Mutuals’ Deferred Shares Bill [Lords]

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Friday 6th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope]

(Christchurch) (Con): I had not intended to speak in this short debate, but having listened with embarrassment to the kind words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans), the least I can do is thank him very much for his service to the House and to the Conservative party. I hope that his wisdom and experience will continue to be used by and available to our great party. As he says, our party is at its best when it embraces all strands of Conservative thinking.

My hon. Friend is still the chairman of the party in Wales, and I hope that in that capacity and as a member of the board of the Conservative party, he will continue to have a significant influence on the party’s affairs and ensure that our leadership is always mindful of the fact that we are a broad church. We have a large umbrella over us, and if we try to reduce the scope of that umbrella, the likelihood is that alternative parties will try to get into the space that is vacated. That mistake has been made in Germany by the Christian Democrats. They have in a sense given space for the Alternative für Deutschland to enter the fray, and I hope that something similar does not happen in this country and that we continue to maintain a broad church in our party.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on successfully steering the Bill through the House. I helped in every way that I could to try to ensure that his balloted Bill—the Off-patient Drugs Bill—got on to the statute book, but it was blocked in a rather unfortunate manner by the Government. Having originally not been open with him about whether they were for it or against it, we forced them to come clean in the end and say that they were against it in principle, which they could have said many months earlier. That is typical of the problems that we have with Friday business, but I am sure that, as my hon. Friend said, that Bill of his will reach the statute book in due course.

Equitable Life

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Members for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) and for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) on securing the debate. Their tireless work on this important issue is greatly appreciated by our constituents. Prior to my ministerial appointment, I was a member of the all-party group on Equitable Life policyholders and a number of my constituents have been badly affected, so I am deeply sympathetic to policyholders’ losses in this sorry tale. I shall explain what the Government have done to resolve the long-standing issue of Equitable Life and set the record straight on some of the history.

This situation has been a key priority for the Government. While Equitable remained solvent and continued to pay premiums to its members, its problems caused a great many of its policyholders to suffer significant emotional and financial distress. When we came to office, we made a commitment to implement the ombudsman’s recommendation that the Government should make fair and swift payments to Equitable Life policyholders in recognition of the part that the Government played in Equitable’s problems. Those payments were swift, in that within six months of taking office, we introduced the Bill that became the Equitable Life (Payments) Act 2010, and payments started to be made to policyholders in June 2011, which was within six months of Royal Assent. They were also fair because the scheme’s rules are based on the Government’s full acceptance of the parliamentary ombudsman’s findings of maladministration and, importantly, on the assumption that all policyholders would have decided to invest elsewhere had the maladministration regarding regulatory returns not occurred. Of course, that is a conservative assumption.

The ombudsman did not quantify the relative loss, which is the difference between the amount received by Equitable Life policyholders and what they would have received if they had invested in the same way in a similar company, but this Government assessed the total as £4.1 billion. That was significantly more than the final figure of £340 million that was arrived at under Sir John Chadwick’s methodology, which was based on the previous Government’s limited acceptance of the ombudsman’s findings. In the 2010 spending review, after taking account of the need to be fair to all taxpayers, we announced that up to £1.5 billion would be made available for payment to eligible policyholders.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend going to address the part of the motion that calls on the Government to pay full compensation in the next Parliament? The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) did not deal with that point, but our constituents want it to be addressed.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Yes, I am.

In line with representations received, out of that £1.5 billion, we covered the relative losses of the with-profits or trapped annuitants in full. Those annuitants were unable to move their funds elsewhere or to mitigate the impact of their losses by seeking employment. They were also generally the oldest policyholders. The remaining available funding, on the advice of the independent commission, was distributed pro rata to other policyholders, representing 22.4% of their relative loss. I know that that was deeply disappointing to many. These difficult decisions were taken in the light of the position of the public finances and in the interests of overall fairness to all taxpayers.

The motion notes that

“the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended that policyholders should be put back in the position they would have been in had maladministration not occurred”.

However, the ombudsman went on to say that the impact on the public purse should also be taken into account when considering payment. She also stated that she was acutely conscious of the potential scale of what was recommended. She has subsequently written to the all-party group to say that the Government’s decisions on affordability and eligibility cannot be said to be incompatible with her report.

I congratulate all Members who contributed to the debate. It is clear that they have been assiduous in representing their constituents and have done an excellent job. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) talked about Ernst and Young as the auditors of Equitable, so he might be interested to note that in 2010, for its part in Equitable Life, it was fined £500,000, plus costs of £2.4 million, and received a reprimand by the accountants’ joint disciplinary scheme.

The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) asked for a regional breakdown of amounts paid. No breakdown by region has yet been compiled, although we could produce a basic one if that would be particularly helpful. However, I assure her that regionality does not influence the scheme’s operation in any way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, as well as the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West, talked about the situation for the pre-1992 annuitants and the fact that they are elderly and financially vulnerable. The first regulatory return from Equitable Life that would have been different had there been no maladministration was that of 1991. This was available on request from Equitable Life from mid-1992 and could not, therefore, have been expected to influence investor decisions before late 1992. Therefore no relative loss was suffered by this group. However, as hon. Members have recognised, the Government agreed that this group of pre-1992 annuitants, although they are not affected by maladministration, have suffered significantly from a loss of income that they would have expected. For this reason the Government made an exceptional ex gratia payment of £5,000 to this group, with a further £5,000 to those on pension credit, in December 2013.

The hon. Member for Leeds North East and the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) raised the question of compensation for the Icelandic bank savers in Icesave and why Equitable Life savers are being treated differently. The ex gratia payments to UK depositors in Icelandic banks were made as a result of a decision by the previous Government to guarantee all qualifying retail deposits specifically to protect the financial stability of the UK. The financial compensation scheme was simply the agent for these payments and we expect to recover all those sums from the Icelandic banks and are continuing to do so.

Specifically in the case of failed banks and why they receive compensation, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme is funded by a levy on financial services firms, so again those compensations do not come from the public purse.

In answer to the hon. Members for Moray (Angus Robertson) and for Airdrie and Shotts who asked when the scheme stops tracing people, all policyholders are either written to at their last known address or put through electronic tracing methods, such as looking them up against the electoral roll. Attempts are made through the Department for Work and Pensions to trace those owed more than £250. I should tell hon. Members that about 50% of the remaining policyholders are due less than £100.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) asked whether we could re-allocate the remaining £500 million. That remaining £500 million is to make ongoing payments to annuitants for the duration of their annuity. Finally, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and for Southend West asked what we had done to ensure that people were not put off the idea of saving for their retirement. As hon. Members know, the Government have undertaken a fundamental reform of the regulatory system, and put in place the Financial Services Act 2012 to establish a new system of specialised and focused financial services regulators. They abolished the FSA and set up new regulators within the Bank of England and the independent conduct of business regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority. These reforms are designed to ensure that the conduct of firms, and with it the interests of consumers and participants in our financial markets, are at the heart of the regulatory system and are given the priority that they deserve.

The recent news on the improvements that this economy has made since 2010 is to be welcomed and shows that this Government’s long-term economic plan is working, but we have a long way to go to restore the public finances, and the public purse remains very constrained. It is right that we have taken action on the Equitable issue, but we must balance this with the need to continue to address the difficult position of the public finances and the impact on fairness to all taxpayers. That is why this Government have no plans to change the funding available to the payment scheme. Our focus is rather to complete the small number of remaining payments. We have continued to make excellent progress with the scheme itself. Only this week I was pleased to report that over £1 billion has been paid to nearly 900,000 eligible policyholders.

