Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Caroline Lucas

Wednesday 15th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I take a different view from the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), for whom I have great respect; I feel that this is an excellent Budget and I would like to set out some reasons why, as well as some questions for the Chancellor and his team.

To start with, the cost of living is obviously the single biggest issue for all our constituents, and has been for some time. The fuel duty freeze is an excellent and essential decision, but again, like my hon. Friend the Chair of the Treasury Committee, I wonder why we continue to have that automatic fuel duty rise. It was introduced by the last Labour Government and is always costed into every OBR forecast, giving people concern; perhaps it needs to be scrapped altogether.

On energy bills, it is fantastic to be giving people that extra bit of support until the spring when it gets warmer, they are not using fuel so much, and it is widely anticipated that bills will come down anyway. Again, however, I would like to see the Chancellor giving thought to encouraging energy suppliers to offer term-fixed rates, as we have with a mortgage, so that people can have a fixed rate for their energy bills for the next one or two years.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I go back to the fuel duty issue, because I know the right hon. Lady has been concerned about climate change, at least in the past. The freeze in the fuel duty has meant that emissions have gone up by 5%, while the Treasury has lost out on billions in funding. If she really wants to help hard-pressed drivers and others, why not look at a wealth tax, for example? A wealth tax on the 1% richest people could raise up to £70 billion. She could then help not only those drivers, but public transport and the public sector people who are out on strike right now. They are out on the streets wanting more funding, so why is she not doing that?

[Dame Andrea Leadsom]

I agree with the hon. Lady that decarbonisation is vital, but where we part company is that I think people have to live in the meantime, and some of the ideas she puts forward are utterly unworkable and impractical.

The measure on childcare costs is fantastic news and will be transformational for so many families. I know that lots of colleagues across the House have been campaigning for that for a long time. I would, however, ask the Treasury team to consider going further by considering an attendance allowance for grandparents who look after their grandchildren. That is something that so many families would like to take advantage of, but too many grandparents simply cannot afford to do so because it means giving up their income; in fact, it will cost them money.

We also need a further look at childminder regulation. One regulation is the requirement for fire doors throughout the house, which is a huge expense for a childminder who wants to start up. Of course, that is a huge obstacle for people who want to offer flexible choice for families.

On quality of life, the Budget also goes a long way towards helping people. In particular, it will help into work people with disabilities and long-term illnesses. Some constituents who come to my surgeries are desperate and feel that they are on the scrapheap because nobody will give them a job—it is so difficult—so I really applaud the measures.

It is right to help people with up-front childcare costs when they are on universal credit. I had a Ukrainian family staying with me. They had an eight-year-old daughter and a two-year-old daughter, and helping my guest to apply for universal credit, and then for the childcare element, was a huge issue. Inevitably, I could lend her the money for childcare costs, but for somebody who cannot get that, the help in the Budget is absolutely essential.

On help for the over-50s, I absolutely applaud the Government for encouraging and providing support to get people back into the workplace, but again, I highlight the fact that it is often women over 50 who find that they are applying for job after job and getting nowhere. Often, it is because they have been out of the workplace for quite some time.

The pension cap and annual allowance measures are fantastic news. That is something on which I agree with the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch: this should have been done a long time ago. There is no question that the cap has encouraged people to think, “Well, there is no point carrying on working because I can’t improve my quality of life in retirement.” Although those sums sound like a lot, they do not actually deliver a decent pension, so I think that the measures are essential. Sadly for many colleagues in this House, that might even keep me working. [Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] Thank you! It is important that we continue to look at the issues for those who have already fixed their maximum pension cap in recent years. Some fixed it at £1.2 million or £1.4 million. What are we going to do about them? That will be an issue for some people.

The draught beer duty freeze is fantastic and will really help pubs—a great quality-of-life move—but in my South Northamptonshire constituency, which includes 92 villages, we need buses so that we can get to the pubs. There was nothing on buses, so that is another pitch.

The pothole news is fantastic, but let us see some innovative ways of fixing them. Too often, a pothole gets fixed but, a couple of weeks later, there is another pothole where it was, so we need to think about that. We also need to think about clearing litter from roads. We could do a lot more about such quality-of-life issues, which have badgered us in our constituencies for so long. On quality of life: great, but there is more to do.

The tax incentive to invest in new plant and machinery assets will be a massive boost for business. The Chancellor is absolutely right to focus on GDP per capita by improving investment and reducing lower-quality jobs. We have to move to more automation, more use of technology, and better quality, higher-paid jobs. It is absolutely right to do that.

The Chancellor is also absolutely right to focus on R&D and science. He gave very impressive statistics on the UK’s performance in a globally competitive environment. Certainly, our progress is strong. When I was Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, I met amazing businesses in space technology and cutting-edge life sciences, as well as in nuclear. I visited the brilliant fusion project at Culham, and worked with the Rolls-Royce-led consortium in small modular reactors. I absolutely applaud the Chancellor’s commitment to nuclear, as well as to carbon capture, usage and storage. The big challenge of our age is keeping the lights on, keeping the cost of bills down and decarbonising. We cannot do any one of those things on their own; we have to keep that energy trilemma in balance. That is the critical challenge of our age.

I think there is much more that the Government could and should be doing to build more electricity infrastructure, to promote more renewables with much better local payback and to make homes and businesses far more energy efficient. Too little work has gone into that. I commend to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is on the Front Bench, the report of the 1922 Back-Bench committee that I chair on the future for energy. The report has a wealth of practical actions—29 of them, in fact—and I urge the Chancellor and the whole Treasury team to take a close look at it.

On finance, I was, like many, heartily relieved by the OBR’s revised forecasts today, but I wonder: does the Chancellor worry about the impact of forecasting on business and consumer confidence? I worry that some of the incredibly negative forecasting that we have seen recently can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I see the astonishment on the faces of some Opposition Members about the great achievements of the UK since 2010, from halving unemployment and reducing poverty to the huge growth in female entrepreneurship and the success of levelling-up right across the UK. There is so much to be proud of but, as many of my constituents ask me, what more can we do to get the positive messages across? The same is true of Brexit. From new trade deals to freedom on taxes and subsidies, to improved financial regulation and our influence in the world, how can the Chancellor ensure that we are getting the positive messages about Brexit across to our constituents?

Finally, I make a plea as an ex-City Minister and someone who sat on the Treasury Committee in 2010, when the last Labour Government wrecked our economy. Many good reforms have been made to strengthen the banking sector, and I urge the Chancellor to keep the ring-fencing in place.

