Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rob Wilson and John Bercow

Thursday 16th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wilson]

I am very pleased to hear about the Suffolk foundation’s success. The Community First Endowment Match Challenge raised a permanent endowment of £130 million, which has provided £5.8 million in grants to local groups up to the end of 2015. It will continue to support local community groups and projects across England in the future. There are no plans to expand this programme in the current Parliament, but I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further and, in due course, to see whether we can consider how dormant assets are spent.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Stewart Malcolm McDonald. Not here. Oh dear, where is the feller?

National Citizen Service Bill [Lords]

Debate between Rob Wilson and John Bercow

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 15th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I can now inform the House of my decision about certification. For the purposes of Standing Order No. 83L(2), I have certified the following provisions of the National Citizen Service Bill [Lords] as relating exclusively to England and within devolved legislative competence: clauses 1 to 8 of and schedule 1 to the Bill as amended in the Public Bill Committee.

For the purposes of Standing Order No. 83L(4), I have certified the following amendment made to the Bill since Second Reading as relating exclusively to England and Wales: amendment 1 to clause 13 made in the Public Bill Committee.

Copies of my certificate are available in the Vote Office. Under Standing Order No. 83M, a consent motion is therefore required for the Bill to proceed. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) is nodding sagaciously along with me as I go—he is obviously very conversant with the details of this procedure, and I would expect nothing less. Does the Minister intend to move a consent motion?

[Mr Rob Wilson]

indicated assent.

The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England) (Standing Order No. 83M(4)).

[Natascha Engel in the Chair]

House of Commons Members’ Fund (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Rob Wilson and John Bercow

Friday 4th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Rob Wilson)]

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) appreciates expediency in these proceedings, so I will keep my comments fairly brief. I congratulate him on promoting this Bill. It was introduced as a 10-minute rule Bill—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I would not wish to misunderstand the Minister. Was “expedition” the word for which he was looking?

[Mr Wilson]

No, it was “expediency”. I am used to having my grammar and English corrected, so I will take that as another correction.

This Bill was introduced by a 10-minute rule on 4 November. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley made the point that it is not a Government Bill nor a Government handout Bill; it is a minor House of Commons management Bill. However, I am pleased to support it. The Bill is not new; two similar private Members’ Bills in the last Parliament fell owing to lack of time.

The Bill received its Second Reading on 29 January, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) for the huge amount of work that he put in to get it to a point where it could enjoy majority support in this House and the other place, and for his open approach to dealing with all stakeholders who have an interest in it. His work has been continued in this Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley. The Bill will modernise the House of Commons Members’ Fund which is governed by legislation dating back to 1939. It will remove unnecessary and outdated costs, and move towards a more efficient system, which we support. Importantly, it will enable us to return approximately £2 million that is not needed as part of the fund to the Treasury.

The existing legislation is outdated, incomprehensible and rigid, and it imposes unnecessary costs. Reform will simplify and clarify the legislation, streamline administration, reduce costs, and allow the fund to be self-sufficient. The new legislation will reflect the changed and smaller demands on the fund given the dwindling number of dependants of Members who left the House before MPs’ pensions were introduced. It will also permit trustees to suspend compulsory deductions from Members’ pay that are no longer needed. It is the trustees’ intention to do that immediately, and the Bill’s changes to legislation allow them to so.

The Bill will remove the need for an annual contribution from the Exchequer while leaving sufficient funds to finance help to former Members and their dependants in future years. The fund was established under the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 1939, predating the pension scheme for MPs that was established in 1964. Its original purpose was to provide former Members, their widows or widowers and orphan children, with a discretionary grant in lieu of a pension. Further Acts were passed in 1948, 1981 and 1991 to allow former Members and their dependants to apply for assistance, particularly in financial hardship. Those amendments also broadened the class of beneficiaries, granted wide powers of discretion to trustees, and established periodic payments to specific classes of beneficiaries. As a consequence, provision was made in 1981 for the fund to be supplemented by a higher annual Exchequer contribution.

