Public Services (Social Enterprise and Social Value) Bill

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Friday 19th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

We have enjoyed an interesting debate so far, and one that has on several occasions skirted around the general issues of interaction between the state, private enterprises, so-called social enterprises, charities and voluntary groups. It is a fascinating subject that deserves far greater discussion than even we have afforded it under this new coalition Government.

Given that we are having a general debate, and given the nature of the Bill, the figures outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White), and the number of people engaged in social enterprises and the voluntary sector throughout the country, it is sad that the Chamber is only this full. Although the debate is a good one with the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) representing many Labour Members, I wonder, if the Bill had been supported in some measure by the Public and Commercial Services Union, how many Opposition Members would have been here, given that we are talking about similar numbers of people. Perhaps it is a good thing that they are not here. I am not sure that many of them would like their views on socialism to be represented by the right hon. Lady. Her views are probably more enlightened than those of many hon. Members who often sit with her.

We have had a discussion on the general issues, but I wanted to speak in this debate to give a local case study to explain why elements of the Bill are so important. I have had several discussions with the Minister, whom I am delighted to see in his place. He has been most helpful with this local issue. This is not an egregious attempt to discuss various institutions in my constituency; I want to provide the House with an active case study of why the elements in the Bill are so important. I shall return to the elements with which I have difficulties, but some have much to commend them.

It is an unfortunate fact that many voluntary organisations spring up at moments of crisis, or from a deep or yearning concern about deprivation or social problems. That is certainly the case with one organisation in my constituency. Ipswich Housing Action Group was founded in 1976 by a group of local business men who were worried about the homeless, so they created a charity to deal with homelessness in Ipswich.

Many hon. Members may remember the horrendous serial murders in Ipswich in 2006. As a result of that, the community felt the need to deal immediately with the problems of prostitution and drug addiction in the town. That brought together not only local authorities, the police and other statutory bodies, but many social enterprises and charities locally. Prime among them was an extraordinary charity, the Iceni Project, which is a small micro-charity dealing with drug rehabilitation. It so happens that that charity is not just an extraordinary local charity; it is a very effective one. It has been delivering some of the very best drug rehabilitation programmes in the country. Indeed, it is regularly rated within the top three organisations in the country for providing drug rehabilitation. In 2008, it was awarded The Guardian prize for the best charity of the year for being so innovative yet so local.

In 2006, the town came together to deal with the problems that had afflicted those young ladies who were killed, and many around them consequently received the help and care that they should have received before that. Crisis and disaster forced on the community an immediate imperative to provide that. In that process, the Iceni Project gained a particular place in the hearts of many people in Ipswich, which is why the events of the past few weeks and months have been of considerable concern to many people throughout my constituency. The reason for that concern lies in the tendering of drug projects that has come about under a tender process initiated by the previous Administration. Perhaps the House will not mind me running through the basics of how that has happened, so that hon. Members understand why that is directly pertinent to the Bill.

The previous Administration spoke much about the third sector, especially towards the end of their tenure. Indeed, I believe that the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition was the Minister with responsibility for the third sector at one stage, and I know that the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles did much to try to extend the role of the third sector in the delivery of services. But there is a problem in the way that much of that was structured, because the idea was effectively to outsource, and to get the third sector, whether charities, voluntary organisations or social enterprises, to take on the role of the state in various contracted terms. That is not what we should be striving for. We should not be trying not to replace one bureaucracy and one contractor with another, whether a state organisation run by a private enterprise or by a charity. We should encourage and fertilise the ecosystem of communities—small micro-organisations—and not over-engage with them, but allow them to provide the services and community assets that we all depend on.

There is a key distinction, and the case study provides an example of why things can go so badly wrong. Under the tender process set up by the previous Government and the Home Office—the right hon. Lady knows more than I do about the formulation of that policy—a quango, the drug and alcohol action team, was set up in every county and local authority to award the contracts for drug rehabilitation, and it does so according to Home Office guidelines. The Suffolk DAAT, which consists of procurement officers from the primary care trust, the county council and others, decided that it would let the contract on the basis that those applying for the tender could offer a service throughout Suffolk. That immediately excluded the Iceni Project because, by design, it operates only in Ipswich.

