Parliamentary Boundary Commission: Electoral Administration

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Foulkes, and I will make sure that I do not get his name wrong or mix him up with the noble Lord, Lord Faulks.

This has been a really interesting debate, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. He has done the House a service by his contribution and by bringing this issue before it. Particularly given recent constitutional debates in the other place, and in the political media—although not, I suspect, in the pubs, the clubs and the school gates around the country—the Government’s legislation on constituency borders and electoral registration leads us into a wider debate about what we mean by democracy and political representation. What are the implications of those changes that have been, and are being, legislated for? There seems to be a lack of clarity about whether we will see all those changes, but it is right that we look fully at the implications.

It has been quite clear in the first debates in your Lordships’ House and the other place, that whatever the textbook definition of democracy, there are many different interpretations. I do not think we can see democracy as something we can pick and choose, or pick and mix, which was the phrase the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, used. We cannot choose the parts we like best. There are certain core elements that we have to sign up to. The first and most basic is accountability. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and others pointed out that the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 was unprecedented legislation with regard to the changes of MPs and boundaries, which may or may not take place. At its core was the Government’s promise to reduce the size and cost of Parliament, and allow for a referendum on the voting system, to get rid of our current first past the post system and replace it with a system which would count the proportion of votes for each party. To the horror and surprise of some, and the delight of others, the public rejected the change in the voting system. I am sure that the reasons why could fill a debate in your Lordships’ House on their own, but I offer one thought: most significant constitutional change comes from the grass roots up. If we think of women’s suffrage and universal suffrage, we think of the campaigns that took place, the marches, and the demonstrations. Politicians of those times wrote and spoke about the lobbying that took place on those issues.

In knocking on doors during my 21 years as an elected representative—13 in Westminster and eight on a county council—I can probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of times the issue of PR or an alternative voting system was mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, hit the nail on the head as to why that is. The first past the post system is understood, it is straightforward, and it clearly gives a relationship of accountability between the elected representative and the elector. That can also apply to another debate that is taking place at the moment.

There is a real danger that the electorate feel enormous frustration and disengagement at the drive for such constitutional change coming from above, from the Westminster elite, rather than by public demand. Part of accountability is understanding and knowing those issues and the concerns that most affect our constituencies. I do not want to imply that there was some kind of golden age, when boundary changes were always easy, when no one was ever upset by them, and there were never any difficulties caused, because we know that that is not the case. However, the Government’s legislation creates a very different situation, and very substantial changes of a kind we have not seen before.

The most substantive point about the Bill and accountability is that for the first time ever Parliament decided how many constituencies there should be, what the approximate size should be, and imposed on the Boundary Commission—again, for the very first time—strict rules on the variation in size of seat: just 5%. All the other factors that were taken into account before—geography, history, natural boundaries and communities, and that sense of place that we have heard so much about today, of local wards and parishes—came second to playing the numbers game.

My noble friend Lord Wills spoke of the high constitutional principle that was at stake, as mentioned by the Deputy Prime Minister, in the necessity of boundary changes. However, we now know that those boundary changes are subject, not to high constitutional principle, but whether the Liberal Democrats get their Bill through to change or abolish the House of Lords and create a new body.

I recall the debate during the Second Reading and passage of the Bill. I am not wedded to a particular number or size of constituency. However, we have to have a justification for change. I recall asking the Minister, as did other noble Lords, what their reason was for the choice of 600 constituencies. What was the significance of the number? I was told, as were other noble Lords, that it was a nice round figure. That is not good enough for such a significant constitutional change.

The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, quoted the Chartists and the size of constituencies being similar. In the same way that he spoke about pick and mix earlier, perhaps we should not pick and mix when we talk about the Chartists. I notice that although the proposals for the elected House of Lords were for 15-year terms, and fixed terms of five years for the House of Commons, the Chartists argued for annual elections. There is greater credibility for annual elections than 15-year elections.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, was the first today to talk about the relationship between MPs and constituencies. That is well rehearsed, and it is genuine, as my noble friend Lady Corston says. I represented a seat from 1997-2010; Members of Parliament identify very strongly with their constituencies and feel a great affinity with them.

