Business of the House

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

It would indeed be good to find a way in which one could spare people the need to go through long and complex litigation to get the compensation that they deserve. That may be something that the hon. Gentleman can raise either in Westminster Hall or through the medium of the Backbench Business Committee.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

As Chairman of the Administration Committee, may I support all the thanks that have been made to the staff, as they were fantastic yesterday. We will mop up and follow up afterwards.

Coming back to business as usual, may I anticipate that we will have a motion on the restoration and renewal of the Palace? When it arrives, may I ask that it is a full-day debate, and that it is held on a day when we anticipate the House to be as full as it ever is—in other words Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, but not Thursday or, obviously, Friday?

[Mr Lidington]

We will be making provision and announcing a date for a debate as soon as we possibly can. Clearly, the point that my hon. Friend has made is one consideration that we will take into account.

Business of the House

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

On the rota for oral questions, the usual channels will review it depending on how the new arrangements work out in practice.

Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s question about human rights, I must say that there is absolutely no retreat on the Government’s part from the high human rights standards that we set for ourselves in this country, and which we follow through in the promotion of our foreign policy objectives. The human rights of the United Kingdom were well developed, established and had a fine reputation before the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998. There is a long-standing issue over decisions relating to the application of article 8 of the European convention on human rights in particular extradition cases, so we are looking at how we might remedy some of those problems. However, the Prime Minister and the entire Government are absolutely clear that we stand by the human rights embodied in the Eurpoean convention, which after all was very much the product of work by United Kingdom jurists and politicians at the time.

On Hinkley, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, we intend to take a decision very soon. In framing an energy strategy, we always have in mind the need to deliver on our climate change objectives and on ensuring security of energy supply, at reasonable cost, to both domestic consumers and British industry, so that British industry can be competitive in some quite fierce global markets.

I suspect that on the House of Lords the hon. Gentleman and I voted the same way, when those things were debated in a previous Parliament, in respect of a wholly or a partially elected upper House, but the truth was that there was no consensus, nor anything approaching it, in the House of Commons, within parties or across them, as to how that issue should be addressed. So it is not likely to be fruitful to try to pursue House of Lords reform as an early priority.

I was sorry about the disparaging tone that the hon. Gentleman adopted towards the Wales Bill, because this Government’s record in Wales has been about delivering the increased devolution that the Welsh people, the Welsh Assembly and political parties, for the most part, in Wales have been saying they wanted to see. I was not shocked, but I was disheartened by the critical remark he threw in about the approach of the parliamentary Boundary Commission and the framework within which it is operating. One of my treats since my appointment has been to dip into his autobiography, and I found on pages 57 and 58 of his memoirs that he lauded the achievements and record of the Chartists. He spelled out that one of the Chartists’ key objectives was that we should have constituencies with equal numbers of electors in each constituency. The framework under which the Boundary Commission is operating will deliver one of the charter objectives, which he so strongly supported, so I should have thought he would be cheering us on, not criticising us.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is consulting on some remarkable changes—at least they are proposed changes. It is presenting itself before various Committees and will have two sessions before the Administration Committee, in which I have some interest. Will he agree to a debate in the House that might give IPSA the opportunity to get a better understanding of what it is like to be an MP and how it can assist, rather than hinder?

[Mr Lidington]

It is an important principle that IPSA is statutorily independent, but my hon. Friend is right in saying that any decisions about the salaries, pensions and expenses of Members of Parliament ought to be informed by a proper understanding of what the responsibilities of being an MP involve and of the multifarious ways in which different Members, because of the nature of their constituencies, go about doing the job. That information is important. On a debate, I suggest that the proper course would be for the Backbench Business Committee to consider this, if a large number of Members feel that a debate of that kind is needed.

Business of the House

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Thursday 5th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend consider allowing a short debate on the Government’s 2014 review of sections 135 and 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983? I raise the matter because I am particularly concerned about the application of section 136 in private premises, where the ability of the police to intervene for the safety of a disturbed individual, even in an emergency, is pitifully limited.

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The issue of mental health causes concern on both sides of the House, and I will make sure that the Health Secretary is aware of the comments that he has made. We have Health questions next week, and I am happy to make sure that the Health Secretary is aware of the matter. It is also a matter for the Home Secretary, and I will make sure that she is aware of the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised.

House of Commons (Administration) Bill

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 2 to 6 stand part.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

It is delightful to serve under your guidance, Mr Evans, particularly as I am sure you are going to help us to get the Bill through quite speedily.