The issue is that the tender itself was following the guidelines laid down by the Home Office, and those guidelines were to look for best value on a purely monetary basis throughout the county. A second problem is that the people who sit on the DAAT are completely unaccountable to anyone else—county councillors, district councillors, Members of Parliament, and Parliament itself. They are a mixture of PCT procurement officials and county council procurement officials, but when the tender was going through the process, it became increasingly apparent that it was impossible to challenge not the decisions on the award of the tender, but the form it had taken.

[Hazel Blears]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but my point is important. If he is so concerned, as I am, about large national contracts that exclude small, innovative organisations from providing services, will he have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who is going through a process for the single Work programme? Many social enterprises have concerns about that, because it looks as if we are going to go down the route towards massive national contracts and national organisations. That will again make it difficult for small organisations to get into that Work programme, which is a key area for personalised services and innovation.

[Ben Gummer]

I think that the right hon. Lady will find that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions heartily agrees with her. In a speech that he gave a few years ago, he warned precisely against the takeover by mega-charities of certain functions of the state. He is a man who does not change his opinions or his direction with great ease, and I would find it very surprising if he were to go back on that.

The county council procurement officers, working within the management structure, effectively deal with the money and procurement advice provided to the primary care trust. I should say that the primary care trust has shown itself to be perennially oblivious to the needs, aspirations and concerns of local people. Frankly, it was concerned only with its own upkeep and ingratiating itself with senior officials in the strategic health authority, but that is by the by. Those people coming together have now awarded a contract to two large outside charities, both of which I am sure provide good services in their area, but the result is that funding for drug rehabilitation work will now be taken for three years, or possibly five if the break clause in the contract is not invoked, from the Iceni Project and from three other micro-charities in Suffolk. All those micro-charities spring from local ground and are supported by local people, yet they will disappear or experience considerable cuts as a result of this.

What does that tell local people who have invested their time, effort and passion in such organisations? The message that they hear is, “ We don’t care about you any more. We’re going to give a contract to an outside organisation, and all the work that you have put in no longer matters. You might as well give up and go away.” The answer from the Suffolk DAAT was, “Don’t worry, we’ll be TUPE-ing the staff across.” As it happens, however, many of the staff do not want to work for anyone else. They came on board, following the tragic events that I described a few moments ago, because they loved the organisation and admired its leadership.

What could the Bill do to ensure that that did not happen again? I particularly like its proposal to place a compulsion on local authorities and public bodies to consider localism when letting contracts. If we are going to encourage the big society, we must ensure that the organisations are there to deliver the services. If we cut off every tendering period every three or five years, the small organisations that do not have the funds to enable them to tender will simply not be there, and we shall not see the growth of social entrepreneurism necessary to challenge the big providers. We shall not see the natural efflorescence that we see in the private economy, where new entrants to the market find new ways of doing things and continually improve their product offer.

That is what I particularly like about the Bill, but I have a few issues with it as well. I wonder whether, at some point, they might be addressed, although I am not sure who would address them in the circumstances. I would be interested to know whether the Minister has any views on them. I have a particular problem with strategies, and I wonder whether they provide the freedom that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington is seeking to achieve.

I agree with the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles that there needs to be integration, but my experience is that integration between services happens as a result of the willing participation of providers—as happened, funnily enough, in Ipswich in 2006. Integration is not achieved by the state coming in and saying, “ You will do it like this” or “We suggest this format of working.” All too often, procurement officials faced with a strategy will follow it to the letter, rather than looking at the spirit of it and what it wants to achieve. I would hope that any strategy introduced under the terms of the Bill would involve a general motivation to encourage localism and to ensure that local providers are considered in the tendering process, rather than adopting the more prescriptive strategies that we have seen recently in the equalities legislation introduced by the previous Administration.

My second issue concerns the definition of a social enterprise. Clause 2(3) states that a person or body is engaged in social enterprise if

“(a) the person or body is carrying on a business;

(b) the business’s activities are being carried on primarily for a purpose that promotes or improves the social or environmental well-being of the United Kingdom, whether the purpose is pursued in relation to all or any part of the United Kingdom or all or any of the persons resident or present in it;

(c) the greater part of any profits for distribution is applied for such a purpose.”

