EU Council

Chris White Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is nodding, so I think I have got that right. The Taoiseach then went through some of the key elements of the conflict, in which relatives of mine were probably involved, but who knows? He said he was very proud that relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland have never been stronger than today, and we must not let that go.

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

My constituency is home to a number of significant manufacturing and technology businesses, which play a major role in our local economy. What reassurance can the Prime Minister give me that this trade will continue to grow, not least after Warwick’s very strong vote to remain?

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris White Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

If the hon. Gentleman cares so much about the matter, he might have congratulated us on the progress that we made at the summit. He will be delighted to know that the British Virgin Islands has signed up to have a beneficial ownership register and to share that information with the UK Government. We are making progress in tackling the scourge of corruption, about which previous Governments, including the one he supported, did too little.

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

8. What progress has been made on implementation of the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012.

[The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Rob Wilson)]

It is important to begin by acknowledging that, thanks largely to my hon. Friend’s efforts, the social value Act came into force in January 2013. He can be proud that the Act has unlocked a range of public benefits from the procurement of goods and services. Lord Young reviewed progress in 2014 and reported in 2015. His findings inform our current work to quicken the pace of implementation. As part of that work, we will publish a paper this summer that will give examples of how central Government are driving forward the social value Act and what further actions we will take.

[Chris White]

The social value Act has been seen to benefit commissioners, service providers and the wider community. What progress has been made in ensuring that government, both local and national, applies the Act to their procurement processes more widely and consistently?

[Mr Wilson]

We reviewed central Government’s progress on the Act and found increasing awareness of it and a clear willingness and commitment to implement it. I will publish an appraisal of central Government’s commitments to the Act later in the summer, which will set out the steps being taken and the plans for the future. In preparing for that, I have invited a panel of external social value experts to review and critique current plans and practice. That process is helping to ensure that central Government’s aspirations for social value are being stretched.

European Council

Chris White Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

That is a very important point. There are huge challenges not just in our steel industry but right across Europe, and that is increasingly being talked about around the European Council table. However difficult it is—and it is difficult—I think we have a better chance of dealing with Chinese overcapacity, dumping and all the rest of it if we work as the biggest market in the world of 500 million people. Of course, we can get some things done as the fifth largest economy talking to China, but as part of 500 million, I think we can get more action.

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

The number of unemployed claimants in my constituency has fallen by 80% since 2010. Does the Prime Minister agree that to leave the EU now, at a time of economic global uncertainty, would risk a reversal of the progress that has been made?

[The Prime Minister]

I am delighted with the unemployment performance in my hon. Friend’s constituency. There is a simple point here: we live in uncertain times. We have made good progress on the economy. We should try to take the risks away from that economic performance, and clearly changing our status in such a radical way would be a risk.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris White Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)]

This is the first time the issue has been raised with me. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me, I would be delighted to address it.

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

T3. The Public Services (Social Value) Act has been in place since 2012. Many organisations and communities have benefited from its principles. Will the Minister outline the further steps that the Cabinet Office is taking to encourage a greater number of local authorities and Government Departments to adopt the Act?

[The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Rob Wilson)]

I thank my hon. Friend for being a vocal champion of the Act. The Public Services (Social Value) Act has helped achieve greater impact from public spending, resulting in better outcomes for individuals and communities. In line with Lord Young’s recommendations, I shall shortly announce a package of measures to support more public sector bodies to better utilise the Act.

Social Economy

Chris White Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

Having listened to the past three speakers, I think this is probably more of an annual general meeting than a debate. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), not least because she will leave the House, come what may, next May. It sticks a bit to say it will be disappointing to lose a Labour Member, but it will be disappointing to lose her expertise. The support she gave me with the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 was singular in making it progress through the House and ensuring it had the cross-party support necessary for any Bill to achieve success.

I will break with convention slightly and say how disappointed I am to see so few Members in the Chamber. I can only assume that they got lost on their way here. Those who understand what social value and the social economy are about will realise that these are some very radical, new and revolutionary ideas, but, as the right hon. Lady mentioned, some long-standing ideas have also newly re-emerged. As the author of the Act, I recognise that this is not day one: a lot of knowledge and work has been put into this field already. However, as Members have discussed, we have found a new period of momentum to do some great work.