Normally at the end of such a Committee the Member in charge of the Bill thanks members of the Committee, the Chair and so on. I will do that now, as this is an opportunity to point out that, with the help of all Members, this Committee stage will be brief. We might break my record for a Committee, which is 23 minutes, if we proceed with great haste. I thank you, Mr Evans, the members of the Committee who have come along, and the Minister, who is in effect standing in for the Treasury. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, who intervened at an appropriate stage of the Bill’s passage. The Committee will see his amendments as we proceed.

This is a little Bill to consolidate and amend provisions for the House of Commons Members’ Fund. I suspect that few Members who are not trustees will be aware of the fund—a number of members of this Committee are trustees, and the chairman of trustees is with us—other than noting a small deduction on their monthly Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority payslip. The fund was established before the second world war, when there was no parliamentary pension to help former Members who had fallen into financial difficulties. The fund has been used to top up pensions for the widows of Members who left the House when widows received a lower entitlement—that is an interesting statement, because of course it should be “spouses” nowadays, but this was before the second world war—and for a few isolated cases of hardship of former Members.

As the Committee will recognise from that description, demands on the fund have dropped as time has passed. In the last financial year, payments worked out at £137,000. As a consequence, the fund has grown over the years to a considerable £7 million. At present, the fund draws from compulsory contributions from Members, earnings from its investments and an annual contribution from the Treasury of approximately £215,000. If the Committee agrees to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, that last contribution will cease. The Bill will also remove the requirement under existing primary legislation for Members to make monthly contributions of £2. In effect, the trustees will be empowered to cease deducting contributions. Given the figures that I have just stated, I suspect that they intend to do so immediately following Royal Assent, as the fund has, to put it simply, a considerable surplus. However, the Bill will also enable them to recommend resumption of contributions, if needed, up to a maximum of 0.2% of pay. The trustees can, if they agree, return any surplus funds to the Treasury, and they have requested that 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 Members. I am sure the Committee agrees that it is sensible for the trustees to ask, for example, the Association of Former Members of Parliament to nominate one trustee. In addition, the Bill will enable the trustees to get over the problem that arises when, at a general election, a number of trustees lose or vacate their seat. The Bill will allow such former MPs to remain as trustees temporarily until they are formally replaced.

This is a little Bill, a sensible Bill and a tidying up Bill, and I hope the Committee will accept clauses 1 to 6.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I will not detain the Committee long. It is worth saying that, although I was not aware of this fund, I recognise that even in the smallest of such bodies, the good work of the trustees who support the work in distributing any funds should not go unrecognised, so I thank them for all their work so far. It is right that we review this matter, and I agree that this is a tidying-up Bill, but I have some questions.

The Bill does not appear to provide for circumstances in which the scheme needs to be wound up entirely. The hon. Member for Mole Valley mentioned that the fund is being called on less and less as the years go by. Would it be sensible now to consider the time when the fund is no longer required, or the scope of the changes? Now, with the contributory pension scheme, it is unlikely to be relied upon in the same way. Is there a requirement for the long-term continuance of the scheme?

I believe the repayment figure stands at about £1 million to be returned to the Treasury, at the discretion of the trustees. I wondered what the projections for the scheme over the next five years are, primarily because I wonder what the purpose could possibly be of retaining such a balance. Would it be preferable to return a greater sum? Is the Treasury the appropriate place to return the money to? Is it necessary for £6 million to remain in the fund?

[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).

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I thank my hon. Friend. We had a very constructive meeting on this, and as a result of his lateral thinking we went to the Government Actuary and got the situation spelled out, as he has just explained. I wish that the next time he speaks and I have to answer that he uses shorter words, because English is my second language, and sometimes barrister’s words are too long for me. I am delighted that he feels we will get gifts and bequests. My profession has a similar back-up system but I do not think that the bequests are quite the same as the legal profession seems to manage. I certainly support his amendments.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments made: 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)—(Mr Chope.)

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Tax

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

I would like, very briefly, to explore with the Minister why the Government hold the view that the two estimates should remain separate and that the Bill should not even be permissive on the subject of merging the two estimates. One estimate covers a maximum of £22 million of public expenditure in the context of £700 billion of expenditure. The Members estimate, for which the House is responsible, is something of an anomaly now. It is effectively residual following the setting up of IPSA. It is not possible for the sums spent to be increased by a decision, say, of the Commission or of any other House body because the pay and rations for MPs are now dealt with exclusively by IPSA.

Effectively, the Members estimate covers residual things such as Short money, which is wholly conditioned by a resolution of the House and not open to serious adjustment via any other mechanism, as well as the computers and stationery that Members use. I think that is just about it now. It is not an extensive budget head and there is not much scope for it to expand.

