Prof. Dylan-Jones Evans is arguing that there should be a preferential option for local suppliers over to foreign suppliers. Examples Dylan quotes include foreign organisations from as close as Sheffield or Cornwall.

Foreign Cornish Daffodils

The presenting question Dylan uses is daffodils purchased by Gwynedd council (Plaid Cymru majority at the time):

Using the example of the national flower of Wales, he has found that welsh councils are getting supplies of daffodils from England or Holland rather than from Welsh companies.

Most surprising is the fact that Gwynedd Council, of all places, have been using suppliers outside Wales of Wales for bulbs to grow the country’s national symbol.

In the past Dylan has quoted examples in support of “localism” including business services procured from Sheffield and the development of a supermarket in Pwllheli.

I’m not getting into the pricing or horticultural aspects of Welsh vs Lincolnshire vs Cornish daffodils (although I note that “virgin Welsh ground” has a highly-emotional feel to it which makes me raise at least one quizzical eyebrow):

Richard Arnold of the Really Welsh Company said that the prices his company has recently discussed with certain authorities in Wales apparently compare very favourably with the Dutch imports or Cornish supplies.

He also believes that his welsh grown daffodils will offer superior cropping, as they are grown in virgin Welsh ground and not subject to intense rotations employed in Holland and parts of Cornwall and Lincolnshire.

But I do note that the local authorities have a procurement process that is subject - like everything else - to legal regulation. I’ve seen the Derbyshire one for a small Arts Website project (the procurement probably cost more than the project), and I applaud any small company that even takes on the army of tick-boxes and shed-loads of documentation necessary in the business of public sector procurement.

Think Local, Buy Local?

I’m with him on buying locally - we buy our veg off a tractor and trailer at the gate of a local farm, and even when they have bought in supplies it is the local farmer that is getting the profit margin.

I’m even with him on using “local” as a criteria - provided a fair market is preserved - or using whole lifecycle costs (including - for example - transport) in their prices; although this gets tricky if, for example, a supplier can reduce their transport costs by 50% by using the “empty” return run of a Welsh exporter to carry their deliveries.

However, I’m not with him if “a local preference” turns into a postcode lottery for the buying of goods and services by introducing criteria that are impossible to define - and therefore make a transparent market impossible.

The Balance

As ever, it is all about the tug of war between the principles adopted by those running the locality (whether village, county or country) - which may be different from those held by the whole community - and the wider set of rules, whether that is “European Rules” or “market transparency” or “entitlement to equal services”.

Basically, I’m strongly in favour of devolving decisions downward to small community level, even if that results in a certain inconsistency across geographical areas - and I have been horrified by the abolition of so many small local authorities in favour of county-level distant behemoths in the face of much local opinion in the last two years.

However, the touchstone is that the process must be transparent and open to competition - otherwise it will descend into protectionist chaos.

Where to put that balance

So I’m not happy with the last statement in Dyland’s post:

Using European procurement rules as an excuse to stop buying locally is no longer good enough.

I think he’s being polemical. I’d suggest that that statement also applies the other way round:

Using “buying locally” as an excuse to dodge European procurement rules is not good enough.

I also expect that the existing councils have been working their fingers to the bone trying to do exactly what Dylan is asking for.

What Next

It seems to me that the weakest point in the argument is the confusion between product characteristics and undefined “Welshness” criteria. I think those arguing for “Welshness” to matter more need to come up with something more concrete to bring into the dialogue.

• Would - for example - a product or service from Wrexham be preferable over one from Bristol for supply to a Council in Monmouth?
• Or what process would be used to take account of the benefits of a local supplier?
• And a curve ball - what are the implications for the Fair Trade movement (which is based on importing high price products from thousands of miles away) of this policy.

I’ll give space to the Prof if he wants to have a discussion here.

Wrapping Up

Anyway, lets hope that the Turku School of Economics in Finland don’t start applying a “local supplies only” policy to their staff recruitment.

And - as a unionist - I love that the Really Welsh brand is run by an Englishman.