Palace of Westminster: Restoration and Renewal

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Chris Bryant]

Yes. I have done about 30 of those tours now, with different members of the public, broadcast outlets, newspapers and other Members of Parliament. Everybody has been struck by the fact that 75% of the work that we have to do is on the mechanical and electrical gubbins of the building. This is not about a fancy tarting up of the building—it is about whether the building can function.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I apologise for being a moment or two late, Mr Flello. On the point about fire, will the hon. Gentleman accept that there are quite a lot of fires and occasions for fires when buildings are closed for repair and renovation? Irrespective of when or how the work is done, doing the work of itself does not make this place infallible. We can have a fire at any time. It is a bogus point.

[Chris Bryant]

It is not a bogus point. One of the problems with the building is that it is not very well compartmentalised, which is why fire could move from one part of the building to another very quickly. That was one of the problems in 1834. Just prior to 1834, Sir John Soane had built a beautiful corridor from the old House of Lords to the old House of Commons Chamber, which took the fire from one to the other. The problem in the building at the moment is that, if we were to have a fire, it could easily spread very quickly across a large part of the estate.

[Simon Hoare]

I remember from my induction being told by the House staff that the reason why the fire spread was nothing to do with the corridor, but to do with the vents over Central Lobby being open for ventilation purposes. That is what caused the draw of the flame.

[Chris Bryant]

We should all read Caroline Shenton’s book and debate that later. The truth of the matter is that everybody was predicting a fire long before 1834 and we did not take any of the action necessary to ensure that we preserved the building. It is only good fortune that we ended up being able to save Westminster Hall, which is one of the most beautiful buildings in the world.

Another problem new to us in the 20th and 21st century is the substantial amount of asbestos in the building, which simply has to be removed. There have already been several asbestos scares.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Basically, there is one electricity system, one drainage system, one central heating system, one cooling system—the building is a unity. If we want to keep part of it open, especially a whole corridor, we would have to put in temporary services to accommodate everything. That is an expensive and, I would argue, risky business.

[Simon Hoare]

indicated dissent.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, but the specific work done by the House authorities on the proposal of the hon. Member for Gainsborough shows precisely that: it would be very expensive. The proposal is theoretically feasible, but it is very expensive.

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will not give way. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye later, Mr Flello—you have very good eyesight and, well, you have your glasses on anyway.

Another point for hon. Members to think hard about is that if we were sitting down at the other end of the building, the 240 or so MPs who now have offices in the historic Palace would by then have their offices in Richmond House—quite some distance from where people intend us to sit. Most importantly, however, we would either have to walk along a corridor specially created as some kind of bubble for us while work was going on all around, including the removal of asbestos—a risk in itself—or, alternatively, walk outside along the pavement; 650 or 600 MPs walking in a hurry along the pavement at known times of day for votes is a security risk that I would not be prepared to countenance.

For all such reasons, that proposal simply does not wash. The truth is that the Chambers are not hermetically sealed units. They rely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside said, on services from the rest of the building. Both the Chambers themselves will have to be closed, and the cost of temporary mechanical and electrical services would run into millions of unnecessary taxpayer pounds.

People also ask, “What about Westminster Hall?” Personally, I have a romantic attachment to Westminster Hall: I like the idea of sitting in the Hall where Richard II was removed as King by Henry IV in the shortest ever Parliament, which lasted one day. We could sit back and take inspiration from the angels carved on the ceiling. The Committee looked at the suggestion very seriously, but the problem is that the floor is not as solid as it looks. It is not sitting on the ground; the flagstones actually sit on a pillared grid, which simply could not take the weight of the large construction necessary to sit 600 or 650 MPs, members of the press and public, and all the other paraphernalia of the Chamber. In addition, such a Chamber would have to be heated, and all the advice we had from restorers and people who know about ancient buildings and historic wooden artefacts is that that would pose a risk to the ceiling that simply could not be countenanced. The roof of Westminster Hall is one of the most beautiful and precious things on the whole parliamentary estate, so that is not an option.

Some people have said—one Conservative Member present has said this to me several times: “You did not really look at the option of our staying in at all.” Yes, I am looking at the hon. Gentleman—or he is looking at me—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I am sure that the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) will not misunderstand when I say that neither he nor I will be likely to sit in the reconstructed Chamber. It can safely be said of both of us that we are not speaking out of personal self-interest.

In a debate in November 2012, I urged that work should be undertaken so that we can be prepared from 2020 onwards, so I have some form on this. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on making a very good speech outlining, as did the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden, why the work is essential. I hope that whether we agree to option 1, 2 or 3—and there is bound to be division not only today but when the matter is debated in the Chamber—we will agree on one thing. I hope that even the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who intervened earlier, will agree on this: the work is essential. I fear, as I said in the Chamber four years ago, that we will find ways and means of delaying the decision—because of finance, because there are other problems that the Government or Parliament must deal with, because it is not possible to reach a decision along the lines that so many of us want. The decision I want is simple: that from 2020 the work will begin, either through a total decant—I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda that that would be right—or otherwise. However, the Parliament elected in 2020, if that is when we have a general election, would sit in a different place.

[Simon Hoare]

May I just clarify something? No one doubts—I certainly do not—the scale of the work that needs to be done, the need for it, or the underlying urgency. We question the means of delivery of the works.

[Mr Winnick]

I do not disagree, obviously. The hon. Gentleman clearly accepts that the work needs to be done. One reason for today’s debate is to look at ways of delivery; but obviously there must be a major debate in the Chamber.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda mentioned the possibility of a meltdown of mechanical and electrical services. It is all in the report, and I am sure we have all read it. In many instances the cables and pipes are surrounded by dangerous asbestos. The report says that much of the building is riddled with asbestos. As to water penetration, we know from experience that when there is heavy rain there is flooding in parts of the building. We have seen it with our own eyes, let alone what the report states about the situation.

House of Lords Reform and Size of the House of Commons

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

I think there is more to the history of that than blaming the Labour party. I think it was the coalition Government that suffered a slight hiccup in their relationship at that point.

While what I have described was clearly bad enough, it came at the same time as the Government sought to reduce the number of elected Members of Parliament from 650 to 600. That was done under the guise of making politics cheaper, but it barely scraped the surface of the additional costs of the unelected Lords. Just where is the logic in reducing the size of the democratically elected Commons? If we want consensus, we can all agree to abolish the Boundary Commission review. We are being asked for consensus by the Minister, and that is fine, but if we want consensus in relation to certain issues, we should have consensus in relation to democracy. That is simple.

During the last Parliament, the attempt to rig democracy in favour of continuous Conservative control failed only because the Conservatives’ coalition partners, the threatened Liberal Democrats, rebelled—a point that I made to the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). They did not rebel over the much trumpeted 2010 anti-austerity policies. They were not terribly interested in opposing in-year spending cuts, increased tuition fees, or even the fundamentally illiberal “gagging Bill”. The truth is that the Liberal Democrats spat out the proverbial dummy because of the Government’s failure to back their poor compromise on reform of the Lords, which they themselves sought to stuff with their own peers. [Hon. Members: “Where are they?”] Absolutely. I was waiting for an intervention then, but, looking around the Chamber, I see that there is no one from the Liberal Democrats here to intervene.

The coalition agreement on Lords appointments would have meant an additional 186 peers, costing an estimated £24 million. All of them would have been Liberal Democrats or Conservatives. Interestingly, the Dissolution honours list contained more Liberal Democrats than their current parliamentary cohort. I hear people say that that is not hard to achieve, but it is nevertheless an important point.

Although the Liberal Democrat rebellion scuppered the 2013 review, the legislation was never repealed, and the unfettered Conservative Government have returned to the task. Their proposals to redraw constituency boundaries are grossly unfair, unjust, undemocratic and wholly unacceptable. They are based on an out-of-date version of the electoral register with nearly 2 million voters missing, a disproportionately high number of whom are transient and poorer voters: students, and families forced to move as a result of changes in the benefit system. The changes fail to take any account of the myriad bits of additional work that the vote to leave the European Union and a return of powers would bring.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has suggested that the Boundary Commission, and therefore the commissioners, are guilty of a gerrymander. May I invite him to reflect on that? We have independent commissioners who are looking at our parliamentary boundaries. To impugn their honour, their integrity and their independence belies the hon. Gentleman.