I am sure that Members on both sides of the House would agree that that definition could equally apply to private enterprises that pay dividends to shareholders. I am not sure how this nails down the intention of the Bill towards social enterprises per se, and I wonder whether we need to elaborate on it, or whether we simply need to substitute the word “charity” for the words “social enterprise” and leave it at that.

I hope that I have made it clear through my case study why public tenderers need to start looking at the local impact of their decisions, and why the Bill is an important one. I do not want to get mixed up in the general philosophical discussions that we have been having, but Burke’s little platoons have to exist, and if we march over them with large brigades or regiments, they will not be there to take up the standard and advance on behalf of their communities. I hope that that is the intention behind the Bill and, notwithstanding the qualifications that I have outlined, I very much support my hon. Friend’s aims.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Baker]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to say this. Given that I sit in this place as an elected politician, of course I believe that there is a role for democratic politics and for government. What I am expressing, however, is a deep scepticism based on solid theory, and indeed on the practice of the last 100 years, about any attempt to organise society using the state. I believe that such attempts are generally a mistake. That is not to say that the practice should be eliminated—far be it from any Member of the House of Commons to suggest that—but the fact is that it has not been a great success.

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct in saying that we are currently taxing and spending to an enormous degree, but we must make up our minds about whether that is healthy. It seems to me that the degree to which society has power is determined by the degree to which the state has power. The more power the state takes to itself, the less power society will have. I am afraid we must face up to the reality that, while the state is spending more than half of national income, human social co-operation is largely directed by the coercive power of the state.

My hon. Friend may well say that the logical conclusion is as she described, but I think that that was recognised by the old Liberals of the 19th century. Indeed, I wish that the new Liberals of the 21st century would pick up the same point. However, I do not suggest that we should go there immediately; I am referring to the direction of travel.

[Ben Gummer]

While I would demur a little from every point my hon. Friend has made, may I draw attention to the key issue of this Bill, which is localism? When a private business makes decisions about spending money, that is really about the allocation of capital and therefore the location of the business makes little difference. We are talking about voluntary organisations however, and they depend on people giving their time, often for free, in local areas. We cannot import a new community, so we are trying to provide the means by which public tenderers can take account of that reality, of which private businesses do not have to take account in the same way.

[Steve Baker]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend’s point.

In conclusion, my argument is as follows. If we are to have a healthy and productive society, and if we are to build a better society, we must embrace what has been agreed by Members on both sides of the House. We have all strongly agreed on much of what has been said today, but the key question is: what is the role of the coercive power of the state in building that better society? For me, there is a fundamental disagreement about that role today, as there has always been.

I do not intend to press the Bill to a Division at this stage, although I remain hugely sceptical about both the national social enterprise strategy and local strategies. It is my view that we should follow the advice of the man who gave me my reference point as I began on this process, a man who accepted the value of both business and charity. If we are to liberate society, and liberate individuals to create a better world, we must follow his advice, which was this: “Repeat after me—lower taxes.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

I agree that there are local businesses that fulfil a social good, but we do not want people just to decide, “You know what, I want to set up a business, and because 20% of it is for servicing the local authority, I will be supported.” I strongly believe that we must draw a distinction between for-profit businesses whose main purpose is rewarding shareholders and businesses that are delivering social goods.

[Ben Gummer]

My hon. Friend is drawing two distinctions. One of them is between local and national, and the other is between for-profit and not-for-profit organisations. The latter are distinct, but in terms of the distinction between local and national, surely we should be looking to allow small businesses to win tenders for all Government contracts no matter where they come from? That involves making procurement decisions much easier for small businesses. Different issues are involved in allowing voluntary groups and those giving human capital for free an opportunity to tender for contracts. That is about enshrining localism within procurement contracts.

[Mr Gyimah]

I certainly think we should allow charitable enterprises to tender for contracts and deliver services, rather than see this as a way for for-profit businesses to service government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Trickett]

I see that at least one hon. Gentleman remembers that as well as I do, and with approval by the look of it.

