Public Services (Social Value) Bill

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Friday 25th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about Barrett Homes. I draw his attention to subsection 5(d) of new clause 1, which refers to the business being

“majority-owned and controlled in the interests of improving the social or environmental well-being of the United Kingdom.”

Given that Barrett Homes has a substantial shareholder base, it would be difficult to justify in any court of law that it met that definition.

The hon. Gentleman's interesting point relates to Fairtrade, too, and if the Government accept the new clause, a small amendment in the other place could help to ensure that Fairtrade organisations were not excluded. I am open to the idea that his suggestion might work and I gently suggest that it would require the Minister to have a slightly more open mind than he demonstrated in Committee. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have more luck in encouraging the Minister behind the scenes than I did in Committee.

New clause 2 highlights the key role that local authorities will play in helping to grow the social enterprise sector. Indeed, many of the representations I have received about the Bill stress the importance of local authority commissioners for social enterprises. A requirement for a proper strategic look at the needs of social enterprises in each local authority area would mean that Conservative councils, desperate simply to privatise services, would have to at least to consider the merits of the social enterprise sector. They would do well to look at the example of the many Labour-run co-op councils around the country that are already doing much to encourage social enterprises to develop.

In Committee, a number of Members noted the danger of strategy documents gathering dust and achieving little, which none of us in the House of Commons would want to see. I accept that that is a risk, and new clause 3 is designed to help minimise that risk. I have been struck by the enthusiasm of many of the organisations included for consultation on new clause 3. New clause 3 requires an annual report to be laid before Parliament with the clear involvement through consultation of a diverse range of representative bodies from the sector and others, such as the National Audit Office, which, if it wanted to do so, could comment effectively on the success or otherwise of the commissioning for social value part of the Bill. The Charity Commission would be able to provide a view on the effectiveness of the Government’s strategy to encourage further charities that are social enterprises, while the Office for National Statistics clearly needs to be encouraged to develop statistics to enable the sector’s strength and performance to be properly understood.

Evidence-based policy making and proper evaluation of what has worked and what has happened so that one can learn from mistakes is surely always a sensible approach for Ministers and Parliament to encourage. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, Social Enterprise UK and Co-operatives UK are all strong, excellent bodies that could offer insightful comments to help Ministers and, crucially, Parliament, to assess the effectiveness of the Government’s policies for encouraging the sector to grow.

I was struck by the recent Public Administration Committee’s report “Change in Government: the agenda for leadership”, published in September. The Committee noted the Prime Minister’s promise on, among other things,

“re-empowering…communities as part of the ‘Big Society’”.

Two paragraphs on, it stated:

“The principal message of this report is that unless there is a comprehensive change programme for government, there will be little of the real change”

that the Conservative manifesto promised. There are three new clauses before the House today that all offer the chance of that comprehensive change programme for social enterprise to be embedded across Whitehall.

My final point on the three new clauses is to draw the House’s attention to the new suggested definition for the sector. In Committee and in her intervention today, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) rightly raised the issue of an asset lock to protect taxpayers’ assets to stop them simply being transferred to the private sector. In Committee, my right hon. Friend received support for the principle of an asset lock from the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and even from the Minister.

As I said in response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), subsection 5(d) of new clause 1 seeks to add a key description to the definition of social enterprise which locks in any public assets transfer to the social enterprise. That matters because the Opposition remember the bus privatisation scandal of the 1980s. The bus industry was transferred lock, stock and barrel from public ownership to employee mutuals. It was not that long before the employee mutuals handed themselves over to what had become big corporate bus businesses. Those businesses gained the assets on the cheap while the community and employees lost some of the social value implicit in those public assets, which were taken out as profits of those private businesses to reward their shareholders.

I do not criticise the entrepreneurs who set up and now run the bus industry, as the rules at the time allowed them to do what they did. I am certainly not against privatisation. It has its place, although that is not everywhere and not all the time. If that is the Government’s intention for an industry or a particular part of a sector, however, we should have proper, transparent debate about its merits.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I appreciate the point made by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) about how some overage must be retained by the taxpayer when surpluses are gained later, but the hon. Gentleman is rewriting the history a little, I think, of the effect of bus privatisation. I remember that when I was a schoolgirl in Liverpool the introduction of choice and competition meant that we had better services, not worse, as a result of the privatisation.