[Ian Lavery]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that, but I did not in any way suggest that the commissioners were gerrymandering. My view is that the Conservative party—this Government—are attempting to gerrymander the boundary changes. They are the ones who want the reduction from 650 to 600. I do not believe that there is any other party in the House of Commons that wants that. That is my point, and I wonder how reducing the number of MPs from 29 to 25 in my native north-east or from 59 to 53 in the west midlands fits in with the Tory devolution agenda. I am unsure, but perhaps the Minister will answer that at some stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove). It is just a shame that he has done a disservice to the House and to himself by refusing to discuss any part of the motion on the Order Paper. Let us consider the predicament into which the political class in this country has now gotten itself. Since the introduction of adult universal suffrage, there has been concern and sometimes embarrassment about the anachronistic nature of our bicameral legislature, in which one completely unelected House has the powers that it has. Over the decades, there have been attempts—many of them successful—to limit those powers and to assert the primacy of this House.

Now, however, we are embarking on a journey on which two things will happen simultaneously. The number of Members in the unelected House will increase to unprecedented levels and without any limit. At the same time, the number of people elected to make laws in this country will be reduced. In my view, that is a serial affront to the democratic values on which this country is based. That could be viewed as simply a matter of constitutional theory, but it is much more important than that. It speaks to the character of our democracy and our country. It lowers the esteem in which we are held abroad and, most importantly, it lowers the esteem in which this legislature is held by its own citizens. I believe that this is one of the contributory factors to the anti-politics, the disillusion and the alienation that have emerged in this country, and unless we do something to counteract this, we are all going to be in a lot of trouble.

As it happens, we do believe in an elected second Chamber, but the case for a bicameral Parliament has to be argued; it cannot just be assumed to be the default position. In fact, 16 of the 28 member states of the European Union have a unicameral Parliament. That is the norm throughout Europe, so we cannot assume that bicameralism is automatically the default.

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Gentleman makes a strong and telling point about the size of the upper House when compared with the number of elected Members. However, when the official Opposition in this place are in disarray and clearly not up to the job of official scrutiny, the bicameral system means that efficient scrutiny can be done in another place. Does he agree that we should cherish that safeguard?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I want to come on to that. A frequent argument for a revising or upper Chamber is the inadequacy of the first Chamber, and I want to look at some of the imperfections of this House. To start with, we may be elected and accountable, but we can in no way be described as democratically representative of the population who elected us. A system that results in a majority Government with 37% of the vote can never be described as such. Our system is also much more centralised than that of any comparable country. We in Scotland have been on a home rule journey, which we are anxious to speed up, but I actually feel for colleagues in England, who represent the bulk of the United Kingdom, about the absence of any meaningful regional or democratic local government beneath this level. If we actually looked at the matrix of governance underneath this place, we could relieve many of the pressures on this House.

Our procedures for policy review and scrutiny are not fit for purpose. This adversarial system—two sword lengths apart—often militates against a consensual or at least a majoritarian approach to developing public policy, which is why mistakes in this place often have to be rectified somewhere else. However, that is not an argument for the House of Lords; it is an argument for improving the procedures of the House of Commons. The truth is that we need to consider our legislature as a whole and bring in major reforms to both Houses of Parliament. If we do not do that, our system of governance will fall further into disrepute.

Budget Changes

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The Government will be engaging with the Welsh Government and local authorities on that. The future for the Welsh economy would be best pursued by electing a Conservative Government in Wales, as well as in the United Kingdom.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is thanks to the steadfast stewardship of the economy by our right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the Treasury team for the past six years that this year we have been able to introduce a Budget that has supported small businesses, supported the motorist, supported and helped local brewers and the pub industry, and that continues policies that support business and create jobs? Only steadfastness of purpose delivers that. Strength to the Treasury team’s elbow.

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend puts it very well. This is a Government, and this is a Chancellor of the Exchequer, who have turned round the economy. We are in a position to be growing strongly compared with our international competitors, and we are bringing the public finances under control, having inherited the mess that would did in 2010.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

There is much in the Budget that I welcome. Before coming to my main point, I will mention four particular things: measures to reduce childhood obesity; money to tackle homelessness that shames our city and our country; a freezing of fuel duty; and the cutting of taxes for small businesses and corporation tax. I remind Opposition Members, who sometimes make crass political points about corporations being favoured over people, that it is companies that create the jobs our constituents rely on.

I welcome the funding for Crossrail 2. I campaigned in the general election, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), for Crossrail 2 to come to as many stations as possible in the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames. I am delighted that the plans include the intention to come to every station in our borough. Since my election, I have taken every opportunity to make sure this project is realised, but it is certainly not something I or my party have done alone. It has been a cross-party effort, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who led the all-party group on Crossrail 2 with real aplomb.

I was delighted last week when the National Infrastructure Commission gave its backing to Crossrail 2. I am even more delighted now that the Chancellor has given it a green light in the Budget. Crossrail 2 asked for two things from the Treasury: funding for the pre-legislative work, and a commitment to introduce a hybrid Bill in this Parliament to allow the project to get off the ground. The Budget has granted £80 million, along with that commitment.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

As well as the benefits this project will provide to my hon. Friend’s constituency and constituents, does he recognise that freeing up potential extra capacity in Waterloo station will be of huge benefit for those coming up from the south-west, particularly from my constituency of North Dorset?

[James Berry]

My hon. Friend is right. This is not just a London project. I heard the cat-calls from Members on the Opposition Benches saying, “What about this or that part of the country?” This is not just a London-centric project. It helps people across the south of England. Anyone coming into Waterloo will see a huge change, with a huge amount of space freed up because trains will be diverted to Victoria. Equally, people living Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire will see much better connectivity into London. As always, my hon. Friend is right.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that not only do people work in shops on Sundays already—in many areas, for longer than the opening hours, because of how shops work—but people working in retail, if they work six days a week, might like to visit retail outlets themselves on Sundays. The internet is growing: we saw a stark warning of that today as Amazon has announced it is opening another centre in Manchester, creating more jobs. That shows how it is growing and the pressure that the internet is applying, but of course we are not forcing anybody to shop on a Sunday.

Councils want this power. They want the ability to zone and to take a decision on trading in their area—for example, if they wish to promote the high street at the expense of out-of-town commercial sites. Our amendment allows that zoning to happen, and no one knows more about their local area than locally elected leaders. This also provides an opportunity for independent businesses to benefit. One of the big voices calling for this change is the Horticultural Trades Association, comprising mainly independent businesses, and it wants this growth.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I think the Minister has hit the nail absolutely on the head. Listening to the debate hitherto, one might have thought that we were proposing to introduce Sunday trading. The Minister is absolutely right, and I speak as a former district councillor of 11 years standing, that it is not for this House to decide what is best for local areas—it is for those local areas and their local representatives, and they are being given discretion.

[Brandon Lewis]

I agree with my hon. Friend; I think he is right. One of the things I have been most passionate about, as have the Secretary of State, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, during the years of coalition as well as in this Parliament, is devolving power, and we just wish our friends in Scotland believed in devolving power, too. It is why organisations representing independent businesses like garden centres are so keen to benefit from this growth.

EU Referendum: Timing

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dodds]

I respect the hon. Gentleman’s point of view. I understand where he, as an English Eurosceptic, is coming from. I hope he respects where we in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales on both sides of the argument are coming from. We will weigh the arguments and consider whether his view should be tempered by the contributions of colleagues from other parts of the UK, some of whom might share his views.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

A phrase in the motion stands out as pretty strong stuff, and I would welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s explanation of it. It claims that the

“needlessly premature date risks contaminating the result”.

I thought we had already established across the House that the electorate can both walk and chew gum. I am not entirely sure how the result could be “contaminated”.

[Mr Dodds]

It is pretty obvious on an issue that the Conservative party has debated for many decades and the country raised many concerns about, that when the deal is finalised—the “t”s are crossed, the “i”s dotted and all the rest of it—we surely deserve more than a short 18, 17 or 16-week campaign for detailed consideration. If the Conservative party and others are really interested in putting the issue to bed once and for all, I think they will want the fullest and most comprehensive debate possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

I am sorry—there are two of them, including the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), who has defected by the looks of it.

