Mutuals’ Deferred Shares Bill [Lords]

Jonathan Evans Excerpts

Friday 6th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I should make it clear at the outset that the Bill is an extremely valuable and useful one. The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) for promoting it here. The Bill started in the other place, where there was a comparatively short debate on Second Reading and no Committee stage. I believe that, because time was short, the Government Minister said to the Bill’s promoter, Lord Naseby, “If you agree to certain amendments, we will support the Bill. If you do not, we will not support it.” Lord Naseby, being a very wise former Deputy Speaker of the Commons, agreed to the amendments and came to a sensible compromise. The Bill came to the House of Commons and was debated in Committee, which was skilfully navigated by my hon. Friend, because he managed to persuade the Chair to have one debate on all the clauses. There was no reference whatever to clause 2 during the debate.

The reason I tabled amendment 1 as a probing amendment is that there is potentially a conflict in the Bill. The Bill seeks to help mutuals to raise further money, funds and solvency. On the other hand, it says that however much anyone invests in a mutual, they will get only a single vote. I will describe this in more detail in a second, but the European Union Commission has proposed a statute for European mutuals. Under that proposed European law, members of a mutual would have more than one vote, and decisions would be made by a majority vote. The potential conflict is this: how do we encourage people to invest in mutuals but at the same time tell them that, however much they put in, they will get only a single vote?

Mutuals are an important part of what is known more broadly as the social economy, which staggeringly accounts for 10% of all European undertakings—the amount undertaken by mutuals in the UK is less than the amount undertaken by mutuals in other EU member states. Mutuals have been described as voluntary groups of persons whose purpose is primarily to meet the needs of their members rather than to achieve a return on investment. All hon. Members will recall mutuals in their constituencies that go back to the 18th or 19th centuries—they would have been set up in workplaces or neighbourhoods to provide sickness help, funeral cover and various reliefs of that kind, some of which were overtaken by the Beveridge report and the welfare state. There has always been a sense of each person making a contribution and getting something out.

Mutuals were put into difficulty because of the so-called solvency II directive, which called for increased solvency margins, but there are differences between different financial services providers. Smaller and medium-sized mutuals are often focused on one risk or cover one homogenous group. As a consequence, they have more difficulties in acquiring risk capital compliance with the solvency II rules. That has significant consequences for them and can result in their dissolution. As I understand it, the Bill seeks to deal with that conundrum in the solvency rules.

The basic principles behind the solvency II directive, which was adopted in 2009 and came into force in 2013, are that insurance institutions in Europe should be based on a better risk assessment, better spreading of risks and better financial foundations so as to improve the stability of the market and reinforce consumer protection—all sensible stuff. The main innovation introduced by the directive is that in establishing an improved foundation for the insurance sector, the directive concerns more than only the capital solvency requirements as they existed at the time, and it also lays down rules on the whole organisation of insurance takings in Europe. Within the European Union, it also concerns the taking up and pursuit of self-employment activities—the direct insurance and reinsurance, the supervision of insurance and reinsurance groups and the reorganisation and winding up of direct insurance undertakings.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

For the avoidance of doubt, I should call attention to my interests in this respect. I am the chairman of a regulated insurance company, but it is not a mutual company. I was on the board of a mutual company but not since I have been a Member of Parliament.

My right hon. Friend mentions solvency II, but it is important to remember that that is an effort by Europe to catch up with a regime that has already been in operation in the United Kingdom for 10 years or so. The issue that he has outlined in relation to better risk assessment is something that our regulators required companies to do a decade or more ago. Europe is catching up in that regard.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I have no doubt that Europe is seeking to catch up with the United Kingdom in many instances, but in reality the Bill is trying to square the circle of how mutuals manage to cope with increasing solvency requirements, whether imposed by domestic legislation or by EU directives. One of the interesting factors of mutuals is that at present they cannot and do not cross national boundaries. If a mutual wants to trade in more than one EU member state, it can do so at present only by setting up a joint stock company to manage the variations in the regulations and laws between the different member countries.

I would be interested to learn from the Minister—I am pleased to see her in her place on the Treasury Bench—what approach the Government think they should take to legislation that would make it easier for mutuals to operate across Europe and, especially if the UK is in the lead in certain aspects of mutual activity, how we could take better advantage of that. The EU internal market rules apply generally to the operators insurance sector, but it is predominantly attuned to for-profit companies, and it is widely acknowledged that the rules do not always recognise the specific position of other company forms such as mutuals.

Within the framework of completing the internal market, with a view to allowing the free movement of people, goods, services and capital with equal terms of competition between different sectors and legal forms in the same markets, way back in 1992, the European Commission proposed regulations for a European mutuals statute, together with statutes for co-operatives and associations, in order to improve the legal embedding of the social economy in the European Community. Each draft regulation was supplemented by a directive on the involvement of employees. In the opinion of the Commission, mutuals, like other organisations within the social economy, should have been able to take advantage of the single market in exactly the same way as other companies, without having to discard their specific characteristics. It was considered that a European statute would help mutuals overcome the legal and administrative difficulties hampering their cross-border and transnational activities and co-operation in the internal market.

Returning to my amendments, the draft regulations were revised in 1993 and a statute proposed for European mutuals, including provisions for members of a mutual to have more than one vote and for decisions to be taken by a majority vote. I would be interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North and the Minister how they see this circle being squared—there is the perfectly understandable desire to get more money into mutual societies so that they can meet the solvency requirements, but how can that be done if those who invest substantial amounts get only a single vote? Given the history and record of mutual societies in this country, would it not be more sensible to use European-wide legislation that would enable UK mutuals to work and win business elsewhere in Europe, without companies having to go through the rigmarole of setting up joint stock companies to act as a bridge between other mutual societies in other member states?

[Jonathan Evans]

Having spoken to my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) earlier, I know that he is a friend of the mutuals sector and that his aim is not to undermine the intention of the Bill.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I come to praise my hon. Friend’s Bill, not to bury it.

[Jonathan Evans]

I am much aware of that. My right hon. Friend and I have spoken about this matter and I know that that is his motivation.

I do not know whether this will help my right hon. Friend’s career—he and I are both leaving the House, so perhaps it does not matter—but we are good Europeans. We have always understood that it is in our country’s interests to engage positively with Europe, so I am pleased by his references to the European landscape. Most of my colleagues are aware that, having served in the House in the 1990s, I then spent a decade in the European Parliament as an MEP and for some of that time I was leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament. The two aspects he has drawn to the House’s attention—the potential European mutuals statute and the debate about the European solvency rules—are matters that I have spent pretty much a decade of my life arguing about.

Given that my right hon. Friend drew attention to the European mutuals statute and quoted the original 1992 provisions and the 1993 revision, it might be worth pointing out that the important word, which he mentioned, was “draft”. The draft was produced, but there was then a long period of decided inactivity. In fact, those of us elected to the European Parliament first in 1999 had to engage in a major effort to get the issue of the European mutuals statute on to the European agenda. Given that, although my right hon. Friend referred to the restriction on voting rights in clause 2—which, he rightly said, might be inconsistent with a report produced more than 20 years ago—it is important to see that report in its context.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Evans]

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

I should like to thank Members on both sides of the House, as well as the minor parties, for their universal support for the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) has made it clear that we have seen Bills move more swiftly than this through their parliamentary stages, but I would not want anyone to think that this Bill has not received a significant amount of attention. It has had a gestation process of about three years, and support from Members on both sides has enabled the Government to bring forward a Bill that has universal support.

For more than 300 years, friendly societies and mutual companies have been an important part of the corporate landscape of our country. From the time of the industrial revolution, the needs of working people for greater security against unemployment, sickness and funeral costs have led to the creation of many such societies, all of which were committed to the principles of mutuality, customer focus and trust. Some, such as Royal London, the NFU Mutual—on whose board I served for a decade—and LV, have become major landmarks of the financial services industry.

I want to refer briefly to the Tredegar Medical Aid Society, which brought working miners together 120 years ago and mutually provided medical insurance care. The society was the first to make provision for its members to get two weeks of sickness benefit, when needed. In 1911, a parliamentary commission from this place visited Tredegar in the south Wales valleys—my home town—to examine the scheme, which led to the universal introduction of sickness benefit in the UK. In 1947, Aneurin Bevan, who served on the society’s board with my grandfather, a working coal miner, told Parliament that the Tredegar Medical Aid Society was the model for the NHS and therefore he was not nationalising health care but “Tredegar-ising” it.

The important contribution that mutuals have made over the years to innovation and corporate diversity has, as we have heard, been significantly undermined in recent decades by the inability of mutuals to raise regulatory capital, other than by retaining past profits—the danger was always losing their mutuality. I will not repeat the points made during the debate on the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), because we see the way in which the mutuals sector, through this difficulty, shrank to being a fraction of the size of the sector in Europe. I believe we are all agreed that that was undesirable. The problem led to all political parties recognising that something urgent needed to be done to allow mutuals to raise additional capital, if required, without losing their mutual status. That is what this Bill is all about.

