6.33 pm

Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op): We have had a good and interesting debate this afternoon, with many speeches from right hon. and hon. Members, particularly those on the Labour Benches, that have highlighted the importance of rising energy prices to many hard-pressed families and struggling businesses.

Let me address the thrust of the lengthy and at times tortured speech made by the Secretary of State. It is a shame that he is no longer in his place, but he explained that he would have to leave and I am sure that the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), will report back to the Secretary of State the comments made this afternoon. The Secretary of State started by mentioning consensus on the Energy Bill. As the Minister knows—and as his colleague, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), who is now in his place, will recall from his involvement in the final stages of the Energy Bill, after his two predecessors started the process—we scrutinised the Bill and, on balance, supported many of the measures contained in it. However, on Second Reading—the Minister, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, can check Hansard and pass this on to the Secretary of State; we said it then and again afterwards—my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) warned that the Energy Bill

6 Nov 2013 : Column 350

“fails to include direct measures to increase transparency, competition or liquidity or ensure that the energy market is properly regulated and works in the interests of consumers.”—[Official Report, 19 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 906.]

Both my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), who spoke in the debate, and I have said that many, many times, and I am sure that the Minister heard it, as did other members of the Energy Bill Committee. This is not new: we have been saying this, and raising aspects of the problem, for at least a year, and raising some aspects for nearly two years. The Secretary of State said that he wanted consensus back. We have consensus on some of the measures in the Energy Bill, but we said at the outset that there were things missing from the Bill. That is what our policies aim to rectify, and if Ministers could get over themselves a little bit they could introduce those reforms, and consumers and other people would be in a much better position.

The hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), one of the Minister’s predecessors, discussed long-term signals and the importance of securing investment in energy infrastructure. That was the focus of the process called electricity market reform, which became the Energy Bill. There is also an important point about consent. If we expect investment to happen, people who pay energy bills need to know that the market functions effectively and that they can trust their energy supplier. That necessitates changing the retail market to make it clear, fair and transparent.

Charles Hendry: In her speech, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) was asked two questions. First, she was asked whether she had heard from energy companies saying that they were more likely to invest as a result of Labour policies, but she did not answer. She was also asked if she had heard from anyone saying that they would be less likely to invest, and she would not answer that one. Can the hon. Gentleman answer on her behalf?

Tom Greatrex: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]Sorry, I can tell the hon. Gentleman—I am promoting him; that is the regard in which I hold him—that in the period immediately after the conference speech by the Leader of the Opposition and since I have had a number of discussions with energy companies, with big suppliers, with small suppliers, with people in the supply chain, and with a whole range of people across the sector, and they have made it clear that they want a situation in which they can be trusted. They want transparency in the market. Indeed, some of the small suppliers that have been prayed in aid in speeches by Government Members have said that the most important thing is to have an open and transparent system in the energy market, which is what our reform is about. Then we will be in a position where we can have a fair debate about these issues and ensure that investment can flow, because people can understand and trust the system that will be in place.

Gregory Barker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tom Greatrex: I will not, because I am short of time, and I need to be able to respond to comments from other hon. Members.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) highlighted a reluctance to address these issues and to challenge the fact that they exist in Edinburgh

6 Nov 2013 : Column 351

as much as in Whitehall. The hon. Member for Wealden referred to the rather ridiculous claims about blackouts, which were made immediately after the proposals were first outlined, and he will be interested to know that every single energy company that I have since spoken to has dissociated itself from those comments made by the trade body and, indeed, from the comments of the Secretary of State and the Minister on Twitter immediately afterwards. I am sure that he will heed the warning on Twitter that the Prime Minister issued some months ago.

The problem also exists in Edinburgh, where the only person sticking with those comments and repeating the ridiculous comparison with California in 2000 is the Scottish National party energy spokesman in the Scottish Parliament. We will stand up to those issues, because we want a market that works. My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Mr Hood), made an important point about the duties of government and discussed the legacy of the former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. Another aspect of her legacy, Sir John Major, said a couple of weeks ago that if markets did not work and companies behaved badly, Governments stepped in. That is precisely what we are outlining in the policies that we are debating.

Another legacy of John Major was the system where the companies could integrate. Government Members referred to Labour’s big six. The Minister, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks—I know that he was on a career break at the time, but was a Minister in John Major’s Government and has been around for a considerable time—will know that the first of those acquisitions was Scottish Power acquiring Manweb in 1995. The hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), who is unable to be in his place, could not describe, when challenged, why prices have gone up. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) made a related point. That is precisely why we need transparency in the market.

When SSE put up its prices recently, it tried to quantify the cause of the increase. It attributed 4% to wholesale costs, 10% to network costs, 13% to Government policy costs, 8% to VAT, which adds up to 80%, leaving 20%. That additional 20%, which was not in SSE’s press statement but was in the small print and in conversations with the markets afterwards, was to increase its profit margin. That is what is happening in the market, and not just in the case of SSE—npower did something similar. I recommend that Members who want to see just how complicated and opaque the market is read the most recent edition of Private Eye, in the City column, about the structures around Centrica and particularly the trading arm of Centrica and the way in which profits are moved around different parts of what is essentially the same company.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), a distinguished member of the Select Committee, made the important point about ensuring that off-grid customers are protected. The hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) repeated the comment from First Utility, but she neglected to mention that when interviewed on “You and Yours” a couple of weeks ago, Ian McCaig, the chief executive of First Utility, said that the most important reform needed was openness and transparency in the market. That is exactly the reform that we propose in the motion before the House.

6 Nov 2013 : Column 352

My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) has a distinguished record in the House of campaigning for the fuel poor, and indicated how long he has been campaigning. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), as well as mentioning some of the issues that he has encountered in dealing with energy companies, made the important point that the proposed measure would save small businesses £5,500 and medium-sized businesses £32,900 based on their previous bills.

The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) talked about the reviews. He will know that the one announced by the Government is the 18th review since 2001. He spoke about the measures announced at the Scottish National party conference for a separate Scotland to reduce bills by £70 by moving ECO from consumer bills on to the tax bill. He neglected to mention that the pooled support for renewable energy for Scotland, which is paid across the whole of Britain, would not exist in the same form. Scotland has 8% of the population and more than a third of that support, which is spread across all the bill payers in Britain, as he well knows.

The hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) asked me a number of questions, first about how the measures would be introduced and whether emergency legislation would be used. I am not sure whether he was present for the speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley at the start of the debate. She made it clear that we would introduce specific legislation quickly—he might call it rapid or emergency legislation—to do one simple thing: to enable the Secretary of State for a fixed period to amend the licence conditions to allow the freeze to take place while we make the wider reforms.

Duncan Hames rose—

Tom Greatrex: I shall respond to the other points that the hon. Gentleman made during the debate, and I am conscious of time. He referred to the issues for small companies. I say again that every small supplier that I have spoken to in the past few weeks has made it clear that what is needed most of all is an open, fair and transparent market where energy is traded openly and suppliers can compete and get a better share of that market in order to build their customer base. That is what Labour’s reforms would deliver. The price freeze would enable those reforms to be put in place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) shot a number of ducks and set out cogently and coherently the point of resetting the market. With his expertise and as a member of the Select Committee and the Bill Committee, he will know that we have been talking about these issues for a considerable time, and to suggest that they are something new or emerging today, as the Secretary of State implied, is utter nonsense.

My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) talked about the impact on health. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) referred to the Prime Minister’s announcement on green levies, The Prime Minister made his announcement. The Energy Minister, who is in his place, told the Environmental Audit Committee a couple of weeks ago that the Government were looking at each of those levies. I asked a parliamentary question on which levies they were looking at and received a response today from the Secretary of State. It stated

6 Nov 2013 : Column 353

that they are looking at investment incentives, but not for the renewables obligation, contracts for difference or feed-in tariffs. The Prime Minister said earlier today that they were looking at every subsidy and every levy. There is complete confusion at the heart of the Government about what is and is not in scope for the review. If they are concerned about the impact on confidence and investment, they need to look at the shambles of their own policy over the past couple of weeks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) made a heartfelt speech detailing her own experience of growing up in fuel poverty and her concerns about her constituents and others in the same situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) made a similar case. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) also dealt with the reality of the cost of living crisis, of which energy costs are just one aspect. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) talked about the issues facing ordinary people. All those contributions made it clear why we need complete change in the market, and we need a price freeze to enable that change.

The motion before us is about a price freeze, but it is also about ensuring that there is a level playing field for other companies and that companies cannot abuse their position in future. It is about fixing a broken market and standing up for consumers and businesses. It is about making the market fair, clear and transparent in the interests of consumers, industry and the country. I commend the motion to the House.

6.46 pm

The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker): We have indeed had a good and lengthy debate. We on the Government Benches relish the opportunity to debate with the Opposition our wide-ranging actions to help with the cost of living and our ambitious plans to get a better deal for energy consumers and to secure our energy future.

We heard contributions from the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar), my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), the hon. Members for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) and for Angus (Mr Weir), my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames), the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Mr Hood), my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) and the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) and the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson). We heard excellent interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich (Ben Gummer),

6 Nov 2013 : Column 354

for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams). I apologise if I do not have time to mention all the contributions.

We can sum up our mission: cheaper energy and cheaper bills. The coalition is fairly and squarely on the side of the consumer. Unlike the Labour party, we are not trying to kid the public that there is a simple, silver-bullet solution. Unlike the inertia and complacency that were that hallmark of 13 wasted years, our approach to energy is ambitious, radical, urgent, practical and, most of all, honest. We are delivering. There has been £35 billion of new investment in power generation in the past three years. The coalition is building for the future. [Interruption.] We know that the greatest help of all for consumers is to roll out ambitious energy efficiency retrofits. That is the long-term solution—something that was completely missing from the Opposition’s motion. [Interruption.] It is really interesting that they did not mention that at all. [Hon. Members: “Give way!”] We know that Labour wants to knock the green deal, run down the energy company obligation and go back to old-style—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. That is enough. Members will listen to the Minister just as they listened to every other speaker. He will decide when he wants to give way.

Gregory Barker: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The fact is that Opposition Members make a lot of noise because they abhor the market, consumer choice and the fantastic SMEs that are rising to the challenge. Labour wants to go back to expensive state monopolies, close the door on innovation and close the door on SMEs, and hand it all to the big six on a plate.

Sadly, as has been demonstrated in spades in the Chamber today, Labour Members, while tapping into the genuine public concern about the cost of living—a concern we all share right across this House—have responded to that concern with political trickery, cheap soundbites, and policy that, sadly, is just a con: a price freeze con. It was very telling that despite repeated questioning neither the shadow Secretary of State nor the shadow Minister could name a single independent energy supplier that supported their price freeze con—not a single one. As Member after Member has pointed out, not only do Labour Members know they cannot guarantee to deliver such a freeze, but the long-term net impact of trying to rig the market with clumsy, 1970s-style state intervention would be to hurt—

Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab) rose—

Gregory Barker: The hon. Gentleman did not actually speak in the debate.

The net impact would be to hurt the fuel-poor, to hit hard-working people, and to clobber families and pensioners on tight budgets. We are not in this for 20 months; we are in it for the long term. For the first time in 13 years, we have a Government who are planning and taking decisions in the long-term interests of British consumers.

Duncan Hames rose—

Gregory Barker: I give way to my hon. Friend, who made an excellent speech.

6 Nov 2013 : Column 355

Duncan Hames: We have heard from the Opposition that they believe that legislation would be necessary to introduce this price freeze. Even if this Government were to table such legislation tomorrow, what would stop energy companies hiking their prices before it became law?

Gregory Barker: They have hiked them before and they could hike them afterwards.

The long-term impact of the freeze would be to decimate investment and to drive away consumers. The very-long-term secure energy supply we are trying to build would vanish at a stroke, and the poorest and the most vulnerable would pick up the price tag. We know that Labour Members cannot freeze prices—it is a con to suggest that they can—but, as we heard again and again today, they would succeed in freezing out competition, choice and investment.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the Minister give way?

Gregory Barker: No, I will not.

