Public Services (Social Enterprise and Social Value) Bill

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.