How the UK’s new procurement rules affect Irish and Canadian businesses

August 2025

Paul Henty and Charlie Bayliss

Introduction

This article is written mainly for businesses in Ireland and Canada, outlining the changes to the rules in the UK on exclusion from public tendering for corporate misconduct and criminality. It gives an outline of the new regime and explains its relevance. It also makes comparison with the rules on exclusion in those jurisdictions. While mainly focused towards Irish and Canadian businesses, the general insights in this article may also prove valuable to other organisations.

The UK’s public procurement market remains one of the largest in the world, with an estimated value of £393 billion (CAD 725 billion; €454 billion) annually. For businesses operating across multiple jurisdictions – particularly Canada and Ireland – navigating the UK’s new Procurement Act 2023 is critical.

Both Canada and Ireland have well-established procurement frameworks with exclusion and debarment provisions. Canada enforces debarment through its Integrity Regime, while Ireland follows EU public procurement directives, incorporating both mandatory and discretionary exclusion grounds. However, the UK’s new Procurement Act introduces a stricter, more expansive approach – particularly in its extraterritorial reach, public debarment register, and formalised self-cleaning mechanisms.

For businesses with global operations, understanding how these rules compare across jurisdictions is essential. The UK’s framework presents heightened risks, as misconduct anywhere in a company’s operations – including those of subsidiaries, parent companies, or joint venture partners – can trigger exclusion. Irish and Canadian businesses accustomed to their home regimes may find themselves facing greater compliance burdens and exposure under UK rules.

This article compares the UK’s new exclusion and debarment framework with those of Canada and Ireland, helping businesses assess risk, strengthen compliance, and ensure continued access to public sector opportunities across these three key markets.

Key takeaways for businesses

Ireland’s procurement remains EU-driven, with flexibility in exclusions and no central debarment register, though upcoming EU revisions may tighten rules.
Scotland’s framework is stable, with no major legislative changes announced, keeping more discretion for authorities and avoiding a UK-style debarment system.
The UK’s new Procurement Act 2023 is stricter, with a centralised debarment list, extraterritorial reach, and tighter self-cleaning rules.
Future EU revisions may create a sharper contrast between Ireland and Scotland, especially if Ireland adopts EU supplier preference policies and tougher exclusion mechanisms.

For businesses operating across Ireland, Scotland, and the UK, navigating these differences will be critical in mitigating risk and ensuring continued access to public contracts.

Read on for a detailed explanation of the similarities and differences between the debarment and exclusion regimes in the UK, Ireland and Canada.

Exclusion and debarment: a key risk

Under the Procurement Act 2023, the UK government will extend the list of legal offences and infringements which could lead to exclusion from public contract opportunities or inclusion on a public register of blacklisted contractors. The Act governs most procurement in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but not Scotland (which, as discussed below, retains rules which are closer to Ireland and the rest of the EU).

Key changes include:

The debarment list: a register of grounds of exclusion (mandatory or discretionary) which apply to a company. This will not list every such occurrence. It will be reserved for companies that the UK Government considers a risk (and who are likely to re-offend)
Mandatory debarment (effectively the “Class A” ground of infringements): companies convicted of offences such as fraud, bribery, or cartel conduct (e.g., price-fixing, bid-rigging) will be blacklisted. Public buyers will have no discretion to allow such companies to tender.
Discretionary debarment (the class B grounds): misconduct such as abuse of dominance, grave professional misconduct, or significant breaches of past contracts can result in debarment. While discretionary, this type of debarment leaves little room for leniency under the new rules.
Self-cleaning: where a ground of exclusion applies to a company but it has not been listed, individual buyers may still admit the company into the tender process but only if they are satisfied the organisation has effectively self-cleaned and is unlikely to commit the same wrongdoing again. Self-cleaning measures may include replacing responsible personnel, implementing robust compliance training, paying compensation, or adopting new governance structures to prevent recurrence.

Canadian and Irish companies should note that offences committed in other jurisdictions – including violations of Canada’s Competition Act, Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA) or the Irish Competition Act – can trigger UK debarment. Similarly, breaches of EU or US competition law could result in exclusion from UK tenders.

Global risk: your subsidiaries and partners matter

A particularly sharp edge of the UK rules lies in their extraterritorial reach. It’s not just your company’s actions in Canada, Ireland or the UK that matter – misconduct by your subsidiaries, parent companies, or even joint venture partners can get you disqualified.

For example:

A Canadian parent company’s conviction for bribery in Brazil could lead to the UK exclusion of its UK-based subsidiary.
A key (named) subcontractor’s antitrust breach in the EU could disqualify an Irish bidder from a UK public tender.