Several Members made strong references to local experiences in their constituencies. That reminds us of how important it is that Members of Parliament have a constituency base. Whatever form of electoral system we use, it is important to retain the constituency link. The hon. Members for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) and others referred to local experiences, as well as to experiences that they had prior to coming to the House.

There was some tension, though, between the various tendencies that were expressed, which was most striking in the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), who gave the impression that he was a libertarian, but he actually said—he may be horrified when he reads it in Hansard—that he quite liked compulsion in relation to local authorities. The power of the state compelling local authorities was an extraordinary vision for him to evince. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) gave us a disquisition on liberty, saying that every action of the state is an infringement of liberty and is coercive. That was an interesting philosophical diversion.

[Ben Gummer]

To clarify my point, my concern was that many procurement officials are compelled in only one direction, which is to follow a national strategy, and the purpose of the Bill is to compel them to look at a whole series of different things. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have experienced when buying something from, say, John Lewis, one does not just look at price but at a whole series of things, such as whether one would like it in one’s flat or whether it is the right colour. All we are doing is saying, “Look at a wide range of things, not just a national strategy as laid down by Whitehall.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Trickett]

I am sorry I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, because he clearly has not listened to much of what I have said. Without such legislation, the previous Government helped to create the environment in which 55,000 social enterprises came into existence. A case has to be made to explain why all the Government Members present are prepared to introduce new legislation, more red tape and more intervention in the market, when Labour showed that we could build the so-called big society—the good society—with no such statist intervention. [Interruption.] I see that at least one Government Member—the hon. Member for Wycombe—feels really quite embarrassed that these proposals come from the Government Benches. It is absolutely unnecessary to bring this legislation into being.

[Ben Gummer]

Let me just clarify something. In the example that I gave, I had hoped to show that outsourcing to third sector organisations does not necessarily help small local organisations. Our point is that the outsourcing perpetuated by the previous Government actually started to kill local charities. The Bill promotes the human capital of small non-profit organisations that specialise in working in local areas.

[Jon Trickett]

Of course it does, and I take the point, but the truth is that the Conservative party—the so-called champion of liberty against the state—is now taking the state’s powers through legislation to do something that is happening in any case. How does it help to have legislation when the key point is to ensure that public procurement officers in local and central Government are sensitive to the needs of local companies, whether social enterprises or not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Trickett]

Will the Parliamentary Secretary deny that the Cabinet Office helped to draft the Bill? He will not. I understand that that is precisely what happened. I understand that the Bill showed its face in the House only 36 hours ago. Why? I was told that it was delayed until the last possible minute because the Cabinet Office was drafting it. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm that. If it is a private Member’s Bill, why was the Cabinet Office drafting it?

There have been tensions locally with not only local authorities but others about plans for how some social enterprises run services. Members on both sides have made the point that we want high-quality, properly resourced social enterprises, not those that are the victims of a cuts mentality. Labour Members do not want the option of social enterprise driven through on the back of a cut in the quality of service or a reduction in the quality of conditions at work for the people who are employed in the enterprise.

We have no objections to the Bill’s aims, but we are concerned about the manner of its introduction. More consultation before it came before the House would have been better—I have already said that it arrived here only 36 hours ago. We are all proud of the social enterprises in our constituencies throughout the nation. How can it be that they have had no opportunity to examine the Bill before Second Reading? How can it be that the small business and local government sectors are expressing different views about it? Perhaps it is because it was introduced so late. Does the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington genuinely believe that he provided sufficient time for the House to consult?

We have also heard a lot about how the Bill fits into the Government’s idea of a big society, but until we know what the big society is, how can we assess the applicability of the measures? I am not the only one who does not fully understand what the big society is; many in the voluntary sector do not know what it is either. Famously, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), also has no idea what the big society is. He said recently:

“The trouble is that most people don’t know what the Big Society really means”.

In what sounded slightly like a whinge, he added:

“least of all the unfortunate ministers who have to articulate it.”

