriers to smaller providers being able to compete.
He suggests expansion of those standards across all public sector bodies, more funding for school meals, and ring-fencing of food budgets in schools. (It is pretty shocking that hasn’t already happened really). He wants schools supported to use “caterers signed up to the Food For Life Served Here FFLSH scheme, which is the only third-party scheme acting to verify compliance with best practices in schools”. He also wants more analysis to examine how the Schools Fruit & Veg scheme is working, and targets for spend with smaller firms and producers. (Targets haven’t worked well in terms of the wider government SME policy, it’s worth saying).
The report also suggests more use of dynamic purchasing systems, a more flexible form of procurement framework, which might help to get more smaller producers into the supply chain. But he does not make any comments on one of my favourite topics, whether large national collaborative buyers, such as Crown Commercial Services or NHS Supply Chain, are positive or negative forces when it comes to smaller and local suppliers.
I found the case studies included in the report interesting, including a dynamic purchasing system pilot run by the Bath and North East Somerset local authority which seems to have delivered good results, although as is so often true with case studies like this, it would have been good to see more detail on the outcomes. But all in all, the report is an interesting piece of work, delivered in a relatively short timescale, and a decent way to bow out of his career in Parliament for Quince.