On the list: the UK's new centralised debarment register

From exclusion grounds to debarment

Suppliers may be excluded from a particular procurement where a mandatory or discretionary exclusion ground applies. And the Act also introduces a new enforcement mechanism – the publication of a supplier on the Debarment List.

Debarment is described by the Cabinet Office as a "new mechanism under which a Minister of the Crown can put a supplier on the centrally-published debarment list if the Minister is satisfied that a supplier is an excluded supplier or an excludable supplier".

Suppliers can only be added to the Debarment List following a formal debarment investigation under section 60 of the Act, which can only be initiated by a government minister, typically following credible evidence that a supplier may be an excluded or excludable supplier. This could arise from a conviction or regulatory decision, but it may also follow reports from contracting authorities, whistleblower disclosures, media allegations or other forms of misconduct coming to light.

The Cabinet Office’s Procurement Review Unit (PRU) is responsible for managing the investigation process on the minister’s behalf. Once an investigation is opened, the supplier must be notified and given an opportunity to make representations, including evidence of any remedial action taken. The PRU may also request documentation or engage with other authorities to assess the facts.

At the conclusion of the process, the minister will determine whether a relevant exclusion ground is met and whether the risk of recurrence is sufficiently serious to justify listing. This forward-looking test mirrors the "self-cleaning" principle seen elsewhere in the Act and allows ministers to exercise discretion where remediation is credible.

How does the UK list compare internationally?

The UK is not the first country to introduce a debarment register. Similar lists exist in the United States, Canada and Germany – each reflects different enforcement cultures.

1. United States:

   The System for Award Management (SAM) lists suppliers barred from federal contracts. It is a public, centralised and highly transparent register, accessible via sam.gov. Suppliers are listed along with the reasons for debarment, the authority responsible and the duration of the bar. The system includes both mandatory and discretionary exclusion grounds and incorporates a self-cleaning mechanism allowing suppliers to be removed if remediation is demonstrated. Like the UK, debarment can occur without a conviction and may follow an agency-level investigation. Discretionary debarment is often based on concerns over integrity, responsibility or compliance history.

2. Canada:

   The Ineligibility and Suspension List is maintained by Public Services and Procurement Canada. It includes both mandatory and discretionary exclusions and has a defined self-cleaning process. Suppliers can reduce exclusion periods by demonstrating remediation.

3. Germany:

   The Competition Register (Wettbewerbsregister) captures companies who have committed certain economic offences. German authorities must consult the list before awarding contracts and exclusions can flow from final administrative or criminal decisions.

The UK’s model most closely resembles the US system, in that:

• debarment may follow an internal government investigation;
• no conviction is required; and
• the decision rests with a government authority, e.g. a government minister in the UK.

What is different is that the UK Debarment List is also designed to operate preventatively – to flag suppliers who pose future risk, not just those with past infractions.

Grenfell: a sign of things to come?

The government has begun using its new debarment powers – which only came into force in February 2025 – to investigate suppliers linked to the Grenfell Tower tragedy, based on evidence from the Inquiry. Although these investigations were paused in July 2025 at the request of the CPS and Metropolitan Police to avoid prejudicing ongoing criminal proceedings, they are the first public real-world examples of the Debarment List being used to scrutinise suppliers who have not been convicted but pose a risk to public procurement.

Case study: a cautionary tale in environmental oversight

Consider GreenWash Ltd, a mid-sized construction company supplying several local authorities. Concerns begin to mount after media reporting and a whistleblower allegation suggest that one of its long-standing subcontractors has repeatedly breached environmental regulations, including unauthorised waste disposal and contaminating protected land. Following an investigation, GreenWash is convicted of environmental misconduct offences.

The minister for the Cabinet Office determines that there is sufficient cause to initiate a formal debarment investigation under section 60 of the Act. GreenWash is formally notified of the investigation and advised of the grounds under consideration. Although not legally compelled to cooperate, the company soon recognises that failure to do so could itself trigger a mandatory exclusion ground. It therefore engages with the investigation and provides documents, governance information and responses to information requests.

During the investigation, the Cabinet Office’s Procurement Review Unit holds a series of meetings with GreenWash’s representatives as part of the supplier’s opportunity to make representations. GreenWash submits evidence of recent improvements, including the termination of the subcontractor in question and the introduction of tighter internal oversight measures. Nevertheless, the PRU’s investigation identifies broader failings: historical underperformance on environmental standards, insufficient control over subcontractors and a lack of clear escalation procedures where risks arise.

A formal report is prepared by the Cabinet Office and shared with GreenWash. After reviewing the findings and submissions, the minister concludes that a discretionary exclusion ground is met and that the risk of recurrence remains sufficiently serious to justify debarment. A decision is made to add GreenWash to the Debarment List, for the maximum five-year period. GreenWash is notified of this outcome and an eight-working-day standstill period is triggered before the listing takes effect.

During the standstill, GreenWash reviews its position and considers seeking interim relief. While it ultimately does not apply for an injunction, it retains the right to challenge the debarment decision. It may do so by:

• bringing an appeal under section 65 of the Act within 30 days, on the grounds that the minister made a material mistake of law which led to exclusion by a contracting authority;
• commencing judicial review within 30 days, on broader public law grounds such as irrationality or procedural unfairness (the scope of judicial review is wider than that of a section 65 appeal); or
• pursuing a combination of both an appeal under section 65 and a judicial review.

The company also has the right to apply for early removal from the list in future, if it can show that the root causes have been fully addressed, for instance, through independent audits, executive changes and stronger compliance frameworks.

Compliance Takeaways

1. Watch for risk triggers

   A minister can initiate a debarment investigation even in the absence of a formal conviction or active procurement process. Keep an eye on adverse press coverage.

2. Audit your controls for discretionary grounds

   Weak governance, poor contract performance, ESG breaches and ethical failures can all support discretionary exclusion. Map these risks and document how you monitor and respond.

3. Get ahead of the narrative

   If your business becomes the subject of scrutiny, the best defence is transparency. Prepare a coherent account of what happened, who was responsible and what steps were taken to remediate.

4. Prepare for investigation and possible listing

   Treat debarment investigations like other regulatory inquiries. Assign ownership, manage communications and involve legal and compliance teams early. Engage constructively with investigators.

5. Build your self-cleaning case early

   Don't wait until you’re listed – if you identify a serious issue internally, begin the self-cleaning process and collect evidence to support a future application for removal, if needed.

Conclusion

The Debarment List transforms exclusion from a reactive assessment at the contract level to a proactive and centralised mechanism for safeguarding public trust.

For suppliers, the message is simple: understand how and why a debarment investigation might be triggered and be ready to respond – long before your name ever appears on the list.

Authored by Claire Lipworth and Reuben Vandercruyssen.