Even worse, these rules can have a knock-on effect: once excluded, you face potential termination of existing UK public contracts, as the Act gives authorities an implied termination right if a contractor becomes debarred.

Key considerations for non-UK businesses

If you’re pursuing opportunities in the UK, here’s how to protect yourself:

Do your due diligence:
Vet all associated companies – parent companies, subsidiaries, subcontractors, and consortium partners – for compliance risks. Ask yourself: could their actions disqualify us? If the answer is “yes,” take corrective action or find alternative partners.
Implement robust compliance programs:
Ensure your compliance efforts extend beyond Canada or Ireland. Misconduct anywhere in your operations could lead to blacklisting in the UK. Programmes should cover anti-corruption, competition compliance, and adherence to global standards. You should ensure that corporate training is adequate to avoid the types of pitfalls that could lead to exclusion and debarment.
Prepare for monitoring:
The UK Act also introduces Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for contracts above £5 million. Failure to meet these publicly monitored KPIs could result in termination of contracts, even for top-performing companies.
Understand the timeline for exclusion:
Under the new rules, UK authorities can consider misconduct that occurred up to three years before the Act’s entry into force. Canadian and Irish companies with historical regulatory issues should assess whether these could still pose risks.

The impact of being listed for debarment

If you find yourself on the UK’s debarment list, the consequences are severe:

Ineligibility for five years: once listed, you’re barred from UK public procurement for up to five years.
Limited recourse: to challenge a listing, you must act swiftly (within eight working days of notification). Removal requires demonstrating a material change in circumstances – a high bar that is not clearly defined in the legislation.

For this reason, there are procedural safeguards in place. The UK Government cannot just list companies. It must first carry out an investigation into a company suspected of committing a relevant offence or infringement capable of leading to their debarment. This could also result from an offence or infringement by a parent company, subsidiary or director of the company.

A final report must be issued with the relevant company being granted the right of appeal. However, this must be filed swiftly, particularly if the company wishes to injunct the Government from listing its name until the full appeal is determined.

Canada vs. UK: how do the rules compare?

For Canadian companies familiar with Canada’s federal procurement laws, many of the UK’s new exclusion and debarment rules will feel familiar. Canada already enforces robust anti-corruption measures that can disqualify entities from public contracts, including:

Competition Law: Prohibits cartel activity (s 45) and bid-rigging (s.47 of the Competition Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-34), both of which are criminal offences.
The Criminal Code and other penal legislation:, bribery (ss.119–125 of the Criminal Code), and fraud (s.380). Convictions under these provisions can trigger debarment from federal procurement.
The Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA): Criminalises bribery of foreign officials by Canadian entities. While CFPOA violations do not automatically trigger UK debarment, misconduct abroad – including under Canadian law – can still be considered under the UK’s Procurement Act 2023.

At the federal level, Canada’s Integrity Regime enforces debarment through mandatory and discretionary exclusions for offenses like fraud, corruption, or collusion – broadly mirroring the UK’s framework. However, three key differences highlight the UK’s stricter approach:

Global reach – the UK rules explicitly extend liability to subsidiaries, parent companies, and subcontractors. Canada’s Integrity Regime focuses primarily on the bidding entity itself, though affiliates may still be scrutinised if they are directly involved in a contract.
Transparency – the UK will introduce a public debarment register, significantly increasing reputational risks. In contrast, Canada does not maintain a central list of ineligible suppliers, meaning debarred firms may avoid the same level of public scrutiny.
Self-cleaning mechanisms – the UK formally integrates “self-cleaning” into its legislation, allowing companies to rehabilitate themselves through compliance measures, personnel changes, and governance reforms. Canada permits remediation via administrative agreements, but the process is less codified and subject to government discretion.

Quebec’s anti-corruption regime

Beyond federal rules, Quebec’s Autorité des marchés publics (AMP) enforces some of Canada’s most stringent procurement integrity standards, particularly in the construction sector. Like the UK’s debarment list, Quebec maintains a public registry of ineligible suppliers, ensuring greater transparency.

For Canadian firms operating in both jurisdictions, compliance with Quebec’s procurement rules – particularly in construction and infrastructure – could provide a competitive advantage, as many due diligence and compliance requirements align with those in the UK.

Reciprocal risks: could UK debarment affect eligibility on home procurement market?

While UK debarment does not automatically bar a company from bidding on Canadian public contracts, it could trigger further scrutiny. Federal and provincial authorities – including Quebec’s AMP – routinely review foreign enforcement actions when assessing supplier integrity. Additionally, being listed on the UK’s public debarment register may increase reputational risks and attract broader regulatory attention across multiple jurisdictions, including the EU and US.