In conclusion, I genuinely have deep sympathy with those who carefully saved for retirement and are not receiving the income they expected. Resolving the Equitable Life issue, and doing so swiftly and in a way that was fair to all taxpayers, has been a priority for the Government.

Insurance Bill [Lords]

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the Minister has outlined, this is a non-controversial Bill overall, and we did indeed debate and discuss it last week. I have no issue with clause 1 and think that it is important to get on to the other areas of the Bill on which the Minister might wish to answer some questions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Application and interpretation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Christopher Chope)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 3 to 8 stand part.

That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.

[Andrea Leadsom]

As I explained to the Second Reading Committee, part 2 concerns the duty on prospective policyholders to disclose information to the insurer, which allows the insurer to assess and price the risk accurately. However, the existing law can be difficult to understand and even more difficult to comply with fully. A failure to provide all material information allows the insurer to refuse all claims under the contract.

Under the Bill, policyholders still have a duty to disclose information, and they should make an active search for relevant information, but insurers might need to ask the policyholder questions if they require further clarification. If a policyholder fails to make a fair presentation of the risk, there is a new system of proportionate remedies for the insurer, under schedule 1 to the Bill, based on what the insurer would have done had the failure not occurred.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Christopher Chope)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 10 and 11 stand part.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Part 3 deals with insurance warranties and similar terms. An insurance warranty is typically a promise by the policyholder to do something that mitigates the risk. Under the current law, any breach of warranty completely discharges the insurer from liability from the point of breach. That is so even if the breach is remedied before any loss is suffered and if the breached term had nothing to do with the loss. The insurer’s remedy therefore often seems unsuitable and too punitive. The Bill provides that an insurer will be liable for insured losses arising after a breach of warranty has been remedied. It also prevents an insurer from refusing payment on the basis of a breached term that could have had no bearing on the risk of the loss that actually occurred, such as where a warranty concerning a fire alarm is breached and the insured then suffers a flood in the insured property. The Bill also abolishes “basis of the contract” clauses. These clauses convert every statement made by a policyholder on a proposal form into a warranty.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Again, it has been helpful to hear the Minister’s comments. We have no difficulty with these clauses.

On clause 9, under the current law, an insurer may add a declaration to a non- consumer insurance proposal form or policy, stating that the insured warrants the accuracy of all the answers given or that such answers form the “basis of the contract”. That has the legal effect of converting representations into warranties. The insurer is discharged from liability for claims if the insured made any misrepresentation, even if it was immaterial and did not induce the insurer to enter into the contract. The Law Commission gave the example of a claim for flooding being refused, as the Minister suggested, because the insured had failed to install the right model of burglar alarm. The clause seeks to put an end to this practice by abolishing “basis of the contract” clauses in non-consumer insurance. Clause 10 replaces the existing remedy for breach of a warranty in an insurance contract.

Clause 11 was initially not included in the Bill. That gave rise to the introduction in the other place of a new clause that replicated a similar clause originally included by the Law Commission pertaining to situations in which an insured had breached a term of contract but could show that

“its breach of the term could not have increased the risk of the loss which actually occurred in the circumstances in which it occurred.”

In the Lords Committee, some expressed the view that this omission was an error. The Minister, Lord Newby, explained that the clause as originally drafted was

“too controversial to go through the special procedure for uncontroversial Law Commission Bills.”

He did, however, admit that it was

“difficult to argue against the policy and to say that insurers should be entitled to refuse liability for a loss that is of a completely different nature from that contemplated by the breached term.”

At the Government’s prompting, the Law Commission submitted a new draft, which became the current clause 11 and which was

“intended to minimise the uncertainty inherent in the first formulation”.

The clause acts to rectify the situation prior to the Bill when the actual nature of a breach of term was irrelevant. This has been a helpful process to ensure that that piece of tidying up was done. On that basis, we have no problem with these clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Remedies for fraudulent claims

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Christopher Chope)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 13 stand part.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Fraud is a serious and expensive problem for insurers and innocent policyholders alike. According to industry statistics, policyholders currently pay an additional £50 on every insurance policy because of the cost of fraud to insurers. The Bill therefore strengthens and clarifies the civil law aspect of the Government’s drive to combat fraudulent claims by policyholders. The Bill sets out clear statutory remedies for the insurer where the policyholder has made a fraudulent claim. It affirms the common law position that the policyholder forfeits the fraudulent claim. The insurer has no liability to pay any element of it and can reclaim anything it paid before it knew about the fraud.

The Bill also clarifies an area of uncertainty, in that the insurer may choose to refuse any claim arising after the fraudulent act. However, previous valid claims should be paid in full. Finally, the Bill gives the insurer the equivalent remedies against a fraudulent member of a group insurance policy.

[Cathy Jamieson]

The Minister has again clearly outlined what the clauses do. As she said, clause 12 sets out the insurer’s remedies where the insured makes a fraudulent claim. It puts the common law rule of forfeiture on a statutory footing. Where the insured commits a fraud against the insurer, the insurer is not liable to pay the insurance claim to which the fraud relates. Where the insurer has already paid out insurance moneys on the claim and later discovers the fraud, the insurer may recover those moneys from the insured. As we have heard, that provides the insurer with a further remedy giving it an option to treat the contract as if it had been terminated at the time of the “fraudulent act”. That does not apply where a third party commits a fraud against the insurer or the insured, such as where a fraudulent claim is made against an insured party who seeks recovery from its insurer under a liability policy.

Clause 13 gives the insurer the remedies where there is fraud by one member of a group scheme. Again, we have no difficulty with these clauses standing part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Good Faith

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Christopher Chope)]

With this it will convenient to discuss clauses 15 to 18 stand part.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Part 5 deals with two separate matters: the principle of good faith and the ability of parties to contract out of the provisions of the Bill.

Clause 14 retains the statutory and common law principle that a contract of insurance is one predicated on good faith. However, the clause abolishes avoidance of the contract as the remedy for breach, recognising that avoidance is capable of operating very harshly against policyholders.

The provisions are a default regime for business insurance contracts. They are expected to be appropriate for the majority of insurance contracts, but there may be circumstances when parties prefer to set out their own bespoke arrangements. However, if an insurer wishes to rely on a term that will operate more harshly against the policyholder than the Bill otherwise provides, clauses 16 and 17 require it to act transparently when the contract is made, by ensuring that the meaning of the alternative provision is clear, and by drawing the attention of the policyholder to it. In so far as the Bill applies to consumers rather than businesses, it is a mandatory regime. Insurers are not entitled to contract out of its provisions to the detriment of consumers.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Under the Marine Insurance Act 1906, insurance contracts are ones of “utmost good faith”. Clause 14 removes avoidance of the contract as a remedy for breach of that duty of good faith, both from the 1906 Act and at common law. The intention of clause 14 is that good faith will remain an interpretative principle, with section 17 of the 1906 Act and the common law continuing to provide that insurance contracts are contracts of good faith.

Clauses 15 and 16 prohibit insurers from inserting in an insurance contract terms that would leave the insured—be they a consumer or a non-consumer—in a worse position than that required by the Bill.

Clause 16 defines transparency in respect of what an insurer must do to draw the insured’s attention to the disadvantageous terms of the contract. Clause 17 sets out the transparency requirements. For example, the insurer should take sufficient steps to draw disadvantageous terms to the insured’s attention within a reasonable time frame prior to their entering into the contract, but when an insured has knowledge of the term, they may not claim that the insurer has not brought it to their attention. Clause 18 deals with the insurer’s remedies where a member of a group insurance contract makes a fraudulent claim. Again, we do not think that these clauses are controversial and we are content for them to stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 15 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Power to change meaning of “relevant person” for purposes of 2010 Act

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Christopher Chope)]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 20 and schedule 2 stand part.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Part 6 covers a topic that is distinct from insurance contract law. It amends the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 and will assist injured parties who have claims against parties that are now defunct where insurance was in place to cover such claims. As I said in the Second Reading Committee, part 6 will make it easier for mesothelioma sufferers to obtain compensation due from insolvent employers.

The Bill allows the Secretary of State, by regulations, to add or remove circumstances in which a person will fall within the provisions of the 2010 Act. The intention in the first instance is to use this power to add insolvency and other similar events to the 2010 Act. Draft regulations are being prepared by the Ministry of Justice. Once the first set of regulations are made, the 2010 Act can be commenced. The Government are committed to bringing the 2010 Act into force as soon as practicable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

My right hon. Friend will appreciate that this part of the Bill is designed to assist those who have insurance claims against parties that are now defunct, where insurance was originally in place to cover such claims. In theory, that could cover a motor insurance claim, but it is certainly not designed specifically to that end. Likewise, the cost of motor insurance will be determined by claims by the insurance companies themselves, so it is not envisaged that this will affect the cost of motor insurance.

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that the Law Commission has done an excellent job. Essentially, the Bill makes the insurance market more effective and fairer.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Provision consequential on Part 2

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Temporary Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 22 and 23 stand part.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Part 7 deals with technical matters such as commencement, territorial extent and consequential amendments to existing legislation. The Bill repeals or amends various sections of the Marine Insurance Act 1906, which are superseded by provisions in parts 2 and 3. Clause 23 provides that the Bill extends to the whole of the United Kingdom, and that the provisions on insurance contract law will come into force 18 months after Royal Assent.

From a practical perspective, the new provisions will not apply to existing insurance contracts, but rather to new contracts and variations agreed after the Bill comes into effect. The regulation-making power on the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 will come into force two months after Royal Assent.

Offshore Wind Developments

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Weir]

Clearly, there is a balance to be struck between the interests of the bill payer and the interests of creating renewable energy. We all have to take that into account. My point is that as well as being clean, renewable energy also produces investment in industrial development and creates jobs. I agree that there is a balance to be struck. We must always bear in mind the impact on the bill payer of all these projects, and we must always seek value for money. The point that strikes that balance will vary over time.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is much better value for money for the taxpayer in subsidising nuclear power than offshore wind?

[Mr Weir]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be gobsmacked to know that I do not agree. I will mention that later. No doubt, he will make his own points on that subject.

When I served on the Energy Bill Committee, I raised concerns about the changeover process from renewable obligations to the contract for difference regime. That seems to be part of the problem that we are experiencing. The renewables obligation comes to an end in 2017. The difficulty arises because of the way that the CfD process is being introduced, particularly in respect of whether and at what level funds will be available in future years.

Two developments off the shores of my constituency have a combined total of 1,234 MW and both are bidding in the first round of contracts for difference. The Government are currently considering that first round of CfDs, which are due to be allocated, I understand, around the end of March. Therein lies part of the difficulty. New projects have to bid for contracts for difference through a competitive auction process, and offshore wind projects will compete not only with each other for the budget, but against other renewable energy projects. Offshore wind has been grouped with wave, tidal, biomass, combined heat and power and Scottish island wind. There is a total budget for all these technologies of £235 million, which is split between £155 million for 2016-17 and £80 million from 2017-18.

RenewableUK has estimated that this would be enough to bring forward around 700 MW of capacity—just over half of what could be produced by the two developments off Angus alone, never mind any others that might be in the pipeline. RenewableUK has estimated that up to 3.5 GW of capacity could have entered into the current allocation round, and by the time of the second allocation round, expected towards the end of this year, the number could rise to over 9 GW.

I am told that the amount of money allocated to the first round, which is under way, is significantly less than the industry expected, and that is causing considerable unease in the industry. It can be seen from the figures I have quoted that there is no way all three Scottish entrants could achieve a CfD. Indeed, given that there will certainly be bids from other parts of the UK, there is no guarantee that any of them will get a contract at all. That leaves the industry facing a dilemma. As Gordon Edge, director of policy at RenewableUK, put it:

“There is enough money on the table for 700-800MW in this allocation round if all the money in the ‘less established’ pot goes to offshore wind”,

which he considered likely. He said:

“There are a number of large offshore wind projects coming forward that are significantly larger than this. Developers of those projects are left with the choice of carving out a piece of their development to fit—which is likely to make the economics more challenging—or sitting it out in the hope of a better opportunity later. If the budget for the next allocation round is the same as the first round, then less than 10 per cent of capacity we project will be eligible to bid can secure a CfD. It can take hundreds of millions of pounds to get offshore wind projects through consent, which is why the industry is getting very hot under the collar.”

There is a real danger that some developers will begin to consider whether they are prepared to continue to pump large sums of money into projects if there is not at least a real chance that they will secure a contract for difference.

I raised that issue with the Secretary of State at the last Department of Energy and Climate Change questions. I said:

“Many offshore wind developers have expressed concern that owing to the structure of the current contracts for difference allocation round, only one development will be given a CfD, imperilling many of the others. Can the Secretary of State give them any reassurance that there will be greater consideration of offshore wind in future CfD allocations?”

The Secretary of State responded:

“First, it is worth putting it on the record…that Britain leads the world in offshore wind”—

that is perhaps true, and is welcome—

“with more offshore wind farms installed than in the rest of the world combined. In the current round of CfD allocations—of course, it has not been completed yet, so I cannot talk about the details—we have ensured that we have sufficient allocation for offshore wind, but we have also ensured that the levy control framework includes further allocations for it, so that the consumer can benefit from dropping prices.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 1551-1552.]

The difficulty with that is that the allocations for future rounds are not clear, and that is causing a great deal of concern in the industry.

What the Secretary of State said is all very well, but there is no certainty about the future budget, because the Government are giving no market signals about what the budgets are likely to be in future allocation rounds, and in future years, and there is no visibility beyond the current delivery plan, which extends to 2018-19. That uncertainty will almost certainly lead to developers looking again at developments. Without the confidence that budgets will be available, it is impossible for them to assess the allocation risk, and that will act as a deterrent to investors. Uncertainty could increase the cost of development, rather than create the savings that the Government are looking for.

For those projects that are not successful in the current round or whose capacity is too large to be supported within the available budget—the only definite figures that are available are under the current budget—lack of foresight could increase uncertainty yet further. The industry has suggested that it needs clarity on the frequency of allocation rounds and foresight of at least two allocation budgets at any time. Will the Minister say whether the Department is considering or is prepared to consider that in the near future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) on introducing the debate. There are constraints on the length of the speeches that we can make today, so I hope to expand on some of my remarks when I open the Second Reading debate on the Control of Offshore Wind Turbines Bill on Friday 16 January in the main Chamber.

Hon. Members who have spoken so far have shown themselves to be subsidy junkies. The problem is that the contracts for difference are a way of using taxpayers’ money to subsidise what is in essence an uneconomic activity. Given today’s oil prices, it is just as well that we—the British taxpayer and energy consumer—have not entered into contracts for difference with those engaged in exploration and production in the North sea. With the dramatic reductions in the price of oil and costs remaining much the same, such contracts would cost us an absolute fortune. Is that not the problem with the subsidy road down which the hon. Member for Angus wishes to take us?

There has been no mention of the economic context, the budget deficit or the burgeoning national debt, which continues to increase because we are running an unsustainable and unacceptable budget deficit. Common sense surely dictates that low-carbon energy should be provided at the minimum cost to the taxpayer and the energy consumer. We can get much cheaper low-carbon energy from nuclear than we can from offshore wind, so why are we investing in offshore wind? My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) said that we were leading the world and investing in more offshore wind than anyone else, but is there not a reason to be slightly cautious? Why is no one else doing it? Because they see it as totally uneconomic and wasteful of resources.