Before closing, I wish, with your indulgence, Mr Speaker, to pay one or two tributes. Lord Naseby, a former Deputy Speaker of this House, has been part of the journey throughout the three-year period to which I referred. He and I have worked closely on this, as he is my vice-chairman on the all-party group on mutuals. I also wish to pay tribute to Peter Hunt and Mutuo for all the work they have done, and to mention some people within this House.

The Minister has consistently offered Government support for the Bill. The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) and I have discussed the position of mutuals and what we can collectively do to enhance their position within the corporate landscape of our country. Whatever political differences there may have been between us on a range of other things, it would be difficult to find much on this agenda on which he and I do not share either the same objective or the same means to get to that objective. I am very grateful to him for all the support he has given.

I wish to mention two other people, the first of whom is the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), my predecessor as chairman of the all-party group. He worked consistently and hard to try to get Members on both sides of the House—the hon. Member for Nottingham East knows that each of us struggled with our own side—especially the Front-Bench teams, to understand what we understood needed to be done. There cannot be many people in this House who have worked as hard as the hon. Member for West Bromwich West in that regard.

Finally, I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). He and I represent the two plane wings of the Conservative party. As long as each of our wings is intact, the Conservative party will fly with power, not least in the forthcoming election. He has proved to be of immense assistance to me, not only on my previous private Member’s Bill, the Off-patent Drugs Bill, which may return to the House in due course, but on the procedure in dealing with the measure before us. As we are drawing near to three weeks until the end of my service in the House, I want to thank him very much for the help he has given me.

I have one final comment to make. I first stood for Parliament more than 40 years ago, against Michael Foot, in my home town. At the beginning of that campaign, Michael Foot gave me a copy of his biography of Aneurin Bevan. I thought it immensely generous of somebody who was, in a sense, one of the iconic figures of British politics to give a gift such as that to somebody who was barely 22 years of age at the time. The reason he gave it to me was not just an act of generosity. He drew attention to page 63 of that biography, in which he talks about Bevan’s involvement with the Tredegar Medical Aid Society and the working miners who formed it, one of whom was my grandfather. There is no better way of drawing an end to my service in this House than by doing something to ensure that the mutual principle in our country to which my grandfather contributed in some way is carried forward through this Bill.

Wales Bill

Jonathan Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

All I can say at this stage is that we would consider any such request in good faith. We want to work in a constructive manner, and I believe that the UK Government have a record of doing that when dealing with the Welsh Government. Our amendment certainly does not constitute an attempt to delay matters. The Assembly has the option of using HMRC, but it is not compelled to do so. We think it reasonable, if the Welsh Government wish to use HMRC, for its commissioners and the UK Government to make a proper assessment of the overall impact on the UK.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

I hear what my hon. Friend says about the use of HMRC, but I think that my constituents would be keen to know whether the tax office in Llanishen in Cardiff in my constituency is likely to be the location where its work is done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Llwyd]

Everyone will be pleased to hear that I shall be fairly brief. [Interruption.] I sense the disappointment. I am sorry to let the Chamber down at this late hour.

New clause 7 is about the transfer of ownership and control of the Crown estates in Wales, new clause 8 is about the consequent transfer of revenue and new clause 9 is about appointing a Crown Estate commissioner with special responsibility for Wales. As has been said in various debates by various colleagues, we have set about preserving the integrity of the Silk recommendations, so in speaking to these new clauses, which stand in my name and those of my two honourable colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), I shall first deal with new clause 9.

New clause 9 is the recommendation of the cross-party commission on devolution, which was chaired by Paul Silk. The recommendation is less than we wanted, but it recognises what was agreed as part of a compromise. That is why it is disappointing to see it left out of the Bill by the Government. The new clause deals with the appointment of a Crown Estate commissioner with special responsibility for Wales.

The Crown Estate has a diverse range of holdings throughout Wales. As well as agricultural land and mineral rights, these include the sea bed out to the 12-mile nautical limit, within which it is responsible for issuing, for example, permits and leases for wind energy creation. However, the Crown Estate is not accountable to the people of Wales, and all profits from its holdings, both onshore and offshore, are passed to the UK Government. These are likely to grow substantially in the future, mainly due to the demand for renewable energy. We in Plaid Cymru believe that ownership and control over the Crown Estate in Wales should be transferred to the Welsh Government. That is the issue we are probing through new clauses 7 and 8.

The Crown Estate in Wales is likely to be increasingly important, especially in the context of its role, as I said, in developing renewable energy. Devolving the Crown Estate is essential in order for Wales to have a say in how energy projects are planned and to see financial gain from the natural riches that are harvested by them, whether that is renewable or other forms of energy.

We welcomed the announcement roughly a year and a half ago by the United Kingdom Government establishing the coastal communities fund, which will increase investment in Wales based on a share of Crown Estate revenues above the existing Barnett formula allocation, but we need to make progress and build on this.

The Silk commission recommendation of a Crown Estate commissioner with special responsibility for Wales was reached as a compromise. We believe that the recommendation should be adopted as soon as possible and the Bill seems to us to be the vehicle for so doing. The London Treasury is the Crown Estate’s sponsor Department, with the Economic Secretary as its sponsoring Minister. The Crown Estate is led and directed by its board of eight commissioners. The board includes a member who represents Scotland, but no other part of the United Kingdom is specifically represented. The Scottish Government are consulted on the appointment of the member representing Scotland.

Although Wales accounts for a relatively small percentage of the value of the Crown Estate’s portfolio, amounting to roughly £8.6 million, we believe that that will increase substantially in the future and that it should be within the control of the Government and the Assembly of Wales. Dr Richard Cowell of Cardiff university suggested in his evidence to the Silk commission that

“bringing ownership of the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh Government might enable a better quality of debate about the kind of off-shore renewable energy development pathway that is appropriate for Wales, and open up discussion on how the royalties from resource exploitation should be best invested.”

We believe the Wales Bill, given its financial and taxation remit, should include the same provision as is made for Scotland in the Scotland Act 2012, which provides for a Crown commissioner with special responsibility. Not only should Wales be equal with Scotland in this regard, but all the main parties have agreed to it as part of the recommendation of the Silk commission. Recommendation 17 of the second Silk report states that

“there should be a Welsh Crown Estate Commissioner”

and that

“a Crown Estate office should be established in Wales”.

[Jonathan Evans]

The right hon. Gentleman is putting forward an interesting proposition. May I test the point that he made that the revenue would increase significantly? I hear what he says and I understand the point about the development of renewable energy, but can he share with us any study or analysis that has been done, or is that just an observation?

[Mr Llwyd]

To be frank, it is probably an observation, but one can look at what would have been the Severn barrage; what is going on in Swansea at the moment; various other projects off Ynys Môn, such as wave power; and the way in which the Crown Estate is seeking vastly to increase its mooring fees, for example at Abersoch in my constituency, doubling, trebling and quadrupling the annual fee for mooring a boat, of which there are several hundred in that bay. Fees for mineral exploitation are also being increased and there are common land rights from which it is entitled to receive revenues, which are increasing. Taking all that in the round, and if there is to be further exploitation of natural resources offshore, and indeed onshore—whether that will happen, I know not, but it probably will—I can only conclude that there will be a substantial increase in revenue in the years to come. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman hard figures, but I surmise and I believe that the case is made that there will be a substantial increase in the future.

The new clauses are probing amendments, but I will be very interested to listen carefully to the Minister’s response.

Wales Bill

Jonathan Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

The clear principle to which we are responding with these amendments was outlined by the Welsh Government in their response to the Green Paper produced two years ago. For the information of the Committee, that stated that

“no change to the Assembly’s current electoral arrangements should be made without the Assembly’s consent. This is the fundamental constitutional principle in issue. It is a necessary consequence of a constitution based upon the principle of devolution.”

That is a clear expression from the Welsh Government on the centrality of their view in any changes to legislation which affect the elections to their Chamber—to the Assembly in Wales. That is something we wish to explore today with the Government.

Clearly, the Bill arises from the shift to a five-year fixed-term Parliament for this place. Three separate pieces of legislation needed to be amended as a consequence—the Scotland Act 1998, the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014, and now the Government of Wales Act 1998. Labour is not opposed to fixed-term Parliaments, as the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) will recall. In previous manifestos, including the last manifesto, Labour has consistently pledged to shift to fixed-term Parliaments, but we have consistently said that a five-year fixed term for any institution was too long.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tone with which he started his speech. Will he explain the rationale for his sticking with a Thursday? Since he is aiming to give responsibility to the National Assembly and to let it decide the issue entirely, why does he say that the poll should be held on a Thursday? He will be aware of a growing body of opinion among those who undertake electoral research, who look to examples on the continent, where elections are held at weekends—traditionally on Sundays—or opportunities when people may be able to participate more in the electoral process. Perhaps he can help us to understand why, since he is putting the proposition that it is entirely a matter for the National Assembly, he has restricted polling day to a Thursday.