For 13 years, Labour Members presided over the energy sector. For 13 years, they dithered and delayed over crucial investment. In the previous Parliament, fuel poverty rose every single year—something we did not hear from the Opposition Benches. For 13 years, they presided over unprecedented corporate consolidation, creating the real lasting Labour legacy—the big six. It is a cheek for Labour Members to say that we are the friends of the big six when in fact they picked their ministerial team from the big six. Is it not a fact that the leader of the Labour Front-Bench team in the House of Lords is the former head of government affairs at SSE—its top lobbyist? Labour Members are not just friends of the big six and they did not just create the big six—they recruited their team from the big six, so we will hear no more from them on that.

For 13 years, Labour Members let real competition wither while consumers were bombarded with a blizzard of tariffs that, under their watch, grew to over 400. For 13 years, they failed to simplify bills and increase transparency. For 13 years, they failed to build the foundations of a safe, clean energy future. For 13 years, they failed to build a single nuclear power station or get an agreement to do so. For 13 years, they saw Britain languish at the bottom of the European league table for deployed renewable energy. Labour Members stood by and watched British energy go bust. Now they want another go, but we have not finished undoing the damage they did last time.

Albert Owen: The Minister mentioned tariffs. The Prime Minister has promised this House and the country that people will be put on the lowest tariff. Will the Minister now tell the House, at this late stage, how much less they will pay for their bills under that policy—or will they go up? Which one will it be?

Gregory Barker: It will be different for different people, but from December people will get a much better deal out of this Government, putting them on to the cheapest tariff—something the Labour party did not do in its 13 years in government.

We continue to undo the damage that Labour did to consumers’ bills. We have taken Labour’s renewable heat incentive off energy bills, saving consumers £179.

6 Nov 2013 : Column 356

The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said in our last debate or at questions that £100 was not very much. I have to tell her that Government Members know that, for a lot of families, £100 is a great deal: that £179 on people’s bills was not welcome.

Caroline Flint: Did I not make the point that the way in which the Government have used green levies misses the point? The point is that wholesale prices have been flat, but the energy companies have marked up their prices and charged us more in our bills. That is what the Government should be addressing, rather than playing around and blaming green levies.

Gregory Barker: If that is the point that the right hon. Lady was trying to make, I accept that, but what Government Members heard was her dismissing £100 as not a great deal of money. We know that for hard-working people it is a great deal of money.

That is why we acted quickly to slash the over-generous subsidies that we inherited from the Labour party for solar and other technologies. The Labour party opposed those cuts. While we have been standing up for consumers, Labour has been sitting down with vested interests.

This debate has been dominated by the systematic demolition of Labour’s price freeze con. However, the most effective critique comes not from MPs, but from the smaller, independent generators that are keen to break into the market dominated by the big six and created by Labour. It is those new entrants that can provide real consumer choice again. They are entrepreneurs who want to compete for the business of our constituents with better prices, better offers and better service.

Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD): Does the Minister think that the Opposition’s policy will make it more or less likely that the three independent power producers who want to build power stations in my constituency will invest?

Gregory Barker: The political risk and regulatory uncertainty that the Labour party is introducing into the energy sector is already raising the cost of capital. God forbid it was to form a Government—that would be a hammer blow to investment in the energy sector, a hammer blow to jobs and a hammer blow to consumer prices. It would spell long-term decline for the energy sector.

Labour’s lurch back to the 1970s would entrench the big six. Our vision for the UK energy market is one of fierce competition, dynamic new entrants and a far more decentralised, innovation-rich economy. Thanks to exciting new technologies, commercial, industrial, public sector, community and home generation are taking off all over the country. Although I disagree with many of the points made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, I share her enthusiasm for community energy, which is really growing legs under this Government.

Mr Hood: The Secretary of State has 7,727 constituents who are over 75. The Minister has 14,080 constituents who are over 75. Can he tell us how many of them have switched?

Gregory Barker: No, I cannot off the top of my head. Can the hon. Gentleman name a single independent generator that supports Labour’s big freeze? Perhaps he

6 Nov 2013 : Column 357

will write to me with that information. I will write to him with the information that he has requested.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden, who made a heavy hitting and thoughtful speech. He pointed out that Labour’s plans are already undermining investment, forcing up costs and increasing the political risks. He has estimated that the cost of Labour’s price freeze to consumers’ bills will be £1 billion.

Christopher Pincher: We have just heard an exchange about tariffs. Is the Minister aware that under Labour there were more than 4,000 tariffs on offer? Is it any wonder that people did not switch when they had no idea which tariff to switch to?

Gregory Barker: There was no real consumer choice under Labour, but we are getting it right and delivering for British consumers.

Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab) claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put.

The House divided:

Ayes 237, Noes 295.

Division No. 118]

[

6.59 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Abrahams, Debbie

Alexander, rh Mr Douglas

Alexander, Heidi

Ali, Rushanara

Allen, Mr Graham

Anderson, Mr David

Austin, Ian

Bailey, Mr Adrian

Bain, Mr William

Balls, rh Ed

Banks, Gordon

Barron, rh Mr Kevin

Beckett, rh Margaret

Begg, Dame Anne

Benn, rh Hilary

Benton, Mr Joe

Berger, Luciana

Betts, Mr Clive

Blackman-Woods, Roberta

Blenkinsop, Tom

Blomfield, Paul

Blunkett, rh Mr David

Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben

Brennan, Kevin

Brown, rh Mr Nicholas

Brown, Mr Russell

Bryant, Chris

Buck, Ms Karen

Burden, Richard

Burnham, rh Andy

Byrne, rh Mr Liam

Campbell, Mr Alan

Campbell, Mr Gregory

Campbell, Mr Ronnie

Caton, Martin

Champion, Sarah

Chapman, Jenny

Clark, Katy

Clarke, rh Mr Tom

Clwyd, rh Ann

Coaker, Vernon

Coffey, Ann

Cooper, Rosie

Cooper, rh Yvette

Corbyn, Jeremy

Crausby, Mr David

Creagh, Mary

Creasy, Stella

Cruddas, Jon

Cryer, John

Cunningham, Mr Jim

Cunningham, Sir Tony

Curran, Margaret

Dakin, Nic

Danczuk, Simon

Darling, rh Mr Alistair

David, Wayne

Davidson, Mr Ian

Davies, Geraint

De Piero, Gloria

Denham, rh Mr John

Dobbin, Jim

Dobson, rh Frank

Docherty, Thomas

Dodds, rh Mr Nigel

Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M.

Donohoe, Mr Brian H.

Doran, Mr Frank

Dowd, Jim

Doyle, Gemma

Dromey, Jack

Dugher, Michael

Durkan, Mark

Eagle, Ms Angela

Eagle, Maria

Efford, Clive

Elliott, Julie

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Engel, Natascha

Esterson, Bill

Evans, Chris

Farrelly, Paul

Field, rh Mr Frank

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Flello, Robert

Flint, rh Caroline

Flynn, Paul

Fovargue, Yvonne

Francis, Dr Hywel

Gapes, Mike

Gardiner, Barry

Gilmore, Sheila

Glass, Pat

Glindon, Mrs Mary

Godsiff, Mr Roger

Goggins, rh Paul

Goodman, Helen

Greatrex, Tom

Green, Kate

Greenwood, Lilian

Gwynne, Andrew

Hamilton, Mr David

Hamilton, Fabian

Hanson, rh Mr David

Harris, Mr Tom

Havard, Mr Dai

Healey, rh John

Hendrick, Mark

Hepburn, Mr Stephen

Heyes, David

Hillier, Meg

Hilling, Julie

Hodgson, Mrs Sharon

Hoey, Kate

Hood, Mr Jim

Howarth, rh Mr George

Hunt, Tristram

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Jackson, Glenda

James, Mrs Siân C.

Jamieson, Cathy

Jarvis, Dan

Johnson, rh Alan

Johnson, Diana

Jones, Graham

Jones, Helen

Jones, Mr Kevan

Jones, Susan Elan

Jowell, rh Dame Tessa

Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald

Keeley, Barbara

Kendall, Liz

Khan, rh Sadiq

Lavery, Ian

Lazarowicz, Mark

Leslie, Chris

Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma

Lewis, Mr Ivan

Lucas, Caroline

Lucas, Ian

Mactaggart, Fiona

Mahmood, Mr Khalid

Mahmood, Shabana

Malhotra, Seema

Mann, John

Marsden, Mr Gordon

McCabe, Steve

McCann, Mr Michael

McClymont, Gregg

McCrea, Dr William

McDonagh, Siobhain

McDonnell, John

McFadden, rh Mr Pat

McGovern, Alison

McGovern, Jim

McGuire, rh Mrs Anne

McKechin, Ann

McKenzie, Mr Iain

McKinnell, Catherine

Meacher, rh Mr Michael

Mearns, Ian

Miliband, rh Edward

Miller, Andrew

Mitchell, Austin

Moon, Mrs Madeleine

Morrice, Graeme

(Livingston)