[Simon Hoare]

I have heard a rumour that the Labour Members are all in a Trident submarine somewhere, sailing around and looking for things.

[Stuart Andrew]

That was a wise intervention.

I come at the issue having always supported a referendum. Dare I say it with the Government Whip on the Front Bench, but I was one of the rebels who voted for a referendum back in the day. I was four when the people of this country last had an opportunity to have a say on our relationship with Europe. That relationship has clearly changed over the past 40-odd years, and many of my constituents want the opportunity to discuss the matter and have their say again. That is backed up by evidence; in 2008, an organisation called Open Europe organised an all-postal ballot in my constituency, asking people whether they wanted a referendum and whether they supported the Lisbon treaty. Even though it was a voluntary postal ballot, more than 13,000 people took part in it, and more than 11,400—some 88% of those who took part—voted to say that they wanted to have the opportunity for a referendum on Europe. There is a clear appetite for such a referendum.

Many people have expressed to me their frustration about the fact that the referendum could be as late as 2017. They want to get on with it, regardless of which side of the argument they are on. I suspect that if there was a further delay because of the issues that have been raised in the motion, many of my constituents would view that with some scepticism.

When the European Union Referendum Bill was going through the House, I had sympathy with the views about the referendum being held on the same day as the 6 May elections. I am glad that the Government responded to the pressure that was applied, because those two things needed to be very separate, but to suggest that a longer period of separation is needed is, frankly, patronising. As others have said, it is not as though the Europe debate has not been going on for years and years. All who are for or against our partnership in Europe have made their points eloquently over the past four decades. In addition, the Government have also committed to allowing at least a six-week period between the elections and the referendum. I believe that that is more than adequate. Frankly, if those campaigns cannot get their message across in six weeks, perhaps they, and not my constituents, need to ask themselves some serious questions. My constituents are more than able to understand the issues that are being debated.

The truth is that there is history here. The previous European referendum was held only one month after the completion of the legislation. With the alternative vote referendum, there was plenty of time to discuss the issues. I know from being on the doorstep that many people understood what was being asked of them. When it comes to separating the issues, I refer back to my point about being patronising. Yes, the elections in May are incredibly important. In Wales, people will be elected to the Assembly, and in Scotland to the Parliament. There will be mayoral elections and the Northern Ireland elections. In my constituency, people will have to vote for their local councillors and for their police and crime commissioners.

Energy BILL [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Clive Lewis]

I have no doubt that they have made that investment in renewables. However, I am talking about investor confidence. I will give an analogy of investor confidence. I was in the Army, where we orienteered by taking a reference point from something 100 or 200 metres away that we could see on our map. However, if you want to make the best progress—if you want to allow your men to make the best speed—you look at the far horizon, find a point and aim for it.

That is what this is about: investor confidence for the long-term future. What the Government have done, with one fell swoop, by trying to end the renewables obligation early, is say they can chop and change as they see fit for political motives. That sends the wrong signal to the market and investors.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being generous with his time. May I put to him this countervailing thought? The onshore wind sector is now very mature. It has got a good basis and is “proving its worth”. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it should always be subsidy-reliant?

I do not buy this lack of market confidence. Paris and everything else point to a decarbonisation of energy generation. Investors are not going to have that policy pulled from under their feet. That should give plenty of market confidence to the private sector and others to invest. To have them continually drip-fed public money, irrespective of which purse it is taken from, has to stop. If the market pretends to be surprised by that, the Government would be surprised, because our policy was trailed very well months in advance of the election.

[Clive Lewis]

I thank the hon. Members for their interventions. We are not talking about subsidies ad infinitum. We are just saying stick to the plan; that is all we are saying. Whether it is solar or wind energy, subsidy should be seen as a glide path. What the Government have done is chop the wings off. I have lists of quotes from investors who will say that this is not the best way forward.

A report last week from Bloomberg New Energy Finance research forecast that these measures will see the UK lose at least 1 GW of renewable energy generation, enough to power 660,000 homes over the next five years. The figures suggest that after 2020 the renewables infrastructure will collapse to almost nothing because of a lack of investment.

David Hostert, the analyst behind the research, said:

“Without some form of change in policy support, we could see investment drop off a cliff after 2019.”

Meanwhile, Maria McCaffery, chief executive of RenewableUK, said:

“The Government’s decision to end prematurely financial support for onshore wind sends a chilling signal not just to the renewable energy industry, but to all investors right across the UK’s infrastructure sectors. It means this Government is quite prepared to pull the rug from under the feet of investors even when this country desperately needs to clean up the way we generate electricity at the lowest possible cost—which is onshore wind. People’s fuel bills will increase directly as a result of this Government’s actions. If Government was really serious about ending subsidy it should be working with industry to help us bring costs down, not slamming the door on the lowest cost option.”

I come back to the point on bills, Let us look at what this saves the average household. According to the Government’s own assessment, the changes will save just 30p on consumer annual energy bills and increase the UK’s carbon emissions by 63 million tonnes.

Ultimately, these measures are a backtracking, chaotic travesty. They make no sense, punish one of our most cost-effective and successful renewable industries and endanger this country’s energy security by undermining investor confidence. As such, I urge the Minister to drop them.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments (l), (m) and (n)—I am getting there, I promise—apply in various ways to projects which have received planning consent before 18 June 2015 but which may subsequently seek to vary or modify that planning consent. It is not clear in the current legislation whether projects meeting the approved development condition as of 18 June 2015 but which subsequently have to modify their consent would be able to accredit under the grace period.

[Simon Hoare]

I fear that there is an inherent danger in the amendments. It is simply the conflation, which I think the planning process should quite specifically seek to avoid, of arguments surrounding financial viability, whether funded from the private or public sector, and whether a proposal dovetails with planning policies and the acceptability and suitability of a particular physical proposal. By trying to conflate the two, the hon. Gentleman puts an undue weight on the viability case, which local authorities will find very difficult to opine upon, and even a very casual review of planning inspectors’ decisions would also suggest that the Planning Inspectorate itself finds it very difficult to balance the two as well.

[Philip Boswell]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that this is merely an attempt to clarify or articulate the position from a legislative perspective. It remains our firm intention that the decision remains, as per policy, with local authorities and local people.

Although statements from Ministers in the House of Lords have indicated that the Government intend for modified consents to remain eligible, clarity on this in the Bill would remove any doubt and allow investments to proceed. Amendment (l) provides for cases where a planning permission was granted on or before 18 June 2015, but where that planning permission has been varied under the provisions recorded in sub-paragraph (ii). Permissions under section 73 of the 1990 Act or section 42 of the 1997 Act are in law new permissions, and without this provision such further approvals based on permission granted before 18 June would be shut out from receiving a ROC. Deemed planning permission issued with section 36 consents can be varied under section 73 or 42, but there is a need to refer to section 90 of the 1990 Act and section 57 of the 1997 Act because they will be engaged on an application to vary section 36 consent under section 36C of the 1989 Act.

Amendment (m) ensures that applications to vary an existing 1990 Act or 1997 Act permission that was granted on or before 18 June, that may result in an increased capacity which takes the total generating capacity of the station above 50MW and must therefore be done by way of an application for a section 36 consent rather than by way of a variation of the 1990 Act or 1997 Act permission, will still qualify for the grace period. Amendment (n) ensures that a project is still eligible for the grace period where a planning permission granted on or before 18 June 2015 is superseded by a subsequent permission granted after 18 June 2015 for a generating station of the same or lower capacity on the same site.

Amendment (o) is a new amendment to cover judicial review and statutory challenges relating to planning permissions granted on or before 18 June 2015. It envisages that the planning permission which is ultimately granted or confirmed following court proceedings can be accredited under the RO. How much capacity may come through the door as a result of the amendment that can be easily quantified by reference to any proceedings now in the court.