[Owen Smith]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I had not spotted that you had arrived, for which I apologise.

The simple answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that this is, of course, the custom, practice and protocol in British elections for all institutions. I hear what he says about the interesting debate about whether, in an era of great cynicism towards and disinterest in and disengagement from politics, we ought to expand people’s opportunities to vote. Labour Members are looking seriously at that and have already suggested that it ought to be looked at, but for the purposes of this Bill and the principle under discussion, as opposed to the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman, it seemed simpler to stick to the customary practice of a Thursday. That is why we did not suggest a change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Evans]

Does that really hold good as an argument? The hon. Gentleman will have seen current opinion polls that show that support for independence—as opposed to support for devolution—in Wales is at an all-time low. He has rightly talked about the seminal change in Wales in which the Conservative party has joined other parties to support devolution, but the result of the Scottish debate so far is that support for Welsh independence is lower than ever before.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I do not want to get into a debate about independence, but the most detailed polling ever undertaken on devolutionary attitudes was by the Silk commission in the second part of its work. It suggested that 20% of people in Wales wanted devolved defence and foreign affairs, and those would be the two last powers that would ever be devolved.

Regardless of the result in Scotland, the constitutional landscape of the UK will change considerably. If Scotland votes yes, that will be the end of the British state as we know it. If it votes no, the likelihood is that it will get significantly more powers, with 90% approval ratings for a devolution-max settlement that would devolve everything apart from defence and foreign affairs. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying that the people of Wales would accept the settlement in the Bill if Scotland were to get significantly more powers, even in the event of a no vote?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

If the hon. Gentleman reads my amendment, he will see that it is very balanced. It simply calls for an independent review, the report of which would go to the Secretary of State, who would lay it before each House of Parliament so that it could be considered. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that I have an opinion, and I do, but let me explain what the amendment will do—because Members will want to think about what is on the amendment paper—before explaining my view and what I consider to be the appropriate direction of travel.

The amendment simply suggests that the review should

“examine the implications for the desirable total number of Assembly members”

of the changes that we are making in clause 2—and I think it very sensible to revert to the original position, which the Labour party altered—and also examine the

“advantages and disadvantages of amalgamating the five Assembly…regions into one for the whole of Wales.”

That is because if the number of constituency seats is changed, depending on the number of those seats, it can be difficult to come up with equally sized regions. Alternatively, the regions have to be changed every time the number of constituencies changes.

[Jonathan Evans]

I am seeking to reflect the tone of my hon. Friend’s remarks. I accept that he is only asking for a review. However, before he gives his own view to the Committee, perhaps I can ask him to comment on his experience of the change that took place when the European Parliament moved from a system of individual constituencies to a system of vast regions. I myself have experience of representing the whole of Wales under that system. It has been pretty universally regarded as very difficult for any Member to represent an area of that size, and my hon. Friend must have had the same experience in his own part of the world. Do we really need to review this matter? Perhaps, when he outlines his own view, he will reflect on what I have said.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend has made a very sensible point. The south-west of England is certainly a large region. I think I am right in saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) has put it on record that the distance between one end of the south-west region and the other is greater than the distance between his constituency and the Scottish border. Moreover, the south-west region now includes Gibraltar. It is a very significant region, and a difficult region to represent. I suspect that very few electors in that region could, hand on heart, name any of their MEPs, let alone all of them.

If we are to consider changing the number of Members of the Assembly in the geographic constituencies, we must then ask how the regions are to be grouped, and whether they should end up being equal in size. At present, there are five regions with four seats in each region. That works very well mathematically if there are 20 Assembly Members and half the Members are constituency Members, but if the number of constituencies is changed—and I shall explain in a moment why I think that that should happen—some choices will have to be made about regions.

We may end up with regions that are different in size. If the regions then become too small, with too few seats, the problem is that we do not get the proportionality in those regions that the list system is designed for. We may not want to consider using the whole of Wales and instead consider having just fewer, larger regions, but I accept that pushing against that is exactly the point my hon. Friend makes about the remoteness of elected Members from voters. Two things are pushing in different directions and we have to keep them in balance, which is why we need a review to examine both aspects so that a future Parliament can make a decision.

[Jonathan Evans]

My hon. Friend refers to people having difficulty knowing who their representative is, and I would not claim that everybody in Wales knew I was their MEP. A survey indicated that only two people could be identified as Wales MEPs. One was Glenys Kinnock and the other was Neil Kinnock—mistakenly, most people in Wales thought he was an MEP, too.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend makes a sensible point. My reading of it, as an Englishman, is that there seems to be a surfeit of Kinnocks in Wales at the moment. Labour does not seem to like the hereditary principle at the other end of this building but is keen on importing it into this House and having hereditary MPs—not a practice that I suspect is welcome.

My amendment helpfully proposes an independent review, but there are other ways of examining these issues, and the Minister may have a better and more sensible one. I listened to his response to the debate on clause 1, and it may well be that waiting for part II of the Silk commission and the Government’s response to it is a way of addressing the issues I raise in amendment 15, in which case I will not need to trouble the House by testing its opinion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which highlights the key political difference between Plaid Cymru and our Unionist opponents.

Assembly Members are expected to be members of more than one Select Committee. Indeed, the Committees have a dual role, as they perform scrutiny and legislative functions. That means Members are under tremendous pressure, especially if they serve on more than one Committee, as many do. If more AMs were elected, some would be able to specialise in certain areas, and the burgeoning expertise would ensure that democracy in Wales is better informed. In any case, surely it should be for the National Assembly to determine its membership, not the House of Commons. We will therefore be pushing new clause 4 to a vote. We look forward to the support of like-minded individuals, even those on the Government Benches.

The motivation behind new clause 6 is straightforward. As we have been instructed to draft it by the Clerks, it proposes that the Welsh Government, rather than the UK Government, should have responsibility for determining the system used for elections to the National Assembly. Transferring this responsibility would streamline the election process and bring decisions relating to the democratic make-up of the National Assembly closer to the people it serves. It could also, I hope, lead to a more proportional system being used by that institution. Plaid Cymru’s preference would be for a move towards a more proportional system that reflected the wishes of voters more fairly.

Even with the top-up, the current system is extremely biased towards the Labour party. In the last election, Labour polled 40% yet got 50% of the seats. In elections before then, it has had 50% of the seats, and more, on 30% of the vote. We therefore argue that proportional representation would provide a better reflection of how people vote in National Assembly elections.

[Jonathan Evans]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his new clause could produce the opposite outcome? He may wish for a proportional system, but his proposal might take us back to first past the post, under which, at the last election, the Labour party got 36% of the vote and 65% of the seats.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful for that intervention. I had been minded to include provisions whereby the Assembly would be allowed to determine its own system but not to move to a less proportional system such as that advocated by the Labour party with its double constituency system. That would be completely non-proportional, with Labour perhaps receiving 70% of the seats on 30% of the vote, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. However, as a democrat, I believe that these matters should be devolved to the National Assembly. Parties would then fight the Assembly elections on manifesto commitments, and if people decided to vote for a party that wanted an undemocratic political system and one-party rule, that would be a matter for them.

[Jonathan Evans]

Since the hon. Gentleman is a democrat, he will know that there was a democratic referendum. In that referendum, where I argued for a no vote, we lost the vote, but only by a tiny margin. The electoral system was part of what was voted on when the Assembly was set up. Therefore, surely, if we become less proportional, that should not be in circumstances where there is not at least referendum approval for the electoral system.

[Jonathan Edwards]

That is an interesting intervention. Clearly, it would be a matter for parties standing for the Assembly on manifesto commitments whether they determined to put their preference to a referendum. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid suggestion, and it could well be the case. However, the basic point of what we are trying to achieve is that that power should reside at National Assembly level rather than with this Parliament here in London.

The purpose of the new clause is not to change the electoral system in and of itself, but merely to transfer responsibility to the National Assembly so that it can change the system should it so wish. Who can forget—this goes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans)—the manner in which the Labour party used the Government of Wales Act 2006 to gerrymander the electoral system by banning dual candidacy and imposing on Wales an electoral system that is used only in Ukraine? I am glad that through this Bill, the UK Government will rectify that disgraceful decision made through the 2006 Act.

Any decision by this Parliament on the electoral system of the sovereign Welsh national legislature will always be met with concerns that the UK Government of the day are seeking political advantage. The simplest way to address those concerns would be to devolve responsibility to the National Assembly so that it is responsible for determining its own electoral system. The current situation is tantamount to the European Parliament legislating on the electoral system used to elect Members of this House. Surely, after a decade and a half, it should be a matter for the National Assembly to determine its own preferred electoral system. It does not need Big Brother Westminster determining these matters. London needs to let go and treat the National Assembly with some respect.

