Friday Volume 593 6 March 2015 No. 120

HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)

Friday 6 March 2015

£5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2015 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 1189 6 MARCH 2015 1190 House of Commons Mutuals’ Deferred Shares Bill [Lords] Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee Friday 6 March 2015

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock Clause 2

PRAYERS RESTRICTION ON VOTING RIGHTS

9.45 am [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): I beg to move Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con): I beg to amendment 1, page 2, line 14, leave out clause 2. move, That the House sit in private. Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163). Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 2, in title, line 3, leave out from “shares;” to The House divided: Ayes 0, Noes 41. end. Division No. 169] [9.34 am Sir Tony Baldry: I should make it clear at the outset AYES that the Bill is an extremely valuable and useful one. Tellers for the Ayes: The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member Mr Christopher Chope and for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) for promoting it Jonathan Evans here. The Bill started in the other place, where there was a comparatively short debate on Second Reading and NOES no Committee stage. I believe that, because time was short, the Government Minister said to the Bill’s promoter, Baldry, rh Sir Tony Johnson, Joseph Lord Naseby, “If you agree to certain amendments, we Bingham, Andrew Jones, Susan Elan Boles, Nick will support the Bill. If you do not, we will not support Leadsom, Andrea it.” Lord Naseby, being a very wise former Deputy Bone, Mr Peter Leslie, Chris Speaker of the Commons, agreed to the amendments Bottomley, Sir Peter McFadden, rh Mr Pat and came to a sensible compromise. The Bill came to Brake, rh Tom Murrison, Dr Andrew Brazier, Mr Julian Newmark, Mr Brooks the House of Commons and was debated in Committee, Brennan, Kevin Penrose, John which was skilfully navigated by my hon. Friend, because Brokenshire, James Perry, Claire he managed to persuade the Chair to have one debate Brown, Lyn on all the clauses. There was no reference whatever to Rees-Mogg, Jacob Campbell, rh Mr Alan clause 2 during the debate. Sawford, Andy Elliott, Julie The reason I tabled amendment 1 as a probing Eustice, George Selous, Andrew Field, Mark Slaughter, Mr Andy amendment is that there is potentially a conflict in the Fitzpatrick, Jim Swayne, rh Mr Desmond Bill. The Bill seeks to help mutuals to raise further Freeman, George Swire, rh Mr Hugo money, funds and solvency. On the other hand, it says Garnier, Mark Vaizey, Mr Edward that however much anyone invests in a mutual, they will Gwynne, Andrew Webb, rh Steve get only a single vote. I will describe this in more detail Hancock, rh Matthew Young, rh Sir George in a second, but the European Union Commission has Hands, rh Greg proposed a statute for European mutuals. Under that Heath, Mr David Tellers for the Noes: proposed European law, members of a mutual would Hollobone, Mr Philip Mr David Evennett and have more than one vote, and decisions would be made Jenkin, Mr Bernard Mr Ben Wallace by a majority vote. The potential conflict is this: how do we encourage people to invest in mutuals but at the Question accordingly negatived. same time tell them that, however much they put in, they will get only a single vote? Mutuals are an important part of what is known more broadly as the social economy, which staggeringly accounts for 10% of all European undertakings—the amount undertaken by mutuals in the UK is less than the amount undertaken by mutuals in other EU member states. Mutuals have been described as voluntary groups of persons whose purpose is primarily to meet the needs of their members rather than to achieve a return on investment. All hon. Members will recall mutuals in their constituencies that go back to the 18th or 19th centuries—they would have been set up in workplaces or neighbourhoods to provide sickness help, funeral cover and various reliefs of that kind, some of which were overtaken by the Beveridge report and the welfare state. There has always been a sense of each person making a contribution and getting something out. 1191 Mutuals’ Deferred Shares Bill 6 MARCH 2015 Mutuals’ Deferred Shares Bill 1192 [Lords] [Lords] [Sir Tony Baldry] sector, but it is predominantly attuned to for-profit companies, and it is widely acknowledged that the rules Mutuals were put into difficulty because of the so-called do not always recognise the specific position of other solvency II directive, which called for increased solvency company forms such as mutuals. margins, but there are differences between different Within the framework of completing the internal financial services providers. Smaller and medium-sized market, with a view to allowing the free movement of mutuals are often focused on one risk or cover one people, goods, services and capital with equal terms of homogenous group. As a consequence, they have more competition between different sectors and legal forms difficulties in acquiring risk capital compliance with the in the same markets, way back in 1992, the European solvency II rules. That has significant consequences for Commission proposed regulations for a European mutuals them and can result in their dissolution. As I understand statute, together with statutes for co-operatives and it, the Bill seeks to deal with that conundrum in the associations, in order to improve the legal embedding of solvency rules. the social economy in the European Community. Each The basic principles behind the solvency II directive, draft regulation was supplemented by a directive on the which was adopted in 2009 and came into force in 2013, involvement of employees. In the opinion of the are that insurance institutions in Europe should be Commission, mutuals, like other organisations within based on a better risk assessment, better spreading of the social economy, should have been able to take risks and better financial foundations so as to improve advantage of the single market in exactly the same way the stability of the market and reinforce consumer as other companies, without having to discard their protection—all sensible stuff. The main innovation specific characteristics. It was considered that a European introduced by the directive is that in establishing an statute would help mutuals overcome the legal and improved foundation for the insurance sector, the directive administrative difficulties hampering their cross-border concerns more than only the capital solvency requirements and transnational activities and co-operation in the as they existed at the time, and it also lays down rules on internal market. the whole organisation of insurance takings in Europe. Returning to my amendments, the draft regulations Within the European Union, it also concerns the taking were revised in 1993 and a statute proposed for European up and pursuit of self-employment activities—the direct mutuals, including provisions for members of a mutual insurance and reinsurance, the supervision of insurance to have more than one vote and for decisions to be and reinsurance groups and the reorganisation and taken by a majority vote. I would be interested to hear winding up of direct insurance undertakings. from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North and the Minister how they see this circle being squared— Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con): For the avoidance there is the perfectly understandable desire to get more of doubt, I should call attention to my interests in this money into mutual societies so that they can meet the respect. I am the chairman of a regulated insurance solvency requirements, but how can that be done if company, but it is not a mutual company. I was on the those who invest substantial amounts get only a single board of a mutual company but not since I have been a vote? Given the history and record of mutual societies Member of Parliament. in this country, would it not be more sensible to use My right hon. Friend mentions solvency II, but it is European-wide legislation that would enable UK mutuals important to remember that that is an effort by Europe to work and win business elsewhere in Europe, without to catch up with a regime that has already been in companies having to go through the rigmarole of setting operation in the United Kingdom for 10 years or so. up joint stock companies to act as a bridge between The issue that he has outlined in relation to better risk other mutual societies in other member states? assessment is something that our regulators required companies to do a decade or more ago. Europe is Jonathan Evans: Having spoken to my right hon. catching up in that regard. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) earlier, I know that he is a friend of the mutuals sector Sir Tony Baldry: I have no doubt that Europe is and that his aim is not to undermine the intention of seeking to catch up with the United Kingdom in many the Bill. instances, but in reality the Bill is trying to square the circle of how mutuals manage to cope with increasing Sir Tony Baldry: I come to praise my hon. Friend’s solvency requirements, whether imposed by domestic Bill, not to bury it. legislation or by EU directives. One of the interesting factors of mutuals is that at present they cannot and do Jonathan Evans: I am much aware of that. My right not cross national boundaries. If a mutual wants to hon. Friend and I have spoken about this matter and I trade in more than one EU member state, it can do so at know that that is his motivation. present only by setting up a joint stock company to I do not know whether this will help my right hon. manage the variations in the regulations and laws between Friend’s career—he and I are both leaving the House, so the different member countries. perhaps it does not matter—but we are good Europeans. I would be interested to learn from the Minister—I We have always understood that it is in our country’s am pleased to see her in her place on the Treasury interests to engage positively with Europe, so I am Bench—what approach the Government think they should pleased by his references to the European landscape. take to legislation that would make it easier for mutuals Most of my colleagues are aware that, having served in to operate across Europe and, especially if the UK is in the House in the 1990s, I then spent a decade in the the lead in certain aspects of mutual activity, how we European Parliament as an MEP and for some of that could take better advantage of that. The EU internal time I was leader of the Conservatives in the European market rules apply generally to the operators insurance Parliament. The two aspects he has drawn to the House’s 1193 Mutuals’ Deferred Shares Bill 6 MARCH 2015 Mutuals’ Deferred Shares Bill 1194 [Lords] [Lords] attention—the potential European mutuals statute and solvency II has shown us that there may be occasions the debate about the European solvency rules—are when—whether for reasons of growth or, alternatively, matters that I have spent pretty much a decade of my where additional capital may need to be raised in life arguing about. circumstances that had not been anticipated—the mutual Given that my right hon. Friend drew attention to the sector is at a disadvantage in responding to those challenges European mutuals statute and quoted the original 1992 compared with the shareholder/proprietorship companies. provisions and the 1993 revision, it might be worth In the building society sector, there is a new instrument, pointing out that the important word, which he mentioned, called the core capital deferred shares structure, which was “draft”. The draft was produced, but there was has achieved regulatory recognition. I pay tribute to then a long period of decided inactivity. In fact, those of Nationwide’s work in promoting that concept. I also us elected to the European Parliament first in 1999 had pay tribute to Members on both sides of the House of to engage in a major effort to get the issue of the the House who have helped to ensure that regulators European mutuals statute on to the European agenda. understand the need to respond dynamically to the Given that, although my right hon. Friend referred to pressure. However, although core capital deferred shares the restriction on voting rights in clause 2—which, he have been approved as an instrument in the context of rightly said, might be inconsistent with a report produced the building society sector, they do not have the same more than 20 years ago—it is important to see that effect in relation to mutual insurers and friendly societies, report in its context. which is why the Bill was needed. As I have said, the main purpose of the Bill is to 10 am create a new class of shares, which are not shares within That report was produced in the context of the the meaning of the Companies Act 2006. If the position European mutuals landscape, which is rather different were otherwise, the mutual status of mutual insurers from the landscape in the United Kingdom. As I will set and friendly societies would be compromised. The purpose out—if, as I hope, we reach Third Reading—the history of the Bill is to enable mutual insurers and friendly of the mutual sector in the 1980s saw a significant societies to issue shares in a way that satisfies the core number of companies demutualised, for a range of regulatory capital requirements of the regulatory reasons. That experience did not happen in Europe; supervisors, whether they are in the United Kingdom or therefore, our mutual sector today is something in the in Europe. order of a third to a half of what it is in Europe. That Clause 2 provides safeguards against demutualisation. report reflected much more the European experience, My right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury seems rather than taking into account the difficulties that to believe that it would somehow be more difficult to arose for us in the United Kingdom, where so many secure the investment if a requisite number of votes companies demutualised in the 1980s. were not attached to it. Those of us who have spent a Throughout the history of the mutual sector, companies significant amount of time in the mutual sector—as I and societies have had to raise regulatory capital through said earlier, I served on the board of NFU Mutual for a the retention of undistributed profits. That restraint has decade, but I also chair the all-party parliamentary from time to time constrained the ability of those in the group for mutuals—will recognise that if a member sector to invest in the growth of their businesses, as and investing in such a way had disproportionate influence, when market opportunities arose. Mutual businesses we might see expected and, indeed, unsatisfactory outcomes accordingly responded to those constraints by building in relation to the capacity of the investor to demutualise up large capital reserves. That is why in the 1980s, and companies, which is against the whole thrust and purpose also the early 1990s, many mutual companies had what of the Bill. I believe that the investor who seeks to put might have been regarded as significantly more capital up capital to assist a mutual company will be much than they required to be able to run their businesses. more interested in what the return may be than in the That was an incentive for the invention of carpetbagging— individual number of votes that may be available for the the whole business of demutualising companies in ’80s purposes that accompany such voting power. and ’90s, so that depositors and policyholders could get Clause 2 provides for the making of regulations to their hands on that capital. The mutual sector also fell meet the tests that financial services regulators will victim to boards that were keen to significantly grow require before they are prepared to recognise capital their businesses and then required the freedom to raise raised in this way for solvency capital purposes. I believe capital through company share issues—which, as my that removing the clause would defeat our objective in right hon. Friend rightly outlined, is the situation for the Bill, and I know that that was not my right hon. those who are unable to go through the mutual mechanism. Friend’s intention. The power to make the regulations is As my right hon. Friend said, more recently, major exercisable by statutory instrument, and is subject to changes in the capital solvency rules—not only in relation the affirmative procedure. It will still be possible to to insurance, but in relation to building societies—have ensure that the clause is applied in a reasonable and driven a need to ensure that mutual companies can raise effective manner, and when the regulations appear, regulatory capital much more easily. It is worth making Parliament will have an opportunity to do that. the point that we have a range of iconic mutual companies I hope that my right hon. Friend has found my in this country—companies that are currently going explanation helpful, and that, in the light of what I have through the solvency II process, but which are fully and said, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment. adequately reserved and would be among the leading companies in terms of solvency ratios. It is therefore Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op): I think certainly not the case that we need to get this measure that, on this fine morning, I too should declare an through in order to put the mutual sector in a position interest, although there is no requirement for me to do to comply with solvency II. However, the experience of so. I am a Labour and Co-operative Member, and have 1195 Mutuals’ Deferred Shares Bill 6 MARCH 2015 Mutuals’ Deferred Shares Bill 1196 [Lords] [Lords] [Chris Leslie] consumers as well. Therefore, we have to modernise and sustain the mutual sector. The Bill provides worthwhile received support from the Co-operative party. More provisions for doing that and has the support of the generally, the House is aware of my historical support Opposition. for the mutual sector. Unlike other Members, I come to the Bill at a late stage in its progress, and I commend, in The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea particular, the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Leadsom): I would like to put on record my great Evans) and Lord Naseby for their diligence. pleasure at the extent of cross-party consensus on the importance of this Bill to support the mutuals sector. I As the hon. Member for Cardiff North explained, thank my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour after the global banking crisis had swept across the the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who raised world like a tsunami and the tide had eventually ebbed, some important points. I hope he will be persuaded to one of the critical risks that were revealed was the issue withdraw his amendments, as there are clear reasons for of the ability of organisations—in this instance, mutual doing so. insurers and friendly societies—to withstand, and have One of the Government objectives for the Bill is to the capacity to absorb, difficult circumstances that might preserve the mutual status of firms in the sector. make a call on their capital. So the need to resolve this Government amendments give firms the option to provide has been a priority for these institutions, although I feel membership rights to deferred shareholders, if they so that regulators and others have perhaps not put this as wish. However, if deferred shareholders do become high up the agenda as it should have been, hence the members of the firm, they will not be entitled to additional point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff North voting rights, regardless of the value of their deferred about the building society sector getting its house in shareholding. This clause serves to protect the principle order in terms of the core capital deferred shares, but of mutuality. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff now we also require a similar set of instruments for the North (Jonathan Evans) set out very clearly why that is insurance sector. vital to ensure the success of this sector, which the It is important to put on the record the work done Government have been so keen to support. not just by the Building Societies Association but the The proposals in the Bill have been carefully drafted Association of Financial Mutuals and many others to provide mutual organisations with a means to raise who have helped create a potential solution here. It is external capital in a way that preserves the mutual not absolutely necessary for the sector, which is able to status of firms. This is no easy task, and the merits of cope with the new regulatory requirements, but it would attracting external capital into the mutual sector have certainly make it easier and provide much more of a been debated at length by mutuals, and some mutual level playing field, given the ability of the PLC shareholder organisations have taken steps to reform and issue sector to obtain capital in a far simpler way. mutual capital instruments. For example, in recent years building societies have commonly issued permanent I also want to commend the right hon. Member for interest-bearing shares that pay the holder a fixed rate Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) for at least taking the of interest. The shares cannot be sold back to the opportunity to put the spotlight on clause 2 and the society, although they can be bought and sold on the question about the number of votes. Having listened to stock exchange, which means that the price can vary. his comments, however, I would not want to see that Changes in banking regulation mean that those instruments part of the Bill taken out. The hon. Member for Cardiff will no longer be classed as core tier 1 capital, so the North was very persuasive in pointing out that the building society sector has designed a replacement mutual particular character of mutual insurers and friendly capital instrument, known as core capital deferred shares, societies is that their members together have control which will enjoy the same tax treatment as ordinary and ownership of the organisation, and history shows, shares. through demutualisation efforts in the past, that we need to safeguard the ownership and the integrity of those organisations in this way. Therefore, I am persuaded 10.15 am that the single vote, regardless of the amount of the Lord Naseby’s Bill originally permitted the Treasury investment, through the deferred shares is the right way to make regulations allowing friendly societies and mutual to proceed. insurers to issue deferred shares, and to permit co-operative and community benefit societies to issue redeemable This is a sensible set of measures. It is important that shares. The Government have, however, expressed caution we have them on the statute book. However, we are at a about the merit of the redeemable share instrument for late stage in this Parliament and I ask the Minister to co-operative and community benefit societies, which clarify the Government’s intentions for bringing forward already have a means of issuing redeemable shares, The the regulations and making sure we can get these changes Government do not therefore see a clear industry need through, because this is a piece of primary legislation or demand for such an instrument. that then enables regulations to be made by affirmative The Government take the view that it is too early to order, hopefully in quick succession. I therefore ask the provide for co-operative and community benefit societies Minister to give us a sense of the time scale for when to raise further capital by means of redeemable shares, that may happen, because, with the level of scrutiny we as there is no need at this stage. That position was have had on this, there is quite a lot of consensus on the agreed in Committee in the other House and was supported matter and we need to ensure that the financial services by Lord Naseby. The Bill as it stands today reflects that and insurance sectors have this diversity. The gradual agreement. I strongly submit to my right hon. and hon. disappearance of mutuals in this area will be to the Friends that the deferred share capital instrument for detriment not just of the sector and competition, but mutual insurers and friendly societies is a good way 1197 Mutuals’ Deferred Shares Bill 6 MARCH 2015 Mutuals’ Deferred Shares Bill 1198 [Lords] [Lords] forward, and that friendly societies and mutual insurers tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury have demonstrated a clear need and demand for this (Sir Tony Baldry), because we see the way in which the instrument. mutuals sector, through this difficulty, shrank to being a My right hon. Friend raised the matter of legislation fraction of the size of the sector in Europe. I believe we that would allow mutuals to operate across Europe. The are all agreed that that was undesirable. The problem Government certainly want to promote the continued led to all political parties recognising that something liberalisation of the European single market, and I urgent needed to be done to allow mutuals to raise would welcome comments from the industry regarding additional capital, if required, without losing their mutual barriers to mutuals trading across Europe, as it has not status. That is what this Bill is all about. previously raised the issue. In conclusion, I hope that Before closing, I wish, with your indulgence, Mr Speaker, my right hon. Friend will be minded to withdraw the to pay one or two tributes. Lord Naseby, a former amendment. Deputy Speaker of this House, has been part of the journey throughout the three-year period to which I Sir Tony Baldry: Having heard the cogent and compelling referred. He and I have worked closely on this, as he is arguments from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff my vice-chairman on the all-party group on mutuals. I North (Jonathan Evans) and the Economic Secretary to also wish to pay tribute to Peter Hunt and Mutuo for all the Treasury, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. the work they have done, and to mention some people Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. within this House. Third Reading The Minister has consistently offered Government support for the Bill. The hon. Member for Nottingham 10.17 am East (Chris Leslie) and I have discussed the position of Jonathan Evans: I beg to move, That the Bill be now mutuals and what we can collectively do to enhance read the Third time. their position within the corporate landscape of our I should like to thank Members on both sides of the country. Whatever political differences there may have House, as well as the minor parties, for their universal been between us on a range of other things, it would be support for the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member difficult to find much on this agenda on which he and I for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) has made it clear that we do not share either the same objective or the same have seen Bills move more swiftly than this through means to get to that objective. I am very grateful to him their parliamentary stages, but I would not want anyone for all the support he has given. to think that this Bill has not received a significant I wish to mention two other people, the first of whom amount of attention. It has had a gestation process of is the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), about three years, and support from Members on both my predecessor as chairman of the all-party group. He sides has enabled the Government to bring forward a worked consistently and hard to try to get Members on Bill that has universal support. both sides of the House—the hon. Member for Nottingham For more than 300 years, friendly societies and mutual East knows that each of us struggled with our own companies have been an important part of the corporate side—especially the Front-Bench teams, to understand landscape of our country. From the time of the industrial what we understood needed to be done. There cannot revolution, the needs of working people for greater be many people in this House who have worked as hard security against unemployment, sickness and funeral as the hon. Member for West Bromwich West in that costs have led to the creation of many such societies, all regard. of which were committed to the principles of mutuality, Finally, I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member customer focus and trust. Some, such as Royal London, for Christchurch (Mr Chope). He and I represent the the NFU Mutual—on whose board I served for a two plane wings of the Conservative party. As long as decade—and LV, have become major landmarks of the each of our wings is intact, the Conservative party will financial services industry. fly with power, not least in the forthcoming election. He I want to refer briefly to the Tredegar Medical Aid has proved to be of immense assistance to me, not only Society, which brought working miners together 120 on my previous private Member’s Bill, the Off-patent years ago and mutually provided medical insurance Drugs Bill, which may return to the House in due care. The society was the first to make provision for its course, but on the procedure in dealing with the measure members to get two weeks of sickness benefit, when before us. As we are drawing near to three weeks until needed. In 1911, a parliamentary commission from this the end of my service in the House, I want to thank him place visited Tredegar in the south Wales valleys—my very much for the help he has given me. home town—to examine the scheme, which led to the I have one final comment to make. I first stood for universal introduction of sickness benefit in the UK. In Parliament more than 40 years ago, against Michael 1947, Aneurin Bevan, who served on the society’s board Foot, in my home town. At the beginning of that with my grandfather, a working coal miner, told Parliament campaign, Michael Foot gave me a copy of his biography that the Tredegar Medical Aid Society was the model of Aneurin Bevan. I thought it immensely generous of for the NHS and therefore he was not nationalising somebody who was, in a sense, one of the iconic figures health care but “Tredegar-ising” it. of British politics to give a gift such as that to somebody The important contribution that mutuals have made who was barely 22 years of age at the time. The reason over the years to innovation and corporate diversity he gave it to me was not just an act of generosity. He has, as we have heard, been significantly undermined in drew attention to page 63 of that biography, in which he recent decades by the inability of mutuals to raise talks about Bevan’s involvement with the Tredegar Medical regulatory capital, other than by retaining past profits—the Aid Society and the working miners who formed it, one danger was always losing their mutuality. I will not of whom was my grandfather. There is no better way of repeat the points made during the debate on the amendment drawing an end to my service in this House than by 1199 Mutuals’ Deferred Shares Bill 6 MARCH 2015 Mutuals’ Deferred Shares Bill 1200 [Lords] [Lords] [Jonathan Evans] I echo the tributes that the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) paid to all those involved, doing something to ensure that the mutual principle in and I should mention Mutuo and Peter Hunt, who our country to which my grandfather contributed in have been crucial in ensuring that the Bill’s details are some way is carried forward through this Bill. right. 10.25 am The Bill will provide a more level playing field for the sector, so that it can cope with difficult circumstances Sir Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend the Member for that might call on capital in the future. The creation of Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) is owed a debt of the deferred share facility is very important and does thanks from the House for navigating the Bill through not jeopardise the fundamental values of these institutions, the Commons and it is clear that he has strong family which are so vital to preserve the integrity of organisations reasons for doing so. that are owned and controlled for the benefit of their It is worth observing that half the UK insurance members. That is an important principle. It would be a market was mutual as recently as 1995, but since then, great shame if that alternative model disappeared and in just over 20 years, it has shrunk to just over 7.5%. we were dominated by the monoculture of the plc Mutual insurers have 50% of the market share in Holland shareholder structure. This important Bill could bring and 45% in Germany and I think that in this country the extra capital that we need into the sector, while the insurers demutualised in large part because they safeguarding against demutualisation and risks to the needed to raise additional capital and improve the sector. services they thought they were offering to their customers. I had not realised that the hon. Gentleman stood During the debate on the amendments, my hon. against Michael Foot at the outset of his career. When I Friend the Member for Cardiff North made a telling was a mere stripling—I know that hon. Members think point. What is important to investors in mutuals, as for that I still am—my father wrote to Michael Foot because those investing in any other financial instrument, is the he knew that I was interested in parliamentary procedure return on their investment. Sometimes, the process of for my first degree. By return of post, to complete demutualisation has not been helpful to policyholders strangers, Michael Foot sent his own signed copy of because in many instances since that process they have “Erskine May”. The generosity of a great parliamentarian seen falling returns. and bibliophile was overwhelming. I regarded that as Let me give one example, Scottish Widows—I think one of the key spurs that made me get involved in we all love the lady in the Scottish Widows advert. politics, and here we are today. Some people may regret Scottish Widows converted to a plc in 2000 and paid that, but I regard it as a mark of the man. out, some of us will recall, a £6,000 windfall to each policyholder. Before demutualisation, in 1998, it paid The hon. Member for Cardiff North mentioned the out £107,000 for a 25-year with-profits policy based on beginning of his career, and he has had an important premiums of £50 a month. Someone who invested £50 a political career in this place. The House will be worse month for more than 25 years got £107,000 at the end of for his departure, but whatever may happen in the that policy period. Statistics posted in 2011 show that future, I wish him well. This Bill will be useful testimony that has plummeted since demutualisation to £28,000.71, to his support for the sector. I urge the Minister to tell which is more than 34% less than the average mutual us when the starting gun will be fired on the regulations, was paying out. As regards returns for investors, this is because the Bill facilitates a great change, but that does not just a piece of regulatory tinkering but is very not necessarily mean that it will actually happen. important. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North 10.32 am mentioned Michael Foot. I, like my hon. Friend, am soon to leave the House. When I joined the House, there Mr Chope: I had not intended to speak in this short were three former pupils of Leighton Park—Michael debate, but having listened with embarrassment to the Foot was one and I was another. So interested was he in kind words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff my political career that in the 1983 general election he North (Jonathan Evans), the least I can do is thank him came to Banbury with a view to trying to see that I did very much for his service to the House and to the not get elected. In the 1983 general election, Banbury Conservative party. I hope that his wisdom and experience was the seat that Labour would have needed to win to will continue to be used by and available to our great get an overall majority. Michael Foot had a run of bad party. As he says, our party is at its best when it luck, because he came to Banbury street market and embraces all strands of Conservative thinking. went up to the first person, surrounded by television My hon. Friend is still the chairman of the party in cameras and wanting a quote. He did not know that the Wales, and I hope that in that capacity and as a member man running the fruit and veg stall ran the bingo in the of the board of the Conservative party, he will continue local Conservative club in his spare time. Michael Foot to have a significant influence on the party’s affairs and said to Denis, “Denis, what you think of life?” Denis ensure that our leadership is always mindful of the fact said, “Not very much, but this, Mr Foot, I do know: that we are a broad church. We have a large umbrella No. 10, Maggie’s den.” over us, and if we try to reduce the scope of that umbrella, the likelihood is that alternative parties will 10.29 am try to get into the space that is vacated. That mistake Chris Leslie: I have my own Michael Foot story. I will has been made in Germany by the Christian Democrats. come to it in a minute, but first I wish to support the They have in a sense given space for the Alternative für Bill, which will make a vital change to support the Deutschland to enter the fray, and I hope that something integrity of mutual financial services and the insurance similar does not happen in this country and that we sector. continue to maintain a broad church in our party. 1201 Mutuals’ Deferred Shares Bill 6 MARCH 2015 Mutuals’ Deferred Shares Bill 1202 [Lords] [Lords] I congratulate my hon. Friend on successfully steering in a way that does not impact on their mutual status. the Bill through the House. I helped in every way that I This enabling Bill would allow friendly societies and could to try to ensure that his balloted Bill—the Off-patient mutual insurers to issue a new class of deferred share. Drugs Bill—got on to the statute book, but it was The Bill has two substantive clauses. Clause 1 allows blocked in a rather unfortunate manner by the Government. Her Majesty’s Treasury to make regulations that would Having originally not been open with him about whether permit friendly societies and mutual insurers to issue they were for it or against it, we forced them to come new deferred shares. The Treasury will work with the clean in the end and say that they were against it in regulators and all interested parties to determine the principle, which they could have said many months details and the process for issuing the deferred shares, earlier. That is typical of the problems that we have with and to ensure that these instruments are marketed to Friday business, but I am sure that, as my hon. Friend the appropriate investors. said, that Bill of his will reach the statute book in due course. My answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie)—I apologise for not having an answer for 10.34 am him earlier—is that we will consult the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulators as soon as possible Andrea Leadsom: I congratulate my hon. Friend the after Royal Assent to ensure that the procedures are Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) on his right. We will progress with this as soon as the legislative speech, and on all his work in this area. I have certainly timetable permits. enjoyed working with him during his last few months in the House. He is well known as a strong supporter of Clause 1 also sets out the key features of deferred the mutual movement, and has spent many years as the shares, and explains that prior consent of the appropriate chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for mutuals, authority—either the Prudential Regulation Authority promoting the sector. or the Financial Conduct Authority—must be obtained I thank my hon. Friend for piloting this Bill on an before a friendly society or mutual insurer can issue important and valuable issue, and for securing a prompt deferred shares. Clause 2 sets out the conditions that date for Third Reading. The Bill started in the other will preserve the mutual status of firms that wish to House, where it also had cross-party support. I congratulate issue deferred shares. Mutuals will be able to provide my noble Friend Lord Naseby on his work to promote membership rights to deferred shareholders, but no the merits of the Bill. The Government support the key friendly society or mutual insurer will grant more than aim of the Bill, which is to provide friendly societies and one vote per deferred shareholder, and no deferred mutual insurers with the means of raising external shareholder will receive more votes than an ordinary capital in a way that does not impinge on their mutual member by virtue of being a deferred shareholder. That status. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member will respect and preserve the “one member, one vote” for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) for withdrawing his principle of mutual organisations. In addition, the amendments, and would like to record my personal regulations enabled by the Bill will restrict the voting gratitude to him, as my constituency neighbour, and rights of certain members who hold deferred shares, so wish him a happy retirement from this place. that they cannot vote in any decisions to transfer, merge or dissolve the mutual. That serves further to protect Access to capital and credit is the lifeblood of any mutuality. Clause 3 sets out the definitions of terms company. It poses a specific issue for mutuals, as they used in the Bill, and clause 4 contains the title of the are designed to serve their members, and were not Bill, and confirms that the Bill extends to the whole designed with capital investors in mind. Unlike other United Kingdom and will come into force when the firms, mutuals cannot issue shares, which deprives them Treasury makes the regulations provided for in clause 1. of access to the equity markets. This means that, in The Government can confirm that the Bill raises no broad terms, mutuals access their regulatory capital human rights issues. from retained earnings and by issuing subordinated debt. This long-term approach is often seen as a strength The Government fully support the Bill, which is of of the sector, but mutuals have long made the case that course consistent with the commitment in the coalition’s the restrictions on accessing external capital can act as a programme to promoting mutuals and fostering diversity brake on their ability to adapt and respond to new in financial services. This short Bill could provide a market conditions. The sector has also argued that it huge opportunity for the mutual sector. I hope that all limits firms’ ability to secure maximum investment, to Members will be able to support it. develop new and innovative products, and to grow through acquisition. Question put and agreed to. The Bill has been carefully drafted to enable friendly Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without societies and mutual insurers to access external capital amendment. 1203 6 MARCH 2015 House of Lords (Expulsion and 1204 Suspension) Bill House of Lords (Expulsion and This allows for some certainty as to what might constitute public Suspension) Bill knowledge of previous conduct. Amendment 20, page 1, line 19, at end add— Further consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee ‘(5) nothing in this section shall authorise the expulsion or suspension of members of the House of Lords on the grounds of age, health or length of service” Clause 1 Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 2, leave out “Expulsion and”. EXPULSION AND SUSPENSION OF MEMBERS OF THE Amendment 4, page 2, line 4, leave out clause 3. HOUSE OF LORDS Amendment proposed (27 February): 1, page 1, line 4, Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 2, line 9, leave out leave out paragraph (a)—(Mr. Chope.) “Expulsion and”. Amendment 16, line 1, leave out “expel or”. 10.40 am Question again proposed, That the amendment be Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): We were made. discussing these amendments last Friday. There was a Division and, because the House was not quorate, Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing): I remind under the relevant Standing Order we have, in effect, the House that with this we are discussing the following: gone back to the start. That does not mean that it is Amendment 2, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2). necessary for me to repeat everything that I said last week, because that is on the record. However, I will Amendment 7, page 1, line 17, at beginning insert “in repeat the point that the Bill is a very serious piece of relation either to an expulsion or to a suspension”. legislation, because it provides not only for the suspension This is linked to the amendment below which prevents retrospective from service of Members of the other place, but for judgement of behaviour leading to a final expulsion of a member of their expulsion on the basis of breaches of conduct. My the House of Lords. amendments are designed to ensure that the code of Amendment 6, page 1, line 17, after “Act”, insert conduct in the House of Lords is linked specifically “and any Standing Orders made under subsection (1)” with the Bill, so that expulsions and suspensions can Amendment 19, page 1, line 17, after “Act” insert take place only for breaches of the code of conduct, “and any Standing Orders made under this section”. rather than just for conduct, as currently set out in the Amendment 8, page 1, line 18, leave out paragraph (b). Bill. This removes all reference to previous conduct that was not public The precedent for my approach is none other than knowledge. the contents of the 2012 House of Lords Reform Bill, Amendment 9, page 1, line 18, at beginning insert which did not make progress because the Government “in relation only to a suspension”. were unwilling to allow the Bill to proceed to a full debate and wanted to control it by a guillotine process. This removes the power of expulsion in respect of previous conduct That Government Bill specifically linked the code of that was not public knowledge. conduct in the other place and powers to suspend or Amendment 10, page 1, line 18, leave out from “Act” expel. to end of line 19 and insert Last week, in the interests of brevity, I did not “but since 1 January 2015”. address amendments 6 and 19. To freshen our proceedings, This limits the application of the Bill’s sanctions to previous it might be worth referring to those. They amount to the conduct that was not public knowledge to just the current year. same thing. How do those two amendments fit into the Amendment 11, page 1, line 18, leave out from “Act” Bill? The Bill provides in clause 1(4) that to end of line 19 and insert “A resolution passed by virtue of subsection (1) must state “but since 1 January 2000”. that, in the opinion of the House of Lords, the conduct giving rise This limits the application of the Bill’s sanctions to previous to the resolution— conduct that was not public knowledge in the past 15 years only. (a) occurred after the coming into force of this Act”. Amendment 12, page 1, line 18, leave out from “Act” That is a proviso to ensure that the legislation cannot be to end of line 19 and insert retrospective and is limited by clause 1(4)(b), which “but since 1 January 1985”. says: This limits the application of the Bill’s sanctions to previous “or conduct that was not public knowledge in the past 30 years only. (b) occurred before the coming into force of this Act and was not Amendment 13, page 1, line 19, after “knowledge”, public knowledge before that time.” insert “in the United Kingdom”. We had some discussion of that last week. The issue is This limits the scope of public knowledge of previous conduct to addressed in some of the amendments tabled by my what was not known in this country. right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Amendment 14, page 1, line 19, at end insert— Baldry). ‘(4A) A resolution under subsection 4(b) may not relate to After the words expulsion”. “occurred after the coming into force of this Act”, This is an alternative approach to removing the power of expulsion my amendment 6 would add the words in respect of previous conduct that was not public knowledge. “and any Standing Orders made under subsection(1)”. Amendment 15, page 1, line 19, at end insert— Without the amendment the following could happen. A ‘(4A) Standing Orders of the House of Lords set out guidance Member of the other House could behave in a way that on what constitutes public knowledge under subsection 4(b)”. people found embarrassing, although their conduct was 1205 House of Lords (Expulsion and 6 MARCH 2015 House of Lords (Expulsion and 1206 Suspension) Bill Suspension) Bill not in breach of the relevant Standing Orders and code incorporated into the new code of conduct, but we took of conduct of the House, but the code of conduct and the view that it should not be incorporated with retrospective the Standing Orders were subsequently changed in order effect. to cover that scenario. In other words, without the That is why amendment 6 is not a mere academic safeguards set out in amendment 6 and/or amendment exercise; it goes to the heart of what is fair and reasonable 19, it would be possible for the conduct giving rise to in a rules-based organisation. Before people are accused the expulsion or suspension to be conduct which, prior of breaking the rules, they should know what those to the change in Standing Orders, would not have been rules are, and the rules should not be changed after the in breach of them. conduct takes place just so the person can be brought to This is a straightforward issue of whether we support book for something embarrassing. That is the brief but the principles of prospective rather than retrospective fundamental point. legislation. In the 800th anniversary year of Magna It is clear from the discussions I have had with my Carta, I would have thought that we would be very right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire much against introducing more scope for retrospection that he has sympathy for the amendment, but he may in our legislation. In fairness to my right hon. Friend feel inhibited in accepting it, because the Bill is not his the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Bill. It does not even belong to its promoter in the other Young), who is promoting the Bill in this place, he said, place; it is, essentially, like every Bill that comes here on when I raised this issue in the Public Bill Committee: a Friday, a proxy Bill for the Government, who have a veto over all such Bills. “Serious issues have been raised. I will take advice on the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch raised about I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet the issue of retrospectivity between the time that the Act comes Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington into force and the Standing Orders being changed. I cannot (Joseph Johnson) will accept that amendment 6 would promise any amendments, but I will see whether I can get some be a valuable addition to the Bill, rather than detract assurances that shed some light on that.”––[Official Report, House from it. If he has not had the chance to clear it with the of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Public Bill Committee, 4 February leader of the Liberal Democrat party, I am sure he 2015; c. 13.] should not feel inhibited by that and he should feel able The amendments are designed to ensure that we have to express his view on behalf of the Government today. the opportunity to put into the Bill the safeguards that The Medical Innovation Bill is also on today’s Order my right hon. Friend, in fairness, accepted were reasonable. Paper. It was promoted in the House of Lords by my I therefore hope that they can be put into the Bill and noble friend Lord Saatchi, who was led to believe, as the that he will accept, in particular, amendment 6. I look Bill was going through the other place, that it had the forward to hearing from him all the reasons why the support of the whole Government, but then we read in amendment is technically defective or in some other the Sunday papers that apparently at no stage did it way falls short of the high standards that he has brought have the support of the Liberal Democrats, although to legislation in this place throughout his very long they were not prepared to say so openly. I assume that career. Unless or until I hear what those technical the Bill being steered through the House by my right objections are, it would be much better for us to insist hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire that the other place deals with issues relating to discipline does have the support of the Liberal Democrats and on a prospective basis rather than a retrospective basis. that they support the principle that we should not legislate retrospectively in relation to conduct that could We have had similar issues in our own House. The give rise to expulsion or suspension from the House. Standards Committee, on which I have the privilege of serving, dealt with the case of one of our right hon. On that basis, I have talked myself into quite an Friends who was being sanctioned by the Parliamentary optimistic frame of mind, thinking that the amendment Commissioner for Standards on the basis of a fresh is so compelling that it is likely to be accepted not only interpretation of the rule book which, prior to that, had by my right hon. Friend, but by my hon. Friend the never been thought to be fair or reasonable. The Standards Minister on behalf of the Government. Committee said that if there was to be a reinterpretation of our code of conduct, it should be prospective rather Sir George Young (North West Hampshire) (Con): I than retrospective, and that we could not start condemning am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch people for acts that they had had no reason to believe (Mr Chope) for the reasonable way in which he moved were in breach of the code. his amendment. As he said, we had a one-hour discussion on this group of amendments last Friday, but we did The issue was whether someone should make a not focus enormously on amendment 6. It is a serious declaration of interest to the House—to a Committee— amendment and I hope to be able to address his concerns. when they did not have an interest but might be thought I was heartened by one thing he said last Friday, namely: by somebody to have an interest. Until now, it has “I am sure the Bill will get on to the statute book before the end always been thought that that referred to other of this Parliament.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2015; Vol. 593, knowledgeable people sitting in the Chamber or in a c. 644.] Committee. The commissioner interpreted it as meaning that it could apply to anybody—the person on the That remains my ambition. Clapham omnibus—such that if they heard somebody I hope I can allay my hon. Friend’s concerns about talk about a particular subject, even though that person the scenario he outlined. First, as in the House of did not have an interest that should be declared, it Lords, so in the House of Commons: Members can be might seem as though they ought to have one, and that judged for a breach of conduct only according to the if the other person thought they might have an interest, code of conduct that was enforced at the time the alleged there was a need to declare that. That is now being offence occurred. That is natural justice, so the code of 1207 House of Lords (Expulsion and 6 MARCH 2015 House of Lords (Expulsion and 1208 Suspension) Bill Suspension) Bill [Sir George Young] of a Parliament. My hon. Friend conceded that that was logical. We are also giving it the ultimate power of conduct could not be tweaked in order to catch something expulsion for behaviour that is beyond the pale. Again, that happened before the code was changed and then that cannot be applied retrospectively under clause 4. say that it was an offence. I agree with my hon. Friend that that would not be right. The Standing Orders and Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): My right hon. Friend code of conduct specifically say that it has to be a seems to be glossing over the retrospective nature of the breach of the code at the time the offence was committed. punishments, which is also covered by this group of I also assure my hon. Friend that the Bill does not amendments. If somebody committed murder and we amend the code of conduct as to what sort of behaviour brought back the death penalty, I am sure my right hon. is considered to be a breach. The only thing the Bill Friend would agree that they should not face the death does is change the penalty that can be applied in the penalty because at the time they committed the murder case of a breach. As far as I know, there are no plans the death penalty was not in place. His Bill, however, immediately to review the code of conduct, although it seeks retrospectively to change the punishments for is kept under review from time to time and brought up breaching the code of conduct and he appears to be to date. The impact of the Bill is simply to change the glossing over that. penalties that apply to a breach of the existing code of conduct. Sir George Young: Clause 1(4) states: My hon. Friend is, I think, worried about the gap “A resolution passed by virtue of subsection (1) must state between the new Standing Orders coming into effect that, in the opinion of the House of Lords, the conduct giving rise and the Bill receiving Royal Assent. Again, perhaps I to the resolution…occurred after the coming into force of this Act, or…occurred before the coming into force of this Act and can give him an assurance on that. If one looks at the was not public knowledge before that time.” Standing Orders that were activated by the last relevant Act, namely the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, one The Bill does not allow for double jeopardy. Any previous will see that they were accepted by the relevant Committees investigation into an alleged breach would, of course, in June and adopted by the upper House in July following have resulted in the behaviour becoming public knowledge, Royal Assent on 14 May. That gives an idea of the speed as it would have been reported by the committee at the with which the Standing Orders can be changed and time of the original investigation. Given those assurances, brought into effect without any long interval. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will agree that his amendments are not necessary. If one were to make an informed guess as to when the Bill might get Royal Assent, it would be that it might, at The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Joseph the very earliest, be next week, though that would be Johnson): It is a pleasure to be here today in support of slightly unusual. It is more likely to be towards the end my right hon. Friend the Member for North West of this particular Session. It would then not come into Hampshire (Sir George Young) putting this important effect until three months thereafter, which will be in Bill on the statute book, particularly given that my June. Following our exchange in Committee, I made present, inward-facing role in the policy unit does not some inquiries. I would expect work to start on the afford me too many opportunities of this nature. necessary Standing Orders as soon as possible and that they would certainly be completed by the summer recess, As there was a thorough debate on this group of but hopefully before that. amendments last week, I shall keep my comments brief. The amendments would strike at the heart of the Bill, The window that my hon. Friend is worried about is a which is intended to give the House of Lords the power very narrow window indeed. Given what I said right at to deal with conduct that takes place before the Bill is the beginning about not retrospectively judging people passed. Amendments 1 to 5 and 16 would remove all by a new code of conduct, I very much hope he will references to expulsion from the Bill, thereby completely agree with that. removing the power to expel a peer. As I said, that Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): I understand would strike at the very heart of the Bill, which is entirely what my right hon. Friend is saying, but why is intended to give the Lords similar powers of discipline there any danger in accepting the amendment? to those we enjoy here in the House of Commons.

