Business of the House
Debate between Lord Naseby and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean(5 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I will say very gently to the noble Lord that he ought to read the excellent speech made in the other place by the Secretary of State, Stephen Barclay, in which he explained in great detail how this Bill actually makes it more difficult for the Prime Minister to achieve her objectives. At the end of the day, with the support of the noble Baroness, we are not in control here; it is the European Union that will decide the length of an extension. This Bill is making the Prime Minister’s task very much more difficult.
Anyway, there will be plenty of time to go into the ins and outs and the merits of the legislation, but I am moving a Motion that we should take consideration of this in Committee. I appreciate that it is an unusual procedure but, as the noble Baroness made clear in her opening remarks, these are unusual times and these are important issues. We need to be in Committee—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
In a second. As I say, we need to be in Committee because we need to be able to cross-examine the basis for the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness. We need to be able to speak more than once, which we cannot do unless we are in Committee. We need to consider the implications of this for the future conduct of business in this House. I will not read them out because I do not want to waste time—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble Lord knows that I have sympathy for his Bill—although there are others here who do not wish to see his Bill proceed—but he needs to have a word with Sir Oliver Letwin, who is able to arrange these things, and get his colleagues lined up.
Lord Naseby
Is not my noble friend right? I speak as a former Deputy Speaker—I was elected to carry out that role—as well as a former Member of Parliament in the other place. There was no Report stage in the Commons, which in itself is extraordinary—and incredibly extraordinary on a major constitutional Bill—and a truncated Third Reading. It is no good the noble Baroness on the Front Bench opposite saying there had been an exhaustive examination in the other place—there has not been. Why did Members of the other place pack up at half-past 11? Because they got tired. On the Maastricht Bill we went through the night for three nights running. That is how you look at a Bill in depth. My noble friend is right to ask that we should look at this Bill in depth during a Committee stage today.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am sure there will be time to discuss the way in which the Bill was handled. It was passed by only one vote—and that came from someone who was wearing a tag on release from prison. The noble Lord says, “For goodness’ sake”, but this is a major constitutional matter. It was passed by one vote after speeches were limited to two minutes in the other place because of the guillotine. Does he think that is the way to proceed? He had a go at me the other day because I said that this practice of suspending our Standing Orders will lead to tyranny. He mocked me. He said, “Tyranny? How ridiculous”. All that lies between us and tyranny is that we respect the conventions of both Houses. Why do we do that? Because it is our constitution. I hope the noble Baroness will accept the amendment because she is in danger of tearing up our constitution in order to make a narrow party-political point. I beg to move.
Schools
Debate between Lord Naseby and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean(8 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Naseby
This is about English schools. Does my noble friend recognise that the phrase “schools that work for everyone” applies to the majority of independent schools? I declare an interest, having been chairman of the governors of Bedford School, under the Harpur Trust, which runs three secondary schools in which well over 200 pupils receive substantial bursaries. The trust is the main financial promoter of the Bedford Academy. All the schools make their facilities available in different ways. My own school makes its planetarium available to every primary school in Bedfordshire. Against that sort of background, I have to say to my noble friend that it is not helpful to read in the papers of a quote, allegedly from the Prime Minister, that independent schools are “divorced from normal life”. They are not. Furthermore, does my noble friend recognise that every parent who goes to an independent school has already paid the cost of state education through the community charge? People who come to the independent sector make great sacrifices and come from all classes. They believe in good education and they are prepared to pay for it.
House of Commons Members’ Fund Bill
Debate between Lord Naseby and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, it is important that I declare two interests. First, I had the privilege of being the Member of Parliament for Northampton South for 23 and a half years and I am in receipt of a pension. Secondly, I am a trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund, known as the PCPF, and have been for some years.
It might help your Lordships’ House if I gave a bit of the background to the Bill. The House of Commons Members’ Fund was established in 1939 before there was a pension scheme, which was itself established in 1964. The whole idea of the fund was to help former Members and their dependants who faced financial difficulty. Its original purpose was to provide those former Members, their widows or widowers and orphan children with a discretionary grant in lieu of a pension. Subsequent amendments over time allowed grants to be made to alleviate hardship, gave trustees greater discretion and introduced an “as of right” payment for certain Members who left the House before the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund was established.
There have been two previous attempts to bring the fund up to date, made by my colleague, Peter Lilley MP, who is a trustee of the members’ fund, but those both failed. On 4 November last year, Sir Paul Beresford, to whom I pay tribute, presented under its previous title the Bill that is before us today. He explained that the Bill would empower trustees to cease requiring contributions from Members and to return surplus funds to the Treasury. It would extend the class of beneficiaries to assist all dependants of former Members who experienced severe hardship. It would also allow one of the trustees to be a former Member of Parliament.
It is not my intention to go through all the clauses of the Bill, but it is right just to specify the three categories of beneficiary that would arise from it. First, there are the “as of right” recipients. As I said, there were no pensions prior to the PCPF being set up in 1964. Thereafter, those who left the House from October 1964 onwards and had served 10 years or more were entitled to a pension for themselves or their widow or widower. The fund pays those who left the House earlier or without the necessary 10 years’ service and their widow or widower as an “as of right grant”. Currently, that is set at £6,132 per annum for ex-Members and approximately £3,835 for their widow or widower.
