| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY (REFERENDUM) BILL [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified--
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill, it is expedient to authorise--
Question agreed to.
(1) the charging on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of--
(a) any fee payable to, or charge made or expenditure incurred by, the Chief Counting Officer, a counting officer or a returning officer which is to be charged on and paid out of that Fund by virtue of an Order in Council under the Act; and
(b) any grant payable by the Secretary of State under the Act to a London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London in respect of expenditure incurred (or to be incurred) by them by virtue of an Order in Council under the Act;
(2) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of--
(a) any expenditure of the Secretary of State in connection with the referendum held by virtue of the Act (other than expenditure authorised by paragraph (1) above to be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund);
(b) any payments made by the Secretary of State under the Act to the Local Government Commission for England; and
(c) any expenditure of the Secretary of State in preparation for a Greater London Authority.--[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
That Mr. John Butterfill, Dr. Vincent Cable, Mr. Barry Gardiner, Dr. Nick Palmer, Dr. Howard Stoate and Ms Gisela Stuart be appointed Managing Trustees of the House of Commons Members' Fund in pursuance of Section 2 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939.--[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
10.15 pm
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): I would have expected an explanation of the proposed composition of a body that touches on the interests of all hon. Members. When I have said just a few words on the subject, I hope that one might be forthcoming. It seems rather odd, to say the least, not to have a balance of representation on such a body, which represents the interests of Members in the widest possible context.
We are used to deputing colleagues with certain specialist knowledge of to deal with various matters, but here we have a matter that touches on the interests of Members themselves. I am seeking an explanation because I am puzzled that the proposed Labour Members dealing with the House of Commons Members' fund all appear--[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
Order. There is far too much conversation in the Chamber.
Mr. Forth:
The proposed Labour Members all appear to have been elected recently. I do not wish to criticise them as individuals; indeed, I am rather impressed that they are prepared to take on the onerous responsibility dealing with a matter as potentially sensitive as the House of Commons Members' fund so early in their parliamentary careers. However, Members would have expected a spread of experience on such a body so that the Members dealing with the matter could have offered knowledge, experience and perhaps a length of service in the House.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) is a proposed trustee. That pleases me enormously, not least because my hon. Friend entered the House at the same time as I did in 1983. His wide range of experience in the House and outside will enable him to make a real contribution to the deliberations that will take place from time to time on the House of Commons Members' fund. That is encouraging.
On the other hand, although I am encouraged by the presence of my hon. Friend, I am somewhat at a loss to understand why the Government, given the opportunity to offer a range of experience, have failed to do so. At the very least, surely we are owed an explanation. I am not saying that I wish to divide the House--
Mr. Mike Hall (Weaver Vale):
Get on with it.
Mr. Forth:
Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene? [Interruption.] I am glad that I am now beginning to arouse some interest among Labour Members, which is a rarity.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. All the right hon. Gentleman needs to worry about is that I am interested in what he is saying--and I am listening--and that he keeps to the point.
Mr. Forth:
I hope that I have kept very much to the point. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. Let me warn the right hon. Member that this is a very tight subject. He must stick to it. How many Members are in the Chamber is of no consequence to this debate. He knows the subject, he has risen to speak on it and he must speak to it.
Mr. Forth:
Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are right. Indeed, you are, by definition, right. I am talking about Members and I confess that I allowed myself to stray to Labour Members. As you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the point is very narrow, but it is important.
What disappoints me about the way in which the matter has been offered to the House is the fact that the Government have not been prepared even to offer the simplest, almost elementary, explanation of the composition proposed for the body that deals with the House of Commons Members' fund. I suspect that, if we had had that explanation, the matter could have been dealt with in a very straightforward way. Given that it has been presented to us on the Order Paper and moved formally, should the House be surprised if Members such as myself--I do not know whether any of my hon. Friends share my concern about the matter--wonder at the very least why we are not being offered a range of experience among Members on the body? Is it too much to ask that Members from different election intakes are represented? The House of Commons Members' fund deals with matters in which all Members have an interest. I should have preferred Members of greater experience on the body.
I have no doubt that if we are given a reasonable explanation, we shall be prepared to accept it. In the absence of a reasonable explanation, we may want the matter to be deferred, thought about again, taken away and dealt with, no doubt in the usual expert and, very often, companionable way, through the usual channels. I regret to say that, if I am not given that reassurance, we may want to divide the House not only to make the point that this is the wrong way in which to bring such a matter before the House--it is almost insulting--but to get more reassurance that the Members who are being proposed to deal with the fund will have a greater range of experience than those who are currently proposed.
Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne):
Despite the fact that I sense irritation from Labour Members who do not want to discuss this matter, it strikes me that it is sufficiently serious for us to spend some time on it. It would be wrong simply to nod it through without giving it decent consideration.
If I understand you correctly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are dealing only with the first of two motions on the Order Paper. I am sure that it will be necessary for the House to
have a sensible and rational debate subsequently about the contributory pension fund, but, for the moment, we are talking solely about the Members' fund. It is a fund to which every hon. Member contributes and which all of us one day--Heaven forbid--may wish to use. We should therefore take it seriously. Some answers to some questions should be given before we vote on the matter. I shall pose a number of questions to which I would like answers before I decide whether to divide the House on the issue.
First, why are we being asked to approve six trustees? I notice that when we come to debate the next motion, we will be asked to approve eight trustees and the House should be told the reason for the difference. We should be told why six will be adequate for the task. If six trustees are considered adequate, we must reassure ourselves that the work load for those six people is right. If there is much work to be done, we will need more than six. Secondly, may we be told the exact work load of the trustees? What will the trustees decide and how often will they have to meet?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The motion is only about the membership of the body, not its work load. The House is being asked to approve the membership and the individual names.
Mr. Wilshire:
I understand that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I hope that you will understand in return that to make up my mind about whether the membership level is right, I need an understanding of the task facing the six people. Otherwise, I will find it difficult to vote one way or the other. We need to get to grips with the work load.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |