Justin Madders
MP for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough · Labour · United Kingdom
“Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard asked about, will consider the points raised in this debate and whether any of them can be put into future updates to guidance. As was mentioned, good passenger information is central to standards.”
“As the roads Minister, I of course recognise the importance of bus stops and the important effect they have on the streetscape. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard made clear that she is passionate and informed about the importance of bus journeys to everyone.”
“Where responsibility for highways or individual assets sits elsewhere, close and effective working between the relevant authorities is essential. We expect local plans to join up services, infrastructure and passenger information, rather than treating them as separate issues. That will no doubt be music to the ears of my hon.”
“Our guidance encourages authorities to take a strategic approach to stops and interchanges, including keeping an inventory of infrastructure, identifying priorities for investment and setting locally appropriate standards for facilities and maintenance.”
“She is absolutely right that the quality of a bus stop is about more than accessibility, although of course accessibility is vital. Passengers notice whether a stop is easy to find and use, whether it offers shelter or seating where appropriate, whether it is clean, whether the surroundings feel safe and well maintained and, as we have di…”
“That approach reflects a simple principle: local transport authorities know their areas and are best placed to plan improvements across the whole local bus network. That is why the Department’s vision for buses, within an integrated transport system, puts local transport authorities at the centre of delivery.”
The complete record
Every one of 8,481 lines we hold for Justin Madders, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 32 of 170.
“Question proposed , That the schedule, as amended, be the Second schedule to the Bill.”
“Amendments made: 56, in schedule 2, page 114, line 20, at beginning insert— “(1) The Employment Relations Act 1999 is amended as follows.” See the explanatory statement for amendment 57 . Amendment 57, in schedule 2, page 114, line 23, at end insert— “(3) In section 34 (indexation of amounts, etc)— (a) in subsection (1)(c), for “124(1)” substitute “124”; (b) omit subsection (4); (c) in subsection (4A), for “124(1)” substitute “124”; (d) in subsection (4B)— (i) for “124(1)” substitute “124”; (ii) after “1996” insert “in relation to cases of any description”; (iii) for the words from “such a sum” to “that date” substitute “, with effect from a day within 12 months before that date, a sum specified in that section in relation to cases of that description”.”— (Justin Madders.) This amendment and amendment 56 are consequential on amendment 55 .”
“I take the shadow Minister’s point, but that presupposes that businesses bake into their business plans compensation for unfairly dismissing their staff, and I do not think any business would want to proceed on that basis. This is about a potential liability that might come in at a future point. Of course, we all want employers to retain their staff and have a productive working relationship, but if they do not, we want them to comply with the law and dismiss employees fairly. There will be a small number of cases where that does not happen, but I would not expect a business to be able to anticipate what might happen in two or three years’ time with an individual employee and whether a process was followed or not. That is probably not on a business’s desk at this point. Amendment 55 agreed to .”
“A Government amendment has been made to schedule 2 to include a delegated power to change the maximum compensatory award available during the statutory probation period where the lighter-touch standards apply, as we have just discussed. We will consult on that.”
“Paragraph 1 repeals the two-year qualifying period. Paragraph 2 makes it clear that the right to be unfairly dismissed does not apply to those who have not yet started employment. Paragraph 3 makes provision about dismissal during the initial period of employment, which we have already discussed. It will ensure that the “potentially fair” reasons in section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 will be subject to the light-touch regime where they relate to the employee with the exception of redundancy. As we have already discussed, the Government intend to consult on the standards, and the schedule repeals the two-year qualifying period.”
“Schedule 2 amends the Employment Rights Act 1996, including the introduction of a statutory probation period. It also removes the qualifying period for the right to written reasons, replacing it with a requirement for the dismissal to have occurred after the statutory probation period ends. By removing the qualifying period, schedule 2 makes basic protection against unfair dismissal a day one right for all employees, ensuring that employees receive a baseline of security and predictability. By introducing a statutory probation period in legislation, the schedule ensures that employers can continue to assess new hires. It allows the duration of the statutory probation period to be set out in regulation by the Secretary of State, which will follow public consultation. I will take Members briefly through the elements of schedule 2.”
“Question put and agreed to. Schedule 2, as amended, accordingly agreed to . Clause 20 Dismissal during pregnancy Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“I will try to put the shadow Minister’s mind at ease. I point out that not just is there an overall impact assessment for the Bill, but there are 24 separate impact assessments for different measures. That shows the amount of work that has been put in. The RPC has approved two thirds of those assessments, and it was looking only at the evidence base, not the policies themselves. The impact assessment for day one rights covers everything we would expect an impact assessment to look at: the business environment, the wider economic impact, trade implications, wages, labour mobility, productivity, and sectoral and regional impacts. As the evidence base is firmed up, we will continue to refine and develop it. It deals comprehensively with many of the shadow Minister’s concerns, and I invite him not to press his amendments to a vote.”
“There will, of course, be further guidance in regulations, where we will home in on the kinds of concerns that have been raised.”
“I am grateful for the contributions in this debate, which deals with one of the central issues we have been grappling with. On this side of the Committee we certainly want to see fire and rehire consigned to the history books. Equally, we do not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles said, want to see businesses feel they have no option but to make people redundant because they do not feel they can take any other course of action. It is about trying to ensure that that is still available without opening a loophole, as it has been described, for abusive fire and rehire tactics to continue. There is an awful lot in the Bill as it stands that will make it a very high threshold indeed for any employer to want to take that step.”
“Further regulations and codes of practice will also deal with them, because we want to make sure we have a situation in which the bar for passing this test is extremely high, but in addition to that—in addition to there being no alternative but insolvency—the employer has to then demonstrate that they have carried out a full consultation with the trade union. That will involve a full explanation of the financial situation. As we develop the regulations and codes of practice, we will flesh that out in some more detail.”
“131, Q135.] He was talking about changing terms and conditions in agreement with employers to avoid redundancies and potential insolvencies. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment would take out all of subsection (5) of proposed new section 104I, which is the requirement for the employer to engage with trade unions and have the dialogue that we think is so important in industrial relations. It would say, “That does not matter any more.” The dialogue we are seeking to develop—the tripartite approach—and the move to make the arbitrary take-it-or-leave-it approach that some employers have adopted in fire and rehire a thing of the past, would not matter. The hon. Gentleman has asked some important questions about what we would expect of employers; I think subsection (5) answers many of them.”
“It will ultimately be a question of fact for an employment tribunal to determine whether it genuinely was the only option available to the employer, which is what the Bill will require the employer to demonstrate. There are a legion of examples of trade unions working constructively with businesses to avoid those kinds of insolvency situations, as a result of which terms and conditions have changed. The hon. Member for Dundee Central quoted Andy Prendergast who, in respect of what happened in the 2008 financial crisis, said in an evidence session: “It was heartbreaking, but we had to do it because it was the right thing to do.” –– [ Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c.”
“I am not familiar with the particular case law the hon. Gentleman refers to, but I will take that away. It is fair to say that employment tribunals currently do not have the kind of inquiries into a business’s finances and general condition that we are trying to achieve with this legislation. At the moment, there is a fairly broadbrush approach, particularly in terms of redundancies, to inquiries about the business reasons. It is important to draw the hon. Member for Dundee Central’s attention to the words after “likely” in the Bill. It is about an “employer’s ability to carry on the business as a going concern”. That means the alternative is insolvency or redundancies, which is the eventuality that I am sure we all want to avoid.”
“I accept that there is more to be done in terms of honing some of the detail, but I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment because it would, I am afraid, have unintended consequences.”
“I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but subsection (5) does set out the requirements on an employer to consult. It would be normal for further detail about consultation to be considered to be in good time when proposals are at a formative stage, as has traditionally always been the case. I see no reason why it would not also take the same form in that instance. What we are really talking about is a situation in which there is a sudden change in a company’s financial circumstances and it has to act quickly. In that situation, we do not want to force it to go insolvent or make people redundant, if there is an opportunity to save jobs. That is why subsection (5) is so important: because it will encourage and compel the dialogue that we are seeking to achieve.”