It is common practice within the sector for grid agreements to be varied by parties after initial agreement. Amendment (p) will clarifies that, provided a grid connection agreement is in place by 18 June, eligibility for grace periods will not be affected by any subsequent variations of that agreement. So far, Ministers have been unable to provide sufficient clarity that subsequent alterations or replacement of agreements would be eligible for the grace period. If the Government intend projects in those circumstances to proceed with construction and be accredited under the RO, that should be made clear in the Bill, for the avoidance of any further doubt and further delays. Amendments (q) and (r) are intended to make it clear that deemed planning permission is included within the definition of permission in the 1990 Act and the 1997 Act, and thus fall within the definition of planning permission.

Our amendments (s), (t) and (u) relate to new section 32LK of the Electricity Act 1989, inserted by Government new clause 2, which sets out the criteria for projects that would be eligible to meet the investment freezing condition. This condition is necessary—I thank the Minister for her stated intention of respect—because the way that the Government have chosen to close the RO a year earlier than planned through primary legislation has caused so much uncertainty that some investors cannot have stopped investment in onshore wind projects until the Energy Bill receives Royal Assent.

Amendment (s) addresses an illogicality within new section 32LK(4)(a)(i). The Government-drafted amendment envisages a developer requiring funding from a recognised lender, a term which is defined in subsection (5). However, it must have been intended that the only condition should be that the relevant developer required funding from any source, hence the proposed deletion of the reference to a recognised lender in this clause.

Amendment (t) deletes certain words as they unnecessarily narrow the definition of “recognised lender”. If the words proposed for deletion were included, they could exclude lenders who are new to the market and who have not previously given loans to onshore wind developers. Amendment (u) is consequential on amendment (t). The change proposed by amendment (t) removes the terms defined in subsection (6) from the definition of “recognised lender” so there is no longer any need to define those terms, making subsection (6) unnecessary.

I move on to new clause 3, and again I thank the Minister for her efforts and intents on new Northern Irish onshore wind. The new clause covers the development of wind generating stations in Northern Ireland. When the Energy Bill provisions were published, they related only to projects in Great Britain, because energy policy is devolved to Northern Ireland. Subsequently, Northern Ireland Ministers consulted on equivalent changes to the Northern Ireland renewables obligation, with cut-off dates for planning consent proportionate to this later consultation and notification date. Northern Ireland Ministers proposed setting two closure dates which related to different sizes of projects, and to the manner of connection to the Northern Ireland electricity market of these different project types. Smaller projects which connect at 33 kV to the Northern Ireland grid network would have to have been consented to by 30 September 2015. Larger projects which connect as clusters of projects would have to be consented to by 31 October 2015.

Northern Ireland Ministers have yet to announce their decision on Northern Ireland closure, as agreement between the Northern Ireland Executive and the UK Government has yet to be reached. This means that any subsequent Northern Ireland legislation cannot be enacted via the Northern Ireland Assembly until after the Bill is enacted. It is therefore necessary that the Bill is clear as to the limits of the application of the provision to Northern Ireland and that it respects timescales proportionate to the Northern Ireland generating stations. Failure to do this would mean that generating stations in Northern Ireland could be penalised because of a misalignment of timescales between reserved and devolved powers in the UK. I urge the Minister to seriously consider these amendments.

New clause 15 would,

“return to the Scottish Ministers the power to close the renewables obligation in relation to electricity generated by onshore wind generating stations in Scotland”.

Before the Energy Act 2013 was passed, Scottish Ministers had full control over renewables obligations in line with the Scotland Act 1998, which devolved powers to the Scottish Government regarding the supply of electricity from renewable sources. The Energy Act 2013 took back this control through a UK Government amendment tabled in the House of Lords that gave the Secretary of State the power to close the RO, including in Scotland. The justification for this change in the law was that it would facilitate a coherent and transparent closure across the UK and move toward the new contract for difference system. Those powers were taken back to Westminster under the previous Energy Act on the clear understanding and promise from the Government that there would be no policy implications; it was said to be just a technical change that would not affect any policy decisions.

At the time, the move was condemned by the Scottish Government’s Fergus Ewing, who said that the UK Government produced the amendment in the House of Lords with “no consultation or explanation”. He said:

“We are deeply concerned about this summary removal of the Scottish Government’s discretion in an area of such vital importance to our people and economy.”

Clearly, the original justification for stripping Scotland of a power devolved in 1998 no longer holds water. There has been a policy change by the UK Government, and it is one to which the Scottish Government dissent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his points.

[Simon Hoare]

Picking up on the point just raised by the hon. Member for Norwich South, as far as I am aware the Minister has clarified that the carbon capture arena will now move within the purview of the OGA and it will be the OGA that will decide what is best to be done in that field, rather than the very costly blanket ban which the other place sought to impose on the Bill. The hon. Gentleman’s fear is misplaced.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank my hon. Friend; I could not have put it better myself and that is handy, because I was quoting from a Library document and I could not have told hon. Members what the next paragraph would have been, so I very much appreciate my hon. Friend’s help.

I gave a bit of a history lesson explaining why I set up what was almost a caucus, to use American terms on the day we are getting the results of the Iowa presidential caucuses. I think I could say that the 101 Members of Parliament I got to sign a letter and then campaign pretty hard were a caucus. The caucus that I led—it was not just me leading it; there were plenty of people taking a strong lead in this area—was certain about what it wanted to achieve when it came to the future policy for onshore wind. We wanted to make sure that onshore wind received no new subsidies. We were fed up with the way our communities had been treated.

As I said on Second Reading and as I think the Committee has agreed, I was quite happy about the second part of the commitment—a change to the law so that local people have the final say on wind farms—because I thought that that was pretty much the case, until a particular wind farm planning appeal came about. That was the Kelmarsh wind farm appeal, when the planning inspector ruled in favour of the development going through because he said that national policy in the area of renewable energy trumped all local concerns. And those local concerns were huge: they were concerns about a grade 1 listed building built in 1732 and about the site of the battle of Naseby. The inspector said in his report that this wind farm would have a “distinct visible presence” over Rupert’s viewpoint, King Charles’ oak viewpoint, Sulby hedges, the Royal Observer Corps lookout post and Mill Hill viewpoint. These are places and viewpoints from the battle of Naseby which I would argue—and I do argue with my colleagues—was the battle where Parliament fought for itself properly and won properly for the first time. The birthplace of Parliament was going to be overlooked by massive turbines, nearly the size of the London Eye.

The inspector said that national policy outweighs

“any harmful impacts it may have in terms of the setting of heritage assets, the living conditions of local residents in terms of visual impact and noise in particular, the…enjoyment of the countryside, biodiversity, notably bats, and other matters”

What I thought was a local issue to be dealt with local planners, which is where I think the whole Committee wants to return such matters, was being elevated to national policy level.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Some interesting points are being raised, which the Government would do well to treat fairly.

The Minister mentioned the overperformance of onshore wind and our 2020 renewables target. I must stress this point clearly: there is a legally binding overall 2020 renewables target, but it is made up of a road map of targets for electricity, heat and transport, which are not binding but form our contribution to the overall renewables target. The target is for 30% of electricity generation, 12% of heat generation and 10% of transport to be renewable by 2020. When conceding that point, the Minister said that the problem is that the subsidies required for electricity and things such as onshore wind are such that we could not possibly try to overperform and that, frankly, we are not hitting our heat and transport targets.

If the Minister is worried about the impact of electricity subsidies on billpayers, she must get the briefing on how we will hit the heat target. To do so through the renewable heat incentive alone would require a budget in excess of the entire budget for the Department of Energy and Climate Change. The Minister will not save money by cutting back on this important area. She will almost certainly incur a much bigger liability for the taxpayer unless she can tell us that we are on track for our heat and transport targets, but we all know that we are not.

The Bill is needed to legislate for the Conservative party’s manifesto position, but the Government should recognise the UK’s pressing situation regarding investability. There are anomalies in the way that the Government’s objectives have been drawn up in the Bill and it is reasonable to correct them at this stage. Most of all, this group of amendments strikes the right balance between the Government’s objectives, investability and the national interest. I hope that the amendments will be considered properly.

[Simon Hoare]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey.