On a recent visit to Denmark, I discussed with Danish politicians their offshore wind programme. They have cancelled any new development of offshore wind off the Danish coast because of their bad experiences. Their industry, however, enjoys the prospect of being able to benefit from United Kingdom subsidies, so that it can develop offshore wind off our islands; that is something that the Danes are no longer prepared to do off the coast of Denmark.

In my constituency a lot of jobs and prosperity are based on tourism. The proposal to construct up to 200 offshore wind turbines, each up to 200 metres high, has generated opposition from the people of Christchurch, Bournemouth, Poole and south Dorset the like of which I have never seen before. The development would be close to the shore in an area that would impact badly on the Jurassic coast world heritage site. Why is that development even being put forward? It is because of the subsidies; if there were no subsidies, it would not be happening.

There is a planning inquiry at the moment, and if the development is approved we will effectively be subsidising, through our taxes, a development that will impact badly on the Jurassic coast world heritage site. Yet at the same time we are saying, as Government policy, that we are prepared to invest in subsidies for a tunnel under Stonehenge to reduce the impact on that world heritage site. We might think that an inconsistency in Government policy, since we are prepared to used subsidies to exacerbate the impact on the environment in which the Jurassic coast world heritage site is situated.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney—and I hope the Minister will respond to these points—that we should be looking at new technologies, so that we are not dependent on technology already developed by overseas competitors and can be world leaders. Wave and tidal power offer a much better prospect. If we are to put taxpayer-funded subsidies into renewables, that is a better sector in which to do so than offshore wind energy. In any event, it is also sensible to invest more in nuclear.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Just to be clear, is it the hon. Gentleman’s position that he is not in favour of greater subsidies for offshore wind but happy to see greater subsidies for other marine technologies? I support higher subsidies to allow those technologies to develop, but I am interested to hear what level of subsidy he is prepared to see given to them.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate is, of course, about offshore wind.

[Mr Chope]

I am against all subsidies for offshore wind. If we are talking about the potential for the Government to engage in an industrial investment programme—the need to find jobs in new technologies has been spoken about this morning—from my experience in my constituency, there is a lot more to be said for investing in nuclear technology. Just before Christmas I visited an establishment in my constituency that is at the leading edge of nuclear technology. It has a fantastic record. If we have to put in subsidies, that is the sector in which we should do so, because subsidies for nuclear energy are far lower than the equivalent subsidies for offshore wind energy.

We have more than enough offshore wind provision already. I hope that the Minister will announce today that the Government will not put any more subsidies into that sector in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Happy new year to you, Mr Gray. I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I am also grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving us time this morning to debate offshore renewables.

Like other hon. Members, I have a strong constituency interest in the development of offshore wind energy, in that one of the projects bidding for support in the first allocation round of contract for difference is based in the Moray firth, off the northern coast of Banffshire. Several of the ports along the Moray firth could benefit from the development of offshore renewables, with significant potential spin-offs for a wider supply chain bringing much-needed economic development to the area. I am sure other coastal communities also have the potential to benefit from such economic diversification, which is key to the future prosperity of such communities. In the north-east, there is also an understanding that the skills utilised in the offshore oil and gas sector are eminently transferrable to the offshore renewables industry, as well as a sense that we should grasp the opportunities to develop new and innovative technologies on our doorstep by building on our existing strengths.

Today’s debate takes place in the context of energy market reform. We should always remember that that is not only about keeping the lights on, bringing consumer prices under control and repairing a broken system, but about climate change and the need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and to mitigate, or adapt to, the effects of climate change that are already manifest.

I read recently that 2014 was the hottest year on record. We do not always notice that in Banff and Buchan, which is pretty cold, but we undoubtedly see the impact of a slightly warmer, slightly wetter climate and the effect of changing sea temperatures on our marine environment, with coastal erosion and increased landslips. And who could fail to notice the problems associated with increased flooding right across the UK? If we abdicate our responsibility to reduce emissions or pretend we can ignore climate change indefinitely—or at least for another decade or two—we are burying our heads in the sand. Environmental campaigners are fond of pointing out that the climate does not negotiate, and they are not wrong.

That is primarily why we need cleaner energy. However, we are also in the fortunate position of being able to take economic advantage of the opportunities renewable energy presents. Being in the vanguard of new technologies has the potentia1 to strengthen our manufacturing, our exports and our research base.

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Lady’s argument is surely an argument in favour of investing in adaptations to ensure that the impact of climate change is not felt so severely—for example, on the coast. If we have coastal defences, we can defend ourselves better against the consequences of climate change.

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Gentleman’s views on these issues are well articulated and well known, but we have to be a lot more ambitious. I do not want be shoring up our coastline—I would rather be preventing it from falling down in the first place. One way we can do that, and gain economic advantage, is by developing new, innovative technologies, which will have tremendous commercial potential if we develop them properly.

In that light, I am deeply disappointed that no decarbonisation target has been set for 2030. That is a real missed opportunity, and it undermines confidence in the Government’s commitment to the offshore renewables sector. The Government initially seemed much more ambitious about the development of offshore wind, and that raised a lot of expectations, leading to considerable investment from industry. Companies were actively encouraged to make bids for offshore developments, and they have invested hundreds of millions of pounds in bringing projects to consent.

However, the smoke signals from the Government have changed, and the goalposts have shifted somewhat since Ministers embarked on this journey. The budget announced last October for contract for difference bids was substantially lower than expected. The £235 million allocated for group 2 will support an estimated 700 to 800 MW of offshore wind capacity, which is a lot less even than some of the individual projects aim to generate.

I am not questioning the principle of a competitive element to the process, but the money available will, realistically, support only one—and possibly only part of one—of the seven projects in the frame. Given that companies will each have invested tens of millions of pounds just to get to this stage, the support on offer simply does not present sufficient incentives or prospects of success to encourage further development in the sector. I fear that the prospect of offshore wind on the Scottish coast is in real danger of withering on the vine.

It is important to point out that, under contract for difference, offshore projects will compete against not just each other, but other renewables projects, including more evolved technologies, such as onshore wind on the islands, which are now much cheaper and lower risk. Again, that is likely to jeopardise the development of a strong domestic renewables sector and supply chain.

I am concerned that the shifting goalposts, the mixed signals and the interminable delays that have characterised energy market reform are doing the UK considerable reputational damage in international markets, which will deter future investment. Those who feel they may have been led up the garden path this time will be reluctant to venture into our orbit again, which is not where we need to be in attracting investment. The Government need to send a signal that they remain committed to the offshore wind sector—if they are—and to let the sector know that there will be future allocations under contract for difference to make further investment viable.

School Admissions Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Friday 7th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This is a very small Bill. It consists of two clauses, the second of which merely deals with the extent, commencement and short title, and the first of which is also very short. Gaps, anomalies, inconsistencies and injustices in the law or regulations are often brought to our attention as a result of constituency cases, which is what happened in this instance.

The Bill deals with the very narrow issue of whether

“pupils with a parent with a terminal or seriously disabling illness”

should

“receive priority in the admissions process to maintained schools”

in the same way as, for instance, looked-after children. It arises from the case of my constituents Mr and Mrs Amey. Mrs Amey is extremely unwell: she suffers from what is thought to be a terminal condition. She was distraught when her son George was unable to join his sibling at Mudeford infant school, which said that it had no space for him. An appeal was made through the county council system, and was rejected.