Sir George Young: I do not think that the amendment 11 am is necessary. Some of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch do not arise. There is no question of peers being expelled for He was worried that the code of conduct could be reasons other than misconduct, which is the concern changed and then find someone guilty, but that cannot that amendment 20 seeks to address. The Bill clearly happen under the existing code. Moreover, when we states that any resolution to expel or suspend must went around this course before, the Standing Orders relate to “conduct”. My hon. Friend the Member for were changed soon afterwards. The key thing, however, Christchurch (Mr Chope) referred, as he did last week is that peers already know what is right and what is and in Committee, to the House of Lords Reform Bill wrong under the code of conduct. We are not changing of 2012. On a point of clarification, that Bill did not the code of conduct; all we are changing is the penalties. make explicit reference to a code of conduct in respect I do not see how the scenario my hon. Friend outlined of the proposed powers of expulsion and suspension. could arise, because the question of conduct is wholly Like this Bill, it referred to unchanged by the Bill and, indeed, by his amendment. “conduct giving rise to the resolution”, We are just giving the other House some additional but it did not specify that that conduct had to be a sanctions, which it wants in order to deal with conduct breach of the code of conduct. The reason was that no and extend the period of suspension beyond the lifetime code of conduct or list of offences can include every 1209 House of Lords (Expulsion and 6 MARCH 2015 House of Lords (Expulsion and 1210 Suspension) Bill Suspension) Bill single example of behaviour for which the other place a peer, it would seem extremely odd if the Bill allowed may wish or need to suspend or expel a Member. The more serious past conduct to go unpunished or to be power of this House to expel or suspend Members is sanctioned less severely than it could be under the Bill. not circumscribed in that way. It is surely appropriate The public will expect misconduct that comes to light that the two Houses of Parliament have broadly equal after the Bill comes into force to be dealt with, particularly powers to discipline their Members. the most serious misconduct. Amendments 7, 8 and 10 to 12 address the potential On the final point that my hon. Friend the Member retrospective provision of the Bill. The Bill allows the for Christchurch raised, given that there is considerable House of Lords to expel or suspend a Member for support for the Bill in the House of Lords, it can be misconduct that took place before the Bill was passed if expected that the Standing Orders that will give effect to it was not public knowledge until after the Bill was the provisions will be passed swiftly after the Act comes passed. That means that the House of Lords will not be into force. It therefore makes little practical difference able to revisit misconduct that has already been dealt whether the powers are dated from the coming into with. The Bill therefore does not allow for double force of the Act or the coming into force of the Standing jeopardy, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Orders. The Government therefore do not support any North West Hampshire made clear a minute ago. of the amendments in the group.