I was slightly anxious when my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry began his remarks with a clear US feel in talking about caucuses and the like. The Committee will know that today is groundhog day in the United States and listening to some of the speeches of Opposition Members, it did feel a bit like groundhog day today. Google is good for some things. [Interruption.] Trump that, as my hon. Friend says.

My heart sank when listening to an erudite but certainly groundhog day speech from the hon. Member for Norwich South, with all those surveys where this association says that and that association says the other, while 37% do such and such. As we all know, surveys can be made to say all sorts of things. “Bears prefer woods to bathrooms,” says one survey, “Turkeys don’t endorse Christmas as an annual event,” says another. The one survey that the Opposition parties seemed to neglect was the survey at the general election. That was a survey in which the British people said very clearly, among other things––particularly, though not exclusively, in rural England––that enough was enough. The survey at the ballot box demonstrated that this is an incredibly popular policy.

I have a fundamental support for how the Government are proposing to tackle the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry alluded to it. It would have been entirely within the purview of the Department––had it so wished, based on the election result––to say, “There we are. We’ve won. Any form of financial support or subsidy is going. You’ve got 12 hours to prepare and that’s it.” [Interruption.] For an Opposition Member to say that something the Government might do is very stupid takes a little brass neck. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde exhorted us all to take front and centre our duties to ensure that the investment markets had confidence in Britain. I look forward to the leaked transcripts of parliamentary Labour party meetings where he makes those points to his leader and the shadow Chancellor because I am not entirely sure that their policies do much to support confidence for investment in UK plc.

The stance that the Government have taken is to have a realistic timeframe whereby the industry, which must have been the most myopic ostrich if it did not see this coming, has time to rethink existing plans and, if it so wishes, seek alternative funding from the market. It is indicative that the Opposition say that this sector must always be subsidised. When David Davies of Llandinam literally sold the family silver––and almost the shoes on his feet––to pay the workers who were digging for coal in the south Wales valleys because he realised that there would be a market for coal to fuel the industrial revolution of which we were on the cusp, I doubt he sat down and thought, “Do you know what? I just wish there was a Government subsidy to support me doing this.” No, he realised that there was a market opportunity with profit attached to it and he went and did it. He did not need a subsidy and I do not believe wind should have one.

[Philip Boswell]

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that no tax was paid at that time? That gentleman therefore did not have to worry about that cost.

[Simon Hoare]

I am delighted to hear an SNP Member thinking about a no-tax economy to help entrepreneurs. I am sure he will take that to Holyrood.

[Callum McCaig]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hoare]

I will not give way.

[Callum McCaig]

Oh, please!

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Gentleman asks so nicely.

[Callum McCaig]

I am ever so obliged. I thank the hon. Gentleman deeply. He said that this should not have come as a huge surprise. The date of one of the planning applications mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill was 28 May 2013. It does not cost nothing to get an application to that stage before going through the process. Will the hon. Gentleman remind the Committee when the Conservative manifesto was written?

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Gentleman knows that it was clearly written post-2013, but the sector should have known of the irrepressible commitment of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, with his 101 Dalmatians, or however many it was, who had been making such comments during the course of the previous two Parliaments, and realised that something was likely to happen.

One thing that I find of genuine interest/concern—we sometimes have faux interests and concerns, but this is genuine—is that the onshore wind sector is fairly mature and well established. We do not need to argue about its bona fides. We do not need to argue about whether it is generating 1%, 5%, 6% or 14% of electricity, because it varies. It is here and we have it. Very often, Governments of all stripes will provide some form of financial support and backing to a nascent industry or sector, but once it is on its feet and has proven its bona fides, it should be able to stand on its own two feet without subsidy.

In the conversations I have had with people from the sector, the question that was always very hard, if not impossible, for them to answer was what cut-off point they envisaged for the ending of onshore subsidy. When I asked, “What are you saying to Government and to Ministers about how you see this support going?” the general response was, “We will continue to take the subsidy as long as it is there.” That is no way to run a policy, even if the books are buoyant and in the black. It is certainly no way to run a policy when the books are anything but.

I was interested when the hon. Member for Norwich South seemed to suggest that because the subsidy was coming from the public—from their direct debits, bank accounts, purses and wallets—and not directly from Her Majesty’s Treasury, there was some difference. I keep making this point: although the national average salary is around £24,500, in North Dorset it is £17,500. I do not think that my constituents saw it as particularly fair or equitable to provide, through their bills, subsidy to very successful businesses and the landowners who were also getting their percentage of the deal.

[Dr Whitehead]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hoare]

Let me make this point, because I think this is how the market operates, and will operate in future.

The hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill was discussing the planning system. Anybody who has any understanding of the commercial planning process—onshore wind turbines are part of that process as much as supermarkets or hotels are—will know that there are risks attached to it. People can spend an awful lot of money optioning up the land, paying consultants, having surveys done and so on, yet still fall foul of the process. Even if someone does not fall foul of it and secures consent, they might suddenly find that the funding regime from the banks or pension funds has altered or the appetite for the product they were seeking to develop has waned. They just have to chalk it down to experience. If we have some form of system in which as soon as anybody makes a planning proposal the automatic presumption is that, de facto, they will always have consent, that would be a very dangerous sign to send to the commercial development sector.

[Philip Boswell]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that under the Twentyshilling Hill wind farm timeline, the sunk costs incurred before 18 June 2014 were £3.5 million, plus commitments of £3.3 million, totalling £6.8 million? The point is that these included placing deposits on turbines with Nordex. Such orders in the industry are long-lead orders and often have to be placed a year or more in advance. Does he not agree that for a project of such efficacy, one has to plan ahead and commit?

[Simon Hoare]

No, I do not, with the greatest of respect. I can recall in my own commercial career working on a project for at least 11 years, where the client had spent somewhere in the region of £8.2 million propounding a planning proposal and still was not in sight of securing a consent. This is the point that I make. If someone is in the commercial development sector—the energy sector or whatever—there are risks attached.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

There is a point that has to be stressed here. Onshore wind developers are not arguing against the closure of the RO. They are not arguing for anything that might be unreasonable in terms of the risks that they knew were involved in the planning system. They are asking for the Government’s promises on sunk costs to be honoured. That is what the group of amendments does. They are not about demanding subsidy for ever or about asking for compensation for reasonable risks that were known to be there. It is about the Government honouring their promise on sunk costs.

[Simon Hoare]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. He obviously has a little more faith—I will be charitable and say faith—because I am not entirely convinced that any sector that is so sated by subsidy would ever turn round at any point and say, “Do you know what? Now is a really good time to end the subsidy.” There will always be a reason. We heard it from the solar sector: “Give us another 10 more years because we are on the cusp of doing something quite exciting with storage batteries.” Why they did not think about that when the sector was nascent, I do not know. People who receive a subsidy will always find an argument for the maintenance of the status quo.

The hon. Member for Southampton, Test, who leads for the Opposition, is about to burst a blood vessel unless I let him in. Having listened to him for the past two and a half days, I am loth to do so, but of course I will let him in.

[Dr Whitehead]

May I gently ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has ever heard of digression? When the subsidies for wind were first introduced, one of the reasons that they received clearance for state aid in the EU was that they were not permanent and were based on digression, and everyone agreed that that should be the case. Secondly, I could have sworn the hon. Gentleman was here earlier in the debate when we were discussing the application of subsidies to a mature industry: North sea oil and gas exploration. Will he compare what happened earlier in the debate and what is happening now?

[Simon Hoare]

In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, he makes a valid point, and I will answer his point in the way that I have answered it when constituents have talked to me about it. For those who try to seek a golden thread of thinking that runs through all of energy policy, they will look in vain, because there are inconsistencies. I am a huge supporter of the nuclear sector. I must confess it makes me slightly glow. [Interruption.] No, that is not the word I am looking for. It is not a rational approach to say I do not like subsidies for onshore wind, but I can understand the need for a subsidy for the nuclear sector. The problem with what the hon. Gentleman is trying to find—and he is legitimate in his search—is that we have so siloed our means of energy generation that they have to be viewed silo by silo, rather than according to the product that is being generated: electricity.

