For the convenience of the Committee, and with its leave, I propose that we group clauses 26 to 37 and allow remarks on all of them under the clause 26 stand part debate. Is that acceptable to the Committee?

I have to say, Chair, that taking all those clauses in one group sounds rather cumbersome. I have a series of packages of comments and questions on the different clauses. I do not mean to cause difficulty, Sir, but taking them all as one group might do so. Might we take some of the pensions provisions together, for example?

If the Committee wishes, I am happy to take all the clauses individually. I propose that we take clause 26 on its own, and then perhaps clauses 27 to 37 as a group.

I am happy either way, Mr Brady. It might also be worth touching upon Government amendment 7 to clause 38 as I go through the provisions.

Thank you, Ms Baldwin. That amendment comes separately in any case. Shall we see how we go?

Clause 26

Enforceability of agreements relating to credit

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

It is a delight to be back here, again on a sunny Tuesday, to continue our scrutiny of the Bill under your chairmanship, Mr Brady.

The Government have fundamentally reformed consumer credit regulation, transferring responsibility from the Office of Fair Trading to the Financial Conduct Authority with effect from 1 April 2014. Clause 26 supports the effective operation of the FCA’s regime through minor amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 in relation to the regulation of consumer credit. It is a technical clause and concerns the application of provisions relating to the enforceability of credit agreements. It makes it clear that when a person acting on behalf of a lender can lawfully undertake the relevant credit-related regulated activity in relation to the agreement, either by administering the agreement in relation to section 26A(4), or by taking steps to procure the payment of debts under it in relation to section 26A(5), they are also able to enforce the agreement.

It is a pleasure to be here with you again, Mr Brady. I thank the Minister for her explanation—that is great.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

We now come to clauses 27 to 37. I suggest that we allow all of them to be commented upon as a group.

Clause 27

Enforceability of credit agreements made through unauthorised persons

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

For the benefit of the Committee, I will highlight each of the clauses as I go through them, while grouping my speaking notes.

Clause 27 also supports the effective operation of the FCA’s regime by amending section 27 of the 2000 Act, which deals with agreements made through unauthorised persons, to ensure that it has a proportionate effect on consumer credit and consumer hire providers. Section 27(1) of that Act provides that an agreement made by an authorised person carrying on a regulated activity is unenforceable when it is made in consequence of something said or done by a third party in circumstances in which that third party should have had, but did not have, permission. The clause narrows the circumstances in which a credit agreement or consumer hire agreement is unenforceable under this section and ensures that this will only be the case when the provider of credit knows, before the agreement is made, that a third party had some involvement in the making of the agreement or in matters preparatory to it being made.

Clause 28 introduces a power into the 2000 Act for the Treasury to make regulations relating to transformer vehicles. Transformer vehicles—you may be wondering, Mr Brady—are used for risk mitigation purposes in insurance markets, particularly in the insurance and reinsurance industry. The Government plan to use this power to implement a new framework for insurance-linked securities business. Insurance-linked securities are now an important and growing part of the global specialist reinsurance market. The Government are working closely with the London market and the financial regulators to implement a fit-for-purpose regulatory regime for insurance-linked securities business. This will help the UK to maintain its competitive edge as a global reinsurance hub.

Clause 29 extends the definition of pensions guidance within section 333A of the 2000 Act to include the provision of guidance to consumers interested in assigning or surrendering—in other words, selling—rights to payments under an annuity on the secondary market. It also closes an unintended gap in guidance provision, ensuring that individuals whose schemes have transferred into the pension protection fund are able to access Pension Wise guidance—the free and impartial Government- supported guidance service.

In the March 2015 Budget, the Government announced our intention to remove the tax restrictions that deter pensioners from selling their annuities. This reform will enable retirees who were unable to take advantage of the Government’s new pension freedoms to convert their annuity into a lump sum, or another investment product if they choose, giving those who have worked hard and saved for their retirement choice over their financial arrangements.

The Government are committed to implementing the new secondary market in annuities in April 2017. The new market will offer consumers new freedoms but will involve potentially complex choices for them. The Government want to ensure that consumers are empowered and equipped to make the most of their assets. The offer of free, high-quality and impartial guidance through Pension Wise is a key part of providing the consumer with the relevant information to make the necessary decisions. That is why the Government are extending the Pension Wise service to provide guidance to those who will be able to sell their annuities on the secondary market, and to any dependants or beneficiaries with rights to payments under an annuity contract.

Pension Wise was launched in March 2015 to give impartial guidance to individuals with new flexibilities under pension freedoms. It has been a successful service, with high levels of consumer satisfaction, more than 2.2 million visits to the website and more than 50,000 individual appointments. In response to the Government’s consultation on allowing consumers to sell their annuities, there was strong support for expanding Pension Wise, both from consumer groups and from industry.

The expanded service will be similar in nature to the existing Pension Wise service, but it will need to be adapted to ensure that the content and service delivery are appropriate for this new group of consumers. By legislating at this time, the Government are ensuring that there is enough time to implement the expansion of Pension Wise before the secondary market in annuities opens in 2017. At present, Pension Wise can provide guidance only to a member, or the survivor of a member, of a pension scheme. As the pension protection fund is a compensation fund, not a pension scheme, individuals whose schemes have transferred into the pension protection fund are currently unable to obtain guidance from Pension Wise. Pension Wise should be available to all those who wish and are able to take advantage of pension freedom reforms, so it is right that we are taking action now to ensure that all have equal access to the service.

Clause 30 places an obligation on the Financial Conduct Authority to set rules requiring specified firms to check that relevant annuity holders have received appropriate advice before processing the transfer of an annuity. In practice, this will introduce a requirement for individuals to receive financial advice before selling their rights to an annuity income stream, where that annuity is valued higher than a threshold to be set in secondary legislation. The Government are committed to implementing the new secondary market in annuities in April 2017, removing the barriers that prevent people from making their own choices over how they use their retirement savings. However, we recognise that the regular income stream provided by an annuity is a valuable asset and that for the majority of individuals it will be in their best interests to keep their annuity. It is therefore important that annuity holders understand the value of their annuity and are informed about their options.

The Government have consulted on the consumer support measures that should be introduced for the secondary market in annuities. Elsewhere in the Bill, the Pension Wise guidance service is expanded to provide information and guidance for those with a relevant interest in an annuity that can be sold in the secondary market. As a further measure to support consumers, the Government believe that, for those with a higher value annuity, there is a real benefit to having a bespoke recommendation before they make the decision to sell their annuity income. By introducing a requirement to receive financial advice, the Government are ensuring that those consumers receive a recommendation tailored to their individual circumstances and risk appetite.

However, although the Government believe that all individuals would benefit from financial advice, we recognise that the cost of advice for those with small annuities might be disproportionate. That is why, in legislating for this advice requirement, the Government have taken a power to specify in regulations which annuities will be subject to the requirement, for example by introducing a threshold. That would mean that only individuals with higher value annuities will be required to take financial advice. That approach was broadly supported by both industry and consumer groups in the Government’s consultation last year. The Government will determine the threshold, along with other details of the advice requirement for this market, through secondary legislation, which will be consulted on later this year.

Clause 31 is technical in nature and allows appointed representatives of authorised financial advisers to advise on the conversion and transfer of safeguarded benefits. Safeguarded benefits are the special valuable features of certain pensions, such as defined-benefit pensions, and pensions with guaranteed annuity rates, which are defined for the purposes of the advice safeguard established in sections 48 and 51 of the Pension Schemes Act 2015. The changes to sections 48 and 51 amend the definition of authorised independent adviser to include appointed representatives. As a result, they will be able to give appropriate independent advice in order to satisfy the advice safeguard. The clause also makes changes to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Appointed Representatives) Regulations 2001, to the same end. Subsection 3 of the clause extends the change to Northern Ireland.

Around two thirds of financial advisers are appointed representatives who have a specific contract to provide services on behalf of their principal, who will be an authorised financial adviser regulated by the FCA. That measure puts the eligibility of appointed representatives to advise on these transactions beyond doubt. The clause extends eligibility to advise on these transactions only to the appointed representatives of financial advisers. What it will not do is reduce consumer protections or weaken the accountability of financial advisers or their appointed representatives. Where an appointed representative advises on these transactions, the directly authorised firm, as the principal, takes full responsibility for the quality of the advice and compliance with FCA rules. The pension freedoms that came into effect in April have given people real freedom and choice in how they access and spend their income at retirement. This change will help to ensure that they operate as intended for customers with safeguarded benefits.

Clause 32 refers to the duty of the Bank of England to provide information to the Treasury. As hon. Members will know, the financial crisis of 2008-09 exposed significant failures in the old tripartite system of regulation. Since then, the Government have implemented, and continue to implement, major reforms to address those problems of the past and make the financial sector safer and more stable. These include a number of measures designed to ensure that bank failure can be managed in a way that protects the wider economy and financial sector, without relying on taxpayer bail-outs.

Under the old tripartite regime of regulation, there was no single institution with responsibility, authority or powers to oversee the financial system as a whole. The Banking Act 2009 addressed that by putting the Bank of England firmly in the driving seat for managing a financial crisis, and the Financial Services Act 2012 overhauled the regulatory architecture in the UK, including making provision for collaboration between the Treasury and the Bank of England in relation to crisis management. Clause 32 builds on those important reforms while, crucially, leaving unchanged the clearly defined roles of the Treasury and the Bank, as established in the 2009 and 2012 Acts.

The clause also seeks to ensure that the correct arrangements are in place for the Bank and the Treasury to fulfil their respective roles as effectively as possible. It does that by providing the Treasury with two new powers to receive information from the Bank, as part of understanding the public funds risk associated with firm failure. First, it creates a duty on the Bank to provide the Treasury with the resolution plans and certain supporting information for firms that the Bank considers it may need to resolve using the stabilisation powers in the 2009 Act. That will ensure that the Treasury can understand well in advance of a crisis scenario the public funds risk associated with a firm failing. Secondly, it gives the Treasury the power to obtain any extra information from the Bank that it considers material to the Bank’s assessment of that risk.

The clause relates solely to information sharing and co-ordination between the Bank and the Treasury, as part of their fulfilling their respective roles. It serves to formalise the productive working arrangements that have developed between the two bodies since the 2012 Act, and it ensures that the framework for co-ordination reflects developments in best practice, both domestically and internationally.

Clause 33 corrects an error in the National Savings Regulations 2015. The regulations revoked a number of statutory instruments with effect from 6 April 2015 and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Consequential Amendments and Repeals) Order 2001 was included by mistake. The 2001 Order was used to make most of the consequential amendments and repeals that were required to give effect to the 2000 Act. It amended a range of primary and secondary legislation, including the Companies Acts, the Bank of England Act 1998, the Building Societies Act 1986, pensions legislation and other legislation relating to financial services. Some of the amendments made by the 2001 Order have been superseded by subsequent legislative developments, such as the consolidation of the various Companies Acts in the Companies Act 2006, but in many cases the amendments are still necessary and the repeal of the instrument making them has left the law in a state of considerable uncertainty. The clause removes that uncertainty by providing that the revocation shall be treated as not having been made, restoring the law to what it was before the accidental revocation of the 2001 Order.

Clause 34 makes changes to the legislative framework governing the issuance of Scottish and Northern Ireland bank notes. It gives the Treasury power to make regulations authorising a bank in the same group as an existing issuer to issue bank notes in place of that issuer. That will increase banks’ flexibility to restructure their operations, while preserving the long-standing tradition of certain banks in Scotland and Northern Ireland issuing their own notes. This is a particular issue at the current time, as some banking groups will be adjusting their group structure in order to ring-fence their retail banking operations.

Clause 35 enables the Treasury to make amendments consequential to the Bill, and any statutory instruments made under it, to other primary and secondary legislation. For example, the power is likely to be used to amend references to the PRA in other legislation where necessary to reflect the fact that the authority is no longer a separate legal entity from the Bank. The power can be used only in certain circumstances. The Treasury can make regulations under the power only if it is necessary to do so as a consequence of a provision in the Bill. Furthermore, the power applies only to legislation that is made before the Bill is passed, or in the same parliamentary Session.

I congratulate the Minister on that fluent marathon. I fear that I shall less fluent, but in my defence I do not have quite the same resources behind me as the Minister, and of course I may not have her skill. I warn her that I shall be asking some questions. I hope that her officials will be able to help her and the Committee with the answers.

Clause 27(2), which inserts new section 27(1ZA) in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, appears to be a “see no evil, hear no evil” provision. I hope the Minister can reassure me. It says,

“this section does not apply to a regulated credit agreement or a regulated consumer hire agreement unless the provider knows before the agreement is made that the third party had some involvement in the making of the agreement or matters preparatory to its making.”

What has bedevilled legislators, regulators and those providing advice, whether in finance, the law or accountancy, is knowing when to inquire whether there is something else in the picture, to put it rather vaguely—for example, in conveyancing, whether those acting for the vendor of a house need to inquire whether there is someone besides the vendor living in the house, who would potentially have rights under the Law of Property (Amendment) Act 1926. I confess that it is 25 years since I did conveyancing, so that Act may have changed, but that is the general flavour—it is about when, as a professional, one has to make inquiries. New subsection (1ZA) is a great get-out for an adviser or a company entering into a regulated credit agreement, enabling them to say, “Well, I didn’t know.” On occasion, that is not good enough. One ought to inquire.

This is an example of my ignorance, I freely confess, but while I understand that the Financial Services Consumer Panel has said that these amendments are entirely technical—that was mentioned in the Lords by my noble Friend Lord Davies—it does not seem to me to be entirely technical and I cannot quite see why clause 27 is in the Bill. Will the Minister explain?

Clause 28 is headed “Transformer vehicles”. It reminds me of those kids’ toys—are they still around? The Minister is smiling in her usual sunny way, so I think they are still around; they were a little after my time, I have to say. I understand from the debate in the Lords that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was consulted on the aspect of these changes dealing with hybrid instruments. New section 284A(6)(c) of the 2000 Act will

“authorise the FCA or the PRA to require the Council of Lloyd’s to exercise functions on its behalf (including functions conferred otherwise than by the regulations)”.

Under new subsection (11):

“If a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section would, apart from this subsection, be treated as a hybrid instrument for the purposes of the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament, it is to proceed in that House as if it were not a hybrid instrument.”

As I understand it, the hybrid instrument procedure is there to protect certain private interests. It appears that new section 284A will bypass that procedure—it is very clear, very up front—but that raises a question in my mind about whether, for convenience, the Government are proposing an end-run around protections for private instruments.

That is the least of my worries about clause 28, though. Transformer vehicles, as I understand it, are used for packaging or bundling. Section 284A(2)(b) refers to

“fully funding A’s exposure to that risk by issuing investments where the repayment rights of the investors are subordinated to A’s obligations to B in respect of the risk.”

In lay terms—I stress: lay terms—it is reinsurance; it is laying off the risk. Bookies do it all the time, akin to what sometimes goes on in the City. However, the bundling or packaging of debts, which I understand is what the transformer vehicles enable to be done, was precisely one of the major drivers of the meltdown of the US sub-prime market in 2007-08. To quote my friend and helpful adviser, Professor Alastair Hudson, “The investors then got the return generated by the mortgages. They then brought credit default swaps to provide insurance against the mortgage borrowers failing to make their repayments, or they bought credit default swaps to bet that those borrowers would fail to make those payments.” Ain’t capitalism great? You can have it both ways. In horse-racing, it is an each-way bet, but with an each-way bet in capitalism it is the punter who always seems to lose and the financial company that just about always seems to gain.

Those special-purpose vehicles were created, as I understand it, to bundle up and package sub-prime mortgages—SPVs were not just used for that, but it is perhaps the most notorious example—so that they were off the banks’ books and on somebody else’s books. Then, when things go wrong—as they did—the rest of us pick up the tab. That is the moral hazard. Transformer vehicles and proposed new subsection 284A of the 2000 Act appear to facilitate and encourage that kind of behaviour.

I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me. It is possible that I have misunderstood what the new section will do and what transformer vehicles do, and that my fear about the risks involved is unfounded. I am not necessarily expecting her to do that now. I hope that she will catch your eye, Mr Brady, and reply to these points after my own marathon, which I have to tell the Committee has only just started.

The third thing that this clause highlights, and I use this as an example for the Government, is the complexity and overlapping nature of our legislation, which makes it difficult for anyone to understand. For example, new section 284A is a mere insertion. Later in our consideration of the Bill, we have all kinds of insertions: new clause 1 deals with a new section 333T; new clause 7 deals with a new section 137FBB; and, from memory, we have somewhere else the insertion of new paragraph (3GA) in a regulation. No wonder people cannot understand our financial regulations and legislation, when Tolley’s now runs to—what?—1,500 pages and we have amendment after amendment on top of scores of previous amendments. Will the Minister say whether the Government have any plans to simplify and/or consolidate the 2000 Act? It is getting incredibly complicated and further complication increases the chances of non-compliance, whether inadvertent or deliberate, because people can use the defence, “I didn’t understand what was in there.”