[Jonathan Evans]

I am grateful, Dr McCrea, for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I know that a number of colleagues want to speak, so I will endeavour to limit my remarks to the matter that causes me most concern—new clause 6 and its proposition that the voting system for the Assembly might be changed by the Assembly itself.

Let me set out my rather unusual position as a Conservative speaking from the Government Benches. Many of my colleagues will know that for more than 30 years I have been a supporter of proportional representation, and that at almost every Conservative party conference that has been held, I have hosted the Electoral Reform Society discussion. Having been elected to the European Parliament on a proportional system, I have no compunction or concerns about such a system. During the passage of the legislation through the House, I was one of only 17 Members to go through the Lobby in support of the amendment to introduce proportional representation.

I remind the Opposition of the debate that took place at the time of the referendum that was held to create the Assembly. That referendum was held after a general election which left my party with no parliamentary representation at all in Wales. I had served as a Welsh Office Minister until 1997. As my election result was declared in the middle of the afternoon on the Friday, I probably had the distinction at that time of being the last Conservative MP to have lost his seat, but my party had 20% of the vote. We have heard a lot about minority parties, Dr McCrea. Between 1992 and 1997 we served together in this House. I suppose it might have been said that your party was a minority party. It would not be said in Northern Ireland nowadays that your party is a minority party, so a little caution on the part of the Opposition might be in order.

When the debate took place on whether the Assembly should be created, the complex system of individual constituencies, then regions in which people are elected on the proportional system, was designed to reassure the people of Wales that we were not going to end up with one-party government—that we would not have a situation whereby a fifth of the people in Wales could vote for a political party and end up with no representation at all. There should be no doubt about that.

I was appointed by my then party leader, the present Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), to speak for the Conservative party at the time those debates took place. I remember the debates I had at that time with the Labour Secretary of State for Wales. We discussed the voting system, and he said that proportional representation was an integral part of the settlement to be put before the people of Wales. Bearing in mind the outcome of the referendum at that stage, the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) made it clear that in the more recent referendum there was significant support—transformed support—but also, I would argue, support from across the political spectrum.

My party was identified in the past as arguing against devolution. From the time that the vote took place, my party accepted the outcome of that vote. I remember, as the chief Conservative spokesman for Wales, speaking at that time to the shadow Cabinet and making the point that it did not matter whether the votes were in the hundreds or the low thousands: we as democrats had to accept the outcome of the vote.

I also put that argument to those who now say they want to change the voting system. We know already that those propositions have been put forward. New clause 6 would permit that change to take place. I agree with the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr. I am a democrat. I might be against his clause, but the aspect of it to which I have the strongest objection is that there is no fail-safe to make it possible to go back to the voters of Wales and ask, “Do you want to have a less proportionate system?” Whether by accident or not, to say within the terms of the clause, “Let the Welsh Assembly Government propose something”, is an open invitation for an outcome that I believe is fundamentally anti-democratic. It is no less anti-democratic because it is a decision made in Cardiff, rather than here in Westminster.

I accept the outcome of the devolution vote. Throughout my political life since that vote, I have supported the National Assembly for Wales, but I remember as well what the basis of the settlement is. I am concerned that the terms of the clause present an opportunity to undermine that settlement. That, in my judgment, would let down the people of Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

I understood the point that the hon. Gentleman was making: I was merely pointing out the significant concerns in New Zealand that remain.

[Jonathan Evans]

The hon. Gentleman has shared with us the research that he has done on the position in New Brunswick. In neighbouring Quebec they had the same debate and came to the same conclusion as the Secretary of State.

[Owen Smith]

That is as may be. I merely say once more that this is not a straightforward, open-and-shut case, as it has been presented by the Government. We know otherwise—from the evidence of Clwyd West and other seats in Wales, from public opinion and, frankly, from what our constituents tell us about their dissatisfaction, which extends to the broader issue of the list and first-past-the-post system. We know that the public do not understand candidates being rejected under first past the post and then sneaking into the Assembly by the back door.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

May I suggest to my hon. Friend that it is not so much a back door as a cat flap? You can not only go in through the cat flap but you can withdraw without the need for a by-election if you are on the list rather than being a constituency MP.

[Jonathan Evans]

It is your system.

[Albert Owen]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for his intervention. The hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) is shouting across the Floor that that is our system. We have changed the system. He was not here in that Parliament, but we changed it, and we changed it on the basis—this is important and has not been mentioned thus far—that in our 2005 manifesto we said we would bring in the restriction. We won the most seats in that election in Wales, and we had the biggest share of the vote in that election in Wales. I do not see many people knocking on the doors of constituency Members of Parliament saying they want to reverse that ban.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) not least because he put his finger on the point about the only recent mandate being the change that my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain), who made an outstanding speech, made when he was Secretary of State in 2006, which was to do away with dual candidacy. I do not know whether the people of Wales looked in detail at the manifesto, but it was in front of them. There was no other way apart from a referendum to discover whether the people of Wales wanted it. Following their voting, in the majority, for the Labour Members of the Welsh Assembly, the mandate was put into operation by the Labour Government here some time later.

One of my biggest regrets from my time as a junior Minister in the early days of the previous Labour Government when I served on the Committee chaired by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Irvine of Lairg to look at the devolution proposals for Scotland and Wales is that I did not object either to this particular part of the legislation or to the daft system of top-ups. We were persuaded—we were duped—by the then Secretary of State for Wales into believing that anybody wanted it. The argument put forward by the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) was that the system would prevent any one particular party from having an overall majority all the time. That was also the view put forward by Donald Dewar, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, but events have now overtaken that view. Scotland ended up with a Government with a substantial majority, based on the first-past-the-post seats, so the argument no longer stands.

I am not saying that there should not be some form of proportionality, but I do not like it myself and I do not think that the people of Britain like it either. The proposal was resolutely defeated in the recent referendum on the alternative vote. My view is that the system is bad because people do not understand it. First, people do not understand why their Assembly Member, who is elected by first past the post, is supposed to be the same as their regional Assembly Member, who is elected by a top-up system. Secondly, and more appropriately, they do not understand the bizarre results that occurred in regions such as mine in south-east Wales where there were overwhelming votes in favour of the Labour party, but people were elected to the Assembly on tiny votes. Thirdly, as described with great eloquence by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath, people neither understand nor like how top-up AMs pretend to be constituency Assembly Members and use their base to try to get the constituency seat.

[Jonathan Evans]

The right hon. Gentleman knows the high regard that I have for him, but he seems to be presenting an argument that is against proportionality in this electoral system. Does he recognise that, irrespective of whether the same candidate is on both lists, the public do understand the system of top-up seats that comes through proportionality? Opinion polls in Wales regularly reveal that people intend to vote differently in relation to constituencies than in relation to regional Members, which indicates that they understand that their choices are different.

[Paul Murphy]

It can be argued that people vote differentially, as they do for the Assembly, and indeed for the House of Commons, but I see no evidence in my constituency that they vote differentially for the top-up Members and the constituency Members of the Assembly; they vote Labour—end of story. The same is true in seats that are not held by Labour, for example next door in Monmouthshire. I think that people do not understand the system. I am not arguing against the notion of proportionality, although I do not like it; I am arguing against this particular system.

Equally, with regard to clause stand part, people neither like nor understand the idea that candidates can stand and be defeated but then get in. It is a simple system that they just do not like. We used it when we were in power, of course, but that does not make it right. Ultimately, that is why people understand that the system is flawed and needs to be put right. I think that candidates should have to make up their minds and decide either to stand for the constituency and work hard at it, as everybody in the House of Commons does, or to stand for some other type of proportional system.

In my view there is a case for increasing the number of Assembly Members. The fact that there are new legislative powers in Cardiff means that the Assembly cannot go on with just 60 Members. It simply is not big enough. It is not a popular argument, but the place needs more Members if it is to work. However, I do not think that they should be elected using this system. My view, inevitably, as someone who believes in the first-past-the-post system, is that there should be two Assembly Members for each of the 40 constituencies in Wales. That could be modified with some sort of proportionality, of course, whether the alternative vote or some other system.

Ultimately, what matters is that people relate to their elected representatives, whether Members of Parliament, councillors or Members of the European Parliament. The hon. Member for Cardiff North is right about the daft system for electing MEPs—we brought it in, by the way, and ought to be ashamed of it—which means that no one knows who their local MEP is, but that is another issue. I am trying to emphasise the link between an elected Member and his or her constituency, whether two Members for the constituency or one, because people understand that. As soon as people fail to understand how their representatives are elected, the system is most certainly flawed.

amendment of the law

Jonathan Evans Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Let me say how grateful I am to the Secretary of State for his very kind words of condolence, which mean a great deal to me personally and to the rest of our family.