Munn, Meg

Murphy, rh Mr Jim

Murphy, rh Paul

Murray, Ian

Nandy, Lisa

Nash, Pamela

O'Donnell, Fiona

Onwurah, Chi

Osborne, Sandra

Owen, Albert

Paisley, Ian

Pearce, Teresa

Perkins, Toby

Pound, Stephen

Powell, Lucy

Qureshi, Yasmin

Raynsford, rh Mr Nick

Reed, Mr Jamie

Reed, Mr Steve

Reeves, Rachel

Reynolds, Emma

Reynolds, Jonathan

Riordan, Mrs Linda

Robertson, John

Robinson, Mr Geoffrey

Rotheram, Steve

Roy, Mr Frank

Ruane, Chris

Ruddock, rh Dame Joan

Sarwar, Anas

Sawford, Andy

Seabeck, Alison

Shannon, Jim

Sharma, Mr Virendra

Sheerman, Mr Barry

Sheridan, Jim

Shuker, Gavin

Skinner, Mr Dennis

Slaughter, Mr Andy

Smith, rh Mr Andrew

Smith, Angela

Smith, Nick

Smith, Owen

Spellar, rh Mr John

Straw, rh Mr Jack

Stringer, Graham

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Tami, Mark

Thomas, Mr Gareth

Thornberry, Emily

Timms, rh Stephen

Turner, Karl

Twigg, Derek

Twigg, Stephen

Umunna, Mr Chuka

Vaz, rh Keith

Vaz, Valerie

Walley, Joan

Watson, Mr Tom

Watts, Mr Dave

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Williamson, Chris

Wilson, Mr Phil

Winnick, Mr David

Winterton, rh Ms Rosie

Wood, Mike

Woodcock, John

Woodward, rh Mr Shaun

Wright, David

Wright, Mr Iain

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stephen Doughty

and

Bridget Phillipson

NOES

Adams, Nigel

Afriyie, Adam

Aldous, Peter

Amess, Mr David

Andrew, Stuart

Arbuthnot, rh Mr James

Bacon, Mr Richard

Baker, Norman

Baker, Steve

Baldry, Sir Tony

Baldwin, Harriett

Barclay, Stephen

Barker, rh Gregory

Baron, Mr John

Beith, rh Sir Alan

Bellingham, Mr Henry

Benyon, Richard

Beresford, Sir Paul

Bingham, Andrew

Binley, Mr Brian

Birtwistle, Gordon

Blackman, Bob

Blackwood, Nicola

Blunt, Mr Crispin

Boles, Nick

Bone, Mr Peter

Bradley, Karen

Brady, Mr Graham

Brake, rh Tom

Bray, Angie

Brazier, Mr Julian

Bridgen, Andrew

Brine, Steve

Brokenshire, James

Brooke, Annette

Browne, Mr Jeremy

Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm

Buckland, Mr Robert

Burley, Mr Aidan

Burns, rh Mr Simon

Burrowes, Mr David

Burt, Alistair

Burt, Lorely

Byles, Dan

Cable, rh Vince

Cairns, Alun

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies

Carmichael, Neil

Carswell, Mr Douglas

Cash, Mr William

Chishti, Rehman

Chope, Mr Christopher

Clappison, Mr James

Clark, rh Greg

Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Coffey, Dr Thérèse

Colvile, Oliver

Cox, Mr Geoffrey

Crabb, Stephen

Crockart, Mike

Crouch, Tracey

Davies, Glyn

Davies, Philip

de Bois, Nick

Djanogly, Mr Jonathan

Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen

Dorries, Nadine

Doyle-Price, Jackie

Drax, Richard

Duddridge, James

Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain

Dunne, Mr Philip

Ellis, Michael

Ellison, Jane

Ellwood, Mr Tobias

Elphicke, Charlie

Eustice, George

Evans, Graham

Evans, Mr Nigel

Evennett, Mr David

Fabricant, Michael

Fallon, rh Michael

Foster, rh Mr Don

Fox, rh Dr Liam

Francois, rh Mr Mark

Freer, Mike

Fuller, Richard

Garnier, Mark

Gauke, Mr David

George, Andrew

Gibb, Mr Nick

Gilbert, Stephen

Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl

Goldsmith, Zac

Goodwill, Mr Robert

Gove, rh Michael

Graham, Richard

Grant, Mrs Helen

Gray, Mr James

Grayling, rh Chris

Green, rh Damian

Grieve, rh Mr Dominic

Griffiths, Andrew

Gummer, Ben

Gyimah, Mr Sam

Hague, rh Mr William

Halfon, Robert

Hames, Duncan

Hammond, rh Mr Philip

Hancock, Matthew

Hancock, Mr Mike

Hands, Greg

Harper, Mr Mark

Harris, Rebecca

Hart, Simon

Harvey, Sir Nick

Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan

Hayes, rh Mr John

Heath, Mr David

Hemming, John

Henderson, Gordon

Hendry, Charles

Herbert, rh Nick

Hinds, Damian

Hoban, Mr Mark

Hollingbery, George

Hollobone, Mr Philip

Holloway, Mr Adam

Hopkins, Kris

Horwood, Martin

Howarth, Sir Gerald

Howell, John

Hughes, rh Simon

Huppert, Dr Julian

Hurd, Mr Nick

Jackson, Mr Stewart

Javid, Sajid

Johnson, Gareth

Johnson, Joseph

Jones, Andrew

Jones, Mr Marcus

Kawczynski, Daniel

Kelly, Chris

Kennedy, rh Mr Charles

Kirby, Simon

Knight, rh Sir Greg

Kwarteng, Kwasi

Lancaster, Mark

Lansley, rh Mr Andrew

Latham, Pauline

Laws, rh Mr David

Leadsom, Andrea

Lee, Jessica

Lee, Dr Phillip

Leech, Mr John

Lefroy, Jeremy

Leslie, Charlotte

Letwin, rh Mr Oliver

Lewis, Brandon

Lewis, Dr Julian

Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian

Lilley, rh Mr Peter

Lopresti, Jack

Lord, Jonathan

Loughton, Tim

Luff, Peter

Lumley, Karen

Main, Mrs Anne

Maynard, Paul

McCartney, Jason

McCartney, Karl

McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick

McPartland, Stephen

Menzies, Mark

Metcalfe, Stephen

Miller, rh Maria

Mills, Nigel

Milton, Anne

Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew

Moore, rh Michael

Mordaunt, Penny

Morris, Anne Marie

Morris, David

Morris, James

Mosley, Stephen

Mowat, David

Munt, Tessa

Murray, Sheryll

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Neill, Robert

Newmark, Mr Brooks

Nokes, Caroline

Norman, Jesse

Nuttall, Mr David

O'Brien, rh Mr Stephen

Offord, Dr Matthew

Ollerenshaw, Eric

Opperman, Guy

Ottaway, rh Richard

Paice, rh Sir James

Parish, Neil

Patel, Priti

Paterson, rh Mr Owen

Pawsey, Mark

Penning, Mike

Penrose, John

Phillips, Stephen

Pickles, rh Mr Eric

Pincher, Christopher

Poulter, Dr Daniel

Prisk, Mr Mark

Pugh, John

Randall, rh Sir John

Reckless, Mark

Redwood, rh Mr John

Rees-Mogg, Jacob

Reid, Mr Alan

Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm

Robertson, Mr Laurence

Rogerson, Dan

Rosindell, Andrew

Rudd, Amber

Ruffley, Mr David

Russell, Sir Bob

Rutley, David

Sanders, Mr Adrian

Sandys, Laura

Scott, Mr Lee

Selous, Andrew

Shapps, rh Grant

Sharma, Alok

Shelbrooke, Alec

Shepherd, Sir Richard

Simpson, Mr Keith

Skidmore, Chris

Smith, Miss Chloe

Smith, Henry

Smith, Julian

Smith, Sir Robert

Soames, rh Nicholas

Soubry, Anna

Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline

Spencer, Mr Mark

Stephenson, Andrew

Stevenson, John

Stewart, Bob

Stewart, Iain

Stewart, Rory

Streeter, Mr Gary

Stride, Mel

Stuart, Mr Graham

Stunell, rh Sir Andrew

Sturdy, Julian

Swales, Ian

Swayne, rh Mr Desmond

Swinson, Jo

Swire, rh Mr Hugo

Syms, Mr Robert

Tapsell, rh Sir Peter

Teather, Sarah

Thornton, Mike

Thurso, John

Timpson, Mr Edward

Tomlinson, Justin

Tredinnick, David

Truss, Elizabeth

Turner, Mr Andrew

Tyrie, Mr Andrew

Uppal, Paul

Vaizey, Mr Edward

Vara, Mr Shailesh

Vickers, Martin

Walker, Mr Charles

Walker, Mr Robin

Wallace, Mr Ben

Ward, Mr David

Watkinson, Dame Angela

Weatherley, Mike

Webb, Steve

Wharton, James

Wheeler, Heather

White, Chris

Whittingdale, Mr John

Williams, Roger

Williams, Stephen

Williamson, Gavin

Willott, Jenny

Wilson, Mr Rob

Wollaston, Dr Sarah

Wright, Jeremy

Wright, Simon

Yeo, Mr Tim

Young, rh Sir George

Zahawi, Nadhim

Tellers for the Noes:

Mark Hunter

and

Claire Perry

Question accordingly negatived.

6 Nov 2013 : Column 358

6 Nov 2013 : Column 359

6 Nov 2013 : Column 360

6 Nov 2013 : Column 361

Business of the House

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Orders Nos. 15 and 41A),

That at this day’s sitting, the Motion relating to Explanatory Statements on Amendments to Bills may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—(Mr Evennett.)

Question agreed to.

gambling (licensing and advertising) Bill (Programme) (No.2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the Order of 5 November 2013 (Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:

(1) Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Order shall be omitted.

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 19 November 2013.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.—(Mr Evennett.)

Question agreed to.

6 Nov 2013 : Column 362

Amendments to Bills (Explanatory Statements)

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of Caroline Lucas.

7.14 pm

Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con): I beg to move,

That this House approves the recommendation contained in paragraph 21 of the Procedure Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2012-13, Explanatory statements on amendments, HC 979, noting that the Public Bill Office will assist Members as required in the preparation of such statements.

The motion stands in my name and that of my right hon. Friends the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, the shadow Leader of the House and the shadow Deputy Leader hon Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and my predecessor, as Chair of the Procedure Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight).

I note that I may detain the House into the small hours of tomorrow morning if I so wish. That is a tempting proposition, as I have lots of scores to settle with many colleagues. However, as I quite like getting elected to things I will not, on this occasion, detain the House for long and will make a very short speech. I hope that colleagues will make very short speeches too, and that we can wend our way into the night for an evening of fun, frolicking and frivolity.

The report “Explanatory statements on amendments” is a serious piece of work undertaken, in the main, by my predecessor, and I was lucky enough to inherit it in October last year. The Committee is saying that explanatory statements to amendments are an extremely good thing: they allow for informed debate, and for people to have an understanding of what those tabling amendments are trying to achieve. We have, however, taken a permissive, rather than a prescriptive, view. We believe that the Government, if given the opportunity to do so, will want to do the right thing, and that the right thing is to put forward explanatory statements to amendments. I look at the Chief Whip and the Deputy Leader of the House and see two people totally committed to doing the right thing. They have done the right thing throughout their parliamentary careers—one of those careers has lasted for more than 40 years—and I am certain that that will continue to be the case for what remains of their illustrious parliamentary careers. I note that the Chief Whip is not smiling too much, so I will move on.

Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that when considering changes to our procedures we should never do anything that might discourage scrutiny? Does he share my concerns that the amendment to the motion, if passed, could act as a deterrent to some amendments being tabled?

Mr Walker: One reason for not taking a prescriptive approach is that a disorderly explanatory statement attached to a reasonable amendment—perhaps one tabled in a short amount of time—might lead to it not getting on to the Order Paper, thus restricting debate.

6 Nov 2013 : Column 363

To return to my central point, I believe that Members of Parliament, the Government and the Opposition should want to do the right thing, and I am hopeful that they will do the right thing. If they do not do the right thing, it would be reasonable for the House and the Procedure Committee to revisit the issue in the not-too-distant future.

Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): I am disappointed by the weakness of the hon. Gentleman’s argument so far. I hope it is going to get a bit better. How can explaining one’s amendment possibly be a deterrent to debate? His confidence in his colleagues’ willingness to do the right thing is somewhat undermined by the fact that they did not do that when there was a pilot. If, as he says, he wants people to do this, why does he not make it mandatory, rather than just hoping they will do it despite evidence that they will not?

Mr Walker: I think the hon. Lady has indicated that it was not the case that the Government tabled amendments in the pilot, but at the Committee stage of the Small Charitable Donations Bill 42 amendments were tabled by Back Benchers, the Government and the Opposition, and 40 of them had explanatory statements. On Report, all 37 amendments had explanatory statements. If I am misreading that, I apologise.

I have more faith in this place than the hon. Lady. I have faith in my colleagues and believe that, given the opportunity to do the right thing, they will do the right thing. The fantastic thing about the Procedure Committee and about bringing reports to the Floor of the House is that it is open to the House to amend them. This is a vehicle for change. I note that she and colleagues have tabled an amendment, and it will be for the House to decide the way forward, not me, as Chairman of the Committee, or its other members. I will not detain the House much longer. I am sorry that the Committee’s report comes as such a disappointment to a number of colleagues, but I repeat that it is within their gift to amend it, and I hope that they do.

In conclusion, I would simply add that a team of Clerks are champing at the bit to help Back-Bench colleagues attach explanatory statements to their amendments. They are ready, waiting and willing to do these things. I also hope that there is an army of Whitehall civil servants wanting to seize the day and impress their Ministers with their diligence and brilliance. I look, too, at the Opposition, in all their glory, and know that, despite our living in straitened times with limited resources, they will turn to their researchers and their special advisers—they are not really special advisers, but that is what they are called—and will demand that they step up to the plate and provide explanatory statements. I appreciate that it will not be possible on all occasions, but let us make this a new beginning for the way we conduct business in this place. If the House does not take this opportunity, however, the Committee will revisit the matter and bring forward more prescriptive recommendations.

7.20 pm

Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): I beg to move, amendment (a), leave out from “House” to noting and insert

‘notes the recommendation contained in paragraph 21 of the Procedure Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2012-13, Explanatory statements on amendments, HC 979; and resolves

6 Nov 2013 : Column 364

that explanatory statements on amendments be mandatory, subject to guidelines to be issued under the authority of the Chair’.

Today, we have the opportunity significantly to increase transparency and transfer just a little bit of power from the Whips to Back-Bench MPs. When I first arrived here, I was immediately struck by how difficult it was to work out what all the amendments tabled on the Floor of the House actually sought to do; and I did not seem to be alone, so I joined with others who also wanted a brief explanation of amendments so that everyone could know what they sought to achieve. At the moment, as we run from another meeting, we look to see what we are voting on and find something like: “Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (1)”. So then we need to consult several dense documents to work out what that and many other multiple amendments actually mean.

It is quite right, of course, that MPs should, as much as possible, listen and contribute to debates in the main Chamber, follow all those debates and then be enlightened on the effects of every single amendment, but as hon. Members know, being an effective MP involves many other tasks, including responsibilities to undertake work in Committees, to attend Westminster Hall debates and to chair and attend meetings. As a result, colleagues frequently cannot sit in the Chamber all the time a debate is going on. There are many talented Back Benchers in this place who want to scrutinise, and they should not be treated as Lobby fodder.

Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab): We have checked with the Vote Office and our e-mails and we cannot find an explanatory statement for the hon. Lady’s amendment. Given that she did not table one with the Vote Office or circulate one to colleagues, surely she is defeating her own argument.

Caroline Lucas: I am glad the hon. Gentleman raises that matter, because I actually sought some advice on it. We were allowed to table explanatory statements during the pilot, but as I understood it, we were not allowed to do it now, otherwise I would have done it, precisely to make that point.

Thomas Docherty: But the hon. Lady could have circulated one to colleagues. There was nothing to prevent her from using the e-mail system—the green way of doing it—to send an explanatory statement to all 650 colleagues. Why did she not do that?