Turning to the pensions matters, I will take clauses 29 to 31 together. On pensions guidance, I hope that the Minister can say how far down the chain of advice to individuals the Government propose to go. Labour Members want an advice service that helps people to make informed decisions. There is a role for the state in either doing or facilitating that, and we are pleased that the Government recognise that, but we now have protection being built into the Bill for those who are considering selling on their existing annuity in a secondary market. That is set out in clause 29, which would amend section 333A of the 2000 Act. Subsection (2)(b) would insert a reference to

“guidance given for the purpose of helping an individual who has a relevant interest in relation to a relevant annuity to make decisions in connection with transferring or otherwise dealing with the right to payments under that annuity.”

As I understand it, that is principally to do with secondary markets for annuities. Paragraph 152 of the explanatory notes sets out that this would help by giving advice to annuity holders who are

“considering selling the income from their annuities to a third party on the secondary market”.

Today, the Minister mentioned beneficiaries of annuities, which is slightly different from annuitants selling on their annuity or contemplating doing so. How far do the Government propose to go with this? Will the beneficiaries of beneficiaries be able to access Pension Wise? Will the prospective beneficiaries of beneficiaries be able to do so? Will the prospective beneficiaries of annuitants be able to contact Pension Wise? There is a question about how far this coverage goes. When an annuitant sells their annuity on a secondary market and puts the proceeds into another instrument to provide for their pension in place of the original annuity, will Pension Wise, either before or after such a sale, advise the annuitant on that other vehicle into which the annuitant proposes to place, or is considering placing, the fruits of their sale on the secondary market?

I turn now to the report produced by the Work and Pensions Committee. I appreciate that the matter comes under the Department for Work and Pensions rather than the Treasury but, if the Committee will bear with me, I hope I can clarify that it is very germane to what we are discussing. That report was published on 19 October 2015 as House of Commons paper 371, entitled “Pension freedom guidance and advice”. The Government’s response to this report was published on 17 December. Good Government responses tend to go through the report line by line. This response by the Government to the Select Committee report is pretty comprehensive, and it goes through each recommendation suggested by the Committee.

The Financial Secretary gave evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee when it was working on that report, and she indicated that certain performance figures would be put on the Government website—in fact, she may have said that they had already been put on the website. I see her nodding. I have to say that if they are on the site, they are very well hidden. I looked at the Pension Wise website today and I could not find that kind of back-up statistic—not individual statistics, but figures such as the 2.2 million users to which, I think, the Minister referred earlier. Nor could I find the figures on the performance website—I did a search on both “Pension Wise” and “work and pensions”. I hope that the Minister is able to say what has happened to those performance figures.

I just want to make some remarks about clause 28, on transformer vehicles, which is one of the most important elements of the Bill, even though it is somewhat technical.

I commend the Minister on her rapid and very clear presentation of the clauses, but she said something about clause 28 that caused me to worry, and I would like to press her on it. She seemed to imply that the clause is being introduced to ensure that the regulation of transformer vehicles will maintain, and in fact increase, the City’s competitive edge. I worry that we are enacting regulatory provisions that could be used to facilitate transformer vehicles, which are rather toxic.

Transformer vehicles have been around for a while—since the start of the millennium—but they began to grow rapidly in the reinsurance market in the past decade. The danger is that they are under-capitalised. The existing reinsurance market is well capitalised, and the risks are well catered for. The existing major insurers traditionally do not reinsure all of their risk. They keep some of it and capitalise for it, which is good, and pass on the bulk, but not all, to separate or wholesale reinsurers, which are heavily capitalised in case anything goes wrong. The companies use actuarial tables to make profit and invest, but if anything goes wrong—if there is a systemic crisis in the market—they are capitalised in both the insurance and the reinsurance parts of the market to cover that risk.

The point about transformer vehicles is that in the past decade we have moved away from a capitalised reinsurance market to one in which the risks are hedged by selling credit default swaps. If used sensibly, that is not a problem, because if an individual insurance policy runs into trouble a credit default swap can be called in. But as we saw with the mortgage-backed securities at the end of the first decade of the millennium, if there is a systemic crisis and the entire mortgage market goes, the credit default swaps cannot be up because everybody loses money. The worry is that if our reinsurance model is based wholly on hedging, individual transformer vehicles can pay up, but if there is a general crisis—if there is a massive weather crisis or a nuclear power station, such as Hinkley Point C, blows up—the credit default market will not be able to repay everybody. That is why we need to regulate it.

If we are introducing these regulations to put in place an easier approach to hedging, rather than a properly capitalised reinsurance market, and to ensure that the hedging is here rather than New York, we are creating a problem. The Minister could become famous. If she ensures that the regulations that are introduced by the Treasury, the PRA and the FCA are used to make the market work sensibly, we will avoid a crisis. But if we introduce regulations that move the market further towards hedging and away from proper capitalisation, her name will be on the crisis when it occurs.

I want to clarify what these regulations are for. Are they for ensuring discipline in the market and the capitalisation of reinsurance, or are they a way of evading capitalisation? That is where the problem would begin.

I will try to keep my response in order, Mr Brady, but forgive me if I occasionally slip out of order. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West started by asking about clause 27, which he described as “see no evil”. I want to reassure him that the change addresses an issue that arises as a result of the transfer of the regulation of consumer credit from the Office of Fair Trading to the Financial Conduct Authority and the consequent application of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to the consumer credit market. The issue addressed by the clause, whether relating to a chain or third party, arises particularly in the context of consumer credit and the activity of credit broking.

We are confident that the change to section 27 of the Financial Services and Markets Act addresses the issue with regard to consumer credit, ensuring that the section is more proportionate on consumer credit firms, without unduly affecting the protections available to consumers in the market. That is in line with our broader policy intent for the consumer credit market, where the reforms that the Government have made balance the need to provide strong consumer protections with ensuring that the burdens placed on a diverse market that includes thousands of small businesses is proportionate. I reassure the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West that firms remain under a regulatory duty, imposed by the FCA, to take reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that the firms that they deal with are authorised, where that is appropriate. The clause strikes the right balance between protecting consumers and placing a proportionate burden on firms that are lending to consumers.

We share with the hon. Gentleman an aspiration to simplify some of the legislation. I very much welcome his words of support for my dream goal in this post, which is to simplify and reduce some of the complexity not only of this regulation but of the FCA’s own rulebook, which has become quite a significant barrier to entry to sensible organisations that may want to move into, for example, the debt advice space. I welcome his support for any progress I am able to make to simplify some of that.

Clause 27 simply narrows the circumstances in which a credit agreement or a consumer hire agreement is unenforceable. I think that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that. Both he and the hon. Member for East Lothian mentioned transformer vehicles, which are not those fun toys that appeal to consumers but something completely different that, I assure Members, are not for the consumer market. Only sophisticated or institutional investors will be permitted to invest in insurance-linked vehicles.

From a policy perspective, it is important that London have the ability to establish insurance special purpose vehicles. London is the largest insurance market in Europe and is a centre for specialist insurance activity. Whether we like it or not, all Members face risks in their lives—indeed, all businesses face a range of risks. Insurance is a way to bring that risk down to a manageable level. London should be able to compete and innovate in new forms of risk mitigation. If London is able to offer a full range of innovative solutions, insurance entities will continue to come to London to meet their risk mitigation needs. I heartily hope that all Committee members support that.

Insurance-linked securities use a range of specialist skills and services to arrange the deals, including underwriting, risk modelling, brokerage, legal and capital market expertise. Nevertheless, Members are right to express concerns about the transparency and manageability of the risks, as well as about the importance of their being arranged by regulated entities, so it is important that I set out that insurance-linked securities business will be prudently regulated in the UK.

All special purpose vehicles will require Prudential Regulation Authority authorisation. All the wording in terms of the contracts must be clear and robust, and importantly risks cannot be bundled together in the way that the hon. Member for East Lothian feared. We require all special purpose vehicles to be fully funded to cover the full extent of the risk they take on, so we are not talking about the kind of very leveraged structures that he rightly said were so instrumental in the last financial crash.

I have said that only sophisticated or institutional investors will be permitted to invest in the vehicles. Of course, if they are arranged prudently—when someone is able to manage their risks prudently—those transactions will contribute to financial stability. They increase the capacity of the reinsurance markets. They provide investments that are not correlated with the economic cycle, and therefore they provide investors with good diversification characteristics. I hope that I have reassured hon. Members of the importance of clarifying the rules on transformer vehicles, but I sense that the hon. Gentleman has a further question on the issue.

I am somewhat reassured by what the Minister has said. However, I would caution her about her remarks about innovation and the attractiveness of London, because I sat—either in this room or Committee Room 10—on the Finance Bill Committee when her predecessor, Ed Balls, was saying the same thing in 2006 and saying, “We are grateful that London is now the financial capital of the world, over New York, because we don’t have the millstone of Sarbanes-Oxley.” Look where that ended. Therefore, yes to innovation, and yes to London being the major financial centre in Europe, if not the world, but I urge the Government to be careful that we do not go round the same crazy merry-go-round that my Government let us go round in the past.

The hon. Gentleman and I agree on the importance of making sure that we try to strike the right balance. We must ensure that the UK retains the ability to innovate. I am sure that none of us would want to see that ability being reduced, but it should do that within the boundaries of sensible and prudent regulation, so that we do not commit the alternative policy error, which would be to throw up our hands in horror at the kinds of innovations that have happened and so harm consumers by not allowing that kind of innovation. It would harm jobs in the UK if such innovation were not allowed to happen here. I welcome hiss questions—he is absolutely right to ask them—but I hope that I have convinced him that, in this instance, we have got the balance right and that these are simply useful instruments that will be well regulated and certainly available only to sophisticated institutional investors.

Although there are no Government proposals to consolidate the Financial Services and Markets Act at the moment, consolidated versions—for the ease of reference of members of the Committee and members of the public who are following our discussions with such avid interest—are available on commercial databases, such as LEXIS, and the Government statute law database—legislation.gov.uk—is working to make up-to-date Acts of Parliament available free of charge on a consolidated basis to everybody.

I will move on to the questions that were asked about Pension Wise and pension guidance, and the important steps that we are taking to bring pension freedoms to those who are no longer required to buy an annuity but to extend them to people who have bought an annuity and who may decide in retrospect that it was not the right thing for them. We are promoting a secondary market in those pension freedoms.

To be clear, regarding the rules on beneficiaries—I am thinking of a situation where a spouse remains a beneficiary and there is a remaining annuity after the death of the primary annuitant—there might need to be the ability to provide Pension Wise guidance and other support to people in that circumstance. The exact characteristics of who is entitled to use the service will be set out in regulation in due course, as will the definition of a “relevant interest” and what a relevant annuity is.

I am grateful. The statistics might be available on the website, but although I am an averagely competent user of websites I could not find them. They are therefore not readily available.

We have made huge strides with the gov.uk website, which is a lot clearer and simpler than it used to be, but let me be the first to agree with the hon. Gentleman that such things can always be made clearer. I have put on the record the most recent example of management information available, which is that 2.2 million people have clicked on the website, with more than 50,000 people having some sort of face-to-face interaction. Also, in the summer Budget last year we extended the ability of people from 50 onwards to use the face-to-face service.

It is 2.2 million plus one, as of this morning.

The website is well used. The feedback on face-to-face interactions has also been positive.

Is not the clause a huge wasted opportunity? I can confidently predict that this will be the next major mis-selling scandal, which in five to 10 years’ time will come to haunt us for failing properly to enact effective legislation. People will have thrown away their pensions, mis-sold to them by the industry for short-term gain. The advice, people have told me, is that they are liable to die so they had better get the money quickly in order to spend it before it disappears. That is the kind of mis-selling that is going on. The clause is a huge missed opportunity, is it not?

I sense that the hon. Gentleman does not welcome the freedoms that the Government are proud to have given British retirees. We no longer require them—this was the case for so long—to purchase an obligatory product that might not be right for them at the time. Indeed, the evidence suggests that two thirds of people were not shopping around to get the right price, so I accept that awareness and education are an important part of the reforms. I cannot agree with him that the reforms have not made a huge step forward in trusting people who have worked hard all their lives, saving their money, and they now have more freedom to do what they want with it.

I have some sympathy with the comments of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw. May I press the Minister on the numbers she quoted? She said that 2.2 million people have accessed the website, leading to in excess of 50,000 to follow through with more detailed face-to-face guidance. If my arithmetic is correct, that is a conversion rate of only 2%. That is a matter of concern to a lot of people. The type of advice being made available at a detailed level means that we are not adequately helping the numbers of people seeking to use the freedoms. There is concern that many people are cashing in early for different reasons with a lack of understanding of the long-term implications.

Again, I could not agree more that we need to take a long, hard look at the provision of advice in this country. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the financial advice market review was launched last summer and the consultation closed at the end of December. A large range of people have been supportive of the aspirations set out in the review to make advice more widely available and more affordable for all our constituents. It is an ongoing piece of work, and he should wait for more exciting announcements—[Interruption.] He and I share excitement about many things, including the leptokurtic distributions that came up the last time we were on a Committee together. Clause 27 is narrowly focused on extending the Pension Wise service to those who are going to be accessing the additional freedoms that will come into force next April in relation to the secondary market in annuities.

People have rightly asked me about scams, and I want to put it on the record that there is absolutely no complacency about the potential for scams. However, the numbers thus far do not support the case that there has been an increase. Some people have a constant desire to take advantage of people, particularly the vulnerable elderly, in many ways. Nobody should ever accept a telephone call about pensions from anybody unless they have a pre-booked appointment for such a discussion. The single most important thing that we can do to alert people to the horrendous activities of people who prey on the elderly is to get that message out in our constituencies. The over-65s are the victims of some 80% of all attempts at financial crime. They are less familiar with the technology and more vulnerable when someone sounds plausible on the telephone. If any Member wants to work with me to spread the message more widely in their constituencies, I will be wholeheartedly in favour.

Will the Minister give way?

I will give way in a moment, but I first want to mention the National Crime Agency’s Project Bloom, a taskforce that includes the regulators, anti-fraud groups, Action Fraud and police forces. The FCA also runs ScamSmart and the Pensions Regulator has its Scorpion campaign, both of which give advice to businesses and consumers in writing about how to protect against scams. Action Fraud is the UK’s national reporting centre for fraud and internet crime. I am keen to work with hon. Members to see how we can get information disseminated widely in our areas.

I thank the Minister for the offer to help her get the word out. We may be occupied with other things over the next four months, but, even beyond then, is it not Parliament’s role to legislate for regulation? Anyone who is a conduit to information or puts out information should be effectively regulated. Instead of hoping that the word will somehow get out, the Minister should be introducing legislative changes in regulation to improve the system. A gentleman came to see me and said that he had less than a year to live and wanted to get hold of his pension. He came back a year later, having survived through the NHS, and was doubtless reassured that he did not need to fritter his pension away, hoping to spend it on trips around the world because he was about to die. We do not need to get the word out; we need regulation. Will the Minister come back with additional proposals?

Clearly, it is regrettable that although we often pass regulations in this House—this is a very regulated area—people still choose to prey on the vulnerable, particularly older people, and do things that are illegal and completely against the regulations. We ought to combine regulation with informing people about the regulations and when they should have their antennae twigged to the fact that something might not be a good idea.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West raised a range of important points about auto-enrolment, the reports in The Times today and master trusts. I can let him into a little secret on that: the Government will bring in legislation on master trusts and on the points he raised as soon as practically possible. We had considered bringing it in as part of this piece of legislation, but we felt that since the Bill had gone through the House of Lords it would be very late on in the legislative process to introduce something as extensive as that. That was my judgment, and I hope that he will support me on that. However, we aspire to find very soon the first appropriate vehicle that could be scrutinised by both Chambers to bring in the regulations relating to master trusts and auto-enrolment.

I thank the Minister very much for that swift response to my plea. It is perhaps one of my first successes, and now she has indeed set my pulse racing.

No comment, Mr Brady, on that. I am making sure that I cover all the points that were raised by members of the Committee. I am shocked—deeply shocked—that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West is not aware that the Royal Mint is in Cardiff and that it continues to produce all our coins. Indeed, Wales plays a very important role in the issuance of our currency. It does not play a role at the moment in the production of bank notes. Obviously, that lapsed when the last issuing bank in Wales was taken over by either HSBC or Lloyds—I cannot remember which—and got subsumed into that bank, and the bank lost this ability at that point.