[Mr Thomas]

My recollection is slightly different; we remember that in the 1980s there were substantial cuts in bus services after privatisation. Arguably, that is not the point. The key point is whether the assets should remain in the ownership of the public sector or, if not, in that of members of the public who are combining in a social enterprise. The asset lock clause seeks to achieve just that.

European Council

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. All these years after the single market was started, we have still not completed the single market in services. In this country, service is one of our strongest industries, and it is actually countries like Germany that have not yet completed that single market. I know that people are bored of hearing the agenda of completing the single market in services, liberalising energy markets, deregulating in Europe, but if we want to raise our growth rate in Europe and raise our game in Europe, this is squarely in our British national interest.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his leadership in the Libyan situation, when there were many doubters who have been proved unequivocally wrong. Will he assure me that he will continue to work with the President of France and others on the United Nations Security Council to address the situation in Syria?

[The Prime Minister]

I can assure my hon. Friend that, whatever our disagreements on economic policy—and, by and large, we are united on it—the French President and I will work very closely together on foreign affairs and defence issues. I think that there is a real coming together of French and British national interests, but, as I said earlier, when we do sometimes have disagreements we should not be frightened, as good friends, of airing them and discussing these matters.

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Sadly, the phrase “Don’t believe everything you read in the press” now seems to be true. In addition to dealing with criminality, I hope that this process will ensure that we can believe everything that we read in the press, just as we can believe the phrase “You can always trust a policeman”.

A great cross-party approach has led to the inquiry, so I commend the Leader of the Opposition for working with our Prime Minister and the other party leaders. However, I wish that Labour Members had acted when they were in government, as I am sure they agree.

I associate myself with the apology that my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) made to Mr Rupert Murdoch yesterday, and I give Mr Murdoch some credit for staying on to answer Committee members’ questions. My hon. Friend also referred to outstanding points for the inquiry. As the Committee has not yet concluded its report, I do not intend to make specific comments about what was said yesterday, but I encourage hon. Members to read the transcript and to note that we will set out written follow-up questions.

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) suggested that at least two people had lied to Parliament in the past 24 hours. I assume he was referring to Sir Paul Stephenson’s comments about his resignation, and perhaps to Mrs Brooks and the Murdochs.

[John Mann]

That is four people.

[Dr Coffey]

I do not know to whom the hon. Member for Rhondda was referring.

We have to be careful when we say that people have lied to Parliament. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we have not got to the bottom of the matter—as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) said, some of the testimony was frustrating—and to do so we need to call further witnesses to our inquiry. However, I now know that the Committee’s intention is that the police and the judicial inquiry see further witnesses rather than us.

I welcome a lot of the suggestions that have been made about equal prominence for apologies and about fining and compensation powers. I asked Mr Murdoch yesterday whether, given his experience in the media spotlight, he would think again about his newspapers’ headlines and some of the targets of their investigative journalism. I appreciate that a headline such as “Up Yours Delors” is quite entertaining and unlikely to cause damage, but The Sun once published the headline “Bonkers Bruno Locked Up”. At that time, Mrs Brooks learned a lesson straight away because the following day she published a front-page editorial from the charity SANE, as well as making appropriate restoration. I see that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) is not in the Chamber, but I should point out that The Sun has made no such restoration of reputation for the Hillsborough 96, which I think would be welcomed by the people of Liverpool.

Newspapers and the Press Complaints Commission itself do not need to wait for the creation of a new regulator because they could change the code of conduct by bringing in several ideas that have been suggested. Although, the PCC’s credibility has sadly, been somewhat destroyed, that does not mean that it should be sulking, as I perceive that some of its comments suggest is the case, although I am sure that that is not its intention. People should look in the mirror before they write those headlines and decide what they are going to put out there. As I said, some of the treatment that editors, both past and present, have recently received will, I hope, make them think again.

