Overseas Voters Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Friday 26th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

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

It gives me great pleasure to move the Second Reading of the Overseas Voters Bill. The Bill was brought forward in the last Session of the last Parliament, in the run-up to the general election. At that stage, I had a very helpful response from the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) who was then Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office, who said that the Bill’s key element would be incorporated in the Conservative party manifesto and implemented after the general election. As a result, we had in our manifesto a commitment to take action on this issue.

I brought the Bill forward because too many British citizens living abroad are not entitled to vote in general elections in this country. Although the Electoral Commission made a big effort towards the end of the last Parliament, in the run-up to the general election, to register overseas electors, an answer given to me on 5 February by my hon. Friend the Minister—he is on the Front Bench today—showed that only 105,845 overseas electors were registered to vote in May 2015. He said it was not possible to say how many of those who were registered actually voted. I know that a number did not vote because they did not receive their ballot papers in time; indeed, I have had complaints about that from erstwhile constituents who now live abroad.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this Bill to the House’s attention. I am listening to his very good speech with huge interest. He said that 105,000 overseas electors are registered. What is the total number who could be registered were they all identified, as his Bill suggests they should be?

[Mr Chope]

As with a lot of these things, there is no precise answer to my hon. Friend’s very good question, but the estimate is probably that 5 million and upwards would be eligible, and I see my hon. Friend the Minister nodding.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)]

Just to clarify, the figures are a little unclear, as my hon. Friend says. It looks as though about 2 million may be eligible to vote at the moment, and another 3 million or 4 million on top of that might be enfranchised were we to get rid of the 15-year rule in due course. However, as I suggested, all figures should be treated with a degree of caution, because this is so uncertain.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. What he is saying is that, of the 2 million who are eligible at the moment, we registered only 100,000, and many fewer than that actually voted. There is potentially a pool of a lot more who could be registered if the Bill went through and we were able to allow all British citizens living overseas to participate in our democracy.

That, of course, is what happens in a lot of other countries. Some of those countries organise—indeed, facilitate—voting by their overseas citizens at embassies, consulates and other such places. In the recent Turkish elections, the President of Turkey, in a neutral capacity, spent a lot of time visiting other countries in Europe—mainly countries with a significant number of Turkish expatriates—to speak directly to them to encourage them to participate in the election.

So what would be the benefit of this? Apart from the benefit to democracy, it would assist in campaigns such as one that I very strongly support, which is the campaign for an end to the discrimination against British pensioners living overseas. It would mean that those who are campaigning to ensure that there is equal treatment between British pensioners living overseas and those living in the United Kingdom would have more clout. At the moment, there are a handful of these people in each constituency able to vote, and they cannot really make a difference in the general election, but if more of them were eligible to vote, and did vote, they would be able to lobby much more effectively and we might find that the Government were more responsive to their concerns than they seem to be at the moment.

[Mr Hollobone]

The campaigns that my hon. Friend is mounting for electoral justice and pensioner justice are legendary. I am glad that he managed to persuade the Government to include in the manifesto a commitment on electoral justice. With regard to British pensioners living overseas, presumably Her Majesty’s Government know who these people are and where they live, and they are in receipt of at least some element of their pension. Therefore, given the terms of this Bill, it should not be too difficult for the Electoral Commission to put them on the list and get them registered.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a really good point; as he says, it should not be too difficult. In the run-up to the previous election, I encouraged the Foreign Office to try to get people registered. I also tried to get information out of the Department for Work and Pensions about enabling it to communicate directly with pensioners. The 15-year rule makes it more difficult to run these registration campaigns, because the DWP does not know whether an overseas pensioner has been living overseas for more than 15 years, and removing the rule would make it much easier for it to campaign effectively. When I was at a meeting discussing these issues with a member of our embassy staff in Berlin, he told me of the efforts being made to try to get expats living there to participate in voting, and I am sure that such efforts were made. However, as is apparent from the figures, there is an enormously long way to go. When my hon. Friend the Minister responds, I am sure he will say that this Bill is premature, as most of my Bills are, but I hope he will also say what the Government are going to do about implementing their manifesto commitment.