To answer the hon. Gentleman’s other questions about clause 31 and the reason for subsection (7), this provision is included in order to confirm that the amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Appointed Representatives) Regulations 2001—a very catchy title—can be subject to further amendment by the Treasury if it comes to revise those regulations. That is to say that the fact that this secondary legislation is amended in the Bill does not narrow the scope of the Treasury’s powers in the Financial Services and Markets Act. I hope that that is as clear as day for the hon. Gentleman. I would also like to clarify that the amendments set out in clause 31 are intended to remove any doubt on this question by making it clear that financial advisers who are appointed representatives of authorised firms are eligible to advise on the conversion or transfer of safeguarded benefits.

The hon. Gentleman also asked some extensive questions about what the definition of a bank in insolvency should be. The wider fact is that here we are establishing a gateway for the transfer of what might be extremely sensitive material—non-public information about the financial health of a particular bank—into the Treasury to ensure that the Treasury can fulfil its important public role of understanding where or when there might be a risk to public funds. That is what we are trying to establish here. It is right to probe the word “insolvency”, because what we are really talking about is a bank in trouble. “In trouble” is a rather difficult phrase to define in legislation, but I think we both know it when we see it.

I was also asked whether the Treasury can request information in advance of a bank failing. The answer to that is clearly yes. The only condition would be that the Treasury considers the information to be material to the Bank’s assessment of the likelihood of a bank, building society, credit union or investment firm failing. This assessment would be done in advance. It influences the resolution plan that the Bank adopts in preparation for a possible failure of the institution in future.

I think that I have now touched on all the points that were raised about this section. I hope that I have satisfied hon. Members of the wisdom of these clauses and that they will join me in supporting their inclusion in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

I propose that, with the leave of the Committee, we take clauses 28 to 37 stand part as a single opportunity.

Clauses 28 to 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

Short title

I beg to move amendment 7, on page 33, line 25, leave out subsection (2).

The amendment removes the privilege amendment set out in subsection (2). As hon. Members will be aware, this provision is inserted into any Bills that start in the other place and have implications for taxes or public funds. This recognises that it is the right of this House to control any charges on the people and on public funds. By providing that nothing in the Bill imposes such a charge, subsection (2) ensured that the House of Lords did not infringe the financial privilege of this House. However, that is no longer necessary when the Bill passes to this House, so the usual practice is for the provision to be removed by amendment in Committee in this House—I love this job; I learn something new every day. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

What a palaver, when we have Governments bringing in Bills via a group of entirely appointed peers—or, in 92 cases, birth-designated peers—and then having to amend the legislation precisely because it has been brought in by a group of unelected people. Parliament should initiate all legislation through the House of Commons. All Governments, whatever their colour or persuasion, and whatever crisis they may be in at any time, should use the House of Commons, the elected Chamber, when bringing forward legislation.

There is only one other place in the world where this happens, and that is China. All other countries that have second Chambers, or part-appointed second Chambers, do not allow legislation to be formulated through them. Even the states of the former Soviet Union, now disintegrated into 16 countries, which have, and love to have, this patronage power that we retain, do not allow their second Chambers to initiate legislation. So this country—and now this Government—and China are the only two places where that happens.

It seems absurd that in the place where democracy is centred, which is dear to all our hearts at the current time, and therefore very important—and this is getting to the fore of the public’s attention—Governments are initiating legislation through the House of Lords. I suggest that they should not do so. The absurdity of having to amend legislation because they have done so would then no longer be needed. Let us therefore hope that this is the last time that such an absurd position is reached in Parliament.

Amendment 7 agreed to.

Clause 38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

We now come to new clauses, some of which have already been debated in our proceedings, but new clause 1 has not.

New Clause 1

Illegal money lending

(1) The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 is amended as follows.

(2) After Part 20A insert—

“Part 20B

Illegal Money Lending

333S Financial assistance for action against illegal money lending

(1) The Treasury may make grants or loans, or give any other form of financial assistance, to any person for the purpose of taking action against illegal money lending.

(2) Taking action against illegal money lending includes—

(a) investigating illegal money lending and offences connected with illegal money lending;

(b) prosecuting, or taking other enforcement action in respect of, illegal money lending and offences connected with illegal money lending;

(c) providing education, information and advice about illegal money lending, and providing support to victims of illegal money lending;

(d) undertaking or commissioning research into the effectiveness of activities of the kind described in paragraphs (a) to (c);

(e) providing advice, assistance and support (including financial support) to, and oversight of, persons engaged in activities of the kind described in paragraphs (a) to (c).

(3) A grant, loan or other form of financial assistance under subsection (1) may be made or given on such terms as the Treasury consider appropriate.

(4) ‘Illegal money lending’ means carrying on a regulated activity within Article 60B of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/544) (regulated credit agreements) in circumstances which constitute an authorisation offence.

333T Funding of action against illegal money lending

(1) The Treasury must, from time to time, notify the FCA of the amount of the Treasury’s illegal money lending costs.

(2) The FCA must make rules requiring authorised persons, or any specified class of authorised person, to pay to the FCA specified amounts, or amounts calculated in a specified way, with a view to recovering the amount notified under subsection (1).

(3) The amounts to be paid under the rules may include a component to recover the expenses of the FCA in collecting the payments (‘collection costs’).

(4) Before the FCA publishes a draft of the rules it must consult the Treasury.

(5) The rules may be made only with the consent of the Treasury.

(6) The Treasury may notify the FCA of matters that they will take into account when deciding whether or not to give consent for the purposes of subsection (5).

(7) The FCA must have regard to any matters notified under subsection (6) before publishing a draft of rules to be made under this section.

(8) The FCA must pay to the Treasury the amounts that it receives under rules made under this section apart from amounts in respect of its collection costs (which it may keep).

(9) The Treasury must pay into the Consolidated Fund the amounts received by them under subsection (8).

(10) In this section the ‘Treasury’s illegal money lending costs’ means the expenses incurred, or expected to be incurred, by the Treasury—

(a) in connection with providing grants, loans, or other financial assistance to any person (under section 333S or otherwise) for the purpose of taking action against illegal money lending;

(b) in undertaking or commissioning research relating to taking action against illegal money lending.

(11) The Treasury may by regulations amend the definition of the ‘Treasury’s illegal money lending costs’.

(12) In this section ‘illegal money lending’ and ‘taking action against illegal money lending’ have the same meaning as in section 333S.”

(3) In section 138F (notification of rules), for “or 333R” substitute “, 333R or 333T”.

(4) In section 138I (consultation by FCA)—

(a) in subsection (6), after paragraph (cb) insert—

“(cc) section 333T;”;

(b) in subsection (10)(a), for “or 333R” substitute “, 333R or 333T”.

(5) In section 429(2) (regulations subject to affirmative procedure), for “or 333R”

substitute “, 333R or 333T”.

(6) In paragraph 23 of Schedule 1ZA (FCA fees rules)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1) for “and 333R” substitute “, 333R and 333T”;

(b) in sub-paragraph (2ZA)(b) for “section 333R” substitute “sections 333R and 333T”.—(Harriett Baldwin.)

This new clause gives the Treasury power to make grants and loans, and provide other financial assistance, for the purpose of taking action against illegal money lending. It provides for certain Treasury costs relating to illegal money lending to be recovered from authorised persons by a new levy, administered by the FCA.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

The new clause gives the Treasury a power to provide financial assistance to bodies for the purpose of taking action against illegal money lending. It also gives the Financial Conduct Authority an obligation to raise a levy, which will apply to consumer credit firms, in order to fund that assistance. Illegal moneylenders prey on some of the most vulnerable people in society. The new clause will ensure that the perimeter of the consumer credit market continues to be enforced effectively, and that vulnerable consumers remain protected from loan sharks.

The Government have fundamentally reformed consumer credit regulation, transferring the responsibility from the Office of Fair Trading to the Financial Conduct Authority, and we have ensured that the FCA has a wide enforcement toolkit to take action where its rules are breached. The FCA regime is already having a substantial positive impact, which is helping to deliver the Government’s vision for an effective and sustainable consumer credit market that meets consumer needs. However, the FCA is not best placed to investigate and enforce certain types of illegal money lending such as the type practised by loan sharks.

Loan sharks are currently investigated and prosecuted by the England and Wales illegal money lending teams and the Scottish Illegal Money Lending Unit. Those teams are made up of local trading standards officers who accordingly have broader powers than the FCA to prosecute the particular criminality that loan sharks are involved with, and relevant expertise in educating vulnerable consumers. They are also able to draw on geographically dispersed community intelligence officers who are crucial in identifying localised illegal lenders. The teams work alongside the FCA in policing the regulatory perimeter specifically to target loan sharks and to provide support and advice to the victims of illegal moneylenders. They also help educate local communities about the dangers of borrowing money from loan sharks.

The teams have been identified as the most efficient and effective way of combating loan sharks and they have a proven track record. The England and Wales teams have secured hundreds of prosecutions for illegal money lending and related activity and have written off £55 million-worth of illegal debt, helping nearly 24,000 people in the process.

Funding will be provided by the Treasury via a levy on consumer credit firms, which will be collected by the FCA. The Government believe that all participants in the consumer credit market benefit from the teams’ work and the credibility that comes from keeping illegal moneylenders out of the market. The current cost of the enforcement regime is about £4.7 million a year, so the cost to individual firms in the £200 billion consumer credit market is anticipated to be small. The FCA will consult on how the levy will be collected in its annual fees consultation.

The Government want a safe and fair regulatory framework for consumer credit that protects consumers from harm. As part of that, it is important that the market’s boundary is adequately policed. The illegal money lending teams provide crucial support to the FCA’s work in effective enforcement in the regulatory perimeter, which boosts confidence in the market. The new clause will ensure that funding for the enforcement of rules against illegal money lending is given a sustainable framework for the future and that the illegal money lending teams will continue to receive the funding they need to do their work. I hope that all hon. Members will support this move

This is a most excellent new clause, which I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East and I will be able to use against those who may be doing illegal money lending in sports in the Leeds area. It prompts an interesting question, because the powers on claims handlers—the other side of consumer protection—are not vested in the Treasury. We would not expect them to be. They are vested in the Ministry of Justice, but here we see a power grab by the Treasury. We have the Chancellor versus the Justice Secretary, with the two battling for power. I appreciate that that may cause some concern and divided loyalty. It is essential, in supporting this new clause, that I give my wholehearted support to the Chancellor in his power grab. The Treasury, not the Ministry of Justice, is the best place for powers such as this to be vested in.

Should the Bill become law, I hope that the Minister will go back to the Treasury team and look at other powers that have been grabbed by the Ministry of Justice under previous Governments and used appallingly badly in protecting the people, from my experience—the coalminers’ compensation claim scandal being the prime, but certainly not the only, example. Let us have the Treasury take on those who fleece our constituents out of money, with the full might of the Chancellor, strongly supported by his party’s Back Benches—he is even more strongly supported on some matters these days by the Labour Benches. On this occasion, he has my entire endorsement in his battle against the Justice Secretary.

What a pleasure it is to follow my hon. Friend. It is an historic moment when he is fully backing the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

My hon. Friend talks about power grabs, but I must say that I do not think it is just the Ministry of Justice involved in this area; it is the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills as well, with which this overlaps. The fact that this is a cross-cutting area is perhaps another reason why it would be logical for the Treasury to have these powers.

Labour Members welcome the stability of funding. I am grateful to John Ludlow, who works in the office of my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), for giving me some background information, of which I was not fully aware, on the lack of stable funding for the inelegantly named illegal money lending teams. There is one such team based just down the road from me in Birmingham. They work in England and Wales and have a relationship with trading standards, as has been mentioned—hence my reference to the DCLG. I understand that since 2004, when the teams were established, more than 26,000 victims of illegal money lending have been helped, with £62 million of illegal debt written off and 300 loan sharks prosecuted.

I say indirectly to the Ministry of Justice and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that some of this stuff is rather simpler than is made out, in terms of the relationship with trading standards. Under section 21 of the Theft Act 1968, blackmail is a common-law criminal offence when someone makes “unwarranted demand” for money “with menaces”. The Minister quite properly referred to illegal moneylenders as loan sharks; that is the vernacular, which we all understand. As a description, “loan shark” highlights rather better what almost always goes on: behind illegal money lending is a pattern of people saying, “If you don’t pay up, you’ll suffer a physical injury.” Those are the menaces.

The 1968 Act is an elegantly worded piece of legislation. Section 16 of that Act, which is sadly now gone, is on obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception. Section 1 of the Act, which still obtains, has a wonderful definition of theft. It was a great piece of legislation in terms of its wording. New clause 1 is not quite so elegant. It refers in proposed new section 333T(1) to

“the amount of the Treasury’s illegal money lending costs.”

That is a bit inelegant, because what it means is the amount of the Treasury’s anti-illegal money lending costs. The Treasury has costs associated with illegal money lending, but I hope it does not have any illegal money lending costs. The new clause is inelegantly worded but, to be fair, we know what it means and we have had a helpful explanation from the Minister.

Mr Brady, you were here when the hon. Member for Bassetlaw agreed with something that I said. I am sure you will go home and remark on that historic moment in your diary tonight. He is absolutely right in his support for this approach to putting the funding for these important teams on a more sustainable footing. I do not want to be in the least bit confrontational on this historic occasion, but I will gently correct him.

The funding for the teams that tackle illegal money lending has previously come, because it is a trading enforcement matter, through BIS, so they were paid for out of general taxation through the BIS budget. We took the view, as we went through the different alternatives in terms of the comprehensive spending review for the autumn statement, that that meant the funding for a very important activity was constantly being questioned. One year it was funded from the Treasury reserve as well. So the levy is a way of putting the funding for this important activity on a sustainable footing in a way that will be spread judiciously across the wide range of different consumer credit firms. The hon. Gentleman argues that it does not seem fair, given that they are regulated, for them to have to pay the costs of enforcement against illegal moneylenders, but all regulated firms benefit from the fact that they are within the regulated perimeter, and that the perimeter itself is robustly enforced.

We do not anticipate that there will be anything other than widespread acclaim, as we have heard this morning in Committee, for putting these incredibly important and valuable teams out of that perennial uncertainty that they have had in terms of funding and into a more sustained and clear source of funding. I commend the new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7

Early exit pension charges

(1) The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 137FBA (as inserted by section 30) insert—

“137FBB FCA general rules: early exit pension charges

(1) The FCA must make general rules prohibiting authorised persons from—

(a) imposing specified early exit charges on members of relevant pension schemes, and

(b) including in relevant pension schemes provision for the imposition of specified early exit charges on members of such schemes.

(2) The rules must be made with a view to securing, so far as is reasonably possible, an appropriate degree of protection for members of relevant pension schemes against early exit charges being a deterrent on taking, converting or transferring benefits under the schemes.

(3) The rules may specify early exit charges by reference to charges of a specified class or description, or by reference to charges which exceed a specified amount.

(4) The rules made by virtue of subsection (1)(a) must prohibit the imposition of the charges after those rules come into force, whether the relevant pension scheme was established before or after those rules (or this section) came into force.

(5) In relation to a charge which is imposed, or provision for the imposition of a charge which is included in a pension scheme, in contravention of the rules, the rules may (amongst other things)—

(a) provide for the obligation to pay the charge to be unenforceable or unenforceable to a specified extent;

(b) provide for the recovery of amounts paid in respect of the charge;

(c) provide for the payment of compensation for any losses incurred as a result of paying amounts in respect of the charge.

(6) Subject to subsection (8) an early exit charge, in relation to a member of a pension scheme, is a charge which—

(a) is imposed under the scheme when a member who has reached normal minimum pension age takes the action mentioned in subsection (7), but

(b) is only imposed, or only imposed to that extent, if the member takes that action before the member’s expected retirement date.

(7) The action is the member taking benefits under the scheme, converting benefits under the scheme into different benefits or transferring benefits under the scheme to another pension scheme.

(8) The Treasury may by regulations specify matters that are not to be treated as early exit charges for the purposes of this section.

(9) For the purposes of this section—

‘charge’, in relation to a member of a pension scheme, includes a reduction in the value of the member’s benefits under the scheme;

‘expected retirement date’, in relation to a member of a pension scheme, means the date determined by, or in accordance with, the scheme as the date on which the member’s benefits under the scheme are expected to be taken;

‘normal minimum pension age’ has the same meaning as in section 279(1) of the Finance Act 2004;

‘relevant pension scheme’ has the same meaning as in section 137FB;

and a reference to benefits includes all or any part of those benefits.”

(3) In section 138E(3) (contravention of rules which may make transaction void or unenforceable)—

(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (a);

(b) at the end of paragraph (b) insert “or

(c) rules made by the FCA under section 137FBB.”.—(Harriett Baldwin.)