I took the view, on behalf of my constituents, that that was absurd. I was able to secure the support of the then Secretary of State for Education, who very helpfully wrote to the county council saying that he agreed with me that the situation was wholly unsatisfactory, and hoped that the council would do something about it. The council set up another appeal hearing, the outcome of which was that George Amey was able to go to that school. However, a similar problem arose earlier this year, when George wanted to move to Mudeford junior school. I will not go into all the details, but ultimately, after an enormous amount of anguish, he has obtained a place there.

Looked-after children are given special priority when it comes to school admissions, and I do not criticise that at all. They are given special priority because they live with foster parents or are in the process of being adopted, which means that they may need to move to a different catchment area. If the adoptive parents of a looked-after child are unable to get the child into the local school, all sorts of additional problems will be created as attempts are made to ensure that the child can have as normal a life as possible.

I think that giving such children priority is perfectly sensible, but I think that it is also sensible to take account of the circumstances of children whose parents are terminally ill or suffer from a seriously disabling illness. The journey to school may be much more burdensome for such a parent, and the child will be under a lot of pressure because of the parent’s illness. A parent with a disability may have to move away from the catchment area of a school that is already attended by his or her child’s elder sibling in order to live in specialist housing such as a bungalow, so that there is no need to climb stairs. Accommodation of that kind may not be available in the catchment area. As a consequence, the child will lose its priority in the system.

I know that the principle of my short Bill has been accepted by the former Secretary of State for Education, because it was on the basis of the very narrow anomaly with which it seeks to deal that he intervened so helpfully in the case of Mr and Mrs Amey and their son George. It seems to me that one way of resolving that anomaly would be to ensure that, as clause 1 proposes,

“Any reference to a looked after child in the Schools Admission Code issued under Section 84 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 shall be taken to include a reference to a child with a parent or guardian who is terminally ill or suffering a seriously disabling illness.”

I do not think that there is any need to elaborate on that.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend think that one way of resolving the problem would be to clarify the existing code by ensuring that it includes those crucial words when it is next issued? Perhaps the Minister could give such an assurance.

[Mr Chope]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank him for his intervention.

I have a great deal of respect for my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), who I see is sitting in the Minister’s place. I am not sure whether she is, in fact, now a schools Minister.

[The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)]

Let me reassure my hon. Friend: I am not only a Minister in Her Majesty’s Government, but the Whip for the Department for Education.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her clarification. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a difference between being a Whip and being a Minister. I am delighted to know that my hon. Friend, who is a very distinguished Whip, has the responsibility of being the Whip for the Department for Education. She has more credibility on the Front Bench than, for example, a Whip dealing with a different Department would have. When she responds to the debate, she will obviously be able to speak with more authority on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education, which is what I wanted to ensure would happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank my hon. Friend for his pertinent question. I understand that the Bill received its First Reading earlier this year. One would like to think that, although the views expressed in the Bill were not formally a part of the 444 responses to the consultation, they would none the less be taken into account by the Department. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will also have sent a letter on behalf of his constituents under the previous Secretary of State. The 444 responses are listed in the back of the Government document. I looked through it earlier to see whether the Bill was included in the responses, and I can confirm that it is not specifically mentioned in the Government’s documentation. However, he has used the mechanism of this proposed legislative change to make his views known.

I can summarise the results of the consultation for my hon. Friend. They have resulted in the Government proposing specific, limited revisions to the admissions code. As I have said, 444 written responses were received by 29 September, and the Government have held discussions with interested groups. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) asked whether discussions had taken place with people with specific caring responsibilities. Having looked through the list of 444 responses, I note that none of the organisations stood out as the kind of organisation that he would put into that category. I can assure him, however, that discussions are ongoing with all the interested groups with a view to meeting their needs for the admission code. I hope that that answers his question.

The overriding aim of the code is to ensure that admission authorities have clear, objective and fair oversubscription criteria. It is for the authorities themselves to decide which criteria to adopt, but the code sets out the most common ones, including giving priority based on social and medical need. I have drawn the House’s attention to the fact that that is set out in paragraph 1.16 of the code.

The Government want children to be able to attend a school of their parents’ choice whenever possible but, when a school receives more applications than it has places available, we believe that those places must be allocated in accordance with the school’s published oversubscription criteria. I am pleased to say that the vast majority of parents are offered a place for their child at their preferred school. In the most recent entry year, 2014, 86.5% of parents in England were offered a place at their first preference school. In addition, 95.6% of children—so nearly 97%—were offered a place at one of their top three preferences, and 96.6% were offered a place at any of their preferred schools.

The Government have just agreed to some specific, limited revisions to the code. They are designed to improve the fair and open allocation of places and, it is worth emphasising, to support fair access for the most disadvantaged children and provide additional clarity to some provisions that had not been found to be completely clear. The limited time scale did prevent more substantial changes from being considered but, subject to parliamentary approval, which we hope is imminent, the revised code will come into force on 19 December.

[Mr Chope]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that if the revised code includes the same expression of “social and medical need”, that will cover the need of a parent and not just of a child?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank my hon. Friend for, again, being assiduous on behalf of his constituents on that drafting. He has a copy of the code in front of him, as I do. I have read the wording from paragraph 1.16 into the record, and it is my view that individual schools would have some latitude on taking into account social and medical need because of the following wording:

“If admission authorities decide to use social and medical need”.

He would like things spelt out in statutory legislation, but the wording allows admission authorities some leeway without putting things on to a statutory footing. I reassure him that we will evaluate the impact of the new proposals once they have come into effect, and will certainly do that ahead of any future revision of the code. We will examine his proposal, along with any others made as part of the process. On the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), one thing that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has clearly done by highlighting this issue today is ensure that the circumstances he has described so eloquently are fed into that ongoing review of the code.

The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) touched on other aspects of the code. The code requires only that priority be given to a specific group of vulnerable people: those with a statement of special educational needs or an education, health and care plan naming the school; looked-after children; and previously looked-after children. Beyond that, the code states that admissions authorities must have their oversubscription criteria clearly, objectively and fairly set out. It is for admission authorities to decide exactly which oversubscription criteria to adopt, but the code does set out the most common criteria.

The Government believe that paragraph 1.16 is a broad provision, which can be interpreted to cover the social and medical condition of the child, the parent or both. We have no definitive data on this, but we do know anecdotally and from correspondence to the Department that a number of admission authorities do use social and medical criteria in their oversubscription criteria. At this point, I cannot say from the Dispatch Box whether Dorset county council is one of those, but I would be happy to follow this up and write to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch about it. We believe it is for admission authorities to decide whether to adopt these criteria and, where they do, to decide what ranking they should have, based on local needs and circumstances.

Any proposal requiring that all admissions authorities must give priority to pupils with a parent with a terminal or seriously disabling illness would require a change to the statutory code and the supporting legislation. It is not the Department’s intention at the moment to do that, other than in terms of the minor adjustments the Government have agreed to in the consultation that has just been responded to.

The overarching aim of our changes is to improve the fair and open allocation of school places. The changes are intended to provide greater freedom to schools and to clarify some of the existing provisions. For example, they allow all state-funded schools to give priority in their admission arrangements to children eligible for pupil or service pupil premium funding. In this of all weeks, it is important to emphasise the way in which the Government have tried to make it easier for the children of our armed forces to get an education in the school of their parents’ choice.

The changes also allow all admission authorities of primary schools to give priority in their admission arrangements to children eligible for the pupil or service pupil premium who attended a nursery that is part of the school. As part of that change, barriers to schools offering optional wrap-around care will be removed or reduced by ensuring that any charges paid by parents for such child care would not prevent their children from being prioritised.