In an ideal and virtuous world, we would be looking at ways of merging these necessary expenditures with the main functions of IPSA. Certainly it seems odd that the Government are not even keeping the idea alive. Parliamentary vehicles such as this Bill do not come along very often. I fully accept that the Government are assisting with this one so I will not push my point too far. I wish the Bill well. The hon. Member for Mole Valley, who I will call my hon. Friend, has done well to get the Bill this far, and I appreciate the generally constructive approach that the Government are taking as, indeed, previous Governments did when they tried to get a similar measure through. I just think that the Government may have got it wrong on whether the estimates—not the monies—could be merged at some future point.

Such a merger could not take place before 2017 in any event. The Treasury would have to agree to it, as would the other parties, before anything like that could be done. The idea is that agreeing to it now would somehow commit the Treasury, but it is not as though anybody could do that. The Treasury would still have to consent. It seems to me a bit narrow of the Government—it clearly is the Government—to insist that that not be a route taken at some stage in the future. From a House of Commons point of view, it might be sensible to at least leave the option open and to leave legislative provision, perhaps making it clearer on Report that the Treasury would have to consent before anything such as this could be done.

In an ideal world, that is the approach we would take. There may be some Member resistance because of dissatisfaction with IPSA, but that would be about the functioning of IPSA rather than the merging of the estimates. The Minister was open enough to say that this was opposed, but she did not explain why. I would like to hear that explanation.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I hope we can resolve this issue because, to be quite blunt, this is an opportunist clause put in for an opportune moment, and it looks to me as though—to use a colonial phrase—we were rumbled. I therefore support the Minister’s position, particularly as the clause is not related to the fund itself directly or the management of the fund.

On the assumption that it is appropriate to do so, I will speak briefly to amendment 11, which is to the schedule. This is a belt and braces amendment for the trustees, because it allows them to make arrangements under which a commercial institution could undertake the commitments or liabilities of the fund. That follows the thinking of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.

[Dr Coffey]

I thank my hon. Friend for what he just said. Let me say in response to the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East that there has been considerable consideration of this issue by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury. The Government believe that merging the Administration and the Members estimates, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, would require relinquishing Government oversight of the Members estimate and therefore reducing the Government’s ability to scrutinise costs. Given the current fiscal environment, the Treasury would like to continue to be able to offer that scrutiny and support to the House of Commons to keep expenditure down. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley mentioned, we are keen for the Bill to go forward, but we are also keen to keep that scrutiny.

Business of the House

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely understand the problems that such events cause the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and, indeed, others. Other parts of the network have also suffered in recent weeks because of extreme weather. I will make sure that his concerns are drawn to the attention of the Transport Secretary this morning. The Transport Secretary will be here in 10 days’ time, but the issue is clearly urgent so I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman’s concerns are passed on immediately.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

My accent states my interest, although I believe a declaration is not necessarily required. Will my right hon. Friend persuade the Government to have a debate on the UK’s relationship with the Commonwealth, particularly the old Commonwealth? I have just returned from visiting New Zealand. It is definitely there and I am very conscious that, in our drive to reduce immigration, the UK is losing out on highly educated English-speaking people, generally graduates, who have very much to offer this nation in health, education, agriculture, banking, research, the armed forces and—dare I say it?—even rugby. There are kith and kin issues with such nations. They have stood with us—and they continue to stand with us today—in major and less major wars. We need to recognise that.

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend has family roots in and originates from New Zealand, so he has a particular understanding of the issue. Of course, we try to maintain a sensible balance in our immigration system. It is necessary, right and proper to have controls. At the same time, we have routes for experienced people to come to this country and work. Many from Australia, New Zealand and other parts of the Commonwealth have done so over many years. I am sure that Home Office Ministers will have heard my hon. Friend’s comments and that they will do their best to take as pragmatic an approach as they can, but he will understand that there have to be limitations—our electors expect it.

Business of the House

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I suspect that Jane from Liverpool has a vested interest in the answer to that question. I encourage George from Knowsley to tell Jane from Liverpool that she should not believe everything that she reads in the paper until the Government make an announcement. If any decisions are taken that would change the timetable of those elections, I am sure that Ministers will first inform the House.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

May I declare a potential financial interest? Is the Leader of the House able to persuade the Health Secretary to make a statement—even a written statement—on future research and the potential use of the precautionary principle, following recent research that was initially aimed at variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease prions? Sadly, that research indicated the potential for proteins related to Alzheimer’s to be transferred on surgical instruments.