To comment on what the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), said, when the Act started on the Floor of the House, there was a certain nervousness as to what its repercussions would be and what burdens it would place on businesses. I think this initial anxiety has been replaced by a level of confidence. Local authorities have become better and more successful at ensuring there is consideration of the wider benefits that their services can provide. The right hon. Lady mentioned Liverpool as one of the great examples. It was one of the first places I visited in my former role as the social value ambassador. I still hold a great memory of the Furniture Resource Centre. Rehabilitation, as the right hon. Lady mentioned, is an area where we can make the biggest difference through such work.

I am pleased with the role the Government have played. Obviously all Members who have got a private Member’s Bill through will know it is not possible to do so without the support of all Departments. Departments have made great strides in service commissioning and procurement. However, as the right hon. Lady said, there is potentially time for review. I think that 18 months is a long time—we dream of the Isle of Man—but it is still long enough that we can look at what has been achieved and whether these initiatives can be extended. Not only are the nation, its local authorities and Government Departments, adopting the initiative, but the world sees us a leader in the concept.

I have long believed that the closer to the community a service is, the better it is. Localism is key to this. It is a broad principle, based on the belief that we should devolve power to the lowest possible level. How we deliver everything, from our services to our local plans, should be considered by speaking to our constituents. We should ask our communities what they want, but what they really want perhaps is to be able to take on more authority. That is one of our greatest challenges. There are few Members present, but as people who believe in this concept, our task is to ensure our communities better understand what the social economy, social investment and social value are all about. These are simple ideas that we have managed to make quite complex.

[Hazel Blears]

The hon. Gentleman is making an extremely good speech. He has really hit a nerve on that point. We talk glibly about social enterprise and the social economy, but these words mean very little to ordinary people. The work he has done to make this come alive has been really impressive. Would he agree that one of the things the Social Economy Alliance—a whole range of organisations, ably led by Peter Holbrook of Social Enterprise UK—can do, working with hon. Members, is try to make those terms come alive to ordinary people? It is about getting people back to work, keeping them out of jail and those kinds of things. That is one of the biggest hurdles we need to get over.

[Chris White]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. Peter Holbrook, amazingly enough, has the one signed copy of my Act. What he has done with it goodness only knows. I agree that there are many players in this area, because of the alliance, Social Enterprise UK, and all the charitable bodies and their umbrellas. Our local political representatives are key players and do fantastic work on the ground supporting their constituents. I believe we should make these things more accessible to them. I would not denigrate anything they do, and certainly not as a former councillor myself, but we are coming towards local elections. Whatever party people support, they should be able to put in their manifestos what they are doing to help local community organisations.

[Mr Hurd]

I support that point on accessibility. The right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) is right: if I stopped people in Ruislip high street and asked what they knew about local social enterprises, I would get even more blank expressions than usual. Would my hon. Friend join me in supporting quite simple initiatives, such as the Buy Social Directory and the imminent Social Saturday initiative? They are designed to give people more information about the social enterprises on their doorstep. Giving them access to what is going on in their area seems to be a simple step we can take and support.

[Chris White]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Days such as Social Saturday will create great momentum. It is something we should consider having yearly. I still maintain that we have work to do. As suggested, one piece of work is to put these issues strongly and firmly in our manifestos, so that these organisations can feel confident that they will continue to have the support and investment they need, whoever forms the next Government.

[Mr Sheerman]

We must of course ensure all the major parties get this in their manifestos. However, there is one small danger with accessibility: we create our own language in the social economy. It can sometimes be a bit cosy. People outside do not understand things and have to fight to get in. The reason I like the word “crowd” is that it is a new way of expressing an old idea: that the crowd is empowered. I ask the hon. Gentleman to use “crowd” with “social” when he talks about accessibility.

[Chris White]

The hon. Gentleman always talks great sense.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, the former Minister, for his support with respect to the direction of travel that social value has taken. I look forward to the comments of the new Minister, who has picked up his responsibility with alacrity. I look forward to a commitment from him to growth in the area we are considering; an increase in its momentum and an extension of its scope; and attention to reviews, which would be helpful and appreciated.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Order. You have all been so disciplined that the two Front-Bench Members have half an hour to share; so no doubt we will have comprehensive answers and comment. As the Minister prepares, I call Chi Onwurah.

National Citizen Service

Chris White Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

May I be the first Member on this side of the House to congratulate the Minister on his new role? I look forward to working with him. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) on securing the debate. I particularly enjoy working with him on a cross-party basis, as we are both co-chairs of the Associate Parliamentary Manufacturing Group. I welcome how he is framing his remarks.

[Martin Caton (in the Chair)]

Order. This is an intervention, not a speech.

[Chris White]

As chair of the all-party group on the National Citizen Service and volunteering, I would welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support. Does he not think that this issue would also benefit from cross-party consensus?