This new Clause requires the Financial Conduct Authority to make rules prohibiting specified charges from being imposed on members of pension schemes who take, convert or transfer pension benefits after they have reached normal minimum pension age but before their expected retirement date.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

Government new clause 7 places a duty on the Financial Conduct Authority to limit early exit charges, which act as a deterrent to people accessing their pensions early under the new pension freedoms, thus fulfilling a commitment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made recently.

The Government introduced the pension freedoms in April 2015 because we believe that people who have worked hard and saved their entire life should be free to spend their retirement savings as they want. At that time, the Government wanted to ensure that everyone who was eligible could access their pension flexibly under the new freedoms, and they therefore strengthened the statutory right of members in defined contribution schemes so that people could, in all cases, transfer their pension savings from one scheme to another.

Following the introduction of the freedoms, it became increasingly clear that other barriers, including early exit charges and long transfer times, were preventing some people from using them. Evidence gathered for the Government by the FCA has shown a small but nevertheless significant cohort in contract-based schemes for whom early exit charges pose a barrier to their use of the freedoms. Some 670,000 people in FCA-regulated schemes face an exit charge, and for 66,000 of them—one in 10—the charge would exceed 10% of the value of their pension pot. In some cases, the charges could be high enough to make it uneconomical for an individual to access their pension flexibly, while in others the presence of an early exit charge could act to discourage individuals from accessing their pension, when that might be the best thing to do in their circumstances. It is therefore clear that the Government’s objective of ensuring that everyone who is eligible is able to access their pension savings flexibly is not being met, and that action is needed to ensure that all consumers are able to make use of the freedoms.

To ensure that the cap benefits current consumers who are eligible to use the freedoms now, the Government will ensure that any cap applies equally to existing arrangements and to those entered into in the future. The Government have not taken the decision to pursue legislation with retrospective effect lightly, and we recognise industry concerns about interference with existing contractual agreements. We have already made it clear that market value reductions should not be subject to the cap on early exit charges. However, in the Government’s view it is unfair that a significant minority of individuals have been deterred from accessing their pensions flexibly because of contractual terms they entered into long before the freedoms were introduced. Indeed, some providers have conceded that industry practices have moved on, and that the introduction of the pension freedoms means that the charges pose a much more significant barrier now than when they were first agreed. Fairness is not determined solely by reference to whether it was acceptable to include a term in a pension contract many decades ago; it should also be assessed in light of the reforms and changes in market practice over time.

In the context of the new pension freedoms, it is unfair that some individuals are being deterred from accessing their pensions flexibly because of terms in contracts from before the pension freedoms were introduced. Those people would not have been in a position to make an informed decision about potential early exit charges when they signed up, and that is why we have introduced the clause, to limit the charges and remove the deterrent.

In giving the FCA, as the relevant regulator, the flexibility to determine the precise level of the cap, we are ensuring that fairness is built into the setting of any cap. The FCA is best placed to determine how best to apply any cap, to ensure that early exit charges are not a deterrent to individuals using the freedoms. The new clause will provide consumers in contract-based pension schemes with genuine protection when exercising the pension freedoms, by ensuring that they are not deterred by early exit charges. Alongside that measure, which will apply to FCA-regulated pension schemes, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Pensions Regulator will work to ensure that any relevant concerns are appropriately addressed for trust-based schemes. We will ensure that all pension scheme members are protected against excessive early exit fees, regardless of the type of pension scheme they are in. I commend the new clause to the Committee.

I am glad that the Chancellor has come on board fully. The Prime Minister did so yesterday; he came on board with Labour’s manifesto commitments on the European Union—good for him. The 2015 Labour manifesto said:

“We will reform the pensions market so that pension providers put savers first, and protect consumers from retirement rip-offs. We support greater flexibility for those drawing down their pension pots, but there must be proper guidance for people to avoid mis-selling.”

We have already discussed pension guidance and the welcome amendments on Pension Wise.

I have several issues to raise with the Minister. Paragraph 2.16 of the Government’s response to the consultation document on pension transfers and early exit charges referred to “further cost-benefit analysis” from the FCA

“in relation to the appropriate level of any cap.”

Can the Minister tell me—my research has not extended this far—whether the FCA has done that research? I gather from her remarks that it has not yet done so, but I may have misunderstood her. If it has done it, when was it done and published? If it has not, when does she anticipate that it will be done?

Can the Minister say something—again, I may have missed this in her remarks—about what she anticipates the level of the cap will be? She referred to the shocking 10% charges that some people have unfortunately been asked for on requesting a transfer. A press release from a couple of weeks ago referred to speeding up the process and to things being done “quickly and accurately”. I do not see any reference in new clause 7 to the timescale, although there is a reference to the cap, so I hope the Minister can elucidate that.

The bigger issue—again, this may be my reading of new clause 7—is that the Government seem to be conflating two things in the wording of the new clause. The Minister’s remarks did not reassure me about that. The first is the penalty for moving. One of the reasons why I signed up to Equitable Life years ago—what a great deal that was—is that it had what was then called an open-market option, which was unusual in defined purchase schemes at that time. It was attractive because it meant that decades down the road I would have the option of buying an annuity from a provider other than Equitable Life. It was not the only provider to offer such a scheme, but it was unusual; it was in the minority. That was back in the ’80s, when I was a very young man. Some schemes had a ban on moving—that has effectively been statutorily overridden—and others had penalties.

The other thing, which I fear that the Government have conflated with the first in their wording—perhaps the Minister can reassure me about this—is what in the trade used to be called an actuarial reduction. In other words, if the normal retirement age for the pension scheme is 65, as it is in the House of Commons scheme, to which many hon. Members have signed up, but someone takes it at 60—above the statutory age of 55; it used to be 50—in round terms they take a 50% reduction in the annual pension. Keeping it simple, instead of getting £10,000 a year from the age of 65, they get £5,000 a year from the age of 60 because they are getting it for an extra five years. It is not exactly 50%, but as a rule of thumb it is about 5% a year for taking it early, so if someone takes it at 55 they lose 50% of their pension. That is not, to most people’s minds, a penalty. Because people get the dosh for longer, they get a smaller annual amount. We could have a debate about whether 5% a year is mathematically accurate, with life expectancy and so on, but in terms of the principle and the concept that people lose pension because they have started to take it below the normal retirement age there is that actuarial reduction.

May I disagree with my Front-Bench colleagues on their analysis? I have exactly the same question, but I am anticipating that this is a listening Chancellor—not least to the very point I made to him in the Treasury Committee three years ago, which he rebuffed in his stylistic way in giving a non-answer. I am seeking to clarify whether he is the listening Chancellor and that this is a bit of a roll, so that I can back him again, because he has listened to me on the issue, which I raised in some detail, including in correspondence and in other questions. At the time I did not get a sufficiently satisfactory response. This could be a significant moment. I am hoping that the Minister will clarify that the power being given to the FCA will be all-encompassing and include all ways of ripping off our pensioners, including the couple from Clayworth in Bassetlaw who first raised the issue with me some three and a half years ago.

I want to put on record that of course the Chancellor is a listening Chancellor. I am delighted that some of that listening includes listening to the hon. Gentleman, whose views on pasties I remember the Chancellor also listened to at one time. I see why his Whips put him on the Committee—because of his extensive and deep knowledge of so many of these things.

Let us face it, the topic of pensions can cause people’s eyes to glaze over—not of course those of hon. Members in Committee, but potentially those of people avidly reading the record in Hansard—so I want to clarify that the pension freedoms apply to defined contribution schemes. Those regulated by the FCA are covered by the new clause. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West asked about actuarial reductions, but schemes such as those that most Members of Parliament are members of are in the defined benefit section of the market. That is presumably why he has not found the language clear enough; the new clause does not apply to defined benefit schemes. In cases where actuarial reductions might be applied unfairly, we think it is important for the FCA to be given flexibility in the new clause.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the level of the cap. It is important to emphasise how well and constructively the industry has been working with the new pension freedoms to enable hundreds of thousands of people to take advantage of the freedoms. It is worth citing how excellent, innovative and adaptive many firms have been with the new freedoms, which came in with a degree of rapidity. However, there were some cases—I cited the example of a 10% cap—where charges were clearly egregious. The FCA will do further work in this area, in terms of its cost-benefit analysis process, but there have been efforts to collect evidence of the scale of the charges. In the vast majority of cases—I think that I am right in saying, off the top of my head, more than 90%—the charges have been under 2%. The industry, by and large, has worked very well with the reforms; I do not want people to get the impression that it has not. However, we think that where there are unreasonable barriers, in terms of charges that we would all regard as outrageous, the FCA is right to have these powers.

There will be cases in which, when someone removes their pension, the provider is right to apply a market value reduction, to readjust the value of the fund properly to reflect the performance of the market. Not all funds mark to market on a daily basis. We would not regard that as an early exit charge. It is right that market value reductions are specifically excluded from the new clause.

I hope that by answering all those questions, I have satisfied the Committee that this is another excellent clause from a listening Chancellor, and I commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 7 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

Nomination of the Chief Executive Officer of the Prudential Regulation Authority: parliamentary oversight

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall not nominate a person as Chief Executive Officer of the Prudential Regulation Authority without the consent of the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons.”—(George Kerevan.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

We on the SNP Benches believe that senior regulators and those charged with supplying independent advice to Government should be independent of the Executive and that the best way of achieving that is to have their appointments confirmed by Parliament. In the case of the PRA, we are suggesting that that should be done through the Treasury Committee. The principle has already been conceded by Government. The head of the Office for Budget Responsibility is confirmed by the Treasury Committee, so in a sense we are simply trying to widen that remit. We have chosen to begin with the head of the PRA, because major changes in the Bill involve the Bank and its relationship to the PRA. Also, Mr Andrew Bailey, the current head of the PRA, is moving on to the FCA, so sometime this year we will indeed be appointing a new head of the PRA.

The principle is simple. This is about the way in which we guarantee the independence of the regulator from the Executive. We accept that the Executive—the Chancellor, in this case—is the correct person to make the nomination, but the way we guarantee the independence of the regulator is to give them a wider base through confirmation by Parliament. Then, if there is ever a conflict between the regulator and the Executive, the regulator can fall back on the fact that they are there, having been confirmed by Parliament. That simple principle is accepted all round the world and, as I said, is already accepted with regard to the OBR.

I hope that the Government will accept this proposal; I hope that the principle is a broad enough one, but I stress that the aim is not to make the regulator in any sense a political figure, but to go in the opposite direction.

We have had some concerns in the last few months regarding the independence of the FCA. We will say no more about that. The point is that the issue of the independence of regulators is in the public arena. The best way for the Government to allay some of those fears is to accept the new clause.

I would like to express my hearty support for new clause 3. Select Committees have routinely held pre-appointment hearings for a number of public appointments since 2008, with a number of candidates not approved. The previous coalition Government did develop the scrutiny agenda somewhat when the Chancellor agreed to the Treasury Committee having a power of veto over appointments to the Office for Budget Responsibility in 2010.

The Public Accounts Committee has a veto over the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Appointments to the Monetary Policy Committee and the Financial Policy Committee of the Bank of England are made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and are then subject to a confirmation hearing by the Treasury Committee. The Treasury Committee has power over the chair and board members of the Office for Budget Responsibility, an arrangement that the Chancellor told the Treasury Committee he would put in place

“because I want there to be absolutely no doubt that this is an independent body”.

The Minister will be aware that, when it examined the proposals for the future Financial Conduct Authority in 2013, the Treasury Committee made a number of recommendations on the accountability of the new body to Parliament, including that the legislation provided that the chief executive of the FCA be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by the Treasury Committee. The Treasury Committee was disappointed by the Government’s response, particularly in view of the deficiencies in the accountability mechanisms for the Financial Services Authority.

I would like to express support not only for the new clause tabled by the Scottish National party, but for the view of the Treasury Committee, as set out by its Chair, the right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), in his letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 26 January, following the appointment of the current Prudential Regulation Authority chief executive, Andrew Bailey, to be the next leader of the FCA. In that letter the right hon. Gentleman set out his Committee’s view that it should have a veto over the appointment and dismissal of the chief executives of both the FCA and the PRA. Indeed, the letter said that the FCA’s chair, John Griffith-Jones, told the Committee that there was merit in that proposal when he met its members on 20 January.

It would be helpful to know whether the Chancellor has responded to that letter, and whether the Minister can share with us now the Treasury’s thinking on extending pre-appointment hearings and the power of veto to those two positions. I thank the hon. Member for East Lothian for flagging up this issue with his new clause, which we support and will consider returning to on Report, if the Government are not on board with it.

I am going to convince Opposition Members that this new clause is not necessary. I will give them an updated response on the Chancellor’s views and the process of recruitment for the new chief executive of the PRA, the deputy governor for prudential regulation. That newsworthy notification to the world is taking place in front of a large crowd, as we can see.

My understanding of the proposed new clause is that it would give the Treasury Committee a statutory veto over the appointment of the chief executive of the PRA, which is soon to be the Prudential Regulation Committee. I am well aware that the Treasury Committee, of which the hon. Members for East Lothian and for Bassetlaw are members, has proposed this measure. Last month, following the announcement of the appointment of Andrew Bailey as chief executive of the FCA, we received a letter from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), in which he argued that the Treasury Committee should have a veto over both the appointment and the removal of the chief executives of the FCA and the PRA. The Chancellor has replied to the Treasury Committee in a letter, which normally would be published by the Committee—I imagine that it has been published already. We believe that such an arrangement is neither necessary nor appropriate for the financial regulators, and I will articulate the reasons why.

First, such an arrangement is not necessary to protect the independence of the FCA and the PRA or of their chief executives. The model of independent regulation that we have in the UK gives the regulator a clear statutory framework of objectives and duties and ensures that regulatory decisions are taken in an objective and impartial way. Importantly, this legislative framework protects the independence of the PRA and the FCA chief executives. It includes provisions that require the terms of appointment to be such that the appointee is not subject to the direction of the Treasury or of any person.

We agree that it is important that the Treasury Committee holds a pre-commencement hearing before the new PRA CEO takes up their post. However, we believe that it is important that the Chancellor remains the person who is fully accountable for deciding on the right person for the job. Pre-appointment hearings are not common for chief executive posts. Hon. Members will understand that such a process would potentially introduce scope for delay and public disagreement, which would not help to recruit good candidates. For example, candidates who are otherwise very good might not want to disclose their interest to their current employer in advance of confirmation of the appointment.

The hon. Member for East Lothian has argued that the arrangements for the appointment of the chief executives of the FCA and PRA should mirror those for the senior leadership position at the Office for Budget Responsibility; that appointment requires the consent of the Treasury Committee. However, the financial regulators are materially different from the OBR. The OBR was established to examine and report on the sustainability of public finances and, by doing so, to help Parliament hold the Government to account for their fiscal policy decisions—the same argument applies to the Comptroller and Auditor General—and as such the OBR has a unique model of dual accountability to the Government and to Parliament.

The previous Government proposed the statutory veto of the Treasury Committee over appointments to provide an assurance of independence and to ensure that those individuals at the OBR have the support and approval of the Select Committee. However, we do not believe that that model of dual accountability is appropriate when regulators are independently carrying out executive functions of the state, such as regulating and supervising the financial services industry. As I have said before, I would welcome the Treasury Committee holding a pre-commencement hearing with the chief executives of the PRA and the FCA. That would provide an important opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise new appointees to those offices before they take up their posts.

Let me update the Committee on the process for appointing the next chief executive of the PRA, who will take over from Andrew Bailey. The Government are running an open competition. The post was advertised on Friday 19 February, which was last week, and the closing date for applications is 4 March—the window is still open should any members of the Committee wish to apply. The appointment is made by the Queen, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. Interviews will be conducted in mid-March by a panel chaired by Sir Nicholas Macpherson, together with the second permanent secretary, the chair of the court and one of the other deputy governors. It is expected that the new chief executive will take up the position as soon as possible, but by 1 July 2016 at the latest. You see, Mr Brady, we have all the breaking news after 2 pm in this Committee.

There is another argument that is not in my speaking notes, but which I strongly believe is the case. Let us hypothesise that whoever is appointed through that process then goes through the pre-commencement hearing with the Treasury Committee that we have agreed, and that Committee produces a report that is extremely unfavourable to the person nominated by the Government. I think we can all see that, from a practical point of view, that would be as powerful as having a pre-appointment hearing.

Let us look back at the recent examples of Andrew Bailey’s move to the FCA and, for those of us with slightly longer memories, the appointment in the previous Parliament of Mark Carney as the new Governor of the Bank of England. The Chancellor invested a lot of personal time in those appointment processes, persuading individuals to come across. Imagine if he had had to say, “It is not actually in my power to offer you these jobs; it is in the power of the Treasury Committee.” Would we have seen candidates of such quality prepared to put their names forward? I submit that we would not.