Philip Davies: One issue that has not been resolved is Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab): I will be what constitutes “public knowledge”. Is it something even briefer than the Minister. that is known widely and has perhaps appeared in the The Opposition have supported the Bill throughout mainstream media, so people have had a good opportunity its passage. I agree with the Minister that the overall to know it? Alternatively, could it be something that is impact of the amendments would be to weaken the Bill hidden away in a blog somewhere, which in theory is in and, thereby, damage its limited but important purpose. the public domain, but which nobody has much of an opportunity to know about? What “public knowledge” The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) spoke means is a bit woolly because these days, with the about amendment 6 in a moderate and plausible way. internet, most things are out there somewhere. He always speaks in a moderate and plausible way. Sometimes—and I thought this might be the case today— what he says is actually moderate and plausible. However, Joseph Johnson: The application of the power is I then listened to the even more emollient words of the wisely, in the Government’s opinion, left to the judgment Bill’s promoter, the right hon. Member for North West and discretion of the House of Lords. Amendments 13 Hampshire (Sir George Young),and, like the Minister, I and 15 would require “public knowledge” to be further am persuaded that the amendment is not necessary. It is defined. The Government consider that that would be right to raise the possibility of retrospection but, as has likely to lead to more difficulties than leaving it in broad been explained, the Bill is not pregnant with that danger. terms. The Bill allows for “the opinion of the House of Lords” We are therefore happy not only to support the Bill, but to oppose the amendments. to be given so that each case may be taken on its own merits, rather than attempting to fix the phrase “public Mr Chope: What a short but fascinating debate this knowledge” as a legal concept. has been. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister had a chance to stand at the Dispatch Box and participate. Mr Bone: There is just one point that I am trying to During the latter part of his comments, I became more grasp. If somebody committed misconduct in the past, concerned because he made the case for retrospection in but it was not in the public realm, the sanction against relation to misconduct that would give rise to expulsion. them under the Bill—that is, the possibility of expulsion— That is exactly the concern that I have. would be different from the sanction they would have faced if the conduct had been known about at the time. We heard last week from my right hon. Friend the That does seem to be retrospective. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) that one course of conduct that their lordships are keen Joseph Johnson: There is a limited ground there. to ensure results in expulsion is repeated breaches of offences. That means that if one was guilty of repeated Without primary legislation, the House of Lords misdemeanours, there would be the possibility of expulsion. cannot override the right of individual peers to receive a There is therefore all the more reason why none of this writ of summons. That would encroach on the Lords should be retrospective. If repeat offences are to give position as a self-regulating Chamber and could have rise to expulsion, rather than just a reprimand, that other unintended consequences for parliamentary privilege, should only be prospective and not retrospective. in that the courts could be asked to judge on the exercise of the powers. If the House had accepted the amendments in the first group, which we debated last Friday, I do not think To answer the question from my hon. Friend the that I would be so concerned, because those amendments Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), the Government would have linked the code of conduct much more support the retrospective application of both the Bill’s closely to the provisions of the Bill. However, those sanctions because the House of Lords already has the amendments were not accepted. I remind the House power to sanction a Member who is found guilty of what Lord Wallace of Saltaire said: misconduct as part of its inherent power to preserve “I read the latest Code of Conduct again this morning, thinking honour and decency. Therefore, a peer who engaged in that we need to be sure what we are on about. One of the issues misconduct before the Bill came into force would have that perhaps we need to discuss informally off the Floor is how known that their actions had consequences. Although far this measure is intended to refer only to conduct that is the power currently extends only to the ability to suspend mentioned in the Code of Conduct or to egregious conduct of 1211 House of Lords (Expulsion and 6 MARCH 2015 House of Lords (Expulsion and 1212 Suspension) Bill Suspension) Bill [Mr Chope] Sawford, Andy Webb, rh Steve Selous, Andrew Young, rh Sir George other sorts conducted by Members of this House. However, that Slaughter, Mr Andy is a question that we need not have in the Bill itself, but it is Swayne, rh Mr Desmond Tellers for the Noes: certainly a question that the Committee for Privileges and Conduct Swire, rh Mr Hugo Mr David Evennett and and others will need to consider at a later stage.”—[Official Vaizey, Mr Edward Mr Ben Wallace Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2014; Vol. 757, c. 650-651.] When I read out that quote last week, I did not get Question accordingly negatived. any assurance from my right hon. Friend the Member Third Reading for North West Hampshire that conduct would be confined to what is in the current code of conduct or in 11.22 am any changed code of conduct. As I have said, the code of conduct is not specifically linked to the Bill. What is Sir George Young: I beg to move, That the Bill be now in the Bill is “conduct”. Unless we have that safeguard, read the Third time. the Standing Orders of the other place could be amended I express my gratitude to all those who recently took to impact on conduct that took place prior to the part in the Division, ensuring that the Bill reaches this amendment of those Standing Orders, but subsequent important and final stage. I am grateful to a number of to the enactment of the Bill. In my view that represents people who have assisted me in the preparation of the a danger of retrospection, and I cannot understand why Bill. The Leader of the House of Lords and her staff the Government are against this measure. They may say have been enormously helpful. Baroness Hayman has that it is unnecessary in the light of assurances that have also briefed me on it. They managed to get it through been given, but it would not be the first piece of Government the House of Lords with more ease than I have managed legislation that was duplication and unnecessary, so to get it through the Commons, which is a tribute to that in itself cannot be a convincing and decisive argument their skill, and an acknowledgement of the relative lack against it. Because of the obiter dicta of people such as of skill when the Bill reached my hands here. Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who seems to have a rather I am grateful to the three Cabinet Office Ministers different agenda from that discussed by my right hon. who have taken part in our proceedings—my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, we Friend the Minister for the Constitution did the Public should make a final attempt to get one safeguard against Bill Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister for Civil retrospection into the Bill. Society was here last Friday, and the Parliamentary I will therefore withdraw amendment 1, on which we Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member tried to vote last week, and instead I will test the will of for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) graces the Front Bench the House on amendment 6. I beg to ask leave to today. I am grateful to the Cabinet Office for the support withdraw amendment 1. that it and its Ministers have given to the Bill. Likewise, Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. the Opposition have had a number of different players on the stage—the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Amendment proposed: 6, page 1, line 17, after “Act”, Pound) was on the Public Bill Committee, the right insert “and any Standing Orders made under hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) was here last subsection (1)”—(Mr Chope.) Friday, and the hon. Member for Hammersmith Question put, That the amendment be made. (Mr Slaughter) is on the Opposition Front Bench today. The House divided: Ayes 2, Noes 44. The Bill was not controversial when it went through Division No. 170] [11.11 am the upper House, which is the House to which it applies. Peers’ conduct in the course of the parliamentary duties AYES is governed by a code of conduct. That is binding upon Members. Breaches of the code are investigated by an Chope, Mr Christopher Tellers for the Ayes: independent House of Lords Commissioner for Standards, Davies, Philip Mr Peter Bone and Mr Philip Hollobone who reports his findings and any recommended sanctions to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct, which hears any appeal. It then goes to the House. NOES The problem is that sanctions are currently limited in Ashworth, Jonathan Garnier, Mark two key ways: a peer cannot be expelled except when he Baldry, rh Sir Tony Gwynne, Andrew or she has been sentenced or imprisoned for more than Bingham, Andrew Hancock, rh Matthew Bottomley, Sir Peter Hands, rh Greg a year; and a peer cannot be suspended beyond the end Brake, rh Tom Jenkin, Mr Bernard of a Parliament, no matter how brief that period might Brazier, Mr Julian Johnson, Joseph be. There was no dissent on the second barrel of the gun Brennan, Kevin Jones, Susan Elan in the legislation. Brokenshire, James Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald The debate has been on the power of expulsion. The Brown, Lyn Knight, rh Sir Greg House of Commons has the power of expulsion. We Campbell, rh Mr Alan Leadsom, Andrea use it rarely, but it is there. We can also be expelled by Creasy, Stella Leslie, Chris the electorate. Dromey, Jack McFadden, rh Mr Pat Duncan, rh Sir Alan Murrison, Dr Andrew Mr Chope: Will my right hon. Friend remind the Elliott, Julie Penrose, John House when the power was last used? Eustice, George Percy, Andrew Evans, Jonathan Perry, Claire Sir George Young: It was last used in December Field, Mark Rees-Mogg, Jacob 1954—Captain Peter Baker. I speak from memory and Freeman, George Robinson, Mr Geoffrey stand to be corrected, but the power is there. I hope the 1213 House of Lords (Expulsion and 6 MARCH 2015 House of Lords (Expulsion and 1214 Suspension) Bill Suspension) Bill House of Lords does not have to use its power, but it is the House of Lords concentrate on how it can possibly there as a possible sanction and an expression of the limit its numbers, not by expulsions or suspensions, but powers it is prepared to use if behaviour becomes by genuinely recognising that we cannot have the second wholly unacceptable. Chamber of this country being the second largest legislature The Bill is drafted to ensure that the powers apply in the world, after that of the People’s Republic of only in respect of conduct that comes to light after the China. Bill’s passing. There is no power to impose an additional If we had a House of Lords that was reformed in sanction on misbehaviour that has already been considered terms of numbers, many of the problems would be and sanctioned under the current regime. solved, but I know that some people, who would like a As I have said, the Bill was universally supported in complete change in the other place, see the lack of the Lords. Peers from all parties and groups expressed ability to suspend Members as a reason to attack it. I their strong hope that the Bill would pass the Commons think that we should leave it as it is at the moment, as an during this Parliament—it received an unopposed Second appointed Chamber. We should reduce the number of Reading on 23 January in the Commons. It has been peers, but we should not interfere in a part of our extensively considered on the Floor of the House and democracy that seems to be working well. I am assured upstairs. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member by many of my noble Friends that the Bill will give more for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for ensuring that all aspects power to the elbow of those who want to maintain the of the Bill were properly considered. I hope I have given status quo in the other place. If the Bill will deliver that, him the assurances he has sought. I am sorry that I did it deserves a Third Reading. not do that on the last occasion, when we had a Division. The Bill is an important piece of legislation and I very much hope it reaches the statute book without too 11.31 am much further delay. Mr Slaughter: As I said earlier, I have supported the Bill at every stage so I can add my congratulations to 11.26 am those who have enabled its passage through to the statute book, including Baroness Hayman and the right Mr Chope: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), Young),who—with his customary modesty—is not taking who, with typical modesty, suggests that he has been credit for it, although he should. I do not know where it unable to handle the Bill effectively in the Commons. stands in his legion of achievements in his many years He has handled it highly effectively, as one would expect in the House—that is a matter for historians to judge. from somebody with such distinguished service in the As I have noted recently, he has been an excellent MP House and such an expert knowledge of the procedures. for North West Hampshire because of the excellent In the discussion on the Bill, we have shown that we grounding that he got as an MP in Acton. He is one of need to ask questions of private Member’s Bills, and the best things to have come out of Acton and we can particularly constitutional ones. He has been eager to perhaps therefore say that the Bill is, indirectly, another answer those questions. good thing that has come out of Acton. The Bill would have taken a slightly different form if We welcome the Bill. It is relatively modest in its there had been more flexibility on the Government’s ambition, but it is important, and those tend to be the part, and if they were willing to accept amendments. two criteria that get private Member’s Bills on to the statute That is the nature of the problems we have at the book. It is important that proper measures are in place moment, with a Government of two parts. The Liberal to deal with suspension and expulsion in the other Democrats seem to have a veto on everything and are place, although of course the Bill is no substitute for the rarely represented in the Chamber on a Friday, and they bigger and wider reforms—to which the Labour party often say one thing to one group of people while doing remains committed and which we hope to see in the something completely different. I am sure they will be next Parliament—of hereditary peers and, as the hon. here to defend themselves when the House is no longer Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) mentioned, the sitting. size of the other place. Some 116 coalition peers have One good thing about the Bill is that it will enable a been created since May 2010 at a cost of some £15 million period of suspension to go beyond the end of one a year. I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s Parliament. I made it clear at the outset that that is a suggestion that this Bill is a Trojan horse for mass good idea. In answer to my intervention, my right hon. defenestration of peers as a way of reducing their Friend said that 1954 was the last time we expelled number: we will have to find another way to do that, anybody from the Commons. I hope that it will be 60 or and to introduce some democracy into the other place. I 70 years before the other place has to expel anybody. remind the House that substantial steps were taken by The other place has not been able to sort itself out in the last Labour Government, including reducing the terms of numbers, largely because of the patronage of number of hereditary peers to 92; people’s peers; the the party leaders. I am concerned that the numbers are first elected Speaker; the creation of the Supreme Court, so large that they will try to find any excuse to reduce which separated off the judiciary; and the independent them. I fear that the Bill could be a Trojan horse for House of Lords Appointments Commission. We are, reducing the numbers, whereas a much better way forward however, still looking for the essential formula for a would be to adopt, for example, the House of Lords democratically elected second Chamber, and I hope (Maximum Membership) Bill, which is on the Order that we will adopt our proposal for a senate of the Paper for later today, but which I am sure will be nations and regions. That is for the future. For the blocked by the Government, as it has been on so many moment, I repeat our view that this is a good Bill and it previous occasions. Let us hope that the Bill will make is good that it will become law. 1215 House of Lords (Expulsion and 6 MARCH 2015 1216 Suspension) Bill 11.33 am Wind Farm Subsidies (Abolition) Bill Joseph Johnson: As one of the three Cabinet Office Second Reading Ministers to have supported the Bill in its passage to this advanced stage, I congratulate my right hon. Friend 11.34 am the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): I beg to Young) on successfully piloting it to Third Reading. As move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. others have said, it is clearly important that the House I shall not detain the House too long as we have many of Lords has the right powers to ensure that it can deal Bills to get through today. This is an uncontroversial adequately with serious misconduct, which is why the little Bill with only two clauses. It is wholly supported Bill received overwhelming support in the other place. by the Prime Minister and the Conservative part of the The Government support the Bill and are pleased coalition. I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his that it will receive a Third Reading and provide a fitting place on the Front Bench to reply to the debate as I legislative finale to the parliamentary career of my right know that in his distinguished career in Parliament he hon. Friend—at least in this House. has already to a certain extent defied the party Whips Question put and agreed to. on this very issue. He is therefore the right man for the job. We are now all talking with one voice. This is the Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed. Prime Minister’s view, the view of the Conservative party and, I hope, the view of the Minister. I do not think that we should take the Liberal Democrats’ view into account if they cannot be bothered to turn up on a Friday. Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): Is my hon. Friend aware that the Labour party has made it clear to the industry that if it wins the election it plans a huge increase in onshore wind farms, which would desecrate areas of natural beauty in East Yorkshire and elsewhere? Is not that a good reason to vote Conservative on 7May? Mr Bone: There are very many good reasons to vote Conservative in the general election, and that is one of them. The issue of onshore wind farms has infuriated rural communities the length and breadth of Britain and provoked much debate in the House. Like so many other issues, it is yet another on which I fundamentally disagree with our coalition partners. The arguments against onshore wind are well rehearsed—and they are not what this debate is about—but they should not be dismissed as mere nimbyism, as they go so much deeper. Case studies suggest that wind turbines have an adverse impact on property values, and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has written to the Government on that point. The institution is clear that the Government need to provide evidence that house prices are not directly affected by nearby wind turbines. A growing body of evidence also suggests that wind turbines have an adverse impact on health and that ETSU-R-97, which regulates noise produced by turbines, is not fit for purpose. I assumed that that was a European Union directive, but unfortunately it is not. Still, it is the sort of thing that would come out of Europe, if it had the opportunity. I know that the Department of Energy and Climate Change is looking into the issue of amplitude modulation at present, though it needs to get a move on, as I am planning to abolish the Department on 20 March in another private Member’s Bill. Leading experts in the field are also looking into that issue, independently of that process, and it will be interesting to see whether those studies reach the same conclusions. This is one of those issues where the evidence tends not to get in the way of fervent belief. Resentment in many rural communities is growing. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) mentioned Yorkshire, but Northamptonshire in particular has been hit hard by 1217 Wind Farm Subsidies (Abolition) Bill6 MARCH 2015 Wind Farm Subsidies (Abolition) Bill 1218 wind farm proposals in the past few years. Indeed, the electromagnetic transmissions, ecology, heritage, shadow Watford Gap—the place where some believe the north flicker, energy output and cumulative landscape and meets the south—is perhaps one of the best examples of visual impacts. where the impact that wind turbines are having on our One of my constituents and a keen member of my national scenery is visible. The sea of wind turbines has listening campaign, Brian Skittrall, is working hard to created a semi-industrialised vista, with no regard for ensure that the north Northamptonshire joint core strategy local views or for the landscape desecration they cause. provides the greatest possible protection against unwanted Thankfully, people in the area have been well represented wind turbine developments. Along with Tom Pursglove, in fighting against those monstrosities, and I pay tribute the excellent Conservative candidate for Corby, I am to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris working hard to support Brian’s efforts, and I very Heaton-Harris), not only for all that he has done to much hope that common sense will prevail and that highlight this issue locally, but for galvanising support those responsible for the document will adopt his in this place to bring about real national policy change. recommendation. We saw a high-profile battle in Northamptonshire The protections are in the national policy, but it is over the Barnwell manor wind farm proposal, which, if important that they are fully represented in local planning approved, would have had a ruinous impact on the policy documents. I welcome the fact that the Secretary historic Lyveden New Bield, which the National Trust of State for Communities and Local Government has describes in these terms: taken an even greater interest in these matters by calling “Set in the heart of rural Northamptonshire, Lyveden is a in a considerable number of wind turbine applications remarkable survivor of the Elizabethan age. Begun by Sir Thomas and ensuring that the Planning Inspectorate gives sufficient Tresham to symbolise his Catholic faith, Lyveden remains incomplete weight to guidance. I have strong views on the Planning and virtually unaltered since work stopped on his death in 1605. Inspectorate, but those are for another day, and perhaps Discover the mysterious garden lodge and explore the Elizabethan even a future private Member’s Bill. garden with its spiral mounts, terracing and canals. Wander through the new orchard, containing many old varieties of apples While that is welcome, it addresses only part of the and pears, or explore the Lyveden Way, a circular path through problem. For example, turbines often do not work and beautiful meadows, wooodland and villages.” require regular carbon back-up. They also drive up With its Elizabethan architectural quirks, accompanied households’ and small businesses’ energy bills, pushing by the tranquillity of rural east Northamptonshire, this many into fuel poverty. really is a beautiful spot and absolutely not somewhere Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): I congratulate my hon. for wind farms. Friend on his Bill, which I wholeheartedly support. I pay tribute to East Northamptonshire council, led Does he agree that it is quite bizarre for the Labour ably by Steven North, along with Councillor Sylvia party to complain that energy bills are too high while Hughes, the ward member representing Lyveden New supporting this kind of energy, which is doing as much Bield, for their personal efforts to ensure that the local as anything to put up people’s energy bills unnecessarily? authority courageously battled against these plans. The development had been approved by the Planning Mr Bone: I am not sure my hon. Friend is being fair Inspectorate on appeal after the council initially refused to the Labour party. Yes, it claims that energy prices are planning permission. At that stage, it would have been too high but wants more and more wind farms—in easy for the council to say, “Well, it’s one of those Northamptonshire, there are wind farms everywhere—but things. It’s been overruled by the Planning Inspectorate”, actually its policy is to freeze energy prices, which but it fought on. Working closely with the National means, given that energy prices are falling, that prices Trust and English Heritage, the council opposed the would be artificially high. The reason for this policy development every step of the way, and finally High must be the subsidies it wants for wind farms. Court proceedings quashed the Planning Inspectorate’s approval. To erect a wind farm on the site would have Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab): After the been an utter travesty, and it is staggering that local general election, Labour’s policy is to freeze energy Bills people, along with their local authority and the for 20 months, while the energy market is reformed, but organisations mentioned, had to go to such lengths to that does not mean that costs cannot come down; it just stave off this threat. means they cannot go up artificially. With all that in mind—I am in no doubt that these Mr Bone: I am more confused now. I do not know frustrations are mirrored in communities up and down whether the shadow Minister was announcing new policy, the country—is it surprising that people have had enough? but my understanding of a freeze is that that is the That said, credit where credit is due: Conservative Ministers price—it cannot go down. If I am wrong—perhaps have sought to tighten planning controls to give local Labour has done a U-turn—my hon. Friend the Member communities greater power over deciding these matters for Shipley (Philip Davies) is right and the policy makes and, I hope, to give them more protection against no sense. Either it wants higher energy prices, which I unwanted wind farm plans. In July 2013, Ministers understand, or it wants lower energy prices and more unveiled planning practice guidance for renewable and wind turbines, which of course it cannot have. low-carbon energy that was replaced in March 2014 by updated guidance. The aim was to make it clear that the Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): I am need for renewable energy did not automatically override grateful to my hon. Friend for his brilliant and inspired environmental protections and local communities’planning Bill. On the socialists’ policy, if it is a cap, rather than a concerns, while ensuring that sufficient weight was given freeze, what company—particularly in the energy market, to landscape and visual impact concerns. It also included where prices are so volatile—in its right mind would guidance on how local planning authorities should reduce prices, even if the market price fell, knowing it assess impacts such as noise, safety, interference with could not put them back up if the market price rose? 1219 Wind Farm Subsidies (Abolition) Bill6 MARCH 2015 Wind Farm Subsidies (Abolition) Bill 1220