[Ben Gummer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his indulgence. On the question of definitions, the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition has spoken of the “good society”, so will the hon. Gentleman explain what the good society is and the difference between it and the big society?

[Jon Trickett]

It is for the Minister and the Government to go first and describe their conception of the big society. We want a strong society—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] We want strong bonds of mutuality and reciprocity to operate at every level of society, in every neighbourhood. The Bill might contribute to the development of that, but that does not mean that we should not ask difficult questions of its promoter and sponsors. That is precisely what I am doing.

How does the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington reconcile clause 3 with the Government’s motives? When the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General was asked on the “Today” programme earlier in the week about his intentions in respect of mutuals, co-operatives and public service reform, he made it clear that companies tendering for outsourced services would have to make proposals that were

“significantly cheaper than the current provision”.

There we have it: the irreconcilable contradiction between communitarian aspirations and the neo-liberal drive to reduce the cost and extent of government. There lies the Government’s true motives.

Perhaps the Government will not support the Bill, but even if they do, they are more interested in lower cost services than in maximising social value. Having listened to his speech, I do not believe that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington wants that. Social enterprises should not be viewed as a cheaper option. They have a real contribution to make and can have a positive impact, as we have heard from Members on both sides of the House, but they should not be about enabling the Government suddenly to abdicate their responsibility to fund public services properly.

Social enterprises should—hopefully—ensure higher levels of democratic accountability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

I would be delighted to arrange that meeting. Aileen McDonald sounds wonderfully inspiring, and if she can help us to open doors to more intelligent commissioning, we should be all ears.

[Ben Gummer]

The Minister has provided some good examples of what he called intelligent commissioning, and I provided an example of a bad commissioning decision. Would he characterise that as unintelligent commissioning? If so, is that not precisely what the Bill is trying to correct?

[Mr Hurd]

My hon. Friend was good enough to introduce diverse representation from Ipswich, and the anger about the decision was palpable. It might be risky to comment from afar without knowing the details, but what struck me about the commissioning decision was that if 65% of the demand for the contract was based in Ipswich, it seems odd that there was no consultation. The process effectively removed an organisation that was clearly successful in delivering what the contract intended to deliver and had a massive social impact and value in that community. The decision seemed to be taken a long way away from the people who needed the help, and that is a problem.

The spirit of the Bill builds on the Government’s commitment to economic growth and the promotion of entrepreneurship. It is appropriate that it should come to the House in global entrepreneurship week, and the day after social enterprise day, which many hon. Members celebrated. We should not forget that social enterprises are, first and foremost, businesses that contribute £24 billion—that seems to be the official figure—to the UK economy and employ more than 800,000 people. As the hon. Member for Hemsworth powerfully said, they make an enormous contribution by creating and stimulating markets, bringing wealth into struggling communities, creating jobs, supporting disadvantaged people into employment, pioneering innovative products in ethical markets, and attracting new people into business, particularly the young, women and people from minority ethnic communities.

I was struck by a recent comment from Steve Jobs, who leads Apple, a brand that is always associated with innovation. He said that innovation is the difference between leaders and followers. The country desperately needs leadership and people who are capable of pointing to better ways of doing things, and it is in the social entrepreneur community that there are genuine leaders.

I was in Sheffield last week visiting a social enterprise, Zest, which has incredible leadership. It demonstrates how youth services can be run in such a way that young people turn up. It shows how libraries can be run in a way that involves the community, and how to engage with the public on public health issues. I sat at a table with people from the local PCT and the local council, hoping that they were learning and reflecting on how much money might have been wasted over the years. Organisations such as Zest are showing the way forward and opening minds to doing things better.

The point was well made, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton and, I think, the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles, that this is not just about social enterprise. Social value is not just about an organisational form called social enterprise, however broad that form might be. I hope that the Bill will also be a catalyst to encourage traditional businesses to speak up more about what they are doing in the community. We all know from our constituencies that many businesses, often family owned businesses with a strong sense of community, do a huge amount, but there is now a challenge, in the context of the big society, to everyone in traditional businesses to think harder about their social responsibility and their commitment to the community. The Government will be saying more about that shortly.