“It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Vaz. For the benefit of the Committee, I again refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the Unite and GMB trade unions. It has been an interesting debate. I think we are on the opposite end of the spectrum from where we were in the earlier debate about where the balance lies with our measures to end fire and rehire. I think that the fact that we have two arguments from other ends of the spectrum suggests that we are in about the right place—but if the shadow Minister expects us to believe that cows queue up to be milked in the morning, I just say to him: pull the udder one!”
“There would be very broad latitude for an employer to say that something was outdated. That is why I am concerned that the amendment would make things worse than they are now. The Bill as drafted makes it very clear what the obligations of a responsible employer are. They are the sort of things that responsible employers do already. We recognise that there will be unfortunate situations in which an employer has no alternative but to change terms and conditions, but the Bill makes sure that, if there is a positive for the employees—there often is from a change in terms of conditions; that is what negotiations often involve—there is a way for that to continue. We are not going to stop that. If employees consent to changes, they will be able to be made under this Bill. I urge the shadow Minister not to press the amendment to a vote.”
“This may be a probing amendment, but it would certainly make this clause ineffective, and arguably, it would make the situation worse than the status quo, because it would effectively legitimise some of those actions by employers. They could point to this legislation and say, “Well, the law says that we are able to do it.” The way the amendment worded is quite broad. There is a reference to “outdated” terms and conditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield gave a good example of where reasonable dialogue between the trade union and the employer would see that change. The shadow Minister’s old colleague, Jacob Rees-Mogg, might have a different view about what “outdated” means. He might think anything after 1874 could be considered modern — [Interruption.] He probably does, yes.”
“Indeed, proposed new section 104I(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 makes it clear that these provisions will not apply if the employee agrees to the changes. Changes and discussions happen every day of the week in industry—that is called negotiation, and that is what good industrial relations looks like. That is the sort of thing that we want to encourage. We are trying to stop a situation that we have seen far too often, where an employer might just say, “Well, here are your new terms and conditions. If you don’t like it, there’s the door.” That, I am afraid, has become far too prevalent in our country. We have heard plenty of evidence about how many employers have been doing that. It is about recognising that there is a loophole in the law.”
“It is about rooting out bad practices and making sure that those bad employers, who we all rightly condemn, are not able to exploit existing loopholes. It is about stopping the race to the bottom. It is about creating a level playing field. One reason why P&O said that it took the action that it did was that its competitors were undercutting it. We do not want to see that race to the bottom continue. We want to see good employers rewarded for respecting and rewarding their employees well by being able to compete on a level playing field. The general thrust of the shadow Minister’s remarks was interesting. There is nothing to stop an employee agreeing to changes to terms and conditions.”
“Yes, they do get worse—it is Thursday afternoon. The shadow Minister did raise some important points, though. He gave the example of a dairy and its changing practices. Of course, a change in job function does not necessarily mean that terms and conditions have to change or indeed become worse. History is full of examples where technology has come in and made jobs different. As we look forward to the advent of automation and AI in our economy, I hope that people find new jobs and new roles and that those jobs are more fulfilling as a result of technological development. I will say a few words about the comments from the hon. Member for Bridgwater. We are talking about overall impacts in this Bill of 0.4% of employers’ total costs—a very small price to pay for a comprehensive set of reforms that really are needed for workers.”
“The solution to dealing with many of the concerns raised by the shadow Minister and others is to point to what good and bad industrial relations look like, and to say, “This is what bad employer practice looks like.” Good employers and industrial relations will take workers with them. Again I refer to USDAW’s written evidence, which noted occasions where negotiations had begun with fire and rehire on the table almost from the start. That is not a healthy place to have sometimes very difficult discussions about changes to terms and conditions. The impact assessment notes that the power asymmetry can provide incentives for the more powerful party, in this case the employer, to act in a strategic manner to suppress wages and conditions. Such tactics are why we have seen such a slump in wage growth over recent years.”