The second category is widows. Widows can receive top-up pensions. 1n 1991, the PCPF pension to the widow or widower was increased from one half of the Member’s pension to five-eighths, but it applied only to Members who had left after 1988. The trustees decided to make good the apparent oversight of widows or widowers of Members who had left before this date by making a discretionary payment from the fund to top up their PCPF pension already in payment from one-half to five-eighths of a Member’s pension.
The final category is hardship/discretionary grant recipients, who receive either a one-off or a periodic payment which is paid entirely at the discretion of the trustees where they consider that an individual satisfies the requirements of the legislation. The legislation allows the trustees to make periodic or other payments to the widows, widowers or orphaned children of former Members as those trustees think fit, having particular regard to the circumstances of the person to, or in respect of whom, the payments are made. Essentially, these payments are made on a financial hardship ground. Your Lordships’ House, particularly its former Members of Parliament, will understand that these demands, given the existence of the current pension fund, have reduced substantially. At this time, just under 50 people are in receipt of one or other of the three categories that I have mentioned.
I turn to some of the key points that arise from the Bill. Your Lordships’ House needs to be clear that this is not a government Bill, nor is it a government hand-out Bill; it is a House of Commons management Bill. The Bill is not new—as I have already said, two earlier attempts fell, principally for lack of time.
I imagine that your Lordships’ House will be interested in some of the figures. Payments in the last financial year came to around £137,000. Against that, the fund stands now at just over £7 million. At present, the fund is drawn from the compulsory contributions from Members, earnings from its investments and an annual contribution from the Treasury of £215,000, whereas the Members’ contributions amount to £15,000 per annum.
The Bill will remove the requirement under existing primary legislation for Members to make monthly contributions of £2. However, the Bill also enables the trustees to recommend resumption of contributions if they should ever be needed in the future, at no more than 0.2% of pay. The trustees also have the right, if they agree, to return any surplus funds to the Treasury, and I understand that they have requested this discretion.
The Bill will extend the class of beneficiaries to assist all dependants of former Members who experience severe hardship. It will also remove the requirement for trustees to be current MPs. I am sure that the House will agree that it seems sensible for the trustees to ask, for example, for the Association of Former Members of Parliament to nominate one trustee. In addition, that will enable the trustees to get over the problem that arises when, at a general election, a number of Members who are trustees lose their seats. The Bill will allow such former MPs to remain as trustees temporarily until they are formally replaced. Finally, in Clause 9, for efficiency reasons, the Bill will amalgamate various Acts.
I turn to the deduction from Members’ salaries, a point I suspect former Members always find interesting. If we go back in time to 1939—I doubt anyone here can remember that—the provision then was for a £12 per annum contribution. That was increased to £18 by a resolution of the House on 18 July 1957 and to £24 on 17 May 1961.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Could this be the earliest example of check-off?
Lord Naseby
It is not for me to comment on that one, I think.
As I have said, any contribution cannot exceed 0.2% of annual salary. Clause 5 also empowers the trustees to vary the amount deducted from Members’ salaries by direction.
However, the news is really quite good in so far as it is proposed that the Government’s contribution from the Treasury should now be removed. It is limited to £215,000, as I said, but there is already £7 million in investments, which is more than enough to cover the current payment of the £137,000 that I talked about. It is therefore proposed that just over £1 million be repaid to Her Majesty’s Treasury.
It is also proposed that there be no contribution from Members. I should make it quite clear that there is a provision within the Bill that it can be reintroduced if trustees so recommend, at no more than 0.2% of salary. I hope that, with that explanation, my colleagues will be able to reflect on the importance of the Bill to all those who would be potential beneficiaries. I beg to move.
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
Debate between Lord Naseby and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am not sure which bit the noble Lord was saying was not so. He may very well be right in his assertion—although I doubt it—that the Government will collect more money, but that does not help the small business man who is faced with these additional costs, for whom there is no benefit whatever. They already struggle to fill in their VAT forms and their surveys on this, that and the other while trying to run their businesses. This would add a very significant burden.
Lord Popat
My Lords, this is Report and we prefer not to take further interventions.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I believe that interventions seeking information are allowed once on Report, so I will give way to my noble friend.
Lord Naseby
My noble friend might mention the cost of business rates, which are a huge burden to every business in this country. Business rates are going up by 2%—and what is the rate of inflation? Under 1%.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Indeed, but my noble friend must not tempt me to get away from the amendment and from this Bill. When it comes to compliance costs, the Government are going to have to find £109,000 just for,
“the IT development of the registry and communication to industry”.
My experience of government IT programmes is that they usually cost considerably more than estimated. Then we have £220,000 for ongoing maintenance. In addition, it is stated:
“Costs to businesses are estimated to be £417.4m set up cost, and £77.7m pa”.
This is a country that is not able to meet its expenses and these are businesses which, certainly outside London, are under severe stress.
My noble friend and the noble Lord argue that we need to add further to the burden put on these businesses to deal with the problem of international tax evasion by large companies around the world. I intervened to ask him how—even assuming that everything that he claims for his system works once it is up and running in Britain and we have spent the £1 billion—it would help prevent the crooks and people who wish to behave in this way operating out of a different jurisdiction. Surely, the only way this Utopian view of how to tackle the issue will be achieved is if every country does this, but I do not see any evidence of other countries rushing to implement this legislation. As far as I am aware, there is no great programme to do this among the other countries that were at the G8, so all we would be doing is hobbling honest, hard-working small businesses in this country to deal with a problem that needs—