We have also heard a considerable amount about the impact these changes have on the work of a Member of Parliament, and how towns feel about changes. I would like to say something about the impact on voters and constituents when constituencies change. My home town in Basildon is known as Pitsea. I represented Pitsea on the county council, although in 1997 when I was elected to Parliament it was taken out of the constituency of Basildon which I represented, and into another constituency, Billericay.

Until 1997 Pitsea was in Basildon. It was in the Basildon council area, the main shopping area was there, and Basildon was the focus for services. There was a distinct community of which it felt part, and it knew who its MP was. From 1997-2010 it went into Billericay. It did not feel as if there was much of a common link with Billericay, and there were difficulties, but it was part of the district of Basildon, and there was some logic to it. However, Basildon took in the East Thurrock area. The constituency name remained Basildon, which was totally unfair on the people of East Thurrock, who had no named identity and no connection for their constituency.

In 2010, Pitsea was back in Basildon. In 2015, Pitsea, under the proposed boundary changes, will go to Rayleigh. It has no common links with Rayleigh, no shared services, and no common councils, and it is really hard to understand what links these areas, other than the numbers game. In 2020 who knows what will happen, because under the new legislation the boundaries will be reviewed for every general election? This means that every time there has been or will be a boundary change, the voters of Pitsea have had, and will have, no opportunity to hold their Member of Parliament to account, because they are at the margins of the constituency and are the ones most likely to be moved for every single election. They did not have the opportunity in 2010 to hold their MP to account, and they will not have it in 2011.

The noble Lord, Lord Clark, made a comment about disengaging people. I have already spoken to a number of people in that area who tell me, “Why should we bother to vote? We don’t know anything about Rayleigh. We are not connected with Rayleigh”. Instead of engaging people in the political system, we are disengaging them from the political process completely. The Government say that the changes are at the margins, but it is those margins that move from constituency to constituency each time. Rather than being more democratic, it reduces the accountability of MPs to their constituents.

I have great admiration for most MPs, and I believe that the majority of MPs will faithfully represent all of their constituents whenever there is an opportunity to do so. However, for some MPs, such as the lazy and the overworked—and they will be overworked because of the larger area they will represent—or those in the most marginal of seats, there will be an opportunity to prioritise the areas they know will be in their constituency at the next election, and whose votes they will need.

Accountability is also about the individuals’ and communities’ abilities to participate in the political process. I want to say something about wider participation, but part of that participation means being able to vote. We all know—politicians have been saying it for many years—that turnouts at both general and local elections are too low. Governments constantly say that they want to increase turnout, but I fail to understand how the accelerated process for individual voter registration does that.

We support individual electoral registration. We argued for it and legislated for it in 2009. However, I can do no better than refer the noble Lord to the speech of my noble friend Lord Wills, who spoke of the very different approach now being taken by the Government compared with the approach that we took when we were in government. It was a measured and cross-party approach and it allowed time for the changes to come in properly to ensure accuracy and fairness. I urge the Government to take note of the comments that have been made today. If they fail to act properly in this regard, not only will they deny thousands of their right to vote but they will be accused of blatant political manipulation, because there is no good reason for the process to be speeded up in this way.

I also want to say something about access to elected representatives. A mistake that politicians sometimes make is to believe that everybody is interested in politics and that they know who their MP is. I can tell the Minister that people in my area would regularly go to the local council or the local library saying that they lived in Basildon, and they were told that I was their MP, regardless of where they lived, because that was the sense of place that they had and understood.

I take on board the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, who said that it would be easier for MPs if constituencies were of the same size. I say to her that it would not be easier for MPs in the slightest. Better representation, both for the elected and the elector, comes from people knowing who their MP is, being able to contact them easily and sharing a sense of place and community. That is what makes the difference.

[Baroness O'Cathain]

Can the noble Baroness tell me that it is easier for somebody to have a constituency of 80,000 or 90,000 compared with having a constituency of 55,000?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

In my case, it would have been much easier. If I had had the whole of Basildon as my constituency, rather than part of Basildon and part of Thurrock, the constituency would have been bigger but I would have dealt with two local authorities and one police force. It is dealing with different agencies that complicates matters. I was very lucky in that I enjoyed both parts of my constituency, but to say that it was easier because it was smaller in terms of numbers would be completely incorrect, and I would be doing a disservice to my former constituents if I did not confess that it was harder dealing with two sets of agencies.