I have set out why we support many of the principles and objectives of the Bill, but we are legislators and we have a duty to ensure that the legislation that passes through the House is robust, is needed and adds value. I suspect that that is one of the themes that we can anticipate hearing from the most distinguished Friday face in the Chamber, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope).

I want to get into the detail of the Bill. The primary measure that the Government support is clause 3, which deals with contracts of contracting authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington has already outlined, clause 3 requires contracting authorities to consider how they might promote or improve economic, social or environmental well-being through a contract. In policy terms, we often refer to this well-being as “value”, because commissioners who already voluntarily follow this approach tend to attribute a quantifiable worth to it and consider it as part of their wider evaluation of bids to deliver public services. The title of the Bill reflects this commonly used terminology.

The Government are supporting this measure for two main reasons. First, and most importantly, the Bill sends an unequivocal message to those spending public money that it is vital that they maximise the value achieved by every penny. This is particularly important in the current public spending context. We acknowledge that many of the best commissioners already recognise the importance of this and are exemplars to the public sector. Yesterday, I was privileged to sit in on the first meeting between the London Probation Trust and two social enterprises. The conversation covered how the trust could work differently to commission social enterprises to set up community enterprises such as cafés, garden centres and small garages to employ offenders in the community. This is an example of a commissioner thinking outside the traditional box, and that is the kind of progressive commissioning that we want to encourage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I do. One of the amendments to clause 2 that I would have suggested is that social enterprises should be defined as small businesses with those objectives, because of the danger of ending up with some very large social enterprises that are, in many respects, not dissimilar from large public limited companies.

[Ben Gummer]

Often, the problem for procurement officials is that the lowest-risk option for them is to choose a large, established organisation, because that protects their position. One can understand why they would do that. The Bill would empower procurement officials to consider the whole range of possibilities and to take a slightly more risky approach sometimes, which would be to the benefit of local communities.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. He is right to emphasise the riskier approach, because sometimes there is a risk. For example, in my constituency, the local council decided to let the contract for the running of the local leisure centre to a charitable trust based in Poole. It became apparent that the trust was not delivering on what was set out in the contract, and after several years the contract had to be taken back in-house. Subsequently, a couple of other projects that the trust was running were found to be financially unsustainable, and that was the end of that, I think. We must not get into a frame of mind in which we think that anything that calls itself a social enterprise is, by definition, a good thing. Such bodies have to be run along business lines.

To take another example, people in Verwood—a town that is no longer in my constituency, sadly, but was until the time of the last general election—have set up a community enterprise called the Verwood Hub, which is a community centre. Unfortunately, it is becoming clear that they have not been applying business principles to the running of that centre, so they are having to go back to the local authority and say, “Please give us some more money.” The local authority is making it clear that it can go only so far in doing that, because there is a limit to how much it can be expected to use local taxpayers’ money to make up for the deficiencies in the business plan of what might otherwise be described as a laudable community enterprise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we all have examples from our constituencies of businesses that started very small and have become quite large. One such business in my constituency makes organic baby food, and now supplies it to major national retailers. It was based on the idea of an entrepreneur who asked, “Why are we not ensuring that people can guarantee that their children are being fed wholesome baby food at the most nutritionally important time of their life?” That enterprise struck a chord with the consumer, hence its great success. There are a lot of other examples that I will not trouble the House with at the moment.

[Ben Gummer]

Oh, go on.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend is encouraging me to trouble the House with more examples. In that case, I will choose an example on the other side of the argument. There are publicly funded organisations that, over a period of time, have shown themselves to be hostile in the extreme to small and local businesses. I say quite openly that I believe that Eaga is one such organisation.

Eaga receives a large amount of money from the taxpayer to help provide insulation and subsidies so that people can increase the energy efficiency of their homes and the appliances within them. A lot of work has been done showing that its contractors—often firms that are subsidiaries of Eaga itself—provide services at a much higher cost than local contractors would, and less efficiently. I have had public arguments with Eaga about that and been told, “Well, none of these small companies will be able to give us long-term guarantees that if anything goes wrong with their work, they will be able to put it right.”