A Green Industrial Revolution

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Caroline Lucas

Wednesday 15th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrea Leadsom)]

May I start by congratulating you on the superb way you have taken over the speakership, Mr Speaker? The atmosphere in the Chamber demonstrates the dignity and respect that we all want to see, and I commend you and your Deputies for the leadership you are showing.

Speaking of leadership, I wish the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) all the best in her party’s leadership contest. It takes courage to put oneself forward, and I commend her for her service.

Also on leadership, there is one woman—the first ever female Conservative leader—who definitely deserves 10 out of 10: Margaret Thatcher. Just over 30 years ago, she became the very first global leader to warn of the dangers of climate change at the United Nations, saying:

“It is mankind and his activities which are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways.”

She predicted that

“change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto.”

How right she was.

Mr Speaker, you recently called the Australian wildfires

“a wake-up call for the world.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2020; Vol. 669, c. 235.]

I agree. From wildfires in Australia to flooding in Indonesia and record temperatures across the world, the impacts of climate change are in the here and now. People throughout the UK and around the world are calling for us to act, and we are doing just that. Just as the UK has led the past 30 years of climate action, we will lead the next 30 years, seizing the opportunities of the green industrial revolution.

Since Margaret Thatcher made that speech in November 1989, the UK can be proud of its record of action. Since 1990, we have cut our emissions by 42% while growing our economy by 73%.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?

[Andrea Leadsom]

In a moment.

Since 2000, we have decarbonised more quickly than any other G20 country. Since 2010, we have quadrupled our electricity generation from renewables, including through the installation of 99% of the UK’s solar capacity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I will indeed address it, and I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government have taken the advice of the Committee on Climate Change in setting our legally binding commitments to net zero by 2050. Throughout the year, we will set out precisely how we think we can achieve that.

[Caroline Lucas]

The Secretary of State will know that the Government are off track when it comes to the fourth and fifth carbon budgets, but I wish to take her up on the constant repetition from the Government. She says that greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by 42% since 1990, but she knows that if we calculated consumption-based emissions and factored that in, our emissions have actually fallen by only 10%. Does she agree that we need a common understanding of what is facing us? If she keeps using numbers in a slightly misleading way, we are not going to get to where we need to be by getting our emissions down.

[Andrea Leadsom]

On the one hand, the hon. Lady is absolutely right: the carbon emissions figures for the United Kingdom do not take into account our consumption emissions or, indeed, our contribution to the reduction of carbon emissions around the world—both are important points. On the other hand, I would take issue with her from a philosophical point of view, because in order to measure progress, we need to have measurements, so it is incredibly important to talk about our UK territorial emissions at the same time. I look forward to working with the hon. Lady constructively, as she and I have done previously on a number of occasions, to make the UK’s ambition to lead the world in tackling climate change a reality in the run-up to COP26.

International Climate Action

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Caroline Lucas

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend raises such an important point. So many young people are taking part in demonstrations and want to know what they can do to help. We will hold Green GB Week early in the new year, which will be a great opportunity for schools to get involved and for young people to give their views.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I welcome the commitment to double the aid spending on international climate finance, but it has to be new money and the Government have to be consistent. It makes no sense to give with one hand but to invest in fossil fuels with the other. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) on the Front Bench raised the issue of the 96% of export credit finance going to fossil fuel energy projects. That makes no sense at all. The Secretary of State says that we need a transition, but that locks developing countries into dependence on fossil fuels for decades to come. That is not a transition, so will she look into stopping doing that in the future?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I think the hon. Lady will be delighted to hear about the Ayrton fund, which provides £1 billion for that transition from fossil fuels—including, as I have said, kerosene lamps, coal-fired stoves and so on—to solar power for cooking, heating and lighting. This is a genuine opportunity for developing economies to transition early.

Business of the House

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Caroline Lucas

Thursday 14th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I cannot speak for the Backbench Business Committee, but I can assure the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) that if he wants a debate on the matter in Westminster Hall, he will get it all right.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Tomorrow, thousands of young people will show their deep concern about the growing climate crisis by taking part in a climate strike. Since, shockingly, there was only one debate on climate change in this place last year, will the Leader of the House urgently find time for us to debate this, the greatest threat we face, so that we can demonstrate to young people that we are listening and that we take their concerns very seriously?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important point. I think the UK can be proud of our contribution to securing the first truly global, legally binding agreement to tackle climate change, which was the Paris agreement. She will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth is fully committed to doing everything possible to tackle the threat of climate change. She may be aware that our climate change record at home speaks for itself. Between 2010 and 2017, we reduced the UK’s domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 23%, and according to PwC, the UK leads the G20 for decarbonising its economy since 2000. There is a lot more to be done, but the UK Government remain committed to doing it.

Proxy Voting

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Caroline Lucas

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is exactly right; pairing has its uses. It is important that any parent on baby leave can choose to have either a proxy vote or be paired, if, for reasons of ill health or reasons associated with being a new parent, they do not feel in a position to make that decision. It is very important that they have the choice.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I join others in very much welcoming this important motion and the important step that is being taken. In the interests of keeping up momentum on the issue of reform, does the Leader of the House agree that, although this is a first step, what we really need in order to bring Parliament into the 21st century is electronic voting for all? I wonder whether she might explore that option.

May I ask the Leader of the House one question about the motion? I am sorry, but I have not had a chance to look at it yet. I know the Procedure Committee has suggested that there may be some exceptions where proxy voting would not be suitable in its view—for example, a decision on military conflict. I do not think I agree with it about that, but I am interested to know whether that is attached to the pilot that she is proposing.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I can say to the hon. Lady that this is a temporary Standing Order, and it follows the Procedure Committee’s view. I do not want to get this wrong: I know it will not apply to a closure motion, but it will apply to Government and private Members’ business. I suggest that the hon. Lady looks carefully at the Procedure Committee’s report for the finer details of exactly what is included and excluded.

The hon. Lady will obviously appreciate that the reason for making it a temporary Standing Order is so that the Procedure Committee can look at it after a year and decide, in hindsight, whether it is appropriate in scope, who gets to use it and who provides the proxy. In having such a pilot scheme, we will be able to address any residual concerns about its operation.

Committee on Standards: Cox Report

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Caroline Lucas

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I have already given way to him.

