My Lords, Amendment 131D seeks to confirm that bodies which carry out activities for profit cannot be relevant bodies. Amendment 133ZP would prevent bodies which are carrying out profit-making activities from receiving advice and assistance in using the right to challenge.
The definitions of voluntary and community body have been designed to enable a range of civil society organisations to use the right. This supports the Government’s commitment to enable these groups to have greater involvement in running public services. This includes social enterprises and co-operatives, where not all profits may be reinvested in their activities or the community provided that their activities are for the benefit of the community. This requirement will ensure that any profits are indirectly focused on their activities. It will also ensure that large, multinational companies and big conglomerates cannot use the right to challenge. I am aware that that is a concern.
No decision has been made yet on the form that any assistance will take, but one would expect it to focus on those who need it most. This is most likely to mean smaller, newer voluntary and community bodies; but it is sensible that we have the powers to provide assistance to any relevant body that might need it. In answer the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, when I referred to the ““power of stoppage””, that was my own phrase. I think that we have to look at regulations because it is not clear to me yet exactly how a local authority will cope when it encounters the whole business of people taking advantage of the right to challenge—whether it can just say ““buzz off””, or whether, in the regulations, it cannot say ““buzz off”” unreasonably. I believe that this is something that has to be worked through in regulations. He referred to the figure of £156,000; that is the threshold figure in terms of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006. However, as well as the £156,000 threshold figure, there is a list of services in Part B of Schedule 3 to those regulations which is quite lengthy, to which that figure is not relevant. This includes education, health and so forth. There are a large number of things which would fall outside that.
It is important to understand that there is nothing in the Localism Bill which addresses procurement. Procurement is up to local authorities. Local authorities have worked out how they do that.
Localism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Shutt of Greetland
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 5 July 2011.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Localism Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
729 c183-4 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 17:06:10 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_756951
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_756951
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_756951