Caroline Lucas: I want to make it mandatory for everybody. It is very nice to do it voluntarily, as we would have done had we been allowed, but we were not. [Interruption.] Instead of smirking in that rather irritating fashion, the hon. Gentleman should focus on the debate in hand.

I was making the point that MPs should not be treated as Lobby fodder. After two pilot schemes, everyone seems now to agree that 50-word explanations are a good thing, so the motion from the Procedure Committee to make possible explanatory statements to amendments to be discussed on the Floor of the House is very welcome. I wish it was possible all the time; it is a pity that we have to get special permission even to make it possible. On those two pilots, it was possible.

I also welcome statement in the Procedure Committee’s report that it wants the statements to

“become an accepted norm of the legislative process.”

6 Nov 2013 : Column 365

If that is what the Committee wants, why not make the statements mandatory, rather than just talking about an aspiration or a wish? The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) rightly said that the Government did indeed issue explanatory statements on that occasion, and that the Opposition did not do so. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that, one day, the Government will become the Opposition and find it less convenient to produce them in future. If we want it to become as natural to issue an explanatory statement as it is to sign an amendment, we have the opportunity tonight to make them mandatory.

A cross-party group of us, including senior colleagues, who are working on parliamentary reform have tabled amendment (a) because we would like the explanatory statements to be mandatory, to ensure that the Procedure Committee’s wish for the statements to become the norm becomes a reality. To clarify, in calling for the statements to be mandatory, we envisage guidelines to include dispensing for the need for them in relation to self-explanatory or consequential amendments. Actually, that is a good reason for not having circulated an explanatory statement on amendment (a), as the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) was tempting me to do: it is surely, even to him, self-explanatory.

Unless we have a mandatory scheme, as amendment (a) proposes, there is a danger that the statements would not become part of the culture of this place, and that they would be submitted only when it suited Members to do so. As we all know, the Executive do not behave within the spirit of the legislative system at all times, and we need a system that will ensure that, when they are substantially amending their own legislation—on Report, for example—they have to explain why.

The recent pilot taught us that the Whips pick and choose. The official Opposition did not bother to submit statements on the first Bill, the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, which was a great shame. However, they appeared to have a change of heart, and were prepared to submit them on the relatively uncontentious Small Charitable Donations Bill. I do not accept that they did not participate on the first Bill because of a lack of resources. Sometimes it is more convenient not to explain, and frankly that is not good enough. That is why we need the statements to be mandatory.

Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab): I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I will try not to smirk. Does she not accept the valid point that the Opposition party and, particularly, Back Benchers do not have sufficient resources to submit explanatory statements as well as putting in the time and effort required to table the amendments themselves, especially on an extremely detailed and complex Bill?

Caroline Lucas: No, I do not accept that point. If the hon. Gentleman has thought enough about an amendment to table it, he must have thought about what he is trying to achieve with it. If he cannot summarise that in 50 words, why is he tabling the amendment in the first place? He could also call on the Public Bill Office to help him with the statements.

6 Nov 2013 : Column 366

Wayne David: I want to ask the hon. Lady a simple question. Has she heard of probing amendments? If she has, she will know full well that their purpose is to elicit information and commitments from the Government, and not necessarily to declare a position.

Caroline Lucas: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the point of the explanatory statements. They would simply make the aim of an amendment clear. If that aim is to seek information from the Government, that could be made perfectly clear.

I should like to move on to costs and resources. Hon. Members will have noticed that the Procedure Committee did not recommend a mandatory approach partly because it thought that that could take up time and resources, and that it could therefore restrict the ability of the Opposition and Back-Bench Members to table amendments. It feared that that could be damaging to the House’s ability to scrutinise legislation. I believe that there is a strong case to be made that the opposite is true, and that mandatory statements would save time and improve scrutiny.

The evidence from the Public Bill Office is clear on the question of resource implications. It stated that, where assistance was given with the drafting of explanatory statements,

“this took little time (no more than five minutes per amendment), and usually saved time elsewhere by establishing a verifiable shared understanding of what amendments were intended to achieve.”

So the idea that this would create a burden for the Opposition and Back Benchers is not supported by the Public Bill Office, which has made it clear that the statements typically save time.

The Public Bill Office also stated:

“It is not that difficult to draft a brief explanatory statement, and a Member seeking to table an amendment might want to think again about doing so if they were unable to explain briefly what it would achieve.”

This brings us to the nub of the issue. Do we want Back Benchers to participate or not? Do we want our constituents and our local press to be able to follow what is going on? Do we want this to be possible at all times or only some of the time, and who gets to be the judge of when people should or should not necessarily get to receive these explanations? If we want scrutiny, surely we have to make sure that those who might scrutinise are properly assisted to do so; otherwise, one might ask what is the point of the amendments at all.

Still on resources, the Clerk of the House produced a helpful memorandum pointing out that there would be no extra costs to the PBO, but there could be some printing costs. However, once self-explanatory and consequential amendments are discounted, the printing costs would clearly be very low. In the context of the entire printing costs of this place, the likely cost for this is tiny—less than 0.00005% of a £7 million annual spend on the printing of procedural publications.

For that minimal cost, we would get something valuable—information, and information being given to those who should have it as they vote on legislation that affects us all. When the bell goes, we should all know why. Brief explanations would not only allow Members to check what they are voting on when the bell goes, but allow us to see in advance what Members seeking to amend legislation are attempting to do. This would

6 Nov 2013 : Column 367

enhance scrutiny and might even increase participation in the Chamber, as Members could easily see in advance what an amendment was for.

In conclusion, I hope hon. Members will agree that this is more than procedural housekeeping. I think our constituents would be shocked if they knew that their MPs often did not know what they were voting on. When I run down the escalator from Portcullis House at the same time as many other colleagues, I often hear people saying “What are we voting on; what are we voting on?” I am not whipped, so I have to find that out myself, but many colleagues do not necessarily have that information, and I think that they should. This is not a criticism of colleagues. I have no doubt that MPs do not like trying to find out what the vote is on as they run down the escalators. The point is that this information is not being properly provided. It is good that the Procedure Committee is calling for a scheme to make explanations possible, so let us make sure that everyone uses it.

Mr Charles Walker: I have some sympathy for the hon. Lady’s argument. The problem we all have is that we are sent here to legislate, but we fill our time with so many other things that we actually forget our primary role, which is to pay attention to what is going on in this place and to scrutinise the Government. One reason why we often do not know what is going on is that we choose—we make the choice—not to know what is going on.

Caroline Lucas: There is some truth in what the hon. Gentleman says, but if the conclusion of what he said is that he genuinely expects 650 Members to be in this Chamber—day in, day out—to scrutinise all legislation, I think he is more optimistic than I am, because I do not think that is likely. I believe we also have other important roles, such as providing scrutiny through Select Committees, which are every bit as important as at least some of the debates in this Chamber. It is a realistic assumption that not everybody can be here.

In conclusion, I hope hon. Members will vote for amendment (a) to give Back Benchers and the public a right to explanations of what we vote on in this House. We have an opportunity tonight to restore trust in what we do, to show that we want to scrutinise and to make the way in which this place operates healthier and more transparent, so let us take it.

7.32 pm

Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), and it is one of my parliamentary ambitions that, one day, when speaking after her in a debate, I shall actually agree with her. Sadly, that day has not yet dawned.

There are extremely good arguments for requiring the Government compulsorily to make explanatory statements. The Government have legions of civil servants who are able to draw up their explanations; they have all the resources of a Rolls-Royce Whitehall system that is able to provide the explanations to everything that goes into legislation. Crucially, the amendments proposed by the Government usually do end up in legislation, so not only are the resources there, but an invaluable purpose is served in making clear what the Government are trying to do.

6 Nov 2013 : Column 368

If the hon. Lady’s amendment (a) had said that the Government always and invariably had to put down explanatory statements, I would have agreed with it, because that would have enhanced our ability to legislate. When, however, it comes to requiring every Member to do so and to giving exceptional discretion to the Speaker or the Speaker’s deputies to decide whether these explanatory memorandums are sufficiently in order, I cannot agree. Let me explain why briefly, because I know many want to go off and have their dinners or conduct Adjournment debates and things like that—the Adjournment debates are probably more attractive than dinners for most of us.

Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP): The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling case for attaching explanatory memorandums to Government amendments. Does he think that the same should apply to official Opposition amendments, and that a distinction should be made between amendments in those categories and amendments tabled by individual Back Benchers?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: No, I would not go as far as that. One of the great divides in parliamentary life is represented by the fact that the Government always have officials beside them. We see in the Box this evening three extremely distinguished gentlemen who are there to advise the Government and help them to plan their legislation. The Opposition have some Short money, which helps them with their parliamentary activities, but, unlike the Government, they do not have the depth of resources that would enable them to provide the explanations that might be needed.

It is assumed that we live in a perfect world in which legislation is presented after pre-legislative scrutiny and there is much time for consideration and deliberation, but that is unfortunately not true. A great deal of legislation is quite rushed, and comes to the House at quite a late stage. The Opposition sometimes have to trawl through many hundreds of clauses in a Bill, and, while they may have just about enough time to write out their amendments, even if each amendment takes only five minutes to explain, 100 Opposition amendments will mean 500 minutes that Opposition Members may not have when a Bill is due to begin its Committee stage within a week or two—or sometimes a day or two—of being presented to the House. I therefore think that the burden placed on the Opposition would be unfair and disproportionate.

Given that I am speaking partly from personal experience as a Back-Bench Member of Parliament, I want to pay particular tribute to the Clerks of Legislation, who are incredibly helpful and patient in explaining to Back Benchers how to formulate an amendment so that it is in order. However, to ask them then to write an explanatory memorandum when so many hundreds of us could be calling on their time would be to place an unreasonable burden on them. Their patience, courtesy, capability and knowledge of the history of Parliament are an absolute joy to behold, and every dealing that I have had with them has been a real pleasure, but I do not think that it would be reasonable to impose that extra burden on them.

This takes us to the heart of the way in which the Government are held to account through the legislative process. Those of us who table amendments know that

6 Nov 2013 : Column 369

our amendments will almost certainly not pass into law. Indeed, on most occasions when I have tabled amendments I have not pressed them to a Division, because I have known that the massed serried ranks on the Government Benches will not be sufficient to get one Back Bencher’s amendment through, however well thought out it may—or may not—have been.

Members table amendments to ensure that the issue is debated, that the Minister is able to think about it, and that it is considered in proper detail by the Minister and the Minister’s officials. The Opposition do exactly the same, in the knowledge that the points that they raise will be considered during the overall process. That process would be weakened and made more difficult if the explanatory memorandums were compulsory. If they were compulsory, the Opposition would perforce table fewer amendments, and Back Benchers would be deterred from tabling amendments because of the extra burden that it would place on them, and because of a certain diffidence about putting more pressure on the Clerks of Legislation.

In an ideal world, everything would be spelt out and there would be a few more pages of printing. I am delighted that the Greens seem to be in favour of that: it appears now to be their official policy. Normally a desire for more printing reflects my view of the world rather than theirs. The reality of legislating, however, is that it is often done in a hurry because the necessary time is not available. It is a matter of holding the Government to account, and anything that obstructs that process makes it harder for Members to do their jobs.

7.38 pm

Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab): Not for the first time, I find myself in complete disagreement with the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). I shall endeavour to explain why, but let me first express my genuine appreciation to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), the Chair of the Procedure Committee, who has brought a breath of fresh air to the important issue of reform of parliamentary procedure.

I support amendment (a). Despite what I have just said, I believe that the Committee’s modest position represents a major missed opportunity, in that the gain from making brief explanatory statements mandatory is enormous, while the extra effort required to achieve it—and here I strongly disagree with the hon. Member for North East Somerset—is minuscule. At present, particularly on Report, Members who have not participated in Committee often do not know, and have made little or no effort to find out, what precisely they are casting their vote for. Anecdotal evidence suggests the proportion could be as high as seven or eight out of 10. This is of great significance because, particularly if the Government Whips have exercised a tight leash over Committee stage, the Report stage is often the only real opportunity for the House to modify the content of the Bill. The debates on Report are usually focused on important issues where strong views are known to be held by the public. Echoing what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said, it is a reasonable assumption that if the public were more widely aware that these

6 Nov 2013 : Column 370

matters of considerable importance to them were treated in such a cavalier fashion by many, if not a great many, Members who often vote blind—and I confess that I am one of them occasionally, because of the difficulties of finding out exactly what we are voting for—there would be a huge outcry that Parliament was abusing its proper functions.