We have a chance today to discuss the impact of the Budget on families and communities when it comes to their chances of getting a home, deciding where that home will be built and by whom and whether the policy the Government are pursuing meets the simple test of fairness. Those are the things that I want to address in my remarks.

We know that housing is at the heart of the cost of living crisis facing many of our constituents. Parents worry about whether their children will be able to afford a home. Young people who want to get a foot on the housing ladder see house prices disappearing into the distance. People who are renting worry about the impact of rents that are going up faster than their wages. As I think the whole House will acknowledge, that is the result of a housing crisis that has come upon us over many years, as successive Governments have failed to build enough homes. Let me just say before anybody jumps up that it is a fact that, despite all the words we have heard from the Secretary of State and his colleagues today and on previous occasions, housing completions were higher in every single year of the previous Labour Government than they have been in any year under this Government. That puts into context what the Secretary of State had to say. Although I recognise that the previous Labour Government and our predecessors from both parties did not do enough to build homes, I would take our record over his any day.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the Government before the previous Labour Government had a similarly poor record, but in fact theirs was better.

[Hilary Benn]

I am very proud of the record of the previous Labour Government: 2 million new homes, including 500,000 affordable homes, and a huge number of social homes that were brought up to decency standard. One thing that the previous Conservative Government bequeathed the previous Labour Government was a lot of council houses that were in poor condition because they had not invested any money in improving them. When the Secretary of State is next having a conversation with the Prime Minister, he might point out that the next time he walks down that famous staircase in No. 10 past the photographs of his predecessors, he will have to get all the way to Stanley Baldwin to find a Prime Minister with a worse record of building houses than the current occupant of that office.

In his 2011 Budget speech, the Chancellor told us that he would deliver an economy

“carried aloft by the march of the makers.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 966.]

Although, as the Secretary of State says, housing starts are now finally up, what has happened to construction output overall? It has fallen by 4.2%. I do not know how many marches the Chancellor has been on, but the general idea of a march is that one goes forwards rather than backwards.

Although the Government’s record of building houses has been poor, they have intervened in the mortgage market through Help to Buy, and last Wednesday the Chancellor made an announcement about extending the equity loan scheme to 2020. As I have said before from this Dispatch Box, we support help for people, especially first-time buyers, to realise their dream of home ownership, but if the Government simply increase demand and do not do enough to increase supply, all that will happen is that house prices will rise further out of reach of the very people we are seeking to help. That is why the Treasury Committee and the International Monetary Fund express concerns about Help to Buy. I presume that the Chancellor has now finally acknowledged that, as he told the House last week that he has asked the Bank of England

“to be particularly vigilant against the emergence of potential risks in the housing market.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 783-84.]

That is progress, but could the Minister tell us when he replies exactly what that means in practice and how we and the public will be kept informed of how that vigilance is operating?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

I welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell), who recommended a precautionary approach to the proposed changes to pensions. They are huge changes with many unanswered questions. At the weekend, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was quoted in the papers as saying that intuitively he did not foresee undue harm to the public purse. Rather than his personal rose-tinted view, we need hard facts and well researched analysis to allow Parliament to make an informed decision about the proposals.

Many questions arise, in particular about the level and quality of the financial advice that will be available to people to enable them to make proper decisions. How will pensioners be protected from the scams that my hon. Friend mentioned? If people choose not to take the annuity route, they will require active management of their investment over a prolonged period, at a time when many of them will experience increasing incapacity. It is vital that we have full consultation on the changes, and that any legislation is considered in draft format by the Work and Pensions Committee before it is presented to the House.

[Jonathan Evans]

As the hon. Lady will know, on Thursday the Government published a consultation paper and said that the consultation would be open until June. No doubt she will make her proposal as part of the consultation.

[Ann McKechin]

I welcome the fact that we will have a proper consultation. The depth of it, and the analysis that will be required before people can provide their opinion, will also be vital. I also expect draft legislation to be put before the Work and Pensions Committee to be considered line by line in close detail.

While the Budget focused on pensions, many significant challenges were either ignored completely or—at best—addressed only superficially. To name just a few, they include stagnating incomes; the lack of business investment compared with our international competitors, a matter addressed by the Civitas report published today; high personal debt levels; and a distorted housing market.

The Resolution Foundation’s annual report on living standards, “The State of Living Standards 2014”, points out that

“it has become harder to live a comfortable life on a modest or even typical income in modern Britain”.

The biggest increase in poverty is now among those already in work, trying to make ends meet with average wages consistently falling over the last five years. Before Conservative Members claim that the latest Office for Budget Responsibility figures show that we are coming to the end of that fall in income growth—even though the timeline keeps moving backwards—I should say that the situation is not as positive for a huge swathe of our population. The wage growth figures are based on the CPI index, which excludes housing costs. When the figures are recalibrated on an RPI-adjusted formula, as the Resolution Foundation report shows, the picture is much gloomier. For those on median earnings, there will have been barely any wage growth for more than a decade up to 2018.

Currently, the bounce we are witnessing is based primarily on increased consumer spending and greater levels of personal debt. Scottish Widows reported only last week that there are now 1 million more people than last year who have no savings at all—9 million people. Given the slow to negligible wage growth, that level of spending cannot continue forever. We risk returning to the problems that were at the root of the global collapse in 2008. Putting an extra 17p on the minimum wage rate and having approximately 1 million workers stuck on zero-hours contracts is not the way to increase incomes. That will simply push more people into a debt that will become increasingly unaffordable when interest rates start rising again.

The biggest omission in the Budget is the complete failure to tackle the causes of the housing crisis. Land prices are still far too high in comparison with average incomes and they take money away from our productive economy, yet the Government are perfectly happy to advertise in the Red Book, on page 107, that they forecast house prices to increase by 8.6% in the next year against an inflation rate of 1.8%. You would never guess, Madam Deputy Speaker, that an election was due.

Week after week, I hear from desperate young people, often with young children, about their fruitless search for stable and affordable housing. Last month, I met a young mother with two children who was looking for her fourth private tenancy in as many years. It was not that she wanted to move—either the landlords wanted their houses back to live in or to sell on, or, in the latest case, they had failed to pay their own mortgage. She is currently in overcrowded housing simply to ensure that her eldest child can remain in the same school. She faces a sector with perverse incentives, such as Help to Buy, which in its latest format is not even linked to house building. No attention has been given to reconstructing a rapidly growing but highly fragmented private rental market that could provide greater security of tenure and better service levels. The stubborn failure to boost house building, which is now at pre-war levels, is made worse by the slashing of investment in social housing, with the result that prices are kept high.

The right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) made some very good comments on the rapid changes occurring in the manufacturing sector. If we make the right choices now, we can benefit from the revolution in manufacturing; I agree entirely with his comments. We need to invest in skills, not just for young people but for the existing work force. In too many factories across the land, we will find Jimmy and Johnny aged 69 or 70-plus, because companies have no one younger with the right skill sets. The Government continue to be complacent about the rise in inequality and about wasting talent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

Let me begin by saying to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) that I wish to draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and my specific interests in the life insurance industry, because later I shall say a few words about the annuity market changes. Before that, I want to talk about the impact of the Budget on my constituency. The House will be delighted to know that I do not intend to trawl through all the provisions; I shall merely mention three specific headline issues that my constituents raised with me after the Budget, and were very pleased to raise with me.

The first of those issues, which has already been mentioned, is the increase in the personal tax allowance. That increase is significant, and I think it a mistake for any Opposition Member to talk it down. The allowance used to be £6,500, and next year it will be £10,500. That is a measure that will help the lowest paid: it will take 3 million people out of tax altogether. I am amazed that some Opposition Members are still shaking their heads over that proposition.

Secondly, my constituents were delighted by the announcement about child care costs that was made the day before the Budget. It will mean real help for people who want to get back to work. Thirdly, although this too will not be popular with Opposition Members, my constituents have told me how pleased they are that there is now petrol price stability—a stability that will be underpinned by the continual fuel duty freezes that we have seen.

Let me say something about the impact on the business community in my constituency. When I went to my constituency business club on Thursday evening, three items were mentioned specifically. The doubling of the investment allowance to £500,000 a year has been warmly welcomed, and there has been a widespread welcome in Wales for the announcement of a package for heavy users of energy. The right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), who is present, will know how strongly Tata argued for that, and Celsa in Cardiff is delighted as well. There has been a universally positive response to the Government’s determination to lower corporation tax to 20% from the Welsh chambers of commerce, the Institute of Directors and the Federation of Small Businesses and others.