[Ben Gummer]

How ridiculous.

[Mr Chope]

As my hon. Friend says, that is ridiculous. The previous Government were too obsessed with the fact that this organisation was based in the north-east of England and had grown significantly as a result of all the money that it had received from the public purse. I hope that the new coalition Government will introduce a bit more sanity and proportion into the way in which that money is spent so that we can ensure that relatively small local contractors can participate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a result of where some hon. Members are sitting, it may sometimes seem as though we are a cosy cabal, but we are not. We are trying to address our remarks to the wider world, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) made an excellent point, which he also raised in his speech.

Under clause 3,

“The authority must consider how it might promote or improve the economic, social or environmental well-being of the relevant area”.

I am glad that that will not be defined because it should be left to the individual procurers. I am not so sure about the requirement in subsection (4):

“The authority must consider whether to consult the persons (if any) for whom the authority is making provision in the exercise of that function.”

Again, there is no requirement that authorities should consult—they only have to consider whether to do that. However, that could be important.

[Ben Gummer]

One matter that has not been drawn out in this debate—my hon. Friend is an expert on this and may wish to comment—is the interaction between the Bill and European tendering legislation. Such legislation is often thrown up like chaff by procurement officials, especially when they have got something wrong. They say, “Oh, it’s all because of European rules,” when most of the time it is nothing of the sort. Officials must consider a range of variables when making buying decisions, but that is completely in accordance with current European tendering legislation.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Anyone who mentions the European Union in the House immediately assures that more attention will be paid to what they have said.

I hesitate to give credit to the previous Government, who left our national finances in such a dire mess, but they were quite helpful in setting out clear advice to local authorities on what they could do under the public procurement requirements laid down in EU legislation. Contrary to what some suppose, that legislation allowed local authorities and other public procurement bodies to take into account social considerations—both in pre-procurement, to which my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey referred, and in the specification, selection and award stages—provided that the economic advantages for the contracting authority were linked to the product or service that was the subject of the contract.

That was quite helpfully set out in detailed advice by the previous Government, and it will be replicated and slightly amended in the forthcoming White Paper that the Minister has promised. I was involved in procurement as a local councillor. One of the most frustrating things is to be told by the solicitor or officer responsible, “You can’t do this because it’s not allowed.” Councillors, who often have a strong feeling for common sense, reply by asking, “Why can’t we do it?” As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) said, when we look at the small print, we find that applying wider common-sense considerations to procurement is not prohibited by EU directives.

The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), who spoke for the Opposition, criticised Government Members on the basis that a large number of their speeches and interventions were slightly at odds with each other, but we should be congratulated on that, because it shows that we are engaged in a healthy political debate. In a brilliant intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) undermined the case for the Bill very effectively, and underlined the importance of keeping the state out of social enterprise as much as possible and trusting people to come up with the right results.

I hesitated to say anything at that time, but I know of a good example of the state getting it all wrong. We were assured by the previous Government that, as a result of changes in European law, only 16,000 new migrants from the newly admitted eastern European countries would come to participate in our buoyant UK economy. I forget whether that estimate was out by 100% or 1,000%, but why was it so significantly wrong? It was wrong because no Government can second-guess what ordinary individuals will do in a given set of circumstances. My hon. Friend therefore told the House an important cautionary tale.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington makes his winding-up speech, which I hope will be shortly, he can rest on his laurels having brought to the House an important topic for discussion. Indeed, he put so much work into the drafting of his Bill that it could only be provided three days ago. For historians, it will be interesting to look back and compare the final version of his Bill—if it gets to Third Reading—with what was set out in the helpful research paper from the Library. It set out in 11 pages what it was thought the Bill would contain. Although it is now a much shorter and more focused Bill—and there is a case for saying that the title of the Bill should now be changed—it will be an important first for my hon. Friend if he gets it on to the statute book. Some of us have been in the House for more than 20 years and have never been successful in the private Members’ ballot. Even if I had been successful, I am not sure that I would ever have been able to emulate the success that my hon. Friend will soon enjoy of steering a Bill through to a successful Second Reading.