Currently, if a Member is diligent—and many are, of course—they will need to obtain a copy of the Bill, a copy of the list of amendments and, on the day, a copy of the grouped amendments selected by the Speaker. A number of Members with a particular interest will undoubtedly do this, but in most cases I submit it will be a minority. In the absence of obtaining the necessary documentation and reading it in order to understand the point at issue and reaching a considered view, the default position, as we all know, is for Members to follow their Whips on arrival in the Chamber.

Even if a Member did take the trouble to get and read the relevant documents, it is often quite difficult for someone who has not been following a Bill closely to understand what precisely the amendment is designed to do. This adds up to quite a serious flaw in the whole process of scrutiny of Government legislation, which is the central function of Parliament. It can be so easily remedied by requiring that a short statement of no more than 50 words explaining the purpose is attached to every amendment on the Order Paper and reproduced on the television monitor.

What are the objections? Here I come to the points made by the hon. Member for North East Somerset. I chair the all-party group for reform of parliamentary procedure, and the only objection raised with us is that while the Government have their civil servants to deal with amendments and provide explanatory statements, the Opposition do not have the same resources and adding the requirement for explanatory statements would impose too great a burden.

I simply do not accept that that objection is tenable. Speaking as someone who in my 43 years has taken many Bills through the House, I know that it certainly takes a huge amount of time to get to grips in particular with a large Bill—to consult outside experts over all its detailed aspects, to identify areas where modification needs to be sought and to draft amendments in an appropriate parliamentary form. Once hundreds of hours have been expended on doing that, however—that has to be done by any responsible Front Bench—adding a short statement distilling the essence of an amendment would take less than half a minute.

There is already evidence that a large majority of the House is in favour of this proposal Many hon. Members have indicated how helpful they found the two recent pilots when the Government introduced this reform for two recent Bills. In addition, Parliament First—that is the name of our all-party group—carried out a survey of all Members seeking their reaction to six proposed reforms of the House procedure, including explanatory statements. I have the results here and I will show them to anyone who cares to look. The response rate was more than 20%, which is not bad for parliamentarians. Of those respondents, 87% were in favour of explanatory statements, and there was very little difference between the two main parties.

6 Nov 2013 : Column 371

This is a modest reform. The gain to everyone would be enormous and the effort to bring it about in practice is relatively tiny. I hope that, for those reasons, the House will support amendment (a).

7.45 pm

Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): Those hon. Members who recall that I used to sit where my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House now sits, long into the night discussing similar matters, may think it an act of sublime masochism for me to be standing here prolonging proceedings this evening, but I feel strongly about this issue. I do not want to detain the House for long, but I wish to express my support for the position of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), because I simply do not recognise the arguments adduced against what has been suggested. I well recall the pilots, because I was the Deputy Leader of the House who proposed the pilot scheme. I was also one of the Ministers for one of the two Bills—the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill—involved in the pilot. On the part of Government, I did not see it as an excessive burden, and nor do I believe that the civil servants who supported us found it an excessive burden simply to state the purpose of Government amendments for that Bill.

Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con): I am not surprised to hear that my hon. Friend supports the amendment, which I will also be supporting if it comes to a vote. Does he agree that even if it does add an extra burden and its requirement leads to extra work, it is a small price to pay for improving the legislative process? The one thing we are all paid to do here is to legislate, and people often have no idea what they are voting on. Surely that is a scandal and it requires a bit of investment to address it.

Mr Heath: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. I agree that it is better to have clarity, so that not just Members in this House but others looking at our proceedings can understand what we are debating.

There are other benefits to be had. I have always had this romantic view that we can improve the procedures of this House and do things in a more effective, focused and timely way. That would help everybody who has come to a debate on amendments and found that the purpose of the proposer of an amendment was quite different from what they had imagined when they first read it. That applies not only to Back Benchers, but to the Government. Very often Ministers have learned screeds of paper telling them what the civil servants who support them in the Bill believe the Opposition Member was intending by their amendment, only then to find that that was absolutely a wrong guess.

Wayne David: Inadvertently, the hon. Gentleman has made an astute point, because it is wrong to believe that all amendments have an objective truth about them. Amendments, particularly those from the Opposition, often have different interpretations attached to them. He mentioned the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, which is a good example of when our interpretation of what we were putting forward was objectively different from that of the civil servants. The essential clarification often is provided through debate, not by declamatory written statements.

6 Nov 2013 : Column 372

Mr Heath: The hon. Gentleman will find that I make many astute comments and they are never inadvertent. No, that is not the tension we want in the House; we want understanding, and we want sensible debate focused on the issues at stake, not guesswork as to what those might be. It does not matter whether it comes from the official Opposition, a Back-Bench Member or the Government: clarity is an addition and support to the value of our debate in this House. I find it difficult to understand why anyone would take a different view.

I know that whichever way the debate goes this evening, the Government will produce an explanatory statement every time an amendment is tabled. I have no confidence, I am afraid—for the reasons exemplified by the approach of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David)—that the Opposition will do the same. I am afraid that the argument that they do not have the resources to produce such statements is a canard. First, as the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) said, it takes very little resource to do so. Secondly, let us explode the myth that every Member who tables an amendment writes it himself or herself. That is not the case. Amendments are often prepared by well-resourced outside bodies that would have no problem whatsoever providing an explanatory statement. If all else fails, the official Opposition have something called Short money—a considerable amount of money to support their parliamentary activities, including the tabling of amendments. What is the problem?

I believe that the amendment is sensible and I will support it this evening. Let me finish on one specific point. I note that the Chair of the Procedure Committee has been supported in a remarkable act of solidarity by the Leader of the House, the Deputy Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and the shadow Deputy Leader of the House. Although I am glad that they can provide that support to the Procedure Committee, I wonder whether that is appropriate on what is essentially a House matter concerning our procedure. It appears to oblige the payroll vote to support the original motion rather than to vote according to what those Members consider to be the rights and wrongs. I am afraid that I think that this is a matter on which the House should decide, not the Government.

Mr Charles Walker: May I reassure the hon. Gentleman that in the past three and a half years I have never sought the support of the Executive in any way, as demonstrated by my voting record? If they want to support a recommendation made by the Procedure Committee, that is entirely down to those on the Front Bench, but it is not something that I have sought or would ever want to see.

Mr Heath: I absolutely accept that statement and it doubles my admiration for the solidarity expressed by those on the two Front Benches in supporting the hon. Gentleman. However, as a consequence of that, many members of the Government are sitting watching monitors wondering whether this chap will ever shut up so that they can move towards a vote. They are obliged to stay here to ensure that a rebel amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion does not succeed. I regret that, but I hope that we will have a sensible debate and that whichever view prevails this evening, every amendment will eventually have a short explanatory statement stating what the devil it is for.

6 Nov 2013 : Column 373

7.52 pm

Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab): I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in what I am sure will be a short debate. It is perhaps worth clarifying one point for the benefit of the Chair of the Procedure Committee, on which I have the privilege to serve. He referred to those who had signed the motion and I think he perhaps inadvertently suggested that I was the shadow Deputy Leader of the House. I do not have that great privilege; that more august position is held by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith). I think that reference was probably an oversight on his behalf.

The debate so far has been fascinating and great passion has been expressed about clarity and resources. Like other colleagues, I have the highest admiration for the House and the House service. I am always in bewildered awe at the great education that our Clerks have had compared with ours. As colleagues who have tabled amendments over the years will know, we are often up against tight timetables. There are archaic rules about when amendments must be tabled by and I think it places an undue burden on the House service to expect that when someone comes in up against the deadline—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) chunters from a sedentary position, as ever, about short deadlines. I cannot help but recall the number of amendments he tabled at the very last minute when he was a Minister, yet he criticises those colleagues who are forced to wait until the very last minute. The notion that we would rule out a perfectly reasonable and well thought-out amendment because it did not have an accompanying explanatory statement is anti-democratic. I am disappointed—I genuinely have great respect for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr Heath: I am puzzled by what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he saying that the procedures of the House really do not matter, and that we do not have to be in accordance with them when tabling an amendment, provided that it is a really important amendment, or does he accept the fact that the rules are there to aid debate, and that there is a back-stop provision, as the Chair can always rule something in order, as they do frequently with manuscript amendments?

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which leads me nicely to the point that I was going to make about “Erskine May” and the discretion of the Chair. You are a wonderful Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, held in the greatest regard by Members on both sides of the House. The whole House has the highest regard for your observations and the way in which you guide us through difficult debates. “Erskine May” makes it clear that colleagues should not read out speeches, but with great discretion, Mr Deputy Speaker, you allowed the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) to read her speech. The House rules would say, following the intervention of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, that that would not be allowed. The notion, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we would expect you to overrule the consensus of the House is probably unfair on you, and the hon. Gentleman has therefore placed too great a burden on your august shoulders. It is wrong to place the Chair in that position.

6 Nov 2013 : Column 374

Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): My hon. Friend seems to labour under the apprehension that the Chair will be put in an undue position of power over selection, and will have power that they do not already enjoy. However, has he not noted the point made by the Public Bill Office on page 10 of the report that

“An alternative would be to allow orderly explanatory statements to be tabled on the day after the deadline for tabling the amendments themselves. It would, of course, be for the Speaker or Chairman of Ways and Means…to select an amendment”

afterwards? That would overcome the problem that my hon. Friend raises that Members should not be expected to provide an explanatory statement before the deadline.

Thomas Docherty: I am always grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a genuine parliamentarian. However, as I have said, this is about putting a greater onus on the Chair of a Bill Committee or the Chair in the Chamber. I do not think that we want to add to those burdens. We have some wonderful Chairs who chair proceedings with a light touch. I fear that there would be complaints from the Government, the Opposition, the minority parties and Back Benchers saying, “Why has that one been allowed in, when an explanatory statement was not scheduled in time?” We have seen too often that, because the Government have tended to introduce Bills at the last minute—I am thinking of the gagging Bill in September—it would be difficult for my hon. Friends to table amendments, then produce explanatory statements.

I genuinely welcome the fact that the Government have made it absolutely clear that they intend all their amendments to have explanatory statements whenever practicable—I take their word on that. I had a slight exchange with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, who said with some justification, to be fair, that when he was a Minister explanatory statements were produced for all his revisions. I suspect that his civil servants had a hand in the drafting of those statements, but that is not a luxury that the Opposition or, indeed, Back Benchers enjoy. If the Government wish to expand the resources available—

Wayne David: Does my hon. Friend accept that there could be a strong case for mandatory explanatory statements if the Opposition had exactly the same resources at their disposal as the Government?

Thomas Docherty: That is a fair point. I do not think that I am giving away anything when I say that that was one of the discussions that the Procedure Committee had with the Front-Bench team and the House service. Regrettably, however, in these austere times, that is not on the table. If it were, I would wholeheartedly support the amendment, with the caveat that Back Benchers should be given greater resource.

It is something of an insult to parliamentary colleagues to maintain the myth that Members of Parliament are confused or vote the wrong way. I am conscious that Liberal Democrats may see that as a good excuse at the next general election to explain why they voted for a series of measures—“I am very sorry. I didn’t realise what I was voting for”—but I am not aware of a single case where a Liberal Democrat MP will argue that they voted to increase tuition fees or break their other promises because they were confused about what the motion or amendment meant. Perhaps the hon. Member for Somerton

6 Nov 2013 : Column 375

and Frome will correct me. The idea that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion is promoting that Members are confused about what they are voting for is utter nonsense.

Mark Durkan: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. He must recall that friends of his in the House were perturbed to find that they had voted a particular way on an amendment to the Succession to the Crown Bill without realising, they said, that it had implications for religious equality—something for which they would not have voted. If explanatory statements had been required on all amendments to the Succession to the Crown Bill, Members would have known exactly when they were voting to keep sectarianism in the British constitution and when they were not.

Thomas Docherty: I will not comment on how many friends I have in the House.

In conclusion—

Zac Goldsmith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Thomas Docherty: I want to wind up to let others get in.

A Select Committee has considered the issue at great length and brought forward a procedure. It is slightly ironic that we are now hearing so-called Parliament First parliamentarians saying that we should reject the wishes of the Select Committee which was tasked with examining the issue. I look forward to hearing other views.