[Chris Grayling]

That is obviously a matter of great concern. I saw those reports, and I know that the Health Secretary will have taken a close interest in the issue. We have Health questions two days after we return from the conference recess, and I encourage my hon. Friend to raise that matter. Alzheimer’s is a dreadful disease. I suspect that most of us in the House know family members or constituents who have suffered from it, and anything we can do to reduce its impact in the years ahead must be desirable.

Serjeant at Arms

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

As a co-signatory of the motion, I want to be succinct in adding to the points that have already been made. I am afraid—or perhaps fortunately—I do not have a colourful story such as the last one.

As a member of the House of Commons Commission, I certainly respect—as I think you do, too, Mr Speaker—the advice Lawrence has given us. It is unseen and not reported, but it has been extensive and extremely useful. Most of us see him only in his role of sitting in the chair with the sword and stockings. I am a bit disturbed at the preoccupation of some speakers—one in particular—with stockings. What we do not recognise is how much Lawrence has been involved in the protection of the House while at the same time enabling the public to come in and see us in action. That has been successful. It is also interesting that, having had some interesting and unusual requests from me for slight changes and a bending of the rules, he was extremely polite to me, even if at the end of the day he gave an emphatic and definite no.

Business of the House

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am a bit surprised that the hon. Lady appears so sceptical about Crossrail, which I thought her party had supported throughout the years. We are committed as a Government to one of the biggest programmes of rail modernisation that this country has seen for a long time. She talks about electrification. We will electrify the trans-Pennine route. She needs to look back at her party’s record in government when, over 13 years, it electrified, if I remember correctly, 10 miles of railway line. We are setting in place a proper modernisation programme for our railways. Labour failed to do so even when it had the money.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend agreed to a debate in Government time on the way in which so-called Travellers are thwarting the whole essence of the planning system. I have a number of dreadful cases in my patch, including one where so-called Travellers have submitted applications followed by appeals for 10 years or more. They are building on the site as well as squatting on it. It is green belt land; they should not be there.

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is a bit of a contradiction in terms—if someone is a Traveller, why are they establishing a fixed site to live on? My view is that every citizen of this country should be subject to the same laws as everyone else. We should not make exceptions for any groups, and it is an oddity that should be dealt with—people who claim to be Travellers should not be given special permission to establish fixed sites to live on permanently.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)]

6. If the Commission will encourage hon. Members to choose the cheapest option available to the public purse for the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley)]

The Commission is obviously always deeply concerned about cost, quality and the need to make a full assessment of the options. The Leader of the House is a member of the Commission and he will take the report to the Joint Committee.

[Mr Carswell]

When Portcullis House was built, the final bill way exceeded the initial cost estimates. What responsibility will the Commission take to ensure that that does not happen on an even bigger scale?

[Sir Paul Beresford]

Clearly, the answer will be a combination of the assessment that will be made and the normal following of procedures to try to stop that happening. I am very aware of that issue as a member of the Commission, and as the hon. Gentleman will know from my background, I do not like overruns.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

8. What steps have been taken to promote recycling of waste on the parliamentary estate.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

Parliament’s recycling and recovery rate has increased, from 47% in 2008-09 to 62.5% in 2014-15. A new system of office waste recycling was implemented during Dissolution in Members’ areas across the estate, using clearly marked, separate bins for mixed recycling. This is expected to make a significant contribution to helping Parliament to achieve its target to recycle or recover 75% of waste by 2021.

[Margaret Ferrier]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his answer. As a new Member, I have noted that much more could be done to promote recycling on the estate, particularly of paper waste. I hope that, in addition to pursuing a digital strategy to lessen paper waste, the House will seek to become more adept at how it disposes of the masses of paper discarded each day and also clarify what happens to any leftover food.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

Clearly I agree with the hon. Lady. If she looks at the website, she will see there is an interesting waste hierarchy that we utilise in the Commons. First comes prevention, which she has touched on—not using as much paper—then comes preparing for reuse, recycling and other recovery, particularly energy recovery, and finally there is disposal.

English Votes on English Laws

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

One of the issues that has upset me over the years, initially as a Minister and during all the time since, is the annual motion on distributing grants to English police forces and to English local authorities. They are surely examples of what should be dealt with by English MPs only.

[Chris Grayling]

The distribution of grants will be part of this procedure. That, like all of this, was very clearly set out in our manifesto. I know that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland’s party has not always believed in sticking to manifesto commitments, but that is precisely what we are seeking to do. We think the proposal is important—it was clear for the country to see, and the country was able to debate it—and we are sticking to that promise.