It is currently a cause of a great deal of frustration for British overseas residents that they are going to find it very difficult to participate in the European referendum. Some cynics have said that it would be better if we did not allow large numbers from overseas to participate in that referendum, but I think it would be desirable for the maximum number of British citizens to be able to do so. After all, we are going to allow Commonwealth citizens and Irish citizens living in this country to participate, so why were the Government unable to bring forward the Bill to facilitate the extension of the 15-year rule sooner in this Session so that it could have had a part to play in the referendum eligibility campaign?

[Mr Hollobone]

Surely the whole point about electoral registration is that we register people who we believe have the right to cast their ballot. We never register people on the basis of which way we think they might vote in a particular election or referendum.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Too often, we allow cynics outside to misrepresent our policy positions. I think that all democrats would say that the maximum number of British citizens should be entitled to vote and encouraged to participate in our democracy, and that, in essence, is what this Bill is about.

Clause 3 deals with internet voting. This is a controversial subject, but I think that if we are ever to go down the road of internet voting, the starting point should be people living overseas.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

My hon. Friend and I have been very close friends for some while, but I am concerned that internet voting could be open to fraud. How would he seek to deal with that issue?

[Mr Chope]

Fraud is rife in most electronic transactions, but despite that, a very large number of people are prepared to trust their banking arrangements to being dealt with online. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is now going to make it more or less compulsory for small businesses to do their tax returns online on a quarterly basis. My hon. Friend makes a perfect reasonable point: there is always scope for fraud. That is why I would not suggest massive internet voting on a universal basis from the outset, but it would be sensible to start off with a reasonable experiment. For example, we could perhaps start with members of our armed forces who are serving overseas. We might be able to develop a secure system for dealing with them.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not think it odd that he wants to make it a lot easier for people living abroad to vote, but this Government want to make it a lot more difficult, through individual registration, for people to register to vote in this country?

[Mr Chope]

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s premise. The Government are keen to ensure that we have individual voter registration so that there is less identity fraud at polling stations and through postal votes. I supported that when I was a member of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the previous Parliament.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are not debating UK domestic issues. I know the hon. Gentleman would not want to drift away from his point.

[Mr Chope]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I am intrigued by his proposition on internet voting. As a fellow member of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the previous Parliament, I can bear testament to his prowess and knowledge. He rightly mentioned utilising the armed forces in an experiment on overseas voting. Perhaps Skyping could be used as a method, because face recognition on computers is now very sophisticated; indeed, we use it in airports across this country and in Europe. Does he agree that this could be a way ahead for internet voting by armed forces in overseas territories?

[Mr Chope]

I have to admit to not being an expert in this area at all. If my children were here, they would say to me, “When did you last Skype?”, and the answer would be, “Never.” I know that there is such a thing as Skyping, that other members of my family participate in it, and that it is a very inexpensive way of communicating with friends and family overseas. I imagine that it would fall within the term “internet voting”. However, I do not have the expertise to be able to answer my hon. Friend’s question about whether it would be possible to secure a system of Skyping that would be proof against fraud or misrepresentations. I leave that to the Minister and his officials.

In clause 3 I do not try to set out a prescriptive arrangement for internet voting. That is because this is a really good example of where regulations should be brought forward by the Government using their expertise rather than relying on albeit gifted amateurs to do the job for them. The clause says that the Government “shall bring forward regulations”, and, in subsection (2), that they

“shall include provisions to prevent identity fraud and to ensure that only those eligible to vote can vote.”

[Mr Hollobone]

I anticipate that clause 3 might cause most difficulty when the Bill goes into Committee. Is it not the case that it has never been easier to register an individual to vote and that increasingly that is being done over the internet? That will be of great encouragement to overseas voters, because they should be easily able to register themselves in this country.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Clause 3 addresses internet voting rather than internet registration, which is an important distinction. It is already possible to register on the internet, which, as my hon. Friend says, is a popular form of registration. A lot of young people used the internet to get themselves on the electoral register in the run-up to the last general election.

This is a short and relatively simple and straightforward Bill, and I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

As ever, I accept your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish I did have the figures for those living abroad, but, as has been said, it is very difficult to ascertain them. The only figures we have are those for individual voters in the UK, but I fully accept and understand what you have said.

Elections in May will include those to the devolved institutions in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh, the London mayoral election, and the police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales. Then—just in case somebody has missed this—at the end of June we will have a rather serious referendum to decide whether this country will continue to be a member of the European Union. The Electoral Commission will play an important role overseeing all those elections. Personally, I do not think it would be wise for this House to say that, in addition, the commission should make the registration of overseas voters a priority. I hope and expect that the commission will continue its grand efforts of previous years in encouraging British people living overseas to register to vote, which is so important, but if there is to be a priority, surely it must be to ensure that all prospective voters who live in the UK are on the list.

The figures I have cited are alarming, but I will not mention them again, for fear of being pulled up by you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is important, however, to recognise the changes taking place in our democracy. We have to understand that the voting process is a central plank of our democratic process, both at home and abroad.

Clause 2 proposes abolishing the current 15-year limit on an overseas voter’s ability to participate in UK elections. We have no objection to reviewing the time limits on eligibility. There is nothing sacred about the 15-year limit. It has not always been 15 years: it has been 20 years and five years in the past, but now it has settled at 15 years. As the hon. Gentleman has said, there are different rules in different countries. However, if we are to consider changing the limit, or even removing it completely, as has been argued, I do not believe that that should be done in isolation. It should happen as part of a wider review of how we can increase participation in elections in general.

The Conservative party made a manifesto commitment to abolishing the 15-year rule, and we are still waiting for the votes for life Bill to be introduced. Although we have no objection to that in principle, if we want to extend the franchise the Government should look again at giving the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds in this country. We should learn the lesson of what happened in Scotland, which enthused people and brought them into the parliamentary process. They felt that they were valued. We should take a leaf out of the Scottish book.

Clause 3 would give overseas voters a chance to vote online. We need to do more to make sure that our electoral process better reflects the busy lives that people lead. That could and should include trialling electronic and online voting. However, I am not wholly convinced by the hon. Gentleman’s arguments about why overseas voters should be the first to try out such a system.

We are unable to support the Bill, for the reasons I have given. I am sceptical of some of the clauses and the priority given to overseas voters, because of all our other concerns about electoral matters.

[Mr Chope]

I understand that this is the hon. Gentleman’s maiden Front-Bench speech on a Friday; he is making a very good fist of it, if I may say so. He says that he does not believe the Bill to be a priority, but does he not think there is something really wrong with our democracy if some 6 million British citizens are not able to participate in it? Surely that should be a top priority.

[Ian Lavery]

I fully understand that, but I would not categorise it as a priority. Some 7.5 million people in the UK are not registered, and since the introduction of IER a further 1.4 million people have dropped off the register. The Opposition fully agree that we need to look at encouraging participation in voting, but we do not see overseas voting as a major priority. It should be part of a concerted effort to get as many people as we can to vote. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman and I are too far apart on that, other than on the question of what should be a priority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his response, and I am delighted to hear that, even as we speak, parliamentary counsel are struggling with the detail of what I hope will be not just a Government Bill, but Government regulations to go with it, so that there is not a long gap between the Bill and the regulations. It is often much better if the draft regulations can be produced at the same time as the Bill. If that is the reason for the delay, I will be prepared to accept that, because it is much easier for the House to consider a Bill when it has the regulations—the detailed implementation scheme—before it. I can understand that it has not been possible to do that. I was disappointed with the expression “in due course”, but I can assure him that, if we have not made progress by the time of the next Queen’s Speech—whenever that might be—I shall seek to resurrect the Bill in the next Session and to keep the pressure on the Government.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) for his generous remarks, but I am not sure I agree with his views about extending clause 1 to local government elections. That would involve a complex interaction, because, at the moment, EU citizens resident here can participate in local elections—the trigger is their residence here. If we said that non-British people not resident could participate in local government elections, that would be a significant extension and might have serious implications. Before we knew it—although this will, I hope, be sorted out on 23 June—we might find the EU suggesting that its citizens should be able to participate in our general elections, which would be completely wrong.