8.1 pm

Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): There are essentially two issues before us this evening. The first is whether explanatory statements are a good thing or a bad thing. There is pretty much agreement on both sides of the argument that they are a good thing. The second and more difficult question is whether explanatory statements should be compulsory. My view is that they should not be compulsory. I think they are a good thing and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) on the way that he opened this short debate. I thank, in his absence, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), who was the previous Chairman of the Committee.

Opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne made clear the view of the Committee that, having considered all the evidence, we felt that on balance a permissive regime was better than a mandatory one. I accept that the argument is very finely balanced. My own view is that, although it is easy for the Government to table explanatory notes, as they do in the case of a Bill, which is entirely right, it should not be made mandatory for a Back-Bench Member to do so. However, any Back Bencher who takes their amendment seriously and wants to persuade the House of its merits will want to table an explanatory note, but it may be that, for whatever reason, they do not wish to do so. They may prefer to inform Members of the merits of their amendment by circulating a letter to colleagues, circulating an e-mail, holding a briefing meeting or even establishing a website or tweeting about the amendment. They may have other ideas about how to do it. I do not think that they should be precluded from tabling an amendment just because they have not filed an explanatory statement.

6 Nov 2013 : Column 376

I am conscious that it is late and Members have other engagements, but I wanted to place on the record my view on the matter. I support the substantive motion and oppose the amendment.

8.5 pm

Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con): I think that this is quite straightforward: if a Member cannot explain the purpose of their amendment, why did they table it in the first place? Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) would find that his amendments had greater support if their purpose was set out clearly for Members to see. Many Members have referred to the extra costs that might be involved, but surely they are nothing compared to the costs of poorly drafted legislation. As for the cost in trees, not a single extra tree would have to be felled if the House moved towards the 21st century and had all amendments and explanatory notes delivered to Members’ iPads so that they could be absolutely clear about what they are voting for. I see no excuse for not moving towards such a system, which would improve the quality of legislation. I hope that Members will support the amendment.

8.6 pm

Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make a very short speech in support of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). There is no job description for Back-Bench MPs, but if there was it would be to hold the Government to account on behalf of their constituents. That is very hard to do, given the busy schedule, with Select Committee meetings and all the other obligations MPs have, if the likelihood is that when the Division bell rings we will not know what the amendment we are being asked to vote for actually represents. I would be interested to hear whether the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) can tell us honestly—he is welcome to intervene—that he has never voted for an amendment that he did not understand. I would be very surprised if he can.

Thomas Docherty: I have never voted for an amendment and later regretted doing so.

Zac Goldsmith: That sounds more like luck than anything else. If he did not know what he was voting for, there is every chance that afterwards he might have regretted it, so he is very lucky that has not happened.

Dr Wollaston: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be very interesting to call a Division now to see how many Members arriving in the Chamber could tell what they were voting for?

Thomas Docherty rose—

Zac Goldsmith: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. One at a time. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants to respond to the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) first.

Zac Goldsmith: My hon. Friend makes an interesting observation. It would be a beautiful irony and I would love to see it happen.

6 Nov 2013 : Column 377

Thomas Docherty: I do not want to detain the House, but I should make it clear that if I have ever been confused in advance, I have asked one of my parliamentary colleagues, or perhaps those friendly Whips, about what was going on. Also, it would have been really helpful if there had been an explanatory statement for this amendment.

Zac Goldsmith: I take the point. There have been many occasions in the short time I have been in the House when I have had to seek advice on votes I was being asked to cast. I have asked many Back Benchers on both sides of the House and the Whips but have still been unable to understand them or get any kind of clarity. I have had to abstain in Divisions because I simply did not know what the amendments I was being asked to vote for were about.

Wayne David: Is the hon. Gentleman confident that he understands every explanatory statement he reads?

Zac Goldsmith: I think that we would stand a much better chance of understanding what we were voting for if the amendments had explanatory statements.

I reject the argument that this would place an undue burden on Back Benchers. I accept up to a point that an extra burden would be placed on Opposition parties because, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) said, for Members tabling 100, 200 or 300 amendments that amounts to quite a lot of minutes, but I believe that they should be given the administrative support they need to achieve that. However, that does not apply for Back Benchers, because they rarely table more than a small handful of amendments, unless they have set out to become parliamentary pests. They will have spent a lot of time understanding how to table them, so the extra five, 10, 15 or perhaps 30 minutes required to explain them is not much to ask. If a Back Bencher is not willing to invest those 30 minutes in the explanatory notes, perhaps they ought not to be wasting our time with the amendments in the first place.

This is a very small measure—a very small price to pay—that would undoubtedly, unavoidably and unarguably improve the legislative process in this place. I believe that people are appalled by some of the things that have happened here over the past few years, not least the expenses scandal and the more recent issue relating to fuel, which could be described as a scandal. The far bigger scandal is the fact that the one thing we are paid to do, we do not, on the whole, do anything like as well as we should, because we often simply do not know what we are doing. That is a scandal that can be rectified so easily with this small measure proposed by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion.

8.10 pm

Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab): Let me place on record my thanks to the Procedure Committee for all its work on this important issue— not just on this report but on previous reports. I particularly thank the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), for the work that he has done and I know will continue to do on matters relating to House business. We welcome the recommendations made by the Committee and the commitment in the motion to ensuring that the resources of the Public Bill Office will be made available to Members to assist in the preparation of explanatory statements.

6 Nov 2013 : Column 378

We have had a very good and robust debate, but one point that has been overlooked is the actual wording of the motion, which corrects an anomaly in the current system that we have enjoyed so far in the pilots whereby it has not always been possible to call on the Public Bill Office to support the work we are doing in tabling amendments and making sure that explanatory statements are available. We are pleased that the Committee is recommending a further period in which to allow this innovation to embed itself, because more time is needed to test the process further—this time in a context whereby the practice of tabling explanatory statements is used more extensively by Members.

There are two reasons, as we see it, for supporting this approach. First, it is important for the House to bear in mind that the official Opposition, who of course have to take a comprehensive approach to the scrutiny of legislation passing through this House, would face a significant extra burden through engaging in the business of drafting explanatory statements to all amendments that they wish to table for discussion in the Chamber. Much of the legislation we deal with is very complex and requires careful consideration on a political and a technical level, and we have to bear this in mind if we want to avoid a situation in which we actually deter effective scrutiny of legislation because we have, in practice, restricted the number of amendments that can realistically be tabled by the Opposition. It is probably the first time I have been able to say this, but I agree with the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) in the comments he made on this point.

Secondly, we need to test how the Government respond to any significant extension of the use of explanatory statements, in the sense that it could prompt serious questions about the timetabling of legislation in this House. The pressure on the official Opposition to develop their approach to scrutiny of Bills in Committee is, more often than not, intense, and an extra work load would make it even more incumbent on the Government to improve their scheduling to ensure that adequate time is made available for the development of Members’ approach to scrutiny. Having served with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) on the Bill teams for the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill and the recent gagging Bill, I can absolutely testify to the intensity of the process and the very short time frames that were made available, in both instances, to table the amendments and get them ready for discussion on the Floor of the House.

In our view, the permissive approach rather than the mandatory approach should be agreed by the House to ensure that any problems are teased out and, we hope, resolved. That is an important part of the process, and it should precede any decision to make explanatory statements mandatory. We think that explanatory statements are a positive innovation. We hope that Front Bench teams and other Members of the House adopt them as we work through legislation.

We are confident that the Procedure Committee, so ably led by the hon. Member for Broxbourne, will monitor progress and bring the issue to the Floor of the House to report on progress and make further recommendations if that proves to be necessary. That is the key point—if it proves to be necessary. We hope that the new system, whereby explanatory statements can be tabled for all legislation, will embed itself so successfully

6 Nov 2013 : Column 379

that we will not have to return to the issue. We must give it a chance to see how it works before we move to the more draconian measure of making such statements mandatory.

The Opposition support the motion but, for the reasons that I have outlined, do not support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and will vote against it if a Division is called.

8.15 pm

The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake): The Government support the motion. I thank the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), for his thoughtful and charmingly concise opening comments, and for explaining to the House the reasoning and conclusions of his Committee. I will set out a little of the history that has led to this debate, although I am a little disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) did not do so. I will then explain why the House should support the motion and reject the amendment.

The report to which the motion refers was published by the Procedure Committee on 25 February 2013 and the motion appeared on the Order Paper before the summer recess, but consideration of this issue can be traced back to Modernisation Committee report in 2006 recommending that the Procedure Committee draw up a set of rules governing the tabling and publishing of explanatory statements on amendments to Bills on an optional basis during Committee stage. That followed evidence from the team on the Health Bill that was introduced in 2005, which said that such statements would help to ensure that

“when we are briefing our ministers and advising them how to respond, the issues the Member really wants debated are covered and we really are responding to the queries or concerns that are being raised.”

It is of assistance to Ministers, Members and the public if there is clarity about amendments, if debates are informed and if scrutiny is as effective as it can be.

Following the report, several pilots were conducted. Although the Procedure Committee concluded that explanatory statements were useful, take-up of the facility was disappointing. The overall assessment of the value of explanatory statements was inconclusive.

Following discussions in this Parliament between the Procedure Committee and the Leader of the House, it was decided that a further pilot should take place on two Bills, the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill and the Small Charitable Donations Bill. Criteria for evaluating the pilot were agreed and the Public Bill Office was tasked with preparing a memorandum evaluating the pilot. That was published as part of the Procedure Committee’s report, so I will not attempt to summarise it. The memorandum led the Procedure Committee to recommend a system of voluntary explanatory statements for all Bills at the Committee and Report stages. The Procedure Committee concluded:

“The evidence from the pilot suggests that there are few downsides to a permissive approach.”

I agree with that.

The amendment asks the House to resolve

“that explanatory statements on amendments be mandatory”.

6 Nov 2013 : Column 380

After a playful intervention by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who moved the amendment, said that he was smirking in an irritating way. I know the hon. Gentleman well and he does not smirk in an irritating way. I would describe it more as an impish smirk. I accept that there is sense behind the amendment, particularly given the argument that it is easier to instil a cultural shift by making something mandatory and that a failing of previous pilots was the low take-up of the facility. However, I hope that I will be able to persuade supporters of the amendment not to press it to a vote, but to join those of us who want explanatory statements to become

“an accepted norm of the legislative process.”

The publication of explanatory statements will not guarantee that a Member understands the Bill. A Member who looks at the explanatory statements in isolation and does not have an understanding of the Bill will not be guaranteed to understand the amendments. If explanatory statements are published, it will require Members to read them to understand their implication. As the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) said, according to a statistic he has, seven out of 10 Members apparently vote without knowing what they are voting on. I am therefore not sure I have full confidence that if explanatory statements were put on a mandatory basis, each and every Member would read them and be fully informed about the purpose of the Bill.

There are good reasons to argue for a permissive approach, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) for his support in that respect. The Procedure Committee argues that a mandatory requirement would restrict Opposition Back Benchers in tabling amendments. I am afraid I have to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath)—a gamekeeper turned poacher in this respect. He referred to Short money being available to the official Opposition. That is true, but he will remember that when we were in opposition, even with Short money, there was difficulty dealing with the volume of amendments. I am sure he will also acknowledge we are now in a coalition Government, and Short money is not available to the coalition partners. In fact, in many cases when one of the parties seeks to table an amendment, there is no support for that at all. I must therefore disagree with my hon. Friend, as I do with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who must acknowledge that simply producing explanatory notes is no guarantee that a Member of Parliament will read them—although clearly I hope that that would be the case.

It is accepted, I think, that the burden would fall heavily on Her Majesty’s official Opposition, who table a significant proportion of amendments. It is always best to proceed in this area of parliamentary reform on the basis of consensus. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, and others who support the amendment, do not want to proceed on the basis of consensus. Of all Members in this House I would have thought the hon. Lady favoured the idea of proceeding on that basis.