Secondly, the motion will modernise practices so that referrals can be made by email or in writing. Thirdly, it will abolish the current requirement for the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to consult the Committee on Standards on whether a case that is more than seven years old, or one involving a former Member, can be investigated by her. That will ensure that she can act independently. Many of us have raised grave concerns about appalling allegations that have gone without investigation as a result of the current arrangements. So ensuring that the PCS can operate independently of the Committee on Standards is vital and will better enable justice for those seeking recourse.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

On the issue of the Committee’s willingness to remove any obligation on the standards commissioner to consult the Committee before going to the police, I welcome the Committee’s willingness to look at that proposal, but can the Leader of the House reassure us that it will still be a victim-centred approach? She will know from our discussions in the steering group that it is vital that a victim’s or a survivor’s wish not to have a motion go to the police should be overridden only if there are overwhelming cases of safeguarding. Can she reassure us that there will be some kind of protocol on that?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady will appreciate that this motion has been put forward as a result of the Standards Committee’s own recommendations—not something that I am in control of—but I absolutely reassure her that I remain as committed, as do all members of the original working group on the complaints procedure, to putting the complainant at the centre of this process and to ensuring confidentiality about their identity. That is vital to the success of our complaints procedure.

Bullying and Harassment: Cox Report

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Caroline Lucas

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

As she often does, my right hon. Friend gives a really good, much-bigger-picture perspective, and she is absolutely right to do so. I have attended a cross-Commonwealth meeting of women politicians to talk about violence against women in politics, and the numbers are shockingly bad. She is absolutely right to highlight that report, and I will of course be delighted to read it. I have already had the pleasure of meeting the Llywydd in Wales and the Presiding Officer in Scotland, both of whom are interested to hear about the progress of our complaints procedure and what lessons they could learn. It was a good opportunity to share ideas.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

May I suggest that these proceedings are not the time for Members to indulge in a bit of bullying of their own? There should be independent processes, not innuendo.

I warmly welcome the report. The Leader of the House will recall that, as a member of the steering group, I repeatedly argued that we should be able to investigate historical allegations, and the legal advice was clear that bullying and sexual harassment had always been unacceptable. External counsel did not rule that out, and I am delighted that Dame Laura makes the same point, so may we have an explicit guarantee from the Leader of the House that she will personally support the idea that historical allegations, with no endpoint, should be part of our investigation? I take on board what she says about different Commission processes, but people want to know now that she and everyone else understands this and will treat it with the urgency it deserves.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady was fully engaged with the working group and will know that we unanimously wanted to be able to investigate historical allegations. I absolutely undertake that the recommendation from Dame Laura and her challenge to the advice we received will be fully taken into account in the review in January.

Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Caroline Lucas

Thursday 19th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

That idea has been discussed a number of times through the working group. It was decided not to include that specific recognition, mainly because there are many different organisations in this place, all of which do a good job. Therefore, there is no non-recognition, but neither is there a specific formalised recognition of the Unite branch within the complaints procedure.

The motion asks the House to endorse specific changes that were identified in the working group’s report that was published and agreed by the House in February. Today, the principles of that report will become reality. First, today’s motion asks the House to approve the independent complaints and grievance scheme delivery report, and in doing so it will also ask the House to endorse a new behaviour code that makes it clear to all those who come here—whether an MP, member of staff, peer, contractor or visitor—the standard expected of everyone in Parliament.

Secondly, the motion asks the House to eliminate the threat of exposure that prevents many people from coming forward, by ensuring that all investigations are managed confidentially. Thirdly, it will provide the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards with a broader set of powers and make changes to the Committee on Standards, including to the voting role of lay members. Fourthly, it proposes that a further independent inquiry be established, with similar terms to the Dame Laura Cox inquiry, to hear historical allegations about Members, peers and their staff. Finally, the motion will make provision for a full review of those arrangements after six and 18 months.

In addition to the measures in today’s motion, the steering group has established two independent helplines—one to deal with bullying, and one to deal with sexual misconduct—as well as independent HR advice for staff, and there is an aspiration to improve the general culture of Parliament, including through a new programme of comprehensive training. Members, staff and the public can rest assured that this new independent complaints and grievance policy puts the complainant at the very heart of the process, while taking care to ensure that the principles of innocent until proven guilty are upheld. The ICGP will be fair and transparent, and I believe it will win the confidence of everyone.

Following an intensive period of implementation, today is the final parliamentary hurdle to getting this much needed new scheme up and running. This is the first step, not the final step, towards the culture change that we all want. That is why we have built in a six and 18-month review of the scheme, to ensure that it achieves exactly what we set out to do. Importantly, the six-month review will take careful account of the findings of the independent inquiry by Dame Laura Cox QC and the further independent inquiry that we are establishing today.

Let me turn to the key elements of today’s motion. First, the new behaviour code will apply to everyone on the parliamentary estate. It has been drawn up following extensive consultation with trade unions, staff associations and the public, who were asked for their views about what behavioural expectations we should have of those working for and within Parliament. It seeks to ensure that everyone in and working for Parliament is respected and valued and that we take a zero-tolerance approach to bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. Unacceptable behaviour will be dealt with seriously and with effective sanctions.

Today’s motion will also make changes to the Standing Orders for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and to the Committee on Standards. We propose that the commissioners of both Houses keep their investigations entirely confidential until such time as there is a finding. That is crucial if individuals are to place their trust in the new system. There is clearly a balance to be struck between public interest in transparency and putting the complainant at the heart of the process by protecting their identity, and that is vital. In deciding whether to publish any findings, the PCS will also put the complainant’s wishes at the heart of the decision.