Both in the testimony that we heard yesterday and in the Home Office report, there was extremely heavy reliance on lawyers’ advice, for example, on the sum for which people should settle. The Home Office report considered the question of whether former Deputy Assistant Commissioner Clarke relied on lawyers’ advice about undertaking more investigation if News International was not co-operating, and whether he was told that the police could not really exercise certain powers because it would be seen as fishing. From my own experience of corporate life, lawyers always take the lowest-risk approach, and one has to decide whether one wants to take that advice. Indeed, the House decided earlier this year that it was not happy with advice about prisoners’ votes. People should not necessarily hide behind lawyers’ advice. They should listen to it, but they should be prepared to make different decisions.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I was about to conclude, so, in deference to other hon. Members who wish to make a speech, I shall not give way.

I applaud the cross-party approach that some hon. Members have taken, but I deplore the tribalism demonstrated by others. I am afraid, however, that I might introduce a little bit myself. It was Mr Yates who led the investigation into cash for honours in which an official serving the then Prime Minister was arrested. I am not aware that people were calling on the then Prime Minister to apologise—I think that there was surprise—and, as has been said by the Prime Minister and by other Members, we should wait until people are charged and, indeed, found guilty before we condemn the decisions of those involved in employing them. On that matter, I commend the motion, and particularly the desire of everyone to make sure that we have a cleaned-up press and a police force whom we are confident can lead such investigations.

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I simply wanted to make the point to my hon. Friend that he is right. At the heart of all this, as we have all these debates and discussions, we must bear in mind the victims of phone hacking, chief among whom are the family of Milly Dowler.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Nigel Pickover, a constituent of mine, is editor of the Evening Star and recently wrote to the Prime Minister, and was grateful for his response. Is it not fair to say that local newspapers have not so far been implicated, that we should welcome their campaigns and local journalism, and that we should support the local press wherever they are?

[The Prime Minister]

They play a vital role in the health of our local democracy, our constituencies and what I call the big society. Clearly, the inquiry has to go wherever the evidence leads and to all newspapers, but I think that regional and local newspapers play an important role in our country.

House of Lords Reform

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I thank hon. Members who will serve on the Joint Committee for listening to the contributions of other Members—particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) and for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who I believe have listened to every contribution.

Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), I did have one constituent—a gentleman from Kelsale—bring up the issue of Lords reform when I was canvassing in the general election. As I told him then, although I had not had a thought about it and did not feel particularly strongly about it, I would listen to the debate—and that is what I am doing now and for the future.

I agree with several things in the Bill. If we are to reform the House of Lords, for example, I agree with capping the number. I agree with the idea of its Members not being for life, and I agree with the idea of the transition. I quite like option 1. My favourite is the option to move to a smaller Chamber straight away, and I firmly rule out option 2 in favour of aspects of option 3.

As my hon. Friends have already said, it seems peculiar to say that there is accountability when people are not re-elected. There is, however, an opportunity to include recall powers, perhaps if Members do not show up. That happens in councils: if people do not show up for a certain period of time, they are automatically disqualified.

I welcome the idea of having ministerial Members, but will the Minister clarify whether these would be voting Members? Otherwise, there is nothing in the draft Bill to stop the Government of the day packing the upper House with a huge number of Ministers who could then vote.

I am not so sure of the need for Lords Spiritual. As others have suggested, there could be a role for a chaplain and it would be possible for people to speak as non-voting Members. As for having appointed Members, although I respect people’s expertise, there is as much of it in this House as in the upper House. So-called experts could be called as witnesses, although there is a risk of Buggins’s turn. A large number of ex officio appointments seem to be made when people retire from certain roles. That is wrong. Today, the Secretary of State for Defence has ruled that out for elements of our military forces.

As for where I strongly disagree, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), I believe that having the single transferable vote is wrong in this context. I would go further and suggest to the Minister that if we are having the elections on the same date, why bother having two separate votes? Having two voting systems on one day is completely unnecessary. We could use the proportion of the national vote—or the vote within a region, if regions are insisted on—to determine the election of Members to the upper House.

On the issue of whether we need regions or electoral districts, I strongly support other Members’ views on how, frankly, we do not want people floating around our constituencies, especially when they can say that they are also the representative in Westminster. I am not suggesting that our electorate is not intelligent enough to know the difference, but—how can I put it?—one election leaflet after another can sometimes be put across in a certain way. I will not go any further; I think hon. Members know what I mean.

