08/03/2016 House of Commons

ombudsman 's arrest that allows review of complaints against the SRA

and I would only encourage you to look at whether that is a possible

T. Point of order. Mr Speaker, last Thursday we had an excellent debate

on Welsh affairs in this house. But unfortunately the Secretary of State

for Wales was absent. The Parliamentary undersecretary said,

"I can advise the house that the Secretary of State has Parliamentary

business elsewhere". However we learn from Twitter that the

Secretary of State for Wales was at a lunch with Bexley Conservative

ladies. There is a photograph. That is not Parliamentary business. So I

would respectfully suggest, Mr Speaker, that of the Parliamentary

undersecretary comes to the dispatch box, apologises for inadvertently

misleading the house. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am happy to clarify the

position and of course apologise if I have inadvertently misled the

house but I can confirm that the Secretary of State was on a mixture

out -- nature of government and political activity and I will

happily clarified. And apologise. But I would also confirm that it was

always the expectation as Parliamentary Undersecretary of

State that I should be responding to the backbench committee debate on St

David's Day. Glove we will consider that matter closed, however there is

another point of order on another suspect the -- on another subject.

Following the prime ministers commitment last December join the

debate on Syria to provide quarterly reports to the house and comments

from the Leader of the House last Thursday in business questions, that

there will be a further statement shortly on matters relating to

Syria. Could you offer me any guidance Mr Speaker on how I can in

courage the government to provide a clear indication of when this update

will take place and how to persuade ministers that it would be

beneficial for the Prime Minister himself to report back to members? I

my thank the honourable member for give me notice of this point of

order. I understand the government has given and and undertaken it will

provide quarterly report but it is for the government to determine the

appropriate form of these reports. And indeed which minister should

make them. That cannot fall to the chair. However, if the honourable

member is dissatisfied with the form or content of the updates, there are

a range of opportunities open to her for pressing the government for more

information. I would add that similarly, if the statement is not

forthcoming with the speed with which the honourable lady things

proper, she will also be aware of the mechanisms that she can deploy

to try to procure the presence of a minister, possibly even the Prime

Minister. We shall await events with interest. Point of order, Mr Michael

fabricant. Mr Speaker may I personally apologise to you for

inadvertently perhaps through frustration using an eighth letter

word beginning with the letter B and ending in -CKS when a colleague of

mine was ranging yet another scare story about what a disaster it would

be if we were to leave the European Union. It was unseemly. Actually I

had heard the utterance of the honourable gentleman. That was

spontaneous and from a sedentary position but precisely because of

its unseemly nurse I did not wish to draw attention to it. However the

honourable gentleman has now done so and there is nothing further that

requires to be set. I note in passing that the honourable

gentleman has occasion, possibly I have done by my apply, notable

hilarity from the Secretary of State for Justice and it is good to know

that the right honourable gentleman is in such an upbeat frame of mind.

-- by my reply. If there are no further points of order we can now

come to the ten minute rule motion in the name of Mr will Quins,

notably busy fellow in this house. Let's hear from the honourable

member. I beg to move the leave the given to bring in a bill to require

first day training as a condition for receiving the driving licence.

Mr Speaker, Britain has some of the safest roads in Europe but there is

death rate. In the last 12 months death rate. In the last 12 months

1780 people were killed on British roads. A total of 23,700 were killed

or seriously injured. Land transport accidents are one of the top five

biggest killers of males and females between the ages of five and 34. In

these situations when somebody is seriously injured or fighting for

their lives, every second counts. A review of road traffic in Europe

cited by the world health organisation claimed that 50% of

deaths from road collisions occurred within a few minutes of the crash.

So often there is not time for an ambulance to arrive. Knowledge of

first aid can be absolutely critical. The immediate initiation

of CPR for example can even quadruple survival from cardiac

arrest. But the sad reality is in Britain knowledge of first aid is

patchy. Through no fault of their own many people do not feel

confident enough to intervene and provide first aid in crash and

accident situations. A survey for St John Ambulance and 75% people would

not feel confident enough to save a life. At the scene of an accident

24% would do nothing until an ambience arrived or a passer-by who

knew first aid appeared. Mr Speaker, these are troubling statistics but I

hope they set the scene for a bill that I'm bringing forward today to

require first aid training as a requirement of the driving licence

application. Many other European nations already do this. In order to

qualify for driving theory test Switzerland, applicants must prove

they have undertaken ten hours of first aid instruction from a company

approved by the Swiss government. Since 2016, in Germany, there is a

single first aid course for applicants of all categories of

driving licence. This course takes seven hours, the equivalent of nine

45 minute lessons. In the Czech Republic learners must take

obligatory lessons in a driving school, this includes four 45 minute

first aid lessons. Other countries that require first aid include

Austria, Slovenia, Hungary and the Baltic states. Mr Speaker,

introducing this requirement would make such a difference to our

population's knowledge of first aid. Around 63% of the population aged

between 21 and 29 have a driving licence. If that figure remains

steady, within around 13 years this proposal would have helped to ensure

nearly two thirds of the number of people aged under 30 in Britain

would be potential life-savers. And far more, drivers would feel more

confident to step forward in the event of a crash or indeed in any

other emergency situations will stop first aid knowledge and skills would

also make new drivers more aware of the potential dangers on the road

and indeed the perils of speeding and reckless driving. Mr Speaker,

this is a great opportunity to boost the ability of a substantial

proportion of the British population in an important skill. Every year,

as more young drivers receive their licence, the number of British

people with first aid training will rise. I do not think it is an

exaggeration, Mr Speaker, to say that this change has the potential

to save hundreds of lives. Indeed, it reinforces the governments own

strategy to improve road safety and reduce the number of people killed

on our roads by 2020. Mr Speaker, it was a Conservative government that

first introduced the stand-alone theory test in 1996. It is a tough

test and so it should be. The pass mark is 86%. It helps ensure that

applicants for a full driving licence have a good knowledge of the

Highway code and could spot potential dangers through the hazard

perception test. At that time, some claimed that the stand-alone theory

test was unnecessary. But since that test was introduced road fatalities

in this country have more than halved. The theory test may have

played a role in that reduction. Since 2007, Mr Speaker, the theory

test has contained a number of first aid questions and that was a good

development. But I really now believe it is time to reduce a

requirement for stand-alone practical first aid training as

another condition to obtaining a licence. This is a reform supported

by both the British Red Cross and St John Ambulance, to groups who

recognised that first aid can have a transformative effect in accident

situations. -- two groups. Last year I supported the private members bill

to make first aid lessons compulsory in schools, however some opponents

of the claimed it would put too much pressure on school timetables and

undermined the discretion of teachers. And I understand those

concerns. That is why I think my bill is a good, mice. British people

should have the opportunity to learn such skills through their lives.

Would help boost the first aid skills of many more British people.

Surely we want to foster an environment where people are more

willing to step forward and help in an emergency?

The Government's act aims to do this by removing the fear of liability

for helping out. But without having those skills and the confidence, how

can we expect people to act? Mr Speaker, I propose that attending a

four our practical first aid course, run by a first aid provider should

be a minimum requirement for receiving a full driving licence.

Evidence of the training would have to be produced before allowing an

applicant to take a formal test, as with the current theory test. This

change would be made through an amendment to the 1999 regulations.

Mr Speaker, I hope I have been able to do this proposal justice in such

a short period of time. I truly believe introducing this change will

have a transformative impact on the British public's knowledge of simple

but life-saving techniques. So many of the British public lead busy

lives. Introducing this reform will ensure the majority of young people

will be required to take the time to learn these skills, indeed I believe

many will welcome the opportunity that this reform provides. Moreover,

I'm encouraged by the fact members from six separate parties have

agreed to sponsor this Bill, showing degree of cross-party support for

this these proposals. Put simply, this change will give many more

British people the chance to learn life-saving skills and potentially

save a life. I urge colleagues to support the Bill. Does the writer of

all member have leave to bring in the Bill? As many as are of the

opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". I think the ayes have it. Who

will prepare and bring in the Bill? Caroline Lucas, Martin Day, Sir

Roger Gale, Mark Williams myself. Driving licence, mandatory first aid

training girl. Second reading what day? Friday the 11th of March. Thank

you. We come to the main business, the programmed motion. The Minister

to move... Thank you. The question is, the Enterprise Bill, as on the

order paper. As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary,

"no". I think the ayes have it. Order. As I informed the House on

Monday the 26th of October, before a report stage begins on the Bill I

will seek to identify, in advance, those changes made in committee,

which I would expect to certify, together with any government

amendments tabled for report stage, which, if passed, would be likely to

lead me to issue a certificate. My provisional certificate, based on

those changes and expected amendments is available in the vote

office and the bills before Parliament website. At the end of

the report stage I am required to consider the Bill for certification.

At that point, tomorrow, in this case, I will issue my final

certificate. As I informed the House on the 26th of October, I have

accepted the advice of the procedure committee, not as a rule, to give

reasons that decisions on certification during this

experimental phase of the new regime. Anybody wishing to make

representations to me prior to any decision should send them to the

clerk of legislation. Order. The clerk will now proceed to read the

orders of the day. Enterprise Bill as amended, to be considered. We

begin with new clause four, in which it will be convenient to consider

new clause eight and amendment 17, to move new clause four I call Mr

Brennan. Thank you very much Mr Speaker. The green investment bank

might be referred to as the oaky Cokie clause, because it's been in,

out and show -- shaken all about. This is a clause which should

actually still be in the Bill. You may not be aware, but I will read

briefly from the record what happened in relation to this clause

in committee. This is from the committee procedures. The question

is clause 32 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of the opinion, say

"aye". To the contrary, "no". The chair to the contrary, and no. I

think the ayes have it. The Minister, I move the clause does not

stand part of the Bill. I raised a point of order to the chair, saying

the question was that the clause stand part of the Bill. The

committee voted the clause should stay part of the Bill. The Minister

cannot then say it should not be part of the Bill. The chair said,

for clarity, I will put the question again. So actually this was passed

in committee, but the bow and be taken a second time because the

chair, in the spirit of extraordinary generosity, and to

spare the Minister's blushes, allowed a second vote. First it was

in, then it was out. We are saying today, let's put it back in again,

in this new clause. So this isn't really a new clause, it is an old

clause. It was clause 32 in the Bill when we were looking at it in

committee. The Government is very wary of this new clause four or old

clause 32, because it fears that the green investment bank's borrowing

would remain on the Government's books and be classed as public

sector debt after privatisation, because of the position taken by the

office for National statistics. If there was any question of statutory

control over the Green Investment Bank, the national office would

insist it stays on the books. Of course, this currently, the purpose

currently make sure it is green and not just like any other investment

bank. Green Investment Bank is supposed to be a different kind of

entity. Not like the one the Secretary of State used to work for,

when he earned ?3 million a year with them and which were fined by

the European Union for fiddling interest rates. It is not supposed

to be that kind of institution. It is supposed to be a different kind

of institution, completely different. One focused on

sustainable investment in green projects, not based on the

unsustainable culture of greed, which brought the world economy to

its knees in 2008 and the consequences of which millions of

hard-working families are still suffering today. So, if it's going

to be that new kind of institution, how do we ensure that it remains

that kind of institution if the Government strips it of its

statutory purpose to invest in green projects? The point we made in

committee, Mr Speaker, is whether the Government should allow that

potential ruling by the office for National statistics to completely

drive its policy on this important area of sustainable public policy.

Basically the office for National statistics point is a technical

matter. If the green investment bank remains on the book, after

privatisation, that doesn't reflect any kind of problematic public debt.

It may spay spoil the look of the Chancellor's forecasts on debt

cosmetically, but it would not change the fundamental underlying

substance of public finances, if that were the case. In other words,

the statutory protection for the Green Investment Bank's purposes is

to be removed by the Government because of an accounting convention,

which is inconvenient to the Government's political narrative. In

other words, it is spin over substance on stilts. That is what is

going on here. As we discussed in committee, the Green Investment

Bank's... As the Asian infrastructure investment bank, the

Treasury is all too ready to allow the United Kingdom, to allow UK

borrowing sorry, to be part of the financing of the Asian

infrastructure investment bank. It was not worried at all that public

debt would be part of the financing of that bank, yet it is extremely

reluctant to allow the same for our own and its own Green Investment

Bank. Mr Speaker, you won't be surprised to know I have praised the

former Coalition Government for introducing the Green Investment

Bank. Policy in this area can be very difficult to implement, because

by its very nature it is new, innovative and in committee I quoted

the wise words of curbing the frog, who said, sang or croaked, it is not

easy being green. It is very true. It is not easy. This is an

innovative and effective piece of public policy and I praised the

former Coalition Government for introducing it. I will give way to

my honourable friend. I am grateful to my honourable friend. Isn't one

of the benefits of the Green Investment Bank that in a large part

it actually addressed some of the market failure that had gone before

it? And that what we risk losing are some of the benefits that it really

brought, in terms of securing that green investment question mark and

all that will happen, and on consequence perhaps, is taxpayers

will have to pay more through a larger subsidy?

I believe that the proposal that the Government brought forward on

privatisation following the election was seriously and are put, if I can

put it that way. The Green Investment Bank has only just

started to turn a profit and we are glad it is doing that, but it is a

very small amount. When the Government, as I will develop

further on in my argument, when the government said it intended to

privatise the bank it quoted the very statutory objective it is now

wishing to remove from statue because of what was said about

public debt and the Green Investment Bank being on the books. So it had

been trouble all along, this proposal. I think the way the

Government is scrabbling around for a solution on this shows it was

undercooked when first propose. I will give way to my honourable

friend. I thank my honourable friend the giving way and praise him for

his amendment and the way he has scrutinised this Bill through

committee. Would he agree things have moved on rather substantially

since we met in the Enterprise Bill committee, with the Government's

publication last Thursday of the prospectus, the announcement that it

would proceed? The fact it is to be a two stage auction? It looks from

the thing that has been published as though it will be fully privatised,

so all the debate and discussion we had in committee about whether or

not the Government would or would not keep a minority share in this,

as recommended by the environmental audit committee, seem to be for the

birds and the minister probably knew that in committee. Can I take this

opportunity to congratulate my honourable friend on her appointment

to the home affairs select committee. I'm sure she will be just

as contentious in scrutinising this Bill. She is absolutely right, the

publication of the Government's intentions in relation to this last

week are very interesting post I hope the Minister will be able to

actually answer the point she has made, about what the Government's

intentions are and clarify that in terms to whether it maintains a

stake in the Green Investment Bank after privatisation, because when we

probed her on that in committee, the answer was none. She is right, that

it would appear it is the intention to fully privatise it, even though,

as we discussed in committee, it must be the worst possible time to

be considering privatising this very important public asset, if part of

the purpose is to get good value for the taxpayer by this state of the

market currently. I will be developing this point further in my

speech. When we were meeting two weeks ago I mentioned the bear

market and the slide and in value of all bank shares since Christmas, the

softening of growth in China and we have had only this morning mark

Carney and the bank of England revealing the large amount of

liquidity they are preparing to inject into the UK banking economy

in the event of an exit from the European Union, the referendum, if

that were to go ahead, in order to avoid a complete meltdown and a

financial crisis, the like we saw in 2007- 08. She is right to point that

out. Also, by implication to point out that privatisation occurring

after the referendum in the summer and the implications of a leave vote

for attempting to privatise the Green Investment Bank is highly

significant. I will give way. I am very grateful to my honourable

friend and wholly support remarks he is making. In respect of the

privatisation of the Green Investment Bank, what impact does he

think it might have on the prospects for that privatisation, worthy

official opposition say it was mindful to purchase back into the

public sector the bank, should it be fully privatised as he suggested?

And I am not Kentish neglect on that for reasons my honourable friend

might well understand given that is not currently that is under

discussion. -- I am not going to speculate on that. What I would say

is that it is a duty for the government to make sure that if it

is going ahead with this privatisation which we do not

support, if it is going ahead, it has absolutely be sure it is getting

value for money for the taxpayer as well as giving an absolute guarantee

that it is protecting the green purpose of the Green Investment

Bank. I had praised the government for the introduction of the Green

Investment Bank but why do anything to place central green mission in

grave doubt? I should of course remind the house that the Green

Investment Bank was first proposed under the last Labour government.

Because first mentioned as a postal for development by the formula

Chancellor Alistair Darling in one of his budgets and it was being

developed in the Cabinet Office and the Department for business,

innovation and skills when I was a minister in those departments in the

previous Labour government. And now that it was introduced under the

coalition it has made a good start. It has been able to participate in

the financing of projects that otherwise would not have taken place

and not make a real contribution to meeting our commitments under the

climate change act 2008. I think we are all agreed across the house that

it is a good story and I do not see any dissent to that proposition from

anyone in the chamber. So it is a strange sort of pass, Mr Speaker,

when even something that we all agree with the other good thing,

even good borrowing, for sustainable services, is classified as bad if it

appears on the government 's book for no other reason than it appears

on the government 's book. During difficult years following the

banking crash in which we were sometimes in recession, a

significant part of growth in the UK was coming from the green economy.

By some estimates it accounts for 1 million jobs, more than ?100 billion

in value. It is rate this point in that the government are in danger if

they are not careful of undermining one of the key drivers of that

sector. If we were able to tap into our country's potential we could

create thousands more high-quality sustainable jobs for our equality.

When the government announced privatisation plans last year the

Secretary of State gave an assurance to the house in a written statement

and I will quote from that statement from the official report." This

should bring a number of important benefits. Giving the Green

Investment Bank greater freedom to operate across a wider range of

sectors in accordance with its green purposes, which are enshrined in

legislation.". In that announcement of the Secretary of State emphasised

that the green purposes of the Green Investment Bank were protected by

the legislation in which its duty to pursue them are enshrined. Obviously

something went wrong after that with the government proposals. They got

advice from the office for National statistics which led the government

to say that instead they intended to repeal the very legislative

announced in the decision to privatise the bank last year. That

is why in October last year they had to say in effect it does not really

matter if we repeal this statutory protection as long as we make sure

the Green Investment Bank does not appear on our books. In his letter

of October 15 when he announced his intention to repeal the relevant

measures from enterprise and regulatory reform act 2013 that the

Secretary of State offered no assurance and that point that those

green purposes would definitely be maintained. We have been demanding

assurances that when the bank is privatised how are we to ensure that

it maintains its green purpose? And does not simply become yet another

bank, albeit a very small bank, but one that could easily be gobbled up

by someone in the marketplace. That is why labour and other parties as

well in the other Place in particular feet of the government on

this issue and introduced a special share which we are trying to

re-juice in our new clause four which we are discussing now. The

government says that the Green Investment Bank can create that

special share itself. And in committee the Minister quoted a

letter from the chairman of the Green Investment Bank to our noble

friend Lord Edelson which I will have see quoted again in a moment.

In committee the minister said that this approach would satisfy the

office for National statistics. She said she was confident it would but

she could not give us a guarantee. As I said in committee we need an

absolute assurance on this. Before we will increase this legislative

opportunity to future proof the purposes of the Green Investment

Bank and now the Green Investment Bank had written to honourable

members, as is their right, they outlined their plan to issue a

special share that is envisaged for themselves rather than through this

bill in the way that we are proposing and their reason for doing

this is of course the belief that the ONS will then be allowing them

to be classified as being off the government 's book. I asked them if

they could guarantee this and this is what they said in response by

e-mail: you will likely be aware that ONS does not engage directly

with arms length bodies like the Green Investment Bank. At the same

time, however, we have been engaging closely with the government over all

matters relating to the sales process and this is an issue where

we have been as close as we can to government. We understand that

government has been engaging closely with ONS on this whole issue

including the special share structure which the Green Investment

Bank is putting in place and we understand that on the basis of

those discussions the government was sufficiently satisfied to allow the

sales process to proceed. That is wrong: Folger. -- that is from Colin

Folger. On the basis of the government says it is satisfy the

Michigan to guarantee categorically there on the floor of the house that

it's special share proposal will definitely be acceptable. -- from

Colin Faulkner. I hope that Mr will say that, if she wants to intervene

she can do so now. She is not indicating, so I will give way to my

honourable friend. As Mike I hope that the minister. I wonder if the

has had a chance to look at Annex C of the proposed disposal of shares

in the Green Investment Bank where it says, as part of any sale

discussion investors will be asked to confirm their commitment to green

values and set out how they propose to do this. Bidders stated

intentions will be taken into account. I wonder if we will hear

what percentage will be allocated in the bidding process because

obviously all bids will be marked and I for one will be very curious

to know what weighting and relevance will be given to the collection of

green purposes when the decision is made by government. I think we will

all be interested to know that and perhaps the Minister will be as

informative as she possibly can be in telling the house that in her

response. What I should say to my honourable friend, after

privatisation this is the point about this, after privatisation what

guarantee do we have that the banks simply will not be swallowed up by

somebody else? And all of the guarantees given by the original

investors could quite easily evaporate. I thank my friend who is

being very generous in giving way. Does he share my disappointment that

the government has bent over backwards with the ONS to create

this special purpose vehicle, special charity, setting it up

independently appointed people to protect the green purposes. But has

refused to do any such moves on the other thing that we debated in

committee, which is the protection of making sure that the transparency

around executive pay which this bank is a rare exemplar in the banking

sector is protected as the bank goes forward as well? Yes and she has

been dogged in her pursuit of that issue both in committee and in

laying her amendments here at report stage and I look forward to her

conservation on that subject. My question is, can she guarantee that

privatisation will not violate the green purposes of the Green

Investment Bank or rather we just keeping our fingers crossed in that

regard? There are other reasons that are still to be adequately answered

by the government, which were not answered properly in committee

stage. Am I right to say that the only reason the legislative lock on

the green purposes being repealed is purely to get the Green Investment

Bank off the government books? Is that the reason why they are doing

this? If that is the principal reason for removing the lock, is

that good enough to give up the statutory guarantee given what I

said about the technical nature of the accounting issues the ONS are

raising? Can she give us any indication her response to this

debate of the government view about the stake the intense to retain if

any following privatisation? I understand this is a market

transaction but we also need an idea of the kind of return the government

expects from the sale of the Green Investment Bank. We know as we

briefly mentioned earlier about market conditions being currently so

poor that the Chancellor actually had to abandon the sell-off of

Lloyds shares but we need to know whether the government really think

they will get a significant return from the privatisation given all of

the pain associated with this process and given, quite frankly,

the record in previous privatisations of poor value for

money for the taxpayer. I do not expect the Minister to be able to be

precise, but she will obviously want to avoid criticism that the

government encountered about the lack of value achieved previously.

So can she give us some sort of idea of what she is expecting the

government to be able to get from this privatisation? Is the minister

concerned that these matters will provide further uncertainty for no

carbon investors at the time when there is real concern about the

governments with treat on investment in wind power. We have learned over

many years that it is certainly not wise to privatise in haste. We might

well repent at our leisure if this innovative and effective piece of

public policy is lost as a result of care. That is not a sustainable way

to make sustainable posse particularly not in an area where we

are trying to create a sustainable future for the country which is why

new clause four has been tabled in my name and that of my honourable

friends. The honourable gentleman giving way? I rather thought he had

finished his speech. The question is that new clause for the red second

time. I am very happy to speak to my New Clause eight both the

fraud alert over to associate my self with the very full case

recently made by the shadow front bench in favour of New Clause four

but in rising just now I would like to speak specifically to New Clause

eight. And essentially the context of my amendment is my dismay that

the government is determined to push privatisation of the green

investment banks through despite concerns its best in the House of

Lords, members of this house and indeed civil society. Through this

and other actions I fear that it is demonstrating that its diet to get

the green investment back off its balance sheet is taking massive

presidents over its interest in whether or not the Green Investment

Bank genuinely is contributing to the green economy to the extent that

it can. As the environmental audit committee which I'm proud to serve,

as it noted in its report on the future of the bank in December, and

I quote: while we recognise there are potential benefits resulting

from an injection of capital we find that the city has been made without

you transparency, consultation or proper consideration of alternatives

and the absence of the steps is likely to leave that the suspicion

that the move and its timings are not evidence based policy.

Everything that has happened since December has not changed that view.

We have seen a government acting without looking at the evidence. My

new clause aims to ensure the bank is maintained as a single,

functioning institution and it can continue to invest in the UK's

low-carbon economy at the same level planned prior what I think is a

deeply regrettable privatisation. As well as being regrettable, I think

this privatisation won't be easy. The Government says it aims to sell

75% of the bank, equating to ?1.5 billion up front. That is a

considerable sum. Indeed, it is huge, even by the standards of the

bailout investment funds. According to Bloomberg, that is so. Given

there were few deals approaching the 1 billion mark in 2015, I would like

to know how the Government can be sure it will make a sale of 1.5

billion in just one round. I think there is a very real risk this will

turn out to be quite fanciful. Not only that, but investor confidence

in the UK's green economy is at an all-time low. One only need look at

the energy confidence report on making it more unlikely the

Government can sell a majority stake in one round or if the taxpayer will

get any value for money. Furthermore, any equity stake bought

would require the buyer to follow through on Equity annually. In other

words bankrolling the bank's annual is this plan. So the huge sums

involved mean it is highly likely that come October the desired 75%

will not have been sold. Given the Government's determination to only

hold on to a 25% stake, if that, then there is a good chance we could

find ourselves in a position where the Government says it has done what

it can, it hasn't been able to get the sale awaits and therefore the

risk is it proceeds to dismantle the bank and sell off its assets, in

other words what we could face is essentially a fire sale. I think

that is made even more likely, given that the most attractive parts of

the bank, Matic League 1 billion wind funds and energy fund. There is

a risk the bank's owners don't commit to fully fund the business

plan. It would then become little more than a fund manager, as opposed

to a bank driving additional investment in the UK's green

economy. I think is really important the Government doesn't just sell to

any investor. New investors must committed to fully funding the

bank's business plan, driving expansion of the UK's low-carbon

economy, addressing market failure to crowd in additional investment,

transparency and public accountability standards and

facilitating and scaling up citizen investment in the UK's low-carbon

economy. Quite simply, my amendments seeks to inoculate against these

risks, for the Government to maintain the integrity of the Green

Investment Bank as a single institution with a fully bonded --

funded business plan. Thank you Mr Speaker. I thank the honourable

lady. Using her words, would not inoculate and be guaranteed by the

special share the Government intends to operate?

I thank him for his intervention. I think the special share the

Government intends to operate has no real legal underpinning, so we

cannot have reassurance in it. I think secondly the very real

overestimation of the ease with which they will be able to sell the

Green Investment Bank is a real problem, which is what I am

demonstrating. I think the Government has overestimated the

speed of which they can sell which means there will be a temptation to

asset strip. That is what I think we will see. My amendment is a simple

way of making sure that doesn't happen. What I'm suggesting is we

ensure that anyone buying it commits to full five-year life of the

initial round one. I thank the honourable lady for giving way. She

is a credit to our committee and I am grateful on the many

interventions she is making on this. Does she share my concern, that this

proposed, special share may not carry forward in any future sale of

the asset? Would she join with me and asking the Minister to clarify

that when she responds to the debate? The danger is it is sold

once on the next time it's sold, part of that sale is we want to get

rid of this stuff which is all about the green part of what the bank

does. I am very grateful for her

intervention and kind words and congratulate her. I share her

concerns that we have no real legal guarantee, over time, that this

special share mechanism is going to be safe and going to protect not

just the green purposes of the bank, but the focus on complex and novel

is investments which a public Green Investment Bank is uniquely suited

to. I do fear this privatisation is being done in haste. It is not

properly thought through. The guarantees we are being offered are

not watertight and therefore I would very much commend my amendment. It

is a very simple amendment, but I think it would give some reassurance

at least that the Green Investment Bank is maintained as a single

functioning institution and can continue to invest in the UK's

low-carbon economy, at the level planned before privatisation. If the

Government is sure that is possible I hope they will accept this

amendment. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move amendment number 17 in

the name of myself on the right honourable member of Don Valley.

Before I come to the substance of that I want to congratulate previous

speakers on this. I think the fact that government has moved

substantially on some of these issues is testament to the scrutiny

that has been provided both by the environmental audit committee and by

my own party. I would also like to put on record my anxiety, the fact

that this asset sale was rushed out last Thursday, before this Bill has

even had a chance to pass through the House, suggesting to me we are

not moving on a timetable dictated by the Minister or by the market

conditions for the best possible value of a government asset of this

kind, but to a timetable driven by the Chancellor, who is going to have

to make some very difficult announcements in his budget on the

16th of March. To me, the changes mean we will need billions of pounds

of green investment to upgrade the energy and transport infrastructure

of the UK. So far the Green Investment Bank has done a really

sterling job in attracting capital to low-carbon infrastructure

projects in the UK, that might have otherwise have struggled to find

funding. This Bill allows the Government to sell off the bank.

Again, I want to stress, I am pretty certain this bank is going to be

sold in one piece, at one time, and the risk is it will not achieve best

value for the taxpayer. I am not opposed to privatisation, if it can

be shown it is the right policy tool to get the job done, but this

decision seems to have been rushed through just to get it off the

Government's balance sheet. The environmental audit committee's

report, on which the honourable lady myself set, and which we published

before Christmas concluded the Government took the decision to

privatise the banks without due transparency, consultation or proper

consideration of alternatives. Mr Speaker, ministers have simply not

yet proven to Parliament that the bank will achieve its aims better in

the private sector. The Government has relied on assurances from

shareholders and executives who stand to benefit personally from the

sale. So if the sale goes ahead my amendment, amendment 17 will ensure

the Green Investment Bank remains accountable to Parliament and

taxpayers, by reporting annually on the pay of its top team. The

environmental audit committee recommended the Government undertake

proper consultation and evidence gathering before any sale and

protecting the Green Investment Bank's green identity should be

paramount. While I welcome the Secretary of State's pledge to

protect the bank's status of being green, I am concerned if we do not

lock this in legislation it will not be secure. I am concerned especially

share will not be worth the paper it is written on in any future sale of

the bank and it will be forgotten, because it depresses the onward sale

value of the bank. It is a depressor, if you are limiting the

nature of activities in which the bank can invest. When the bank was

established it was intended by government to be an exemplar, of

transparency in the financial sector and reporting of executive pay. This

is particularly important, accepted on a cross-party basis, given the

lack of trust and bankers and their bonus culture, which exists to this

day, which rewarded recklessness. It is therefore disappointing that in

the Minister's proposals to privatise the bank this is welcomed

clarity is not to continue. Ministers are happy for the bank and

its executives to revert to the status of any other bank, or fund,

with a minimum reporting of renumeration, limited to that of the

highest-paid member of staff and the chairman of the board. This

amendment seeks to change that and commits the Government providing

full disclosure to Parliament on the re-numeration of the Green

Investment Bank's senior management and board after privatisation. This

was hotly disputed and argued by the minister at the committee stage of

the Bill. I think it is there to say the committee found a certain amount

of irony in her stout fence of allowing Green Investment Bank

executives to have the freedoms to increase their pay through this

Bill, and the privatisation, and yet having a Bill which simultaneously

seeks to cap the pay of people working in private sector companies

and whose salaries are around the ?25,000 a year mark. In sharp

contrast of the salaries of the executive team at the Green

Investment Bank, whose salaries, which we know, range from ?125,000-

?325,000, plus bonus, plus benefits. This so the bank began in 2012 to

invest in green infrastructure projects. It has invested in 58

projects with a total value of more than ?10 billion. Last June it

announced its decision to privatise the Greenbank and this Bill is the

means to do that, to reclassify it is so its finance and contribute to

public sector debt by removing reference to the green... I give

way. Thank you. I thank the honourable lady for letting me into

being. It seems to me the Green Investment Bank has been a success.

It was set up by the Coalition Government and it is a good success.