[Mr Sheerman]

As the hon. Gentleman said, he works well with me and I hope he can work with me on the much more ambitious programme that I am going to talk about today. Nothing I am going to say today is negative about the existing National Citizen Service programme, but I want to finish my analysis. I believe that we have become a very different country. More and more people are living in cities and towns, with fewer people living in the countryside. There are real problems with the mobility of young people—getting off their estates, travelling, and getting away from their sometimes troubled environments.

I would like to see an open discussion about the possibility of having a much more powerful National Citizen Service, because we are in a time when democracy is under threat. When I asked that particular question of the Prime Minister, the other thing I said was that, 10 days before, only 36% of people voted in the European elections and even fewer voted in the local elections. Interestingly, if we look at Europe, even countries that are so keen on getting democracy had levels of involvement of 19%.

It is worrying for Europe and for our country that there is a disengagement from politics. All of us, when we are out canvassing, or in different parts of the country—in my case, trying to persuade the people of Scotland to stay in the Union—hear too often that the perception is that democracy does not make any difference because we are all the same. I think we need citizenship, because it will get to the root of that kind of attitude.

Youth Employment

Chris White Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. Along with my hon. Friends the Members for Braintree (Mr Newmark) and for Redcar (Ian Swales) and the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash), and with the support of others, I asked the Backbench Business Committee to support a debate on youth employment. I am grateful to the Committee for its support.

The subject of this debate is not unemployment but employment. We want this debate to be a positive one. We would like to promote what we can do in our constituencies to help get young people into work. Many hon. Members run jobs fairs, information campaigns, apprenticeship drives, work experience programmes and much more in their constituencies. This debate is an opportunity to celebrate the success of those programmes and share the ideas behind them so that hon. Members can perhaps return to their constituencies during the summer recess with the opportunity to do more to help local young people. I am grateful to the Million Jobs campaign, which has supported this debate, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree will speak more about it.

First, I will briefly set out the national picture, and then I will share an example of my own. We will have the latest monthly employment figures tomorrow, but as of today, employment is at 30.5 million, which is up 345,000 on the quarter and represents a huge rise in the number of jobs created in the private sector. The net rise in employment over four years is 1.69 million. Unemployment is at 2.6 million, which is down on the quarter and over a four-year period. Long-term unemployment is down 108,000 on the year.

Youth unemployment is also down. Some 3.4 million 18 to 24-year-olds were in employment in the last three months, an increase on the previous year. In the same period, 677,000 people aged 18 to 24 were unemployed, a fall of 11.5% from the previous year. Of course, those studying are included in the figure covering unemployment, so not all of those 677,000 are necessarily seeking a job. Expressed as a percentage, our national unemployment rate is currently 16.5%.

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I would not have intervened so early, but as she is mentioning figures and good news, I wonder whether she has noted that in Warwick and Leamington, youth unemployment has fallen by 67% since April 2010? That is obviously good news, but we need to do more. Does she agree that we should do whatever we can to encourage businesses to work more closely with our schools and colleges in terms of mentoring, work experience and careers advice to help give our young people an even better start in finding a job?

[Chloe Smith]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend on that point. He has helpfully set up the point about co-operation that I wish to emphasise in this debate.

Our national youth unemployment rate has hovered under 20% for much of the last four years; if we look across Europe, we see that our young people are significantly better off than, for example, those in Spain, where about half of young people cannot find work. They are also better off than those in Uganda, where I have just had the privilege of meeting young leaders from nine countries through the Democrat Union of Africa. I learned there that youth unemployment in Uganda is the highest in Africa; the African Development Bank says that it could be as high as 83%. Uganda also has the world’s largest percentage of young people under 30, at 78% of the entire population.

Youth unemployment is a blight for any nation, but most of all it is a blight on every young person who has a hope, a dream and something to offer. Those are not numbers; they are real people. It is a sapping experience to seek work and not get it. Unemployment is a crying shame for those who want to put education to good use and an appalling burden for those who want to work hard and get on without falling back on benefits.

Charities (Donations)

Chris White Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Weir, to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate. Towards the end of last year, charity donations had dropped by 20%, and one in six charities said that they face closure in 2013. We rely on charities to support some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and when 73% believe that they are unable to fulfil their philanthropic goals because of lack of funding, there is real cause for concern.

In May 2010, the Government launched their big society idea. The Prime Minister said that it was about allowing charities, social enterprises and companies to provide public services, devolving power to neighbourhoods, and making government more accountable. We are now relying on charities to provide much needed support, but only yesterday Sir Stephen Bubb, head of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, said:

“The reality many charities now face is crippling spending cuts”.

