|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank all those who contributed to the debate and in particular the Attorney-General for a thoughtful and
2 Feb 2006 : Column 380
constructive response. We all have our own partisan and personal differences on this subject but we nevertheless have to try to find common ground. The purpose of the debate was to take up what has been said in a number of speeches, including what I regard as the Chancellor of the Exchequer's very useful and substantial speeches, which have said that we should be looking for a cross-party consensus. I am happy to think further on how best we might achieve it, either through a sessional committee or through some other means. I think that we need to take the matter further.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the Conservative Party that I regret that we did not have much Conservative participation in the debate. I found David Cameron's speech very much less substantial than what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said. The Conservative Party has some confusion about whether it is an English party or a United Kingdom party. Its foreign policy is desperately confused about Britain and Europe. I recall the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that part of the problem about being confused about Britishness is that we are therefore confused about our relationship with Europe. We hear from the Conservative Party much confusion about whether one should allow the flying of only one flag or of several in Britain. So there are a lot of issues that we all need to discuss.
However, without being in any sense more partisan, I return to where I started. We need to find common ground among all parties and none and among all members of our diverse national community. Let us talk on that front. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I speak to the regulations and to the order, perhaps I may take the opportunity to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, to what I understand is his first appearance on the opposition Front Bench. I have had the opportunity to hear him speak in the Chamber in robust and committed terms and wish him well in his new position.
I am pleased to be able to introduce today two pieces of legislation that aim to improve the position of Industrial and Provident Societiesor IPSs, as they are known to the substantial numbers who participate in or benefit from their activities. Both measuresthe Friendly and Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1968 (Audit Exemption) (Amendment) Order 2006 and the Community Benefit Societies (Restriction on Use of Assets) Regulations 2006represent important steps forward in modernising IPS law. They follow a key
2 Feb 2006 : Column 381
consultation document, published in July 2004, which demonstrated support for the proposals enshrined in both of those instruments.
Before I describe what these specific measures achieve, I should like first to say a few words about the importance of IPSs. As noble Lords will know, there are two types: the co-operative, which is run exclusively by and for the benefit of members; and the community benefit society, which is run by its members for the benefit of the wider community. The Government welcome the significant role that societies of both types play in providing greater choice and diversity in the wider economy and for the public in general. We welcome the tradition of democratic involvement and member engagement that many of those societies represent and admire how the co-operative movement has been changing and transforming itself into a modern business framework to meet the needs of community engagement and sustainable enterprise for the 21st century.
We also welcome the recent trend for IPSs to deliver local services in areas such as leisure, football supporters' trusts and childcare. The Government have been encouraged by recent developments in the sector and we are keen to see IPSs continue to grow and flourish. As part of our commitment to that process, we are looking to reform provisions in current legislation, where that is appropriate and necessary. This is why we have supported two Private Members' Bills in recent years which had the objective of modernising IPS law. In 2002, we backed a Bill that eventually became the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 2002. A year later, we supported a further Bill, which became the Co-operatives and Community Benefit Societies Act 2003. These two statutory instruments further develop the sector. I hope noble Lords will agree that those actions, taken together, demonstrate a level of interest in and support for IPSs that is unprecedented in recent decades.
We are supporting them not just because of the general importance of IPSs but because of the need to ensure a broad equivalence of treatmentor paritybetween IPSs and companies. That is because we recognise that many in the sector believe that IPS law is becoming outdated in a number of ways. For example, I know that many involved with IPSs have been particularly concerned about their relationship to a new legal entity: the community interest company. That was established by the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004 and the Community Interest Company Regulations 2005, using, as their basis, a variant of company law to provide a vehicle for pursuing social enterprise goals. The social enterprise sector is diverse and the Government acknowledge the need for a range of different legal forms to sustain it. Alongside IPSs, the community interest company will offer greater choice and opportunity for social entrepreneurs. But the introduction of that new legal form most certainly does not mean that the Government intend to leave IPSs to wither on the vinenot least because the IPS tradition of democratic member engagement is
2 Feb 2006 : Column 382
particularly appropriate to those forms of social enterprise where stakeholder involvement is key. The two instruments that I am laying today provide further testimony that we see a continuing role for IPSs.