One of the reasons why and Mr Speaker, the Green Investment Bank

should go into the private sector is to liberate more investment and

actually increase the possibilities. Indeed, and that has been the

argument given by ministers. We would wish to see the bank being

able to fund more projects. The Government, as he would say, has

called it a natural next step. I would ask, who else supports the

move question at the green investment move supports the move

and the Government has drawn on that supporters of primary motivation for

their plans to proceed. There has not been the same level of

transparency and consultation that accompanied the establishment of the

bank. Our committee, the environmental audit committee, heard

in our evidence to our inquiry that that decision was taken... Without

due transparency, publication of relevant evidence, consultation and

proper consideration of alternatives. He is aware there is

many different ways to raise money. Privatisation so soon after the

bank's creation was also not discussed when it was established

just three years ago in 2015. There has been no evidence of

privatisation or consideration of alternatives to sell. In response to

our report the Government claimed it had undertaken unpublished market

testing over the course of two years. In the Bill committee I asked

the Minister of State for Small Business and enterprise if she would

be willing to public -- published that market testing. She declined

and also said she would not publish the impact assessment because there

were no regulatory or significant cost impacts of the sale of the

Green Investment Bank or changes to its pre-existing policy goals. Our

committee disputes that because of the risk to the green purposes of

the bank. I think, in summary, our concerns are a bank set up to deal

with green issues may not in the future, although it may have more

money, may not have this laser focus on green purposes at any future

sale. We know from sale of assets whether they are transport assets or

whatever they are, that they tend to be sold on, hence my question to the

minister about... Happy to give way. Forgive me, I wasn't in your

committee. But it does seem to me that the special purpose of the

Green Investment Bank will be maintained by the special share and

the special share ownership, but any change to the Green Investment

Bank's original purposes will have, one way or another, to come back to

Parliament. The minister has said that a report

will come to Parliament before the bank is finally sold and I had

questions for her in committee about how that report would be considered

by Parliament. Would it be fitted up on the committee corridor as part of

the statutory is timid? Will we have a chance to vote again on this and

the Minister is nodding so I ensure she will clarify that when she gets

up to respond to the debate. There were a series, we had these concerns

and I still have this concerned that if the Green Investment Bank is sold

on it it may just be sold on as the Bank of America Merrill Lynch

investment bank at some future stage and investment banks are going

through a very tricky time at the moment. Things are not at all well

in the investment banking sector. I think any purchaser of this bank

will be looking for maximum freedoms in order to maximise potential

future sale capital receipts. So the only robust consultation the

government can point to given they will not publish market testing is

itself. The government relied very itself. The government relied very

heavily on the bank and its executives in evidence and its

response to our committee. And of course those executives and

shareholders, those executives stand potentially to benefit from a sale.

Amendments 17 invite government to providing information about the

Nomura to the senior board after privatisation. I also had questions

about how will those in charge of the bank stand to gain personally

from the privatisation process? I also question how objective their

reviews can be if they are to gain personally from the privatisation?

Isn't it the case that private sector companies and their directors

are already under disclosure obligations in addition to executive

compensation for directors? What would the rationale before going

further and making the requirements Pacific Lee on the Green Investment

Bank go over and above those required of any other company? The

reason for that is that the company has been financed by over ?3 billion

of taxpayers money. At a time when my constituents in Wakefield have

had the third lowest increase in pay of any part of the country since the

financial crisis. And so for my constituents and his constituents

who have seen their pay eroded and depressed in the last year as a

direct result of the actions of reckless bankers, for us to

privatise a fully owned state bank without putting in place of

detections to prevent that huge increase in remuneration that tends

to happen when state assets are privatised I think is negligent for

us given the journey we have travelled in the past ten years. The

arguments are of course very persuasive when the bank is in

public ownership and her Iraqi months justify the current

disclosure regime. But once the bank has been privatised and is in

private hands and is being principally, I think 75% or more

financed by private money surely the arguments the honourable lady

advances no longer apply. Wit and on how much it will be sold by. At the

moment it is one hunch percent financed by public money and whoever

takes over I don't know whether they will put in that match the funds

that the government has put in but certainly they will not be putting

that money in on day one. So I think that this bank was set up to be an

exemplar to the banking and financial industry. It was not set

up to be just another bank. It was set up to do something special land

to be something special. The special share protects we hope, the Minister

reassures us the specialness of its green purposes going forward

although I have questions about the longevity of how long that will

last. The question I have is that given it was also set up to be an

exemplar on executive pay, why should that part be lost? I will be

very happy to take further questions in a moment. After a discussion with

my colleagues last week I wrote the chair of the Green Investment Bank

asking for clarification on the proposed remuneration for the Green

Investment Bank senior executive. Our shareholders, taxpayers, could

remain potentially as minority shareholders in the enterprise and I

think as long as the UK taxpayer has even 1% shareholding in this bank

this should carry forward. These taxpayers are committed to ?3.8

billion to this bank and any talk about what a future owner would put

into this bank, we will wait until we see the colour of their money at

some point in the future. The committee, the environmental audit

committee made it clear in that letter that he could not see a

reason for -- we cannot see a reason for increasing remuneration. We were

particularly interested to know the proposed structure of the management

fee the privatised bank would be charging investors and any form of

profit share or participation rights for management proposed in the

offering two new shareholders. We asked to note the board view

regarding quantum and -- quantity and structure of share incentives.

We also sought the assurance of the board and commitment to maintaining

the staffing levels to ensure the bank continues to fully and

effectively serve the UK need for investment in green infrastructure.

In his reply Noel Smith reassured the committee that the proposed is

this plan will require the current staff complement with possibly a

small number of editions. But less welcome was his response that the

information memorandum for investors which includes prep injected

revenues at cost including -- projected staff costs. This has

already been decided at board level and was definitely decided when the

minister was in committee with us, is commercially confidential and

cannot be shared. I am grateful for giving way, she has a special

knowledge in this area so can I tease out a points you mention. She

mentioned the ?3.8 billion of public money being invested, what

consideration did her committee give to what valuation of the bank would

be appropriate for the government to sell? She quite rightly said this

was an inspiring start by the government and wanted to be an

exemplar and before there is a special sponge blitz to make sure it

is the right time to let it go. The remit of the committee was not to

second-guess what the government could or should get for the bank. I

am sure there will be people in the City of London that are much better

able than I am to live. I am sure there will be colleagues certainly

on his benches that could probably make a good stab at it. When I

worked with small businesses you could get multiples of income but it

depends what you're buying. In this case you are buying an asset book

with you hope future revenues from the investments that have been made

and you are also buying senior bank management intellectual capital if I

can put it like that. ?3.8 billion of Dummett investment in green

projects that you hope at some point we'll give you a revenue and capital

stream as they sold off but it also depends on what purchaser is going

to put in to the capital projects as well. She quite rightly says there

is a series of investments in the bag but it would be possible to

check that her committee has looked at providing an evidentiary -based

understanding if in future when this bank is sold whether it is being

done on a fair basis? I'm sure that is a simple thing to do and I am

sure as we go forward and as the sale proceeds they will be a variety

of attempts to calculate the net present value of the bank and I'm

sure the government will want to let us know whether they think that has

been achieved. There is plainly a public interest in this remaining

Green Investment Bank because the amount of public money that has been

invested and the public interest in green fuels and green energy being

developed. So that together with the work that the committee which she

now shares will do to scrutinise the future of the green arrest and bank

surely gives enough protection to make sure that it does indeed remain

a Green Investment Bank, that is certainly something her committee

will continue to switch eyes. Once it is sold my committee has no

future locus in scrutinising what it does. It goes off and we can do it

as a matter of interest but this is the final legislative opportunity

that we have as parliamentarians, collectively in this place, to state

and to say what we want to happen to this bank. Again we will possibly

have a future chance if it comes back and is going to be debated

upstairs on the committee floors. But we are at the penultimate stage,

the first round of the bidding process has already started. The

starting gun has been fired. If the government comes back and says we

want to sell 100% and does so next September, Christmas, the

environmental audit committee can look out of interest going forward

in the future whether we feel best value has been achieved. But this

bestial share, we want to really test that here today to make sure

that those as he says, the public interest is protected and green

vehicle continues. This is a really important financial institution. If

we are to meet those climate change targets. Let me conclude Madam

Deputy Speaker by saying that the Chancellor said in January that the

sale of shares in Lloyds would be postponed because of market

turbulence. The sell-off was scheduled for spring and he has now

said it will come after Easter and we await to see when I will come.

Since the start of the year we have seen a bear market, great turbulence

in the financial markets, panic selling of crude oil and oil prices

at the 13 year low. These are worrying times for the global

economy and the market is hugely volatile. All bank shares are

currently falling in price, whether they are UK bank shares, European

bank shares, or US bank shares. Just this morning we have heard that the

Bank of England has announced it will give commercial banks three

exceptional opportunities just before and after the referendum to

borrow as much money as they like to offset any threat of a run on banks

and to prevent a repeat of the chaos of the financial crisis of 2008. The

house to ask whether, given the pretty bleak turbulent choppy

financial picture, whether the government decision to launch the

sale of the bank last Thursday was the right one. What ever your views

on privatisation this hardly looks like the most auspicious time to

sell estate asset, let alone a state owned bank. And cute. -- thank you.