Mr Bone: My hon. Friend is entirely correct, including they can have them. In contrast, I agree squarely with in describing it as a socialist policy, because that is the Prime Minister, who has said: precisely the direction we are moving in—we know that “I think the public are, frankly, fed up with so many wind Labour has moved significantly to the left. The issue farms being built that won’t be necessary. Now we’ve reached here is that it wants to interfere with prices using a state some 10 per cent of our electricity by onshore wind, we don’t mechanism, and that always fails. need to have more of these subsidised onshore. So let’s get rid of the subsidy, put them into the planning system and, if they can I shall return to the Bill because I want to be brief make their case, they can make their case. I suspect they won’t.” and we have a lot of Bills to get through today, and, as I said, it is uncontroversial. In July 2013, the Energy and Climate Change Committee issued its report, “Energy Jacob Rees-Mogg: I wonder whether my hon. Friend Prices, Profits and Poverty”, which said: would go further and say that we should not have subsidies in the energy market at all and that it should “The main driver behind energy prices has been wholesale gas be a proper free market, with providers getting a market and electricity costs, but network charges, energy and climate change policies and company costs and profits also contribute. In price and consumers paying the market price, rather future, DECC estimates that its energy and climate change policies than additions for what the Prime Minister once described will add 33% to the average electricity price paid by UK households in fairly fruity terms in relation to greenery. in 2020, in addition to any potential wholesale price rises.” That is worth hearing again: “In future, DECC Mr Bone: My hon. Friend tempts me into a much estimates”—it must be right, because it is a Government wider field. I am afraid we are going to keep very much estimate— to this little Bill—indeed, it is so small that I doubt “that its energy and climate change policies will add 33% to the whether anyone will oppose it, other than those on the average electricity price paid by UK households in 2020, in Opposition Benches, which are not exactly packed. If addition to any potential wholesale price rises.” this was a controversial Bill, I would be seeing a sea of It also concluded that: angry faces on the Opposition Benches and all I can see is two charming people sitting there. “The increasing use of levies on bills to fund energy and climate change policies is problematic since it is likely to hit As with the issue of an EU referendum and the need hardest those least able to pay. We note that public funding is less to tackle immigration from within Europe, once again regressive than levies in this respect.” the Prime Minister has it spot on—and let us not forget The subsidies paid for by consumers are clearly generous, that only he and the Conservatives can deliver on these hence the clamour from developers to access them. As issues. I know that he has fought hard in the coalition to long ago as October 2013, an answer to a parliamentary make this happen prior to the general election, and I question identified that the Government had hit their applaud his efforts in that regard. As on so many issues, targets of 13 GW of production capacity from onshore however, common sense has been thwarted by the yellow wind by 2020, with 6.8 GW operational, 6.4 GW consented peril. That is why I am bringing this Bill forward today: and 6.4 GW in the planning system. Furthermore, to support the Prime Minister, support the Conservative many will question why constraint payments are being party and move this agenda forward. If a local community made to generators in return for reducing output, as supports wind farm construction and the project is more electricity is being generated than can be used in commercially viable in its own right, fine. However, I see particular regions because a grid constraint exists. If all no reason why further generous subsidies should be that was not bad enough, the subsidies have also been provided, not least because, by the Government’s own geared up—this is almost unbelievable—in such a way admission, the targets have been met. that they will be paid over 25 years, even though, as I pay tribute to Tom Pursglove, the national director Dr Gordon Hughes has found, of Together Against Wind, who has provided a lot of “few wind farms will operate for more than 12-15 years.” the information in my short speech today. He also Therefore, they will operate for 12 to 15 years, but for a happens to be the Conservative candidate for Corby at further 10 years they will receive subsidies for nothing. the general election. Indeed, it would be much easier in north Northamptonshire if we had my hon. Friend the Wind turbines are an expensive way of generating Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), Tom in Corby electricity and are clearly bad value for money. I go and me, all fighting against wind farms, rather than back to what the Leader of the Opposition said when somebody who supports wind farms everywhere in north he was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Northamptonshire. I want to end with Tom’s words: Change in the last Labour Government: “The only way to end the wind farm folly, is to knock the “Yes, there are upward pressures on energy bills, and that subsidies on the head once and for all.” makes life difficult for people, including those in fuel poverty, but That is exactly what this little Bill does. it is right that we go down the low-carbon energy route.” In other words, he is quite happy for poor people to pay more for their energy because he thinks there is some 11.55 am good in the low-carbon energy route. We should not be Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab): I am afraid so complacent and dismissive of the problem, and the this feels like “Here we go again.” Less than two months idea that wind turbines are somehow green is stretching ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and it somewhat too, considering the amount of carbon Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) spoke from the shadow Front burnt in producing a single turbine, not to mention the Bench against a Bill promoted by the hon. Member for amount of concrete poured into the ground to put it up. Christchurch (Mr Chope) which would remove all subsidies Where are we now on this issue? As has been mentioned, for offshore wind. Today we find ourselves in a similar the Labour and Liberal Democrat positions are absolutely debate, on a Bill to destroy the UK’s burgeoning onshore clear: they want more onshore wind farms wherever wind industry. 1221 Wind Farm Subsidies (Abolition) Bill6 MARCH 2015 Wind Farm Subsidies (Abolition) Bill 1222

I think I speak for many Members when I say how 2014 ComRes poll found that 62% of people would be much I enjoyed the “Inside the Commons” documentary. happy for an onshore wind farm to be constructed in I was pleased that it showed people how Parliament their area. works and what MPs do, and that we are, all things It is, of course, crucial for local communities to be considered, still normal people doing a job to the best consulted, and to be fully engaged in any renewable of our abilities. There was general amusement at the energy development. The Government and, in particular, sight of Members from both sides of the House the Secretary of State for Communities and Local queuing in shifts to secure private Members’ Bills. Two Government preach localism. However, the Secretary of those people were, of course, the hon. Member for of State has taken Whitehall intervention in the planning Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who has just spoken, and system to unprecedented heights. the hon. Member for Christchurch. I only wish their If I had a pound for every time I heard a Conservative time in the queue and our time here discussing the Bill Member criticise clean energy technologies for reasons today could have been better spent. that bear no relationship to cost, genuine public concern Onshore wind is one of the cheapest large-scale renewable or engineering feasibility, I could personally fund the energy technologies. With the right support, it could be levy control framework for several years. The fifth subsidy-free by the end of the next Parliament. This assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Bill, in the unlikely event that it should ever become law, Climate Change provided overwhelming and compelling would kill the UK’s onshore wind industry and, in scientific evidence that climate change is real, that it is doing so, destroy thousands of jobs and millions of caused by human activity, and that it will have devastating pounds of investment and lead to higher energy bills. consequences if urgent action is not taken to cut our carbon emissions and invest in mitigation. Mr Bone: Will the hon. Lady give way? I would have welcomed the time to engage in a serious debate this morning about onshore wind, and about how we can increase investment and drive down Julie Elliott: No, I am going to carry on. costs. However, no debate on a Bill that would implement If the hon. Gentleman had his way and we shut off an effective ban on onshore wind can be a serious one. support mechanisms such as the renewables obligation Let me repeat a question that I have asked Conservative and contracts for difference, the UK would simply be Members before in the House. They do not like onshore more reliant on more expensive technologies to meet wind, they do not like offshore wind, and they do not our crucial carbon emissions commitments. Those of us like solar. Are there any clean energy technologies that on this side of the House are committed to decarbonising they actually support? at the lowest possible cost to the consumer. That is why All modern economies face the same energy “trilemma”: we are committed to setting a 2030 power sector how can we generate the energy that we need, which is decarbonisation target, which will give investors the clean, affordable and secure? Onshore wind delivers on long-term certainty they need to invest. all three counts. It is clean, it is on course to be subsidy-free, Let me point out a few important facts. Last year, and it is based in the United Kingdom, boosting local onshore wind generated over 5% of UK electricity economies and creating jobs. generation, and the independent Committee on Climate Perhaps the hon. Member for Wellingborough’s queuing Change estimates that onshore wind can provide over was not a waste of time after all. It has given me an 15% of our power needs by 2030. Onshore wind generated opportunity to expose the Conservative party’s growing over 16 TWh of electricity in 2014—enough to power hostility to onshore wind, and to set out how the next almost 4 million homes. There is currently more than Labour Government will work with clean energy developers 8 GW of onshore wind capacity, with a further 1.2 GW to ensure that we have the affordable, secure and clean under construction and more than 5 GW with consent. energy that our economy needs in order to succeed. Last week saw the results of the first allocation rounds for CfDs. Labour supported the introduction of CfDs, as we did during the passage through Parliament of the 12.2 pm Energy Bill. Cost reductions—which mean less subsidy, The Minister for Business and Enterprise (Matthew which translates into lower consumer bills—are real Hancock): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member and are happening now. New onshore wind projects for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) on securing the debate. I from 2016 to 2018 will produce power at £79.23 to know that he has a long-standing interest in ensuring £82.50 per megawatt-hour—less than other renewable that the nation has affordable, secure, economic and energy technologies and less than new nuclear. The sustainable energy supplies, and the Government fully industry is committed to being the cheapest form of support that aim. His Bill would eliminate subsidies for new large-scale electricity generation by 2020—cheaper onshore wind that are provided by the Government via even than new gas plants. the renewables obligation, contracts for difference and This is a job-creating sector: the onshore wind sector feed-in tariff regimes, and paid for by bill payers. employs, directly and indirectly, 19,000 people in this Our policy is intended to achieve our goal of reducing country. Onshore wind is popular. The Department of subsidies while meeting our global carbon reduction Energy and Climate Change’s public attitudes tracking obligations and securing supply at the lowest reasonable survey has found consistent public support for onshore cost. The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie wind. The latest figures show that 68% of the public Elliott) referred to the “trilemma” in energy policy. support onshore wind, with opposition at only 12%. Energy policy needs to balance the long-term requirement That is not just theoretical support for the concept of to live within international obligations on climate change onshore wind. It is important to note that people support and mitigate the risks with guaranteeing security of onshore wind developments in their communities. A supply, which involves the costs of ensuring that enough 1223 Wind Farm Subsidies (Abolition) Bill6 MARCH 2015 Wind Farm Subsidies (Abolition) Bill 1224

[Matthew Hancock] turbines of 80% to 85% is one that I do not recognise. Even the wind turbine industry itself suggests the figure energy infrastructure is constructed, and with ensuring is 28% to 30%, and I can tell the Minister that certainly that those costs are as low as reasonably possible. That in my constituency the turbines are not working 80% to is the standard “trilemma”, but rising to the challenge 85% of the time. When has he ever seen the wind means not only balancing those three requirements, but blowing 85% of the time in any part of this country? ensuring that our policy can hit all three goals at once when that is possible. Matthew Hancock: Wind turbines require a low wind Alongside new nuclear, gas and carbon capture and speed in order to operate and the offshore wind turbines storage, renewables, including wind energy, are an important have a very high rate of operation. Moreover, what component of the balanced energy mix that the matters for energy policy is the overall output from any Government are creating. It is clear that we need to given technology, and while the wind may not be blowing increase our use of renewable energy. Renewables provide in Devon it may be blowing in Suffolk, so we need to clean energy and reduce our dependence on finite fossil look at intermittency and the impact of the policy fuels, but they also increase our energy security, because throughout the country. renewable energy is inherently domestic, and they reduce I now want to turn to the impact of intermittency on the need for us to import energy from abroad. At the the stability of the national grid. Research by the Royal same time, the construction and operation of renewables Academy of Engineering shows that the grid can create jobs and investment in our economy. It is estimated accommodate up to 26 GW of wind energy by 2020 that £29 billion has been invested since 2010. without significant grid reinforcement being required, According to figures that I looked up when I was and that is split evenly between onshore and offshore preparing for the debate, renewables provided nearly wind—about 13 GW each—as my hon. Friend the 18% of our electricity in the third quarter of 2014. That Member for Wellingborough set out. We should not be has enhanced our energy security and reduced our complacent, however. Grid improvements are going to dependence on imported energy. As we know, the United be needed to deal with intermittent renewables of all Kingdom is blessed with a huge number of advantages types and the increasing new nuclear programme. We when it comes to wind generation. We have relatively cannot wait; we need to take action on that now—and, shallow seas, and ours is a very windy country. The indeed, we are doing so. We will need to be innovative in resource is even more pronounced in offshore areas, terms of technology and operational and market incentives and it makes sense for us to take advantage of it. We are to meet this challenge. the clear world leader in offshore wind, in terms of both I also want to address the point my hon. Friend made installed capacity and investment attractiveness. about constraint payments. Constraint payments occur Let me now respond to, and challenge, some of the when there is insufficient transmission network capacity common concerns that have been expressed about wind between where the electricity is generated and where it energy, including those expressed by hon. Friend today. is used. They are a long-standing part of the system, It is necessary to deal with those important issues, and to ensure the secure operation of the electricity because we must get our wind energy policy right so system the grid is required to balance the supply and that wind can play an appropriate role in our energy mix. demand of electricity at all moments in real time. A The first issue is whether wind energy actually provides cost-efficient transmission network will always have a electricity at all. I can confirm that it provided 7% of degree of constraint by design. This system predates our electricity at the end of the third quarter of 2014. wind farms and most constraint payments continue to Of course it is intermittent—the wind does not always relate to fossil fuel generators, not wind farms. blow—but that does not mean that it is an inefficient National Grid has estimated that about 2% of total source of energy. Wind turbines tend to generate electricity metered wind farm output was curtailed in 2013-14. In for 80% to 85% of the time. Of course they cannot October 2012 we put a condition in generators’ licences generate during periods of windlessness; that is why to ensure they cannot profit unfairly from constraints. they must be part of a balanced energy mix, so that we Constraint costs for wind farms have more than halved can draw on other technologies when the wind does not since, and we estimate that the total constraint costs of blow. As larger proportions of renewables come onstream, £340 million in 2013-14 represent about 0.7% or £4.20 that intermittency will become more of an issue, and we of the average electricity bill. Of this, £47 million, or shall have to prepare for it very carefully. It is therefore about 0.1% or 60p of the average household bill, relates crucial for our energy policy to be set in a long-term to wind farms. In the medium and longer term, delivery framework. of planned transmission investment will reduce these We accept that back-up is sometimes required, including constraint payments, and there is upgrading work at the back-up from coal, gas and biomass. In the longer term, moment to ensure that happens. intermittent falls in generation can be dealt with by a Another issue that is often raised is whether wind range of technologies such as demand-side response, farms actually deliver carbon savings. Wind power has interconnection with other countries, and electricity one of the lowest carbon footprints compared with storage. In the United Kingdom, electricity storage other forms of electricity generation. Work by the generally means pumped-storage hydroelectricity, but Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology published an increasing number of exciting technologies will enable in 2011 looked at the carbon footprint of different us to store electricity and deal with the intermittency. forms of electricity generation. This carbon footprint assessment was calculated according to the “life cycle Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con): assessment” which aims to account for the total quantity The figure my right hon. Friend the Minister gives for of greenhouse gas emitted over the whole life cycle of a the standard usability and standard functioning of wind product or process—the making, transporting and erecting 1225 Wind Farm Subsidies (Abolition) Bill6 MARCH 2015 Wind Farm Subsidies (Abolition) Bill 1226 of wind farms, as well as their operation. The study Only for future onshore wind farms will there be no found that there was a footprint of 488 grams of CO2 subsidy. It will continue for the ones that are in place—and equivalent per kWh for a combined cycle gas turbine this is only Second Reading so any such details will be and 5.2 grams of CO2 equivalent per kWh for installations sorted out in Committee and we will be able to make off the coast of Denmark. Further studies demonstrate progress very quickly. that, even taking into account the whole life time impact on carbon emissions, wind farms have an incredibly low Matthew Hancock: I take that as my hon. Friend’s impact. stated intention, but that is not what the Bill would do. I want to address a point made by the hon. Member There are wind farms under construction that expect to for Sunderland Central about the pipeline and industry. come under the existing subsidy regime and they are Our offshore wind pipeline is very strong. The UK has being built on the anticipation of fitting in with legislation the most fully installed operational offshore wind capacity passed by this House in the last year or so on what can in the world—more than 4 GW as of March 2015—and fit within the renewables obligation. This Bill would we are committed to a further expansion, with the UK remove the subsidy from them because of the way it is on track to generate around 10 GW by the end of the phrased. Clause 1(2) states that only those decade. “onshore wind farms already operational prior to this Act coming As the Prime Minister has said, onshore wind has an into force” important role to play, and much has already been built would be placed outwith the Bill, whereas we have said and we are set for having 10% of electricity from that the renewables obligation will end next year or, in onshore wind. Let me make it clear that we are committed, some circumstances, in 2017. There are people who once we have reached this 10% which is in the pipeline have committed, in anticipation of legislative support. already, to removing the subsidy and putting onshore wind into the planning system, and also to changing the planning system so that local councils have the decisive Mr Bone: I am entirely persuaded by the Minister’s say. As the Prime Minister has said—and my hon. argument, and I will give him an absolute undertaking Friend read out—if they can make their case, they can, that we will table an amendment to that provision in but I suspect they won’t. Committee. With that caveat, will the Government now support the Bill? Mr Bone: The Minister is addressing this point at Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend is an incredibly more length than I thought he would, as I thought it persuasive man, but this technical point is important was uncontroversial. He has just referred to the Prime enough to mean that we are still going to have to resist Minister’s comment that when we have this 10%, we are the Bill, while at the same time holding to our clear going to get rid of wind farm subsidies. I am just trying position of removing the subsidies for onshore wind in to help the Prime Minister bring that forward. I am not an organised and careful way. entirely sure whether the Minister is supporting or opposing the Prime Minister, and I think the Prime Minister would like to know. Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): My right hon. Friend talks about the importance of honouring Matthew Hancock: I am sure the Prime Minister existing commitments. How does that fit in with what would, and I anticipate that come Monday morning he we read in the press about the Government now insisting will be reading Hansard closely to follow the debate. I on having a golden share in the nuclear plant at Hinkley support the Prime Minister—he will be glad to know—but Point? I do not think this Bill is the right way to enact that policy, and I was going on to explain precisely why. I Matthew Hancock: The two subjects are slightly separate. have a lot of sympathy with this, not least because we On Hinkley Point, as my hon. Friend knows, we reached are reducing the subsidies for onshore wind. The costs a strong heads of terms agreement on the price and of onshore wind are falling, but the question is how we many other details, which we then took to the European approach this subject, which is why I was talking about Commission and succeeded in achieving state aid clearance the industry. We want to make sure that, especially with on 9 October. There are lots of details to be put in place, the increasing offshore pipeline that is being built up, and we are working with EDF and other stakeholders we can act in a reasonable way that ultimately removes to achieve that. I do not think that there is an issue of the subsidies for onshore wind. I also want to go further consistency there. I also do not think that there is a and bear down on the subsidies for all renewables, and read-across to the point that I was making. Ensuring we are putting in place policies to do that as well. So we that we get the details right is an important part of will remove the subsidies for onshore wind, but we need landing any energy infrastructure project, whether related to do it carefully. to nuclear or to onshore wind, to which the Bill refers. I have read my hon. Friend’s Bill and think it has an The question of how we are reducing the subsidies unintended consequence: removing the support in the has formed an important part of our debate today. In way set out in this Bill would have the unintended the case of large-scale onshore wind, we have already consequence of our not honouring commitments signed cut support rates under the renewables obligation by up to in good faith by the British Government, and the 10%, and the renewable obligation support for offshore UK Government unambiguously honour their debts. wind projects will also drop by 10% by April next year. At the end of 2012, we introduced a cost control mechanism Mr Bone: I want to make it clear that the Bill absolutely called contingent digression for the feed-in tariff, which does not do what has been suggested. Existing agreements is designed to reduce tariffs in line with falling costs and are to continue for the very reason the Minister explains. the level of deployment. Last year, tariffs for all wind 1227 Wind Farm Subsidies (Abolition) Bill6 MARCH 2015 Wind Farm Subsidies (Abolition) Bill 1228