Let me now say something about the pension changes. The pensions landscape has changed dramatically since the 1990s. The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), told us that he was very proud of the last Labour Government—the Government who scrapped dividend tax credit, which cost pensioners £5 billion each and every year from 1997 onwards. Subsequently, we have seen Government policy pursue low interest rates and quantitative easing, which have driven down the value of our pensions. No one has mentioned that so far. Annuities are on the floor in comparison with their level in the 1990s: they are down to a third of that level. The fact is that those on both Front Benches are responsible for that. Between 2009 and 2012, the Bank of England and members of the Monetary Policy Committee claimed that £375 billion of quantitative easing would have a neutral effect on annuity holders. However, in a report published two weeks ago, Ros Altmann made it clear that it was monetary policy that had driven down annuity rates.

One of the strengths of the Government’s announcement is the positive response not just from those approaching retirement, but from savers more generally. Along with the announcements of an increase in the amount that can be held in individual savings account and the National Savings & Investments pensioner bonds, it has lifted interest among savers. However, I think that we need to concentrate on two other issues. First, the Government’s changes apply only in relation to direct contribution pension schemes. They have no relevance to, for instance, direct benefit schemes in the public sector, including those applying to Members of Parliament. Currently, however, it is possible to convert one to the other, and the Government have already signalled that they intend to block that conversion. If we want pensioners to be trusted with their own money, how can we easily restrict that principle to people who have direct contribution rather than direct benefit pensions?

Secondly, there is the potential negative impact on infrastructure investment. On Thursday, the Government signalled that they were aware of it. Insurers will undoubtedly be less interested in purchasing long-dated Government gilts if the long-term liabilities of those companies are cut to the extent that has been estimated by Barclays, which has said that in 18 months’ time the annuities market in the United Kingdom will be down to a third of its present level, and by investment advisers Panmure Gordon and accountants Grant Thornton, which have predicted that it will fall to a fifth of that level. Whichever may be true, that is a significant reduction in the demand on the part of the industry for those long-term infrastructure projects that back so many of the demands that are made by Members on both sides of this House. We all want to see that public sector investment, but the reality is that the pensions landscape is being changed. It is crucial that the Government consider the impact of this in order to ensure that this reform does not produce unexpected or unanalysed impacts.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Nurseries)

Jonathan Evans Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

I applied for this debate before Parliament adjourned for the conference recess, and my application was triggered by the decision by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to close eight in-house nurseries on its estate, without any debate, consultation or negotiation. Things have moved on significantly during the intervening period, but many old and new questions remain unanswered so this debate remains pertinent and necessary.

I know that the Minister is committed to child care. On 17 October 2011, he told the House that the Government’s strategy on child care and work involved

“encouraging parents into work by promoting safe, good quality child care and providing incentives and wider options to encourage more employers to support child care provisions for their staff.”—[Official Report, 17 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 686W.]

I fear, however, that the Government’s commitment has not cascaded down to senior civil servants in HMRC, and I will explain why by providing a whistle-stop tour of events.

In late August, HMRC advised that it had unilaterally decided to close eight nurseries that were part of a relationship between HMRC, Mapeley Estates Ltd, which owns some of the HMRC estate, and Bright Horizons, the actual nursery provider. As hon. Members will understand, my immediate concern was for the welfare of the 86 families whose children attended the custom-built nursery inside HMRC East Kilbride in my constituency. In my mind’s eye, I imagined that HMRC would have done its homework, and that I would be presented with incontrovertible evidence that the nursery was grossly inefficient, or that the number of children using the facility was too low to sustain in-house provision.

It was, therefore, with some trepidation that I wrote to HMRC to find out its reasons for the proposed closures. I received a response from Mr Mike Falvey, the chief people officer at HMRC, who—for reasons that will become obvious—probably holds the most inappropriate job title in the civil service. In his letter dated 5 September, Mr Falvey explained that the current contract between Bright Horizons and Mapeley originally ran for five years, but had been extended twice and could not be extended again. He advised that a further contract needed to be retendered, which HMRC had chosen not to do.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Early in the process he describes, he and I discussed this matter, primarily because my constituents were also affected and were involved in some of the changes. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the period of notice given was truly appalling—three months to locate young children elsewhere—and that inadequate thought was given by HMRC about how it should try to help a commercial solution?

[Mr McCann]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, and I think he will be even more appalled as I continue with my remarks. Not only did Mr Falvey advise that a future contract needed to be re-tendered—something HMRC had chosen not to do—he further advised that there were only eight nurseries for more than 300 HMRC offices, and that HMRC did not provide the same child care service for all staff. Finally, he advised that the number of parents using the nurseries was declining and, most importantly, that only a third of spaces were taken by children of HMRC staff.

There was only one problem: none of that information—provided by a civil servant who is paid more than the Prime Minister—was accurate. I found out several weeks later that the deal between Mapeley and Bright Horizons—the hon. Gentleman might want to listen carefully to this point—contained a provision for an extension of an additional year, to November 2013, which was never disclosed to me by civil servants. I also found out that, even if the eight in-house nurseries run by Bright Horizons were closed by HMRC, it would still have in-house nurseries, including a large one in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown). Finally—I consider this to be the pièce de résistance—I found out that 63 of the 86 children at the nursery in my constituency were the children of HMRC staff.

Financial Services Bill

Jonathan Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

The information may well be measured by that group of building societies. In terms of industrial and provident societies and others, surely it makes sense that the Treasury will want to make provision on who measures the different sectors or who measures them in aggregate terms as the mutual sector—this amendment would allow that. We must remember that, as the hon. Gentleman says, the amendment is entirely permissive, and it would be set in a clause that is permissive. The clause is meant to demonstrate the coalition’s commitment to mutuals.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

May I apologise for the fact that I missed the beginning of this debate? The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) spoke for the Opposition, and he knows that I chaired the mutuals inquiry to which he refers. Is the problem not the one outlined by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love): the amendment is modest? I do not think our inquiry was seeking that modest a response from the Government. We are looking for something that matches up to the commitment made in the coalition agreement, and what is being proposed is very much short of that.

[Mark Durkan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, as it shows exactly why people should be worried. If the best argument that Government Members can make is that this amendment is modest and merely permissive, people should be worried that the Government are opposing and rejecting such a straightforward, common-sense amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

It depends on risk management and the business model that mutuals follow. There is a different set of constraints around building societies, which helps to ensure their stability, but that does not mean that they are immune from some of the mistakes that have caused failure in the past.

The clear intention of the Bill—we discussed this at length in Committee—is to ensure that regulation does not discriminate against mutuality, or indeed any other type of ownership, simply because it diverges from the norm of public or private ownership. I believe that the Bill delivers that result. For example, in clause 22, new section 138K requires the Prudential Regulatory Authority and Financial Conduct Authority to analyse the impact of the proposed rules on mutual societies. This will help to build up a base of impartial evidence to allow the regulators to continue to assess whether mutuals are being treated appropriately within the regulatory system. It is important that regulators think through very carefully the impact that their rules will have, particularly on mutuals.

[Jonathan Evans]

My hon. Friend will recall coming to our all-party group on insurance and financial services, when we asked him some questions on these issues. In fact, the regulator thinks that the Financial Services Authority has changed its processes in order to recognise the specific position of mutuals. What it is that the Government have changed, other than their even-handed approach?

Business and the Economy

Jonathan Evans Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

The unions certainly have a part to play, and I will continue to discuss the proposals with the TUC and affiliated unions, as well as with the employers’ groups.

One area in which good regulation strengthens a market economy is competition policy, so the Bill establishes a new competition and markets authority, bringing together the competition functions of the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission. It will be the principal competition authority with a remit to tackle anti-competitive behaviour and to ensure dynamic and open markets. Competition processes will be faster, with clearer time frames bringing greater certainty and reduced burdens on business.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

It is not only the structure of the competition authorities which is important, but their budget. Over the past five years there have been a number of areas in which the OFT has not investigated because of resource constraints under the previous Government, so what will happen to the resources of the competition authorities?

[Vince Cable]

Bringing the two organisations together will in itself produce some efficiencies, but I cannot assure the hon. Gentleman that they will be protected from the efficiency savings that the rest of the public sector is having to undergo. We are confident, however, that with the reforms that we are undertaking, competition procedures will be faster, not slower.

The same concerns about competition underpin our decision to bring forward a separate Bill, establishing an independent groceries code adjudicator, which will protect suppliers—small firms and farmers—from unfair treatment. In doing so, we will support investment and innovation in the groceries supply chain, and support British food manufacturing and British farming. The measure has been welcomed by the Food and Drink Federation, the National Farmers Union and the Association of Convenience Stores.