The Government would like us to rely on charities, but they have neglected to support them in their time of need. What we need now is a Government initiative to support, not one led by charities. In recent years, the public have become increasingly wary of giving to charities following reports of aggressive campaigning. That may be going too far, so we need innovative solutions to access gift aid money, instead of pestering people to give more than they can afford.

Some charities are the only providers for many people, and sometimes they provide niche services to the most vulnerable people in communities. The Marie Collins Foundation provides support for children who have suffered sexual abuse via the internet or mobile technology and has unique expertise in this area. The One in Four charity supports people who were sexually abused as children and is facing an unprecedented amount of work following recent media attention. It relies on donations and volunteers, yet 80% of its clients are referred by the NHS. It is clear that those charities play a role that is genuinely needed in our society.

The problem lies in the reduction of grants and funding available to charities. The SHARE Community says:

“There’s less money available from charitable trusts, and more competition for what there is.”

This debate is not about the fundamental structural changes needed in Government financing to give better support to our charities, although I am sure that an assessment of how that works would be appreciated by many. It is about how to harness the British public’s generosity into a more successful donation record for charities, big and small.

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Robertson]

I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman did not come to me before the debate, so I will not give way.

People want to give, but they simply cannot afford to give as much as they used to. The problem is reaching breaking point. With the recent child benefit reductions and welfare reform at the forefront of hundreds of thousands of people’s minds, charities are being stretched in two directions. For many families, the reduction in income will mean they simply cannot afford to give as much as they used to, leading to reduced budgets for charities. We recently had a debate in the Chamber on food banks, which are classic examples of the strain facing charities during the financial crisis. For example, in the last year, the Trussell Trust almost doubled the number of food banks it oversees from 149 to 293. The BBC recently ran a report about a mother who is a full-time carer to one of her children and is relying on that charity for emergency food parcels. Her words echoed those of many people throughout the country:

“I choose between whether to pay my electricity company...or feed my kids”.

I am sure that the Minister is aware that I often criticise energy companies for their selfishness when raising their prices, and that should be addressed, but we can help to ease the burden in the face of corporate greed by making it easier for charities, such as the Trussell Trust, to secure donations. Similarly, the homelessness charity, Shelter, has seen an 80% increase in demand for homelessness services in the last three years. Additional funding is needed immediately to support its work, and as we enter the coldest part of the year more will be needed.

Elderly people—I have many in my constituency—are also struggling with cuts and rising living costs. In Glasgow, there are now more senior citizens than 16-year-olds. That is a growing trend, and the growing proportion of elderly people will put more strain on our resources. Charities such as the excellent Glasgow Old People’s Welfare Association face rising demands on their resources and rely heavily on increased donations. We must support their work so that they can support elderly people. Demand on such charities will only increase as people start to feel the pinch of years of austerity policies.

Last week, there were reports that a triple dip recession is feared, so 2013 will be a difficult year for many. More and more people will turn to charities for support in their time of need. The Margaret Carey Foundation says:

“Were the charity sector to go into steep decline, the state would have to step in or…just stand by and watch people suffer as a consequence of not having a support system.”

Due to the enormity of Government cuts, I fear it would be the latter. Supporting our charities is an absolute priority, but 20% say they fear they may close this year. We must do something urgently to secure their financing structures.

Unlike many businesses, charities do not have the luxury of reserves to cover income shortfalls, and this year will be a breaking point. The Charities Aid Foundation reports a £300 million deficit in the funds of more than 90% of small and medium-sized charities, and those not facing closure will reduce services.

A key aspect of harnessing donations is to make them more secure and effective, especially with the 20% drop in the last year. It is increasingly difficult to get the other 80%. Cystic Fibrosis Dream Holidays says:

“It is becoming more and more difficult to raise the funds we need. We seem to be doing twice the work to raise half the income!”

The Refugee Youth Project, a charity that provides support to young people who have fled to the UK, relies heavily on donations. Some significant costs on charities are not covered by project budgets, so they desperately need unrestricted funding, primarily from donations, to stay alive. Funding from donations is also used to develop research and to pilot new initiatives with young people, allowing the charity to grow and to increase its effectiveness. Project budgets may be financed by Government grants, but that is no good if the backbone of the charity is not supported by donations.