[Matthew Hancock] we will remove onshore wind subsidies in the future, and that the current 10% that is in the pipeline for turbines were reduced by 20%, and on 1 October 2014 onshore wind is plenty. After that, if the planning by a further 10%. Clearly the subsidies are already system allows a wind farm to go ahead, and if people coming down. want to come forward with a non-subsidised wind Our new support regime, involving contracts for farm—and given that the planning system will be tightened difference, is designed precisely to get the best possible to ensure that local people’s voices are heard—there value for money for the available subsidy by introducing could be future opportunities. As the Prime Minister a market in the subsidy. My hon. Friends will not be has said, if they can make their case, they will do so, but surprised to hear that when we introduced a market I suspect that they will not. mechanism for the available subsidy, we got better value The commitment from Conservative Members is clear. for money and the price came down. Adam Smith I personally have fought against the placing of onshore would have been proud of the outcome of the CfD wind turbines in some of the most beautiful parts of auction. Levels of support are therefore decreasing. Suffolk—and therefore the most beautiful parts of the Indeed, the market cleared at the much lower than country—in landscapes that were admired and painted expected price of around £80 per MWh for onshore by Constable in years gone by and that have changed wind, showing that markets work and increase value for little since. As a constituency MP, I have fought proposals money. to put wind farms in places where they would damage The other interesting outcome of the CfD auction the local environment and the local amenity. The policy was that onshore wind was not the cheapest form of that we inherited had an override over local considerations renewable energy. Solar power came out of that auction because of the impact on climate change of putting up as the cheapest. Compared with the £80 per MWh for wind farms. onshore wind, some of the solar projects came through So we have taken steps in the planning system, some the auction at £50 per MWh, demonstrating clear evidence of which have been mentioned today, but we are clear of a path to lower subsidies. Indeed, an exciting future that where local people do not want wind farms, the will soon be within reach, in which the cost of solar will planning system will be strengthened, and there will not be compatible with the cost of fossil fuel generation. We be these subsidies when we can remove them. My hon. have already seen instances around the world of lower-cost and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West solar installations being achieved without subsidy and Devon (Mr Cox) asked, not unreasonably, for a deadline, being cost-competitive with fossil fuels. so I shall set it out this way. The 10% of the electricity Part of getting the balance right involves ensuring system from onshore wind is expected by the coalition that we get a broad mix in the CfD auction, and that we Government by 2020—that is a Government figure—and can drive down the costs to consumers of offshore wind the Prime Minister has set out that then there will be no as well. We are delivering up to £110 million less overall need for future subsidies. If, as the costs of all renewables per year than we were doing in the absence of competition. come down, we are able not only to deal with the As a result of the auction, we are offering two contracts problem of climate change, but to do so in a way that to offshore wind farms: Neart na Gaoithe, a 448 MW allows us to remove subsidies sooner, so be it. That site in the Forth estuary, and the 714 MW East Anglia framework sets a clear deadline, but the clarity of our ONE project. Together, those sites represent 1.2 GW of commitment to remove subsidies for onshore wind is renewable capacity. stark—we shall do this. I hope that gives him the I shall turn now to the question of reaching grid commitment he was seeking. parity and being able to deliver on the intention behind the Bill without the need to pass it, and to do so in an Mr Bone: I am not sure whether the Minister is organised and careful way. Costs in the sector are talking as a split personality. Is he referring to a coalition falling, and we are achieving more economies of scale. commitment or a Conservative party commitment? Is In the longer term, that will mean that we can reach the commitment to having 2020 as the back-stop as the parity with other renewable and non-renewable forms latest time when the wind farm subsidies will go—although of energy supply. Doing that in an organised way will it could be earlier—a Conservative commitment or a allow us to keep investing in the UK. It is therefore vital joint Conservative-Liberal Democrat commitment? to do this carefully and cautiously. Matthew Hancock: It is certainly not a joint Mr Cox: I entirely understand my right hon. Friend’s Conservative-Liberal Democrat commitment. Let me desire to observe fairness and equity for those turbine be absolutely clear about the distinction. The 10% projection developers who already have construction on hand, but for onshore wind by 2020 is a coalition Government will he acknowledge that he should not underestimate figure—that is a fact on which this discussion can be the expectation of those on his own side that the Prime based—but the commitment is a Conservative party Minister and the Government will stand by their commitment for a future Conservative Government, commitment to set a clear deadline for the termination and we are absolutely clear about that. The distinction of these subsidies, which are causing so much distress is important, but given that we are only a few weeks across the countryside and throughout constituencies in away from the Dissolution of this Parliament, the way I the south-west such as the one I represent? We must have been expressing it is that things that have happened stand by that commitment. We must set a clear deadline, in the past and up until now are coalition Government and that deadline must be soon. facts or positions, but those relating to the future are, of course, Conservative party positions. That is because Matthew Hancock: I have considerable sympathy for we hope and expect to be governing as a single that point of view. We have made it absolutely clear that coalition—my goodness, that was a mistake: a single 1229 Wind Farm Subsidies (Abolition) Bill6 MARCH 2015 Wind Farm Subsidies (Abolition) Bill 1230

Conservative Government after the election. I hope I As my hon. Friend will doubtless be aware, we also have made that precise distinction clear, and I am recently announced a review of the available evidence grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity to do so. on amplitude modulation—AM—noise produced by Before bringing things to a close, I want to set out wind turbines. The aerodynamic noise—the noise produced why we need to do this in a measured way. The decision by the rotating wind turbine blades—includes a steady by Siemens and Associated British Ports to invest component, as well as, in some circumstances, a periodically £310 million in offshore wind turbine manufacturing in fluctuating, or amplitude modulated, component. One Hull will create 1,000 direct jobs. It was a significant form of AM, commonly referred to as “blade swish”, is event for that region last year and it will provide an an inherent feature of the operation of all wind turbines anchor for building the UK-based supply chain, as and can be explained by well-understood mechanisms. well as much-needed skilled jobs in one of the most It is therefore often called “normal amplitude deprived parts of the UK. To a large extent, that modulation”—NAM. Some AM, however, exhibits decision was based on the expected size of the UK characteristics that fall outside those expected of NAM market, but of course there will be the ability to export and can potentially give rise to increased annoyance. overseas. Offshore wind is one area where we have a Such characteristics include a greater depth of modulation dedicated industrial strategy, created and delivered by a or a changed noise character. For that reason, it is partnership between government and industry, to ensure sometimes called excessive amplitude modulation. Research that we have the right conditions for UK companies to suggests that that form of AM is caused by sudden take advantage of this investment. I wish to pay tribute variations in the direction and speed of the wind, which to and highlight the work of the Offshore Wind Investment mean that the wind hits different parts of the turbine Organisation— blade at different speeds, causing it to stall momentarily. The stalling can then produce a whooshing sound that Mr Chope: The Minister is drifting on to offshore some people find irritating. The evidence to date indicates wind but this Bill deals with onshore wind. In so doing, that the incidence of AM from wind turbines in the UK he is alarming me: is he saying that because the is low, but we are committed to increasing our knowledge subsidies are being withdrawn from onshore wind we and understanding of the potential impacts of wind are going to carry on with the subsidy bonanza to all turbines and therefore we keep our evidence base up to the subsidy junkies who are engaged in the offshore date. wind business? Mr Cox: I had cause to look into this some years ago, and I found that a good deal of the research that was Matthew Hancock: The commitment I gave is absolutely being done on wind for the Department was being about onshore wind. I know that my hon. Friend has carried out by experts or consultants retained and used concerns about offshore wind, especially off Christchurch, by the wind industry itself. I hope that the figures and and I understand that. We have had exchanges in this the research the Minister is referring to are genuinely House and discussions about it. We are bearing down independent. on the offshore wind subsidy, as the cost is reducing and industry is reducing its costs. There are links in respect Matthew Hancock: The research is being done by the of why we have chosen to resist this Bill, despite there Institute of Acoustics and it is hard to argue that it being so much in it we agree with, because we want to would make anything other than a fully objective statement make sure that we adopt a planned and careful approach, and analysis. We need a view on appropriate advice sticking to commitments that the Government have about the impact of this excessive amplitude modulation given and that this House has given to industry, which is and what thresholds might be set in planning considerations, developing already. which comes back to the point made earlier about the I also wish to discuss the noise produced by wind tighter planning conditions we have already put in place farms, because I know it is a significant concern to my and that we propose in future. We are preparing a hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, he raised specification for the review and intend to publish an it and it is important to address the point. Again, this is invitation to tender soon. I will take into account the an area where the Government have taken action. The point that my hon. and learned Friend makes to make method of assessing the noise impact of a wind farm is sure that we are careful to ensure that the analysis described in ETSU-R-97. That requires the likely impact undertaken is truly objective and we will appoint a of wind turbines on local residents and those working contractor to conduct the review as soon as we can after in the vicinity to be considered in relation to existing the conclusion of the tendering exercise. background noise levels, taking into account the My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough characteristics of particular locations. Hayes McKenzie mentioned planning and the changes we have introduced reviewed ETSU-R-97, finding that it is fit for purpose and propose to introduce in the next Parliament under but identifying inconsistencies in the way it was being a majority Conservative Administration. We have already used in practice to measure and predict the impact of set out how we are putting in place measures to protect noise. In May 2013, the Institute of Acoustics published consumers from the cost of supporting wind farms, but good practice guidance which addressed the issues Hayes we must also protect communities from poorly sited McKenzie identified. The guide, which was endorsed by wind farms that are put up in a way that ruins England’s the Department of Energy and Climate Change, will green and pleasant land. help to improve the consistency of the application of ETSU-R-97 in the consideration of wind farm projects. Mr Bone: The Minister is being very generous and is I hope my hon. Friend will see that good work is being going into extraordinary depth, but I think he is now done by DECC there, and perhaps it will temper his moving on to the planning issues and I must remind desire to abolish me—it—at the next opportunity with him that my Bill deals only with wind farm subsidies, his next private Member’s Bill. not planning matters. 1231 Wind Farm Subsidies (Abolition) Bill6 MARCH 2015 Wind Farm Subsidies (Abolition) Bill 1232

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. I am turbines, reversing the trend before the guidance was the one who has to worry about these issues. In fairness, issued, when more approvals were approved than dismissed. the Minister has been tempted to deal with nuclear, The Secretary of State for Communities and Local offshore and other subjects. Government has found that the guidance is helping to ensure that decisions reflect the environmental balance Matthew Hancock: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. we need to see, as set out in the framework, but he also I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for recognises that the guidance is relatively new and that Wellingborough would do a remarkable job in your some development proposals might not yet have taken seat, but I am grateful for your guidance. on board its intent. That is why after careful consideration I want to mention planning, not least because it was he decided on 9 April 2014 to extend the temporary raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough change to the appeals recovery criteria and continue to and because it forms part of the wider arguments about consider for recovery appeals for renewable energy whether we should have subsidies for onshore wind in developments for a further 12 months. We will continue the future and whether we should end subsidies for to monitor the impact of recoveries on onshore wind onshore wind in the way set out in the Bill or in a careful and on investor confidence more broadly. There you and measured way, as I have set out. have it, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have been very clear that wind farms must be well We have been very clear about the fact that onshore sited to receive planning permission and that communities wind plays a role in our energy mix. It produced 7% of must be taken into account before planning decisions the UK’s electricity in the last quarter, but we need to are made. The reforms we have made to the planning ensure that we tackle the challenge of climate change in system bear that out. We have also made it compulsory the way that incurs the lowest possible cost. In the next for developers to have pre-application consultations Parliament, we will in time remove the subsidies from with local communities on onshore wind developments onshore wind, but I hope that that will happen as part of more than two turbines or when the hub height of of a wider move to drive down the cost of subsidies, the turbine exceeds 15 metres. That means that developers especially as the cost of renewables falls and as some need to engage seriously with communities even before renewables, such as solar, are financed reasonably cost- submitting a planning application. effectively and reach parity with fossil fuels. That will We have also published new planning practice guidance significantly change the debate about renewables because on renewable energy, updated last year, which will help we will reach a point where going green reduces costs, deliver the balance required by the national planning rather than adding subsidies to consumers’ bills. policy framework. That will make it clear that the need We should stick to that clear direction and vision, for renewable energy does not automatically override and we should do so in a way that allows the House to environmental protections and the planning concerns abide by its commitments. I take on board the point of local communities. This is what I was referring to about the Bill’s intention, which is consistent with the earlier when I said that saving the global environment Prime Minister’s words, even if the technicalities are must not be done in a way that damages our local slightly different. environment. The new planning guidance has also been I have not dwelt at all on the utter chaos and catastrophe published to assist local councils and planning inspectors of the Opposition’s policies, the inconsistencies of which in their consideration of local plans and individual were well drawn out in the debate. I am not going to go planning applications. there, and I will not talk about how no one can have a I also want to touch on the planning recoveries issue freeze that is not a freeze and how the freeze policy was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for launched by someone standing next to an ice block, so Wellingborough and by the hon. Member for Sunderland to describe it later as a cap seems inconsistent with the Central. Our new planning practice guidance and the intention at the time. requirement for developers to consult local communities It is a great pity that the Opposition have no credible before they submit a planning application are crucial policy to speak of, but I suppose that only shows why it steps in improving the quality of proposed onshore is vital that we have a successful outcome to the general wind developments and ensuring that local communities election, so that we can continue with the goals that we are listened to whether there is a subsidy in place or not, have set. I look forward to working further on the Bill’s as set out in the Bill. Of course, however, some communities details with my hon. Friend the Member for remain concerned when a local planning decision is Wellingborough, but it is clear that the costs of subsidies challenged on appeal. for wind are falling. We are bringing them down through It is important that local communities continue to the power of the ingenuity of mankind and the price have confidence in the appeals process and that the discovery of the market. We are clear that we will environmental balance expected by the national planning remove future subsidies for onshore wind, and we will policy framework is reflected in decisions on renewable be careful to ensure that local planning considerations energy deployment. That is why my right hon. Friend and the beauty of the local environment are taken into the Secretary of State for Communities and Local account. Although I have considerable sympathy with Government announced a temporary change to the the Bill, it is not the right way to go about the stated appeals recovery criteria for a period of six months. In policy, and the Government will therefore resist it. doing so, he explained that he wanted to give particular scrutiny to planning appeals involving renewable energy 12.50 pm developments so that he could consider the extent to which the new practice guidance met our intentions. Mr Bone: I have listened with great interest to the Since that planning guidance was issued, more appeals Minister’s speech, which went on for just over three have been dismissed than approved for more significant quarters of an hour. We seem to agree, which is good. 1233 Wind Farm Subsidies (Abolition) Bill 6 MARCH 2015 1234

He certainly does seem to support the Prime Minister’s Foreign National Offenders (Exclusion policy. My Bill supports the Prime Minister’s policy. I from the United Kingdom) Bill guess that the Government may be forced to ask Ministers and the payroll to vote against the Bill only because of Second Reading the Liberal Democrats. I should like to test the will of the House by pressing the motion to a Division, so that Members have a chance to show whether they are for or 1.3 pm against wind farm subsidies. If they want to support the Prime Minister, they will support the Bill. If they want Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): I beg to to oppose the Prime Minister, they will go through the move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. No Lobby. As I said in the debate on my previous Bill, I will try Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second to be brief, because there are many other Bills that we Time. want to deal with today. I am grateful to the excellent Minister for Security and Immigration for being here. The House divided: Ayes 7, Noes 38. This is only a two-clause Bill, but it is perhaps slightly Division No. 171] [12.51 pm more controversial than the one on getting rid of wind farm subsidies. The idea is straightforward: if someone AYES comes to this country, commits an offence and is given a Cox, Mr Geoffrey Percy, Andrew term of imprisonment, at the end of that term of Davies, Philip Rees-Mogg, Jacob imprisonment they should be deported to the country Duncan, rh Sir Alan Tellers for the Ayes: that they came from. That should be done quickly, and Hollobone, Mr Philip Mr Peter Bone and they should not be allowed back. People in my constituency Knight, rh Sir Greg Mr Christopher Chope and up and down the country are furious when people who come to this country legally, and receive our hospitality, NOES commit an offence and then remain here. It seems Baldry, rh Sir Tony Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald wrong that they should do so. Bingham, Andrew Leslie, Chris The Government have been very good—I am sure the Boles, Nick McCann, Mr Michael Minister will speak about this—at taking certain foreign Bottomley, Sir Peter McFadden, rh Mr Pat prisoners back to where they came from. My Bill extends Brake, rh Tom Murrison, Dr Andrew the rules to include countries to which foreign prisoners Brazier, Mr Julian Penrose, John cannot at the moment be returned. I particularly refer Brokenshire, James Perry, Claire to countries in the European Union. Under my Bill, Brown, Lyn Pound, Stephen once foreign prisoners were sent back to the European Campbell, rh Mr Alan Selous, Andrew Creasy, Stella Slaughter, Mr Andy Union, they would not have the right to come back. Dromey, Jack Stewart, Bob They would be removed without reference to any human Elliott, Julie Swayne, rh Mr Desmond rights legislation. It is rather important that I read part Eustice, George Swire, rh Mr Hugo of clause 1(1), so that the House understands this: Evans, Jonathan Vaizey, Mr Edward “Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Freeman, George Wallace, Mr Ben Act 1972, or any other enactment”. Garnier, Mark Webb, rh Steve Gwynne, Andrew This is a very simple Bill. It will say that this Government Young, rh Sir George Hancock, rh Matthew are sovereign, and absolutely have the right to return Jenkin, Mr Bernard Tellers for the Noes: home foreign prisoners who have committed an offence Johnson, Joseph Mr David Evennett and and are jailed. When they are sent back, they will be Jones, Susan Elan Greg Hands banned from coming back to this country. That is in clause 1(2), which refers to Question accordingly negatived. “measures to prevent an individual excluded under subsection (1) from entering the United Kingdom.” Where the law permits the removal of foreign prisoners, the Government are keen to do that, and they have done a lot of work on it; but when the Minister speaks, I think that we will find that, for various reasons, their desire to return foreign prisoners to where they came from is thwarted. Much of that is to do with human rights legislation. All the Bill does is remove that hurdle and deal with migration from the European Union. If someone who committed an offence in this country was sent back to the European Union, they would not be allowed back in. Those are simple measures that are understood out in the country. I hope that this is the sort of thing that will be dealt with when, after the 2015 election, a Conservative majority Government renegotiate the European Union superstate. I hope that the idea that we can decide to send people back and not let them back in will be a red line. 1235 Foreign National Offenders Bill6 MARCH 2015 Foreign National Offenders Bill 1236

Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): Does my What annoys people is that someone who has come hon. Friend not consider, on reflection, that his definition from abroad, committed a serious offence and been of “qualifying offence” is perhaps a little too wide? It sentenced to a significant number of years in prison can could include a serious motoring offence. claim, on the basis of his human rights, the right to remain in this country. People think that foreign criminals Mr Bone: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s who do that should be deported and not allowed back intervention, but no. A person who has been jailed for in. I know that the Minister will have figures on how up to five years for careless driving should be sent back. many we would like to send back, but that is a very We are considering situations where someone has received small proportion of the number of foreign prisoners a term of imprisonment. It is quite difficult to get a who could be sent home. I want to see all foreign term of imprisonment without doing something pretty prisoners sent home. seriously wrong. I am very clear on this point: if someone With reference to what my right hon. Friend said, if comes to this country, accepts our hospitality and then offenders have been convicted in a court, I am happy to abuses it by committing a criminal offence that leads to save money by having them deported rather than sent to imprisonment, they should be excluded from this country, prison or for them to be deported during their time in either at the end of the term of imprisonment or earlier, prison. We cannot allow them to claim that they have if the Government so wish. some right to stay here, having come into this country and abused our laws. It is such a simple Bill that I hope Sir Greg Knight: As I read my hon. Friend’s Bill, the there is not much opposition in the House and we can person concerned does not have to have been sent to quite quickly give it a Second Reading. prison; they just have to have committed an offence that “may” be punishable with imprisonment. 1.13 pm Mr Bone: My right hon. Friend raises an interesting Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab): When point. He is referring to clause 1(4): people come to Britain, they should abide by the law. “‘qualifying offence’ shall mean any offence for which a term of The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) is imprisonment may be imposed by a court of law.” right that those who abuse our hospitality and commit I think the intention is for that to apply to someone who serious crimes have no place in this country. Indeed, in would go to prison, having gone through the judicial my own constituency, if I am approached by someone system. The Government could at that stage say, “I’m seeking leave to remain in the country who, for example, sending you home, rather than you going to prison.” I has committed a serious crime and in particular has understand the argument that my right hon. Friend gone to prison, it is my practice to refuse to take the makes—that that may be imposed by a court of law. I case up with the Home Office. It is true to say, I think, sincerely hope he will consider serving on the Bill Committee that the whole House wants to see foreign criminals so that we can look at that in some detail. Now that we deported. have been granted an extra Friday—I am not sure The Prime Minister said that this would be a priority whether everyone in the House realises that we are for his Government, but as with so many promises he sitting on 20 March—and as there has been no real has made, he is not keeping to his word. Last year more explanation of why we are sitting on that day, I assume— than 500 fewer foreign criminals were removed than in Labour’s last year in office in 2009. On top of that, the Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Perhaps I National Audit Office released a scathing report in can help the hon. Gentleman. The sitting on 20 March October 2014 on the Home Office’s management of will be for the debate on the Budget, not for private foreign national offenders. It found that more than a Members’ Bills. third of failed removals were the result of factors within Home Office control. The factors included poor use of Mr Bone: I understand that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but IT, a lack of communication, failure to use the powers this is a wonderful place—a mystic place—and sometimes available, cumbersome and slow referral processes and things change. The Opposition might see the Budget as inefficiency in processing—the list goes on. A third of such a great thing that there was nothing they could failed removals could otherwise have been dealt with oppose. quickly and properly. Worse still, more criminals have absconded under Mr Deputy Speaker: I want to hear a discussion of this Government—a 6% increase since 2010. In its very the hon. Gentleman’s Bill, not of that Friday. interesting report, the NAO stated that we have worse systems in our country than other European countries Mr Bone: You are right, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am for preventing foreign criminals from entering in the usually misled by—egged on—no, I am not going there. first place, due in part to the delay in joining the I do not want to take up a lot of time because there is second-generation Schengen information system, which another very important Bill to be reached later. we finally joined only a month ago. Our joining was I am pretty sure that the sentiments represented by delayed because of the Home Secretary’s decision to the Bill are what the Government would like to do, but exercise the opt-out on co-operation with Europe—a the Minister might find that there are obstacles that he fact that put border security at risk and has longer-term thinks derive from the European Communities Act 1972 consequences for the safety and security of our country. or other enactments, but the Bill sweeps those away at a The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, therefore, to stroke. It would allow the Government to do what the make the argument that he makes today, and we agree British people want—for this place to be sovereign in that there need to be more stringent controls on foreign making the laws of this country. offenders, but we do not agree with the proposals in the 1237 Foreign National Offenders Bill6 MARCH 2015 Foreign National Offenders Bill 1238