Can I just imagine my honourable friend who chairs the select

committee on her remarks and I congratulate her on the work the

committee has done to tease out the details of what is going on. Madam

Deputy Speaker, in 2012 the Green Investment Bank was set up for a

purpose. It was stated quite clearly that that purpose was to address

Pacific market and investment barriers that would achieve

reductions to tax base and consumers. The way it was going to

do that was to work under the framework of the climate change act

by risk-sharing between the public and private sectors. Identifying and

addressing market failures and limiting private investment and

thereby accelerating and delivering green investment at large scale and

with significantly lower cost of capital. That was the whole point.

And it was set up precisely because there was a market failure. The

market sector -- the private sector was not able to do this. That is not

me saying this as a member of the opposition benches because of course

we supported this, it was our idea in the first place when we were in

Dortmund and we were delighted when the coalition put it into place. --

when we were in government. But the government coalition that stage

Thidapa Green Investment Bank commission. Independent, nonpartisan

-- the set up the commission. It was brought together by the Chancellor

itself. It spent three years and two official rounds of rigorous market

testing and evidence gathering to establish that a Green Investment

Bank was needed and collected evidence to inform its aims, its

design and the operating model it was going to function under. Now,

three years, two official rounds of market testing to set it up. Compare

that with the and lack of consultation to sell it

off. But what did that commission fine? The commission found that

without a way of directly addressing market failure and risk-sharing

between the public and private sector through a Green Investment

Bank, higher levels of direct subsidy would be required to

facilitate low-carbon investment, meaning higher costs to the consumer

and the taxpayer. That is what the Chancellor's on

commission, with the hand-picked people he put on it, agreed. That

was the rationales which is now being undermined by the same. So

let's be absolutely clear that this represents an increased cost to the

consumer and the taxpayer by the Government's on commission. -- oh

that commission. The Chancellor has given himself something of a

problem. By committing to achieve a public finance surplus every year in

normal economic times, the Government has roared out borrowing

to fund public infrastructure. The exception is investments through the

public finance initiative. Since the financial crisis there has been less

private finance available to invest in public or private infrastructure

projects. At the same time direct public investment has also decrease.

One of the concerns of investors is the political risks that have

manifested themselves from potential changes in government policies.

Those have been separately criticised and I won't go into those

here, but the way in which government has chopped and changed

the regulatory frameworks for low carbon investment has seen, as my

honourable friend who spoke from the green benches indicated earlier, it

has seen a decline in the UK's attractiveness for investment, so

that for the first time under the Ernst Young Rubik we fell out of

the top ten best places for investment. Last year. So, the way

in which this has been tackled by the Chancellor is two fold. The

pension infrastructure platform sourcing less than 1 billion in

total in its first four years of operation, its aim was 20 billion

and 40 billion of UK guarantees scheme, only 1.7 billion guarantees

were actually issued in the first two years. Contrast that financial

performance, that dire financial informants with the performance of

the Green Investment Bank. With just ?2.3 billion of public money it has

mobilised over 10 billion of investment in British infrastructure

in the last three years. I would have actually wish to have

seen the Green Investment Bank have a few more failures, because it

adopted a very specific policy at the beginning, and that was, go for

safe projects. It went to safe projects because it wanted to build

up the track record, it wanted to show that it had a track record of

successful investment behind it, so about now it could attract in much

more private sector capital, to take on even riskier projects. Because

that is the point of agreed investment bank. It's not to do what

the market is going to do anyway, what the market can see it is going

to get a return on capital from. The whole point of the Green Investment

Bank is to take on those much more difficult technical projects that

otherwise the market cannot finance. So this is just the point, three

years in, when we should have been thinking, great, it's got the

successful track record behind it, now what it needs to do is to move

on into slightly riskier... Some may fail, that is the nature of

investment and banking. We know that. Some projects may fail, but

overall the balance of investment flowing through into UK

infrastructure would be hugely enhanced. So what does the

Government decide to do? Just that the point of liftoff, of the only

successful lever the Chancellor has to get money into infrastructure

project of this country? The other two having been quite dismal in

their performance. Pull the plug. Throw it away. Privatise it and send

it back off into the private sector, which was the very place that

couldn't manage this market failure in the first place. So, Madam Deputy

Speaker, the honourable gentleman who spoke from the benches earlier

said, look, it is a success. So why can't it go on being a success, in

the private sector? Of course, that was the question that had to be

posed by the commission in the first place. That was the question that

the Green Investment Bank was set up to answer. But actually, if you were

to ask the former chair of the bank, he actually gave the very best

response to the honourable gentleman. He said this: "There is

an inherent tension between the GI be continuing to invest in novel,

more complex projects profitable over the long-term, versus

shareholder pressure to maximise returns on short-term investments."

There you have it. There is a tension in the private sector. It is

a tension we all recognise and it is well known and won the Governor of

the Bank of England has spoken on so much over the last year. He calls it

the event horizon, the tragedy of the horizon, because the investment

horizon is so short that the sort of projects, you cannot see the payback

for. I think it is tragic that the Government is actually privatising,

neutering what was one of the best things that it established. Of

course I will give way. I thank my honourable friend for

giving way. You are making a very persuasive argument here. Like me,

does he not agree that actually if we are to be a country which

represents, as the Chancellor said, the march of the makers, part of

that is being at the front of the queue when it comes to leadership,

in terms of supporting innovation in this particular marketplace of green

energy and green environmental products. Doesn't he feel, like me,

that by privatising the Green Investment Bank all we are doing is

creating yet another bank, that won't do the job it was intended to

do? My right honourable friend has

enormous knowledge in this area, and I absolutely agree with her. Of

course, what is happening now is that the most successful instrument

that the Government itself has created for energising and putting

investment into infrastructure projects in this country is now

being neutered. That is the tragedy, and it is when these amendments seek

to address. Minister. Anna Sue Brie.

It has been an interesting debate. I have to confess, I don't agree with

many of the arguments that have been advanced on the other side, so I

hope honourable members will not support any of the new clauses that

has been proposed. Can I go, if I may put it in this way, in reverse

order and deal with new clause eight? Posed by the lady who

represents Brighton Pavilion, that seeks to ensure the Green Investment

Bank continues its green investment plans post-privatisation. We are

agreed to as to what we want the bank to continue to do. We are

seeking bidders who can commit to this and have the deep pockets to

commit to the business plan. The management are played, they need

access to private capital, to fund their green business plan. That

could be equity capital raised as part of the sale process, debt

capital, which the Green Investment Bank can raise when it is in the

private sector, or private capital raised as part of a fund structure.

Business plans change, they evolve as new opportunities arise and we

will not bind new owners into the current plans, so I cannot accept

the honourable lady's Amendment. The new owners of the Green Investment

Bank will have views on the future strategy and business plan. They

will assess it as part of their due diligence and make it a part of

their offer. Whoever the new owner or owners are, a special share in

shores that the business plan, like the Green Investment Bank, will

continue to be green. Madam deputies Speaker, I will take intervention

but only make this point. -- Madam Deputy Speaker. In response to a

large number of points I have been made, I think it has to be said that

it is absolutely almost impossible to think of and understand anybody

who would want to buy... The clue is in the name... The Green Investment

Bank, unless they wanted to make sure that it continued to invest in

green projects. At that point I will of course give way.

I think we welcome the general direction travelled, in terms of the

special share. During the privatisation process the Government

will have a clear say in terms of that direction of travel forward, in

selecting the new owners. Can the Minister expand upon how they will

ensure appropriate owners are put in place and they will respect the

special share and also the green agenda?

Of course, everybody will have two comply with due diligence. I welcome

the young gentleman's comments, but absolutely make it clear, it is

difficult to believe and understand how anybody would want to buy a

Green Investment Bank unless they absolutely want to continue with the

great work it's been doing. I absolutely pay tribute to that. I

will come on to... I will come specifically to why the new clause

about the future of this special share is wrong by the opposition and

our proposals are the right thing to do.

I am grateful to you for giving way. It is not just about green purposes.

Can we'll so remember what the Green Investment Bank has done is to focus

on complex and novel innovations question but that is precisely why a

private investor might not wish to do that, because it takes longer,

not such a quick win. And the special share is not legally

underpinned, so it gives us no long-term reassurance.

I do disagree with the honourable lady, because one of the things

about this privatisation, this sale of the Green Investment Bank is

precisely to ensure that more money is available from the private

sector, particularly to carry out this sort of investment. Forgive me,

but it really isn't the role of government to effectively gamble and

make investment with taxpayers money. Now, it was right in 2012.