Many charities also rely on the selling of unwanted goods in shops around the country, but Age UK has noted a 20% drop in doorstep donations of unwanted goods, and I am worried that that will only increase as the world moves to online shopping. Online marketplaces, such as Amazon, make it easier and quicker to sell unwanted items, and that is increasing. The British people are finding that they cannot get such books, CDs and other items in charity shops, and the number of those shops will decline. Comic Relief and Sport Relief are doing an excellent job, but we cannot rely all the time on the money that they are raising. It is easier for them to do so, but the lifeline and money that are needed are not there. The fact that charities now have to consider UK problems as a more pressing priority means that international charities will get less, so there will be a reduction in money to developing countries. Donations from UK residents are dropping, and I suggest that, if that trend continues, donations to charities that distribute in the UK will be given priority by donors. That is shown by the food banks that we discussed earlier.

Some things must be done. I was privileged to chair the Committee that considered the Small Charitable Donations Bill, which aimed to make gift aid simpler. However, in the face of such a crisis, that is simply not enough. Charities employ the most successful fundraisers and they are very good at what they do, but a few steps from Government could make a huge difference to the amount they receive. Over £750 million of gift aid goes unclaimed each year. It is clear that more needs to be done to get that to those who need it most.

Public Services (Social Value) Bill

Chris White Excerpts

Friday 25th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Thomas]

My right hon. Friend made a very valid intervention in Committee on exactly this point, and I shall return to that issue in a moment.

The Minister also said in Committee that he wanted to

“strike a proper balance between our”—

the Government’s—

“objective to encourage more commissioners to think about wider values, such as social and environmental values, in their considerations, and our determination to try to streamline the process and to reduce the number of additional duties on commissioners.” ––[Official Report, Public Services (Social Enterprise and Social Value) Public Bill Committee, 19 October 2011; c. 19.]

However, he did not explain why it is reasonable to encourage commissioners to think about social value in the context of services but is unreasonable to ask the very same commissioners—as it is usually, although not always, the same commissioners—to think about social value when awarding contracts for work or, crucially, for goods. Will he clarify a little further how he arrived at the view that services could be covered but that contracts for work and for goods should not be covered? Was there a discussion across Government in which he lost out? Perhaps the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government saw this as a step too far. I note that there was a huge gap between the Bill’s Second Reading and Committee, which suggests there was a fairly intense debate behind the scenes in Government—was it on this issue?

If there was not a political problem in Government about the inclusion of contracts for work or for goods, perhaps there was some research basis for suggesting that only contracts for services mattered in legislative terms for encouraging and embedding that concept of social value in commissioners’ thinking. If that is the case, will the Minister enlighten the House as to the research evidence in question? The whole House believes in transparency and I am sure that we all want to see clear, evidence-based policy making. Will he tell us with whom he discussed such research, if it exists? Was it with Social Enterprise UK or with Co-operatives UK, either of which would have been a logical choice? Was it with the Charity Commission or just with officials? It would be helpful to know the thought process he went through in deciding to omit contracts for work and contracts for goods from the scope of the Bill so that not only those of us in the House today but people in the third sector, particularly public sector commissioners, who consider our debate can better understand what is expected.

During our Committee discussions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston highlighted the issue of books and publications, which are goods, and the fact that publications providing information about the social security system are arguably providing a service. She noted the potential dangers of confusion and difficulty for commissioners with contracts for goods being excluded from the Bill’s scope.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles raised in Committee the issue of construction, as she has just done, and whether it would count as a service, a good or work. I gently point out to the Minister that he did not answer her question on that. Following our Committee discussions, I have received further representations suggesting that construction contracts could be outside the scope of the Bill. The organisation in question suggests that legal advice might be necessary, but surely the Minister, having had so much advance notice of the concerns of many Committee members on this issue, can clarify the situation today. I have also received representations that if the Bill covered the provision of food, furniture or plants, the civil society organisations bidding for contracts would be more likely to benefit from the socially and environmentally responsible manner in which those goods are or could be produced.

Similarly, I have received representations suggesting that statutory guidance and training are required on how and where social value can legitimately be considered and inserted into tender specifications. Does the Minister intend to bring forward such guidance for commissioners and for those third sector organisations, social enterprises and others that could benefit from this clause? The Bill could achieve so much more. My amendments seek to do justice to our debates in Committee and, above all, to the huge potential that social enterprise and social value offer.

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

I thank all those who have enabled the Bill to get to this stage today. It is a rare feat for a Bill to go this far and it is a credit to all the political parties and Members who have been involved in the process that so much has been achieved. I again thank the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd) and the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) for their continued support for the principles enshrined in the Bill.

It is wise, at this juncture, to take a step back and remember what has been achieved so far. During the Bill’s progress through Parliament there has been significant national debate on the way that public money is spent. Across the country, local authorities, public sector commissioners, charities, social enterprises, chambers of commerce, community groups and politicians have been seriously considering how we should commission the services we need. In addition, all the political parties have signed up to the principles of social value commissioning. That cross-party support has been one of the most distinctive features of our deliberations on the Bill.

We are very close to being in a position to send out a message to commissioners across the country that we want to do things differently and that although we consider value for money as being important, we mean “value” not in its narrow sense but in its true sense—recognising the importance of social, environmental and economic well-being across our communities and in our lives. This has been welcomed by organisations throughout the country. Only this week a letter from the chief executive of Social Enterprise UK in support of the passing of the Bill was signed by the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, Action with Communities in Rural England, CAN, Children England, Co-operatives UK, Community Matters, Locality, the National Association for Voluntary and Community Action, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the National Council for Voluntary Youth Services, the Race Equality Foundation, Urban Forum and Social Firms UK. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

Across our communities, thousands of organisations are looking to us here today to give them a vote of confidence. Yes, we want to see those organisations able to deliver more of our public services. Yes, we want to support them doing the excellent work that they do. Yes, we appreciate the extra miles that they go to support our communities. The biggest show of support that we can give to these organisations is to pass the Bill today.

I appreciate that the hon. Member for Harrow West has only the best of intentions for the Bill. I am pleased that many hon. Members have taken the opportunity to engage seriously and considerately in the process leading up to today, and have sought to do what they can to help make the Bill a success. Every single Member of Parliament who has participated in discussion of the Bill should be proud of the role they have played in ensuring that we do something positive for charities, voluntary organisations, small businesses and social enterprises, but we cannot allow the best to become the enemy of the good.

I recognise that the shadow Minister is seeking to return to some of the clauses that were included in the original Bill, and I sympathise. Of course I want to see, and I believe we all want to see, a more strategic approach to supporting social enterprise in local and central Government. I believe, like him and like most of those in the Chamber, that social enterprise is the way forward and that social enterprise is good for our communities, but the best thing we can do for social enterprise is to focus not on reports or strategies, but on social value. Social enterprises, like other organisations, want more than words. They want concrete action, and the Bill has the potential to deliver that action.

In 2006, the then Parliamentary Secretary, the Cabinet Office, now the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), produced a social enterprise action plan through the Office of the Third Sector. The action plan outlined 24 separate actions that it wanted to achieve, but nearly half of them were never acted on. That is not to say that we should not have strategies and plans, but strategies and plans by themselves do not necessarily lead to actions that benefit those whom they are meant to support. The social enterprise sector, like voluntary and community organisations up and down the country, see the Bill as a positive action that we can take today that will directly help them and potentially help thousands of others in the years ahead.

The social value aspect has always been the most important part of the Bill, and I am sure that all hon. Members recognise how imperative it is that the Bill goes through with that social value section intact. We should also remember that the Bill in no way prevents the Minister, his successors or local authorities from producing their own action plans and strategies to boost social enterprise, and if they were to do so, they would find in me one of their strongest supporters.

We should recognise that a great deal of the ideas generation that the sector needs comes from within it. The Social Enterprise Coalition, as it was before the last general election, produced an excellent manifesto for social enterprise which outlined a range of specific measures that could be taken to support the sector. We should take on board those ideas and encourage central and local government to work with organisations such as Social Enterprise UK and their regional bodies, to keep a constant dialogue going about how to boost the sector. However, if we are faced with the choice of having strategies within the Bill and it failing, or having strategies removed and it passing, I think we all know which is the more important. This is an opportunity that we simply cannot afford to miss.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hazel Blears]

The hon. Gentleman has shown a great deal of courage, determination and tenacity in getting his Bill this far, and he will certainly have my support. He was speaking about the sector being disappointed if the Bill does not pass. Would he admit to a tiny degree of disappointment himself that his original Bill, which I believe was tremendous news for the social enterprise sector, has been reduced in scope, in scale and in effect by the Government?

[Chris White]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention. I appreciate the tremendous work that she has put into getting the Bill to this stage. All the work that she does with social enterprises is well recognised. Do I feel a touch of disappointment? I am a practical and pragmatic person. I want to see something that works, something to build on. That is why I am making the remarks that I am.

[Mr Thomas]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris White]

I am about to conclude.