[Stephen Pound]

Printed in yellow!

[Dr Coffey]

I could not possibly comment on that.

Let me move on to deal with the powers. I made this point when the Deputy Prime Minister originally raised the issue. I disagree with the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband), as I think we should be careful before we say definitively what the powers are going to be. I sympathise with hon. Members who are worried that giving legitimacy to the House of Lords by making it elected will lead its Members automatically to accept the idea that that is their lot in life so they will not look for any more. The European Parliament used to be appointed, then it became elected and over time it has gradually grabbed more and more powers. Indeed, it has an insatiable desire for more power, which the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) mentioned earlier. During this Parliament, we have seen the Welsh Assembly gaining more power and the Scottish Parliament demanding more power.

People will be elected for 15 years on the basis of a common manifesto. As I may learn, perhaps to my downfall in future, manifestos change every five years. If someone were elected for one term of Parliament, they might not feel bound to support the Government later on in their time. That said, Members elected for 15 years will at least be able to say to the Whips, “This is what I was elected on; this is my credibility; I will vote as I choose.” On that note, I support further discussion.

European Council

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I can certainly give that assurance. We have actually managed to write into Council conclusions that Europe’s spending should mirror what is happening in member states. The decision about the new building was taken, I think, in 2003, when the Labour party was in power. All I can say is that it seems to me that the building in which we hold the European Council has got plenty of space for all of us, and indeed for new members. I think they need to get real in Brussels and in the European Union about recognising the sacrifices that many countries are making in terms of spending restraint, and they need to start showing a bit of spending restraint themselves.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I want to add my congratulations to the Prime Minister on standing up for Britain and British interests. On the answer he gave to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee about Greece paying attention to its asylum reception centres, I hope my right hon. Friend agrees that perhaps the people of Greece have other things on their minds. Is not this an opportunity for the European Commission, through Frontex, to spend its money and resources appropriately on helping member states rather than on some grandiose white elephant?

[The Prime Minister]

Frontex has an important role to play and it must be invested in for the reasons that my hon. Friend gives. My understanding is that one reason why there was pressure to get rid of the Dublin regulation was that Athens’ arrangements for dealing with asylum seekers have been judged insufficient by the courts. We need to speak to our friends in Greece to get them to sort out their problems, so that the asylum system can work better throughout Europe.

House of Lords Reform (Draft Bill)

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am keen to accommodate remaining colleagues who wish to speak, so I reiterate the merits of economy and self-restraint.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend was a Member of the European Parliament, which moved from being an appointed body to an elected one and, over time, has demanded more and more powers, reflecting its democratic mandate. He is very consistent in saying that that will not happen in the case of a reformed House of Lords, but how can he build in some assurances to that effect?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Those powers of the European Parliament were ultimately changed because of a negotiation between it and national Governments. The conclusion we have reached, and which several other committees and cross-party commissions that have looked at this in the past have also reached, is that the way to avoid opening that Pandora’s box is simply by asserting that the balance of power will remain as it is and as reflected in the Parliament Acts. That is exactly what we are proposing.

UN Security Council Resolution (Libya)

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Friday 18th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

First, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that people in Northern Ireland have every right to remember the hurt and pain that they were caused by Gaddafi’s funding of the IRA—a wrong that has still not been properly righted. On the issue of the Red Cross, I will ask the International Development Secretary to contact the hon. Gentleman separately to make clear the position.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I too congratulate the Prime Minister. Just yesterday, I voiced my concern that inertia could lead to our generation’s Rwanda. I am glad that he, along with others, has secured agreement to this resolution. I am sure that that was helped by the chilling words that Colonel Gaddafi issued in his radio interview. He has also mentioned attacks on civilian aircraft. Has the Security Council been able to assess that threat? Is it just the empty hot air of a tyrant who knows that his days in power are numbered?

Prisoners (Voting Rights)

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting and brave point, and I commend his courage on the issue. He will be joined in the Lobby by many of our colleagues. The Government should be left in no doubt this morning that they have made the wrong decision on the issue and that they will not get the proposals through Parliament.