I do not want to take up the Committee’s time more than I need to, but I want to slightly echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry said. My hon. Friend the Minister may recall that I mentioned this point on Second Reading in the House. At some point, there will need to be a side conversation between her Department and the Department for Communities and Local Government about the national planning policy framework. There is a slight danger that in the Localism Act 2011, we raised too much expectation of the phrase “local decisions”.

The Minister confirmed this morning—we are absolutely right to keep to this regime—that an aggrieved applicant would still be able to trot off to the Planning Inspectorate to appeal a decision, in the same way as the Secretary of State will be able to recall an application that may have been determined favourably by the local planning authority. Again, both an aggrieved applicant and an aggrieved third party will still have recourse to the courts for a judicial review, but the wording of the national planning policy framework—I am afraid I do not have the paragraphs to hand—provides a strong and reliable crutch to the inspectorate. It says that national planning policy, such as decarbonisation and so on, will trump a number of the key topics that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry was talking about: areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest, heritage and listed buildings and so on.

I do not think that we need to ramp that up too much, but I welcome the fact that instead of segregating proposals by size, local councils will be able to determine applications through the democratically elected process of the council chamber. Local people will, of course, be able to have a say there and will be able to appear as third parties at a public inquiry, but the final decision will not be taken by local people if an applicant decides to appeal. In my constituency, prior to the election, we had a terrible proposal for a very obvious place in terms of local vista and impact. North Dorset District Council turned it down, to the huge relief of the community, and the applicant read the room and did not appeal, realising that they would not get it. However, that avenue will remain open to an aggrieved applicant or developer.

It goes back to the point that I was making to SNP Members and others: all planning has a risk. In the absence of a provided subsidy, it may well be that applicants and landowners will think far more carefully about what they are applying for and where they apply for it. If they are reliant on the private sector to fund their initiatives and enterprises, we may find—

[Callum McCaig]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hoare]

I am just coming to a close, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

Rather than jiggery-pokery such as applying for two turbines in a 22-acre field to establish the principle and then coming back for more through variations to consent, which the amendments from the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill sought to protect, we may well find that local communities and their planning authorities will see the whole picture at the start of the planning process rather than planning by salami-slicing, having established the principle.

The Government are absolutely right in their approach to the subsidy. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry spoke wisely about the civil war. I must say that I would probably have found myself more of a cavalier than a roundhead, but there we are. However, there is an important point to make. If the civil war was about the proportionate balance between Crown and Parliament, the clauses inserted in the other place are, without over-egging this particular pudding, potentially as significant. If the Salisbury convention is to mean anything, something that passed the survey of the general election and a policy that commanded strong public support should not be challenged by the other place. I hope that we do not get involved in an overly long game of ping-pong with their lordships, because the view of the democratically elected House, certainly on this matter, must prevail.

[Matthew Pennycook]

When I drafted my notes for this speech earlier today, I did not comprehend that it was quite on an English civil war-type level of debate, but I will do my best.

Before I move on to my substantive comments, I will refer to the very interesting debate we had earlier about variability and balancing. It is worth returning to because—like so much of the debate on this issue, and not only in Committee and on Second Reading—we hear less about the costs of particular subsidies or how onshore wind forms part of our energy mix and more about the politics of onshore wind, which is really not what we are discussing when we consider what is the contentious part of the Bill.

Earlier, the hon. Member for Daventry raised the issue of intermittency, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde that he did so in a way that did not shed much light on the subject, because the notification of inadequate system margin event that he talked about—I believe that it was a NISM event in November, and incidentally it does not mean that the lights are about to go out, but merely that the National Grid would like to see a larger safety cushion of spare generating capacity being brought on to the grid, which is not an unusual practice for the industry—was not caused just by an extended period of low wind, although that was part of it. It was also caused by unexpected plant faults and losses, so it was not just the fault of wind. When one drills down into the costs of that NISM event, one finds that it was in the hundreds of thousands, and not the calamitous figures that we got in the press.

Similarly, I am sure that we can have an extended debate about base load and about whether the idea of large coal-fired or nuclear power stations for base load is outdated, as Steve Holliday, the CEO of National Grid, has himself argued.

However, what cannot be denied is that onshore wind is a flexible technology that helps National Grid to balance the network quickly, by ramping output up and down at times of constraint or system imbalance and, as the Royal Academy of Engineering has estimated, it requires no specific extra back-up until we hit 50 GW of onshore wind, which is five times the current level on the system.

When it comes to the costs of balancing to account for the increased variability, which is a product of moving towards a more decarbonised and flexible energy system, gas is far, far more expensive than wind. For 2014-15, 7% of the costs of balancing the grid were due to payment to wind. In the equivalent year, the balancing costs associated with gas amounted to £240 million, which is five times as much as the costs associated with wind. So we need to bring some sense to the debate about what these technologies do and, in a sense, approach it—as I hope the Government still do—in a technology-neutral manner.

By bringing the Committee’s attention to this point, I am only drawing attention to what I believe is actually the driving force behind the early closure of the RO and the Government’s insistence on reinserting these clauses, which is not a hard-headed calculation of what is required to balance the energy trilemma, or to meet the costs of controlling the levy framework; it is about the politics of the windy caucus and the understandable anger of constituents in parts of the country who have had onshore wind projects foisted on them when they do not support such projects.

As we have heard, onshore wind has been a success story. It is proven; it is mature; and its costs are coming down. That is precisely because of the conducive framework for investment that was provided by 10 to 15 years of energy policy consistency and a large degree of consensus about that policy. It is that consistency and the investor confidence that comes with it that the Government have played fast and loose with since May 2015.

The hon. Member for Daventry said that this whole debate turns on this point, and in a sense he is right to say so. However, to label it dancing on the head of a pin does him a disservice, given the number of people who have invested substantial amounts of money over long periods of time, because—as we heard from hon. Members before—the lead-in times for these projects go back years. Those people invested in those projects in good faith and they did not invest to see them close early.

I am very clear about the manifesto commitment. We are not talking about the localist aspect; there is no dispute about that. The manifesto is very clear that local people will have the final say. On the nebulous wording

“we will end any new public subsidy”,

it is clear that the renewables obligation is not a new public subsidy. It is an existing subsidy that was legislated for by the coalition Government in 2013, and investors were right to think that it would continue. As recently as 13 October 2014, the then Minister—now the Secretary of State—said that

“the RO will be closed to new capacity from 1st April 2017”,

and there have been other similar statements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am sure, then, that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted about our commitment to further deployment of offshore wind and to the new nuclear programme, both of which are a low-carbon future for the UK. Targets for decarbonisation and new gas, and a big decarbonisation away from coal and into gas, are the bridge to a low-carbon future. I am sure that he will welcome the certainty that we have given investors with that, and the opportunity for UK plc to get more jobs, more growth and more business in the supply chain as a result of our changes in policy.

I will come specifically to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, whom I thank for his excellent portrayal of the intention behind them. I hope to give him some reassurance on some of those points. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset is absolutely right to point out that the survey of the ballot box, which is the best survey, has entirely supported our policy on wind. He raised the question of appeals and judicial reviews. The appeals process is still in place for onshore wind. However, any appeal in England on a decision taken after 18 June will need to take into account the clear statement made by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 18 June, which sets out the new considerations to be applied to proposals so that local people have the final say on wind farm applications, fulfilling the commitment made in the Conservative election manifesto. Importantly, it also makes it clear that planning permission should be granted only if the development site has the support of the local community and that it can be demonstrated that any planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully addressed. My hon. Friend is right to raise that point and I hope he is reassured.

[Simon Hoare]

That is a huge comfort. Will my hon. Friend clarify either now or on Report that the guidance being issued by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in June is of equal status and standing to the guidance in the national planning policy framework?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend may be asking me about a specific legal point, so it may be better if I write to him. I have been clear on the intention, but he is asking me something that I should probably write to him about afterwards.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for his insightful points about NISMs and the associated costs. It is exactly right that a NISM does not mean that the lights are about to go out, and the associated costs are actually relatively small. As we have said all along, energy security is our top priority and we are not prepared to risk it in anything that we do. He also rightly points out that we are trying to decarbonise at the lowest cost and that we totally support renewables. As many hon. Friends have already pointed out, 98% of solar has been deployed since 2010. In 2015, the UK increased its investment in renewables by 25% compared with 2014. At the same time, EU investment decreased by 30%. This Government have shown a strong commitment to renewables deployment. I hope that hon. Members are reassured by that.