With those remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

Off-shore Wind Farm Subsidies (Restriction) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 4 March.

Equitable Life

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

We must find a further £2.6 billion to meet the commitment that all of us signed up to. Those of us who made that pledge said that we wanted full and fair compensation, and the Chancellor made it clear at the Dispatch Box that that was the figure, although he was only able to come up with £1.5 billion at the time. The shortfall is now £2.6 billion. I could go through a whole list of other things that the Chancellor has found money for but that have perhaps less merit than the plight of those elderly people who invested their money.

I do not expect the Minister suddenly to say, “Don’t worry, we’re going to provide all the money. Here it is”—it would be good if he did—but the Chancellor will be at the Dispatch Box on 16 March to deliver the Budget, and I hope that he will announce further compensation for the pre-1992 trapped annuitants so that they receive full compensation. I also hope he will confirm that none of the money that has already been pledged will be clawed back at the end of the scheme, and that further moneys will be made available as and when that is allowed in the Treasury forecast.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all his work on behalf of the victims of the Equitable Life saga. It surprises me that the Treasury has not yet conceded that it will have to spend the £139 million that it has in its coffers on this compensation, as it expected to, rather than take it as a windfall. Surely that is the starting point.

Greece

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

In the end, it is impossible for any country to defy the financial markets. That is something this country has learned to its cost in the past. What we want to see in Greece is investment flowing into the country, the banks reopening and the economy growing. That is why we look forward to the proposals that the Greek Prime Minister says he will bring to the eurozone summit tomorrow.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would not be anything for the Greek people to be ashamed of if they decided that they were best off getting out of the straitjacket of the eurozone and were able to wrest away from the controls of the European vulture funds?

[Mr Osborne]

I will not exactly use the language that my hon. Friend uses, but I think he would absolutely agree that we need to respect the rights of the Greek people to make their own decisions on their future. They have clearly expressed their view in the referendum, but of course they are part of a currency where other populations care about the arrangements with Greece. Governments in Ireland, Spain and the like ask, “We have undertaken a lot of these reforms and measures, so why are the same things not demanded of the Greeks?” That is the challenge that the eurozone faces. Where my hon. Friend and I agree is that we are well out of it and are happy with our pound sterling.

Greece

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I do not think anyone would presume to tell the Greek nation of all nations how to conduct a democracy. That is why I made it very clear in my statement that we respect the right of the Greek people to make decisions about their own future in an open and democratic way, and we do not presume to give them advice on that, but of course they need to be aware of all the consequences.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Greek people wish to regain their sovereignty and once again become masters of their own economic destiny, they should be arguing to leave the eurozone and set up the drachma once again?

[Mr Osborne]

As I have already said, it is for the Greek people to make this decision, but my hon. Friend’s broader observations about the constraints of being in the euro are one of the reasons why he and I agree that Britain was right not to join and should not join in the future.

European Union Referendum Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McFadden]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. All these models need to be examined to see what their strengths and weaknesses might be.

Aside from its regular work on the Budget and the autumn statement, the OBR already produces a longer-term fiscal sustainability report on future trends and pressures, the latest edition of which was published just a few days ago, so it already ranges more widely than the work we are most familiar with on Budgets and autumn statements. Our amendment asks the OBR to produce a report on the implications for the public finances of a British exit. For example, can we assume that the UK would save all its budget contribution to the EU, as claimed by the advocates of exit, or could we expect to contribute some or most of that in return for continued access to the single market? Some countries outside the EU but part of the European free trade area have to make substantial contributions for access to the market. Are there other effects to take into account, such as the implications for the public finances of any migration changes as a result of exit? Would exit have any impact on the long-term demographics of the country that might in turn impact on the public finances? There are a number of issues that the OBR might want to consider that could impact on the public finances.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he and his party objected to my Bill in the last Parliament calling for an independent audit of the economic costs and benefits of our current membership of the EU? Is that not the most fundamental issue about which the public want to be informed before the referendum?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