For Canadian companies with global operations, the UK’s stricter enforcement could set a precedent – one that other jurisdictions may consider when shaping their own procurement compliance regimes.

Ireland and Scotland: how do the rules compare to England?

While both Ireland and Scotland operate under EU-derived procurement principles, their frameworks differ from both the UK’s new Procurement Act 2023 and the EU’s upcoming revisions. Ireland follows an EU-aligned system with additional national provisions, while Scotland has maintained its existing procurement regulations without significant legislative reform. However, upcoming changes to EU procurement directives may create further divergence between Scotland and Ireland.

Ireland: EU procurement principles with local flexibility

Ireland’s Public Authority Contracts Regulations 2016 (PAC Regs) and Utilities Regulations 2016 implement the EU’s 2014 public procurement directives, requiring mandatory exclusion of companies convicted of corruption, fraud, money laundering, and other serious offences[1]. These mandatory grounds also apply where the person convicted of any of the offences is a member of the administrative, management or supervisory body of the tenderer, or has powers of representation, decision or control of the tenderer’s organisation.

Discretionary exclusion applies to competition law breaches, bankruptcy, professional misconduct, and poor past contract performance[2].

Tenderers can be excluded at any time during the procurement process. The Award of Public Authority Contracts Regulations provide a five-year longstop date from the date of conviction for mandatory grounds, and a three-year longstop date from the relevant event for the discretionary grounds.

Unlike the UK’s upcoming centralised debarment list, Irish authorities do not maintain a public exclusion register. Decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, and the proportionality principle ensures that exclusions are not automatic. Businesses can apply for self-cleaning by demonstrating remedial action, such as governance reforms, compensation payments, or cooperation with regulators. Importantly, self-cleaning cannot be used to circumvent exclusion in the case of exclusion due to a final court judgement.

The Office of Government Procurement (OGP) oversees public procurement in Ireland. The OGP’s guidelines emphasise compliance with EU regulations.

Scotland: stability over reform

Scotland continues to operate under The Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2015, which are closely aligned with EU procurement principles. Like Ireland, Scotland’s framework mandates exclusion for serious offences (e.g., bribery, fraud, organised crime) and allows discretionary exclusion for professional misconduct, tax breaches, or competition violations.

However, unlike the UK’s strict new debarment regime, Scotland retains a more flexible, discretionary system, allowing authorities to assess exclusion on a case-by-case basis. There are no announced plans to introduce a centralised debarment list, extend liability to parent companies, or adopt stricter self-cleaning requirements, meaning Scotland’s procurement system remains closer to Ireland’s than to the new UK model.

Upcoming EU revisions: a new divergence?

The European Commission is set to revise its public procurement directives (2024–2025), shifting towards a more interventionist, strategic procurement model. Proposed changes include:

Giving preference to EU suppliers in strategic sectors to enhance economic security and supply chain resilience.
Tighter competition rules to address concerns over declining SME participation and market concentration.
Stronger green and social procurement rules, embedding environmental and social value requirements into contracts.

Ireland, as an EU member, will be required to adopt these reforms. Scotland, however, has no plans to implement similar changes and is expected to maintain its existing rules. This could lead to a policy divergence, where Ireland follows a more regulated EU procurement model, while Scotland remains aligned with its current discretionary framework.

Conclusion: a high-stakes market

The UK public sector is a lucrative market for Canadian and Irish contractors, but it’s also a high-risk one under the new Procurement Act 2023. Avoiding exclusion requires a global mindset: what happens at home – or elsewhere – doesn’t always stay at home.

Canadian and Irish businesses who are active in the UK public sector must act now to:

Strengthen compliance programs,
Vet partners and subsidiaries, and
Engage with UK contracting authorities to ensure transparency.

By addressing these risks proactively, Canadian and Irish contractors wishing to work in the UK can protect themselves while capitalising on the significant opportunities that the UK continues to offer. Beyond the UK, it should be remembered that any inclusion on the debarment list will be public and therefore the reputational damage from a listing could be severe, possibly leading to follow-on action in other jurisdictions.

Knowledge of the rules can also be a strategic advantage. Awareness of a competitor’s previous misdeeds may entitle you to challenge any new or continuing public contract that they or their group members hold.

In preparation for these strict new rules, we are already helping companies navigate compliance, due diligence, and risk mitigation strategies. Contact us to ensure your business remains competitive in this high-stakes market.

[1] Regulation 57(1), European Union (Award of Public Authority Contracts) Regulations 2016 (SI 284/2016)

[2] Regulation 57(4 and (8), European Union (Award of Public Authority Contracts) Regulations 2016 (SI 284/2016)

Download PDF