Bill, even if we agree with the intentions. It would put documentation issues to make sure that identity is Britain in contravention of the European convention established and that foreign national offenders are returned on human rights at the very time we are arguing in having served their sentences. I entirely understand the foreign policy terms that countries such as Russia and points that my hon. Friend makes. In dealing with his Ukraine should respect the European convention, and Bill, I intend to set in context the changes that have been that countries such as Belarus should sign up to the undertaken, their ongoing impact, and the focus that convention. The Government’s legal advice on the matter remains absolutely at the forefront of our minds in has been clear. We agree with that advice and consequently Government in seeing that more foreign national offenders cannot vote for something that is illegal. are removed from this country. A similar proposal was debated in the course of the I must firmly rebut a number of the accusations Immigration Bill. The Home Secretary stated that it made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington was incompatible with the European convention on (Jack Dromey). Labour in government created a system human rights, and that she was concerned about the mired in bureaucracy where foreign national offenders practical application of the new clause, arguing that it were not considered appropriately, with systems established would under the legacy UK Border Agency that were not fit “effectively hinder our ability to deport people for a period of for purpose. It therefore ill behoves him to suggest that time because there would be considerable legal wrangling about there is any lack of rigour, focus or determination on the issue.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2014; Vol. 574, c. 1051.] the part of this Government to assure our borders and We support the principle behind the Bill that more to ensure that we have the appropriate checks in place foreign criminals should be deported, especially given to deal with the very serious issue of foreign national how poor the Government’s track record has been, but offenders. if the Bill were passed it might well have the unintended consequence of creating legal barriers to deportation as Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): My hon. foreign criminals tied up the courts with challenges to Friend will have seen page 25 of yesterday’s Daily Mail, their deportation. which had a full-page article headed “Europe’s most wanted”, saying that they are here in the United Kingdom. Mr Bone: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support It has pictures of 16 foreign criminals, mainly from for the principle, but he says that we cannot implement eastern Europe, many of whom have been convicted in it, basically because of the Human Rights Act. I guess their own countries, who are on the run in this country. he is saying that he would rather foreign prisoners What is being done about this? It seems as though stayed here because of the Human Rights Act than nothing much is being done about it. agree with the principle of getting them sent home. Is that the position of the Opposition? James Brokenshire: A significant amount is being done. We are preventing a number of foreign national Jack Dromey: We are absolutely in favour of a rigorous offenders from getting into this country in the first approach to dealing with a problem that has rightly place by strengthening the data that we have at our caused public outrage. There have been some very serious borders through our warnings index and making sure cases of foreign criminals who have come to our country, that our Border Force officers have that information. having committed appalling crimes in their own There is the impact of the Schengen information system— country, and then committed appalling crimes in this the new means by which we are able to gain advantage country. On the issue of principle, we are with the hon. from information from Europe such that people are Gentleman 101%. The question is what we do about it unable to get into this country in the first place. There in practical terms. I gave the examples from the National are also dedicated teams available to respond to those Audit Office report, which stated that a third or more of who abscond. the problems that had been identified were a consequence of Home Office practices. So we are in favour of a As my hon. Friend suggests, there is a further initiative sensible debate about a much more rigorous approach. to make the public aware. We have used that overseas to We agree with what the Government have said, but our identify British citizens on the run in other European concern is that we should not inadvertently create endless countries. I pay tribute to the work of the National wrangling in the courts; rather, we should try to improve Crime Agency in working with our counterparts in the system to ensure that those who commit serious Spain and with Crimestoppers to ensure that those who crimes are sent back to their country of origin. are fleeing justice in this country are apprehended and brought to justice in this country. A significant amount of work is being done in-country on identifying those 1.19 pm who would do us harm and on preventing people from The Minister for Security and Immigration (James coming in at the border—not forgetting those who are Brokenshire): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member fleeing justice from our shores and who need to be for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) on moving the Second brought to book here in this country. That is why this Reading of his Bill today. I understand and share his work is being undertaken. desire to be firm in respect of foreign nationals who come to this country and commit crime, abuse our Jack Dromey: I totally agree with the point about hospitality and create risk in our communities. strengthening our borders. No doubt the Minister will This Government have been firm in several ways in welcome our proposal for an additional 1,000 border making changes to the law and to the process—the guards. He says that the Government have dealt with manner in which we go about dealing with these issues. what he claims were past problems in relation to Labour’s We have other initiatives in policing and within the track record. They have been in power for five years. Home Office. We are also working cross-Government in Can he explain why more criminals have absconded doing our utmost, with other countries, to deal with under this Government—a 6% increase since 2010? 1239 Foreign National Offenders Bill6 MARCH 2015 Foreign National Offenders Bill 1240

James Brokenshire: I welcome the fact that the Opposition There has been some important and excellent cross- now apparently want to ensure that we have the governmental work to deal with those barriers to appropriate checks at the border. That was not the removal. experience when they were in government. Once this A range of measures and powers are used to remove Government came to power, we were able to have the foreign national offenders from the UK. The primary 100% checks at the border that were not there before. power is automatic deportation for non-European economic We scrapped the old UK Border Agency and created area nationals who are convicted in the UK and given a Border Force, with the focus, the culture and the agenda single custodial sentence of 12 months or more for one to have tough and rigorous checks at the border while conviction; or, where automatic deportation cannot be making sure that that is done efficiently and effectively applied, we can seek to deport on conducive grounds, to allow people to pass through, using technology to including looking at the cumulative effect of offending advance that process. and whether it is in the public interest to seek to deport. The hon. Gentleman referred to Labour’s promise of Once a person has been deported they are prohibited 1,000 extra border guards. That is virtually the only from entering the UK while the deportation order against promise or pledge that we have heard from Labour on them remains in force. A deportation order has no the important issue of immigration and tightening and expiry date: it remains in force indefinitely unless a securing our borders. Even so, surprisingly enough, the decision is taken to revoke it. That demonstrates the sums do not add up. The cost is apparently to be met by strength and purpose behind our existing deportation additional charges for those in electronic visa waiver system, and it is important to recognise that we have schemes. On our calculations, that would generate perhaps strengthened it further through the Immigration Act. an extra 20 or 30 border guards. There are also questions Border Force checks against the warnings index to about whether the scheme would cost more to administer identify whether anyone coming through our border is than it would deliver in revenue. I look forward to subject to those outstanding deportation orders. Perhaps hearing some further details from the Opposition as to that will reassure my hon. Friend that, under the existing how their numbers add up and how their proposal system, we are able to keep out people who have been would work. deported from this country. I want to highlight this Government’s record in having removed just under 5,100 foreign national offenders Mr Bone: I am grateful to the Minister for going into from the UK in the past year. That is against a backdrop this matter in such depth. I am reassured by what he of an increase of nearly 30% in litigation by those says, but—he can correct me if I am wrong—I do not seeking to game the system to delay their removal from think that that system applies to the European Union. the UK. Partly because of the delays that we inherited due to the legal system that we had, sometimes the James Brokenshire: I was planning to address that courts have allowed people to be discharged from custody specific point. My hon. Friend is right about the distinction in those circumstances. That is why we introduced the between EU and non-EU and how it applies to deportation. Immigration Act 2014 to speed up the process in terms However, I hope he will recognise the steps the Government of those rights, whereby if someone’s life is not at risk have taken to put in place re-entry bans. The right of or in danger, they can make these legal challenges, but free movement is part of a broader and bigger debate do so outside the UK. These important measures, to a than that related to the Bill and I certainly do not want large degree, deal with the underlying concerns that my to stray beyond it, Madam Deputy Speaker, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough has expressed hon. Friend’s intervention referred to our ability to keep in his Bill. The fact that we have, as I said, removed just out those who have been removed to other European under 5,100 foreign national offenders from the UK in countries. We have the right to impose a re-entry ban, the past five years is due to a great deal of attention and because free movement is not unqualified. Under the careful joint working among a number of Government existing requirement of free movement, a person has to Departments—the Home Office and colleagues in the exercise their right to work, to study or to set up a Ministry of Justice and the Foreign and Commonwealth business. If they do not exercise any of those rights and Office. abuse that power and our hospitality and freedoms by My hon. Friend’s Bill, as I read it, is intended to deal committing a crime, they should be removed and kept with the issue of exclusion—in other words, ensuring out, and our re-entry ban of one year helps us facilitate that once someone has been removed, they stay removed. that. We may well wish to return to the issue in the I will explain how the existing regulations and practice, fullness of time. both on EU and non-EU citizens, are intended to The Government’s approach was set out clearly by operate. There are a number of different aspects. To the Prime Minister in a speech just before Christmas, have a robust and rigorous system, we need a joined-up when he addressed those measures he wants to change system. in order to ensure that rights of free movement work in I will touch on the issue of preventing those who the best interests of this country. That is a broader should not be here from coming to this country in the debate than that on the specific issue of foreign national first place and the excellent work the police and offenders. others are doing to identify foreign national offenders. Last July, new powers came into force to stop criminals Confirming a person’s identity can be challenging. using weak family life arguments to delay their deportation. When we want someone to be removed, we need to The Government had already made clear that article 8 obtain a passport or other evidence in order to prove of the European convention on human rights should their identity; to get travel documents to ensure that not be used to place the family and private life rights of they can be deported; and to make sure that the receiving criminals above the rights of the British public to be country does not simply return them to our shores. protected from serious criminals. 1241 Foreign National Offenders Bill6 MARCH 2015 Foreign National Offenders Bill 1242

Section 19 of the 2014 Act put into statute the My hon. Friend sought to draw a distinction between principle that the law should be on the side of the public EU and non-EU citizens or, to use the technical terms, and that the starting point is to expect that foreign European economic area citizens and non-EEA citizens. criminals will be deported. The more serious the offence, It is important to understand that distinction. The free the greater the public interest in the criminal’s deportation. movement directive, by which all EU member states are Section 19 ensures that the courts can be in no doubt bound, provides that EEA nationals and their family about when the public interest requires the deportation members have certain rights to live and work in other of foreign criminals. EU countries. We also changed the law so that when there is no risk The UK has implemented the directive by way of the of serious irreversible harm, foreign criminals can be Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations deported first and have their appeal heard later. Those 2006, which provide the power to deport, exclude or who have an appeal right will be able to appeal only administratively remove EEA nationals and their family once. Last October, the number of grounds on which members from the UK. EEA nationals can be deported foreign criminals could appeal against their deportation from the UK on grounds of public policy, public security was cut from 17 to four. It is important to recognise that or public health. All EEA nationals who receive a the system that we inherited allowed appeal after appeal custodial sentence are considered for deportation or after appeal to delay removal and frustrate the justice administrative removal, including individuals who engage system. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough in persistent low-level offending. We take a robust approach understands the frustration that that built up and has when considering and pursuing the deportation of EEA recognised it in the Bill. national offenders, working within the terms of the We have changed the law and changed the rights of directive. appeal. We have also removed a significant number of A decision to deport cannot be made solely on the foreign national offenders year on year, despite having basis of a person’s previous criminal convictions and we to deal with the legal system we inherited and despite must balance other factors. Therefore if the Bill intends seeing a near 30% increase in the number of legal that an EEA national convicted of an offence in the UK challenges. Our changes are not about denying people a should be deported solely on the basis of that conviction, right of appeal, but about streamlining an appeals regardless of the nature of the offending and without system that offered too many bites of the cherry, took the assessment of the case’s individual circumstances or too long to conclude and, inevitably, led to foreign the proportionality of deportation action, it would not criminals remaining in the UK for longer than should be consistent with the freedom of movement directive. have been the case. My hon. Friend sets out his desire for a general We will always seek to deport serious foreign criminals. approach, but other issues are at play. This is a complex When the level of offending does not meet the threshold picture, and I have highlighted one element in the for deportation, we will take administrative action to freedom of movement directive. There is also the refugee remove offenders who have no right to be in the UK. convention, in which I know he has taken a long-standing Administrative removal is an effective outcome. Subject interest, and other provisions are contained in that. We to certain exceptions, foreign national offenders who must therefore understand when legislating in this House have received a custodial sentence can be administratively the number of different international obligations, removed from the UK and will face a mandatory refusal conventions, treaties—not to mention the European under the immigration rules on entry clearance or leave convention on human rights, which we can return to to enter the UK. later—that we would need to consider. Perhaps the issue is a little wider and more complex than the Bill The other power that is used to keep foreign national understands or recognises. offenders out of the UK is exclusion, although I suspect it is not the exclusion envisaged in the title of my hon. Mr Bone: I am grateful to the Minister for going into Friend’s Bill. To avoid any misunderstanding, exclusion that point as it goes to the heart of the Bill. That is why is a decision taken personally by the Secretary of State it states: that is used to prevent a foreign national who is outside “Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities the UK from entering the country. Exclusion decisions Act 1972,” are taken on the basis that the person’s exclusion from The basis of the Bill is to have a common approach so the UK is not conducive to the public good. As with a that someone from outside the EU is not treated one deportation order, an exclusion decision prohibits the way while those from within the EU are treated differently. person from entering the UK while it remains in force. I am not sure that the Government are supportive of It is similarly not time limited. that view. I think that my hon. Friend will recognise some of the ways in which we have used that power. Aside from James Brokenshire: Clearly, a distinction is drawn in cases of foreign criminals, we have used it to keep hate existing law between EU and non-EU, or EEA and preachers out of the country. This Government have non-EEA—my hon. Friend understands that—and we used exclusion to keep about 80 hate preachers out of must therefore consider our current obligations. He will this country, which is more than under any previous have a different view about the overarching relationship Government. I hope that that gives him some assurance with the EU, and that is a broader and bigger debate of on the firm and rigorous approach that the Government which this Bill is part. I know the clear views he has take in seeking to assure the security and safety of the expounded and will continue to expound, and I appreciate citizens of this country from foreign national offenders and recognise that. and others who would seek to foment tension in our Over the past year the Government have focused on communities and the criminality that may arise from increasing the volume and pace of deportation of EU that. national offenders, in some ways recognising some of 1243 Foreign National Offenders Bill6 MARCH 2015 Foreign National Offenders Bill 1244

[James Brokenshire] justice system have increased by more than 700%, including more than 72,000 since April 2014 by the Association of my hon. Friend’s points. For example, in July 2014, to Chief Police Officers criminal records office. The figure coincide with changes introduced through the Immigration in January alone was 11,745. With the increasing use of Act 2014 for non-EEA nationals, we amended EEA the European criminal records information system, those regulations so that for the first time an appeal against a figures will continue to rise. In the last financial year, deportation decision no longer automatically suspends checks were made on around 30% of foreign nationals the removal of an EEA offender. The Government arrested. We aim to double that to 60% by the end of recognise the distinctions drawn in international obligation this financial year. From November 2014, the Metropolitan and existing law, and we are making changes that respect Police Service has mandated 100% checks. By the end of and recognise that. Yes, those changes are also obligations, January, the, ACPO criminal records office estimates but where we have made changes on one side, we have that it was checking around 67% of foreign nationals sought to do so on the other side as well, and I would arrested nationally. point to that example. As a result of those changes, EEA national offenders can be removed back to their Sir Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con): The national member state where there is no risk of serious House will be grateful to the Minister for his very irreversible harm before the conclusion of the appeal thorough response, but I am sure he appreciates that he process. That concept of being able to remove someone would not like to offend the will of the House by and not have to wait for an appeal has been reflected on denying it the opportunity to debate the Bill that follows. the EEA side as well as the non-EEA side. May I invite him to consider the clock and allow a debate on Second Reading of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Mr Bone: The Minister is being generous, but why is (Repeal) Bill, given that his reply has been both thorough there a provision to stop someone going back to a and brilliant? European Union or EEA country? Surely all those countries must be regarded as safe places to return James Brokenshire: I recognise my right hon. Friend’s people to. interest in further business of the House, should this debate allow it to be possible. I hope he understands James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend will know that, that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough from time to time, judgments in our courts in relation to has brought a significant issue before the House. For prison conditions or other ancillary issues can be used, that reason, it is right that the Government give appropriate and argued in courts, to seek to prevent removal. It is scrutiny and consideration on Second Reading, to determine important to restate in our regulations that the measure whether the Bill should pass. Because of the complexities should have parity, in essence to provide certainty and and issues at hand—and the steps that the Government assurance if legal issues are raised by someone seeking have taken and the further steps that I would like us to to delay, defer or frustrate their removal on the grounds take as a majority Conservative Government with a that, in some way, the conditions on the ground in focus on dealing further with issues that arise from the another EEA member state should prevent them from European convention on human rights—I know that being removed. my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough would highlight and identify this point as a relevant issue in I come back to the issues I touched on at the outset of terms of the legal challenges that can be brought to try my contribution on ensuring that we have a system that to prevent people from being removed. That is why we joins up, so that we have that sense that it deals with all specifically dealt with the issue of article 8 in the the matters at hand in preventing people who have a Immigration Act 2014. criminal record from coming to this country in the first place. I have highlighted the introduction of the second Mr Bone: The Minister has convinced me not to generation Schengen information system, which will proceed with the Bill, so he does not need to continue to give us access to 35,000 alerts for people wanted for speak indefinitely. crimes within the EU. We will stop and arrest people at the border before they enter the UK and commit further James Brokenshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend crimes. That is the ability that the new Schengen information for indicating that he supports the Government’s approach system gives us. to this important issue. I welcome the opportunity that I should remind the hon. Member for Birmingham, we have had this afternoon to debate the issue. It is an Erdington (Jack Dromey), who speaks for the Opposition, issue of concern to the public and one on which the of the Government’s commitment and focus. We introduced Government have rightly focused in our work to date. the second generation Schengen information system. It We wish to do more through a British Bill of Rights is not about a delay or deferral on the basis of political under a Conservative Government after the general aspirations or focus, as he suggested. We have had to election because we think that is necessary. I welcome invest in and work through significant technical and the support that my hon. Friend has given the Government other system issues with the relevant agencies at EU and I hope that he understands that, although the level. We have shown that focus for many years. We have Government are unable to support the Bill, we recognise ensured that investment to ensure that we can join the the issues that he highlights and why we have taken the second generation Schengen information system from steps that we have. The issue will continue to have the April and have the benefits of it. That is why we have focus that I have outlined this afternoon. focused on seeing that that happens. Our ability to access information on overseas convictions Mr Bone: The Minister has given such a great explanation is also significantly improving. Under this Government, that I wish to withdraw the Bill. checks on foreign nationals going through the criminal Motion and Bill, by leave, withdrawn. 1245 6 MARCH 2015 Fixed-term Parliaments (Repeal) Bill 1246

Fixed-term Parliaments (Repeal) Bill achieving a wafer-thin majority. Jim Callaghan’s Government fell once the Scottish and Welsh nationalists Second Reading deserted the Labour Government after the devolution referendums of 1979. John Major governed with a very 1.52 pm slim majority between 1992 and 1997—don’t I remember— with by-election defeats making the Government live Sir Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con): I beg on an ever sharper knife edge. to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. The point is that all these Prime Ministers had the The Bill seeks to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments option, when the make-up of Parliament changed, to Act 2011, with effect from 8 May this year which, as pull the plug and seek a stronger mandate from the everyone will know, is the day after the general election. voters. Even when they chose not to, the House of A short-term fix can do long-term damage. So it is with Commons had the power to force their hand with a the decision to introduce fixed-term five-year Parliaments. simple vote of no confidence, as in 1979. The Fixed-term It might have been good for now, but it will turn out to Parliaments Act, however, erects new hurdles that make be bad for the future. it harder to dissolve Parliament midway through its Until recently, general elections were governed by the term, and as a result, it is a recipe for political horse Parliament Act 1911, which allowed for a maximum trading and coalition manoeuvrings, which, I maintain, parliamentary term of five years. Crucially, though, it will weaken, not strengthen public confidence in our afforded the sitting Prime Minister the authority to call politics and Parliament. an election at any time. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 changed that to a rigid five-year term, with no Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): I agree easy mechanism for shortening that period. Consequently, with absolutely everything my right hon. Friend is everyone has known for years that the date of the next saying. Does he recall that there was no commitment to election will be 7 May 2015. anything like this in the Conservative party manifesto The Prime Minister’s power to dissolve Parliament before the last general election? Indeed, the only proposal under the historic royal prerogative has—at least for the was that, should there be a change of Prime Minister, it time being—lapsed. The new fixed term of five years should trigger a general election within six months. can only be curtailed if two thirds of MPs vote for Dissolution, or if the House of Commons passes a vote Sir Alan Duncan: My hon. Friend is right. The debate of no confidence in one Government, but fails to pass a at the time concentrated on what would happen if a vote of confidence in an alternative one within a fortnight. Prime Minister changed in the course of the Parliament— We can all see why that was agreed. The only way a that has happened many times in our history, and I viable government could be formed after the 2010 election maintain that it is the right of Parliament to decide such was for Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to join as matters through the leaders chosen by parties. one to create a parliamentary majority. Let us be honest Because the policy was absent from our manifesto, about it: the Liberal Democrats needed to guard against the current coalition was negotiated behind closed doors, being wrong-footed by a Conservative Prime Minister even before the House had met after the election, but exercising his historic right to pick the election date and that will be as nothing compared to the public anger if choosing to do so at the worst time for the Liberal coalitions are formed, broken and reformed within the Democrats. A deal to agree how long the Government five-year term of a Parliament without any new election should last was therefore an essential part of the glue taking place to give them legitimacy and if the Act is that bound the Coalition together. The agreement to used as the excuse for not going back to the people, stay the course has served the country well, but a pushing power into the hands of politicians and denying permanent constitutional change will not. it to the people who give us our authority. If the A fixed term in office and predetermined election Government were to lose a confidence vote, the Prime dates might suit a presidency, but they do not, in Minister could not, as they could in the past, call an normal circumstances, suit a Parliament. Unlike a election and dissolve Parliament. Under the Act, the presidency, where the top person remains one and the Opposition would have a chance to cobble together same, Parliament is an organic institution. Its characteristics their own majority by wooing potential partners and and composition can change in one year, let alone five. doing what could be seen as unseemly deals by making Some MPs will die or resign; others may cross the promises to buy little pockets of support in the House. Floor, and in the course of our history, parties have All this would happen hidden from view in the corridors split or merged. Between elections, the nature of Parliament, of Westminster, with a ballot box nowhere in sight. In which underpins the energies and legitimacy of the this scenario, the leader of a smaller party acting as Government, can change dramatically. The pressures kingmaker could simply walk away from their coalition and changes in the Commons can be at their most acute partner and prop up the coalition without taking the when there is a tiny majority for the Government or, trouble to ask any voter for their opinion. worse, when there is no straightforward majority at all. However, if a party had a slim overall majority and There have been many occasions in our history when wished to refresh its mandate and ask the people for it has been best for the country to have a general their view, it could do so only by repealing the Act—which election at moments that would have been nigh-on would be the easier option—as I am trying to do, I hope impossible had we this Act. After the February 1974 with the foresight that seems to be lacking in the major election, Ted Heath tried unsuccessfully to hang on as parties, or by tabling a motion of no confidence in Prime Minister before accepting that the arithmetic was itself, a step that my right hon. and learned Friend the against him. The Wilson Government that took over Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) has described as an felt obliged to return to the polls just a few months later, act of voluntary euthanasia. Even if that were tried, it 1247 Fixed-term Parliaments (Repeal) Bill6 MARCH 2015 Fixed-term Parliaments (Repeal) Bill 1248