I thank, very sincerely, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron) for the extremely thoughtful and collaborative way that he and his Committee came to their position. I must point out, however, that we have had to respectfully disagree on one issue, which is about whether confidentiality should also be observed during an investigation in non-ICGP cases. I would be the last person to want to avoid transparency, but for this scheme to succeed, it is vital that we achieve consistency. The amendment by the Committee on Standards would effectively mean that there is one process for ICGP cases and a different one for non-ICGP cases.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

As the right hon. Lady knows, we have agreed on nearly everything in the report. On this issue, however, I wish to put on record that I did not agree with the position of the group, which was to say that we did not want the amendment tabled by the Committee on Standards. Consistency is not the most important issue, and the optics of this House rolling back transparency are deeply worrying. I would far rather live with a bit of inconsistency, particularly since it essentially means that—quite rightly—MPs are under more of a spotlight. That to me is a much lesser concern than the fact that it looks to the outside world—indeed, to some extent it is true—that we are rolling back transparency at exactly the time we should be expanding it.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Lady for her considerable efforts on this scheme but, very respectfully, I disagree with her on that point. She and I have had a number of conversations about the matter, and we have always been clear that the confidentiality at the heart of this policy must be observed so that a complainant will have the confidence to come forward. As I am sure Members will appreciate, a difference in process between ICGP and non-ICGP cases will be lost on those who observe it, which will inevitably lead to confusion. People will not think, “Oh well, this procedure must be for one issue, and that must be for another issue.” They will just see the naming of an individual, and that will have repercussions for those who want to come forward in confidence to a complaints procedure, feeling that their confidentiality will be upheld.

Treatment of House of Commons Staff

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Caroline Lucas

Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Leader of the House about the treatment of House of Commons staff.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. She and I worked together on the cross-party working group on an independent complaints and grievance policy. I thank her sincerely for her work on it.

Reports of bullying of House staff are of huge concern to me and to hon. Members right across the House. I am committed to stamping out all kinds of bullying and harassment in Parliament in order to create an environment in which everyone feels safe and is treated with the respect and dignity they deserve. We can only achieve our goals in this House with the support of others. A great debt of gratitude is owed by us all to the House staff who support us behind the scenes.

I myself have worked with a large number of civil servants and staff of the House during my time in Parliament. From the Clerks of the Treasury Committee to my private offices at the Treasury, Energy and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the team in the Leader’s office and the excellent secretariat who supported the working group, I have always been impressed by, and am very grateful for, the dedication, professionalism, high standards and courtesy that all the civil servants and House staff have shown. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members across the House, and in the other place, would say the same.

The House will be aware that significant progress has been made in recent months, following the shocking reports at the end of last year of sexual harassment, bullying and intimidation in this place. The working group I chaired, set up by the Prime Minister, has now published its report, and it has been agreed by both Houses. The work streams are now in place to get the new independent complaints procedure up and running within the next three months.

The hon. Lady will recall that the working group wanted House staff to be included in the new complaints procedure from day one. However, following evidence taken, and in consultation with the trade union representatives of House staff, it was agreed that the staff of the House would not immediately be covered by the new independent procedure, because they were already covered by the House’s own Respect policy. It was believed that the Respect policy was working well and that House staff were satisfied with it. However, it was acknowledged during the working group evidence sessions that the Respect policy did not cover complaints of sexual harassment and violence. The aspiration of the working group is to take up the question of whether House staff should have immediate access to the new independent complaints procedure now that the report has been agreed by both Houses. Following the “Newsnight” allegations and others, it is clear that the Respect policy may not be sufficient to protect House staff.

I am aware that, today, the Clerk of the House of Commons has written to House staff, saying that there are clearly unresolved issues over bullying and harassment, including sexual harassment, that need to be addressed, and this will include a review of the Respect policy. The Clerk of the House of Commons has also reassured staff who wish to come forward with complaints of bullying that they will be dealt with in the proper manner, with the support of their managers and colleagues. It is right that everyone working for or with Parliament, regardless of position or seniority, should have the same rights and protections and should be held to the same high standards.

The House Commission next meets on Monday 19 March and I have given notice to my fellow members that I will be recommending a short, independently led inquiry by the House Commission looking into allegations of systemic bullying of parliamentary staff. I will propose that the inquiry should hear from past and current staff members about their experiences and help to provide them with closure wherever possible. I will also propose that it should take soundings from current and former House staff on whether the Respect policy is fit for purpose and whether House staff would be better served by having access to the new independent complaints and grievance policy from day one. Mr Speaker, I am more determined than ever that we banish all kinds of harassment and bullying from this place, because make no mistake, there is a need for change.

[Caroline Lucas]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent, cross-party question. This is not about party politics and it is not about political gain; it is about doing the right thing by the staff who support us on a daily basis and ensuring that the House of Commons leads by example when it comes to robustly tackling workplace bullying and sexual misconduct.

Members and the public will have been shocked by the revelations of bullying at Westminster that were highlighted by “Newsnight” last week. I commend the Leader of the House for her ongoing work to establish an independent complaints and grievance procedure. The need for that arose in part because the 2014 Respect policy did not apply to large numbers of those working in Parliament. There are now considerable grounds to assert that that same Respect policy does not have the confidence of the staff that it is intended to protect and that the new independent procedure must immediately be expanded to avoid a two-tier system.

I am grateful that the Leader of the House broadly agrees with that and I am pleased to hear about the new short inquiry, but will she also confirm specifically that there will be a presumption in favour of historical allegations being thoroughly investigated, should those affected choose to make formal complaints, either under the Respect policy or the new procedure? Will she acknowledge that the positive work that she has led to date risks being undermined if we continue to allow sanctions to be determined by a Committee on which MPs effectively hold all the power? Will she agree that the whole process, including sanctions, must be handled by an independent body? Will she revisit whether good employer and consent training as an important part of culture change should start before the next election? I think the evidence is clear that it should, and in the meantime, can she assure staff that any further complaints will be treated with the seriousness and respect that they deserve and will not be dismissed, as they were last Friday, as grotesque exaggeration?

Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Caroline Lucas

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)]

I beg to move,

That this House endorses the recommendations of the Working Group on an Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy; and asks the House of Commons Commission to authorise House officials, reporting regularly to a steering group of Members and others, to undertake the work necessary to establish:

(1) a Behaviour Code for Parliament that covers bullying and harassment, and sexual harassment, and applies to all persons working for or with Parliament, or who are lawfully on the parliamentary estate;

(2) an independent complaints and grievance scheme to underpin the Code, together with associated policies, appropriate sanctions and the contractual arrangements necessary for delivering the scheme;

(3) particular procedures to deal with reports of sexual harassment, including the provision of a specialist Independent Sexual Violence Advocate;

(4) a system of training to support the Code;

(5) a human resources support service for staff employed by Members of Parliament or jointly by political parties, delivered by a third-party provider, and a handbook for these staff;

and to identify any amendments that may be necessary to Standing Orders and the Code of Conduct, for the approval of the House.

The working group was convened by the Prime Minister last November—supported by all party leaders—to address the serious allegations of abuse and harassment in Parliament. I announced the publication of the group’s report before the February recess, and I hope that Members have now had the time to consider the report’s recommendations in more detail.