Mention has been made by the right honourable gentleman representing

Brent North, it was because of an accepted market failure that the

Green Investment Bank was set up. The idea that this government is

throwing it away, as he put it, really couldn't be further from the

truth. The Green Investment Bank is a real success story. Nobody seeks

to pretend it is anything other than that. We want its success to

continue, but in the private sector. Quickly, I will.

I am grateful to the honourable lady for giving way. But does she

actually believe there is no longer any market failure that needs to be

addressed? Because of course the figures on the infrastructure would

suggest quite the opposite. The point made by my honourable friend

about the innovative and novel nature of the projects the Green

Investment Bank was set up to achieve pay much less return into

the private sector, which is precisely the reason why it needed a

risk-sharing between the Government and the private sector to launch the

bank in the first place. What I would say to that is the very

fact that the Green Investment Bank has been so successful has

absolutely proved and shown that these are exactly the sort of

investments that can be profitable and worthy. In other words, it has

shown by its success but there is no longer a market failure. I will take

another quick intervention. The benches opposite seem to be

saying to things, first that the private sector does not do long-term

projects well. Look at Shell BP and others, they do many projects over

decades. They are also saying that the private sector does not do

innovative projects very well. These propositions are just nonsense.

I thank my honourable friend for his excellent intervention, which I

wholeheartedly endorse. Madam Deputy Speaker, we have always said the

Green Investment Bank would stay green after privatisation. Green

investment is what it does and its management has been very clear on

that. We have explained that the only reason we are repealing for

green protections from legislation is to allow the Green Investment

Bank to move to the private sector by removing state control over the

bank. But we understand the concerns raised by honourable members and

noble Lords and we found a device to protect the green investment's green

purposes, without legislation. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very, very

grateful to the noble lord Smith of Kelvin, who has already, as was

mentioned, written to members of the opposition in the other place,

explaining why it is the view of those who are currently in charge of

the Green Investment Bank about this special measure and why they

absolutely have all confidence in it actually achieving what we all want

to achieve. So this is the device, if you like, that cure is the

mystery. I just want to put on record my thanks to Lord Smith for

his letter, that were sent out by my excellent Parliamentary Private

Secretary to all members of this house. I hope that all honourable

members, on both sides, have I had the opportunity to read this letter,

because this letter could not be more clear about why what the

Government has proposed will ensure and protect those green purposes and

legislation is absolutely not necessary. One of the reasons why,

Madam Deputy Speaker, we don't want the opposition's clause to be

successful, to put this into legislation, is because we are of

the view that the Office for National Statistics will take the

view that effectively what we seek to do will not be achieved, it will

not be off the books. That is why it is so important. I will give way.

I thank the Right Honourable lady for giving way and in support of

what the Right Honourable lady says, can I quote from that letter by Lord

Smith of Kelvin. He says; "we are 100% committed to delivering the

full intent of the amendment passed by the Lords. I hope that by

committing to implement the plan and by doing so transparently we can

secure the necessary confidence of shareholders and Members of

Parliament, that a special share solution can be delivered without

the need for it to be mandated in legislation. ".

Thank you very much indeed. I'm very grateful to my right honourable

friend for reading out from the letter and, forgive me, Madam Deputy

Speaker, I'm not going to read it out obviously as you will be very

pleased to know, we'd be here all afternoon. What I have done is,

placed it in the library and it really does best explain why this

clause from the opposition is now no longer require and why it's so

incredibly important that we get the right device to ensure the green

principles. I'm going to give way one last time if I may to the

honourable lady from Wakefield. Lord Smith of Kelvin may or may not be

the chairman to have bank when this sale proceeds so can she answer my

previous question I made in the debate - will this special share

apply if the bank is sold by any future owner, yes or no? I think

it's a short one, I think the answer is yes. The honourable lady will

have seen this letter. She will have read it, I hope, up side down,

inside out, backwards and everything else, and it really could not be...

It goes well over two pages and it really couldn't be clearer as to the

way that the special share is going to be set up and, if I can, I'm

going to rely on the fact that it talks about the special shareholder,

how difficult frankly it would be to undo this device. It could only be

done with the permission effectively of the special shareholder. So I

think that this House can be sure that this is the sort of right way

to achieve, as I say, what we all want to achieve. I will in one

moment give way but I want to make this next point. That is why I think

it's important to pay tribute, and some may say this is a firstand may

not be the last, but to the Scottish government, to the SNP, because I've

seen sight of a letter that I know that John Swinney has written quite

properly, he's the Deputy First Minister, he has responsibility in

Scotland for finance constitution and economy on behalf of the

Scottish government. I know that he too quite rightly and

understandably has raised his concerns about how we best protect

the green credentials of the green investment bank. As a result of

that, he too has contacted Lord Smith and, as a result of that, use

might imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, a letter has been sent backwards and

forwards but, in short, and it's to the credit of the party that sits

over there, that they take the view, and I'll be corrected if I am wrong,

but as I say, this device, which is up and running, the work has already

started by the green investment bank, to secure this special

shareholding, that everybody can be confident that this is the way to

secure what we all want, but without the need for legislation which could

completely scupper this privatisation, this selling off of

the green investment bank. I will give way.

I'm very grateful to the honourable lady giving way. She said on many

occasions that she's confident that introducing the special share in

this way will work, in our case, all along our case has been, we'd like

her to say to the House that she can guarantee, rather than just be

confident, that the Office for National Statistics will approve

this approach. Can she now say in terms to the House on the floor of

the House and on the record that she can guarantee that to the House? The

honourable lady, I hope this is a Parliamentary word, he's being a bit

of a minx, but I mean that in the nicest way, because he knows...

LAUGHTER He quite likes that, that's good. I

don't think he'll like the next bit, but, you know, I've already

explained when we were in the committee that we absolutely can't

give that guarantee. I think he was a bit naughty, I think he called the

Office for National Statistics a bunch of boffins which he then

rather regretted because they are not, they are absolutely

independent. They'll rightly come to their conclusions. What we can say

is that we are confident that, if this goes into legislation, they

will not take this bank effectively off the books because it will not be

properly in the private sector and also we can take the view that if we

do it in the way we are all suggesting, including the chairman

of the green investment bank, there's every chance in the world

this will then become a successful privatisation.

I think it is confusing, as to the real views. The honourable lady, the

member for Wakefield says she doesn't object to the green

investment bank being sold off though she's raised her concerns,

but she's in favour of it in principle. I'm not sure if others

do. Madam Deputy Speaker, can I just

deal with that amendment put forward by the honourable ladies for both

Wakefield and the Don Valley? We believe very firmly this is another

amendment which is not required. The green investment bank is currently

required to report to higher standards. The standards for quotaed

companies which includes the level of detail required by this

amendment. That is appropriate because it's currently entirely

publicly owned, post-privatisation. Again, there's absolutely no reason

why the green investment bank should be I thinkled out to report on its

renumeration to Parliament, especially if it's not spending any

public money. It's a matter for the board of a company and its

shareholders to agree renumeration policy. I know that there was an

exchange of letters between the honourable lady who represents

Wakefield and the green investment bank's chair, Lord Smith, the Noble

Lord Smith to ask about the future remuneration policy and I'm sure her

committee will publish that letter in full. If the Government remains

the minority stake in the green investment bank and we have made it

clear our intention is to sell a majority of it, we could express

views on this and other aspects of corporate policy, we could agree

with other shareholders what level of reporting might be appropriate to

this and other matters. But we do not consider this matter again

should reside within legislation. Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said, the

green investment bank has been a terrifically successful venture and

it is important to understand that when it was set up in 2012, it was

set up because of a market failure. None of us really, well apart from I

think the membe opposite don't like to be reminded of the perilous

situation our country faced in 2010, and it wasn't certainly the fault of

the banks, a failing of Government policy at the time as well. What the

green investment bank's done is to help investors in the market to

better understand the risks of green investment. I think this comes back

to the point that was being advanced by the honourable gentleman for

Brent North. We know that long-term debt markets have improved

significantly since 2012, so this is again what I would suggest is an

improvement in the market conditions. Frankly, today, you

wouldn't set up the green investment bank because those market failures

no longer exist. As I say, the green investment bank has proved you can

be green and profitable. Its success is demonstrating that the market can

deliver green and that must be a good thing.