The House of Commons Members’ Fund was established when there was no parliamentary pension, to help former Members and their dependants who had financial difficulties. Only 12 of those beneficiaries remain. In addition, the fund makes payments to top-up pensions for widows of Members up to five-eighths of their spouse’s pension for those who left the House when widows received a lower pension entitlement. There are 27 people in that category today. Numbers of beneficiaries in those two categories are decreasing.

The largest category of former Members and their dependants for whom there is likely to remain an ongoing need are those who left the House more recently and have fallen into need because of sickness, disability, or inability to return to work after losing their seat. A small number of such cases occur each year. The fund is able to award one-off grants or ongoing help on a discretionary basis. A report on the fund was sponsored jointly by the Members Estimate Audit Committee and the trustees in 2006-07. Both bodies shared a concern about the complexity of the fund’s governing legislation and consequential financial arrangements. A final report was produced by John Stoker and Lord Burnett in April 2007, outlining their recommendations for the fund.

The main recommendations were that the fund be divided into two distinct functions: first to provide a benevolent function—the payment of one-off hardship grants—and that function would be overseen by the trustees, with assets sufficient to meet likely future hardship payments; and, secondly to meet annual “as of rights” payments. The balance of the fund not required to finance the benevolent function would be repatriated. In practice, the Treasury, the House, or some other body would have to take responsibility for the payment function. In addition, the annual Exchequer grant of £215,000 would no longer be paid into the fund.

Following the review, the Members Estimate Committee considered the recommendations at its meeting in November 2007 and endorsed the report. During discussions that took place after the MEC meeting with the officials of the Leader of the House, a number of obstacles were identified. In particular, there were problems identifying a suitable Department to take on the annual regular grants to enable the fund’s two functions to be separated, to ensure that no further Treasury contributions would be taken and to return excess funds to the Treasury. Legislation is required to split the fund’s functions. The Leader of the House and the trustees have explored restructuring the fund through new primary legislation, but it has been difficult to find Government time for a stand-alone Bill. Until now there has been no opportunity to change the legislation.

Despite general agreement by all parties that the fund should be restructured, in the absence of new legislation the trustees have continued to administer the fund in its existing form. However, the trustees agreed that they would draw a lower annual Treasury contribution to cover the regular annual grants only. From 1 October 2011, £148,000 was drawn, rather than the maximum of £215,000, and from 1 January 2015 the trustees ceased the draw-down altogether. Once the legislation governing the fund has been reformed, the trustees intend to return £2 million to the Treasury, and there will be no provision for an annual Exchequer contribution to the fund.

Since the review in 2007, the trustees have explored a number of avenues to change the fund’s governing legislation. That has included attempts to obtain time on the Floor of the House for a stand-alone Bill, and using other legislative vehicles to make changes, such as the Public Service Pensions Bill and the Finance Bill. The trustees have decided to pursue a private Member’s Bill, with Government support.

The changes proposed are largely technical and will simplify the fund and the associated administrative burden. Those changes will make the fund easier to administer, and allow trustees to spend time on the main thrust of the fund, which is to assist former Members and their dependants in financial need. There is nothing more for me to say, other than that I wish this short and effective Bill swift progress through the Lords.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rob Wilson and John Bercow

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wilson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I did notice that the Leader of the Opposition had a very compelling economics lesson on TV the other evening, when Myleene Klass said:

“You can’t just point at things and tax them.”

That is hardly a thought-through strategy. We have heard voices within the Labour party itself—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Minister should resume his seat. His answer suffers from one principal disadvantage: it has absolutely nothing to do with his important responsibilities as a newly appointed junior Minister, with which of course we wish him well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wilson]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that all correspondence to the UK Statistics Authority is publicly available on its website, but he will also know that it has responded to both the Government and the Opposition on the issue of statistics, such as when it wrote on 24 July concerning incorrect employment figures used by the Leader of the Opposition and a shadow Business Minister—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are going to get one more question in because we want answers about Government policy. The Minister will learn gradually.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rob Wilson and John Bercow

Thursday 11th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have a sense that the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) feels an Adjournment debate application coming on.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Points of Order

Debate between Rob Wilson and John Bercow

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman served in that capacity as Deputy Speaker and did so with great distinction and loyalty, which is appreciated in all parts of the House and certainly by me. Yes, he has made a very human point, and people will empathise with it. I am in touch with the person to whom he refers, and others are. It is important that clarity is established as soon as is compatible with the rights and responsibilities of the House being met and discharged.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Following your statement at 2.30 pm today, it may be helpful if you could confirm to the House the mechanisms by which the House can hold your decisions and your office to account on a regular basis. In the light of the current difficulties that we face over the employment of a senior Clerk, could you also confirm whether any of the participants are taking legal action?

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer to him is that I am of course accountable to the House. I chair the House of Commons Commission and hear what it has to say—that is a perfectly proper state of affairs. My understanding is that no legal action has been taken against the House.

Patient Safety

Debate between Rob Wilson and John Bercow

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Ah! I keep my eye on the hon. Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson), because he does bob up and down, but he tends to do so only intermittently. It is a good thing that I have noticed him. Let us hear from the fellow.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

I was saving my energy, Mr Speaker.

I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s changes, which have made improving patient care and raising standards such a central part of the NHS mission. It is important to shine a light on poor performance, which is why I also welcome today’s CQC report on Royal Berkshire hospital, which highlights a number of important challenges that confront my local hospital. Does he agree that only by being open and transparent about problems can we tackle them and fix them for the long term?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rob Wilson and John Bercow

Monday 24th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

As the Minister herself widened the subject matter courtesy of her answer, I think we can safely make the journey to Reading.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

A new Sutton Trust report states that 40% of children are missing out on the parenting they need to succeed in life. International evidence finds that under-threes who do not form strong bonds with a parent are more likely to suffer from aggression and hyperactivity when older, and they do less well in their education. In the light of that, is the Minister happy that parents are getting the full picture when making choices about the right balance of time spent in nursery and child care settings, as opposed to with their parents?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rob Wilson and John Bercow

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Secretary of State’s authorship of the Green party manifesto is not required.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

I hope that the Secretary of State will shortly announce the approval of the Maiden Erlegh free school in my constituency, but is he as concerned as I am by Labour’s secret plan to review free school premises and buildings? Is that not simply a back-door way to destroy the free school movement? [Interruption.]

Local Government Finance

Debate between Rob Wilson and John Bercow

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson) has only just started bobbing, but I am assuming that he was here at the start.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Labour councils such as Reading are again increasing the burden of council tax on families this year. Does the Minister agree that, during these challenging times, any rise in council tax should be put to a local authority referendum?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rob Wilson and John Bercow

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

Trust in the police is an essential part of a just and democratic society. Will the Prime Minister therefore seek—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but Members must now calm down. Both the questions and the answers must be heard.

[Mr Wilson]

Will the Prime Minister therefore seek personal assurances from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police that no stone will be left unturned in getting to the full truth about allegations that a serving police officer fabricated evidence against a member of the Cabinet?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rob Wilson and John Bercow

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I look forward to hearing further details in due course, if we have not already heard all of them.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

13. What steps his Department is taking to address vulnerabilities faced by women involved or at risk of becoming involved in the criminal justice system.

Points of Order

Debate between Rob Wilson and John Bercow

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Prime Minister’s questions on 24 October 2012, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams)—I have given her prior notice of this point of order—made the serious accusation on the Floor of the House that a relationship existed between:

“Virgin Care donations to the Tory party, the number of Virgin Care shareholders on clinical commissioning group boards and the number of NHS contracts that have been awarded to Virgin Care”.—[Official Report, 24 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 919.]

That assertion appears to have been picked up from a blogger who has since apologised and withdrawn it. The hon. Lady’s remarks carry a very serious and clear insinuation of a potentially corrupt relationship between Virgin Care, the Conservative party and the award of NHS contracts. However, when I checked the Electoral Commission’s online register of political donations, I found no record of any donation by Virgin Care to any political party. Is it not the tradition for a Member who has perhaps inadvertently made false claims or assertions on the Floor of the House to come to the House at the earliest opportunity to set the record straight?

[Mr Speaker]

What I say to the hon. Gentleman is twofold. First, I hope and am confident that the hon. Member has given proper notice to the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) of his intention to raise this point on the Floor of the House.

[Mr Wilson]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. Secondly, with specific reference to the hon. Gentleman’s question, right hon. and hon. Members must take responsibility for the accuracy of what they say in the House—the Chair cannot take over that responsibility. His point will have been heard by the hon. Member and by others, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting it on the record.

Business of the House

Debate between Rob Wilson and John Bercow

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson) has wandered almost like a nomad, albeit all at one end of the Chamber, across three Benches, but I hope he is now comfortably perched and ready to give the House the benefit of his thoughts.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

I thank you for that kind introduction, Mr Speaker. Following the publication of yesterday’s Ofsted report on the performance of local education authorities, may we have a debate in Government time about why some LEAs, such as Reading, are so much worse at providing, for example, primary school education than either surrounding authorities or demographically comparable local education authorities?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rob Wilson and John Bercow

Wednesday 24th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House must calm down.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

After the BBC director-general’s appearance before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee yesterday, I hope the whole House will agree that it is essential that the two independent inquiries get to the truth. Full details of those inquiries are still sketchy, despite my having sent two letters to the BBC asking for full disclosure. Will the Prime Minister join me in calling for full details to be published today, so that both inquiries can have the full confidence of the public and Jimmy Savile’s victims can hear the truth?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rob Wilson and John Bercow

Monday 18th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

At this late hour and in the hope that it will bring a smile to the hon. Gentleman’s face, I have pleasure in calling Mr Rob Wilson.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

Thank you so much, Mr Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the chief inspector of Ofsted that young people from challenging homes would benefit from a boarding school education?

Nuclear-powered Submarines

Debate between Rob Wilson and John Bercow

Monday 18th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Rob Wilson.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

I am still smiling, Mr Speaker. Is the Secretary of State’s understanding, based on the SNP’s opposition to this investment, that an independent Scotland would leave its citizens fairly defenceless against nuclear attack, or would it rely on another nation to protect it?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rob Wilson and John Bercow

Monday 16th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Hackney South and Shoreditch has much to commend it, but it is rather a long way from Newcastle upon Tyne Central, so we will leave that one for another day.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

10. What proportion of secondary schools have academy status or are in the process of converting to academy status.

Eurozone

Debate between Rob Wilson and John Bercow

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. At one point I thought that the hon. Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson) had toddled out of the Chamber, but I am delighted that he is back in his place and we want to hear him.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend was right to be concerned in his statement about money finding its way to small and start-up businesses. May I urge him to consider streamlining the current, overly complex enterprise investment scheme and add tax relief to those business angel investors who are making their savings available to small businesses in this country? Such an approach would give a much-needed boost to small business in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rob Wilson and John Bercow

Monday 28th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wilson]

Now that the Secretary of State is back with us, may I thank him for that answer? Under Labour, since 1997 the council tax for the average home in Reading rose by 116%. This year, the new Conservative-led coalition will freeze council tax for the first time ever. On the day that the Leader of the Opposition talks of a cost of living crisis as standing up for families in the middle, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party should begin by apologising for clobbering families in Reading—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. His question has absolutely nothing to do with the responsibilities of the Government.