We are all agreed that there is no place for harassment, abuse or misconduct in Parliament. We need to ensure that there are robust procedures in place so that everyone is able to work with the dignity and protection that they deserve. I believe the working group’s proposals do just that.

During its work, the group took extensive evidence, both in person and in writing, from a wide variety of stakeholders, including parliamentary officials, staff of MPs and peers, trade unions, academics, authorities on sexual violence, and legal professionals. The group also conducted its own survey, which was open to a wide range of people and included a number of passholders who had not previously been asked for their experience of bullying and harassment.

Many people have devoted a considerable amount of time to this work, and after more than 100 hours of discussion, consultation and consideration, I believe we have a set of proposals for the House to consider today that will fundamentally change the working culture in Parliament for the better.

I would like to turn now to these proposals, and I will briefly set them out for the House. They are as follows. First, Parliament will agree a shared behaviour code. This will apply to everyone on the estate, or engaged in parliamentary business regardless of location, and will underpin the new policy. It will make clear the expectations for the behaviour of everyone in the parliamentary community, and will be consulted on on that basis. Secondly, the new complaints and grievance procedure will be independent of political parties.

Thirdly, it was acknowledged that sexual harassment and sexual violence are different from other forms of inappropriate behaviour, such as bullying and intimidation. Therefore, separate procedures will be agreed for those looking to raise a complaint regarding sexual harassment and those with a complaint of bullying. This is an important distinction, and while everyone has acknowledged the significance of complaints of sexual harassment, evidence from staff made it clear that instances of intimidation and bullying are in fact more prevalent. Fourthly, therefore, MPs’ staff require proper human resources advice—something that has previously been lacking, and that will go a long way to helping prevent and resolve workplace grievances.

Importantly, the new system will be based on the principles of equality. It will be confidential and fair to all parties. It will be in line with the laws of natural justice, and it will command the confidence of all those who use it. The working group took advice at an early stage that, rather than reinventing the wheel, we should work with, and build on, the many sound processes and systems already in place.

Today, we are bringing forward a motion that will enable the House Commission to authorise House officials to take forward the group’s recommendations and implement our proposals in full. This is a big step towards creating a more professional environment and a Parliament that is among the best in the world in treating people with dignity and respect at work.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I commend the Leader of the House for all her work on this important report. She will agree that Parliament should be a beacon of best practice, rather than running to play catch-up. Will she confirm that that means we need to make sure that these procedures relate to everybody on this estate? That includes, crucially, making sure that they extend to our constituency offices—to visitors to constituency offices—as soon as possible. I know we debated that in the group, but will she reassure us that this is a real priority for her going forward?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I certainly pay tribute to the hon. Lady, who was an assiduous contributor to all the work of the working group, and I thank her sincerely for her dedication to it. Of course, we recall the happy hours spent debating that very point, and we concluded in the end that it is a priority to ensure that the behaviour code—the protection—extends to all those who come into contact with Members of Parliament. But we concluded that, in the immediate future, we should focus on bedding in a new complaints procedure that will deal with the Palace of Westminster and our work as part of our parliamentary duties, and that once that is bedded down, we should have a review six months into its operation of how we should deal with others who come into contact with MPs, where there is that tricky grey area of where someone’s public life is and where someone’s private life is. I hope the hon. Lady is reassured by my once again making a commitment that we must look at that. She is exactly right.

Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Caroline Lucas

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, for his Committee’s contribution. It made a very useful written submission with recommendations on the establishment of a joint committee, with staff representation, to review the workings once this system is up and running. I am very sympathetic to that idea, and the report indicates that we would like to see such a review take place once the new system has been up and running for six months. The behaviour code for all in Parliament, including visitors to this place, is designed to sit alongside existing codes and not to interrupt them. I look forward to working with him in consulting on the behaviour code.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

My Plaid Cymru colleague, the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts)—she could not be in the Chamber today, but she is a member of the working group—asked to be associated with my comments. We very much thank the Leader of the House for the way in which she has conducted this incredibly important inquiry.

I welcome this report, which is a potential game changer. The shocking figure that almost one in five people working in Westminster have experienced some form of sexual harassment is testament to the fact that the ongoing political culture is toxic. Does the Leader of the House agree that we need not only the consent training she mentioned, but for it to be mandatory, with sanctions available for Members who might not be persuaded to take it up? Quite frankly, Members who are most likely to be resistant to taking up the training are probably those who need it most.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am so grateful to the hon. Lady, who has been so diligent in ensuring that we come to the right decision. She is tempting me to go back into some of the debates we had in our sessions. I share her concern. We want to invite all Members across this House—in fact, everybody who works in this place—to properly understand what it is to treat one another with dignity and respect. So the training we have mentioned in consent and unconscious bias, how to recruit and employ people, and what constitutes bullying and harassment are all absolutely vital. They will be available as compulsory sanctions and we will be seeking means to encourage people across the estate to take them up voluntarily where we cannot make them mandatory.

Business of the House

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Caroline Lucas

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. He is of course aware that the decision to integrate the functions of the British Transport police into Police Scotland is devolved, but I recognise his concerns about this approach. He will also be aware that our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament are raising those concerns with the Scottish Government. I have also been very clear that the UK Government will work with the authorities to ensure that overall policing, including policing across the border, remains as effective as it currently is.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

We believe that the Government are about to give the green light to the first UK fracking in six years, in North Yorkshire. Can we have an urgent debate on how that is compatible with our climate change objectives, given that the Committee on Climate Change has said that three key tests have to be met? The Government have not met them, yet we believe the decision in Ryedale is imminent.

Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Caroline Lucas

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and think I can give her reassurance on each of her points. The complaints and grievance procedure will include all passholders, as the working party has accepted. It will also ensure that people are very clear about rights and responsibilities, and that they all have a duty to abide by the rules as set out.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I welcome the positive response from the Leader of the House to the proposal I made, along with others, for this specialist in ending sexual violence to be a full member and adviser of the working group.