I seem to have spurred my right hon. and learned Friend to a passionate pursuit of his arguments, because he does not want what I am proposing at all. The fact is that the Electoral Commission says the proposal to remove section 125

“could mean that governments and others will be free to spend unlimited amounts of public funds promoting an outcome at the referendum right up until polling day.”

It goes on to say:

“In the Commission’s view, there is a risk that the use of significant amounts of public money for promotional activity could give an unfair advantage to one side of the argument. Unlimited government spending would also undermine the principle of having spending limits for registered campaigns.”

We have already heard about the interference in the Scottish referendum, and what the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) said is completely right.

[Mr Chope]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is ironic that the section 125 provisions were adopted by the Venice Commission in the following year and are now universal best practice, and that the Venice Commission has endorsed the fact that there should be a prohibition on Government expenditure in the four weeks of the referendum campaign?

[Sir William Cash]

That is absolutely right. I was going to refer to that, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point.

I want to refer to what section 125 actually does say, because the proposal is to remove that tonight, in the face of our opposition. The explanatory notes accompanying the Bill state what they do:

“These Explanatory Notes have been prepared by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office…to help inform debate”

and

“in order to assist the reader of the Bill”.

However, paragraph 52 of the notes gives no explanation and simply says:

“Paragraph 25 provides that section 125 of the 2000 Act does not apply for the purposes of this referendum”,

and then mentions a consequential amendment. There is no explanation at all. That itself is a reason for our being concerned about the way this is being done.

I want to return to the question of what we are repealing. What is in the 2000 Act is very sound. It refers to

“any material which—

(a) provides general information about a referendum to which this Part applies;

(b) deals with any of the issues raised by any question on which such a referendum is being held;

(c) puts any arguments for or against any particular answer to any such question; or

(d) is designed to encourage voting at such a referendum.”

It is very comprehensive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

Do the figures my hon. Friend is referring to include Government expenditure? The Minister, responding to the debate on the previous group of amendments, said the Government should not be a lead campaigner in a referendum, thereby implying that it will be a campaigner and spend Government resources. Are Government resources restricted in any way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is why this debate is important. When the Minister replies, we want further and better particulars. We really want to know whether Government expenditure will be a part of this. The Government have enormous resources through all the Government Departments and it would be unfair if there was a mismatch in total spend for both sides of the argument. The yes campaign in 1975 spent the equivalent in today’s money of £11 million, compared with £1 million by the no side. The no side in 1975 were outspent 10:1, and that simply cannot be fair. Such things may have been more accepted in those more forgiving days, but I do not think they would be accepted now when there is widespread disillusionment about politics and a widespread feeling, which may be unfair and I know the Government want to act in an entirely honourable way, that the result could be fixed by the political establishment. The political establishment, encompassed by all the leading political parties except UKIP, big business and the European Commission, could have a massive and decisive preponderance of spending.

The 2000 Act provides for an entirely different regulation to what existed in 1975. It still looks far more likely that one side will have much higher spending limits than the other, which is inimical to our sense of democratic fair play. It is possible that the voters will be—or could feel, which is just as important—overwhelmed by spending on one side. Spending caps in constituency elections are basically equal. I know this is a UK-wide referendum, but that actually makes it more important, because there is huge interest both within and outside the country. The coverage in the European press is massive and will only get greater, and the European Commission and foreign Governments are very exercised about it. It is incumbent on the Minister to tell us what he plans to do about it and how he will address the problem I have articulated. If I am wrong, I am happy to listen to the Government and to be reassured, but they have to reassure the Committee.