Turning to the amendments to new clauses 2 and 3 and new clause 15, I remind hon. Members the Government have listened carefully to the views of industry and are committed to deliver their manifesto commitment. The amendments have a range of effects, predominately in relation to the eligibility criteria for the grace period conditions set out in new clause 2. I will also cover amendment (a) to new clause 3, which relates to Northern Ireland, and new clause 15, which is specific to Scotland. I will address each of the key proposals in turn.

Amendments (a) and (b) to new clause 2 relate to changing the eligibility date or moving to planning application. The amendments suggest that the key eligibility criteria start date be either pushed back to a later date or moved entirely to include those projects with a submitted planning application as at 18 June that had not yet achieved consent. Either of those actions would have a significant impact on the number of projects that would be eligible for the approved development criteria set out in new clause 2 and therefore on overall deployment figures. I am afraid that to respond adequately to the proposals, and specifically the point on changing the grace period eligibility start date or consent criteria, I must first return to the core principles behind the early closure and the grace period conditions.

As I have said, if one considers those onshore wind projects that already have formal planning consent, there is enough to contribute to what is needed to meet our ambition of 30% electricity from renewables by 2020. The Government have made a commitment to manage costs under the levy control framework, and specifically in relation to this well-established technology. The policy intent is to close the renewables obligation to onshore wind, and the clause, as drafted, sets out clearly that the renewables obligation is closed to new onshore wind farms in Great Britain from 31 March 2016, which is necessary to manage the risk of over-deployment. Furthermore, the grace period set out in new clause 2, called the “approved development condition”, was drawn up specifically to protect investor confidence.

Even in its most early design, as set out in the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on 18 June, the grace period drew a clear bright line for developers while protecting investor confidence and that of the wider onshore wind industry. That approach has underpinned our engagement with industry and wider onshore wind stakeholders. We have been told that the industry ultimately supports our approach. We have also heard anecdotally that some projects that did not meet the grace period criteria have already fallen away, so to change the goalposts at such a late point would be fundamentally unfair to developers who may have chosen not to continue their projects in the light of our original announcement.

European Union Referendum Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

That is a good question. We all expect that, before long, there will be agreement among Ministers that some will not be toeing the Government line on this question. It is too big a question for it to be otherwise. The reason that we have referendums is that the questions split parties. We could not have a general election on a question that split the parties on both sides of the House. It would be impossible to decide on the issue in that way.

It would be absurd to have a referendum and then try to corral all the Ministers into one point of view. The precedent in 1975 was that collective responsibility was abandoned, although that does not mean there is not still a Government view—there is a Government view and a dissenting view. That is how it will work in this case, assuming that a vast number of Ministers do not leave the Government’s view too isolated to be any longer credible as being that of a Government.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that the country at large still has trust in “the Government”—in the governance of this country— whether or not we think it is right to hold that view? Our electorate would therefore find it strange if, during a referendum campaign, they could not point to what the Government’s view was. The Government of the day would continue after the referendum, and people will want to know what the Government, whether collective or otherwise, think about the issue.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have already said that the first publication is perfectly justified, as the Government are entitled to explain what they have negotiated and to give their opinion on that. If he would like to do so, he might explain how they are going to give

“information about rights, and obligations, that arise under European Union law as a result of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union”

in a concise and simple fashion which is not loaded. Perhaps he could tell us which countries should be used as

“examples of countries that do not have membership of the European Union”

in order to explain the consequences of leaving the European Union. We are talking about very subjective judgments, and of course that is what the debate between the yes and the no campaigns will be about.

My hon. Friend is right to say that people trust what the Government say, which is exactly why what they say should be curtailed and limited: it has a disproportionate effect on the voters. There is absolutely no doubt about that. If a leader of a party says something, that has less of an effect than if the Prime Minister says something. That is why we have a purdah period, and the House has forced the Government to accept that there will be a proper purdah period. Otherwise, if we have what we had in 1975, whereby the Government can carry on regardless, being the Government and yet expressing partisan views on one side of the argument and not the other, an unfair referendum would be created. That is why all referendums throughout the world have systems to try to contain what Governments do during the final phases of the referendum, in order to try to create some fairness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mak]

My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point. I certainly agree that there are a number of alternatives. I look forward to referendum debates in the media, in this House and in many other forums.

I wish to return now to the central role of the Electoral Commission. My view is that the Electoral Commission should not be drawn into playing any sort of quasi-judicial or quasi-campaigning role. It should play a central role in the good functioning and administration of the referendum. We should always be mindful of the commission’s own views, which have been set out in a letter that has been distributed to Members across the House, and to which we should pay heed.

I am also heartened about the vibrancy of our democracy. Even though we are still in the early stages of our debate, it has already produced a number of campaigning groups. I am very pleased to see some senior Members from across the House participating in today’s debate. The campaign groups that have been set up include: Vote Leave, Take Control; Leave.EU; and Conservatives for Britain, which has been skilfully organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). I can see my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) who have played leading roles in the campaign. On the Opposition benches, we have Labour in for Britain, which is led by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson); and Britain Stronger in Europe, for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) plays a leading role. Even before the referendum gets under way, there is a vibrancy of debate across the House and also in the country, which is very positive.

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend is right to set out the span of organisations. I do not know whether my inbox in my constituency of North Dorset is at odds with those of the rest of the House. I get lots of emails about lots of things—hundreds about bees over the weekend—but I cannot think of the last time I received an email about the EU. We in the House are inclined to obsess about it, and we forget that outside, people are trying to live their lives and all they want to know is that the Government are on their side. We should not focus down to what is happening here.

[Mr Mak]

I thank my hon. Friend for his characteristically cogent intervention. He is right that, beyond the walls of this place, men and women, families and businesses and community organisations play their day-to-day role, focus on other priorities and are not necessarily concentrating on the EU referendum or those issues on which this House concentrates.

HMRC Office Closures

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell]

I am going to make some progress.

An office is also going to shut in Inverness, and offices in Irvine and Glenrothes are also in the process of closing. Those closures are distressing news for the employees, their families and the communities affected, including in my constituency of Livingston. We must remember that behind every closed office and every job lost are individual folk, some of whom I and my colleagues have met in recent weeks following the announced closures. Many of them have proudly worked for HMRC for 10, 20 or more than 30 years. Many have spent their whole careers in their local HMRC offices and are fiercely proud of the work they do.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

rose—

[Hannah Bardell]

I am going to make some progress. Three of the Scottish centres announced for closure—those in East Kilbride, Cumbernauld and my constituency of Livingston—employ staff who issue specific guidance to the public on access to and eligibility for tax credits. With the prospect on the horizon of the Chancellor returning with his tax credit cuts, it is unthinkable that that support will be withdrawn from our communities.

The budgets of Government Departments and public bodies will suffer as a result of the austerity measures. They will be reduced by the Chancellor, who continues to cut despite the advice of many academics. Indeed, only yesterday, a report by City University said:

“George Osborne could be forced to borrow billions of pounds more than forecast by 2020 if he sticks with spending cuts that will hit economic growth”.

Two academics from City University projected that by 2020 the Government will be forced to report a £40 billion deficit instead of the planned surplus, undermining the Chancellor’s fiscal charter, which dictates that the Government borrow only in times of distress.

[Hannah Bardell]

New jobs in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency will, of course, be good news for his constituents, but I want to know what the Chancellor has to say to people in Scotland and other parts of the UK who are going to suffer and lose their local tax offices.

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[Hannah Bardell]

Let me make some progress. The City University report is proof that this Chancellor’s attempt to run an absolute surplus is not working and is not credible.

SNP Members were elected on a manifesto that offered an alternative, fiscally credible plan for a modest 0.5% increase in public spending, which would have injected £140 billion into the economy. The proposed closure of HMRC offices will have a disproportionate effect on Scotland, because the vast majority of the UK Government’s ring-fenced Departments lie outside Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell]

I have just got to my feet again, so let me continue. John Allan, the national chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses said:

“Our members have repeatedly told us about difficulties getting practical help from HMRC when complying with their tax requirements. The current online offering is limited, often hampered by poor broadband connectivity, and the phone help line is hard to navigate, with long waiting times.