Should the House decide to go down the mandatory route in future, it would be free to do so, but it should be on the basis of a fuller consideration of the burden—

6 Nov 2013 : Column 381

perhaps with a further pilot on a mandatory basis—and full consideration of some issues not fully addressed in the report. Those could include, for example, whether an amendment would be refused for tabling by the Public Bill Office if it were not accompanied by an explanatory statement, or if that statement was felt to be in some way disorderly—that could certainly put the Public Bill Office in a difficult position. If explanatory statements were made mandatory, more thought would need to be given to what constitutes adequacy and accuracy in explanatory statements, and who would rule on such issues. Those issues could be considered by the House in the future, but it should not be left to the Chair to consider and rule on such procedural reforms in the way proposed by the amendment to today’s motion.

I am grateful to those in the Public Bill Office, in particular the Clerk of Legislation, for the assessment of the pilot, and for confirmation that they would be happy to consider further the issues we have discussed today if that is felt necessary. I am extremely grateful for the positive commitment they have made to assist all Members in preparing explanatory statements—the hon. Member for Broxbourne referred to the fact that he could hear them champing at the bit, and if we listen carefully I think we can hear them champing right now to assist Members in preparing explanatory statements. That commitment is noted in the motion before the House and will help encourage the facility to become part of the culture of the House.

As with the pilots, I expect Government Departments to play their role and actively participate in the new arrangements. Should the House agree the motion tonight, I expect the Government to table explanatory statements on amendments for Bills introduced to this House after 1 January 2014. The Cabinet Office will produce guidance for Departments on the issue, and I am happy to commit to deposit that in the Libraries of the House for the convenience of all Members.

I am sure Her Majesty’s official Opposition, with the assistance of the House authorities, will also up their game from the pilots. As the Procedure Committee said, a more widespread use of explanatory statements “should underline their utility”. I thank the Procedure Committee for its work on this issue. I urge colleagues not to press the amendment to a vote and for us to push forward on a consensual basis, and I commend the motion to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided:

Ayes 23, Noes 142.

Division No. 119]

[

8.24 pm

AYES

Campbell, Mr Gregory

Dodds, rh Mr Nigel

Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M.

Durkan, Mark

George, Andrew

Goldsmith, Zac

Harvey, Sir Nick

Heath, Mr David

Hood, Mr Jim

Huppert, Dr Julian

Lucas, Caroline

McCrea, Dr William

McDonnell, John

Meacher, rh Mr Michael

Mills, Nigel

Offord, Dr Matthew

Reid, Mr Alan

Shannon, Jim

Skinner, Mr Dennis

Stevenson, John

Whiteford, Dr Eilidh

Wishart, Pete

Wollaston, Dr Sarah

Tellers for the Ayes:

Jeremy Corbyn

and

Mr Mike Weir

NOES

Andrew, Stuart

Arbuthnot, rh Mr James

Bacon, Mr Richard

Banks, Gordon

Betts, Mr Clive

Birtwistle, Gordon

Blackman, Bob

Blackwood, Nicola

Blenkinsop, Tom

Boles, Nick

Brake, rh Tom

Brazier, Mr Julian

Bridgen, Andrew

Brokenshire, James

Buckland, Mr Robert

Burrowes, Mr David

Burt, Lorely

Byles, Dan

Cable, rh Vince

Campbell, Mr Alan

Coffey, Dr Thérèse

Crabb, Stephen

Crouch, Tracey

Dakin, Nic

David, Wayne

Davies, Glyn

Denham, rh Mr John

Docherty, Thomas

Doughty, Stephen

Doyle-Price, Jackie

Duddridge, James

Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain

Dunne, Mr Philip

Elphicke, Charlie

Eustice, George

Evans, Graham

Evennett, Mr David

Fabricant, Michael

Foster, rh Mr Don

Freer, Mike

Fuller, Richard

Gauke, Mr David

Glindon, Mrs Mary

Graham, Richard

Grant, Mrs Helen

Greatrex, Tom

Green, rh Damian

Griffiths, Andrew

Hames, Duncan

Hamilton, Mr David

Hancock, Matthew

Hanson, rh Mr David

Harper, Mr Mark

Harris, Rebecca

Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan

Hilling, Julie

Hinds, Damian

Hollingbery, George

Hollobone, Mr Philip

Hood, Mr Jim

Howarth, rh Mr George

Howell, John

Hurd, Mr Nick

Jones, Andrew

Jones, Graham

Jones, Mr Kevan

Jones, Mr Marcus

Kelly, Chris

Kirby, Simon

Knight, rh Sir Greg

Lazarowicz, Mark

Lee, Jessica

Lee, Dr Phillip

Letwin, rh Mr Oliver

Lewis, Brandon

Lewis, Dr Julian

Lord, Jonathan

Loughton, Tim

Lucas, Ian

Malhotra, Seema

Maude, rh Mr Francis

McCabe, Steve

McCartney, Jason

McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick

Menzies, Mark

Miller, Andrew

Miller, rh Maria

Milton, Anne

Mordaunt, Penny

Morrice, Graeme

(Livingston)

Munt, Tessa

Murray, Ian

Murray, Sheryll

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Neill, Robert

Nuttall, Mr David

Ollerenshaw, Eric

Onwurah, Chi

Opperman, Guy

Parish, Neil

Patel, Priti

Penning, Mike

Perry, Claire

Phillips, Stephen

Poulter, Dr Daniel

Pound, Stephen

Rees-Mogg, Jacob

Reynolds, Jonathan

Rogerson, Dan

Rosindell, Andrew

Rudd, Amber

Rutley, David

Sandys, Laura

Scott, Mr Lee

Selous, Andrew

Skidmore, Chris

Smith, Angela

Smith, Sir Robert

Spellar, rh Mr John

Stewart, Iain

Stride, Mel

Stringer, Graham

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Sturdy, Julian

Swayne, rh Mr Desmond

Swinson, Jo

Tami, Mark

Tomlinson, Justin

Truss, Elizabeth

Turner, Mr Andrew

Twigg, Derek

Uppal, Paul

Vaizey, Mr Edward

Vara, Mr Shailesh

Walker, Mr Charles

Walker, Mr Robin

Webb, Steve

Williams, Stephen

Willott, Jenny

Wilson, Mr Rob

Winterton, rh Ms Rosie

Young, rh Sir George

Tellers for the Noes:

Mark Hunter

and

Mr Sam Gyimah

Question accordingly negatived.

6 Nov 2013 : Column 382

6 Nov 2013 : Column 383

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House approves the recommendation contained in paragraph 21 of the Procedure Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2012-13, Explanatory statements on amendments, HC 979, noting that the Public Bill Office will assist Members as required in the preparation of such statements.—(Amber Rudd.)

Business without Debate

delegated legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Representation of the People, Northern Ireland

That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 18 July, be approved.—(Amber Rudd.)

Question agreed to.

6 Nov 2013 : Column 384

The Bittern

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Amber Rudd.)

8.36 pm

Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab): I am grateful to have the opportunity to open the debate, and I pleased to speak for the first time under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I should perhaps explain to any bemused constituents who might be watching that Adjournment debates are applied for in advance, without any knowledge of the day’s news. Some of my constituents might wonder why I am talking about a pub and not about the loss of 1,000 jobs in Portsmouth, which affects many of my constituents. None the less, I hope people will see the importance of this local issue.

At one level, the debate is about one pub and one community, and about their struggle to keep their pub open. In fact, they do not want to just keep it open. They want to go one stage further: they want to buy it for the community and run it as a community pub. That pub is The Bittern on Thornhill park road in Southampton, but what has happened at The Bittern has an echo in pub campaigns across the country. In brief, the point I wish to put to the Minister is that legal loopholes mean that the intentions of Parliament, which are supported on all sides of the House, are being thwarted. I will put three practical proposals to the Minister for the action he could and should take to rectify the problems.

The Bittern is a popular community pub on a busy road between two council estates, in Southampton—Thornhill and Harefield. The next nearest pub is two thirds of a mile away; and most other pubs are well over a mile away and serve very different communities. Let me be clear that The Bittern is not a picturesque country pub; nor is it a bijou eatery with a bar hoping for its first Michelin star.

Architecturally, it is an attractive building, which was built in 1933 to an original art deco design. Both its interior and exterior are in need of refurbishment, but it remains largely as it was when it was built. The distinctive and original Crittall windows are still in place and functioning, but there are not quite enough of the original features in place for it to be listed. Yes, the pub could do with a lick of paint and some sprucing up, and it might not be the pub of choice of all my constituents, but it is a pub that many local people use and like. Some pubs which serve local communities become closed, unfriendly, and unwelcoming, but not The Bittern. It feels like pubs used to feel: warm, friendly and welcoming.

Earlier this year, rumours began that the owner, the giant pubco Punch Taverns, was not going to renew the landlord’s lease and wanted to sell to McDonald’s. It was no surprise to me that the community wanted to do everything it could to hang on to its pub. Taking advantage of new legislation, it decided to get its pub listed as an “asset of community value”. As the Minister will know, under the Localism Act 2011, the community would then have the right to exercise the new community right to bid to try to buy the pub if and when it came on the market. As he might also know, the idea of the community right to bid was first put forward when I was Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, so I am quite attached to the idea of communities being able

6 Nov 2013 : Column 385

to buy and run their own pubs. I was delighted, therefore, when the new Government took those ideas forward and developed them more fully in legislation.

Earlier this year, the community bid was put together, submitted and supported by the necessary 21 local residents and with a great deal of support from local councillor Mary Lloyd. It was submitted to Southampton city council on 22 May. To be listed as an “asset of community value”, a pub needs to be more than a boozer, and the application stressed the pub’s consistent fundraising for charities—this is largely a community with more warmth and generosity than money, but still it regularly raises money for bereavement charities, cancer research and others—and the fact that it was a popular and inexpensive venue for christening parties, wakes and wedding receptions, and had the support of the vicar of St Christopher’s church.

After considering the application, and when deciding to list The Bittern, Southampton city council said that the application

“demonstrates a high level of community support for an asset with mixed use, combining both a pub and a community and cultural focussed facility considered to be of significant value to the local community. The community-based activities that take place at The Bittern, and have taken place for several years, could not easily be replaced elsewhere in the locality, and could not provide the central community hub provided by The Bittern”.

That was a good judgment, and The Bittern was listed on 24 July.

The intention of the community right to bid is that, once listed, the community has the chance to raise the money to bid for the pub when it is placed on the open market. The process does not guarantee success—it does not force the pub to be sold to a particular buyer—but it gives people a fair chance to bid and to bring a new community-owned pub business into play. The reason for this debate is that that might never happen for The Bittern. The listing process is rightly public and owners have to be consulted. As the city council told me, the process has to meet good standards of transparency, audit and reasonableness and meet the necessary legal requirements. From the outset, the council’s officers took a positive view both of the principle of the legislation and of the application they were being asked to consider. They had to consider it objectively, but this was not a situation, like those I have heard of, where the local authority was resistant to the idea of listing assets or wanted to make it as difficult as possible. I will come back to that in a moment.

The problem is that in order to evade the right to bid, Punch Taverns entered into an agreement to sell to McDonald’s on 19 June, less than a month after the listing process began. Even if the council had been able to move faster—this was the first application it had received under the Localism Act—it would have had to move with unrealistic speed to list the pub in the short period between its receiving the application and an agreement being reached to sell the pub. Unfortunately, the law is clear about the position created by Punch Taverns and McDonald’s. There is an exemption from the community right to bid in the case of

“an option to buy...entered into before the land was listed”.

Once the sale had been agreed, McDonald’s placed a unilateral notice on the land title. That effectively prevents the sale of the pub to any third party, including the Save

6 Nov 2013 : Column 386

the Bittern campaign and the community. In other words, the whole intent of the community right to bid has been thwarted.

Emerging evidence up and down the country shows that there is a string of pubs—including the Tumbledown Dick in Farnborough, which is also being sold to McDonald’s, and the Golden Harp at Maidenhead, where Tesco is involved—for which communities have achieved listing status but cannot bid because of prior agreements to sell. There are examples of sales to developers who then offer to sell back to the community at a far higher price.

The Plunkett Foundation, which the Government have commissioned to provide support to community groups, tells me that about 60% of community groups seeking the listing of assets of community value are dealing with an unwilling seller. I want to put on record my thanks, and those of the community, to the Plunkett Foundation for the advice and support that it has given us throughout this process. It is very helpful to have an independent organisation that is able to steer community groups—and, indeed, Members of Parliament—through the complexities of the legislation.