I appreciate that we all have a duty to ensure that the best legislation gets through the House. It is true in this case that some legislation is better than no legislation. This is a chance for us to send a message that when it comes to these important issues, we can all work together, we can prevent politics from getting in the way of good policy and we can be trusted to do the right thing when the time comes. I hope that given the hon. Gentleman’s well-documented support for the principles of the Bill and for the social enterprise, voluntary and community sectors, he will withdraw the amendments today so that we can push forward with much-needed reform of procurement. This is a chance that we may not get again for some time, so let us take it and see the Bill through to the other place and from there, we hope, on to the statute book.

[Hazel Blears]

I support new clauses 1, 2 and 3 and the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas). They are excellent amendments that enable us to debate how we want to see things develop, even if the Bill passes today, as I hope it will, in its current truncated form.

The Bill originally had five clauses. It contained a specific commitment to a national social enterprise strategy and strategies for local authorities. I said on Second Reading, some time ago, that I thought the Bill was small but perfectly formed, and that if it went through in that form, it could have a transformational effect on the commissioning that took place in our public authorities.

This is no judgment on the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White), but I am afraid that the Bill in its current form represents a huge missed opportunity to drive forward with momentum and impetus the growth and flourishing of the social enterprise sector. The original Bill would have tilted the scales in favour of social enterprise through social value and economic, social and environmental well-being. That would have sent a strong message to public commissioners that the Government really wanted to put their weight behind it as commissioners and would have produced quite a transformational effect.

The hon. Gentleman’s original clauses about a strategy have been deleted. I have no time for strategies that are just pieces of paper, because in my experience harnessing the full power of every Department requires a central spine that says to those Departments, “This is what we want to do. We will hold you to account. We want to see what you have done over the past 12 months and how you can take it forward.” I worry that without such a mechanism the push towards social value commissioning will be taken up only by the best local authorities, which are good at commissioning and understand, particularly in areas such as social care and education, that social value means more impact for the money spent. Good local authorities understand that and are becoming quite complex commissioners. They are commissioning with the users and clients involved and going out to the public and asking what they want to see. That is a holistic approach to commissioning.

However, as I mentioned in Committee, I am worried about the local authorities that lack the capacity, skill and understanding to carry out complex commissioning. The Minister gave some assurance in Committee that there would be support for those local authorities to ensure that they can take this forward. What the Bill says is really good, but I fear that it will fall somewhat short of the transformational effect that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington wants to achieve.

The annual report proposed in new clause 3 might be dismissed by some as bureaucracy, but I know from my experience in government that requiring Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box once a year to report on what they have done and what the impact of that has been is a tremendous discipline to ensure that during the rest of the year they ask for regular reports and push for implementation. Unless there is a way of measuring and evaluating the social value achieved through a change in the commissioning process, I do not think that we will see the results that the hon. Gentleman talked about.

The hon. Gentleman says that he is pragmatic and practical, to which I can attest. My view is always to get what one can and then build on it incrementally, and I think that that is probably where he is now. However, I think that he is also quite determined to make a change, so I ask him to press his right hon. and hon. Friends in the coalition Government to say how they will measure social value and assess what difference it has made. In a year’s time, more commissioning will have social value at its heart. What work are we doing to hone in on how we measure social value so that we get a grip on this, because otherwise it will remain a fairly nebulous concept that is very easy for people who do not share the values to wriggle out of? I am sure that that is not what he wants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris White]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I will be brief, as a great deal of what needs to be said has already been said. The Bill before us may not be perfect, although it is perfectly timed. It comes at a time when social enterprises and voluntary community organisations across our communities are looking to the Government and all political parties to show support for the work they do.

There is still a long way for the Bill to go. I hope that it will continue to find support on all sides in the other place and when it comes to implementation. People want to see more of this kind of politics. It is not partisan politics, motivated by getting one over on the other side. It is politics that puts society first, recognising that when it comes to the better use of public money for the benefit of our communities, we can all benefit from it. There is much more work to be done, and I hope it will be done in the same cross-party and consensual manner that we have seen on the Bill so far.

Public Sector Funding

Chris White Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

With regard to TimeBank, is the hon. Lady aware that it is seeking to set up an initiative whereby MPs can bank their volunteering? Would she support that initiative, as I do?

[Barbara Keeley]

I would certainly support that, but I cannot imagine how the hon. Gentleman thinks that TimeBank will set up new projects if his Government are cutting away its infrastructure funding. It is astonishing that he should raise that today.