I think that I have a couple of seconds of injury time in which to finish. A democracy is more than just a cross in a box or a type of voting system, and it is more than ensuring that constituencies are the same size. Democracy has to be about political engagement, representation and accountability. That is how we get to the sense of place that we have heard about today. Unfortunately, the Government have ignored the latter—the political engagement, representation and accountability—in favour of the former.

Behaviour Change: Science and Technology Committee Report

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I think I should start my contribution with a confession: I arrived at this debate as both a novice and a sceptic, to start with. I found the report and the debate itself absolutely fascinating. It has been extremely enjoyable and interesting. When I first heard about the Government’s new Behavioural Insights Team, I was very sceptical—partly, as today’s debate has drawn out, because it is very difficult to assess what factors influence behaviour. First, on an individual level, which I appreciate is not what the Behavioural Insights Team is about, what people say the factors are that influence their behaviour are often not the ones that influence them but the ones that they want the questioner to think influence their behaviour. Because any policy initiative is unlikely to involve just one intervention, it is also difficult to isolate different policy interventions and decide which one has had the impact and what that impact has been.

For this nudge theory to have any real credibility and weight it needs effective evaluation, as the report makes very clear. I pay tribute to the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, and to her team because I found this report to be very readable and enjoyable. It illuminated as much in what it did not say as in what it did, which I think was the point that the noble Baroness drew out a moment ago. The committee has been extremely helpful to the Government on behavioural change in its recommendations, and helpful also to the Government’s Behavioural Insights Team or nudge unit. Clearly, the Government were very attracted by the Thaler and Sunstein book, Nudge, which argued that a range of non-regulatory interventions can influence individual and public behaviour. Given that the Government have set up the unit, this is an extremely welcome contribution and not just to a debate, because it has to be more than that. It has to be something practical. The report brings a kind of detailed scientific analysis to what can become a very theoretical debate.

Part of my scepticism at some of the press reports that I read before on the value of Nudge—or nudge alone, which the report drew out as well—was the problem of evaluation. When the National Audit Office was looking at this even the Minister, Oliver Letwin, told it that it was,

“open to question whether any of this will have any effect whatsoever”.

He continued,

“I don’t want to pretend that behavioural science is a sufficiently developed science to give us complete confidence or even sort of 95% confidence that any given technique will produce given results”.

I am pleased to hear that the BIT is now looking at evaluation, because to move any further forward without evaluation would be a big mistake. However, the National Audit Office itself found that there was no evidence that government departments were taking up the theory or the background of nudge, so this debate is very timely and will bring some clarity to the issue.

For me, the report emphasises that the need for evaluation has to be evidence-based. There are recommendations on the way forward, but I have to confess to your Lordships that part of my scepticism is about what is meant by a nudge and how it is defined. I appreciate that the debate has different facets on different issues. However, if I have understood correctly, it is essentially about what the levers are that drive and lead behavioural change, and what the relative merits or otherwise are of rules and laws to lead and force that change—as regulatory intervention or as campaigns, provision of information, et cetera, which is non-regulatory intervention. My understanding is that the provision of information, advice and knowledge can lead individuals or society as a whole, or groups in society, to make those changes.

That is the nudge concept theory, if I have understood it correctly. But in all that I have read, including this report and other information that I have sought there is still no definite answer as to what constitutes a nudge and what counts as a regulatory intervention. What does it really mean? I have seen different interpretations but, for me, if it is to be a non-interventory way of changing behaviour, it has to be about providing information, leading by example and giving the individual a free choice while seeking to influence that choice. It could be argued that it is more empowering for the individual to make that choice than for a wider group in society to make choices. I looked at table 1 in the report, where Nuffield takes the view that a regulatory intervention that is not directly aimed at the individual whose behaviour they are seeking to change is a nudge rather than regulatory change. I do not know whether noble Lords have looked at table 1, but I had some issues because of the examples used. It argues that changes to the physical environment would be a nudge, and gives the example:

“Altering the environment e.g. traffic calming measures or designing buildings with fewer lifts”.

To me that is more like an intervention, because action has been taken to change behaviour. The behaviour change is not a free choice—it is making one choice more difficult than another choice. If we install speed humps cars will go more slowly in that road. If we have fewer lifts in buildings, more people will walk. So it might be a nudge in changing an individual’s behaviour, but in making a collective difference I struggle to see that as nudge behaviour rather than something more interventory.