I now turn to the instruments in more detail. The first will give community benefit societies the option to apply a lock on the value of their assets. That asset lock aims to allow community benefit societies to close off the possibility that assets accumulated during their lifetime for the benefit of the community might be distributed to private individuals, following a vote on conversion to a company. The instrument requires that where that option is taken up, a society's locked assets must be transferred to another body with an equivalent asset lock, should the original society convert.
The aim of this proposal is to provide members with the certainty that their investments will be used for the benefit of the communitya certainty that should serve to promote the growth of the community benefit sector. This is particularly important because the community interest company, which I mentioned earlier, already has an asset lock built into its legal form. So unless action is taken to allow community benefit societies a similar option, those wishing to invest for the benefit of the community may well turn to community interest companies instead. This instrument takes another important step towards ensuring a level playing field between societies and other bodies.
Respondents broadly agreed with the proposals following the consultation document published last July. Two of the key issues in the consultation document were which community benefit societies should be allowed to apply an asset lock and how the asset lock should be regulated. As to the first, we propose to exclude registered social landlords who have incorporated as IPSs, as well as charitable industrial and provident societies. This is because both types of community benefit societies are already subject to restrictions on the use of their assets through compliance with housing law and charitable law respectively. Consultation respondents broadly agreed that allowing these types of bodies also to apply the asset lock that is being introduced today would lead to unnecessary confusion and duplication.
As to how the asset lock should be regulated, consultation respondents were asked to consider whether a light-touch approach or a more rigid framework was more appropriate. There was a clear preference for a light touch, and the Government agree that this is the more sensible way forward. Given both the democratic ethos inherent in community benefit societies and the fact that these bodies are traditionally closer to their members than proprietary companies, we believe that members will be well placed to ensure that locked assets are used appropriately. Putting in force a more rigid framework might also impose costs and burdens which relatively small community bodies would struggle to meet. One consultation respondent described the light-touch approach as a "sensible, practical, democratic method", which is a view that we are happy to accept.
2 Feb 2006 : Column 383
However, we have put in place a number of measures to ensure that sufficient deterrents to the misuse of locked assets are in force. The Financial Services Authority, which currently registers industrial and provident societies, has agreed to take on responsibility for overseeing this light-touch approach. Where a community benefit society is considered to be in breach of these asset-lock regulations, we have given the FSA the power to require the society to take all necessary steps to bring that contravention to an end by the issue of an enforcement notice, which is in effect a cessation order. Where an officer of a society has knowingly contravened the regulations, the FSA may require that officer to make restitution to the society. Naturally, I do not expect the FSA to make use of these powers at all frequently, but a deterrent is important, and these measures provide an effective response to any wrongdoing on the part of a society or its officers.
We have worked closely with the FSA on these proposals, and I thank its officials for the help that they have given us. I also thank Co-operatives UK for its help during and since the consultation to ensure that these draft regulations meet the needs of benefit and community societies. These regulations are made under the Co-operatives and Community Benefit Societies Act 2003 and amend the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965. They are divided into five main parts. Part 1 provides the citation, commencement and interpretation provisions. Parts 2 and 3 set out how the restriction on the use of assets will apply and how they may be used. Part 4 sets out the enforcement measures, and Part 5 sets out the miscellaneous and supplemental matters.
In more detail, Regulations 3 and 7 set out the purposes for which a society's assets may be used. Regulation 4 and Schedule 1 set out the terms of the "restriction on use" rule, as it is called. Regulation 5 defines the kinds of community benefit society that may have a restriction on use; housing associations and charities already have a restriction and are therefore excluded from these regulations. Regulation 6 provides that the restriction is unalterable, except in certain prescribed circumstances. Regulations 8 to 15 set out the enforcement measures. Regulation 8 requires that enforcement measures should be taken only to the extent necessary to maintain confidence in community benefit societies.