I therefore think that the Government have made the right judgment in agreeing to a pre-commencement hearing. I hope that I have explained to the Committee why I do not believe it would be appropriate to accept the new clause, and I hope that the hon. Member for East Lothian will withdraw it, or that the Committee will vote it down.

Dear, oh dear. Democracy only goes so far. The United States, with all its systems, must be appointing terrible people, seeing as elected politicians there have a whole range of conferments or otherwise, from the top of the judiciary downwards. Not to give an august body such as the Treasury Committee, which is elected on a cross-party basis by Parliament, the ability to reject an unsuitable applicant demonstrates the fundamental weakness of the last few Chancellors and of the current one, in the style of his predecessor but one—Mr Brown was an example, and Mr Osborne closely mirrors him in every way. Chancellors perceive that they have all the wisdom, yet they are not confident enough to trust a cross-party Committee that would rarely even contemplate criticising, never mind vetoing.

Having sat on that Committee at four different times with a range of Members—indeed, I seem to recall that you, Mr Brady, were one of its leading members when I was first on it—I know that there has never been an instance when it has misused its powers on a partisan basis. Of course, there may be exchanges, particularly with Chancellors and Ministers, where one senses and smells more of a partisan element. However, there has never once been an inkling of that in decision making.

For the Executive to hold in these powers is dangerous for the Executive and for Parliament. The power is simply with a single name; there is no choice or selection process. The proposal from the hon. Members for East Lothian and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, which is the same one unanimously put forward by the Treasury Committee in this Parliament, is for the ability to interview and, if necessary, vote against an applicant. That focuses on what the Government want from the post holder and the skills that the post holder will bring. It scopes out precisely how that remit is seen by Parliament. We are the elected representatives. Therefore, in exactly the same way, very successfully, Parliaments past brought in the Select Committee system and further democratised that process through elections to Select Committees. That is popular inside the House and, as time will show, it is increasingly popular outside, as the general public understand how it has strengthened our democracy.

If I may, I will come back on some of the points made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, who seems, I submit, to prefer American democracy to British democracy. I do not know whether this is a preference he has publicly stated, but it certainly seems to be his revealed preference, judging by his comments before lunch on the second Chamber and his comments now. American democracy is very different from ours, it is true, and I am sure that each has different advantages and disadvantages. In America, the judges are elected, for example. That is not something that we have chosen to do in this country. In America, obviously, their second Chamber is directly elected. That is not something that this Parliament has yet chosen to do.

Obviously, the power of the Executive in the British system of democracy is considerably greater when it comes to Budget matters than in America, where for a long time they were unable actually to pass a Budget. In America, where the Senate must confirm presidential nominations for many public appointments, there have been significant delays in filling vacancies. At the end of 2010, for example, 22%—over one fifth—of Senate-confirmed positions remained unfilled or temporarily filled by acting officials. Introducing scope for delay and public disagreement could impede the recruitment of good candidates to these positions. These are Executive posts and, as I said previously, candidates may not wish to reveal their interest to a current employer in advance of being confirmed in the appointment process.

I remind the Committee that for most of last year the Treasury Committee was in touch with the Chancellor, who was very dilatory in making a fresh appointment to the head of the FCA. Delays can occur even when the Executive are in charge.

Again, I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. There has been a very capable and competent acting chief executive at the FCA throughout this time. I submit that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw would rather that Bassetlaw were in America, from what he has said.

Will the Minister give way?

I will allow the hon. Gentleman to rebut that calumny.

The Minister should know her history. The Pilgrim Fathers and the pilgrim contract that created western democracy in the style of the United States originate from Bassetlaw, as does the Great Reform Act of 1832. The writer of the Great Reform Act lived in my house at the time. Bassetlaw and American democracy therefore go together, but we are English. We are part of the United Kingdom. We want our Parliaments to be confident enough to make decisions. If it is not good enough for the Monetary Policy Committee and the OBR, is the Minister really saying that we are not getting people of suitable calibre for those posts?

The Minister really is saying that. I am saying that these are Executive roles, which the Executive should continue to be able to appoint, obviously with a pre-commencement hearing by the Treasury Committee. I fear that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw’s ancestor’s ticket for this voyage must have got lost, but it was very interesting to hear about the connection with his constituency. Without more ado, I urge the Committee to reject this amendment.

I normally have a great deal of respect for the Minister’s judgment, but I detected something in her tone which said that even she did not fully agree with her position. On the first point, she argued that statute guarantees the independence of the regulators. If there is anyone is this room, including the Minister, who can put their hand on their heart and truly say that no regulator has ever been leant on by a Minister of any party, then I will accept where the Minister is going. I am a tiny, wee bit cynical that sometimes, despite statute, Ministers of all parties and all jurisdictions tend to lean. We should try to tempt them away from that by giving a parliamentary underpinning to the role and the position of the regulator. That is at the heart of this.

The Minister also cites the problem that might arise from dual accountability to the Executive and to Parliament. If there is conflict, I am always happy for Parliament to triumph over the Executive, but maybe the Minister wants this to be the other way round—indeed, she has said as much. My point is that we already have a degree of dual accountability. The Treasury Committee, standing for Parliament as a whole, questions the regulators on a regular basis to make sure that they are fulfilling their brief. The Committee is not questioning them on policy, but to make sure of their independence. The actual accountability already exists. We are just making it clearer here.

The Minister says that as an alternative there could be a pre-commencement interview. If there is a problem with confusion of lines of responsibility, that is actually a worse way to go than making it clear that the Committee, standing in for Parliament, does have the role of confirming the appointment.

My final point is that this would interfere with the quality of the candidates we might get. I remind the Minister that every single member of this Bill Committee had to stand for election. We put ourselves before the electorate; that is democracy. All we are arguing for is the principle of democratic accountability. If there are candidates for senior Executive positions who are frightened of democracy, they do not deserve the job.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Forgive me, Mr Brady; I do not normally like the sound of my own voice quite so much as to speak so often, but I will get this over as quickly as I can.

New clause 4 suggests a change in the title of the Bank of England to the Bank of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I know I am at risk of being accused of triviality. In defence, because we are talking about a Bank of England Bill, I thought it was pertinent to bring the matter up. I accept that it is a minor aspect of the legislation.

I am not claiming ownership of the Bank of England for Scotland, even though that institution was first mooted by William Paterson in the 1690s. He suggested the original project to lend His Majesty’s Government the sum of £1.2 million. The geek in me made a quick calculation of what that would be worth today, and it comes out at about £26 billion, so that was quite a serious project for the time. The yield on the original loan was 8%, which was a good deal better than one would get today.

Let me quickly get to the core: why change the name? I appreciate that it is an historic name known around the world and is a great brand. There is a minor irritation in the other parts of the kingdom at the use of the name England. That is no offence to the great people of England—my father is from Liverpool—but it is a minor irritation. But that is the least of it.

I talk of a great global institution, one that has played even more of a global role since the crisis of 2007-08. If it is to play that global role and represent a modern Britain, it needs a name that reflects a modern Britain. That is the issue for me. The intent of the Bill for the Government and the officers of the Bank of England is to modernise. What better opportunity to have a modern name?

I am suggesting a minimum change in legal terms to the Bank of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I suspect that in day-to-day operations it would be comparable to a company saying, “This is the legal name but trading as.” I am sure that for a generation to come it would still be known as the Bank of England, but honour would be settled by the fact that the legal title would be as I suggest. It is the minimum change, and it is put forward as an attempt to gain some common ground.

I know that a number of my colleagues—and not only in the SNP—are considering tabling other amendments with other names on Report. The issue is not going to go away, but I think this solution is doable and still retains the tradition of the Bank of England, which I am sure the Minister will defend.

What’s in a name? But we are happy to support the renaming of the Bank of England to the more accurately titled Bank of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, purely on a principled basis, given that they all fall under its area of geographical responsibility.

Before my hon. Friend sits down, would he like to contemplate that in the unlikely event that Scotland becomes independent and I am an elected Member of this House, I will certainly not be voting to allow Scotland to remain within sterling? Therefore, the likelihood is that Scotland will be required to have the euro as its currency. So if the name were to change and Scotland was using the euro, would the Government of the day not have to change the name back again in order to give some proper accuracy and balance?

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is very helpful. I have to say that I cannot foresee any circumstances in which my hon. Friend would not be re-elected and re-elected as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw—he truly is a man of the people—but I can foresee circumstances where the SNP’s desire might not reach fruition. My hon. Friend raises complicated and important questions and I look forward to the Minister’s response to them.

Members on the Opposition Benches have highlighted in a nutshell the essence of this debate and made some of the points I was going to make. The Bank of England as an entity predates the United Kingdom itself: it was founded in 1694, before the Union, and in the intervening 322 years it has built a globally prestigious brand, if I dare call it a brand. It is well known around the world and has a worldwide reputation as a strong and independent central bank, although independence obviously came quite a bit later. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment would not change this and it is not something we should dismiss lightly, but I think that people would still carry on referring to it as the Bank of England.

The Bank exists to serve the entire population of the United Kingdom. Its mission statement is:

“to promote the good of the people of the United Kingdom by maintaining monetary and financial stability”,

but I can understand from his political allegiance why the hon. Gentleman did not propose in his amendment that it be renamed the Bank of the United Kingdom, because his party’s aspiration is that we become a disunited kingdom, although we all sincerely hope that that never comes to pass.

I remember that in the referendum campaign there was some talk, not only of whether the euro would become the currency of Scotland, but of the groat becoming the currency of Scotland. I think that not answering that question was one of the real problems that the nationalists encountered in the 2014 referendum. It is worth reminding the Committee that the Bank has a clear framework for ensuring it understands the economic picture across England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, through 12 agencies located in the regions and countries of the UK. Naturally, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales all have their own individual Bank agencies, as do the regions of England, and the agents in these branches and across the rest of the country meet with some 9,000 contacts a year from a range of sectors, which provides a wealth of economic and financial intelligence to the Bank’s policy committees.

That vital source of information helps the Bank’s policy committees to understand both the financial and non-financial conditions for businesses in all four parts of the United Kingdom, whether it is a business’s ability to access credit, the condition of the housing market or the level of output. The Bank actively seeks to understand economic and financial conditions in all corners of the United Kingdom in order to set appropriate monetary policy in the United Kingdom.

It is not only the Bank’s agents who are the external face of the Bank. Members of the MPC, the FPC and the PRA board regularly make speeches and meet with businesses across the United Kingdom. In fact, in 2014-15, members of those three organisations conducted 54 visits in different parts of the UK. Engagement in the different countries and regions of the UK is clearly important at the highest levels of the Bank.

The Bank of England is known as the central bank of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman’s new clause would make no practical difference on the ground. He himself referred to the name being a “minor irritation”. Changing a name steeped in more than 300 years of history, particularly to the name that he suggests, would be to the detriment of the institution. It has become internationally renowned and respected with that name, and the value of that recognition should not be underestimated. International confidence in the Bank of England helps to support international confidence in our economy. Changing the Bank’s name would undermine that international recognition of it as a world-class central bank, and I therefore gently urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his new clause.

Any change to the Bank’s name would not affect coins because the Bank’s name does not appear on coinage, as far as I remember. It does, however, appear on notes. If there was ever an agreement to change the name of the Bank of England, that would have a knock-on effect on notes, but a sensible solution would be simply to let the notes wear out, as they do quickly, and then change them. I am certainly not proposing any name change that would have a major cost; I would not want that.

Members on both sides of the Committee raised the issue of what would happen if Scotland were to become independent. If I gather correctly the drift of the contributions, Members are worried that if Scotland becomes independent post Brexit, the name would have to be changed back. I am glad that Members are still alive to the fact that the independence issue is alive and well north of the border. I will not tempt the Chair’s patience by going too far into that; we will cross that road when we come to it, but I am glad Members are aware that the issue has not gone away.

The Minister’s final suggestion was that if there were to be a name change, it would be better to change it to something such as the Bank of the United Kingdom, and that I am being in some way devious by proposing this longer name. There was discussion about what the new name would be. I have tried to alert Members that that debate is going on in other parties within the House. I have heard suggestions such as the Sterling Central Bank. It seems to me that the longer form I propose is the least change and is therefore most able to encompass the Minister’s last point—we want to retain some of the tradition of the Bank, which was founded initially by a Scots person.

This is a live issue. The name will be changed at some point. Once a debate such as this emerges, it can only go in one direction. It would be better to choose a name that we can all agree on in the here and now. If the Minister rejects that on the basis of some grand tradition of the Bank of England, that undermines the essence of the Bill, which is to modernise the Bank and make it one that works for the whole of the nation as it is presently constituted. She and her Government are hiding behind the notion of modernity but they actually want to maintain a Bank which is run by the Executive, and which is not anywhere near as efficient as she thinks it is in terms of managing the prudential aspects of the economy.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. This is a simple new clause to change the terminology and move the Bank into the modern world. We have heard the Minister talk in this Committee about the importance of modernising the institution, and we have also heard eloquent discussions of the need to modernise from both the hon. Member for East Lothian and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw. The clause is a very simple way of showing that we are serious about this.

The Bank and the court of directors were established, as the Minister reminded us, in 1694. A lot of things have changed since then. The Bank is the second-oldest central bank in the world, after the Swedish Riksbank, and it is the eighth oldest bank. The Bank’s own website states that,

“the few public companies formed at the time of the Bank’s foundation, in 1694, tended to be governed by Courts of Directors”.

The phrase “courts of directors” is not used in relation to companies these days. It is worth asking whether the term “court of directors” survived into the modern day in other institutions, and whether this matters at all. Of course, this term did not survive into the modern day in other institutions, unless the Minister can tell me that I am wrong in that regard. If this does matter, should we continue to call what is currently termed the court of the Bank of England by that name? The Treasury Committee report of October 2011, “Accountability of the Bank of England”, stated:

“The Court is the governing body of the Bank of England. In this respect, it is the board of the Bank”.

The report also said:

“Given that the Court has changed recently, its name is outdated and does not give a clear picture of what the Court actually does. In terms of corporate governance the Court is the Board of the Bank and its name should change to reflect that. To reflect the shift of emphasis in its role, we recommend that the governing body of the Bank (Court) change its name to the ‘Supervisory Board of the Bank of England’. References below to the Board of the Bank of England in this report use this term. Whatever name is ultimately chosen, we strongly recommend that the term ‘Court’ is abolished”.

Those are the words of the Treasury Committee report in October 2011. I know that the court of the Bank, in replying to this report, did not express any opposition to this modest proposal to rename it. The court’s response read:

“Whether or not to rename Court is a matter for Government. We simply note that Court itself is divided on the balance of the arguments”.

In considering the cases for and against the renaming of the court of the Bank of England, the court stated:

“On the one hand, renaming would recognise the considerable changes in Court’s actual and prospective responsibilities in the past decade. On the other hand, it could give rise to serious misunderstandings, since amongst central banks ‘Board’ is often used to refer to an executive and/or policy making committee, as exemplified by the Federal Reserve Board and the Executive Board of the European Central Bank”.

We believe that such concerns can be overcome. The board—or the supervisory board, as the Treasury Committee would prefer to call it—would not be changing its responsibilities with this name change. Such a change, however, would be one small statement to help connect it to modern practice in terminology in major financial institutions. It would also cut through some of the mystery of the workings of the Bank and help make it more accessible to everyday people.

What is in a word? The hon. Gentleman has set out the case for changing the name of the court. I do not know about you, Mr Brady, but I rather like some of our old traditions in this country.

The court has existed since the Bank’s inception in 1694. The composition and structure have obviously changed over its long history. Initially, there were 26 individuals on the court, while today it is much smaller, with the executives and non-executives, and is much more characteristic of a modern, unitary board. The term supervisory board, used by the hon. Gentleman, is more redolent of the German approach to corporate governance than the British one. I am sure he will provide me with examples. It is not the Americans this time, but the Germans.

For me, there is charm in the term “court”, which is rooted in this long history. It has no particular mystery about it; it merely refers to the Bank’s governing body, which does indeed operate like a modern board. I do not feel we should argue over semantics. We should look at how the court functions. As the Committee has already heard, the court is now far smaller and far more effective than it was historically. There is a clear division between the role of the chief executive and the non-executive chair. The court is comprised of a majority of independent non-executive directors, and there are formal, transparent appointment procedures for executive and non-executive directors alike.

The changes in the Bill, which we have discussed at such great length, will further enhance the role of the court, making it a stronger decision-making body. In particular, to remind the Committee, we are making the oversight functions the responsibility of the whole court, ensuring that every member of the court—executive and non-executive—can be held to account for the use of these functions.

This brings the court into line with the recommendations in the Treasury Committee report. My view and that of the Government on the amendment is clear. Changing the name of the court would make absolutely no difference to how it operates in practice. It is the provisions in the Bill that will do that. I oppose the suggestion to change the name from the rather quaint and old-fashioned term of “court”, which has for me some charm.