The case of a highly concentrated industry buying from and selling to large numbers of suppliers and customers is a classic, economic textbook case in which intervention is needed to prevent monopoly profits. Retailers should not of course be prevented from securing the best deals and passing on the benefits to consumers, but equally retailers should be required to treat their suppliers fairly and lawfully. An independent adjudicator will ensure that the market is working in the best long-term interest of consumers. It will have the powers to intervene proactively and to name and shame offenders. In such a competitive market we consider that those powers will be an effective tool, but if it appears that they are not adequate, I, as Secretary of State, will be able to grant the adjudicator the power to impose financial penalties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) on a well-constructed contribution. May I crave her indulgence? I see that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) is just leaving the Chamber, and I wish to say how much I enjoyed his contribution. I obviously did not agree with the conclusion he reached, but he gave the best critique of Government policy I have heard from the Opposition Benches. It was certainly a more constructive one than we heard from the shadow Secretary of State.

I, too, have a registered interest to put on record, as chairman of companies that are active in the life insurance sector.

My focus will be on the expectations that have been aroused by the proposal to introduce a new competition and markets authority, essentially merging the responsibilities and functions of the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission. My views are informed by my experience of serving in the previous Conservative Government as the UK Minister responsible for competition and consumer policy—interestingly, a role also occupied by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), who spoke earlier.

As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I later had the advantage during my 10-year sabbatical from the House of acting as the European Parliament’s rapporteur on the modernisation of EU competition policy during the time when the whole of EU law and policy in the area underwent a significant, highly transformational experience. The key individuals driving that process were Mario Monti, the Competition Commissioner, who is now the Italian Prime Minister, and the current European Commission vice-president Neelie Kroes. From Monti’s actions in blocking the GEC-Honeywell merger through to Mrs Kroes’s effective challenge to Microsoft’s abuse of its market power, they ensured that those seeking to undermine proper competition and open markets throughout Europe had a really strong adversary.

We all support open-market competition; it is the bedrock on which our economic growth depends. I have noted many of the positive responses to the Government’s plans for the new unitary markets authority. The plans are driven by a common view that the current processes are just too lengthy. The shadow Secretary of State’s extraordinary claim that everything was absolutely fine when Labour left office does not match the view in the market. The Government’s aim is to remove duplication and delay and to streamline the system and produce a more efficient and speedier quality service, but the question is: if we cannot argue with that ambition, will it be delivered by the proposal?

The first phase of current arrangements requires a detailed analysis at the OFT by teams of experts before a decision on whether there should be a reference to the Competition Commission. Unless these concerns can otherwise be addressed to the OFT’s satisfaction, the matter will pass to the commission itself, where a second and completely different set of experts looks at the same analysis all over again. This duplication is one of the factors that is supposed to drive a significant part of the delay, but it is my understanding that the Government’s proposal is to retain completely different teams between phases 1 and 2. It is difficult to see, therefore, how this streamlines anything or produces any efficiencies of the sort that the Secretary of State said, in response to me, he anticipated would create more resources to tackle market abuse.

Another area of concern relates to the Government’s plan to improve the conviction rate for individuals by creating criminal offences that no longer require that dishonesty be proven. As parliamentarians, we should always be particularly cautious about the creation of new, absolute criminal offences. A wrongful act and a guilty mind lie at the heart of our criminal justice system, and we should be weary of arguments suggesting that for cases otherwise difficult to prove we need to remove the dishonesty element.

I want the House to be in no doubt that I fully support punitive administrative financial penalties on companies that breach laws against creating cartels, price fixing or abusing market power. The Competition Commission often imposes fines of many millions of pounds on such companies and has taken sweeping investigative powers in such cases. Mario Monti always maintained to me that it was completely inappropriate for the European Commission to have that sort of absolute criminal law power. I cannot imagine the reaction of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who is beside me, if the Commission ever proposed taking such an absolute power. We should question strongly any proposal to do the same in this country.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the Government are responding to the OFT’s failure in a high-profile case involving British Airways. However, the fact that to date the OFT has never succeeded in bringing any criminal prosecution to the point of being considered by a jury leads me to the view not that the criminal law in this area is wrong but that the OFT itself might not possess the necessary resources. I hope that the creation of this new markets authority improves the landscape for open markets, but I hope, too, that the Government bear in mind my concerns.

Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Bill [Lords]

Jonathan Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

In that case, he will feel that it is an absolute necessity to ensure that his llama always has pet insurance. He may well find that under the Bill, rather than simply taking out a generic insurance contract, he is asked a series of specific questions about his pet llama. They could include how long he has kept the llama, its age and the environment in which it is kept. He may well think to himself, “Well, this insurance could become quite expensive,” and feel that of all his insurance products, he can leave that one and take a risk. Poor old llama—it may well just have to take its chances.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

Before the hon. Gentleman frightens my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) away from insuring his llama, I will follow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), who declared his interest, and point out that I am a former director of NFU Mutual. That farming insurance company would find no difficulty whatever in providing insurance for a llama.

[Chris Leslie]

I think a deal has been transacted on the Floor of the House. However, under the provisions of the Bill, a series of disclosures may be requested from hon. Members seeking such insurance.

My point is simply that we need to know the impact that the Bill will have on pet insurance and other discretionary insurance, but also, perhaps more importantly, on essential types of personal insurance that we all want our constituents to have, such as household insurance, flood risk insurance and motor insurance. In those cases, there is less wiggle room for individuals to decide not to take out insurance.

There are separate discussions to be had in another place about the problem of certain drivers thinking, “Well, the fine that I get for driving uninsured is less than the cost of motor insurance, so I will take my chances and drive uninsured.” In my view, the penalty for driving uninsured needs to be higher than the cost of getting insurance. That is a pretty straightforward point, but you would be surprised, Mr Deputy Speaker, by the small fines that are sometimes issued to people who drive uninsured. I am sure that hon. Members will know of cases in which constituents have unfortunately been involved in accidents caused by uninsured drivers. When those uninsured drivers are prosecuted the fines are a pittance, which sends the message, “Why bother with insurance?” We must return to that issue, but it is a moot point whether it would fall under the scope of a review under the new clause.

Mandatory types of insurance are particularly important in the Bill. I can foresee circumstances, particularly with car insurance, in which the insurance sector feels that it is not getting much return. Many of our constituents howl with derision at the sheer expense of motor insurance—the AA recently said that it rose by about 16.4% in 2010. The Bill will make provision for the disclosure of certain extra pieces of information, even though people have no choice but to take out motor insurance if they want to drive; it is a legal requirement.

People will be surprised to find that even though motor insurance costs are escalating—that problem needs to be tackled in a number of ways—the insurance sector says that motor insurance is not massively profitable. The Association of British Insurers has described it as one of the most challenging products for insurers. I believe it has stated that premiums amounted to £10.7 billion and claims to £10.3 billion in 2010, so often the margins are not particularly great.

It is difficult for hon. Members, as non-experts in that trade, to know whether insurance companies are making significant profits, but let us take them at their word that they are not doing so. I can envisage a situation in which insurance companies say, “We want to back out”—pardon the pun, Mr Deputy Speaker—“of the motor insurance trade.” They might feel that in order to do so, they will deter new contracts for motor insurance. One way of doing that would be by placing a series of extra hurdles in front of customers wanting to obtain such insurance.

Many young drivers will know to their cost how difficult it can be to get insurance cover for their vehicles. I do not know whether the Minister has a driving licence—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Phillips]

I am not for a moment suggesting that the Bill should not be scrutinised.

Insurance companies ought to pay claims that they have not paid previously as a result of an inadvertent misrepresentation or non-disclosure—everyone wants that change, which is the reason for the Bill. The only way in which the costs of the types of insurance contract that the Bill covers will increase is if claims that ought previously to have been paid—legitimate claims—are paid. Disreputable insurance companies—I venture to suggest that there is none left in this country—currently might decline to pay a claim on a specious basis. For that reason, the review proposed in the new clause is unnecessary. I anticipate that the Government will not wish to carry it out, and the hon. Gentleman is rather hoist on his own petard because of the argument he has made in support of the Bill.

[Jonathan Evans]

My hon. and learned Friend will know that arrangements are in place for the Financial Ombudsman Service to look at the circumstances to which he refers—when an apparently proper claim is declined by an insurance company on specious grounds. Notwithstanding the 1906 Act, the financial ombudsman has, under the “treating customers fairly” provisions, which were put into operation by the Financial Services Authority, many times ordered a payment to be made. Is that not one of the reasons for the Bill? The situation will be that legislation rather than the financial ombudsman will be involved in righting wrongs.

[Stephen Phillips]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The insurance industry has long been regulated and the ombudsman has long been able to make declarations, but there are circumstances in which one cannot go to the ombudsman—for example, if the financial value of the contract is too high. There are circumstances in which the ombudsman will not intervene—for example, if legal proceedings between the consumer and the insurance company or, if Lloyd’s, some other insurer, are already afoot. In addition, experience dictates that the financial ombudsman is not, for example, particularly au fait with some of the more obscure parts of insurance law with which the Bill grapples, such as those parts of common law that deal with basis clauses and the turning of representations into warranties when made the basis of the contract.