I have a new theory. I think that it is more like a shove; it does not give the individual the opportunity to opt in or out. I cannot see that it is giving information or empowerment to make a choice, but by regulation it limits choice to influence behaviour. So it is not a nudge but a shove, because I lean towards a nudge being about giving power for choices to be made. An intervention, whether targeted at an individual, a community or business, such as speed humps, removes choice. I am not saying that that is bad in any way, but I am trying to acknowledge the difference. I am not saying that one is less effective, but we have to clear up what a nudge is.

Business has to have legislation to inform customers, and we have heard about the traffic light system—and then there is information about obesity, which the report looks at as well. It has to be presented in a way that is easily understood, showing the potential danger of problems from a product. That becomes an intervention. When the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was making the argument about phones, I looked at my iPhone. I have no idea whether I have the best tariff for my iPhone; I had a choice, but I was certainly nudged to make a certain choice. I suspect that I have not got a particularly good deal.

The issue of smoking was raised, as well, by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. I am more likely to agree with her on that issue. Various warnings on packets of cigarettes over the years and numerous advertising campaigns have had a marked but incomplete effect, as she said. There have been interventions, saying that, “Smoking can damage your health” and “Smoking kills”. They are all interventions, however mild, to try to influence behaviour. We can argue that they had a limited impact or effect, but we cannot consider it a success at this stage, because we are still talking about what interventions to take. Although it was not referred to as a theory at the time, various evaluations that have taken place over many years have not said that those interventions on their own were a success because further interventions had to be taken. There has been initiative after initiative, and it is still going on. What really did influence and drive change was something that was very much an intervention from Governments banning smoking in public places. You could argue that levels of taxation have had an impact as well. It is far more regulatory than nudging.

The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to drink-driving. The seriousness of the problem was recognised long before any significant action was taken; there were various awareness campaigns. I am told that when the breathalyser first came in, by those who were drivers at the time—I hasten to add that I was not—they were told that three or four or even five pints would put them within the breathalyser limits. So what was the influence on behaviour? It could be the thought that drivers could be prosecuted and lose their licences. That is what made a collective and significant difference. Part of the difficulty is that there needs to be a significant change in collective behaviour to make an effective assessment of whether an intervention is effective. It is also very difficult to isolate one specific aspect of a range of interventions to try to say which intervention was successful. We need a critical mass of change to indentify cause and effect.

I worry, and this was mentioned by other noble Lords, that at a time when the Government are making huge and very significant cuts in public expenditure the proposal of a nudge theory to change behaviour, without other interventions and without any real evidence base of success, could be a cheap alternative to effective and efficient actions by Government that could really make a significant difference. That is why I think the recommendation in the report for a social scientist is very important. Unless the Government make an assessment and know what works, then nudge interventions really have no value.

The report was very clear that to affect behaviour and make a difference, a range of interventions is needed, not nudge or even shove alone. The key points I took from the report were that non-regulatory intervention should be used when there is evidence that it works, not because it is cheaper or easier. It should not be used without any assessment of its effectiveness, nor because it fits somehow with the Government’s philosophy or policy to cut expenditure and look at ways of changing behaviour rather than having formal regulatory interventions. There has to be an independent, quantifiable, evidence-based assessment of the value of any non-regulatory intervention, particularly if the Government intend to use it to replace regulation or regulatory intervention.

I did not get from the Government’s report— I would not have expected it in the S and T report—where they see the balance, if they have ascertained that yet, between regulatory and non-regulatory intervention. The Government have to look at it and it is quite a serious issue for them—it is a wider issue than across one department. If the Government are seeking to influence behaviour in one area they have to recognise that actions taken across government as a whole, and other agencies, all contribute to the result and can often be contradictory. The reason for taxation on fuel has been to support the environment and to try to reduce car use. However, at the same time the Government support significant above-inflation increases in train fares and many people who would go by train are forced off the train and into their cars because it is cheaper for them. Governments have to work across departments to have a holistic policy that makes a difference rather than one department acting against another one.