“The impact assessment estimates that there are around 178,000 workers facing the threat of fire and rehire at this very moment, so the problem is not going away—indeed, because of the way that P&O has been allowed to get away with it, employers see it as a golden opportunity to take a sword to hard-fought terms and conditions. Other Members have spoken about the household names that have attempted to do that, and USDAW’s written evidence included some notable household names. Once upon a time, fire and rehire was a seldom-used part of the employment law and industrial relations landscape but, as part of the wider pattern of insecurity at work, it has become a much more common tool. I am afraid, as we have seen, it is far too often an act of first—rather than last—resort, and the Government are committed to ending that practice.”
“We are back on fire and rehire again; I should probably count up how many times I have spoken in debates on this issue in the last few years. It has taken a lot of parliamentary time, and rightly so. We all remember the obloquy directed towards P&O when it took those actions, several years ago, and I am afraid that fire and rehire has become far more prevalent in our economy than anyone would want to see. Investigations by the Trades Union Congress found that around 38,000 employers were using fire and rehire as a tactic. Research from the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development found that, between August 2021 and 2023, the proportion of firms that had used fire and rehire had almost doubled.”
“56, Q54.] That is why we need to act today. I also refer to the support of the Institute of Directors; approximately two thirds of its members who were polled supported this action, too. I think it will come to be seen as a watershed moment in industrial relations in this country, where we finally got rid of one of the most obnoxious and outdated practices that this country has ever seen. Question put and agreed to. Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 23 Collective redundancy: extended application of requirements”
“The loopholes have not been closed. That is why we need to act. To put the shadow Minister’s mind at rest, I believe that proposed new subsection (5) gives employers a real guideline as to how they need to deal with this. Furthermore, as was common to much of the evidence we heard, responsible and good employers do all those things anyway, so they will not be penalised or face any additional burdens, but rather will be able to operate on a level playing field. To refer to the evidence given by DFDS about this particular matter, or to someone working in an area very relevant to it, they said that they were pleased that fire and rehire was going to be dealt with, because as an operator, they are “simply looking for a fair and level playing field.” –– [ Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c.”
“It is good to hear that we have the support of the Liberal Democrats. Most of the country supports this measure; fire and rehire is rightly seen as a practice that should see its end. I quote the former right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield, Grant Shapps, who said at the time, when P&O first started on that course, that “we will not allow this to happen again: that where new laws are needed, we will create them, that where legal loopholes are cynically exploited, we will close them, and that where employment rights are too weak, we will strengthen them.” —[ Official Report , 30 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 840.] I have news for the Committee: I am afraid that only this week several Members of this place have told me about fire and rehire tactics going on in their constituency. A fire and rehire situation is taking place right now in Wrexham.”
“The 1978 Act provides that where an instrument repeals and re-enacts a provision then, unless the contrary intention appears, any reference in any other enactment to the repealed provision is to be read as a reference to the re-enacted provision. The amendment will improve the clarity and accessibility of the law, which I am sure we will all be relieved to hear.”
“However, as I am sure the shadow Minister had already noticed, that reference is incorrect: “section 188(2)” should read “section 188(1A)”. A consequential amendment was missed when section 188 was amended by the Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 1995. That instrument renumbered section 188(2) as section 188(1A). Of course, it should have also made a consequential amendment to section 197(1)(a), but did not. The amendment will not change the law, which can already be interpreted to refer to the correct cross-reference by way of the Interpretation Act 1978.”
“I beg to move amendment 58, in clause 23, page 34, line 27, at end insert— “(3A) In section 197 (power to vary provisions), in subsection (1)— (a) in paragraph (a), for “188(2)” substitute “188(1A)”; (b) in the words after paragraph (b), for “188(2)” substitute “188(1A)”.” This amendment would correct incorrect cross-references in section 197 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 . This is a purely technical amendment to fix an incorrect cross-reference in section 197(1)(a) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 197(1)(a) provides that the Secretary of State may make secondary legislation to amend the minimum time period for collective consultations in section 188(2) of the same Act.”
“The shadow Minister will be pleased to hear that we have picked the error up at this stage, so that when the Bill is enacted it will of course be absolutely correct. Amendment 58 agreed to. Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.”
