Sir Mark Hendrick

“I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. The object of my Bill is to help ensure the best business environment for co-operatives and mutuals, and that means three things. First, we need a good policy understanding of the importance of mutual business, and that must stretch across Government to Ministers and officials. We recognise that it is always a challenge to get attention from a busy Department such as the Treasury, but well-informed and motivated Ministers and officials will give us a fighting chance. Co-operatives and mutuals are an important feature in a mixed economy when their different business purposes are recognised and allowed to flourish. Good policy is the foundation stone for that. Secondly, on legislative reform, the Bill is part of making legislation on co-operatives and mutuals fit for purpose for a modern economy. Co-operative law was first introduced to this House in the 1860s, and formed the basis for co-op law in many countries around the world, but it has sadly not been kept up to date. We want to draw on the best practice in the world, which is why the idea of protecting assets for their intended purpose is so important. Countries that have adopted such provisions have much more robust co-operative and mutual business sectors. The removal of the incentive to demutualise means that they can continue to grow in line with the interests of the members they serve. There is more to do on legislative reform, as my original Bill identified. We look forward to working with the Government to ensure that legal options are no longer a poor relation but match the standard of the best in the world. Thirdly, we need regulators to appreciate the role of co-operatives and mutuals. We can have the best policy and legislation, but in practical terms, progress can be thwarted if regulators lag behind. They should no longer see their role as facilitating demutualisation, as they unfortunately did in the LV debacle. Instead, the true champions of consumers should be driving corporate diversity and choice. If there was one lesson to take from the global financial crisis, it was that we do not want all businesses following the same mistaken strategy. In that regard, diversity is strength, and regulation should take seriously its role in ensuring that co-operatives and mutuals are not ignored, or worse, homogenised into a single idea of business driven by shareholder-owned interests. The Bill is one of a series of such private Members’ Bills over the last 20 years. I am proud to have played my part in bringing it to the House in the way that my predecessors did. There have been five Bills to modernise co-operative and mutual law, all of which have received Royal Assent. It is welcome that our efforts and endeavours have had the support of Treasury Ministers and from both sides of the House. This is one area in which there is genuine and lasting cross-party consensus. It is no less welcome that we enjoy today the support of His Majesty’s Government for this sixth such Bill. It is perhaps less positive that we have had to take this piecemeal private Member’s Bill approach to legislation, but I sincerely hope that the promised Law Commission review puts that right, and that a modern framework for business is established once and for all. My Bill is about giving mutuals the option to maintain mutual capital for the purpose for which it is intended. There is a fundamental distinction between the rights of members of a mutual society and members of an investor -owned company. Members of a company—shareholders — have the right to a pro-rata share of distributed profits, or dividends, based on their shareholding, and to a pro-rata share of the underlying value of the company. The more capital they own, the greater their share of the profits and of the value of the company. By contrast, members of a mutual society generally have neither of those rights because a mutual’s profits are not generally used as a mechanism for rewarding capital, and members of a mutual do not have any expectation of or entitlement to a share in the increased value of their society. As members of a mutual are not entitled to any share of its increased value, the amount by which the net asset value of the society exceeds the capital provided by members—otherwise known as capital surplus on solvent winding up—has no specific owner. It is effectively a legacy asset held by the society for future generations, enabling the society to provide for and invest in its future. That is a core part of the mutual’s identity. It represents the trading surplus accumulated by previous generations of members participating in their society’s business, in which they were always content to have no personal share. By implication, it is held for the benefit of future generations. The society was originally set up not to make capital surplus to reward members, but to provide goods and services for those who need them. That was its purpose, and it was the basis upon which previous generations have taken part in its trade. Seen through the lens of investor ownership, a capital surplus is a tempting asset—a windfall of unearned profit that, were mutual members to be replaced by investor-shareholders, could be shared out among those shareholders. Capturing that asset is the usual incentive for a demutualisation, which is when a capital surplus or legacy asset is divided up between shareholders, when the mutual agreement between the former members, whereby they engaged in their society on the basis that they would not personally profit from its trade, is broken up. In short, it is when a mutual purpose for the common good is replaced by a profit-driven purpose for private benefit. In UK law, there is no generic or principled recognition of the value to wider society of mutuality or the legacy asset of a mutual society. As a result, the ability to access legacy assets actively incentivises demutualisation. Provided that relevant formal procedures are completed, including securing consent from a statutory minimum threshold of members, a demutualisation cannot be stopped. The statutory minimum threshold has been changed from time to time for different types of mutual society to make demutualisation less likely, but these measures provide only partial protection. There is currently no statutory mechanism for ensuring that surpluses, which the previous generations never intended should be a private reward for anybody, remain committed to the wider public purpose. At present, it is not possible for an existing society, or those setting up a new society, to proscribe demutualisation. That leaves mutuals vulnerable to those simply aiming to liberate the legacy asset, share it out among those they choose and convert the business into an investor-owned company. That has resulted in much of the UK building society sector being lost, and their businesses then either failing or transferring to non-UK ownership. That has been bad for mutuality, and bad for the economy with the damage it has caused to corporate diversity. Demutualised former building societies were mostly absorbed into the banks that failed in the financial crisis. Legislation is needed to help UK mutuals to preserve their legacy assets for the purpose for which they were intended: to maintain and encourage greater corporate diversity and to build a more resilient economy. Mutuals need to be able to incorporate appropriate measures into their constitutions that have a statutory basis, either at the point of establishment or thereafter, with an appropriate level of member approval. That will be even more important if the legislative reforms for co-operative and community benefit societies I have explained are taken forward. To optimise the successful implementation of new legislation, properly recognising legacy assets for the benefits they bring will be an important ingredient for building confidence. Many jurisdictions have acted to preserve mutual ownership by ensuring that the assets may be used only for the purpose they were intended. That ensures they cannot be distributed to members or third parties, thus disincentivising demutualisation. Mergers, dissolutions and transfers of business are still permitted, so this arrangement does not hamper the evolution of a business in any way. Ideally, such measures would be universal, but in some legal traditions that is considered problematic, as it arguably alters the ownership rights of members retrospectively. It is not desirable to cut and paste legislation between different traditions, so solutions are required that respect the political culture of different legal frameworks. To deal with this, simple legislation can be introduced in common law jurisdictions that would give every mutual the right to choose a constitution that preserves legacy assets for the purpose they were intended. My Bill does that. My Bill disincentivises the raiding of legacy assets through legislation. Voluntary legislation will ensure that legacy assets are preserved for the purposes for which they were intended. It will empower mutual members to decide what should happen to assets on a solvent dissolution, and it will match the best legislation in many countries around the world. My Bill would introduce a voluntary power to enable a mutual to choose a constitutional change so that its legacy assets, or the capital surplus, would be non-distributable. It would detail precisely the destination of any capital surplus on a solvent winding-up and would outline the procedures necessary to include such provisions in a mutual’s rules. It would make statutory provision for the relevant rules to be unalterable. It defines the capital surplus as the amount remaining after deducting a mutual’s total liabilities from its total assets, including repayment of members’ capital. It would introduce new provisions to maintain the destination of the capital surplus and ensure that where a mutual’s rules make the capital surplus non-distributable, any resolution to convert into, amalgamate with or transfer engagements to a company will also include a provision to transfer the capital surplus, as provided by the rules in the event of a solvent winding-up. That is my Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister and his team for their co-operation and help in bringing it forward.”