We can accept that nudge does have some impact. Commercial organisations have used it for years alongside other strategies. However, they also recognise, as the Government have to in public policy making, that different problems require different solutions. One size does not fit all. One thing that I saw in this was the carrot-and-stick approach, I think the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to that as well. If we look at traffic in London and our numerous attempts over the years to reduce the congestion, what has worked, it seems to me, is the carrot—ensuring that there are more buses and better public transport. That has an impact. The congestion charge had an even bigger impact initially. One of the problems with fiscal interventions is that their impact reduces over time as people get used to them. There has to be an assessment of whether regulatory interventions lead to long-term behaviour change or whether once the impact of the intervention is lost the impact lessens. We have to look at new ways of trying to influence behaviour.

I appreciate that I have added a new concept and am perhaps making it slightly more complicated, but at what point does a nudge become a shove and does it matter? If an intervention works does it matter if it is a nudge, a shove or a regulatory intervention? There seems to be an assumption, and I am not suggesting for a moment it was from the committee, that a nudge to influence behaviour is better than regulatory influence. I am not sure whether that works or is relevant. What matters is what works. If a change in behaviour is necessary, what is the best way to achieve that change? Without an evidence-based evaluation of the different approaches it is very difficult to make that judgment.

Several noble Lords referred to the fact that this is not new. Perhaps articulating the concept of nudge is new and different, but the idea that we are inventing a nudge theory is not: Governments have been using it for many years. The noble Lord, Lord Kreb, made a similar point about seeking to use it in a different, perhaps more conscious, way, but it has been used in the past and will continue to be used. However, the willingness to try to understand what works, and why is new.

I congratulate the committee and the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, in particular. The report brings clarity and common sense to the debate, which is welcome. The danger for the Government—I am looking forward to the Minister’s reply—is that this matter should not be allowed to become an academic discussion. There should be a practical response about whether or not there are interventions through nudge that the Government can make. I am not clear from the printed response about the degree of determination and clarity with which the Government intend to take this matter forward.

Social Enterprise

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 6th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I have greatly enjoyed this debate. The expertise and support in your Lordships’ House is one which the social enterprise sector will be immensely gratified by. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Andrews on procuring such an important debate, and making such a powerful case. She and others have pressed the Government to match words with deeds. I should declare an interest as a member of the Co-op party, and that I sit as a Labour and Co-op Peer in your Lordships’ House.

No definition is going to be exact, but I always think of social enterprise businesses as those with a heart as well as a head; businesses where profit is measured not just in financial terms, but in how it benefits society. An expression I often use is of businesses that aim for a triple bottom line: that is, good for its business and employees, good for society and good for the environment—in shorthand, perhaps, good for people, profit and the planet.

How that profit is used is absolutely key. Social enterprise’s prime objectives are social and/or environmental. That is not in any way critical of other businesses that have social objectives, but what gives social enterprises their distinctive character is that their social or environmental purpose is their primary purpose, and profits are reinvested in the business. The beginnings of social enterprise can be traced back to the Co-op’s Rochdale Pioneers of the 1840s, which led to other co-operatives and social enterprises being set up in what is now a worldwide ethical movement.

I should confess to your Lordships’ House that my last ministerial position in government was at the Cabinet Office with responsibility for social enterprise, including seeking to establish what was then called the social investment wholesale bank, bringing new finance to social enterprise. Delighted as I was to hold that brief, I never really thought that social enterprise sat well in the Cabinet Office, with what was then the Office of the Third Sector and is now the Office for Civil Society. Social enterprises are businesses—as we have heard, very successful businesses—but with a wider definition of what means success in business.

I was taken by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about Welsh Water. Indeed, when I was a Northern Ireland Minister, I tried to export the model of Welsh Water to Northern Ireland Water. It has still not resolved the issues there, and it might do well to listen to the comments the noble Baroness made today. Social enterprises are not just about the third sector, and there must continue to be a greater discussion about the role that BIS can play in promoting and supporting social enterprises. I found my meetings with Business Ministers invaluable, and I hope that co-operation is continuing, and expanding.

Although I am consistently impressed by social enterprises, I also get frustrated—that frustration has been illustrated in other comments today—that those in charge of procurement choose not to recognise, or just do not understand, that they could take into account the wider benefits that a social enterprise can bring.

I do not know whether your Lordships are hearing the same “dentists’ drills” as I am and whether their teeth feel as uncomfortable as mine on hearing that sound.