“For example, they are not required to undertake a single, uniform consultation across affected locations, but can hold separate consultation activities with each group of affected employees to ensure that discussions are both localised and meaningful.”
“First, the clause does not mean that employers will need to consult with the entire workforce in their organisation whenever they propose 20 or more redundancies. As is currently the case, they must consult only the relevant trade union or employee representatives of employees being proposed to be made redundant, or those who may be affected by measures implemented as a result of the proposed redundancies, such as relevant line managers. Secondly, when an employer is required to undertake collective consultation with employees across different establishments, they have the flexibility to tailor the process to suit each location.”
“The clause will amend the framework to ensure that employers must fulfil collective consultation obligations whenever they are proposing 20 or more redundancies, regardless of whether the redundancies take place at one establishment or not. This will ensure that more employees—many of them in vulnerable positions—will now benefit from redundancy consultation, and that affected employees can participate meaningfully in the redundancy process, regardless of how they might be dispersed across an employer’s business. The clause will also make it easier for employers to understand when they have to comply with these obligations. I know that businesses have raised some concerns about the practical implications of the clause and I will take this opportunity to clarify its scope.”
“Employers are currently obliged to collectively consult when they propose to make 20 or more employees redundant at one establishment. Collective consultations are an important part of ensuring fairness and transparency between employers and employees. In the year to November 2024, approximately 3,500 employers in Great Britain gave notification that they were initiating a collective redundancy process at a single establishment. The benefits of consultation are felt by both employees and employers. Consultation ensures that affected employees can input into the process with a view to avoiding or mitigating redundancies wherever possible, and it helps employers to retain skilled workers and reduce the risk of disputes. That is why the Government intend to strengthen the collective redundancy framework.”
“I recognise that the shadow Minister welcomed the clarification I provided. No doubt there will be debate to come, as is often the case with legal issues, but the Government are fairly clear and confident that the clause will not have the unintended consequences we heard raised in evidence. The shadow Minister asked, “Why 20?” He will pleased to know that that was a product of EU regulation. It is in existing law as part of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which has been amended many times, so I could not say exactly when it came into force, but—”
“There has been a number of high-profile retail redundancies where people have missed out on collective redundancy obligations because of this law, which we are pleased to be able to change. On the question of smaller employers where there may not be trade union representation readily available, the regulations already provide for employee representatives to be engaged and elected in those circumstances, so there is no change to the law in that respect. There is already provision to deal with that situation. Question put and agreed to. Clause 23, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 24 Collective redundancy notifications: ships’ crew Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“I will remember that next time the shadow Minister tells me that we are trying to do too much in this Bill. With the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, the Bill Committee for which I had the great pleasure of serving on, his Government could have done something about this before they left office. The figure of 20 is long established, and we have no current plans to change it, but we are keen to ensure that the scenario my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles described cannot continue. As he said, Woolworths made 27,000 people redundant, and about 3,000 of those were completely exempt from collective redundancy consultations because of this issue.”
“It will prevent the sort of disruption seen following the P&O Ferries dismissals and will mean that the Government will be able to provide valuable support to seafarers facing redundancy. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.”
“It will also apply to any services entering Great Britain from a place outside the UK on at least 120 occasions in a 12-month period before the redundancy notification, or to new services that have been operating for less than 12 months and have called 10 times or more per month while they have been operating. We estimate the number of operators in scope of the measure to be around 2,000. The cost to businesses will be minimal; it is estimated to be around £20 per notification. We hope that the prospect of an unlimited fine will deter operators from making mass redundancies without the appropriate notification. While this measure may not prevent redundancies from being made, it will mean that the Government and any employee representatives must be notified before any dismissals take effect.”
“The clause will address the loophole that allowed P&O Ferries to avoid prosecution when it dismissed 786 seafarers without notice in March 2022. It will require operators of frequent services to British ports to notify the UK Government when making 20 or more redundancies even if those affected work aboard ships registered in another state. The clause means that if an operator of frequent services to a British port chooses to copy P&O Ferries and make collective redundancies without providing notice to the Government, it could face prosecution under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and ultimately be liable for an unlimited fine. The clause will apply to services calling between Great Britain and another place in the UK.”