[Chris White]

rose—

[Barbara Keeley]

No, let us leave it at that. The Minister and hon. Members have to understand that we cannot remove £500,000 of an organisation’s funding and then expect it to carry on with new initiatives. Clearly, it would not be able to do so.

I was discussing the vital scheme that TimeBank is setting up with carers. The groups with which TimeBank works are crucial in our society, but carers are in a special category. Carers who care for more than 50 hours a week are twice as likely to suffer from ill health, while those who care for a person suffering from dementia or stroke disease are even more at risk of ill health. If we do not support carers, therefore, we are causing additional health problems in our communities. In my local area, there are some 22,000 carers, one in four of whom care for more than 50 hours per week.

How are we to take initiatives if we cut the infrastructure funding for organisations? Last week, the Carers Identification and Support Bill, which I introduced, was not debated because we spent much of the time discussing a string of Bills introduced by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). I am sure that hon. Members who are here on Fridays understand that that is a common occurrence these days. There are no new measures to support carers in the Health and Social Care Bill, so how will they be supported? Will the Minister tell us why his Government’s cuts to TimeBank have been made, as they will cause the potential loss of a new way to support carers—people who give their up so much of their lives caring for family and friends?

The debate on funding must focus on the important issue of support for the infrastructure of the voluntary sector. Organisations such as TimeBank are on the front line of finding and supporting volunteers for charities, such as hospices and the Olympics, and they help to support and mentor carers. Labour’s support helped maintain high levels of participation in volunteering. Cuts to the funding of volunteering charities will result in the organisational cutbacks that I have discussed, and which will lead to a decrease in volunteering, not an increase. I hope that the Minister will tell us today, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) encouraged him to do, that he will think again, and that some way can be found to reverse cuts which could be damaging to the cause of volunteering.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

I, too, am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. The issue affects a range of communities, including in my own constituency.

We all appreciate that these are difficult economic times and that it is tough to find savings, but the first message that we should be sending out from the debate, and one that I support my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in articulating, is that local authorities should consider every other available saving before reducing support to our voluntary services. We should be squeezing budgets, sharing services, cutting back-office institutions, generating efficiencies and trying to get maximum value for money in procurement before we even begin to consider reducing funding for voluntary organisations. Warwickshire county council, for example, has cut its youth service budget, yet it has so far made only a 2% reduction in staffing. That is not how it should be. Every local authority should view reducing spending on voluntary organisations as a last resort.

[Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)]

In my experience, quite a lot of councils have risen to the challenge from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. My local borough council in Castle Point has gone so far as to cut members’ allowances this year to secure the funding for Crossroads, the Association of Voluntary Services and the citizens advice bureau, because it recognises their importance to the local community. Many councils are doing a very good job in that regard.

[Chris White]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. It is clear that her council is a very good example of best practice.

[Emma Reynolds]

Has not the chair of the Local Government Association, who is a Conservative, said that the cuts imposed by central Government on local government go way beyond efficiency savings and will therefore necessarily put local government in the impossible position of having to cut some services?

[Chris White]

I refer the hon. Lady to the fact that these are difficult economic times, which were not brought about by the coalition, and something needs to be done. At the moment, I do not see the Opposition doing anything at all to begin to address some of these issues.

Voluntary services in a range of areas, from welfare to social care and from youth services to health care, enable the public sector to reduce “failure demand”, which is one of the biggest costs to the taxpayer. Because we fail to do the right thing the first time, we end up having to make more expensive interventions further down the line. That is not the right approach to providing services. Local authorities should work with the voluntary sector to use its expertise and understanding of the needs of service users to build better platforms. Although voluntary organisations can be a short-term expense, they can also generate significant savings in the long term. If anything, we should seek to shift funding towards voluntary organisations, rather than taking funding away from them.

An excellent report by the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations called “Replacing the State?” gave four strong reasons why voluntary organisations are better placed to provide services than traditional in-house bodies. They are local and focus on the needs of their users, rather than on what is best for providers. They have higher levels of co-ordination, as they have a community-wide focus. They command a high level of public trust. They are incredibly innovative and able radically to change the delivery of services for the better.

There is an even plainer economic argument. Voluntary organisations are already saving the public sector more than £20 billion in staffing costs, given the fact that 17.1 million people volunteered in 2010. If we cut the funding on offer to the sector, we will reduce the infrastructure that channels those volunteers, either leaving people without services or leaving the public sector having to hire paid staff. I believe that if we integrate voluntary organisations further into public service delivery, we will not only see long-term costs go down, but we will be able to secure the future of many important groups throughout the country—something that can benefit all our local communities.