House of Commons (Administration) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Sir Paul Beresford]

Most of what we are doing today enables the trustees to be in the position to answer most of the hon. Lady’s questions when they decide on the conditions. The refund to the Treasury will be in the hands of the trustees, and the chairman of the trustees is here to hear her. The balance at the moment is £6.5 million. It is estimated that we need about £4 million, which means that there could be a refund of £2 million, but that will be down to the trustees. One of the more modern ways of government is to devolve the decisions on these sorts of matters downwards, and I think it is appropriate to give the trustees the ability to do that, including wind-up if they wish.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Public money

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 7, page 3, line 32, leave out subsection (1).

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, in clause 7, page 3, line 34, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment 3, in clause 7, page 3, line 35, leave out subsection (3).

Amendment 4, in clause 7, page 4, line 1, leave out “under subsection (1)” and insert

“by the Treasury (under an enactment repealed by this Act), and”.

Amendment 5, in clause 7, page 4, line 4, leave out subsection (5).

Amendment 6, in clause 7, page 4, line 6, leave out “subsection (4)” and insert “this section”.

Amendment 7, in clause 7, page 4, line 7, leave out subsection (7).

Amendment 8, in clause 9, page 4, line 36, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment 9, in clause 11, page 5, line 12, leave out from “force” to end and insert

“at the end of the period of three months beginning with the day this Act receives Royal Assent.”

Amendment 10, in clause 11, page 5, line 14, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment 11, page 6, line 8 in schedule, at end insert—

“4A The trustees may enter into arrangements for the transfer (by sale or otherwise) of liabilities or commitments (which may include future liabilities or commitments) on such terms as the trustees may agree.”

The amendment would allow the trustees to make arrangements under which an insurance company or other commercial institution would undertake to adopt liabilities or commitments of the Fund in return for one or more commuted payments.

Clause stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley for his willingness to discuss the issues arising from the Bill as drafted by him.

Private Members’ Bills are an iterative process, and this Bill follows on from similar Bills in the last Parliament introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. During the last Parliament, for reasons that I cannot really recall, I started taking an interest in the subject, and it seemed to me that we needed to try to set up a proper benevolent fund for House of Commons Members, totally independent of the Treasury. That is the purpose of my proposed amendments to clause 7, which would remove from the Treasury any responsibility for making payments into our Members’ fund.

Under subsection (1),

“The Treasury may make payments into the House of Commons Members’ Fund.”

Under subsection (2),

“The amount paid in in any year shall not exceed £215,000.”

My amendments would remove that power from the Treasury and ensure that there were no references to any specific sums. Subsection (4) would be retained so that the trustees had discretion to

“surrender to the Treasury amounts which in the trustees’ opinion…are attributable to sums paid to the Fund”

under past arrangements. The amendments would also make it clear that in future any money beyond that already in the fund would need to come either from Members’ contributions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley outlined in relation to clause 1, or from voluntary donations.

There is every reason to believe that there are current or former Members of this House who might be inclined to make a legacy to a House of Commons benevolent fund. That is what happens in a lot of professions. As a member of the Bar, I know that the barristers’ benevolent fund is in receipt of legacies from barristers, former barristers and their dependants. There is no reason why the same thing should not happen in relation to our fund, but at the moment there is a bit of an inhibition for somebody to donate or leave a legacy to the House of Commons Members’ Fund because they know that, in so doing, they are absolving the Treasury of potential liability. I do not know why, but that does not seem always to be a good incentive for somebody to make a voluntary contribution.

By ensuring that the Treasury is kept out of this, we will be able to move towards a truly benevolent fund, which is what I proposed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden in the previous Parliament. At that stage, there seemed to be some doubt about whether there would be sufficient money in the fund to allow it to go on its own, but with the help of my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, we got from advice from the Government Actuary that shows current liabilities of about £4 million and assets in excess of £6 million. It is the responsibility of the trustees to ensure that, at any one time, assets are sufficient to cover liabilities, and from the information given in the Government Actuary’s report, I see no reason why that would not be possible in future. The fund will be self-standing, self-sufficient and independent of the Treasury. That is the purport of my amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

The Minister is indicating that she does not wish to speak.

[Mr Chope]

I did not want to join this discussion, but if a perfectly reasonable question is put to a Minister on such a Committee, it is conducive to the orderly conduct of the Committee’s proceedings if the Minister responds. Otherwise the issue will be raised again, perhaps on Report. I would have thought it is better to resolve the issue now. There may be a simple explanation, and if there is not we are owed an explanation of why there is nothing simple about it. The Minister may be doing what she has been told by the Treasury, which may have instructed her not to say anything. If that is so, perhaps she can tell us that those are her instructions. I am sure that it is possible to enable the Bill to proceed with everyone agreeing on its content and with good will on both sides of the Committee. To facilitate that, I invite her to respond to the question that has been put.

[Dr Coffey]

I feel that I have responded. I can read exactly the same response into the record if that is required but, as I have already said, there has been considerable consideration by the Government. The answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East is still valid, and it is the answer that I offer on behalf of the Government. I am not sure why my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch believes that I have not said anything, because I have replied. He may not have liked my reply, and the hon. Member for Sheffield South East may not like it either, but I have replied.