[Sir Alan Duncan] I had very valuable and close personal experience of another such demonstration of the falsity of the argument might not get through, because some in marginal seats in 1978, when I was Margaret Thatcher’s parliamentary might defy the Whip to vote against their own Government private secretary. We began our usual weekend tour in a in order to preserve their own lives in this House. That washing machine factory in Somerset. At about half-past is an argument I have heard echoed, from someone ten, I had to extract Margaret from her characteristic supporting the legislation, on the grounds—would you scientific and housewifely close inspection of a washing believe it, Madam Deputy Speaker?—that they cannot machine to tell her that No. 10 had just announced that get a mortgage for their second home unless they can Prime Minister Jim Callaghan would be making a commit to a five-year job. Thus, the constitutional ministerial broadcast at six o’clock that evening. It was, structure of this House and the laws we make are in of course, an electrifying moment. The news could some cases being determined by rational financial judgments mean only one thing: the Prime Minister was going to by Members of Parliament looking after their own call a general election. interests. Who can be said to be bought by money, So the day proceeded, with mounting excitement. except by looking at a case like that? It makes some of There were hugely growing crowds wherever we went, the other influences on this House look puny. and a hugely increased number of television crews. These are unintended, permanent consequences of Margaret always had a profound sense of Conservative an Act that was designed to fix a temporary problem. It party history, and we ended up, ready to deliver the is in every party’s interest and every voter’s interest to programmed evening speech, in Tamworth. There we have strong, accountable Government. To do so, all were, at 5.59 pm, in Margaret’s suite at the hotel, when, parties should realise that what was done—and for a on the dot, the expected courtesy call came through. good reason: to hold together this five-year coalition—is The operator said “The Prime Minister’s private secretary not going to work in the future and will have perverse is on the phone. He wishes to speak to Mrs Thatcher.” consequences. It compels all of us to combine now, Margaret, with wonderful aplomb, deputed her diary before it can be said to be in any one party’s interests, to secretary, Caroline Stevens, to take the call. Caroline repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and to make the took the call, which was very brief, and then said “Mrs change effective from the day after the election on Thatcher, the Prime Minister’s private secretary has 7May. asked me to tell you that at six o’clock the Prime I should make it clear that I have received significant Minister will make a broadcast announcing that he is indications of support, resting at the moment at between not going to call a general election.” No such ministerial 100 and 200 colleagues, on both sides of the House, of broadcast had ever been made before, and I do not all ages and from all sorts of constituencies, who say think one has been made since. that they think this was wrong. We do not know what If Jim Callaghan had gone to the country in October the outcome of the next election will be, but many think 1978, would he have won? At the time, most of the it will be less certain than many we have seen in the past. pundits agreed that it would have been a very, very If it is uncertain, this Act will render it even more so close-run thing. But, as we all know, after the winter of and will have very perverse influences over the proper that year—the winter of discontent—Jim Callaghan’s actions and complexion of the politics of this House. If Government was dead in the water by the following we do not repeal this Act now, we will all regret having May. to live with a law that was suitable for holding together The question with which the Bill presents us is this: one term of Parliament, but will turn out to be wholly what is the right choice once the Government of the day inappropriate for all of those that follow. have lost the confidence of this elected House, by however small a majority? Let it not be forgotten that, when we won a no confidence vote before the May 1979 election, 2.3 pm we won by a majority of just one. I am absolutely clear Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con): I in my own mind about what should not happen in such am very glad to follow my right hon. Friend the Member circumstances. No Government should be perpetuated for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) and the, to behind closed doors on the basis of “You scratch my my mind, wholly persuasive case he made for the repeal back and I’ll scratch yours”. There should be no of this legislation. negotiations between political leaderships with no reference to the House and with no reference whatever to the I should hold my hand up right at beginning. Like, I electorate. am sure, most if not all of us here, I think there are votes that with hindsight we regret. I did vote Aye on The crucial democratic principle must surely be that Second Reading of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act Bill, the day when an elected Government of this House lose believing that it was an issue that was worthy of debate the confidence of this House, by however small a majority, in the House, but I am glad to say that I abstained and is the day when it is for the British people and the refused to support the Government on Third Reading. British people alone to decide the future of the Government in a general election. The case that is made for fixed-term Parliaments rests in part on the assertion that if the Prime Minister is able to pick his or her spot to hold a general election, they 2.9 pm can do so to the best party political advantage of their Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab): I congratulate own party. The falsity of that argument was of course the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan conspicuously demonstrated in February 1974, when Duncan) on a stirring speech in which he spoke with Ted Heath decided to go to the country on “Who great authority. The freedom of the Back Benches has governs Britain?”, and the electorate in their wisdom allowed him to speak out on a great many issues, and I decided three weeks later: “Not you, Ted.” find myself agreeing with him uncomfortably often. 1249 Fixed-term Parliaments (Repeal) Bill6 MARCH 2015 Fixed-term Parliaments (Repeal) Bill 1250

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that having 2.14 pm fixed terms is a substantial departure, and not only for The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Joseph this Parliament: Parliaments and Assemblies in Scotland, Johnson): This short Bill would repeal the Fixed-term Wales and Northern Ireland are now moving towards Parliaments Act 2011 in its entirety. The Government the five-year fixed term, with important but limited have been consistent and clear since their formation caveats on when elections can take place—a two-thirds about their commitment to parliamentary reform and majority vote or a motion of no confidence. to making our system as transparent and fair as possible. Section 7 of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 Indeed, even before the formation of this Government, makes provision for these matters to be revisited in there were references in all three of the major parties’ 2020, which is not that far away, albeit clearly not manifestos to reform of this nature. If I may, I shall sufficient for the right hon. Gentleman and others who refresh hon. Members’ memories on this front. The have spoken today. I am not going to rehearse at length Labour manifesto stated: the arguments for and against fixed-term Parliaments, “We will legislate for Fixed Term Parliaments”. as they are well known. I certainly cannot match the anecdotes of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and The Liberal Democrats said that they would Malling (Sir John Stanley), but I can try to be a proceduralist “Introduce fixed-term parliaments to ensure that the Prime and statistical and say there is some evidence from the Minister of the day cannot change the date of an election to suit themselves.” university of Oxford that over the past 70 years the ability of a Prime Minister to choose his time has, The Conservatives said that they would make the use of notwithstanding the mistakes Edward Heath and James the Callaghan may have made, on the whole given an “Royal Prerogative subject to greater democratic control so that advantage amounting to an estimated 6% of public Parliament is properly involved in all big national decisions”. support, which is not insignificant. That last statement would certainly give cover for the I think civil servants are very fond of fixed-term introduction of fixed-term Parliaments, which we went Parliaments—I suspect that might be an argument on to do. against—and in terms of certainty and allowing better planning, fixed-term Parliaments are an asset. I could Mr Chope: If those words mean what the Minister tell a small story of my own here. In 2007, when there thinks they mean, how can they be consistent with the was some rumour of a general election being called, I specific pledge in the Conservative party manifesto that remember disappearing into the tunnel on the Eurostar within six months of a change of Prime Minister there with an announcement imminent, and I came out the should be a general election? other end not knowing whether we were in the middle of a general election campaign or not. I mention that Joseph Johnson: The wording was obviously broad in only to say that although a lot is said about the time its scope—[Laughter.] It could be interpreted in a wasted in prolonging Parliament, quite a lot of time number of ways, and it might have had specific reference and nervous energy is wasted in planning for elections to the Executive powers relating to declaring wars, that never happen. armed conflicts and so on. However, it certainly gives a Perhaps the main argument against fixed-term degree of cover for the introduction of fixed-term Parliaments is what we have seen over the past year, in Parliaments. what has been called the zombie Parliament. The rather The Fixed-term Parliaments Act was introduced to sad way in which business has been dragged out and has remove the prerogative power of dissolution through collapsed or has been of an insubstantial nature has not fixing parliamentary terms for the first time in general been a great credit to this House. I am not sure, however, election history. The Government believe that there are that one can draw the conclusion from that that is numerous advantages to fixing parliamentary terms. entirely the fault of fixed-term Parliaments, or fixed-term First, the Act prevents the incumbent Prime Minister Parliaments of a particular length. It might simply be from calling a general election to their own schedule—for due to the way this Government have conducted their example, when their popularity is particularly high or business. In the Labour party manifesto of 2010 there when it is to their party’s advantage to do so. This was a proposal to move towards fixed-term Parliaments, enhances the democratic status and standing of our but of a four-year duration. That was our preference, political system overall. The Government believe that it and it may be our preference again in the future. was wrong that Prime Ministers were able to use their position by choosing to hold general elections to their I believe that, given what is in the 2011 Act, the best own schedule, and the Political and Constitutional Reform course of action is to wait until 2020 and see what Committee also acknowledged this as a key reason for happens, and then take a slightly more considered view the Act. than can be taken in the course of one Parliament on whether fixed-term Parliaments are working and five Secondly, removing this power from the Executive years is the appropriate length of time. The right hon. and giving it to Parliament enhances the democratic Member for Rutland and Melton, who has more experience credentials of our political system overall, as Parliament and wisdom than I do in these matters, might be entirely alone can trigger an early election. It was the view of right. I simply say that I think it is a little precipitate, the PCRC that this significant surrender of Executive having gone through the process of getting us to where power was arguably unprecedented in this country’s we are, immediately to reverse that decision. There history. might be an overwhelming consensus—not just one of 100 or 200—for reform again when we get to that stage, Mr Chope: But that is not correct. Parliament can do but for the present purposes I say that we are, reluctantly, that only if there is a two-thirds majority, and even then unable to support his Bill. it cannot force a general election because, following the 1251 Fixed-term Parliaments (Repeal) Bill6 MARCH 2015 Fixed-term Parliaments (Repeal) Bill 1252

[Mr Chope] There is no sense in which this can be described as a zombie Parliament, given not only the quantity of Bills, vote of no confidence, it would still be open to the but their quality and that of the scrutiny to which they Executive and the Opposition to put together some sort have been subjected. This Government have published of deal. We effectively have a five-year Government more Bills and measures in draft for pre-legislative dressed up as a five-year Parliament. scrutiny than has been done in any other Parliament, and we have more than doubled the number of Bills Joseph Johnson: There is a degree of flexibility in the receiving multiple days of scrutiny on Report in this provisions that allows for the premature dissolution of House. Parliament, and various scenarios are possible, including the one to which my hon. Friend has alluded. Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): The Minister is clear about the great progress we have made in this In addition, the Act provides a number of useful Parliament on scrutiny, but he has left out one thing. He advantages to the Government, Parliament and wider has not mentioned the business of the House committee, society. Not only does it provide greater predictability which we pledged to introduce within the first three and continuity, enabling better long-term legislative and years. It has not been introduced, so what happened financial planning; it also provides much greater political there? stability. That is not the stability of the graveyard or a zombie Parliament, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith Joseph Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for his (Mr Slaughter) alleged in his speech; quite the contrary. intervention. I am just about to address this Government’s This is not a zombie Parliament; the Government have reforms to the workings of Parliament and they touch shown themselves to be active all the way through to on some of the themes I think he is interested in. these last few weeks. Parliament exists to ensure: that the Government are Let us look at some of the statistics. In this Parliament, held to account; that the nation, in all its diversity, can the House is due to sit for more days than in any of the have its voices heard; and that issues that matter to all, three Parliaments under the last Administration. In the not just those in power, can be aired. In that respect, 2010-15 Parliament, we will sit for 734 days, compared this Parliament has been signally more successful than with 718 days in the 2005-2010 Parliament, 585 days many of its predecessors. Half the business— between 2001 and 2005, and 643 days between 1997 and 2001. By the end of March, 23 Bills will have been Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing): Order. passed in this Session alone, of which four have received Before the hon. Gentleman continues, may I say that Royal Assent: the Finance Bill; the Data Retention and although he is, of course, speaking perfectly in order, it Investigatory Powers Bill; the Childcare Payments Bill; is only fair to give him advance warning that discussion and the Wales Bill. That compares with the 13 Bills in of the business of the House committee would not the last Session of the last Parliament under the Labour strictly come under the Bill before us? He has given Government. notice that he intends to address that issue, but I do not think he does intend to do so now. I am certain that he Fixed terms have allowed us to plan the legislative has many more issues that he wishes to address. programme effectively and ensure that we have enough time for full parliamentary scrutiny, which is essential in Joseph Johnson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. our model of representative democracy. In this Session I shall skate past that issue. alone, we will have legislated on: modern slavery; consumer rights; reforming stamp duty; tackling serious crime; Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con): I wish to put on the supporting working families with child care costs; reforming record the fact that having opposed this Bill—not the pensions; devolving powers to Wales and Northern one before us, but the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, Ireland; and counter-terrorism. The list goes on, but I before it was enacted—at every point on the compass, I wish to pick out three Bills as emblematic in demonstrating entirely support what my right hon. Friend the Member why this is not the zombie Parliament the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) is proposing for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) claims it is. and I am entirely unconvinced by the arguments that there has been a substantial amount of movement by The Infrastructure Bill, as was, will provide a £3.9 billion the Government on any of these matters. boost to the economy over the next 10 years by improving the funding and management of our major roads, Joseph Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for his streamlining the planning process for major projects intervention. Obviously, it is now on the record that he and supporting house building. The Small Business, previously opposed this Bill— Enterprise and Employment Bill backs entrepreneurs who run our small businesses—they are the backbone Sir William Cash: Not this Bill! of our economy—and those who are looking for work. The Bill cracks down on costly tribunal delays, sets a Joseph Johnson: The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. deregulation target for each Parliament and helps Let me return to my thread. Half of the business of businesses to get credit from banks, ensuring they expand Parliament is now decided by Parliament rather than and create jobs. The Pension Schemes Bill, as was, the Executive—far more than ever before. Before 2010, contains reforms that are the biggest transformation of Back Benchers controlled no time at all and could not our pensions system since its inception and will give initiate substantive motions or debates. Now, most people both freedom and security in retirement. By no Thursdays are taken up by debates chosen by the MPs longer forcing people to buy an annuity, we are giving who form the Backbench Business Committee, not them total control over the money they have put aside Ministers. Back Bencher-initiated debate on questions over their lifetime and greater financial security in their such as cervical cancer, contaminated blood and mental old age. health have ensured that unfashionable but vital issues 1253 Fixed-term Parliaments (Repeal) Bill 6 MARCH 2015 1254 are properly aired on the Floor of the Commons. Of Is the Fixed-term Parliaments Act too prescriptive? course, a significant amount of time allocated for Commons That question was asked, and although the Government business is also given to the Opposition for the debates are of the view that early or late general elections they choose on the questions they consider vital. should be avoided, the Act is sufficiently flexible to The Procedure Committee recommends that there cater for those rare but unavoidable situations in which should be broadly 150 days in a Parliamentary Session. an earlier or later general election is required. Under the Of these, 20 days are allocated to the Opposition, 27 to Act the Prime Minister of the day can lay an order the Backbench Business Committee, three to estimates, before both Houses to extend the date for a maximum five to the Queen’s Speech, four to the Budget and of two months to deal with unexpected developments, 13 for private Members’ Bills. That leaves 78 of the although they must spell out their reasons for taking 150 days in Government control, but some of that will that step. include House business, which the Government introduce. In addition, the Act provides for early elections to be As a result, in this Parliament the Government have called if a motion is agreed by at least two thirds of the controlled just over half the time allocated for debate, a House or without Division, or if a motion of no confidence lower percentage than ever before. That is not a zombie is passed and no alternative Government are provided Parliament. It is a democratic Parliament, in which the by the House within 14 days. This procedure builds in power of the Executive is limited and the role of those the necessary safeguards that will avoid future Prime holding the powerful to account is augmented. Ministers routinely attempting to call early elections. On top of the amount of time that the Government Although early evidence shows that the certainty that allocate to others for debate is the amount of time that the Act brings has many benefits—for example, in work Mr Speaker allocates to others to hold the Government’s planning—it will be for the next Government to examine feet to the fire. This is not a zombie Parliament when it how the Act has operated in this Parliament. Not only comes to how Mr Speaker and his Deputy Speakers will such an appraisal help the next Government in their have used their power to grant any Members the right own work planning, but it will help to inform any to ask urgent questions, initiating mini-emergency debates amendment that might be needed— on any topic or issue by calling the relevant Minister to the Floor of the Commons. So far in this Parliament, 2.30 pm there have been 148 urgent questions. In the 2005 to The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 11(2)). 2010 Parliament there were 50, and in 2001 to 2005 Ordered, That the debate be resumed on Friday 20 March. there were just 40. So, there has been a 270% growth in that use, the opposite of what one might expect in a zombie Parliament. Business without Debate Sir William Cash: I hear what my hon. Friend the Minister says, but there is a need to reform this Parliament ROAD FUEL PRICING (EQUALISATION) BILL as well. Some of the things that he is saying might be of Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second some interest to some people, but there are those of us time. who believe that the whipping system, which results in Bills not being properly considered and being given Hon. Members: Object. programme motions that prevent Members from debating Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 20 March. essential questions, is a complete travesty. When he is considering these matters, will he propose reforms to deal with the Whip system as well? HOUSEHOLD SAFETY (CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS) BILL Joseph Johnson: Bills not receiving proper scrutiny, if Resumption of adjourned debate on Question that is indeed the case, lies to a great extent in the hands (12 September), That the Bill be now read a Second of the Opposition rather than the Government, in the time. sense that 70% of Bills have completed their passage through the House without having exhausted the time Hon. Members: Object. available to them in Committee. The Government are Debate to be resumed on Friday 27 March. making plenty of time available for scrutiny, but the Opposition are failing to take advantage of it. In addition to all these merits, the Act provides a WORKING TIME DIRECTIVE (LIMITATION) number of useful advantages to Government, Parliament BILL and wider society. It provides greater predictability and Resumption of adjourned debate on Question continuity, enabling long-term legislative and financial (23 January), That the Bill be now read a Second time. planning. It gives those institutions whose work is affected by Parliament or Government much greater scrutiny. Hon. Members: Object. The timing of polls is now known and there will be less Debate to be resumed on Friday 20 March. concern about policies or procedures being implemented that might only have a short-term or rather narrow self-interested objectives. BAT HABITATS REGULATION BILL The Act also brings to an end the political and media Resumption of adjourned debate on Question speculation about the likely date of the next election, a (16 January), That the Bill be now read a Second time. feature of previous general election build-up periods that has all too often been an unhelpful distraction to Hon. Members: Object. the work of government. Debate to be resumed on Friday 20 March. 1255 Business without Debate 6 MARCH 2015 1256