That was indeed a charming oration from the Minister about how things were done in the past and continue to be done to this day. As much as I like many aspects of the history of this country, I am not persuaded that we should not press the matter to a vote. In the name of modernity, I seek to divide the Committee on this issue.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Brady, as we come to the final question of our proceedings, I put on record the Committee’s gratitude to you and Mr Wilson for having chaired our sittings so effectively. I also thank the Clerks and the Hansard reporters. For their incredibly diligent work behind the scenes—so often it is unsung—I also thank the Treasury officials, the Treasury legal team and, in this case, the Bank of England’s legal team. I put those thanks and that gratitude on the record. I also thank all members of the Committee for the care and attention that they have given to the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill.

I echo the sentiments expressed by the Minister. I thank you, Mr Brady, and Mr Wilson, the co-Chair of the Committee, for your chairmanship. I thank the Clerks and the staff. I thank the Minister for her patience and courtesy and for the detailed responses she has given throughout our proceedings. I also thank my hon. Friends and all members of the Committee. We have no objection to the Bill being reported to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

Good morning, everyone. I hope that colleagues had a good half term.

Clauses 22 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Disclosure of HMRC information in connection with non-domestic rating

I beg to move amendment 95, in clause 25, page 41, line 21, leave out from “to” to end of the subsection and insert—

“(a) a qualifying person for a qualifying purpose;

(b) a ratepayer for a hereditament.”

(1A) Information disclosed under subsection (1)(b) may—

(a) be disclosed for the purpose of providing the ratepayer with all information used to assist determination of the valuation of any hereditament for which the ratepayer is responsible for the non-domestic rating liability, and may be retained and used for that purpose, and

(b) include information relating to hereditaments not owned by that ratepayer.”

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 100, in clause 25, page 41, line 22, at end insert—

“( ) Regulations shall make provision for the disclosure of information as to the basis of valuation for a hereditament or class of hereditaments sufficient for an estimate to be made of the prospective non-domestic rates yield in connection with a Business Improvement District Scheme.”

Amendment 96, in clause 25, page 41, line 33, at end insert—

‘( ) an interested person for the purposes of an appeal against an assessment in the rating list;”

Amendment 97, in clause 25, page 42, line 1, at end insert—

“including purposes connected with an appeal against an assessment in the rating list”

Amendment 98, in clause 25, page 42, line 10, at end insert—

““interested person” shall have the same meaning as for the appeal regulations relating to appeals to the Valuation Tribunal for England in force from time to time.”

Excitement mounts as we enter the third day of our proceedings and turn to part 6 of the Bill and amendments to clause 25. The common theme of the amendments is exploring the reform of the unwieldy nature of business rates and business rate appeals. How, without compromising fair access to justice, do we discourage appeals that have no chance of getting through and that may clog up the system? I will briefly go through the amendments in this group and I will make some more general points in the clause stand part debate.

The amendments are concerned with the information held by the valuation office and whether that information should be made available to parties that have a genuine interest, namely those whose property is being rated; hence amendments 95, 96, 97 and 98. The amendments would allow ratepayers to seek professional advice, armed with all the relevant facts and figures held by the valuation office. The Government have held a consultation, which started in late October, on the issue of information exchange between ratepayers and the valuation office. Will the Minister enlighten the Committee on the results of that consultation in relation to the group of amendments under discussion?

Amendment 100 covers the access to valuation office information for the billing authority on issues to do with business improvement districts. The local authority needs the information to judge the likely rate yield for a business improvement district in its authority area. In the Lords, Baroness Neville-Rolfe said that she was not aware of any rating issues involving business improvement districts or of any concerns about a lack of information. However, if that information is not commercially sensitive, why not make access to the information available anyway? That would allow a ballpark figure for a potential business improvement district bid to be known up front and could promote the take-up of future bids. I would be grateful for the Minister’s response on that.

We understand that the valuation office has a duty to respect commercial confidentiality and to protect the privacy of businesses that have supplied information in good faith. Although we understand the need to respect commercial confidentiality, there must be compromise when limited access to key information held by the valuation office is made available to ratepayers and billing authorities to allow them to fulfil their duties as businesses and public sector organisations. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response.

I will deal with amendments 95 to 98, if I may. The Valuation Office Agency collects and holds commercially sensitive data from ratepayers, which it has a legal duty to protect. We understand the need for transparency to enable informed and well-founded rates appeals, but our recent consultation on rates appeals reform under the Bill proposed a check, challenge and appeal system that ensures that ratepayers will get more and better information earlier in the appeals process, while protecting sensitive information from excessive disclosure.

The amendments propose far greater disclosure of information and offer no protection to the ratepayer who provides that sensitive information, which is key to a successful valuation process. Although I understand why the amendments have been tabled, I firmly state that they are disproportionate and do not strike the correct balance between openness and the duty and need to protect privacy.

On amendment 100, I have some experience of BIDs. I do not know whether other Members have experience of them in their constituencies, but I had a BID in mine that did not work out. At the completion of the five-year tenure, the businesses—it should always be the businesses—voted not to have a BID anymore and, properly, have gone down a different route. I know that BIDs can be hugely successful; I have been told by my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) that the BID in her constituency works extremely well. Some are good and some are bad.

The proposals in amendment 100 are not needed and I am not aware of any evidence of anyone having said that they are a good idea. The amendment would require the information underlying valuations to be disclosed to the BID, and I do not think that that is based on any practical need. As we know, BIDs set their levies and collect from businesses based on rateable value information from the local authority that in effect operates the BID and collects the levies. We are not aware that the BIDs want any more information on valuation lists than they already have as they go about their business of setting levies.

The review is primarily within the domain of the Treasury, and I am sure we all look forward, the consultation having concluded, to the Chancellor making any such announcements on reviews as he sees fit and proper in his Budget speech. My views are widely known: I very much hope that someone’s rates will no longer go up if they do the right thing and invest in new plant and machinery. That seems perverse, and those of us in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills continue to make representations to the Chancellor. As Members would expect from our exceedingly good Chancellor of the Exchequer, he is always willing to listen. I am also confident, based on his outstanding track record, that he will, as ever, be on the side of business, as we on the Government Benches always are.

I thank the Minister for her response. I advise her not to have that extra Weetabix before our Committee in future; she needs to pace herself a bit before she reaches her red meat perorations in Committee.

I obviously agree with the Minister’s point about plant and machinery. She knows that Her Majesty’s Opposition completely agree with that idea, which could be of particular benefit to our steel industry; as we all know, it badly needs that kind of support. I hope we will have opportunities in the near future to press the issue further in Parliament and to discuss our steel industry, its future and the need for the Government to do more to support it. The Minister is very persuasive and influential, so I am totally confident that the Chancellor will announce those exemptions for plant and machinery in the Budget.

The Minister has just said that she is very strongly lobbying the Chancellor—whom she described as “listening”—for this exemption, which she sees as absolutely necessary to business, particularly to industries such as the steel industry. I will put my faith in the Minister as far as that is concerned, and I will not press these amendments to a vote today. I note that the Minister has said on the record how strongly she is lobbying for this exemption on plant and machinery, and I offer her my support on that. I am confident that there will be a result from the Government because it is simply common sense to do what the Minister said.

I take on board the Minister’s point about BIDs. That was a probing amendment, and it was useful to hear her views on the variable forms of BIDs and the fact that they can work in some cases, but do not work so well in others. It is worth the Government having on their radar the fact that these sorts of issues around rating could be quite important for BIDs. I note what the Minister said about the broader issues of the consultation, not only the issue of plant and machinery. We can expect to hear from the Chancellor in his Budget statement as to the outcome of that consultation, which Baroness Neville-Rolfe mentioned in the other place. We will obviously be listening very carefully to what the Chancellor has to say when the time comes. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Clause 25 is about the disclosure of information by HMRC in relation to non-domestic rates. It is fairly generally agreed that the business rates system is broken, and probably has been for some time. It needs significant reform. There are an estimated 300,000 appeals in the system, and back in 2013 the Chancellor promised to deal with that backlog.

Businesses need a much better understanding of how their rates are calculated and to be able to be confident that they are paying the correct amount of tax, so that appeals are much less common than they are currently. There is probably broad agreement on that across the House. If businesses had more access to the information, they would be less likely to appeal. It would save time, effort and money all around. A more efficient, fairer and reformed business rates system would enhance the enterprise environment, which is, after all, the purpose of the Bill.

The actual workings and calculation of how the valuation office arrives at its conclusions are not generally available to businesses. The Department for Communities and Local Government and the valuation office have maintained that the information is commercially confidential, and businesses’ concerns about the process are very well known. Without access to valuation office information, ratepayers cannot have the confidence that their bill is absolutely correct.

A three-stage process is currently in place, which is overly long. It can take nearly three years before even the first two stages of the process are concluded. That sort of delay harms businesses’ cash flow. Under this system, the onus is on the business to prove, with evidence, that the bill is wrong, but they have very limited access to that information. There is no obligation on the valuation office to prove that the information is correct. In other words, in this system the valuation office is both judge and jury in appeal cases, and the appellant has no right to see the evidence used to assess their case.

Valuation tribunal hearings for England will now no longer be free. That represents an additional burden on businesses. Tribunals will listen only to original evidence submitted at the time of the appeal. By the time everything is determined, that evidence could be nearly three years old, as I said earlier. If any new evidence comes to light in the intervening three years, it will be deemed inadmissible. That applies both to the valuation office and to the appellant. It is also proposed that there will no longer be a right of appeal to the upper tribunal on matters other than points of law.

In this system, the valuation office has the monopoly on knowledge and power in terms of business rates and business rates appeals. Those concerns were all raised in the other place when the Bill was discussed there. Another concern was that the proposed challenges to the business rates appeal system will shift the burden of proof even further from the valuation office, which has access to all the relevant information, to the ratepayer, who has no access to it. Will the Minister accept that as a fair assessment of the changes being made?

Checking assessed values will likely become more costly and time-consuming for business. The burden will fall especially on SMEs, which will become increasingly susceptible to the activities of unscrupulous rating advisers. Is it acceptable for the state to impose a significant tax on businesses without any obligation to justify the derivation of that tax liability? I cannot think of any other tax that can be levied where the taxpayer does not understand in detail the basis on which the tax man or woman has calculated the tax due.

The valuation office is currently willing to share rental evidence as part of the procedures leading to a valuation tribunal hearing. Is there any reason why, in principle, that sharing could not be undertaken during the initial check stages? Surely that would make much more sense. The current system forces businesses to overcome many hurdles before they can access that limited information. How do the Government respond to the concerns raised by businesses that they are being given extra burdens rather than relieved of them?

I will speak directly to clause 25 and the reasons why I urge everyone to vote for it to stand part of the Bill. Clause 25 removes a major barrier to the efficient system that we all want. The Valuation Office Agency collects information about taxpayers and their properties. That may include plans of a property, details of property use and occupiers’ names. By virtue of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, the VOA may be prevented from sharing certain information with local authorities, which can result in the same property being inspected by both the local authority and the VOA. Clause 25 reduces the burdens for business while protecting taxpayers’ information by creating a gateway for the exchange of information between the VOA and local authorities.

Clause 25 inserts new sections into the Local Government Finance Act 1988. New section 63A allows the VOA to share information with local government for business rates purposes, and new section 63B ensures that taxpayers’ information is safeguarded, with enforcement penalties for wrongful disclosure of information. New section 63C exempts the information from the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which is consistent with the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005. In short, clause 25 will begin to reduce the burden on our businesses, and will make the system better. I am not pretending that it is perfect, but it will certainly make things considerably better.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26

Alteration of non-domestic rating lists

Amendment made: 10, in clause 26, page 43, line 31, after “English list” insert “or a Welsh list”.—(Anna Soubry.)

This amendment and amendments 11 to 15 extend the amendments made by clause 26 to section 55 of the Local Government and Finance Act 1988, which currently apply to England only, so that the Welsh Ministers have the same power by regulations to make provision in relation to proposals to alter local or central non-domestic rating lists for Wales.

I beg to move amendment 99, in clause 26, page 43, line 41, at end insert—

“( ) provision for valuation officers to provide such information as to the basis of an assessment to alter or enter a rating assessment in the rating list as shall be sufficient for the ratepayer to understand the underlying valuation evidence;”

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 101, in clause 26, page 43, line 45, at end insert—

“(d) provision for a separate procedure for hereditaments with a rateable value below any threshold set out in regulations;

(e) performance standards for the Valuation Office of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Valuation Tribunal;

(f) provision for a right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if the valuation officer has not given notice of their decision to the person making a proposal for the alteration of the list within 6 months of the proposal being made;

(g) a requirement that the Valuation Tribunal must determine any appeal submitted to it within 12 months of it being made, or within such extended period as may be agreed upon in writing between the appellant and Tribunal.”

Amendment 102, in clause 26, page 44, leave out lines 23 to 25.

Amendment 130, in clause 26, page 44, line 25, at end insert—

“(e) about the parties to be included in the appeal, including billing authorities.”

This amendment would provide for provision to be made in regulations about participation of billing authorities in the appeals process.

New clause 29—Alternative dispute resolution: appeals in relation to non-domestic rating list—

“The Secretary of State may by regulation make provision for a scheme of alternative dispute resolution for the purposes of any appeal against an assessment in the non-domestic rating list.”

New clause 30—Environmental considerations—

“The Secretary of State shall make provision for a scheme of exclusion from any assessment in the 2017 non-domestic rating list or thereafter of an item of plant or machinery required wholly or mainly by virtue of environmental or health and safety legislation and which does not of itself increase the market value or profitability of the hereditament.”

I think that the Opposition were still thinking about whether they wanted to refer to new clause 31 as part of this group.

We will think about new clause 31, although my understanding was that we could not refer to it in this group. In any case, I will refer to the group before us. We are due to discuss new clause 31 on Thursday, and I might make passing reference to it.

Amendment 99 would require valuation officers to provide enough information for businesses to make sense of the underlying reason for their valuation. Amendment 101 is about trying to improve the service of the valuation office by introducing performance standards, appeals where decisions are not timely and time limits on determining appeals, and I would be grateful if the Minister could outline her response to those proposals.

Amendment 102 also deals with appeals. The Bill proposes that a charge be made to a business that puts forward an appeal. This is an enterprise Bill; to add an additional expense to businesses to access a review or appeal at this point in the economic cycle does not seem to be the most enterprising of proposals. As the Minister knows, the international and national markets are volatile at the moment and we are not yet out of the economic danger zone. Placing additional cost on businesses is a threat to recovery and to existing businesses and new start-ups. Why are the Government placing an additional cost burden on business in what they deem to be an enterprise Bill? Amendment 130 includes the billing authority in the appeals process, which seems to be a sensible suggestion.

New clause 29 makes provision for an alternative dispute resolution procedure to cover the work of the valuation office. Does the Minister agree that this is a reasonable proposal? Has any progress been made on the issue since it was raised in the other place, where there was some discussion about an alternative dispute resolution procedure? If the Government are still arguing that existing powers already provide for matters to be refereed for arbitration and that the addition of more processes would complicate and slow down the system, will the Minister agree to a review involving key stakeholders a year or two after implementation, with a view towards full ombudsman status if there are still problems around dispute resolution?

New clause 30 is about plant and machinery that, in this instance, is required for health and safety or environmental reasons. In the Lords Baroness Neville-Rolfe said that the Government were conducting a review of business rates, as we discussed earlier, including the rating of plant and machinery and the roles of reliefs and exemptions. She said that the business rates review was to report by the end of last year. With reference to what we said earlier, will the Minister confirm that the review has concluded and is on the Chancellor’s desk? Will she also tell the Committee whether the review will cover our proposal in the new clause, namely plant and machinery specifically required for health and safety or environmental reasons?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will press the amendment to a vote. Although he is right that there is nothing wrong in tabling amendments in order to probe and see whether there areas where we agree, there is a real danger that these amendments would undermine the new appeals process by removing features: for example, the power to charge a fee for appeals, the flexibility for timescales to be determined as the new system beds in and the ability to respond quickly to address performance issues.

I am helpfully assisted, as ever, by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth, who is also the Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government, who makes a clear point about why we are so firm in our desire to make these reforms in relation to charging. It is to ensure that people are dissuaded from making spurious claims and that the whole appeal system concentrates on genuine appeals that must be heard. Unfortunately, there is evidence that the system is effectively being somewhat abused. It is also terribly important to add that we have consulted on proposals and discussed them with business groups, and that we continue to take a collaborative approach as we draw up the draft regulations, on which we will consult.

I think that we all accept that we must reduce the number of appeals within the system, but is it not the case—this was the point behind some of our previous amendments—that the current system almost compels people to appeal due to the lack of information available to businesses? In charging fees before reforming that aspect of the system, the Government might be accused of putting the cart before the horse.

The danger, as the evidence suggests, is that businesses will just give it a punt. They will be encouraged by people out there saying, “We can reduce your bills if you let us appeal,” and will think, “I’ve got nothing to lose by doing this, so I’ll have a go.” That is one reason why the system at the moment is indisputably clogged up. I can understand why businesses will say that, but it is not the right way to approach any appeal, in whatever field.

Our other concern about amendment 101 is that it will interfere wrongly with the independence of the judicial body. The amendments will introduce unnecessary and unwanted complications through an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, greater involvement of billing authorities and inappropriate sharing of sensitive ratepayer information, and will pre-empt the outcome of the business rates review by addressing unrelated issues in appeals.

In summary, we have struck the right balance. We are making the necessary reforms, and part of that is ensuring that the appeals that go forward have some substance. The changes will help address that. For those reasons, I oppose the amendments.

I thank the Minister for her response. She is right that we are probing the Government’s thinking in our amendments. Not only is that appropriate, it is our duty as Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. It is our duty to probe forensically and in detail, and to press her and the Government if necessary, because that is how we make better law.

The Minister rather dismissed amendment 101. I remind her that the amendment simply says that the valuation office should perform according to performance standards, which I had thought would receive a better response from her. She might have said that there is a better way to achieve performance standards, rather than simply dismissing the idea. Our amendment would hold the valuation office—a public body that determines people’s taxation—to better standards for the time that it takes to respond to appeals. It would set a time limit that is not inflexible and that could be varied if there were reasonable grounds for doing so, yet she chose not to respond to the reasonable points made in our amendment.

The Minister almost suggested that the amendment simply seeks to add bureaucratic burdens to the system. It does not. It seeks to bring fairness into the system, rebalancing it away from faceless bureaucrats determining people’s taxation on the grounds of information that businesses know nothing about and back towards businesses, which are not simply composed of feckless individuals who appeal against their taxation on a whimsical basis but are struggling to get by and face significant tax bills, with no idea how they have been determined. To dismiss it, as the Minister for Housing and Planning did in reported speech via the Minister, as simply being a process by which they have a punt is very unfair to many of those businesses, which are trying to understand whether the tax determination that they face is based on real evidence—evidence to which they have no access.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s generosity in giving way. Does he accept that the point we are making is that currently the vast majority of appeals make no change? That highlights the fact that there are businesses out there—having been in business myself, I remember experiencing this—that specialise in going round small businesses, saying, “For no-win, no-fee, we will put in a claim.” Those spurious claims are therefore being put in, and that prevents genuine businesses putting forward genuine claims and getting heard in a quick and efficient manner. The Bill is trying to deal with that by changing the system. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that we are looking to help businesses that have a genuine claim.

I absolutely accept that point and the spirit in which the Minister made his intervention. My point is that that is simply one part of the imbalance in the system. The other part is the lack of information available to businesses on how their business rates are determined. That is a real issue, and we should not just dismiss it simply as inappropriate in terms of commercial confidentiality. Many business organisations believe that more information could be made available to them on how their tax is determined. That would also act as an incentive for spurious appeals not to be made.

All we are arguing with our amendments is for that balance to be in place. I remind the Ministers and all colleagues that amendment 101 would introduce performance standards for the valuation office. We want appeals to be timely and some limit to be set on the amount of time that the valuation office can take on determining those appeals, with some flexibility where it is not possible to meet that time limit for very good reasons. I reiterate that the response to the amendment did not adequately deal with those perfectly reasonable proposals. The Government have not offered another way, other than to impose a fee, of improving the service to businesses provided by the valuation office. I cannot see how our proposals are unreasonable.

As I said at the outset, and being a reasonable person, I will not press the amendment to a vote, because I am all for our trying to work through the issues together, but it is important to put on record that there is a real concern in this area, and it is important that the Government are not seen to be complacent about it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 11, in clause 26, page 44, line 5, leave out “Consolidated Fund” and insert “appropriate fund”.

This amendment and amendment 14 ensure that, where regulations under section 55 of the Local Government and Finance Act 1988 provide for valuation officers to impose financial penalties regarding the provision of false information in relation to a proposal to alter a Welsh list, the regulations must require the sums received to be paid into the Welsh Consolidated Fund.

Amendment 12, in clause 26, page 44, line 14, after “English list” and insert “or a Welsh list”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 10.

Amendment 13, in clause 26, page 44, line 24, leave out “Consolidated Fund” and insert “appropriate fund”.

This amendment and amendment 14 enable regulations under section 55 of the Local Government and Finance Act 1988 to make provision about the payment of fees into the Welsh Consolidated Fund where the fees are paid by ratepayers in relation to appeals relating to proposals to alter a Welsh list.

Amendment 14, in clause 26, page 44, line 27, at end insert—

“( ) After subsection (7A) insert—

(7B) For the purposes of subsections (4B)(b) and (5A)(d) “the appropriate fund” means—

(a) where the provision made by virtue of subsection (4A)(c) or (5) is in relation to a proposal to alter an English list, the Consolidated Fund, and

(b) where the provision made by virtue of subsection (4A)(c) or (5) is in relation to a proposal to alter a Welsh list, the Welsh Consolidated Fund.””

See the explanatory statement for amendments 11 and 13.

Amendment 15, in clause 26, page 44, line 39, at end insert—

““Welsh list” means—

(a) a local non-domestic rating list that has to be compiled for a billing authority in Wales, or

(b) the central non-domestic rating list that has to be compiled for Wales.””

See the explanatory statement for amendment 10.

Amendment 16, in clause 26, page 44, line 47, leave out from “unless” to end of line 48 and insert “—

(a) where those regulations relate to a proposal to alter an English list, a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament;

(b) where those regulations relate to a proposal to alter a Welsh list, a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.”

This amendment and amendments 17 and 18 provide for regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under section 55 of the Local Government and Finance Act 1988 as amended by amendments 10 to 15 to be subject to procedure before the National Assembly for Wales equivalent to the procedure before Parliament which is required for corresponding regulations made by the Secretary of State under that section.

Amendment 17, in clause 26, page 45, line 2, leave out from “is” to end of line 3 and insert “—

(a) in the case of regulations relating to England, subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament;

(b) in the case of regulations relating to Wales, subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 16.

Amendment 18, in clause 26, page 45, line 3, at end insert—

“(3G) In subsection (3E), “English list” and “Welsh list” have the same meaning as in section 55.”—(Anna Soubry.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 16.

Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Allowable assistance under Industrial Development Act 1982

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

We may well return to some matters relating to clause 27 if and when we get to new clauses later in our proceedings. We are making good progress this morning, so, who knows, we may well get there on Thursday. In the meantime, will the Minister outline, on the record and for the benefit of the Committee, why the Government believe that clause 27 is necessary?

The Industrial Development Act 1982 is 30 years old, and the Government are updating it to reflect economic developments. The clause amends the threshold before which a parliamentary resolution is needed to authorise financial support under section 8 of the 1982 Act. It increases the threshold from £10 million to £30 million, which is a reflection of inflation. A resolution of the House of Commons would still be required for projects over £30 million. It is a technical change, which will result in more efficient procedures to fund section 8 projects worth under £30 million. This would have removed the need for a resolution, for example, in 2013, when support for the start-up loan scheme was increased from £10 million to £15.5 million. I am not saying that that is a small amount of money—of course it is not—but it is in Government terms. It is simply a reflection of the fact that the provision of £10 million was made all those years ago and here we are in this day and age, when inflation has taken that threshold to £30 million. We say that this is a reasonable thing to do and does not take away power from Parliament that it already has.

I thank the Minister for that explanation. It makes sense to update the limit after such a lengthy period and on that basis we do not intend to divide the Committee on clause stand part.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

Grants etc towards electronic communications services and networks

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

I should say from the outset that we also support this clause, but we would like clarification on how, and how often, the Minister expects these powers to be used. I would like to discuss that before we give the clause a fair sending-off. Ensuring adequate infrastructure provision is obviously a very important role of Government. To be slightly controversial—though it is not controversial with Opposition Members—this Government and its coalition predecessors do not have a good record when it comes to infrastructure in general and digital or communications infrastructure in particular. As this week’s leader in The Economist makes clear, investment in infrastructure is vital to stimulate the long-term health of the economy.

It might look as though this clause represents a “get out of jail free” card for Ministers as regards communications infrastructure. This week a businessman in the north-east told the North East chamber of commerce that he can see his house, with its 50 megabit connection, from his office window; but he has to go home to send important work emails because the business park he works in does not have decent enough broadband.

Ministers have handed hundreds of millions of pounds to BT to roll out what a well-functioning market would potentially have delivered anyway, leaving harder-to-reach communities behind. The result is that we have a superfast broadband roll-out programme that is fragmented and monopolistic and that will be bad for consumer choice, bad for the taxpayer, bad for competition and bad for investment. The Government seem to have realised this and triggered their own Back Benchers, in a classic move, to clamour for the break-up of BT after the Government handed it the monopoly in their bungled procurement programme. Will the Minister assure the Committee that they have learnt lessons from these mistakes about broadband? Are the powers contained in the clause just for Ministers to cover over their own record on broadband roll-out, or will they fit into some kind of strategy and long-term vision for communications infrastructure? Broadband Delivery UK and Ofcom have no plans for broadband roll-out to business parks, meaning that many are being left behind as the Government’s superslow broadband roll-out creeps out to residential areas. Will the powers in the clause be used to address what is becoming an increasing problem for firms based in business parks, and what else are the Government planning to do to sort that out?

We have also tabled new clauses that might be debated on Thursday. I hope that between now and then, Ministers will take a good look at them. If they are serious about tackling the issue, I hope that they will support the clauses when we come to discuss them.

If I may, I will speak specifically to the clause. If we were to stray into discussion of the successes—there have been many—of the Government’s programme to roll out superfast broadband and generally improve access for individuals at home and businesses in a digital age, we could be here for the rest of the morning. We do not mind debating such things, but this is neither the time nor the place to do so; a number of hon. Members, particularly on the Government Benches, might want to make all sorts of contributions to that debate based on their experience and that of their constituents.

We know that there are concerns and that much more needs to be done and will be done. Clause 28 is essentially one of the pieces of the jigsaw. The Industrial Development Act 1982, to which I have referred, is now more than 30 years old, and some parts need updating.

The Minister wants to keep us on the clause, but it is actually very wide-ranging. On line 22, proposed new section 13A, “Improvement of electronic communications networks and services etc”, says:

“This section applies if it appears to the Secretary of State that adequate provision has not been made for an area in respect of electronic communications facilities.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West gave an example, and I have numerous cases in my constituency, as do the Minister’s hon. Friends. If not now, when we will address some of those concerns? When will the Secretary of State take the powers given to him in the clause to improve broadband, whether for trade in this country or for the important international trade on which we rely to close the trade deficit and improve prosperity overall?

Sorry, Sir David; I was enjoying an interesting piece of information from my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning. He was telling me, by way of giving an example of the progress that this Government are making on addressing the problem—I am waiting for him to give me a nod before I use these words—that a deal has been struck with the Home Builders Federation that from now on, all new homes will include access to broadband. That is excellent news.

I think that some of us had begun to create the argument that there is nothing to prevent local authorities from making it a condition of granting planning permission, especially to new business estates, that proper access should be included to superfast broadband, mobile phones or whatever it may be. Even if they cannot make it a condition of planning permission—we all know how these things work and the sorts of discussion that developers have with local authorities—those things should absolutely be there. There is a growing feeling that in this modern age, digital technology, superfast broadband and what I call full-fat mobile phone technology should be treated as a fourth utility. If we are making some movement towards that—my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning might be able to update us—it would be a commendable move.

I thought I would join the gang in mirroring the interventions from those on the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that it is good news that we announced a deal a couple of weeks ago between BT Openreach and the Home Builders Federation. Now, all builders putting in a planning application, particularly small and medium-sized builders, will be encouraged to notify BT. There is now a clear and simple system for them to ensure that every new home built can have access to superfast, or indeed infinity, broadband. All the details are available on the Department for Communities and Local Government website. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that it is a big step forward for people across the country who, as she rightly says, now see broadband as one of the most important utilities.

That is excellent news. I am sure that all of us will ensure that it is communicated all the way down to our local authorities.

We are enjoying this subject; I think the Minister made a further policy announcement in saying that in future, the Government intended to make it a requirement of planning applications—

No. It is my own opinion.

I am sorry; I thought that when Ministers spoke in this place, they spoke on behalf of the Government. Is it the Government’s intention, given what the Minister said earlier, to make broadband part of a planning application? Can she clarify that for the Committee?

The hon. Gentleman has a remarkable ability to take what I would have thought was the most innocuous of statements and turn it into some sort of great Government policy announcement. He does not understand localism. He thinks that all power must vest here in Parliament, centrally in Whitehall, but one of the great joys of our Government is that we believe in devolving power down to local authorities. All I was saying was that as far as I know, there is nothing to prevent a local authority from making such a condition, whatever the development might be. That is the joy of localism: planning officers can look at an application and say, “Let’s make it a condition of this planning application that you provide access to superfast broadband.”

What is not to like about that? We do not need the heavy hand of Government for that to happen. Local authorities are to be wildly encouraged to use common sense so that they deliver to householders and businesses the tools that they need in a modern age. That is what I am saying, and I do not think that there is anything contentious about it. I did warn you, Sir David, that if we got into this debate we would be here all day.

But we are going to be here all day.

But we are not going to be stuck on this clause all day. This clause is technical and will enable financial assistance to be granted to improve electronic communication networks and services. The power will not and should not be used to displace investment by industry.

Communications infrastructure investment, as we know, continues to grow. I am happy to put it on the record that I have not enjoyed the best of experiences with BT. I was due to meet BT representatives one day, and on that very day BT decided to disconnect my constituency telephone. You couldn’t make it up.

Surely a coincidence!

I hope so. It was not because IPSA had failed to pay my bill; it was because my team had, quite reasonably, asked BT to improve the internet connection, which many of us know is not always the finest. For some reason—BT still has not explained why—in the attempt to improve my internet connection, it disconnected all the phones. Even more bizarrely, although it had taken about five seconds to disconnect them, it took about three days to reconnect them.

Anyway, you see how we drift, Sir David. However, my dear friends at BT are investing £3 billion in deploying fibre broadband. Virgin is investing £3 billion to extend its network footprint from 13 million to 17 million homes by 2020. We know that we must do more, but those are the huge advances being made. Investment by non-major operators such as UK Broadband, Gigaclear, CityFibre and Hyperoptic also plays a valuable role.

The clause is effectively a backstop. It gives Government the option to provide targeted support where it is most needed. That is why I hope that all hon. Members will not hesitate to support it.

That was a surprisingly enjoyable exchange. I think that the Minister both overestimates and underestimates her power. She seems to think that when she says something as a Minister of the Crown, it does not have force. She is here, radiant with the lawful power of her office, so she should not underestimate the effect of her words, particularly in this kind of forum, even when she is expressing personal opinion rather than speaking in her role as Minister. Perhaps the Minister also sometimes overestimates her power in trying to decide whether we are venturing too widely on a clause. Of course, you have the authority and power to decide that, Sir David, and you would quickly call us to order if we were doing so.

This has, however, been a useful exchange. On that basis, having put our points on the record and with the possibility of extending this discussion when we get to the new clauses later on, I do not intend to divide the House over clause stand part.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29

UK Government Investments Limited

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

The Government spokesperson in the other place said that the clause

“is an administrative measure to enable the Shareholder Executive’s ongoing work to continue after its functions transition to UKGI and ensures that a specific funding power is in place”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 November 2015; Vol. 767, c. 937.]

A number of questions were raised in the Lords, and I want to give the Minister an opportunity to update the Committee on some of those issues. Will she give us some idea about the combined costs of UK Government Investments and whether there are cost savings as a result of merging the two entities under the clause? Will she give us any information about the status of civil servants if they are recruited to the new body? Will they become agency employees or secondees to the new organisation?

Will all the employees in every part of UKGI be subject to the proposed public sector exit payments that come later in the Bill? I assume that the restrictions under those public sector payments may well apply to the new employees of UKGI, but it would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that. Will guaranteed bonuses be offered to the staff? For higher earners in Government, that is the traditional method of incentive and is currently outside the public sector exit payments provision.

If the permanent secretary to the Treasury is on the board of the new body, how will that role be squared with their role as an accounting officer, given that they will have duties to the company under company law? Is there a conflict of interest, and what will the relationship to Ministers be?

On improving the service to customer departments, what are the current identified weaknesses and how will these arrangements help to improve that? How are the Government going to evaluate the new body’s performance in relation to improving the service to its customer departments? What independent body will be charged with evaluating whether it has provided a better service to those customer departments?