Does the Leader of the House support introducing a separate and named policy on sexual harassment? It is vital that we do not simply try to reuse an existing anti-bullying policy, which is essentially the respect policy, with its focus on things like mediation. Instead, we need a named sexual harassment policy, which will be more appropriate. Will the Leader of the House commit to looking to change the culture of this place, as well as the structures, and therefore look at issues like the consent training for MPs?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I commend the hon. Lady: she did first raise the issue of having a specialist adviser on sexual harassment, and I agree that that is important. I point out, however, that the House’s respect policy does deal with sexual harassment. It might not do so to her satisfaction, but for the purpose of clarity I should say that the helpline would include advice and guidance to individuals who wanted to complain of sexual harassment. I am, however, absolutely open to her suggestion that there should be a separately named policy on sexual harassment, which will be a matter for the working party to consider.

Energy Bill [Lords]

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Caroline Lucas

Monday 14th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the hon. Lady elaborate a little more on her point about technology neutrality? All I am talking about is renewables, energy efficiency, storage and so forth. If she knows of some wonderful new technology that can get our emissions down more quickly and more cheaply, I would love to hear about it.

[Andrea Leadsom]

As the hon. Lady well knows, one transitional approach to decarbonisation is to move away from coal and towards gas as a bridge to a low-carbon future. She will also be very aware that new nuclear offers a low-carbon technology for the future, and this Government are committed to supporting that.

I appreciate the intent behind much of the hon. Lady’s new clause, but I hope that she can see why I cannot accept its specifics and that she will be content to withdraw it.

I turn now to new clause 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Wigan and others. This would require the Secretary of State to set a decarbonisation target range for the electricity generating sector. We debated very similar amendments in the previous Parliament, and during the passage of this Bill in the other place and in earlier Commons stages. The Government have made our position on this matter very clear. We are committed to ensuring that the UK continues to play its part to tackle climate change, in line with the Climate Change Act and our international and EU obligations. However, we want to do this as cost-effectively as possible in order to keep costs down for families and businesses while delivering on legally binding commitments. We cannot do that by locking ourselves into additional expensive and inflexible targets relating to the power sector. There are too many things we cannot predict about how the energy system will develop over the next 15 years and beyond. The costs of getting this wrong now would be picked up by families and businesses for decades to come.

I find it strange that Opposition parties often argue that we are not doing enough to tackle fuel poverty, and yet they are urging us to sign consumers up to a distorting and expensive power sector target. Investors want to know that we have clear, credible and affordable plans. The Government are now setting out the next stages in their long-term commitment to move to a low-carbon economy, providing a basis for electricity investment into the next decade. The huge investment we have seen so far is evidence that our approach is working. Between 2010 and 2014, our policies have secured an estimated £42 billion of investment in low-carbon electricity, including £40 billion in renewables, and we have more in the pipeline for the future. I therefore cannot accept this new clause, and I ask hon. Members to withdraw it.

I would now like to deal with new clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Wigan and others. This seeks to introduce additional capacity market eligibility criteria requiring any new-build capacity accessing 15-year capacity agreements to be made subject to the emissions performance standard, or EPS. As I have explained previously, the new clause does not achieve its intended aim, so I am surprised to see it reappear. The EPS sets an annual limit specifically on CO₂ emissions from new fossil fuel plant with an output above 50 MW. Any new fossil fuel generators above 50 MW seeking to participate in the capacity market will already be subject to this limit, so nothing would be gained by introducing this as a further eligibility requirement in the capacity market. Existing generators, which form the majority of capacity market participants, cannot access 15-year agreements, so the new clause would also have no impact on those generators.

As I have set out before, the emissions impact from smaller generators that sit below the 50 MW threshold is often assumed to be larger than it is in reality. Small “peaking” generators have a relatively small impact on overall CO₂ emissions due to the short hours that they run. These generators typically run for less than 100 hours a year, in the case of diesel engines, while larger fossil fuel plants will run for 2,000 hours or more. The new clause is therefore not effective, for the simple reason that the annual EPS CO₂ emissions limit would be very unlikely to have any impact on small generators participating in the capacity market.

Energy Bill [Lords]

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Caroline Lucas

Monday 18th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I can assure the hon. Lady that that is exactly what this Energy Bill is all about, and I will come on to the comments made by her hon. Friends. To finish off my remarks to the Opposition Front Benchers, this closure of the onshore wind subsidy is a very clear Conservative manifesto commitment. No ifs and no buts; it is a very clear commitment. The then Minister with responsibility for energy, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), told the House of Commons on 6 March 2015:

“We have made it absolutely clear that we will remove onshore wind subsidies in the future, and that the current 10% that is in the pipeline for onshore wind is plenty.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2015; Vol. 593, c. 1227-28.]

This is a clear manifesto commitment.

I am glad that the Members who spoke for the SNP, the hon. Members for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig) and for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Philip Boswell), support the establishment of the OGA. I know that they want to see, as do I and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), a thriving industry for home-grown oil and gas that supports the 375,000 jobs that we are looking to sustain. With their help, we will continue to do everything we can to support that, and we hope to be able to count on it. They have raised the issue of a subsidy-free CfD, and I can assure them that my Department is looking very closely at that.

The Government are totally focused on seeing through a long-term plan for secure, clean and affordable energy supplies for generations to come. As we set out in our manifesto, we will cut emissions as cost-effectively as possible while upgrading and expanding both base-load and intermittent sources of energy generation. That means ensuring we continue to support investment in UK energy sources, including supporting the North sea. It also means continuing to support the deployment of new renewables, but we have to achieve this in the most cost-effective way; we have to get the right balance between supporting new technology while then, as costs come down, being tough on subsidies to keep bills as low as possible. However, as we progressively decarbonise our economy, we will continue to need oil and gas for many decades to come, as so many Members have pointed out, and it is far better that the jobs and revenue are in the UK, reducing, where possible, our dependence on imports.

The Energy Bill is intended to enact our manifesto commitments in two key ways. The first is by continuing to support the development of North sea oil and gas by establishing the OGA as an independent regulator and steward. A number of Members have spoken very clearly on this area. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), and my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington South (David Mowat), for Waveney (Peter Aldous), for Wells (James Heappey), for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) and for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) all spoke very knowledgably about the vital importance of doing everything we can to sustain the North sea, not just for now but for the long-term future, recognising that we must cut the cost to consumers as far as possible, which means not continuing with subsidies for those technologies that are now well developed. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) specifically pointed out how lower oil prices right now are helping consumers, and I take this opportunity from the Dispatch Box to call on energy companies again to pass on that drop in oil prices wherever possible.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) made a somewhat extraordinary contribution. She effectively rejects the Energy Bill in its entirety and seems to want it to be a pick-and-mix Bill that covers absolutely every aspect of energy policy. I want to be very clear: what we are seeking to do is establish the OGA properly and implement our manifesto pledges on onshore wind. I had hoped that, for once, she would be pleased that, combined with the superb result to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State contributed in Paris, we are now absolutely focused on decarbonising at the lowest possible price to consumers, with all the implications that that has.