This situation, in which members of the community are able to get their pub listed as a community asset but are then unable to bid, is a real disappointment, because there is no doubt that the listing of community assets has been a real success, and I do not want to take anything away from that tonight. The Campaign for Real Ale tells me that more than 200 pubs have been listed. The Plunkett Foundation says that more pubs have been listed than any other class of community asset. This shows that there is a huge demand out there for making a real success of the legislation and the intentions of Parliament.

Those organisations also point to problems, however. Some councils have, unlike Southampton, tried to gold-plate the requirements, imposing a level of formal and legal status for community bids that is not required by the legislation. Other cases, such as that of the Albert Inn in Wyke Regis, have been rejected on the erroneous ground that there is another pub 700 metres away. CAMRA is also concerned that the right to bid can be evaded if a pub is sold as a going concern, even if the purchaser has no real intention of retaining the pub. There is no ability to freeze the legal status of a pub when the listing process begins; nor is there any requirement to sell to the community. There could not be any such requirement to sell to a particular bidder. Those provisions do not exist in the law at the moment. Councils may use listing status as a relevant planning consideration, but many do not do so. Other loopholes are also becoming widely known, including the leasing of a pub for a period of time in order to evade the provisions of the law on the community right to bid.

Almost inevitably, many attempts to get a pub listed as a community asset begin only when it is realised that a pub is under threat, and the process gives too wide a window for owners to evade the intentions of the law. It is not a fair fight when a community such as mine in Southampton finds itself up against Punch Taverns and McDonald’s, and something needs to be done to even things up. Even where a council is as supportive as Southampton was, the onus is on the community group to get everything right. The owners have the right to see due process from the council, but they can use the listing time to evade the intentions of Parliament.

6 Nov 2013 : Column 387

I hope the Minister will agree to an urgent review of the working of the Localism Act to see whether there are practical ways of closing this loophole. Perhaps it would be possible, when there is a particular threat, to place a freeze on the legal status of the pub for a few weeks, to enable the listing to be considered and to avoid a sale agreement being entered into. There might be other ways of solving the problem as well. I have been in Government, and I know that the temptation is often to wait until the evidence is overwhelming before stepping in, but the Minister would be well advised to have a look at this matter now; otherwise, too many community groups will put their efforts into campaigns that are ultimately fruitless.

The sale of The Bittern has not yet been completed. We cannot be sure, but a reasonable assumption is that McDonald’s has agreed to buy, subject to the building or site getting the necessary planning permission. This actually leaves the one hope that the Save the Bittern campaign can hang on to. No planning application has yet been made, although McDonald’s told the Southern Daily Echo in August that it had submitted a pre-planning application. Perhaps there will be legitimate grounds for planning permission to be rejected. If that happened, perhaps McDonalds would withdraw, and if it did, it would presumably open the door to the community bid once again. At this stage, we can only speculate and hope.

That brings me to the second issue. One thing is certain: the change of use itself—from pub to fast-food restaurant—does not need planning permission. That issue has been raised repeatedly by MPs in debates over the years and by the all-party save the pub group, whose chair, the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) is unfortunately abroad—otherwise, he would have been in his place this evening. The inability of local authorities to block a change of use is the biggest single factor encouraging the sort of links between major companies such as Punch Taverns and McDonald’s, or between the pubcos, including Enterprise Inns and Tesco, Sainsbury’s and other supermarkets, which have cost the country so many pubs in recent years. I urge the Minister to consider again changing the planning laws so that local authorities can determine a change of use.

I know Ministers have suggested that councils should use article 4 directions, which effectively require all use changes to have planning permission. I believe Ministers have promised simple guidance on the use of article 4 directions, but will the Minister clarify whether that has been produced or will be produced? Will he confirm whether an article 4 direction can be used for an individual pub? Will he confirm that the local authority would need to give a year’s notice of its intention to use article 4 powers, thus creating another huge window to evade the community right to bid? Will he confirm, too, that the use of article 4 exposes a local authority to significant costs—for example, paying the planning application costs for the developer—and risks of compensation?

I am an open-minded person, and if there were ways of dealing with this issue other than changing the planning legislation, I would always consider them, but it seems to me that the overwhelming evidence suggests that a change in planning laws on the use-class issue is necessary to support pubs such as The Bittern.

Finally, I turn briefly to the relationship between Punch Taverns and McDonald’s, and similar relationships between pubcos and major developers. As I have said,

6 Nov 2013 : Column 388

the listing process for assets of community value is open and public, so the community group at The Bittern had nothing to hide. Indeed, when the listing proposal was put together, it was agreed that I should write on its behalf to Punch Taverns asking to open direct negotiations. Punch politely, but firmly, declined, saying:

“In the case of the Bittern we carefully considered all opportunities but came to the decision that a sale was most appropriate”.

The interesting point about that is that that is what the community wanted—to buy the pub—so why did Punch insist on going ahead with a sale to McDonald’s when it had the opportunity to get a market price from the local community organisation?

Punch tried to tell me that whatever happened would be an “asset to the community”, but not many of my constituents would regard yet another McDonald’s as such an asset. Building a fat-inducing takeaway on the main walking route to the local secondary school is anything but, although McDonald’s has tried to tell me how wonderful it would be. It pointed out in a letter that if it opened a fast-food restaurant, it would then be able to work with the local community to organise litter picks! I suppose that is true, but it is not quite what people are looking for.

Most odd, then, is why Punch simply declined the chance to sell the pub at a proper market price to the local community. By definition, Punch and its shareholders would not lose out, yet it declined the offer. I think the only sensible interpretation is that Punch is working strategically with major developers on the disposal of pubs and that individual sales to local community organisations would disrupt that cosy relationship and cause it some unnecessary hassle. With over 200 pubs converted into supermarkets over the past two years, it is pretty clear that something similar, even larger in scale, is going on between the pubcos and the major supermarkets. I was struck by the words of the chairman of all-party save the pub group when he described Punch Tavern and Enterprise Inns as

“zombie companies that do not pay dividends, and they have no growth plan or export potential”,

going on to say that these companies

“just about pay the cost of their debt by selling off their assets.”—[Official Report, 14 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 573.]

That is what is happening now.

If big companies are getting to together to close the market and deny opportunities to new independent businesses owned by local communities, they are acting both against the public interest and in an uncompetitive manner. That should be investigated, and I hope that the Minister agrees that an inquiry by the Competition Commission would be appropriate.

The supporters of The Bittern have not given up. We may have been thwarted for the time being, but who knows what will happen? Perhaps there will be valid planning grounds for opposing the change of use. Perhaps McDonald’s will realise that there are only so many occasions on which they can ride roughshod over a local community. For now, the pub is still trading, months after it was expected to shut. Perhaps Punch Taverns will respond to this evening’s debate by opening negotiations. It is certainly far too early to admit defeat.

6 Nov 2013 : Column 389

8.55 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Stephen Williams): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) on securing the debate. I also congratulate him on the constructive way in which he has spoken this evening, and the constructive way in which he engaged with us on an informal basis beforehand. I fully understand both his own frustration and the frustration that he has expressed on behalf of his constituents, and I can say to him, as one constituency Member of Parliament to another, that I understand that frustration for a very good reason. A similar issue arose six years ago in my constituency involving the Ashley Court hotel in St Andrews. Although the local Member of Parliament, both the local councillors and the entire local community did not want the pub to close, they were powerless to prevent it from being sold to a property developer. It was subsequently demolished, and is now a block of flats.

I want to describe some of the work that the Government are doing in recognition of the important role that pubs play in the community, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred several times, but let me first echo his thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), both of whom do a great deal of good work with Members on both sides of the House in raising the issue of pubs in the community—and, indeed, the price of beer. As always, that subject featured on Budget day, when the Chancellor scrapped the beer duty escalator as well as cutting beer duty, shaving 4p off the average pint. The right hon. Gentleman will know how difficult negotiations with the Treasury can be, but on this occasion even the Treasury was helpful to pubs.

The Government have also made it easier for pubs to host live music performances, so that they can provide the entertainment which, the right hon. Gentleman told us, takes place in The Bittern, and have extended the doubling of small business rate relief from October 2010 to March 2014.

The main issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman concerned the rights conferred by the Localism Act 2011. I am grateful to him for paying tribute to the Government for implementing ideas which I understand that he may have supported when he was Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government three or four years ago. These are early days: the Act is still very new, and the community rights conferred by it have existed only since September last year. However, as I told the House on another occasion when dealing with a similar issue relating to high streets, more than 550 assets have so far been listed by communities across England as assets of community value, and I know that the list is growing daily. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman follows his former Department on Twitter, but if he were to do so, he would see that nearly every day another asset is added to the local register. The Department is pleased to acknowledge the work that is being done by communities throughout the country.

The Campaign for Real Ale, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, has been very active in this regard. Yesterday I met representatives of CAMRA and other organisations with which the Department wants to work in order to promote community rights such as this. CAMRA has produced its own leaflet explaining how to help communities that want to promote their

6 Nov 2013 : Column 390

local pubs as an asset of community value, and I commend it for doing so. Many pubs have exercised these community rights. The first asset to be listed was The Ivy House pub in Nunhead, which is in the constituency of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). There are many other examples. There is a long list on the CAMRA website. The Rose and Crown in Slaley in Hexham has now been purchased by the community. Not only was it registered as an asset, but it has gone on to be purchased. The Anglers Rest in Bamford in the Peak district is now a community-owned pub. Across the country communities have been able to take advantage of this legislation, not only to preserve the pub in their community but to take on the ownership and management.

The Government have given real practical support to bring this about. There is not just legislation. We have put £19 million on the table to support partners such as Pub is the Hub and the Plunkett Foundation, so they can engage with communities and make sure they know what these rights are and how to exercise them.

This right has to balance the rights of the community with those of the owners of the property. Getting something on to the register does not automatically give communities the assets they want. Indeed, this was never the Government’s intention. Judging by the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks, he understands that in a free society we cannot completely fetter the property rights of someone who owns the pub, however objectionable we might think their business practices are. The community rights bid does give communities a better chance to bid for an asset they value in their local community, however. The scheme does not restrict what the owner can do with their property even if it has been listed.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about planning policy, and he mentioned change of use. The Government have set out a clear and consistent set of objectives for planning reform. We want local communities to exercise power and to promote sustainable development, but permitted development rights have existed in the planning system for a long time. As a councillor in Bristol for the city centre district in the mid-1990s, I campaigned for a reform in the planning use classes at that time, when pubs and restaurant were together in the A3 use class. Fortunately, later on that use class was divided into A3 and A4, and pubs sit in the A4 use class. That means that under permitted development rights pubs can go up from A4 to A3—and I believe McDonald’s would be classified as a restaurant—although planning permission may be required for associated building works.

The right hon. Gentleman referred several times to article 4. Local planning authorities can achieve objectives outside the use class system by bringing forward an article 4 direction, and this can be used to protect community assets such as public houses. In the last year three planning authorities have made directions under article 4 specifically to control the development of public houses. Two of these directions have been used to prevent demolition, and the third is in regard to a change of use.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the geographical extent of an article 4 direction. It can be as specific as a single piece of land and a single building, or it can be across the entire local authority area—Southampton in his case. He also asked about costs that might be visited upon the planning authority. Because an article 4 direction

6 Nov 2013 : Column 391

reduces the normal planning rights of a property owner, if they subsequently have to apply for planning permission because of an article 4 directive, they do not have to pay a planning fee. To that extent, there is indeed a cost to the local authority.

Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman asked me whether compensation would be payable. The advice I have for him is that that possibility can be mitigated if a planning authority gives sufficient notice. Indeed, Bristol has recently brought in an article 4 direction to control the spread of houses in multiple occupation and it gave 12 months’ notice. Over the past two years, 270 article 4 directions have taken place. He also asked about guidance on article 4, and the Department has been moving on that. A review of guidance was undertaken by Lord Taylor of Goss Moor and that has been published online for comments. The period for those closed in October and the Department is considering what more to do.

6 Nov 2013 : Column 392

I entirely sympathise with the points that the right hon. Gentleman was making. I was glad that he paid tribute to the community rights that have been put in place, and I am sorry that on this occasion they were not able to help his constituents. However, the Government do want to work with organisations such as CAMRA and others that want to protect the use of the pub and other community assets. Our message is not to wait for a threat but to move now. That is what CAMRA is advising its members up and down the country to do. We are saying, “Do not wait for a threat. Move now to list your asset of community value.” That will provide the protection that the Localism Act affords.

Question put and agreed to.

9.6 pm

House adjourned.