Aside from the inherent inequality, there are deeper concerns about the potential effects. Let us consider the results of the Scottish referendum and the following general election: one side can win a referendum, but afterwards, if people feel the arguments were not entirely fair, there can be a massive shift of opinion. If a yes result is secured through massive overspend, there is a danger—dare I say it?—of a UKIP backlash, just as we have seen an SNP backlash, and this tidal wave can overwhelm people. It is essential, therefore, that there is a feeling of fairness. We need an open debate in which both sides are funded broadly the same and can put their arguments. If the yes campaign wins by the force of its arguments, I, as a democrat, would be the first to accept that it won fair and square, but there has to be a feeling of fairness.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

I am afraid that I do share some of the hon. Lady’s worries. I would like to see that clearly stated in writing and as an act of policy from the EU itself. That would probably be much appreciated in many sections of the United Kingdom, so that we can be sure that there would not be clumsy, unwarranted or unwelcome interference. It would be a double irony if the EU were using our money to do it. That is what makes it particularly difficult. UK taxpayers of both views would be paying the money to the EU, but only one side of the argument would be funded by that money.

[Mr Chope]

Surely the Government could do something on this front. They could ask the European Commission and the European Union not to intervene and not to fund the referendum campaign. They could then get a written undertaking from the Commission not to use European Union funds. That is outside the scope of the Bill, but the Minister could give such an undertaking.

[John Redwood]

Indeed. I am speaking to amendment 10 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who seeks to clarify this point and prevent the use or abuse of EU money. I hope that the Minister will respond and that he will have his own proposals on Report. The Electoral Commission has given exceedingly good advice across the board on this referendum. It seemed to suggest that it would not be right for the EU to give money for the campaign, and it would be nice to have a reassurance that the Government share that view and accept the advice of that august body, which is there to guide us.

There is an additional issue with EU money, to which some colleagues have referred. What do we do about the EU money that is routed to bodies or organisations within the UK that choose to make a donation to a referendum campaign? That is another difficulty. As I understand it, such a donation would be perfectly legal because the organisation giving the money would be able to say that it had other sources of money and it was not a direct gift of EU money to the referendum campaign. Such a body may be swayed by the fact that it had had generous access to EU moneys in the past. While one would hope that none of them were donating for that reason, people would suspect that a body in receipt of substantial EU moneys in the normal course of business that saw fit to give money to the campaign to stay in would hope that the EU would be better disposed to it when it put in its next application for money.

Mutuals’ Deferred Shares Bill [Lords]

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Friday 6th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope]

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

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

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

Equitable Life

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

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

[Andrea Leadsom]

Yes, I am.

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

The motion notes that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insurance Bill [Lords]

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Application and interpretation

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

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Christopher Chope)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 3 to 8 stand part.

That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.

[Andrea Leadsom]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Christopher Chope)]

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

[Andrea Leadsom]

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

[Cathy Jamieson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

He did, however, admit that it was

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Clause 12

Remedies for fraudulent claims

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

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Christopher Chope)]

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

[Andrea Leadsom]

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

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

[Cathy Jamieson]

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Good Faith

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

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Christopher Chope)]

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

[Andrea Leadsom]

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

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

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

[Cathy Jamieson]

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Clause 19

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

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

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Christopher Chope)]

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

[Andrea Leadsom]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Provision consequential on Part 2

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

[The Temporary Chair]

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

[Andrea Leadsom]

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

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

Offshore Wind Developments

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Weir]

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

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

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

[Mr Weir]

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

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

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

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

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

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

which he considered likely. He said:

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

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

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

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

The Secretary of State responded:

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

that is perhaps true, and is welcome—

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mark Lazarowicz]

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

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

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

[Mr Chope]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Chope]

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

[Dr Whiteford]

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

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

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

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

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

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

School Admissions Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Friday 7th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

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

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

The Bill deals with the very narrow issue of whether

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

should

“receive priority in the admissions process to maintained schools”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Chope]

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

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

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

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

[Mr Chope]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Chope]

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

[Harriett Baldwin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Chope]

With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.

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

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

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

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and Bill, by leave, withdrawn.