[Caroline Lucas]

I cannot allow the Minister to keep getting away with telling us that she is committed to reducing prices in a way that helps consumers when she is still locking us into nuclear, with its huge subsidies that ordinary consumers are going to have to pay. Her hypocrisy and double standards on this are absolutely shocking, and if people in here do not know that, the people outside do.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Well, I don’t know where to start! I completely disagree with the hon. Lady.

We are acting to control the costs of renewable energy by ending new subsidies for onshore wind and providing local people with the final say on new applications. Members who spoke about renewables included my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), who gave us a spanking good speech on the importance of keeping costs lower for consumers, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who rightly raised the need to deal with intermittency. I can tell him that, since 2012, my Department has invested £18 million in innovative support for energy storage.

The hon. Members for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) and for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) again criticised the early closure of onshore wind subsidies. I find it extraordinary that Labour Members seem to equate the deployment of renewables with decarbonisation. That is simply not the case. They fail to recognise that fuel poverty and endless renewables subsidies go hand in hand. They need to recognise that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Caroline Lucas

Thursday 19th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

Yes, I can absolutely reassure my hon. Friend. Safety in our nuclear plants is of paramount importance. Any operator of a UK nuclear plant must meet the UK’s stringent safety and security regulations, which are enforced by an independent regulator. They provide a whole range of controls, including safe and secure operation, consumer protection, security of UK supply and enforcement of contractual obligations.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I wish the Government would apply their horror of subsidies to the nuclear sector. The Secretary of State’s response to the cross-party objection to the departmental minute on Hinkley fails to address concerns that rather than a £19 billion liability on the public purse, Hinkley may in reality mean an eye-watering £45 billion bill for householders and taxpayers. That is just for one new power station that will not boil a kettle for another decade. At the very least, does she agree there must be a full Commons debate on the issue and an independent examination of the costs before proceeding?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady can, of course, use the normal methods for encouraging a debate. There have been many already. Hinkley Point offers low carbon affordable energy that is highly cost-competitive with clean energy sources. The point is that it is base-load. The UK bill payer will not have to pay a penny until it is actually generating. That is very good value for the UK bill payer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman in part, in that there is the opportunity for CCS to enable us to use fossil fuels for longer, but the reality is that the UK coal fleet is extremely old. All of those coal plants are due to come off in the next few years and we would not want to be building new coal-fired power stations now when there is the lower-carbon alternative of gas and the whole prospect of a clean low-carbon future.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Recent analysis shows that UK power could be almost 90% renewable by 2030, while electrifying 25% of all heating demand and putting around 12.7 million electric cars on the road, but that would require cutting demand for space heating by over 50%. That means much smaller bills, too. The Secretary of State has clearly been spending a lot of time with the Chancellor recently; can she tell us whether energy efficiency will be a Treasury infrastructure priority in the future?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Caroline Lucas

Thursday 17th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. That is exactly what we want to do. We want to continue to support the growth of the renewables sector. I have already explained that there has been £45 billion of investment since 2010 in this sector and we want to encourage it further. We have to do that in the light of what is affordable for bill payers. At the same time we want to encourage new forms of renewables and keep Britain at the forefront of renewables technologies.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Will the Minister explain how she can possibly think that investor confidence will be enhanced by taking yet another wrecking ball to the British solar industry with the enormous subsidy cuts, alongside ending pre-accreditation? On the latter issue, the Government’s own consultation concedes that her Department has not even bothered to estimate the likely impact on deployment. With tens of thousands of jobs at risk, will she withdraw this now and stop all the waffle about consumer bills? If she were serious about consumer bills, her Government would not be subsidising fossil fuels and nuclear to the extent that they are.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am afraid the hon. Lady has not done her homework. She should be aware that it is a requirement of EU state aid that we regularly review the subsidies to ensure that we are not overcompensating the sector. That is exactly what we are doing. We are now in a consultation which closes on 23 October. I am sure she will give her response to that. As I keep repeating, we want to ensure that we are not impacting negatively on consumer bills, but at the same time we are supporting this very valuable and growing sector to become subsidy-free within the next few years.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Caroline Lucas

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

Yes. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and he has certainly been a keen supporter of bank number portability, as have many hon. Members in the Chamber today. The payments regulator that the Government are consulting on is the first step to achieving transparency. The next step is empowering that regulator to do something to enforce bank number portability when it finds, as I am sure that it will, that to date there has been a completely deliberate attempt to restrict competition in the banking system.

The big banks have said that bank account number portability would cost an absolute fortune, yet the technology already exists. Some people have asked whether it would not be an enormous risk to data integrity if the consumer’s bank account number, sort code and payments instructions were held by VocaLink, but in reality, all the consumer’s details are held by the bank, which passes them all on to VocaLink, so there are double risks to data integrity at the moment. Holding those account details in VocaLink would reduce, rather than increase, the risk.

People also say that other banks cannot access VocaLink’s payments infrastructure directly, because all the banks that clear direct have mutually to underwrite each other’s payments. The smaller challenger banks cannot possibly afford to underwrite the payments of the bigger banks. However, we could easily solve that; already, in various exchanges, banks pre-fund payments. If a bank’s balance were too low, and it was running short of cash with which to meet its outgoing payments, it would be called, intra-day, for more cash. That problem is easily solvable, and the reason why it has not been solved is that that is simply not in the big banks’ interests.

It has also been said that the proposal would surely be incredibly complicated from an IT point of view, but VocaLink has already set up bank accounts for the Department for Work and Pensions, because a lot of the Department’s benefits customers do not have bank accounts. VocaLink is already able to manage customer account details for DWP customers, so the technology already exists. I simply do not accept the idea that there would be eye-watering costs. Chief executives of big banks have literally said it would cost trillions—absolutely vast sums—but I challenge them to provide any scrap of evidence that shows that is the case, and that their refusal is not down to their desire to restrict access to new players.