The Government intend to make the following minor changes: to revise the timetable for admission arrangements; to bring forward dates for admission authorities to consult locally and to reduce the duration of such a consultation from eight weeks to just six weeks; to require the admission authorities to amend their admission arrangements to comply with the code within two months of a decision by the school’s adjudicator where the adjudicator rules that the arrangements are unlawful; to clarify the provisions relating to the admission of summer-born children to aid decision-making for admission authorities. I am sure that everyone is familiar with the particular challenges faced by children who are born towards the end of August, and the question over which year at school they should be entered. Madam Deputy Speaker, I note that you are vigorously nodding your head in agreement. I am pleased to draw your attention to that particular clarification.

Other minor changes include: extending priority for admission to all previously looked after children—I am talking about children not only who are currently being looked after but who have previously, at any time, been looked after—and making a number of minor technical drafting changes to improve the clarity of certain existing provisions. For example, we wish to make it explicit to parents that their child is entitled to a full-time place in reception.

I have run through some of the minor changes to the admissions code that the Government will bring forward. I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that his case is exactly what paragraph 1.16 of the code is designed to address. I know that he has been fantastically effective at not only representing his constituents in this particular case but using the vehicle of the private Member’s Bill and the full armoury of this House to raise, on behalf of his constituents as their voice in Parliament, these important matters. Having outlined the limited changes that we propose to make to the code, which will take effect on 19 December 2014, I hope that my hon. Friend will see that the case and the circumstances of his constituents are exactly those that the code is designed to cover.

I am happy to go through some more examples that would be covered by the school admissions code. I think I have answered the questions of the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, and of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.

Given the comprehensive nature of my remarks, I hope that I have convinced my hon. Friend that we do not need to move forward on a legislative basis. The extensive school admissions code, which runs to more than 38 pages, covers the situation that he described on behalf of his constituents. I therefore urge him to withdraw the motion.

[Mr Chope]

With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I shall respond briefly to my hon. Friend the Minister. I had not realised that she was, effectively, a fully fledged Education Minister. Certainly her performance this afternoon would suggest that she has years and years of experience of speaking at the Dispatch Box on these important matters. I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend for what she has done to serve the House today. She asks whether I am convinced and the short answer is that I am convinced, and it is not often that I can say that in response to a Minister.

My hon. Friend has given a full and constructive response, and has helpfully put on record the Government’s view that when we define “social and medical need” in paragraph 1.16 of the school admissions code, we are referring not just to the social and medical need of the child or children but also to the social and medical need of the parents. That is an important point of clarification, and will be useful to admissions authorities when they consider whether to adopt the provision.

I am with my hon. Friend on the need to combine as much permissiveness as possible with the minimum amount of prescription. It seems, on the basis of the code, which is to be revised and brought into effect on 19 December, that the Government have managed to establish a balance between those two sides. I am delighted that we have been able to make progress on the general application of an issue arising from a specific constituency case and I am sure that will give my constituents substantial reassurance.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

Wales Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

I beg to move amendment 21, page 8, leave out line 23 and insert—

‘(1) Part 4A of GOWA 2006 (as inserted by section 6) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 116A(1) (overview), after “Part” insert “—

(a) Chapter 2 confers on the Assembly power to set a rate of income tax to be paid by Welsh taxpayers, and

(b) ”.

(3) After Chapter 1 insert—’.

This amendment and amendment 19 ensure that the overview provision in new section 116A(1) of GOWA 2006 relating to the Assembly power to set a rate of income tax can only come into force, like the other provisions relating to that power, following a yes vote in a referendum.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Christopher Chope)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, page 8, line 36, leave out ‘only’ and insert ‘more than’.

Amendment 3, page 8, line 36, leave out ‘only one rate’ and insert ‘up to three rates’.

This amendment is proposed to implement the recommendations of the Silk Commission that the Welsh Government have the power to set different rates of tax for different income bands.

Government amendments 22 to 28.

Amendment 16, page 12, line 34, after ‘Assembly’, insert

‘and each House of Parliament’.

Amendment 6, page 12, line 37, at end add—

‘(2) The Secretary of State shall review the impact on the Exchequer effects of the provisions in this section on residents who live within 50 miles of the Wales/England border and the impact on the prospects for tax competition within the UK, and place a copy of the review in the Library of the House of Commons.’.

Clause stand part.

Amendment 41, in clause 9, page 13, line 8, leave out ‘10’ and insert ‘15’.

Clause 9 stand part.

Amendment 1, in clause 11, page 16, line 20, leave out from ‘Wales’ to end and add

‘where a Welsh rate resolution specifies more than one rate of income tax.’.

Government amendment 19.

Amendment 38, in clause 28, page 29, line 34, after ‘except’, insert

‘sections 8 and 9 and’.

Amendment 39, page 29, line 36, at end insert—

‘(2A) Sections 8 and 9 shall not come into force until a Welsh Government Minister has laid a report before the National Assembly for Wales containing a statement to the effect that the Welsh Government, with regard to the Statement of Funding Policy, is content with the fairness of the arrangements for allocating funding from the UK Government to Wales.

(2B) Sections 8 and 9 shall be suspended following any substantive reform, amendment or other alteration of the arrangements mentioned in subsection (2A), until the process under subsection (2A) has been repeated.’.

Amendment 4, in title, line 3, leave out ‘a rate’ and insert ‘rates’.

[Mr Gauke]

rose—

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Chope. If the four people who voted in favour of new clause 4 want to express an opinion on one side of the argument or the other later this evening, is there not a case that you should weigh the voices?

[The Temporary Chair]

That could be considered. I have always been keen that we should allow the minority to express their opinion in the Chamber without having it suppressed.

[Mr Gauke]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Mr Chope, and to set out the Government’s position on clauses 8 and 9 and the Government amendments. I will also take the opportunity to comment on the amendments tabled by others and will have the chance to debate taxation powers with the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, which I am sure will bring back many happy memories for him of serving on Finance Bills.

Subject to the outcome of a referendum, clause 8 amends the Government of Wales Act 2006 to introduce a Welsh rate of income tax to be paid by those defined as Welsh taxpayers. Clause 9 amends the Income Tax Act 2007 to set out how the Welsh rate of income tax determines the Welsh basic, higher and additional rates of income tax. It also defines the income that will be taxed at those rates.

I shall start with Government amendments 19 and 21. The income tax provisions in clause 8 form part of a new part 4A of the 2006 Act, which is introduced by clause 6. Part 4A’s introductory section includes a reference to the income tax provisions in chapter 2. The provisions in clause 6 will come into force two months after this Bill receives Royal Assent. However, the income tax provisions in clause 8 and 9 can of course be brought into force only following a yes vote in a referendum. Amendment 19 therefore removes the reference to chapter 2 from clause 6, and amendment 21 reinserts the reference into clause 8, bringing the commencement of the reference into line with the rest of the income tax provisions. That will ensure that the amended Act accurately reflects the legislative competence of the Assembly at a given point.

The provisions in clause 9 concerning the Welsh rate have been revised since the draft Bill. That necessitated changes to the power to allow for further consequential changes to be made under secondary legislation introduced by clause 8 in new section 116I of the 2006 Act to ensure that it continued to work as intended. Government amendments 22, 27 and 28 make further technical changes to that power in order to clarify that proposed new section 11B does not impose a charge to income tax. Rather, the effect of the new section 11B is to apply the Welsh rates of income tax to a Welsh taxpayer’s non-savings income.

On Government amendments 23 to 26, the power in new section 116I also allows an order to be made to ensure that HMRC can continue to operate the PAYE system effectively in the event that the Assembly passes a Welsh rate resolution at a late stage in the preceding tax year. Such an order would require employers to continue to operate PAYE on the basis of the information issued by HMRC, rather than the correct tax position for a specified period. The tax position of employees would ultimately be correct over the course of the tax year.