I would also be interested to know whether this arrangement has any implications—this is reasonably topical at the moment, given our recent discussions—relating to the requirements of state aid rules and Brussels? Do we need to be aware of any particular interplay here? What would the role of UKGI be in relation to the Department of Energy and Climate Change? That Department is responsible for environmental improvements, so how will it relate to UK Government Investments Limited? Do the Government have any intentions about—or have they given any thought to or had any discussions on—the possible privatisation of the company at some future date? Is that part of the Government’s thinking in setting up the body under the Act? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

I may not be able to answer all the questions that the hon. Gentleman has asked, but I assure you, Sir David, that I will write to him with any answers that I am not able to give today.

Clause 29 ensures that UK Government Investments Limited can carry out its important work, which is managing taxpayer stakes in businesses, running corporate and financial asset sales and providing corporate finance advice across government. The creation of UKGI will bring together the Shareholder Executive from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and UK Financial Investments Limited from the Treasury into a single company. I pay tribute to all the members of ShEx whom I have met. It has been a pleasure to work with them. I value the advice they have given me; I know I speak for all Ministers who have come into contact with them. I do not know United Kingdom Financial Investments Limited as well, but I know the Shareholder Executive and it has served me extremely well. I just wanted to record that.

This coming together with respect to Government investments—I do not know what one would actually call it, as it would not be a company; it is indeed a body—will provide corporate finance services across Government. The decision to establish it as an arm’s length company will provide it with additional independence and a clear corporate governance structure. Again, it needs to be stressed that ShEx has a level of independence that means that one trusts the advice given.

ShEx operators will transfer out of BIS to UKGI, and ShEx will be rebranded as UKGI. It will continue to offer impartial advice directly to the Secretary of State and to the permanent secretary of the Department. That point is worth mentioning: the advice is given not just to Ministers but to the permanent secretary and civil servants throughout the Department.

From 1 April, UKFI will become a subsidiary company of UKGI, continuing to operate as it currently does until, in time, it fully merges with UKGI. The Chancellor will be the Minister responsible for the company and will bring together expertise from the private sector with that of civil servants. The Government intend that UKGI will be directly funded by its parent Department, HM Treasury. That will enable ongoing ShEx work to continue after it becomes part of UKGI.

UKGI’s arm’s length status as a company means that it cannot be directly funded on a continuing basis as an element of administrative expenditure without a specific power. The clause is in line with HM Treasury’s manual, “Managing public money”, which requires specific statutory authority for significant items of ongoing Government expenditure. Given that the activity and staffing levels of ShEx and UKFI will continue in UKGI, costs for the company are not expected to depart greatly from the current costs, which are about £14 million combined. Of course that may vary, depending on the work that UKGI is asked to perform.

I am confident that I have not answered all the questions, and I apologise for that, but I will write with all the answers.

I thank the Minister, and I appreciate that I asked a lot of questions. I am perfectly content for her to provide us with the answers to all of the unanswered ones via correspondence. I think it is right that the body should be part of the Treasury and it is right to legislate through the clause to give it authority. We will support the clause on that basis.

It would be useful if the Minister answered one of my questions if she can, although if she cannot I accept that. Quite soon we will discuss the UK Green Investment Bank, a Government-created company that has been put out to privatisation. My question is whether there is any intention—I do not think there should be—

I have been helpfully advised. I did not think there were any plans for privatisation, and I am more than happy to confirm that. Perhaps I can also add that there are no guaranteed bonuses—they are all performance-based. Any secondments would be on the same terms as the Home Department.

Through that intervention the Minister has helpfully shortened the letter that she will have to write to the Committee. With her assurance on the privatisation question, I am happy, at this point, with the promise of correspondence from the Minister, to allow clause stand part to proceed without any intervention on our part.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30

Disposal of Crown’s shares in UK Green Investment Bank company

I beg to move amendment 129, in clause 30, page 48, line 2, at end insert—

“6B Report on remuneration of chair, non-executive directors and executive team

(1) For each year following a disposal of shares held by the Crown in a UK Green Investment Bank company the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the remuneration of the company’s chair, non-executive directors and executive team by the company.

(2) The report shall include a statement of the framework or broad policy for the remuneration of the above individuals.

(3) The report shall include the value of the following, where applicable, in respect of each individual—

(a) salary or fee;

(b) pension;

(c) other cash or non-cash benefits, including bonus or performance-related payments; and

(d) shareholdings in a UK Green Investment Bank company.”

This amendment would require, following a disposal of shares in a UK Green Investment Bank company, that the Secretary of State report annually on the remuneration of the Chair, non-executive directors and Executive Team of the company.

The UK Green Investment Bank began operating in 2012 as a fully Government-owned bank. It purpose is to invest in viable green infrastructure projects that would not otherwise be able to obtain funding due to market failure, or to stimulate the market. It has invested in 58 projects with a total value of more than £10 billion.

In June 2015, the Government announced plans to privatise the Green Investment Bank and this Bill, introduced in the House of Lords, is the legislative means to do that. The Government’s primary goal is for the Green Investment Bank to be reclassified as a private sector organisation, so that its finance will not contribute to public sector net debt. To achieve that, the Government believe that they must remove reference to the Green Investment Bank’s green purposes and identity from the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013.

I am sure that the Minister will argue that a privatised Green Investment Bank will have access to a greater volume of capital and a larger range of sectors. I have just come from a meeting with the Aldersgate Group about the European Commission’s circular economy package, which was published on 2 December. That is a whole new area in which the Green Investment Bank could invest over the next five years and which is set to create 90,000 new green jobs in the UK economy.

The Green Investment Bank supports the move, and the Government have drawn on that support as a primary motivation for their plans to proceed. The Environmental Audit Committee heard in an inquiry that concluded just before Christmas that the Government had not undertaken enough consultation on the decision to privatise the Green Investment Bank. That is often contrasted with the detailed consultation that went into the original formation of the bank, from which, the Committee was told, privatisation so soon after creation was not discussed. The EAC also heard that the Government had not presented enough evidence for privatisation, or considered a wide enough range of alternatives to a sell-off. There are obviously many different ways in which a Government can decide to privatise or part-privatise their assets.

In its response to the EAC report, the Government said that their announcement to privatise had been followed up

“by substantial engagement with stakeholders and the media to explain the case”

for privatisation. The Government also claimed that they had undertaken unpublished market testing over the course of two years. I am interested to hear from the Minister whether she would be willing to publish that market testing.

The Government said that they would not publish an impact assessment because there were no regulatory or significant cost impacts of the sale of the Green Investment Bank or changes to its pre-existing policy goals. We will talk about that later when we come to clause 32.

So the only robust consultation that the Government can point to, if they do not publish the market testing, is that with the Green Investment Bank itself. The Government also relied heavily on the support of the Green Investment Bank and its executives for privatisation in evidence and in response to the Committee.

The amendment that I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley have tabled invites the Government to commit to providing information to Parliament on the remuneration of the Green Investment Bank’s senior management and board after privatisation. After all, what could they possibly have to hide?

The information set out in our amendment is currently provided in the Green Investment Bank’s annual report. How much will those in charge of the Green Investment Bank stand to gain personally from the privatisation process? How objective can their views be, if they are to gain personally from the bank’s privatisation?

This amendment follows a long series of difficulties with banks that have, by necessity, been taken into public ownership and in which large numbers of senior executives have continued to receive very large bonuses. At a time when people in my constituency have barely seen their pay rise over the past seven years, we do not want employees of a state-owned bank suddenly having a huge payday from the privatisation of this bank.

The Government will continue to act as a minority shareholder in the short term. The Environmental Audit Committee wants that minority shareholding to continue in the longer term, but the Government have implied that that will not happen. As such a shareholder—for the time being—will the Government continue to be represented on the remuneration committees of the privatised banks? As a shareholder, what are their current expectations for remuneration? Does the Minister envisage any change to those expectations post privatisation? With that, I commend the amendment to the Committee.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield on tabling the amendment and thank her for asking me to put my name to it. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on becoming Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. I know that she will use all her talents and her tenacious approach to delving into the detail of policy areas to ensure that the Government are held to account by her colleagues from all parties on the Committee.

As my hon. Friend said, it is interesting that the Green Investment Bank drew cross-party support when it was established. It is important to understand the context. We are in the process of an energy industrial revolution in terms of technology for reducing the amount of energy we use and the different ways we can create energy in future. Not only can we make our planet safer but we can be imaginative and creative about the job prospects that the sector can bring for those in work today and for our children in the future. Something like 60% of the infrastructure projects that the Government are looking to support are energy-related, which gives a sense of the enormity of the process.

Why was the Green Investment Bank so important? As my hon. Friend said, it was an acknowledgement that sometimes the market does not deliver what we want and that, although not choosing winners, Governments can play a role in encouraging innovation. Take the defence sector, pharmaceuticals or academic research—there have been countless examples over many years and under many different types of Government of where the public sector, by which I mean the Government, has, by putting some resource into innovation and by understanding some of the related risk, led the way to some profound things that today we take for granted. For example, if it was not for the Apollo space missions way back then, we would not have Teflon in everyday use. I am not saying that we were behind all that, but it is an example of where creativity made a difference. Sometimes it is only Governments and Administrations that can get behind those sorts of projects.

The Green Investment Bank was set up to acknowledge the fact that, although there already has been innovation in the wider marketplace—for example, nuclear and other forms of technology—in a number of other areas it has been difficult to get the finance and to get people to take on the risk involved in looking at some of the more novel projects.

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. We should always bear in mind the fact that the Government have the ability to make an impact not only in supporting innovative technologies that perhaps would not get off the ground otherwise but in supporting regions and regional economies that would not otherwise be able to take advantage of certain opportunities. I will of course always mention my region, the north-east, which has led on some innovations in the low-carbon technology sector. It probably would not have been as successful as it has been without support such as that offered by the Green Investment Bank.

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Having spent the past five years as a shadow Energy and Climate Change Minister, I find it most encouraging that, when we look at the investment going into these projects we can see that, despite the recession and the economic problems we have had for a number of years, green energy is one of the few sectors that has bucked the trend. More pertinently, when we look at the spread of investment, the research that goes into some of these projects and the jobs coming out of them, it is one of the few sectors where we can really talk about a one nation policy. Opportunities in the sector are far more open to all regions and countries of the UK than some other sectors such as finance, which is why it is such an interesting area to think about today and for the future. How do we protect those jobs for the future?

The Labour party has been at the fore, as the last Labour Government passed the Climate Change Act 2008 with all-party support. I think that only five Members of Parliament voted against it. I am not sure, Sir David, how you voted on that one. [Laughter.] Actually, I cannot quite remember whether you voted against it or not. Anyway, although there have been a number of wobbles in the past five years on a number of different aspects of green technology such as onshore wind farms and what have you, this country is lucky, compared to other countries, that there is political consensus on this important issue.

This is about saving the planet, but I am a bit of a meat and potatoes sort of person and this is also about creating the jobs and skills of the future. In that way, the issue is much bigger than for Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace. It becomes an everyday issue for everyday communities. In my part of the country in Yorkshire, I see what is happening on the east coast in Hull and in Grimsby, in my own area, and over in Sheffield regarding nuclear development, I can see how this picture comes together. The Government are yet to promote the story in the way that it deserves.

What is important about the Green Investment Bank and accountability is that, although it was recognised that investment came in from different sources and that the sector bucked the investment trend as the recession hit, it was also accepted that sometimes more novel and complex projects need a little bit of a push. That is why the Green Investment Bank was there—to focus on more novel and complex projects that struggle to find funding and involve a bit of risk. Sometimes Governments are a little too risk averse on different public policy fronts, and there is a balance to be struck.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield said, to date just about £2.3 billion of public money has gone into 60 projects with a total value of more than £10 billion. The Green Investment Bank has done really well. I will not make partisan points about it just because it was set up under the previous Government. However, the concern has been that, in a move to privatisation, its focus on the more novel, innovative areas will actually decline and it will just become a run-of-the-mill funding organisation for projects that, to be honest, are easier and less complex and for which funding can be sought in other areas of the marketplace. It will then be focused on issues that maximise shareholder return. Maybe in five or 10 years’ time, we could have had this discussion but, given the infancy of this project and, despite its youth, the good work that it has been doing, it is a shame that the Government have taken this route.

There has already been a discussion in the other place about how the green elements should be privatised. I am afraid that I am old enough to remember the privatisation of things such as our rail and energy services. As I used to say when I was doing the shadow job, if only Margaret Thatcher could have seen how some of these energy companies have behaved towards their customers in the past few years. I do not think that that was her vision when she set out to privatise the energy sector. In transport, energy and water the financial payback packages for those at the top of organisations seem over the top given the public service performances of some of those companies. These areas are of huge importance to the public, which is why I support the amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield said, everything that we are asking for in this amendment is currently covered in the annual reports of the Green Investment Bank remuneration committee.

As the UK Government would for now remain a shareholder, they would have influence over the policy of this privatised bank. The Government have already conceded that they do have a role to play in protecting the greener aspects of this bank and supporting innovation in this sector. It would be in the public interest and would aid transparency to continue the reports on how people are paid—whether the chair, the non-executive directors or the executive team—so that we can set how they perform against how they are rewarded. That is a safeguard and it is in the public interest. I cannot for the life of me see why anyone would object to this, and I therefore support this amendment.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir David. I begin by stating that we support the amendment. We support its intentions and we believe that transparency in any financial organisation is to be welcomed, especially when it is at the level of the executive of a large corporation. I pay tribute to and congratulate the hon. Member for Wakefield on her election as the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, and we look forward to working with her. The right hon. Member for Don Valley made a powerful speech and we agree with much of what she said.

I have had discussions and engagement with the Green Investment Bank, and we would like to hear the Minister give guarantees today that it will remain headquartered in Edinburgh. That is very important to us. We would also like to hear that the Government will retain their golden share and their interest. We would also like confirmation that the bank will seek to have responsible shareholders. As the right hon. Lady said, it is so important that whoever invests in this organisation keeps its green objectives and its intentions at the heart of what it does.

As the right hon. Lady said, we are at a tipping point in terms of energy development, technology and innovation. We have a low oil price that is providing significant challenges. In Scotland we have seen the removal of wind farm subsidies, and the carbon capture project competition was taken away. These have been huge disappointments.

We hope that the projects and investment that have already been undertaken by the Green Investment Bank will continue. Some of them are key to the development of green technologies in Scotland. If you will indulge me, Sir David, I will give a list of a few of these projects. There is a £2 million investment in a sewage heat recovery scheme with an installation programme in locations across Scotland, which began in Borders College back in 2015; a £28.25 million equity investment in the construction of the Levenseat renewable energy waste project; a £6.3 million loan to Glasgow City Council to enable the first wave of the replacement of 70,000 street lights with lower energy and low-cost alternatives; biomass boilers across a number of distilleries in Scotland; and a £26 million investment in the new biomass combined heat and power plant near Craigellachie. These are significant and important projects.

When we look at the challenges of the oil and gas industry and the talent that unfortunately has been lost as a result of a low oil price, we have to look at where those skills can be redeployed. Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland have some of the most innovative and experienced people. I was in the service sector of the oil and gas industry before I came to this place. Every day I saw incredible, innovative and inspiring people and technologies. The Green Investment Bank plays a key role in ensuring that projects such as those I have listed can continue to thrive, and that the energy industry’s new technologies thrive and are invested in.

Perhaps I might seek your guidance, Sir David, because we have ranged quite widely and I was going to make some remarks in the clause stand part debate that I could incorporate into our discussion of the amendment if you thought that was appropriate. You seem to be nodding, so I will do that and hope that I will not be ruled out of order if I range a little more widely. This will save us the later debate on whether the clause stands part of the Bill.

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley on their amendment. It is a great advantage having such expertise available to us on our Back Benches. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North and the hon. Member for Livingston on their contributions in support of the amendment. My right hon. and hon. Friends have put their finger on a very good point, to which I will return once I have made a few more general remarks, without detaining the Committee for too long.

The debate has been wide ranging, and I make no criticism of that. A number of questions have been asked that I intend to answer at this stage, but our discussions will continue in our consideration of the next clause.

The Green Investment Bank was a success and a product of the previous Government. We are proud to have introduced it. It is right that it is doing well. From market testing we know that there is a thirst and a desire out there to purchase it. We will sell it sooner rather than later and for all the right reasons. The bank has proved that investing in green projects is a financially sound and right thing to do. Many would say that it has led the way. As I said, the bank has proved that the sector is worthy of investment, which is why it is now time for us to sell it.

Specifically on the question asked by the hon. Lady whose constituency I will remember in a moment, when prompted—

Livingston.

The hon. Member for Livingston—