I hear, then, what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) says, but it is fair to say that the Bill is not only welcome but contains proposals that the Law Commission has properly considered and requires no review of the type that the new clause contemplates. For those reasons, the new clause is, in my respectful view, misconceived; and for those reasons, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not push it to a vote.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I was rather attracted to the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). The idea that the House should engage in post-legislative scrutiny is a good one and accords with good legislative practice. That, effectively, is what he is saying. He is not saying that the House would necessarily be involved; he is saying that the Treasury, the Department sponsoring the Bill, would have an obligation to assure everybody about the impact of legislation. This could be an important precedent. Perhaps, in due course, it will be part of official Opposition policy to provide for post-legislative scrutiny.

This area of insurance is extremely complicated and, as the hon. Gentleman said, very expensive for many people. The reason it is so expensive is that there is an enormous amount of fraud, particularly in relation to motor accidents. We heard recently about the high incidence of claims for whiplash. Almost everybody involved in even the most minor bump is encouraged to claim on their insurance for whiplash injuries, and invariably the insurance companies end up paying a lot of money to prevent what they would describe as nuisance claims from going to full litigation. Effectively, they are held to ransom, and not surprisingly it is the customers of those insurance companies who end up paying the bill through higher premiums.

That situation is particularly pernicious with compulsory insurance, which motor insurance is—third party, fire and theft, and so on—for people seeking to drive a motor vehicle on the road. It is particularly tough on young people, and has been made tougher by this ludicrous European legislation declaring that insurance companies cannot take account of whether a young girl belongs to a class group with a lower claims rate than a young man who belongs to a group with a higher claims rate and who therefore will face additional costs.

As a consequence, the premiums for young women have increased significantly faster than premiums for young men. I suppose I have a family interest, because my daughter has recently acquired her first car and taken out her first insurance policy. I can reconfirm what the hon. Member for Nottingham East said. Obviously, she did not have a no-claims record, because she did not have any driving experience, and in the end, the best deal was from a company offering her 10 months’ insurance, which gave her the prospect of getting a no-claims discount after 10 months rather than after a year.

[Jonathan Evans]

There might have been another reason for the 10 months: the European decision to which my hon. Friend referred comes into operation in 10 months' time.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend is ahead of the game. I was interested in his earlier intervention declaring his knowledge and experience of one particular insurance company—a company from which we sought a quote but which was extremely reluctant even to consider providing insurance cover at a reasonable price. The reason was that it did not want to engage in this market and had recently changed its policy. It is a pity that this mutual insurance company has decided that the pressures are such that, even for long-standing customers, it is not prepared to take on, at a reasonable price, the sort of risk to which I have referred.

It is easy to go unnecessarily wide on such an issue—perhaps I was led astray by the hon. Member for Nottingham East because of the width with which he introduced his new clause. However, I look forward to hearing the Minister respond to the idea of post-legislative scrutiny. Perhaps, Mr Deputy Speaker, if she could fit that point into the scope of her response to this short debate, she will say whether it might become Government policy to make post-legislative scrutiny the norm rather than the exception. I hope, at least, that she will come forward with some strong and persuasive arguments so that I do not have to join the hon. Gentleman in the Lobby in support of new clause 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Evans]

You will not hear any from me, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I wish to detain the House briefly in order to place on record the contribution to this Bill of the all-party group on insurance and financial services, which I chair. The group met on 1 December 2010 at the request of the consumer bodies to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred. I am glad the shadow Minister referred to multiple sclerosis, because the Multiple Sclerosis Society was one of the groups that asked us to examine this area of the law.

We were told that this area of the law has, in fact, been under review since 1980. In the 1980s and 1990s the shortcomings of the operation of consumer law were apparent. A scoping paper was produced in 2006. The Law Commission then produced its proposed legislation, but it was not enacted, despite the fact that in 2009 a request to do so was made to the last Labour Government. The reason for that was—[Interruption.] No, this is not a party political point. The reason was that the Association of British Insurers had responded in a letter, expressing its broad support for the recommendations but adding that there were still issues that needed to be addressed

“before we could support the Bill entering the process for uncontroversial Bills.”

That sets the context for the all-party group’s contribution. We had our meeting on 1 December, and we heard from Mr David Hertzell, the law commissioner who is the author of this legislation. He also attended the special Public Bill Committee that was set up as part of this process. We also heard from Mr Peter Tyldesley, a senior lecturer in insurance law at Bedfordshire university, a consultant to the Financial Ombudsman Service and a lawyer at the Law Commission. Both of them told us it was necessary to have the buy-in of the ABI before we would be able to make use of the uncontroversial Bills process.

This is the first Bill that has gone through that new process. As a result, there was no Second Reading on the Floor of the House and there was a mere 29-minute Committee sitting, and in the Lords there was a special Public Bill Committee. That was possible because the legislation is uncontroversial.

Following our meeting with David Hertzell and Mr Tyldesley, we contacted the ABI and it came back within three days clarifying that its letter had been misinterpreted, and that as far as it was concerned the Bill could proceed on the current basis. Within a few weeks, that happened.

As there is a review taking place of all-party groups, I wish to stress the constructive contribution that this all-party group made in this instance. I pay tribute to my colleagues on that group for their contribution to this excellent measure.

Financial Services Bill

Jonathan Evans Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend reminds me that in the Mansion House speech in 2009, I think, the Governor, appointed by the previous Government, said that the Bank was being asked to do things that it had not been given the powers and tools to do. It was a striking speech—I cannot remember whether the right hon. Gentleman was there—but the difference between the views expressed by the Chancellor and the Bank Governor in the space of one evening was striking.

I will now go through the details of the Bill and see whether it commands all-party support. I shall go through what we are doing to address the flaws that I have identified in the existing system. First, we are going to establish a new macro-prudential authority in the Bank of England to monitor overall risk and levels of debt in the financial system. Secondly, we are making the Bank of England the single point of accountability for financial stability, ensuring that there is a decisive answer to the question, “Who is in charge?” Thirdly, the Bill ensures that in a crisis, when taxpayers’ money is at stake, the power to act sits with the Chancellor of the day, accountable to Parliament. Fourthly, the legislation creates a strong conduct regulator that is able to give its undivided attention to promoting competition and protecting consumers. Let me take each in turn, and in some detail.

First, the responsibility to monitor risks across the system falls to the new Financial Policy Committee in the Bank of England, established by clause 3 and entrusted with responsibility for the stability of the whole system. Its job will be to identify bubbles as they develop, spot dangerous interconnections, warn about poorly understood financial instruments and take action to stop excessive levels of debt building up before it is too late.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the risks in the banking sector have been shown by the recent crisis to be rather different from those in the insurance sector, for instance. He will also know that the Joint Committee on the Bill recommended that a member of the Financial Policy Committee should be someone with insurance experience, but that does not appear in the Bill. Perhaps he could explain why not.

[Mr Osborne]

We do not want to prescribe in the Bill the qualifications of the external members of the Financial Policy Committee. That would be a mistake. However, I would obviously want to ensure that the external members—I will say something about this shortly—have broad and current experience of the financial system. There is an issue, as I will set out, about how this House—and, indeed, the political system—approaches conflicts of interest. In other words, we have to make a trade-off between appointing as external members to such bodies people who actually know what is going on in financial services and, at the same time, wanting to direct conflicts of interest, being careful not to rule out anyone simply because they work in financial services. The Select Committee on the Treasury and the Joint Committee that looked at the Bill have made an important recommendation for us all: to be careful about creating a system in which no one who has current experience of financial services sits on the bodies that regulate individual firms or, more importantly, system-wide risks, and that includes insurance.

Northern Rock

Jonathan Evans Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

We should think about those dates very carefully. It was demutualised in 1997 and failed in 2007. The hon. Gentleman needs to remember that the regulatory architecture put in place by the previous Government meant that Northern Rock could act as an outlier and become over-dependent on wholesale funding. Nobody did anything about that at a time when there was an asset price bubble in the UK economy. Those factors in the regulatory architecture led to some of the financial problems in the economy in 2007, 2008 and 2009. We are acting to strengthen the regulatory architecture, to tackle those problems and to ensure that the Bank of England has the powers it needs to supervise the banks properly and look at systemic threats to financial stability. We have also set up the Independent Commission on Banking, which is looking at ways of making the banking system in the UK safer while remaining competitive at an international level.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will recall that when he appeared before the all-party group for building societies and financial mutuals he was asked to arrange for the publication of the advice received in relation to UKFI and the start of this sale. Bearing in mind the reliance he has placed on advice today, when does he anticipate that advice being published?

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend will understand from his own business experience that received advice can be subject to commercial confidentiality. I assure him that we looked carefully at the remutualisation of Northern Rock—that is why I went before his all-party group. We reached out to people in the mutuals sector who wanted to see the remutualisation of Northern Rock but, sadly, no one came up with a viable and workable plan to enable that to happen.