The scenario I have set out would also apply if, for whatever reason, the Assembly did not pass a rate-setting resolution at all, assuming that that had not previously been announced by the Welsh Government. Although I accept that that is unlikely to arise in practice, it is important to recognise that the Assembly has the option not to pass a rate if it so chooses. Amendments 23 to 26 therefore extend the order-making power to cover that scenario. I hope that hon. Members will support those amendments and Government amendments 19, 21, 27 and 28.

In amendment 41, I was pleased to see an amendment from the hon. Members for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) that supports the principle of income tax devolution, although I note that their latest approach would not provide Wales with quite the same outcome that they have now proposed for Scotland. None the less, it is progress. Although I confess to not having previously studied the issue very closely, I was not sure whether the Labour party opposed income tax devolution or thought that there was not enough of it. No doubt we will receive an explanation later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

We’ve got a democracy here!

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Christopher Chope)]

Order. Only one person can speak at a time.

[Mr Gauke]

I am sorry that I have clearly touched a nerve with the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.]

[The Temporary Chair]

Order.

[Mr Gauke]

I continue to touch a nerve with the hon. Gentleman. If tax receipts grow in Wales as a consequence of greater economic growth—after all, the Welsh Government have powers over education, skills, housing and planning—it will be to the advantage of Wales and the Welsh Government. I have no doubt that it is the desire of the Welsh Government to do the best for the Welsh economy. This is an opportunity to benefit from growth and increased tax receipts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I will now give way to the hon. Member for Pontypridd. I think that I have—[Interruption.]

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Christopher Chope)]

Order. The Minister is not giving way to the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies). We must have some order. There are not many Members in the Chamber, but they seem to be making a mockery of the rules of order. I think that the Minister is giving way to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith).

[Owen Smith]

I merely wanted to ask whether, while talking about good and bad policies, the Minister would care to congratulate the Welsh Government on the good policy of Jobs Growth Wales. The policy has been seven times more effective than the Work programme in Wales, and has resulted in Wales having higher growth and, indeed, better unemployment figures than anywhere else in the UK.

Crowdfunding and the FCA

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Does the hon. Member for Cambridge have the consent of both the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and the Minister?

[Dr Huppert]

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

I shall call the Minister now. If the hon. Lady wishes to intervene, it will be up to the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does the Minister accept that a tax on transactions reduces the number of transactions? Does he therefore agree that the current level of stamp duty is reducing the number of housing transactions, and as a result is disadvantaging the construction sector?

[Danny Alexander]

I have to say that I do not really accept that. The evidence of previous attempts to support housing transactions through stamp duty cuts is not all that positive. The Government have sought to make the stamp duty system more progressive, asking those with the largest properties to pay more. Indeed, I hope my hon. Friend welcomes the introduction, from the beginning of April, of a new annual charge for homes owned by offshore companies—a mansion tax for tax dodgers, as it were.

Multiannual Financial Framework

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

Absolutely. It is impossible to make any public expenditure—including our contributions to the whole of the public sector: health, education, local government, the lot—unless the money comes from reasonably taxed small and medium-sized enterprises. Yet the whole of the Commission’s paper—which is at the heart of the 2020 strategy and at the heart of why the Commission is asking for this increased amount of money, which it calls an investment for growth—contains only one reference to small and medium-sized businesses, in one line. That is the problem we are up against. We cannot give money to the public sector unless we get it from private enterprise on a reasonably taxed basis.

The Prime Minister’s letter continues:

“The action taken in 2011 to curb”—

“curb”: that is the word he uses—

“annual growth in European payment appropriations should therefore be stepped up progressively over the remaining years of this financial perspective and payment appropriations should increase, at most, by no more than inflation over the next financial perspectives.”

The situation was wrong then, and it has got worse since. That was in December 2011. We are now in October 2012, and we know what the picture is, and it is getting progressively worse. That is why we had to call for a reduction rather than merely what the Prime Minister describes as an

“increase, at most, by no more than inflation over the next financial perspectives.”

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend take some support from the fact that on 20 June our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told this House he thought reductions in the EU budget of 20% were “highly desirable”?

[Mr Cash]

Absolutely; that is a very good point indeed.

I would like to dig a little deeper into what this money is supposed to be used for. It is all set out in the papers laid before the House for the purposes of this debate. They talk about turning the EU into a “smart”—whatever that means—“sustainable and inclusive economy” delivering

“high levels of employment productivity and social cohesion.”

How on earth are they going to achieve that given the measures they think will produce growth? Almost every single aspect of what they want to deliver is based on increasing grants and subsidies, but not on asking where the money is coming from.

The money comes from our constituents. It comes from the taxpayer. It does not grow on trees. That is what they do not understand. Therefore, the entire strategy on which this multiannual financial framework is based is nonsense. It is an Alice in Wonderland fantasy, as I have repeatedly said when I have had the opportunity to meet the other 27 Chairmen of the national scrutiny committees. I have noticed that there is increasing awareness, too. The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) was with me only a few weeks ago, and he noticed the degree of response I was getting from the other member states’ national chairmen. They understood that they were in deep trouble.

The money does not grow on trees in Spain; that is why there are demands for independence from Catalonia. The money does not grow on trees in France or Germany either. The fact is that it has to be found.

Child Benefit

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) on securing this debate, which follows up debates during the Budget, during Second Reading of the Finance Bill and on clause 8 of the Finance Bill, and a similar debate before the Budget in this Chamber, which I had the privilege of introducing.

As the hon. Lady said, we have never had a satisfactory answer to why, if it is necessary to find a greater contribution towards reducing the deficit from those on higher earnings, we are targeting people on higher earnings with children, rather than those who do not have children. If my hon. Friend the Minister wishes to intervene at this stage and give the definitive reply, I shall happily give way.

The hon. Lady mentioned loss of support among Conservatives. I am worried and do not wish the Conservatives to lose support, which is why I have put a lot of energy into trying to ensure that this legislation is improved. If the Opposition had just asked to look at clause 8 during the Finance Bill debate on the Floor of the House—we considered clause 8 and schedule 1—we could have discussed the principles and referred to schedule 1, and those privileged to serve on the Finance Bill Committee would then have been able to consider the schedule in more detail. It is now apparent, according to the report by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, that an enormous amount of detail needs line-by-line scrutiny. Sadly, as a consequence of the earlier debate, such scrutiny cannot now be delivered, given the structure of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, because schedule 1 has already been considered. That is a problem. I shall not ascribe blame or responsibility for that, but it means that the Government do not have the benefit of detailed scrutiny of the workability of their proposals, or, as in this case, the lack of workability.

We have a real problem. I hope that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), will say what she thinks we can do to bring this issue back on Report in a form that finds favour not just with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless)—two Conservative Back-Benchers. Incidentally, we happen to be men and it is all ladies on the Opposition Benches this morning. Let us see what we can bring about.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about clause 8 and schedule 1. We proposed to delete the schedule, as well as the clause, because it was a shambles. However, I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about Report. I am more than happy to consider what we can do together, because, of course, we want the Bill to come out of Committee better than it went in.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. On such issues, there is a slow fuse as far as members of the general public are concerned. They do not realise what the implications are until quite a long period has elapsed. We must look to people from outside the House—third parties, perhaps—to try to alert our constituents more to the full implications.

[Barbara Keeley]

Has the hon. Gentleman seen the Asda Mumdex index—a panel of 4,000 mums—sent to Members of Parliament yesterday? The optimism figure on the future of their family finances dropped from zero to minus eight in February, and the latest research found that it has dropped to minus 16. The issue may be on a slow fuse, but people out there—certainly, women in families—are starting to understand that the future looks rather bleak.