“I am pleased to see that we have support all round. Question put and agreed to. Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 25 Public sector outsourcing: protection of workers”
“83F Power of Scottish Ministers to amend this Part The Scottish Ministers may by regulations modify section 83A, 83B or 83E in consequence of a modification of Scottish procurement legislation.’” This amendment would restructure the new provisions to be inserted into the Procurement Act 2023 so that the powers and duties extend to the Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers and devolved Scottish and Welsh authorities. The amendment also clarifies that the duty to publish a code of practice does not depend on the making of the regulations.”
“83E Interpretation of this Part (1) In this Part— “appropriate authority” has the meaning given in section 83A(2); “contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation” has the meaning given in section 83B(5)(a); “relevant outsourcing contract” has the meaning given in section 83B; “transferring worker”, in relation to a relevant outsourcing contract, has the meaning given in section 83B(4); “worker” and “worker’s contract” have the same meaning as in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (see section 230 of that Act). (2) For the purposes of this Part, in relation to a contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation, “contracting authority”, “framework agreement”, “supplier” and “the relevant Scottish procurement legislation” have the meaning given in section 83B(5)(b).”
“(3) A code published under subsection (1) or (2) must— (a) in the case of a code published by a Minister of the Crown, be laid before Parliament; (b) in the case of a code published by the Scottish Ministers, be laid before the Scottish Parliament; (c) in the case of a code published by the Welsh Ministers, be laid before Senedd Cymru. (4) In carrying out the procurement of a relevant outsourcing contract, the contracting authority must have regard to the code of practice for the time being published under subsection (1) or (2). (5) This section does not require an appropriate authority to do anything which the authority does not have power to do (see section 83A and Part 11).”
“83D Code of practice on relevant outsourcing contracts (1) An appropriate authority must prepare and publish a code of practice containing guidance to contracting authorities for the purpose of ensuring that, where a contracting authority carries out the procurement of a relevant outsourcing contract— (a) transferring workers of a description specified in the code are treated no less favourably as workers of the supplier or a sub-contractor than they were as workers of the contracting authority, and (b) workers of the supplier or a sub-contractor who are not transferring workers and are of a description specified in the code are treated no less favourably than those transferring workers. (2) An appropriate authority— (a) may amend or replace a code published by it under subsection (1), and (b) must publish any amended or replacement code.”
“(2) In carrying out the procurement of a relevant outsourcing contract, the contracting authority must— (a) take all reasonable steps to ensure that provision specified under subsection (1) is included in the contract; (b) where provision specified under subsection (1) is included in the contract, take all reasonable steps to secure that such provision is complied with. (3) Subsection (2) does not apply— (a) where the contracting authority or the relevant outsourcing contract is of a specified description, or (b) in specified circumstances. (4) In this section, “specified” means specified in regulations made by an appropriate authority.”
“83C Power to specify provision for inclusion in relevant outsourcing contracts (1) An appropriate authority may by regulations specify provision to be included in a relevant outsourcing contract for the purpose of ensuring that— (a) transferring workers of a specified description are treated no less favourably as workers of the supplier or a sub-contractor than they were as workers of the contracting authority, and (b) workers of the supplier or a sub-contractor who are not transferring workers and are of a specified description are treated no less favourably than those transferring workers.”
“(5) For the purposes of this Part— (a) “contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation” means a contract the procurement of which by a devolved Scottish authority is regulated by Scottish procurement legislation; (b) in relation to a contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation— (i) “contracting authority” means a devolved Scottish authority that is a contracting authority within the meaning of the relevant Scottish procurement legislation; (ii) “framework agreement” has the same meaning as in the relevant Scottish procurement legislation; (iii) “supplier” means an economic operator within the meaning of the relevant Scottish procurement legislation; (iv) “the relevant Scottish procurement legislation” means the Scottish procurement legislation regulating the procurement of the contract.”