Over the long-term, this modernisation programme must bring substantial benefits and efficiency savings. In the short-term however, members will be concerned that the closure of these tax offices will simply compound existing problems.

The Government need to reassure businesses that disruption is kept to a minimum. This should be used by HMRC as an opportunity to deliver services that are easy to access, provide clear and consistent help tailored for smaller businesses and provide the certainty they need for their tax affairs.”

If the Chancellor will not listen to the SNP, perhaps he will listen to the Federation of Small Businesses.

These closures have been happening for some time. In March 2013, the UK Government announced that they were to close all of their 281 inquiry centres by June 2015, and it was reported that closures would result in the loss of 1,300 jobs. A consultation on plans to streamline HMRC inquiry and support services through the use of telephone consultations occurred in 2012, and HMRC piloted the new service in the north-east of England from June to December 2013. In October 2014, HMRC announced plans to close 14 offices across the UK by December 2015. It was reported that that would affect 453 civil servants, and a further 690 administrative employees had been offered voluntary redundancy.

The Public Accounts Committee said in the first half of 2015, following the closures, that only 50% of calls from the public were answered by HMRC, down from 73% in the last financial year. Tam Dolan, the PCS branch chairman in Dundee, said:

“This decision is baffling. HMRC have trained staff doing an excellent job, receiving more calls than they can handle. For PCS members in Dundee, making these staff redundant while recruiting elsewhere sends a message that Dundee doesn’t feature in HMRC’s long-term plans.”

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Lady is being typically generous with her time. In the sunny uplands of Scottish independence, what detailed analysis would her party, as a Government, have undertaken as to the quantum of HMRC staff and offices it would have in a newly independent Scotland?

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Gentleman is getting a little ahead of himself; I will come to that.

Ironically, during the referendum many argued that independence for Scotland would result in job losses in public services. It was lauded as the Union dividend, and we in Scotland were told by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, who sadly is no longer in his place:

“That dividend is our share of a more prosperous future. It is the money that will pay for better public services and a fairer society.”

In July and August 2014, the Scottish Labour party tweeted that 3,200 jobs at HMRC were

“just one of the reasons that being part of the UK is best for Scottish jobs…and 1,400 jobs at HMRC in Cumbernauld are dependent on us staying in the UK.”

That was clearly not the case. I hope that those on the Labour Benches, who will also no doubt have constituencies affected by these closures, will reflect on those comments and think carefully about who can be trusted when it comes to jobs in Scotland.

The tax gap in 2013-14 was estimated to be £34 billion, which amounts to 6.4% of total theoretical tax liabilities. Small and medium-sized enterprises account for the largest portion of the overall tax gap—some £16.5 billion ––followed by large businesses with some £9.5 billion. We in the SNP take the view that the vast majority of SMEs actively want to contribute to society by paying tax and that a high proportion of the SME tax gap will have been lost through errors and miscommunications.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

I can only guess that the hon. Lady is making a strange reference to the Conservative manifesto. We were very clear in our manifesto that we are still only halfway through the job of getting the deficit down to zero. It stands at £3,300 for every household in the United Kingdom and we said very clearly during the election campaign that, as part of that, we needed to make £12 billion of welfare savings. What was not in our manifesto was the national living wage.

The Chancellor has said that he has listened to concerns from colleagues in this House and will come forward with proposals in the autumn statement to achieve the goal of reforming tax credits, saving the money needed to secure our economy while helping with the transition through the changes. I do not believe that the new clauses are therefore appropriate for inclusion in the Bill.

I now turn to amendments 49 to 52, which intend to prevent the freeze for four years of working age benefits, child benefit and tax credits. The freeze of the main rates of the majority of working age benefits, child benefit and tax credits will, in total, contribute some £3.5 billion of savings by 2019-20, and will help us to achieve our objective of deficit elimination. It will put welfare on a fairer and more sustainable footing so that we can continue our investment in our national health service and our schools, even as we get the national finances back into balance.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) pointed out, there is an imbalance in a system that has seen a rise in average earnings of 12% since 2008, and in working age benefits, such as jobseekers’ allowance, of 21%. The individual element of child tax credit has risen by 33%. The freeze will help reverse that trend, helping earnings to grow faster than benefits, which will strengthen the incentives to work, and deliver the savings necessary to bring down the overall welfare bill. None the less, the Government will continue to offer protections to the most vulnerable. We know the best way to support people is to help them move closer to the labour market, but of course we realise that that is not possible for everyone. That is why we have made many important exemptions to the four-year freeze. We have exempted pensioner-related benefits, personal independence payment, disability allowance and attendance allowance relating to the additional cost of disability as well as statutory payments, carers’ allowance, the support group component of the employment and support allowance and disability elements in tax credits.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The list that the Minister has just given to the House underscores entirely the compassionate, one nation Conservative approach that we are taking to these issues in sharp contradistinction to the Opposition parties, which seek to lecture but which have no remedy.

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend is right, and it is right that those exemptions are made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend makes an entirely valid point. Disabled people will find it more and more difficult to live fulfilling lives that enable them to make contact and fulfil their potential, which everyone should have the right to do, so it will be a disincentive.

[Simon Hoare]

I am chairman of the all-party group on multiple sclerosis. I entirely understand the hon. Lady’s concern and, indeed, the sort of representations made by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson). However, does she take heart, as I do, from the fact that Ministers are part of a party that brought forward pioneering legislation on disability rights, which should provide comfort that Ministers on the Treasury Bench will make sure that no policy will leave people behind?

[Debbie Abrahams]

Yes, it is right to acknowledge the Government’s role in bringing in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, but this Bill flies in the face of that legacy. I really hope that by the end of today, the Government will be able to provide some reassurance, because to date there has simply been none for disabled people.

In Committee, the Minister said that these cuts would not affect people currently on the ESA WRAG, but does that mean that people diagnosed with progressive conditions, but assessed after the Bill is enacted, will be deemed to have a different form of the progressive condition? Will they require less support, or do the Government finally accept that, apart from being dehumanising and exacerbating people’s health conditions, the work capability assessment is not fit for purpose and needs a complete overhaul so that people with progressive conditions are not placed in the ESA WRAG? I would really appreciate some clarity on that point.

Surely if the Government were serious about supporting disabled people into work, there would be measures in place to support into work those disabled people who are able to work. How many employers will be engaged? Although the Disability Confident scheme is a good first step, only 68 employers are currently active in it, and they will certainly not be able to support the 1.3 million disabled people who are able to and want to work. Do the Government intend to extend Access to Work beyond the 35,000 disabled people it helped stay in work or into a new job last year? What is going to happen about the appalling ratio of one disability employment adviser for 600 disabled people? [Interruption.] What estimates are there of the impact on the employment of disabled people of this measure and the reduction of the 30% disability employment gap?

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

Hitherto, the hon. Lady has been making a very thoughtful and considered speech. It may not be up to me, as a new Member, to say this, but the sentence that she has just uttered has fundamentally undermined the cause of her argument, and I invite her to reconsider it.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I appreciate that it is strong language, but I can only provide the hon. Gentleman with the evidence. In 2010, the use of the term “scrounger” by the mainstream press had increased by more than 330%, and it has remained at that level. We should always be mindful of the language that we use as leaders, and of how it is perpetuated.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I used that language to draw attention to the issue in the House, and more widely. I did so partly because I am sure I am not the only one to remember the autumn statement two or three years ago in which the Chancellor, at the Dispatch Box, referred to “closed curtains” when people were going out to work. It was quite clear what that implied. I use such language very carefully, and I repeat that its use in the media has increased by 330%. We all have a responsibility in this regard, including the country’s leaders.

The innuendo is that people with a disability or illness might be faking it or feckless. That is grotesque. As a former public health consultant, I speak with some knowledge. It is recognised that incapacity benefit and ESA are good population health indicators, and the release of the Government’s own data has proved the point. Disabled people in the ESA WRAG are a vulnerable group who need our care and support, and not our humiliation.

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[Debbie Abrahams]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman one more time.