Clause
72
House
of Lords
staff
Andrew
Selous:
I beg to move amendment No. 183, in
clause 72, page 34, line 41, at
end add
or a Member of
the House of
Lords..
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment
No. 184, in
clause 73, page 35, line 7, at
end insert
(c) who is
employed by a Member of
Parliament..
Andrew
Selous:
Amendment No. 184 also relates to clause 73, so I
hope you will not rule me out of order, Sir Nicholas, if I touch on the
provisions of that clause. For the record, the
explanatory note should say probe rather than
prove. I entirely blame my handwriting for that
mistake. The fault is all mine, not the excellent staff who assist
Opposition Members in tabling amendments.
I refer to both clauses; I
understand the distinction between people who work for the House
authoritiessome are in this roomand staff who are
employed by Members of Parliament, but I want to know the position of
Members staff. We are all small employers in our own right as
Members of Parliament. There are some good aspects to that, in that we
are not isolated from some of the matters that hundreds of thousands of
small employers have to deal with up and down the country.
I am not arguing that we should
be isolated from that or financially insulated from the provisions of
this Bill. I am interested to know what the effect would be on staff
employed by Members of the House of Lords and Members
of the House of Commons. My amendment by implication does come to
finance as well. If we are going to have take it on the chin, it will
have financial implications for salary levels. I am not sure whether
the Treasury would be minded to increase the grant to the House of
Commons Commission so that the employer contribution could be
paid.
I am not
expecting the Minister to have a full answer at his fingertips but it
would be useful if he could say
something.
Danny
Alexander (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)
(LD): I appreciate that these are probing amendments but they
are probing at a point that all Members of the Committee and those who
work for us would regard as interesting and significant so I am
grateful to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire for introducing
the argument.
As Members
know, staff of MPs as opposed to staff of the House have the
opportunity to take part in the Portcullis pension plan. I assume,
though I would be grateful for the Ministers clarification,
that the auto-enrolment provisions in the Bill would apply equally to
that scheme, or relevant improvements would be made to ensure that it
qualified. It is important to ensure that the benefits of automatic
enrolment do apply to the two
groups of people highlighted by these amendments. I look forward to the
Ministers agreement with that
point.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
(Mr. James Plaskitt):
The House of Lords and
the House of Commons employ permanent fixed-term
casual and freelance workers who are all employed under a
workers contract. Clause 72 confirms that those people who work
under a contract for the corporate officer of the House of Lords are
workers for the purposes of these reforms. Similarly, clause 73
confirms that those people who are appointed by the House of Commons
Commission or members of the Speakers personal staff are
workers for the purposes of these reforms.
The corporate
office of the House of Lords and the House of Commons Commission
respectively are bound by the employer duty automatically to enrol
these job-holders into a qualifying workplace pension scheme. We must
not confuse these workers with those who are directly employed by peers
of Members of Parliament.
The key point
is that the provisions of this Bill already cover those people already
employed by peers and Members of Parliament. Anyone directly employed
by a peer or Member of Parliament that has job-holder
statusthat is, a worker between the age of 16 and 75 with
qualifying earningswould be entitled to participate in
workplace pension saving with the minimum contribution from their
employer.
A peer or
Member of Parliament with such a job-holder would need to engage with a
suitable scheme into which to enrol job-holders. A peer or Member of
Parliament who employs a job-holder between the narrower band of age 22
to state pension age would have automatically to enrol that
job-holder.
I hope
that provides clarification and that the hon. Member will feel able to
withdraw his
amendment.
Andrew
Selous:
Yes, I am grateful for that clarification from the
Minister. It was a probing amendment as I stated at the beginning. I
beg leave to ask to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
It being
twenty-five
minutes past ten oclock
The
Chairman
adjourned the Committee without Question put,
pursuant to the Standing
Order.
Adjourned
till this day at One
oclock.
|