The previous Government set up a Cabinet committee, of which I was a member, with the exciting title of “Miscellaneous 37”, to address some of the issues around procurement. Many of these issues also affect small businesses. As the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, highlighted in his very knowledgeable speech, too often social enterprises have lost contracts to larger businesses which, although delivering on price, may not provide the added value or success of a social enterprise. Those larger businesses then sometimes subcontracted the provision of services to social enterprises. That cannot be right. Often a social enterprise has provided a service at a far lower cost than that for which the original contract was awarded. All we were seeking to do was to ensure a level playing field so that one sector did not have an automatic built-in competitive advantage over another.

This is a difficult area but one in which we were making progress. However, the new Conservative Government—sorry, coalition Government; that was a genuine error—went further. Francis Maude, as the Cabinet Office Minister, said in November 2010 that millions of public sector workers—the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, referred to this—would be given the opportunity of,

“spinning themselves out of the public sector, and taking control of their lives and of the services they provide”.

However, he rather unexpectedly added that this “right to provide” public services would in some cases,

“see services handed to new social enterprises without the need for a competitive tender”.

As an example of extending this brave new world, he cited Central Surrey Health. Other noble Lords have mentioned that. That organisation was set up in 2006 under a Labour Government. Two former directors of the local primary care trust launched a social enterprise with 650 nurses and therapists who each had a £1 not- for-profit share in this new business. They provide services for the PCT. Although it has not been free of criticism, as is the case with all new businesses, it is highly regarded. It is clear that staff motivation and enthusiasm is second to none. Any profit made is reinvested in local services. Francis Maude was enthusiastic, saying, “They are my poster people”. Therefore, your Lordships will understand how expectations in the sector were raised by these comments, especially as regards the tendering process. When so many charities and voluntary organisations were worried about their services in the face of government cuts, many saw this as a potential lifeline. However, when a major new contract came up in the neighbouring area, it was not Surrey Health—the social enterprise “poster people”—but a private company, Assura Medical, 75 per cent owned by Virgin, that won the contract. The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, also referred to that.

I use this example to highlight the great difficulties for social enterprises in bidding for such contracts on a level playing field. Uncertainty was also created for employees leaving the public sector to join a social enterprise. Instead of “not having to tender”, as referred to by Francis Maude, they can later lose the provision and control of that public service to a private company in a way that was never initially intended. We all want to avoid another Southern Cross situation occurring.

The central point is the need to take into account the wider social and environmental benefits as part of the assessment process. Other noble Lords have referred to this as being an important way forward. It is also about improving the capacity to bid, providing support and assisting possible social enterprise consortia, such as was previously done through Futurebuilders. The consensus in your Lordships’ House is that social enterprise is not a political football to speak warm words about and then fail to deliver on when in government.

I was struck by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bhattacharyya, on social innovation. It seems to me that it is the crux of the matter. For me the real value of social enterprises, and where they make the most difference and greatest contribution, lies with those which identify a need which is not being met and then devise innovative solutions to meet that need. They also make an enormous contribution to the economy, including employment. We have heard the examples of Sandhurst Community Care and Hackney Community Transport. One of my own favourites is Jamie Oliver’s restaurant Fifteen. This is a restaurant that gets young people, many of whom have convictions, to learn a trade and get their life back on track. Divine Chocolate, led by Sophie Tranchell produces first-rate chocolate and, for the first time, ensured that cocoa farms were not being ripped off. It helped to establish a farmer’s co-operative in Ghana and today almost every chocolate company in the world is looking to be fair trade. Another of my favourite social enterprises is the Elvis & Kresse Organisation, which, seeing how many fire hoses were going into landfill, used that high-quality and very expensive waste for bags, purses and luggage. It then gave 50 per cent of the profit it made to the Fire Fighters Charity.

These examples and others we have heard about are truly inspirational. I also urge the Minister to listen to the social enterprise ambassadors. We have heard about these already from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. They were introduced by the Labour Government and really impressed me. They are not asking for something for nothing. They are not asking for an unfair advantage but they are asking and seeking to grow the social enterprise sector with the knowledge and experience they have. They need recognition of their work and a level playing field that properly evaluates their worth and their value to society so that they can make their contribution to the economy.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, made clear, the danger is that we have lost so many of the programmes that support social enterprises; and government announcements are not yet anything more than that. I hope the Minister will be able to positively address the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. If the banking crisis and recession has taught us anything it should be about values. The cheapest is not always the best and value for money can be achieved in more ways than one.