The advantages of bank account number portability are, of course, the elimination of barriers to entry, and increased competition as a result. One of the big problems for new entrants is that it is so difficult to gain customer share, because people will not move bank accounts. With bank account number portability, if I, as a customer, was sick and tired of my bank, I could move tomorrow, the day after, and the day after that, if I was not getting good service, and it would not be any skin off my nose; it would be perfectly easy to do, and it would be the banks’ problem. That would be an enormous change in the competitive environment.

Likewise, there would be far greater consumer choice. Bank account number portability would encourage the likes of Tesco Bank and Marks & Spencer Financial Services—any big, multinational conglomerate—to go into the money business; it would become yet another product line. That in itself would eliminate some of the problems of “too big to fail”, because there would be many more smaller players, which would have many product lines, and therefore would not have all their eggs in one basket.



For small businesses the change would be revolutionary. At present one of the biggest problems for small businesses is that the big banks require that as well as their company accounts, small business people have their personal accounts and mortgage with the same big bank and do all their foreign exchange, overdraft, loans and other transactions through that bank. It is incredibly difficult for a small business to move accounts because of the complexity of all their suppliers and all the people they are trying to trade with. The barriers to entry for them are perhaps even greater than they are for us as individuals. Again, being able to take their bank account number with them would change the position dramatically.

Another huge advantage that is not often talked about is that since the 1990s, when I was running Barclays bank’s team, an enormous consolidation has taken place. There used to be 44 big banks in the UK; there are now about 22 banks of any size. The consolidation meant that during the 1990s many banks took over other banks, broker- dealers, small fund managers and so on, so they have an enormous number of legacy systems. They have managed to string them together over the years, but bank fraud in this country alone is huge. Changing the payment system would dramatically reduce the incidence of bank fraud. Intellect, the IT trade body, has said that the change could reduce the incidence of bank fraud by up to £30 billion a year.

Finally, another key advantage of bank account number portability is resolution. Andy Haldane, the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, has gone on record as saying that it would be the solution when the day comes that a big bank fails again. We have, of course, put in as many steps as we can. Basel III will make great strides towards ensuring that banks cannot fail again. We have created our new regulators. We have ensured that banks have proper leverage and proper capital. All those measures are designed to ensure that banks cannot fail again, but we know that banks will always fail. That is the reality in a western developed market economy such as ours. We saw only too recently the problems with Northern Rock, when people were desperate to take their money out. The answer to resolution is for the Bank of England to be able to say, “You have failed. We are now taking all your accounts and putting them with survivor banks.”

There is a huge amount going for bank account number portability, above and beyond the seven-day switching process. My new clause calls for the Government to ensure, within 12 months of Royal Assent, a full cost-benefit analysis of bank account number portability. Should the findings be that this is a good idea, and should it produce the kind of benefits that I have just described, the regulator should be empowered to implement bank account number portability. I welcome the Government’s assurances that they will move in that direction. On that basis I will not press my new clause to a Division, but I urge the Government to keep up the momentum and ensure that before too long we have full account number portability.

[Caroline Lucas]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to my new clause 15. It is a modest proposal for a full Government consultation on the potential for local stakeholder banks to be carried out before we sell off RBS or any other taxpayer-owned banking assets.

I was interested to hear the Minister mention yesterday his trip to Germany and how he saw in the pages of the Handelsblatt a big headline saying, “City of shame”, referring to the City of London. I agree that this is a stark illustration of the impact of financial mismanagement and of our current banking system on people’s views of the City. However, although I also agree that this highlights the need for improved standards in banking, I think it highlights, too, the need for a radical reappraisal of ownership and accountability structures, if we want to have a banking system that we can be proud of, not ashamed of.

I hope that during the Minister’s trip to Germany he also found time to look at the savings banks, the Sparkassen, that we have spoken about this afternoon and which make up about one third of the German banking system. They are run commercially with dual financial and social objectives, to make a profit and to support the local economy. Professional bankers take responsibility for day-to-day running of the banks and if they make incompetent lending decisions, they are more likely to get sacked than their counterparts in giant commercial banks. Local stakeholders, including local politicians, business leaders, employees and customer representatives, sit on a supervisory board. That is just one example of the sort of local stakeholder bank that my new clause seeks to promote.

The New Economics Foundation analysed data from 65 countries where such alternatives thrive. They include co-operative banks, credit unions, community development finance institutions and public interest saving banks. The common characteristic is the goal of creating value for stakeholders, not just for shareholders, and some exciting and incredibly positive trends emerge. First, a greater focus on the needs of customers, including more competitive products, better service and longer-term lending; secondly, provision for customers who are currently under-served by regular banks; thirdly, a boost to local economic development through lending to small and medium-sized businesses, preventing capital drain from the regions and maintaining branch networks; and finally, a positive impact on financial stability through less volatile returns, high levels of capital, prudent balance sheets and expansion of credit provision after the financial crash.

Policy for Growth

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Caroline Lucas

Thursday 11th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I, too, commend the hon. Lady’s very powerful points. Does she agree that there is an opportunity to combine our strength in banking with our interest in a new low-carbon economy by ensuring that the green investment bank is as good as it possibly can be?

[Caroline Lucas]

Absolutely. The green investment bank will be critical to the transition that we need, but it absolutely has to be a real bank, not just a fund in the Treasury with “bank” attached to it. It has to be a genuine bank that can lend money, raise money, raise bonds and so forth.

Dropping the GDP target is not anti-jobs; it would allow us as a country to develop the measures and targets that reflect the immense complexity of our economy and society and put people’s well-being at the heart of policy making. Many people talk of “sustainable growth”, but we should unpack that phrase, because it is clear that on a planet with finite resources, the infinite production and consumption of natural resources simply is not possible. Efficiency gains will help, and technology will need to play a vital role, but there is a very real risk that with a rising population and understandably rising expectations from a growing middle class throughout the world, those efficiency and technology gains will be undermined by overall growth.

Behaviour change will therefore have to be a part of truly sustainable development, but that does not mean a less fulfilling quality of life. On the contrary, it is far more likely to lead to a better quality of life. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that although GDP growth has more than doubled in the past 30 years, our well-being and happiness have not. They have either stayed the same or, according to some indicators, even declined.

Finally, I commend to the House the report from the Sustainable Development Commission, called “Prosperity without growth?”, by Professor Tim Jackson, which explores those issues clearly and makes the case that countries such as France, and even President Sarkozy, are beginning to look at those issues carefully. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for raising this important question, and I hope that we can deal more critically with the idea of green growth.