Under Regulation 9, the Financial Services Authority may enforce a restriction on use by issuing an enforcement notice requiring a society to take the necessary steps to ensure that any breach is brought to an end or is not repeated. Under Regulations 10 and 11, an officer of the society who has knowingly breached the regulations can be required to make restitution. The officer may also be removed from their post. Provision is made for warning notices under Regulation 12, decision notices under Regulation 13 and for appeals under Regulation 14.
Additionally, under Regulation 15 the Financial Services Authority may apply to the court for an order restraining a breach of the "restriction on use" and directing an officer of the society to take steps to prevent, or bring to an end, any contravention. Regulations 16 and 17 in Part 5 set out the
2 Feb 2006 : Column 384
requirements for the service of notices and together with Schedule 2 set out the modifications to the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965.
I will now turn to the second of these instruments, which raises the audit threshold for both charitable and non-charitable IPSs. At the moment, the Friendly and Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1968 generally requires societies to appoint a qualified auditor to audit their end-year accounts and balance sheet. But non-charitable societies can choose to disapply this obligation if their turnover is below £350,000 and their balance sheet total is less than £1.4 million.
There are two reasons why we may wish to raise both of these thresholds. First, the audit threshold for companies is significantly higher and was raised recently by the Companies Act 1985 (Accounts of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and Audit Exemption) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/16). Taking action here will create a more level playing field by ensuring that smaller IPSs are not required to pay more in auditing fees than equivalent-sized companies.
Secondly, the Charities Bill currently in another place may further increase dis-equality. The Charities Bill will see the auditing threshold raised for all charitable entities, including charitable companies and societies. It would be odd for non-charitable IPSs to be given less regulatory flexibility than charitable societies in this area. The current proposals will not only bring the thresholds in line with companies, but will also provide a degree of future proofing. There is a good case for raising the audit threshold for non-charitable societies so that it becomesand stayshigher than that for charitable societies.
This raising of the audit threshold for non-charitable societies will mean that IPSs should be able to save significant costs. A regulatory impact assessment estimated savings for an individual society of around £2,000, which, across the whole sector, could mean as much as £2.4 million being saved. IPSs that wish to continue to have their accounts audited, for example, as a way of enhancing their reputation and reassuring investors, will, of course, continue to be able to do so. But those that wish to put the potential savings to other usesin the same way that smaller companies canwill now be free to opt for that course instead. The Treasury consulted on this proposal in July 2004 and I am pleased to say that there was near unanimous support for raising the threshold. Respondents clearly agreed that a level playing field is both appropriate and desirable in this area.
I will now go through the statutory instrument itself. As noble Lords will see, it uses for the first time what has become known in the sector as the Gareth Thomas power by amending IPS law in line with and following a change in company law. This power was given by the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 2002, which I mentioned earlier.
The order amends the Friendly and Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1968 in as much as it sets out the conditions which must be satisfied for a society to disapply Section 4 of that Act. Section 4 imposes a duty on a society to appoint a qualified auditor to
2 Feb 2006 : Column 385
audit its accounts. Article 2 of the order provides that, for a society to be able to disapply Section 4, its assets must not exceed £2.8 millioninstead of £1.4 millionand its turnover must not exceed £5.6 millioninstead of £350,000. Article 3 provides for the amendments to have effect in relation to any year of account ending two months or more after the coming into force of this order. Copies of the consultation document on these instruments, the summary of responses and the regulatory impact assessments are available on the Treasury's website.
Looking forward, the Government will continue to work with the sector to enable IPSs to fulfil their potential. But to provide for a more strategic and co-ordinated approach, we plan to wait until the major overhaul of company law that is currently in train has been completed before considering whether further action needs to be taken on IPS law. This will enable us to consider what, if any, further steps need to be taken to maintain the more level playing field between IPSs and companies, which the measures we have been discussing today have been designed, in part, to achieve. It will also provide stability, something that is particularly important to smaller societies, which may not have the resources to deal with ongoing legal change. But in the short term, I hope that we can agree that much has been done already and much is being done now. We have taken significant steps forward in updating IPS law. I hope that those in this House who recognise the importance of the contribution that mutuals make to this country will welcome these proposals. I beg to move.
|Next Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|