[Mr Chope]

I have not seen those figures, but they obviously speak for themselves. Despite that, I am not receiving as many angry letters from constituents as when, for example, I was the junior Minister dealing with the community charge. Let us recall that in 1987 the Government were elected with a specific manifesto commitment to introduce the community charge on the back of its success in Scotland. The proposal on child benefit that we are discussing today was not even in our manifesto. Indeed, it was expressly ruled out by comments made by both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in their shadow positions before the general election.

[Sheila Gilmore]

As an aside, I am not so sure that, in 1987, the community charge was such a great success in Scotland. One thing that caused the eventual collapse of the community charge was not just its unfairness, but the sheer impracticality of collection, which had not properly been thought through. The operational issue was as important as anything else. It may be the same in this case.

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. There are two issues running in parallel. One difficulty for those of us proposing the community charge was to explain how it was fair that a duke and a dustman should pay the same amount. That difficulty ran through the public debate. At the same time, we went into great detail about exemptions for particular groups of people and an administratively burdensome system of rebates, which created a lot of fresh cliff edges, with people feeling that they had been treated unfairly. I fear that that is exactly what is happening with this ill-conceived proposal.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

The difference between the community charge and the abolition of the 10p tax rate by the previous Government and the present issue is that, at some point, taxpayers received a bill for a sum, making it clear that they had to pay it. The alternative, if this is not to become a slow-burn issue, is that come January, taxpayers will be unaware that they have to give up their child benefit or unaware of what their partner earns, so they will simply not pay or will be followed up by the Revenue and there will be mass non-compliance involving people who are unaware, or at least say that they are.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am grateful to him for reminding us about the 10p tax rate, because that introduces a bit of political balance into this debate. It is not just the coalition Government, or the previous Conservative Government, who can get on the wrong side of such issues, both in respect of the principle and of the detail. We need an answer to the question of why the single-parent earner on £60,000 loses the equivalent of all her child benefit, while next door the two-earner couple on up to £100,000, with their incomes spread equally between the earners, keep their child benefit. Will there be an answer to that question? Perhaps the Minister would like to intervene. Unless we get answers to those fundamental questions, it will be difficult for us to sell the concept to our constituents.

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent contribution. Does he agree that the unfairness of the measure goes beyond income? It does not take account of the number of children in any household.

[Mr Chope]

Of course it does not, because the whole thing is arbitrary. It is all based on the false premise that people on £20,000 or £30,000 a year are cross-subsidising those on higher incomes with children. I have had a letter published in The Daily Telegraph and the Minister has replied to my questions, but it is apparent from my hon. Friend’s answers that there is no cross-subsidy from a person on £20,000 a year to someone on £60,000 a year with however many children—that is a fallacy. I suspect that the policy is based on someone going to a focus group and asking, “Is it fair that someone on £20,000 should be subsidising a family on £60,000 with a whole lot of children?” Of course it would not be fair if it was true, but it is not true—it is a false premise and, on the basis of that, we have a policy that I fear will lose the Conservative party a large number of votes.

Let us not forget, however, that the origins of the policy lie not in the Conservative party but with the Liberal Democrats. Before the general election they were campaigning to interfere in that policy area. With the knowledge that the measure was originally proposed and supported by the Liberal Democrats, this is another example of an area in which the Prime Minister can feel free to make significant change if he wishes to respond to agitation on his Back Benches for a bigger Conservative element in Government policy. Officials have previously suggested that something should be done about taking child benefit away from those on higher earnings but my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), who was a Treasury Minister, said that, after looking at it from all angles, we reached the conclusion that it could not be done fairly. So what are the present Government going to do? They are going to do it, and they are going to do it unfairly.

What worries me is that the measure will be administratively burdensome as well, costing more than £100 million in extra administration. We will be taking on tens of thousands of additional civil servants when the Government are saying that we want to simplify tax policy, reduce the size of the state bureaucracy and so on. There is no consistency, and I fear for my party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am pleased to participate in this debate, and I congratulate all hon. Members who have spoken, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) on securing it, and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who has been a vocal and powerful advocate for families in the context of the Government’s proposals. I am pleased to see him here today.

I am sad—I suspect that the hon. Gentleman shares that sadness—to see a Conservative Government introducing this proposal. There have been threats to child benefit in past decades, but there has always been an alliance with strong Conservative voices that has stood up to protect against those threats and attacks. Conservative women have been particularly strong in their understanding of why the benefit matters so much to families—[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) pointed out, it is disappointing to see so few of them in the Chamber.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s generous remarks. It was not only Conservative women who campaigned. She will recall that John Major made the matter a cause célèbre. He said that it was wrong to take away child benefit, and that it should remain as a universal benefit.

[Kate Green]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I hope to come on to the situation when John Major was Prime Minister, and some of the arguments then.

For the benefit of many hon. Members who do not seem to appreciate the underlying principles of universal child benefit, I want to put them on the record this morning. I am sorry that they are not in the Chamber to have the benefit of my exposition, but they can read it in the Official Report. As hon. Members have said, this benefit, which is important for families, is a mechanism that is redistributive horizontally and vertically, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said. As other hon. Members have said, in practice that means that families with children receive extra help to meet the cost of raising their children because, as a society, we all share the benefit of those children making a future contribution to our communal well-being. It is right to provide that support universally, and to recognise that we all share in the social obligation to maintain those families.

Over its life, the benefit is redistributive, and it enables all families to manage the additional costs that they face when raising young children, and to plan their finances across their whole lifetime. Importantly, in practice—this has been alluded to—it is a benefit that has been paid mostly to mothers. The vast majority of child benefit is paid to mothers. Even in the richest families, it is the only source of independent income for many women, and it is essential that they have access to it to provide for and to meet the needs of their children.

As hon. Members have said, we know that that money is spent for the benefit of children, either directly on toys, books, activities, clothes, shoes and so on, or indirectly by paying down family debt, ensuring that basic household bills are covered. Things that are essential for children’s well-being are prioritised in all families, and one reason is the label it bears. There is good research evidence showing that because it is called “child benefit”, it is understood that it must be spent for the benefit of children, and that is what happens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was not going to point out that the Minister seems to be on his own this morning. I am sure that none the less he is very capable of dealing with the questions that have come up and will receive inspiration from various sources in order to do so. However, I will take the opportunity to repeat gently the advice that I tried to give the Minister during the discussion on the Floor of the House: “When you’re in a hole, it’s better to stop digging and find a ladder to get yourself out of that hole.” At that time, we were suggesting that we would be willing to work with the Government to see what could be done to mitigate the worst outcomes of this flawed policy, and that offer still stands.

[Mr Chope]

If I were the hon. Lady, I would take comfort from the fact that there are no Back Benchers here, because it shows that notwithstanding the very powerful Conservative Whips Office, they have not been able to dragoon anyone into coming here to support the Government’s policy today.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is not for me to interpret what the Conservative Whips Office is able to do to deliver people to the debate and ensure that they turn up. None the less, we have heard some very powerful speeches, not least from the hon. Gentleman himself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I think the corollary of that is being in favour of increasing the rate of tax on higher earners, but the hon. Lady did not quite make that explicit.

[Mr Chope]

I could understand my hon. Friend’s argument if what he were now introducing were not a tax, but it will be a tax rather than a reduction in benefit, will it not?

[Mr Gauke]

As my hon. Friend knows, the Office for National Statistics will make an assessment of whether the measure constitutes a tax increase or a spending cut. However, child benefit is spent on households with people who earn more than £60,000.