DEFENCE EXPENDITURE (NATO TARGET) Housing Association Transfer Ballots BILL Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (9 January), do now adjourn.—(Greg Hands.) That the Bill be now read a Second time. 2.33 pm Hon. Members: Object. Debate to be resumed on Friday 20 March. Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab): I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate. I confess that I had hoped to see on the Front Bench the Minister CONVICTED PRISONERS VOTING BILL responsible for housing, but it is always a pleasure to see Resumption of adjourned debate on Question the Deputy Leader of the House. To accommodate him (5 December), That the Bill be now read a Second time. to an extent, he has had sight of the points that I want to make, given that I assume that, as a London MP, he Hon. Members: Object. has volunteered to cover for his hon. Friend and given Debate to be resumed on Friday 20 March. how difficult these occasions are for colleagues outside the capital with commitments to family, friends and constituents. BENEFIT ENTITLEMENT (RESTRICTION) BILL) The key question that I will ask is whether council Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second tenants, who have the right to vote to transfer out of time. local authority control to housing association control, should also have the right to sack that housing association Hon. Members: Object. for poor performance and/or failure to deliver on their Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 20 March. promises. I would be grateful to the Minister for any answer to that. I will return to that question several times. ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (CRIMINAL However, first I would like to cover some of the SANCTIONS) BILL history. In 1997, when Labour came to power, there Resumption of adjourned debate on Question were some 2 million homes below the decency threshold. (24 October), That the Bill be now read a Second time. Local authorities had difficulty raising capital and addressing the difficulties. Housing associations provided Hon. Members: Object. an opportunity to refurbish run-down estates that had Debate to be resumed on Friday 20 March. lacked investment for years—in some cases, decades. To a certain extent, that is why house building was secondary in the initial years of the Labour Government. HOUSE OF LORDS (MAXIMUM MEMBERSHIP) BILL In my constituency of Poplar and Limehouse, there were over 20 ballots to transfer out of local authority Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second control, and the vast majority of those votes were won. time. There was huge investment and transformation; many blocks, streets and estates got new kitchens, bathrooms, Hon. Members: Object. double glazing, central heating, and security, and there Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 20 March. was good property management on many estates. In Poplar and Limehouse, there are 15 main housing EU MEMBERSHIP (AUDIT OF COSTS AND association providers. I would categorise five of those BENEFITS) BILL as excellent to good, five as good to average, and five as average to poor. The key question that I asked the Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second Minister at the beginning, and that many of my constituents time. are seeking an answer to, is: can poor providers that have failed to deliver be sacked, and can tenants vote for Hon. Members: Object. another housing association, or to revert to local authority Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 20 March. control? The principle is straightforward. In any other contract, WILD ANIMALS IN CIRCUSES BILL whether it relates to a service, a purchase, or a business, Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second the person who signed up to the contract can return the time. goods, implement sanctions, seek compensation or sack the company delivering the goods, just as Members of Hon. Members: Object. Parliament can be sacked on 7 May at the general election; voters will determine whether we have delivered Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 20 March. for them, as an individual or a member of a political party.There is an interesting comparison with leaseholders. Those who purchased properties under the right to buy are obliged to contribute to refurbishment. Many of those situations are problematic. Tower Hamlets Homes in my constituency is addressing a number of those types of problems, and we are grateful for that. On leasehold estates, where there is the most private new build in east London, leaseholders have the right to 1257 Housing Association Transfer Ballots6 MARCH 2015 Housing Association Transfer Ballots 1258 manage their own estate. It is easier done in theory than The National Housing Federation describes affordable in practice, but they can have a ballot and sack their housing as one of the biggest challenges for London. In property management company, or the company running 2012 in the mayoral election one of the biggest policy the estate; it has been done. That prompts the question: differences between Labour and the Conservatives was if it is okay for private leaseholders to sack their property that Labour proposed that any new developments should management company, why is it not right for tenants of be 50% social housing, including social rented, key registered social landlords to sack their housing association, worker, shared equity and first-time buyers housing. which fulfils many of the same functions? New developments should not be all private. The Conservatives’ policy was that developers and local The Minister will probably know that the right hon. authorities should be able to negotiate, but basically Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) and that the market would decide. I apologise to the Deputy me, ably led by the hon. Member for Worthing West Leader of the House for the fact that I do not know (Sir Peter Bottomley), have done quite a bit of work on what the Lib Dem policy was. I suspect that it was leasehold reform. I am happy to say that Ministers at closer to ours than to that of the Conservatives, but I the Department for Communities and Local Government may be wrong. have engaged very positively with this. They acknowledge the loopholes for unscrupulous management companies, What we want is not gated estates or ghettos for rich and we are hopeful that we can make more progress in and poor, although obviously price will make some the months and years ahead to give leaseholders better properties unavailable to many people in society and rights under the law. there will always be some division. We do not want artificial barriers between rich and poor, or people The whole issue of redress for housing association being forced to leave their communities and families. tenants not only seems worth examination but demands We want mixed communities. The Homes for Britain an answer. I am advised that Councillor Joshua Peck on campaign states that housing is one of the biggest issues the London borough of Tower Hamlets Labour group facing not only London, but Britain. The campaign, has called a special meeting of the council’s overview supported by many of my excellent housing associations and scrutiny committee on Monday 16 March to in Poplar and Limehouse, including Poplar Housing address serious problems in at least three housing and Regeneration Community Association, Tower Hamlets associations, including One Housing Group and Circle Community Housing and Eastend Homes, acknowledges Housing. However, it is not clear what powers the local that all the political parties agree that we need to build authority has, apart from the power to remove those more homes. The alternative is spiralling costs and housing associations from the council’s list of preferred unaffordable homes for far too many people, in the partners. The Minister might be able to give us some capital at least. clarity on that. I recognise that the Minister present is not the Minister responsible for housing; obviously, I However, that pressure leads to anomalies. On the would be very happy to get a written response in due Isle of Dogs, around the towers of Canary Wharf in my course on any issues that I raise that this Minister constituency, developers are trying hard to get planning cannot respond to. approval ahead of an agreed master plan for the area. There is keen local concern and worry about the scale, Do the Government believe that the abolition of the the pace and the density of development and the increased Tenant Services Authority in 2010 was a mistake? The pressure on local services—on schools, GP surgeries authority was empowered to help tenants, but its abolition and transport services, all of which are already under seems to have left a void. Are the powers of the Homes huge pressure. Councillor Rachael Saunders, leader of and Communities Agency adequate? It seems to be able the Labour group, with support from the other political to issue criticism, but tenants ask what it can actually parties, is doing all she can within the confines of the do. What are the powers of the housing ombudsman? Is law as it stands, but before the master plan, developers that the appropriate body to which to address complaints have greater opportunities. As opposed to some about weaknesses, mistakes and poor performance of developments, such as the development at Wood Wharf housing associations? Councillor Marc Francis has by Canary Wharf, where the developer has fully engaged documented the failures of One Housing Group in with the council, some developers do not engage with particular. There is a history of Government involvement the local authority and those pressures are felt keenly. in pressing that organisation not only to up its game, but to accept that it has weaknesses, rather than being Even One Housing Group is said to be looking to in denial about its failure to deliver to tenants who are replace its four estates of 2,000 homes with 8,000 to paying it good money. 10,000 homes. One might expect unscrupulous property- driven developers to try to cash in unfairly, and we look Opinion solicited from the university of East London to the council to do all it can to rein them in. But for a legal advice centre for Councillor Dave Chesterton housing association to be operating the same practices suggested, somewhat ambiguously, that there is no right is disappointing, to say the least. to sack poorly performing housing associations. In a Many proposed developments will have much higher nine-page document the School of Business and Law population densities than the recommended 1,100 habitable legal advice centre, in response to Councillor Chesterton’s rooms per hectare. I know that the Minister has this question, stated: information because we sent him a copy this morning. “You therefore seek advice in order to inform the tenants of One of the main legal questions we wanted to ask, with these estates whether they are entitled to a re-ballot...Weregret which we supplied him, was about part 2, chapter 7, that our research did not lead us to any legal authority to enable sections 192 to 269 of the Housing and Regeneration us to advise you favourably on the legal question you posed.” Act 2008, which suggests that tenants could have been I thank UEL for the research, but the question remains empowered to sack or recall their housing associations wide open and it lies at the door of the Minister. and failing providers. I would be grateful if the Minister 1259 Housing Association Transfer Ballots6 MARCH 2015 Housing Association Transfer Ballots 1260

[Jim Fitzpatrick] than in 2009. I am pleased to say that house building is now at its highest level since 2007. We have recovered could give a response to that today, but otherwise I from the crash, in terms of house building. would be happy to receive a written response in due The hon. Gentleman referred to stock transfers, which course. have played an important role in providing investment Housing is one of the most basic human needs; it is in housing stock. As a result of the transfers that have crucial for well-being and development. It needs not taken place in his borough and elsewhere, transformations only to be built and maintained well but to build have been carried out, improving local communities communities and not ghettoes. Thousands of people in and quality of life for tenants. Poplar and Limehouse, Tower Hamlets and all over east Since 1988, about 1.3 million former council homes London need regulated protection. That does not currently have been transferred to the ownership of housing exist, whether for leaseholders or for former council associations. That has enabled billions of pounds of tenants in properties that are now run by housing investment in bringing homes up to a decent standard. associations. I hope that the Minister can clarify this It has also supported the delivery of thousands of new area of considerable concern and give us some hope affordable homes by the newly created housing associations, that there is a solution we can look forward to. although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is not enough. There is a cross-party consensus—I think it 2.46 pm will be identified in all the party manifestos—that there is a need to do something about housing, particularly The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of affordable housing. Every party—my party, the hon. the House of Commons (Tom Brake): I congratulate the Gentleman’s party and the Conservative party—has set hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) out what it wants to achieve. on securing this debate. I thank him for providing the notes for his speech so that I will, I hope, be able to The hon. Gentleman made specific reference to part 2, respond directly to the points that has raised, albeit chapter 7 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, perhaps not with the answers that he is hoping for. If he under which enforcement powers are open to the Homes feels at the end of the debate that there are points that I and Communities Agency regulator to use in dealing have not addressed, I will be happy to ensure that the with a failing or failed provider. They are not open to Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local tenants. In the housing association sector, however, Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol tenants’rights are protected through a range of mechanisms. West (Stephen Williams), who apologises for not being That leads me to the points the hon. Gentleman here, provides a written response. made about the abolition of the Tenant Services Authority I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the work and the role of the HCA regulator. The enactment of that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Localism Act 2011 abolished the TSA and transferred Energy and Climate Change is doing with him in relation its remaining functions to the HCA. It also significantly to leaseholders. I think all Members of Parliament will scaled back the regulator’s role in the proactive monitoring be aware of the difficulties that leaseholders often face, and enforcement of consumer protection standards. so we would all welcome any reform that can come The rationale for that is that the vast majority of through that work. landlord-tenant issues are locally based. They are most effectively resolved at a local level by tenants and their The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the decent representatives, not by a national regulator. homes initiative, which was initiated by his party in government. That was a good, sound programme. Rightly, The Act gave back to tenants and their representatives however, he noted that in its initial stages it may have the power to hold landlords to account, giving MPs, meant that the building of new properties was not councillors and recognised tenant panels a formal role taking place. We are all trying to catch up with that now. in resolving complaints at a local level. That can include It was certainly a very important programme. In my referring complaints to the housing ombudsman if they borough, it is still ongoing. As part of that, there is lots cannot be resolved locally. The housing ombudsman, of scaffolding up on the St Helier estate to provide new and the tenants themselves, can, of course, raise specific roofs. concerns with the HCA regulator. The regulator does not have powers to mediate in or resolve individual The hon. Gentleman touched on affordable housing. cases, but will investigate where there is evidence of I think we are in agreement about that. Unfortunately, I serious detriment and, in extremis, have far-reaching am underwhelmed by what the Mayor has achieved in powers to intervene where there is evidence of serious that respect in London. Relatively few properties have mismanagement. The regulator has the powers to initiate been built, and there is clearly a strong demand for that. a statutory inquiry if it feels that to be necessary, and The hon. Gentleman rightly focused this debate on that can lead to muscular interventions in the housing the significant issue of whether tenants have the right to association management structures or to forced mergers throw out their housing association. I will give him a or takeovers where the boards are not fit for purpose. I very clear response to that shortly. am glad to say that the regulator rarely needs to use I agree that we need to build more homes and fix the such powers. housing market. The Government’s measures on the I now turn to the hon. Gentleman’s specific question economy are part of that. In ensuring that the economy about One Housing Group and sacking housing is working, we are getting the investment that is needed associations. I am afraid that, as his legal advice suggests, into the housing market and keeping interest rates there are no powers available for tenants to sack or fire down for home buyers. The situation is starting to turn their housing associations. Clearly, I do not wish to round. Since 2010, over half a million homes have been underestimate the impact felt by the individuals whose built, and there are now 700,000 more homes in England lives are affected by mergers of the members of One 1261 Housing Association Transfer Ballots6 MARCH 2015 Housing Association Transfer Ballots 1262

Housing Group, or what they may see as very real previous Administration the number of social rented grievances. However, it would not be appropriate for the homes fell by 420,000 between 1997 and 2010. Government to intervene in individual cases of this With £19.5 billion of public and private investment, nature. our affordable homes programme is on track to deliver The Localism Act placed the power to scrutinise 170,000 new affordable homes between 2011 and 2015, landlords’ performance and hold them to account back and more than 144,000 homes have already been delivered. in the hands of tenants and their elected representatives. Another £38 billion of public and private investment Where the ombudsman finds in favour of a complainant, will help ensure that 275,000 more new affordable homes it may order the landlord to pay compensation or take are provided between 2015 and 2020. I hope that all other steps to provide redress. I should make it clear, parties and future Governments will sign up to that. It however, that the role of the Ombudsman is focused on means that over the next Parliament we will build more the provision of housing services by landlords. Its role new affordable homes than during any equivalent period does not extend to constitutional changes within housing in the past 20 years. associations. I have directly addressed the hon. Gentleman’s specific On affordable housing supply, overall this Government’s question and I am afraid that the answer is no. I will approach to the sector has been appropriate and is conclude by encouraging him to contact me again if he delivering results. Despite the fiscal constraints, we have feels I have not addressed any of his points adequately. secured capital resources for affordable housing. Almost Question put and agreed to. 217,000 affordable homes have been delivered in England since April 2010. In comparison—the hon. Gentleman 2.55 pm may have referred to these figures himself—under the House adjourned.

83WS Written Statements6 MARCH 2015 Written Statements 84WS

cash holdings as reasonable. Academies cannot borrow Written Statements and need to hold enough cash to manage their solvency prudently. Friday 6 March 2015 In January 2015 I answered two parliamentary questions (219279 and 219280) relating to the cash reserves held by academies and free schools. I would like to use this opportunity to provide additional information for individual DEFENCE academies and free schools and to provide corrected figures for reserves held by academy and free school trusts. Support to Ukraine Reserves held by academies In answering parliamentary question 219279, I provided details of academy trusts’ cash holdings for the financial The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon): years 2010-11 to 2013-14. Academy trusts can of course I have today laid before Parliament a Ministry of include more than one academy, and on reflection it is Defence Departmental Minute describing a gifting more useful and relevant to provide figures covering all package which the UK intends to make to the individual academies as follows: Government of Ukraine. Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and its destabilising Number of Average cash activities in eastern Ukraine, including direct military academies Total cash, per academy, support to the separatists, have demonstrated its disregard Date open £ millions £ thousands for international law. The latest ceasefire agreement, 31 March 2011 469 62 132 reached in Minsk on 12 February and which came into 31 March 2012 1,664 1,199 721 force on 15 February, has seen a reduction in violence in 31 March 2013 2,823 1,859 659 the conflict zone. We very much hope it will help end 31 March 2014 3,905 2,469 632 the conflict. However, fighting has not ceased in some areas and there continue to be fatalities and casualties The above table shows that average academies’ cash among the Ukrainian armed forces. holdings increased between 2010-11 and 2011-12 and This Government are committed to supporting Ukraine’s then decreased in the following years to 2013-14. This is sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. As a due to many smaller academies opening more recently result of their prolonged engagement in this conflict, and holding less cash. the Ukrainians face a serious shortage of basic equipment, A corrected version of the table in my original answer and have requested help. to PQ 219279 is below. This table is less representative Our proposed gift of non-lethal equipment is designed than the above table, as it does not show the average to prevent further Ukrainian fatalities and casualties cash held at an individual academy level. and to help improve situational awareness on the ground. The Departmental Minute, which I have today laid Average cash before Parliament, describes a gifting package to the Number of per academy academies Total cash, trust, Ukrainian armed forces that will comprise five priority Date1 trusts open £ millions £ thousands items that are needed which will provide immediate benefits. These items are individual first aid kits, global 31 March 2011 377 62 165 positioning systems (GPS) units, helmet-mounted 31 March 2012 1,524 1,199 787 monocular night vision goggles (MNVGs), ruggedised 31 March 2013 2,108 1,859 882 laptops, and Mk6 helmets. Subject to completion of the 31 March 2014 2,585 2,469 955 Departmental Minute process, delivery is expected to be undertaken over the coming weeks. The total cost of this proposed package of equipment is approximately Reserves held by free schools £850,000, including transportation and contingency costs. In answering parliamentary question 219280, I provided This gifting package is being provided alongside other details of cash holdings for free schools that are part of training activities, which are being delivered by UK a free school single academy trust for the financial years military personnel to the Ukrainian armed forces. 2011-12 to 2013-14. On reflection, it is more relevant to [HCWS354] provide details of all free schools that are part of a free school academy trust, as follows. This includes free schools that are part of multi-free school academy trusts. EDUCATION Average cash Number of per free school free schools in inafree Reserves held by Academies and Free Schools free school school academy Total cash, academy trust, Date trusts £ millions £ thousands

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education 31 March 2012 19 2 105 (Mr Edward Timpson): There has been some recent 31 March 2013 59 8 136 interest in the level of cash reserves held by academies 31 March 2014 129 26 202 and free schools. The Government regard academies’ 85WS Written Statements6 MARCH 2015 Written Statements 86WS

The Education Funding Agency (EFA) holds sure that the rights, incentives, responsibilities and duties information on free schools’ cash only where free schools in the system ensure that change is delivered everywhere are part of a single free school academy trust or a and no-one can fall through the gaps any longer. multi-free school academy trust. Where a free school is Above all, we want to see four things: within a multi-academy trust with different types of People in charge, supported by family and friends—not as academy, the EFA cannot distinguish the free school’s passive patients or “prisoners” of a system, as they so often cash holding from that of the wider multi-academy feel they are; trust. These schools are not therefore included in the inclusion and independence in the community—people should above table. not routinely be sent away from their homes and communities A corrected version of the table in my original answer or to institutions which restrict access to their community or to PQ 219280 is below. This table is less representative to inappropriate care; than the above table as it only includes free schools that the right care in the right place—there should be real person are the only school in their trust. centred planning with the individual themselves at the heart; and Number of Average cash very clear accountability and responsibility throughout the schools single per academy system—there can be no excuses for a lack of clarity over academy Total cash, trust, responsibility or for people falling through the gaps between Date2 trusts £millions £ thousands services.

31 March 2012 14 2 143 The consultation sets out a series of proposals on how changes might be made. We hope that this will 31 March 2013 47 7 149 mark a step change—and help to secure the rights that 31 March 2014 103 20 194 everyone deserves. We also hope that this strengthens further the drive for parity of esteem for all those with Academies and free schools are independent self- mental health needs. managing organisations with freedoms to generate income The consultation seeks to explore views on a range of from donations and trading activity. They cannot borrow; proposals intended to strengthen or build upon existing they can build up reserves in order to accommodate policies. It also seeks views on proposals developed in longer-term plans such as capital investment, to fund response to: maintenance and expand as well as to manage risk and uncertainty of future funding. As public sector bodies, issues raised during the 2014 consultation on the Mental Health Act Code of Practice regarding the Mental Health academies and free schools are required to apply effective Act primary legislation; and , treasury management policies and ensure that cash is some of the recommendations of the 2015 National Audit properly controlled. Office report Care Services for People with Learning Disabilities Academies and free schools typically hold a level of and Challenging Behaviour. cash that most self-managing organisations would regard It sets out a range of potential ideas rather than a as prudent and no more. The EFA expects trusts with single package of measures which necessarily need to be larger cash balances to have a clear plan as to how they taken together, and therefore seeks views on which of will use these balances and to be able to demonstrate the measures would be likely to have most impact. they have acted accordingly. The scope of the consultation primarily relates to: 1 We do not have comparable records of academies’ cash holdings for financial years 06-07 to 09-10. (i) assessment and treatment in mental health hospitals for 2 The first free schools opened in September 2011. people (all age) with learning disability or autism; [HCWS356] (ii) adult care and support, primarily for those with learning disability but also for adults with autism (and the links to support for children and young people); and (iii) all those to whom the Mental Health Act currently HEALTH applies (including children and young people). Other elements, particularly where they relate to the Care Act 2014, may be of relevance to adults in receipt of social care, including those with other disabilities. Consultation for People with Learning Disabilities, Autism and Mental Health Conditions Some of the proposals relating to possible amendments to the Mental Health Act are not intended to apply to patients under part 3 of the Mental Health Act (those The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman who have entered via the criminal justice system). This Lamb): The Government are today publishing the is because of those patients’ particular needs and the consultation paper “No voice unheard, no right ignored—a important responsibility of the Secretary of State for consultation for people with learning disabilities, autism Justice and the National Offender Management Service and mental health conditions.” in relation to public protection. This is set out in each A lot of work has been done over the last two and a relevant section. half years to improve the lives of people with mental This is a consultation by the Department of Health health needs, learning disability and autism and to in England. However, the Mental Health Act applies realise the vision of everyone being treated with dignity across England and Wales and any changes to the law in and respect by health and care services and enjoying the Wales would have to be agreed by the National Assembly same rights as anyone else. for Wales. However the scale and pace of change for individuals Hidden impairments like autism, learning disability that we all wanted to see has not yet happened. We have and mental ill health can be harder to see, and therefore to go further. We want to consider how we can make easier to ignore. But, as a civilised society we simply 87WS Written Statements6 MARCH 2015 Written Statements 88WS cannot continue to ignore or tolerate people getting the Annual Growth Survey and Joint Employment report; wrong care or treatment any more than we would for and will also seek Adoption of the Draft Joint Employment people with heart disease or cancer. Report. The commission will present a proposal for a The consultation will run for 12 weeks from 6 March Council decision on guidelines for the employment 2015 to 29 May 2015. An easy read version of the policies of the member states; and seek endorsement of consultation is also available. key messages on the social situation in the EU: SPC report. A copy of the Command Paper (number 9007) entitled “No voice unheard, no right ignored—a consultation The Council will seek a general approach on the for people with learning disabilities, autism and proposals for a Council decision establishing the mental health conditions” is available in the Library of Employment Committee and repealing decision 2000/ the House and also available online at: http:// 98/EC; and establishing the Social Protection Committee www.parliament.uk/writtenstatements. and repealing decision 2004/689/EC. [HCWS355] The Council will also seek to adopt draft Council conclusions on moving towards more inclusive labour markets; and the EU strategic framework on Health and Safety at Work 29014-2020: - Adapting to new WORK AND PENSIONS challenges. Ministers will be asked to endorse key messages on Employment, Social Policy, Health and financing, effectiveness and efficiency of social protection Consumer Affairs Council systems in the Joint SPC and Commission report. Under any other business, the Latvian presidency will inform on the tripartite social summit; the respective The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey): The Chairs of the EMCO and SPC will provide information Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs on their work programmes for 2015. The Commission Council will take place on 9 March 2015 in Brussels. will provide information on the re-launching of the Shan Morgan, deputy permanent representative to the social dialogue, presentation of country reports from EU, will represent the UK at the meeting. the European 2015 semester, and the Commission proposal There will be a policy debate on the European semester on the youth employment initiative. 2015; As part of the discussion, the Council will seek [HCWS353] the Adoption of Draft Council conclusions on the 2015

WRITTEN STATEMENTS

Friday 6 March 2015

Col. No. Col. No. DEFENCE...... 83WS WORK AND PENSIONS ...... 87WS Support to Ukraine ...... 83WS Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council ...... 87WS EDUCATION...... 83WS Reserves held by Academies and Free Schools ...... 83WS HEALTH...... 85WS Consultation for People with Learning Disabilities, Autism and Mental Health Conditions ...... 85WS Members who wish to have the Daily Report of the Debates forwarded to them should give notice at the Vote Office. No proofs of the Daily Reports can be supplied. Corrections which Members suggest for the Bound Volume should be clearly marked in the Daily Report, but not telephoned, and the copy containing the Corrections must be received at the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than Friday 13 March 2015

STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT GREATLY FACILITATES THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE VOLUMES

Members may obtain excerpts of their Speeches from the Official Report (within one month from the date of publication), on application to the Stationery Office, c/o the Editor of the Official Report, House of Commons, from whom the terms and conditions of reprinting may be ascertained. Application forms are available at the Vote Office.

PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES DAILY PARTS Single copies: Commons, £5; Lords, £4. Annual subscriptions: Commons, £865; Lords, £600. LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only. Details available on request. BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session. Single copies: Commons, £105; Lords, £60 (£100 for a two-volume edition). Standing orders will be accepted. THE INDEX to each Bound Volumeof House of Commons Debates is published separately at £9·00 and can be supplied to standing order. All prices are inclusive of postage Volume 593 Friday No. 120 6 March 2015

CONTENTS

Friday 6 March 2015

Mutuals’ Deferred Shares Bill [Lords] [Col. 1190] Not amended, further considered; read the Third time and passed

House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill [Col. 1203] Not amended, further considered; read the Third time and passed

Wind Farm Subsidies (Abolition) Bill [Col. 1216] Motion for Second Reading—(Mr Bone)—withdrawn

Foreign National Offenders (Exclusion from the United Kingdom) Bill [Col. 1234] Motion for Second Reading—(Sir Alan Duncan)

Fixed-term Parliaments (Repeal) Bill [Col. 1245] Motion for Second Reading—(Sir Alan Duncan)

Housing Association Transfer Ballots [Col. 1256] Debate on motion for Adjournment

Written Statements [Col. 83WS]

Written Answers to Questions [The written answers can now be found at http//www.parliament.uk/writtenanswers]