I think I've dealt with the point about the Office for National

Statistics so I won't repeat all of that.

The honourable gentleman for Cardiff West and indeed the honourable lady

for Wakefield ask whether the Government will retain a minority

stake in the green investment bank. Our position's not changed since the

committee stage. I explained then that we intend to sell a majority of

the green investment bank. We may retain a minority, as I say, but we

can't commit to that. Our report to Parliament makes clear, decisions on

the size of stake in the green investment bank to be sold will

depend on the outcome of confidential commercial discussions

with investors and I pay tribute to the Secretary of State who made the

announcement last week that the green investment bank is now

available to be sold and unfortunately I can say no more than

that Madam Deputy Speaker, other than to say we are confident this

will be a successful sale and that this sale will be done at the time

when the market is in the right place.

Having said that, of course, we are not just going to sell it, unless of

course we know we'll get the right price and we have had, for some time

now, strong market interest in the green investment bank. The green

investment bank has strong, underlying assets which are less

exposed to market volatility and the recent infrastructure of sales like

City airnt have been successful too, that gives us confidence again, in

particular in this part of the market. So we have those

confidences. Madam Deputy Speaker, nobody's asked the question, but if

they were to, it would be a good question and honourable members

opposite in that part of the House might have asked, so I'm going to

pre-empt it. I'm just going to put on the record

that the green investment bank, no doubt, has been particularly

successful because it's been primarily based in Edinburgh.

It's an excellent place for anybody to do business. Especially, of

course, as it's still within a United Kingdom. I can see no... I

know, he's changed his mind now! I can see no good reason, of course

again this is something we explored in committee, we can so see no good

reason why the green investment bank would want to move away from

Edinburgh. Why on earth would they? If the honourable gentleman wants to

intervene, he's changed his mind, probably because I hadn't reminded

him about the price of oil but we'll move swiftly on from all of that.

The honourable gentleman for Cardiff West asked me whether the Government

can guarantee that the green investment bank will be off the

balance sheet and I think I have dealt with that. We can't give a

cast iron guarantee about the ONS but we have a confidence and I hope

that will be shared by the whole of the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker, as I say, we don't need this amendment, in

particular because of the assurances that have been given by the noble

Lord Smith in his extensive letter to what is now all members of the

House. In it, he goes into quite considerable detail about the

mechanisms that he's already beginning to put in place to ensure

that there is this special share that will ensure the future green

credentials of the green investment bank. That is why we would say that

that amendment, which I believe will be tested, should be resisted. Now,

turning to amendment 17 and going back to that, if I may, I know that

the honourable lady, quite rightly, or the honourable ladies for both

Wakefield and the Don Valley have raised their concerns that when

sold, the green investment bank will be a private sector company. I think

this is an important point to put on the record. As such, it will be

subject to normal company law. For a company of the green

investment bank side which is unquoted which means it's not listed

on the Stock Exchange, the minimum requirement will be to report

aggregate information in relation to total renumeration and specific

information relating to the highest paid director. As I've said, it's

currently required to report to higher standards, the standards for

quoted companies which includes the level of detail required by this

amendment. That is appropriate because it is currently entirely

publicly owned. Madam Deputy Speaker, I've made

considerable praise... Yes, thank you for that. That's extremely

helpful. No doubt it will be a blessing in

due course to everybody that has to have the misfortune... No, no, the

great good fortune to read this in Hansard or indeed to be following

these procedures. But I wanted to pay tribute, if I may, to the green

investment bank, to all those who work for it, and especially to its

chairman, the noble Lord Smith. In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker,

the Government has listened to the concerns, I shan't forget this from

the honourable gentleman who represents Nottingham east and his

heckling. The Government has listened, that is the most important

point of what I am saying. To the concerns of honourable members and

noble lords of all parties. We have been open and transparent about our

intentions from the Green Investment Bank, not only from June this year,

but as far back as the Autumn Statement in January 13 when we made

our position clear -- 2013. We want it to increase its green impact with

greater access to private sector capital. As Lord Smith says in his

letter, he wants to do it this way and not the opposition's way, in

particular so they have the access to Equity, which they need so much.

We need to give it the freedom to continue doing what it does best and

I hope that all honourable members will join me in the no lobbied in

resisting these amendments. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should

say the Minister criticised me for referring to in Committee to the

Office of National Statistics as boffins. Can I remind her that they

are a boffin according to Wikipedia and the Oxford dictionary, a person

engaged in technical research, and it originates in World War II. I

don't think is anything to apologise for in describing them as boffins.

We are looking for a guaranteed that the mechanism that the Government is

proposing would indeed satisfy the ONS. The Minister's confirmed on the

floor of the House today that she cannot offer that guaranteed to us.

On that basis we don't want to let this legislative opportunity pass by

to ensure the green purposes of the Green Investment Bank. On that basis

I will be asking my right honourable friends to join me in the lobby and

seek to divide the House on new clause four. The question is that

new clause four be read a second time. As many as are of the opinion,

say "aye". To the contrary, "no". Division. Clear the lobby.

Order. The question is that new clause four be read a second time.

As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no".

Tellers for the ayes, Vicky Fox crossed and Jeff Smith. Tellers for

the noes... The ayes to the right, 202. The noes

to the left, 284. The ayes to the right, 202. The noes

to the left, 284. The noes have it, the noes have it.

Unlock. We now come to new schedule 1 with

which it will be convenient to consider amendments 18, 15 and 16

and Government amendments 3-9. Mr Kevin Brannan to move new schedule

1. Thank you very much. We are now on

new schedule 1 which I am moving and it links with our amendment 16 in

this group. We are also discussing amendment 15 which stands in my name

and that of my right honourable friend and amendment 18 tabled by

the SNP which we also discussed in committee and which I'm happy to

confirm we support today. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is

the bit of the enterprise bill which is nothing to do with enterprise.

It's largely actually about spin, to be perfectly honest. Let me make it

clear, as I did in committee, Madam Deputy Speaker. The opposition

agrees that excessive exit payments in the public sector should. Paid

and that, if there are abuses in that regard, any abuses should be

ended. But the problem with the Government's approach to this, Madam

Deputy Speaker, is they are attempting to govern by headline in

what they are doing in this part of the Bill in a very complex area. In

doing so, they're creating the sorts of anomalies and unfairnesses which

we'll hear about, I'm sure, during the course of our debate this

afternoon, include ago headline-grabbing figure in this

case ?95,000 in a clause on the face of the Bill quite frankly is the

worst kind of utterly have beening yewious Government and exactly the

sort of rigid legislating that good civil servants advise against --

utterly vacuous. And which bad ministers promote. Yet, it allows

the Secretary of State to have his tabloid headline about fat cats

which is actually what this clause in the Bill is really all about.

That was the odious remark the Secretary of State made on second

reading. It was an insult actually, Madam Deputy Speaker, to thousands

of decent hard-working people in this country, many of whom, by the

way, have never been paid anywhere near ?30,000, let alone the ?3

million a year the Secretary of State used to get when he was

working for an investment bank. Now, if I were to turn around and accuse

the - that's got a lot to do with it, because of the language used by

the Secretary of State. If I turned around and accused the Secretary of

State of being a fat cat, I'm sure the minister - I'm not going to do

that by the way, Madam Deputy Speaker - if I were, I'm sure the

minister would be huffing and puffing in her usual way from a

saiden tear position, muttering outrageous and disgraceful because

she and the Secretary of State like to dish it out but they don't like

it back when it comes their way. But she was quite content to sit there

with the Secretary of State at second reading and cheer him on at

second reading as he introduced public servants like long-serving

local librarians and even privatised nuclear decommissioning workers as

fat cats. That was the language used by the

Secretary of State at second reading. I wonder how they'd feel

about what he said at second reading, pad dam Deputy Speaker. I

know how they feel actually because they wrote to us in droves at

committee stage to express their anger at the insulting rhetoric that

was usedth used by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and

Skills at the second reading of this Bill. In droves they wrote to us and

the evidence was officially Schmidted to the committee and we

heard a lot of it at committee. Amendment 15 in this group would

seek to protect workers who earn less than ?27,000 a year from the

proposed exit payment cap. That's right, the fat cat who is earn less

than ?27,000 a year in our amendment are the fat cats receive call bid