My hon. Friend is right: the Government can tackle the issue in far more imaginative ways. It was wrong for my hon. Friend the Minister to say in his statement of 20 December, which was sneaked out just before the Christmas recess, that

“we should implement the Hirst judgment in a way that meets our legal obligations, but does not go further than that.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 151WS.]

The Government have gone further than that by saying that the limit should apply to those sentenced to four years or less in prison, because there are many countries that are signatories to the European convention that apply the ban to prisoners serving far less time in prison. For example, Austria, Malta and San Marino ban all prisoners serving a sentence of more than one year. In France only prisoners convicted of certain crimes lose their right to vote.

I should therefore like to know why the Government have settled on the apparently arbitrary figure of four years. They say that it is the difference between serious and non-serious offences, but frankly I do not accept that definition. There are other ways to cut the cake. For example, the ban could be applied to those who have their sentence issued by the Crown court, rather than the magistrates court.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

On the point about limits, does my hon. Friend agree that the crimes of rape, for which a three-and-a-half year sentence was awarded in November, in a case in Warwick, and armed robbery with a knife, which has also been given a sentence of less than four years, are serious crimes, and that it is shocking that the Government even contemplate that such things should be covered?

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Her constituents and mine will be sickened if rapists are given the right to vote. It is shocking how many prisoners would be entitled to vote if the Government’s proposals were to go through. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm the present number of people serving time in prison. Statistics that, again, were sneaked out just before the recess, show that there are 28,770 prisoners serving sentences of less than four years, of whom 5,991 have been convicted of violence against the person, 1,753 of sexual offences, 2,486 of robbery, 4,188 of burglary and 4,370 of drug offences. If the Government were, for example, to restrict the limit to sentences of one year or less, the number of prisoners who would be enfranchised would go down from 28,770 to 8,096.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

I am not aware of the breach of law by the Labour parliamentary candidate in the Oldham by-election. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can enlighten me later.

The hon. Member for Kettering said—I suspect rightly—that many in my constituency would be disconcerted to hear me making the arguments I do today. That is why I strongly support his call and that of others for a full and informed discussion to take place in this House, because we have not properly considered the evidence or, indeed, the purpose of our criminal justice system and the role that the right to vote or withdrawal of it plays. I hope that this debate will make some contribution to that analysis and information, but I consider that we need a far fuller understanding in the country as a whole.

I have taken an interest in this subject because I served as a magistrate for 16 years. I have sentenced people to custody and have never done it lightly. I am mindful that it entails not just a loss of liberty but puts at risk people’s jobs, homes and family life. Hence, magistrates follow a rigorous decision-making process in selecting an appropriate sentence. With 16 years’ experience on the bench, I cannot think of a single sentencing objective that removing the right to vote from prisoners sentenced to custody would have helped to achieve.

[Dr Coffey]

What are the hon. Lady’s thoughts on the Government’s proposal to offer judges and magistrates the opportunity to remove the vote as part of the sentence?

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue, which I want to explore in my remarks. The hon. Member for Kettering was right to say that there is more than one way to skin a cat. I am not suggesting that a blanket rule that applies before or after a four-year custodial sentence is the most appropriate way to go, but it is a step in the right direction and one on which I would like to see us build.

I would like to say a little more about how we might see restoration of the right to vote as a positive by enabling prisoners to fulfil their responsibilities as citizens, and how that might in a small way—I see scepticism on faces opposite me—contribute to reducing reoffending, which is surely the prime purpose of the criminal justice system. If we fail to give prisoners any stake in our society, it is difficult to see why they should wish to reintegrate into that society—why they should feel any sense of obligation to mutual rights, dignity and respect when we do not afford that to them. I see an opportunity alongside this new legislation to improve education and rehabilitation in our prisons.

When I raised the matter with the Secretary of State at Justice Question Time before Christmas, he expressed scepticism as to whether prisoners would take advantage of the right to vote. However, before last year’s general election the Prison Reform Trust participated in a debate with prisoners in a local prison. It reported that prisoners were intensely engaged in debating the political matters of the day: not just criminal justice but a wide range of issues that would affect them, their families, communities and society as a whole—a society, of which, like it or not, they remain a part.

Prisoners are rightly recognised as being among the most disadvantaged in terms of social inclusion prior to receiving custodial sentence. We should be looking to take steps to improve their social inclusion. What happens to them while they are in prison undoubtedly has a role to play.

Public Services (Social Enterprise and Social Value) Bill

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Friday 19th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this interesting private Member’s Bill, and it is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) because she obviously knows such an enormous amount about this topic. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. For the last couple of years, I have had the privilege of sitting on the board of the Social Investment Business—a social enterprise itself—which has been a fascinating place from which to observe some of the issues and challenges in the social enterprise sector.

The social enterprise sector is not widely known or acknowledged by the public. If we asked people in the street to define a social enterprise, I think that most people would look fairly blank, but the right hon. Lady gave us some excellent examples of social enterprises in her constituency, and most people will have heard of organisations such as Jamie Oliver’s Fifteen. It is a restaurant that runs on a commercial basis, but it helps young people who are struggling to get into employment by training them as chefs. People have also heard of organisations such as Cafédirect and The Big Issue—the latter being a social enterprise in which the commercial magazine helps homeless people to earn an income. However, social enterprise still has some work to do in engendering public knowledge, understanding and acceptance of what it does.

From the perch that I have occupied for the last couple of years, it has been fascinating to observe some of the issues and challenges for the social enterprise sector. In particular, I have chaired the investment committee, which has disbursed the money from the Futurebuilders fund, which was almost £200 million of Government funding that was designed to be used in loans to completely unbankable social enterprise organisations. If social enterprises were trying to win contracts from public sector organisations, the Futurebuilders money was designed to be the last resort. If organisations had already been to the banks, applied for grants and pursued all the other sources of potential funding, but still needed that last little bit of funding to make the project viable—the unbankable funds—the Futurebuilders fund could help.

The fund has now been fully disbursed and, for the last five or six years, it has been a portfolio of loans. I wonder whether hon. Members wish to guess what the annual default rate has been—in this very tough financial period—on that series of unbankable loans to social enterprises.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

My guess is that it would be less than 1%.

[Harriett Baldwin]

That is an extremely low rate, but in fact the annualised default rate has been just over 1%. The case has been proven that a portfolio approach can be taken to investment in such social enterprise organisations.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) is no longer in his place, because he and I have enjoyed many lively debates on many different topics and I would have pointed out to him that we do have an arrangement in this country whereby the Government spend money on behalf of taxpayers—and that is an accepted fact. This Bill would helpfully draw to the attention of the procurer who spends public money the existence of social enterprises, which might offer an attractive alternative to the state building its own apparatus or to a private sector provider.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

The right hon. Lady is much more familiar with, and expert in, this area than me, but there is a difference between mechanism and consideration in local accountability. We have the mechanism. It consists of our local councils and our democratically elected councillors, who are there to make these judgments. However, we want to enable them—and the Bill would do this—to have consideration of the factors and features that she mentions, rather than the sole consideration of lowest cost, on which they often focus their efforts and attention, particularly at times of budget concerns.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

Following on from the intervention by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), one of the concerns expressed to me by some of my constituents is not so much that profits could be made out of public assets, but about how, if companies fail, which they sometimes do—it is one of the essences of the market—those assets will be recovered, so that services do not go away or get stripped. That needs some consideration in Committee.

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I agree that we want the opportunity to discuss these issues in Committee.

Where will the Bill lead? The right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles—I apologise for referring to her again—talked about this being a relatively modest-sounding Bill that could have significant consequences. From my short time looking at politics, that often seems to be the way. The Conservative Government in the 1980s, when they started with their approach to privatisation, were probably not aware of what a significant wave of change they were unleashing and that it would be a model around the world. In a different way, this Bill and the additional measures that I hope the Government will introduce, building on the work of previous Governments, could have the same significant impact.

To make that happen, however, we need a couple of additional efforts. First, we need to recognise that many social enterprises and charities are institutionally small and consist of few people—perhaps 10 or 20—a lot of whom might be volunteers. They might have a lot of spirit, but the procurement process will be quite complicated for them, so we need to enable them to come together to procure efficiently and compete effectively with the very efficient and knowledgeable for-profit procurement companies. I hope that the Minister will, either today or in the months ahead, come forward with suggestions for how that can be better enabled, so that the window opened by the Bill can be taken advantage of by these social enterprises.