The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chair:
Mr
Roger Gale
†
Andrew,
Stuart (Pudsey)
(Con)
†
Bacon,
Mr Richard (South Norfolk)
(Con)
†
Bagshawe,
Ms Louise (Corby)
(Con)
†
Baker,
Steve (Wycombe)
(Con)
†
Bingham,
Andrew (High Peak)
(Con)
†
Chapman,
Mrs Jenny (Darlington)
(Lab)
†
Crabb,
Stephen (Preseli Pembrokeshire)
(Con)
Farrelly,
Paul (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
(Lab)
Godsiff,
Mr Roger (Birmingham, Hall Green)
(Lab)
†
Heath,
Mr David (Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House
of
Commons)
Hoey,
Kate (Vauxhall)
(Lab)
†
Jones,
Graham (Hyndburn)
(Lab)
†
Jones,
Helen (Warrington North)
(Lab)
†
Lilley,
Mr Peter (Hitchin and Harpenden)
(Con)
†
Munn,
Meg (Sheffield, Heeley)
(Lab/Co-op)
†
Munt,
Tessa (Wells) (LD)
†
Sturdy,
Julian (York Outer)
(Con)
Wilson,
Sammy (East Antrim)
(DUP)
Mark Etherton, Committee
Clerk
† attended the
Committee
Fifth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Tuesday 9
November
2010
[Mr
Roger Gale
in the
Chair]
House
of Commons Members’
Fund
10.30
am
The
Chair:
Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen. Hon. Members
may, if they are brave enough, remove their jackets. If there are
Members present who have not participated in these arcane proceedings
before and find themselves out of their depths, the Chairman will be
pleased to endeavour to enlighten them. They will notice that it is
Chairman or Mr Gale. Other forms of nomenclature find me incredibly
deaf and
blind.
10.31
am
Mr
Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con):
I beg to
move,
That
the Committee has considered the motion, That, pursuant to section 4(4)
of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 1948 and
section 1(4) of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 1957, in
the year commencing 1 October 2010 there be appropriated for the
purposes of section 4 of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act
1948:
The
whole of the sums deducted or set aside in that year under section 1(3)
of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 1939 from the salaries
of Members of the House of Commons;
and
(2)
The whole of the Treasury contribution to the Fund in that
year.
The
House of Commons Members’ Fund is, in essence, a benevolent fund
for former Members who have fallen on hard times and need financial
assistance. It may be hard for some people outside the House to believe
that former Members can fall on hard times; but, unfortunately, owing
to the interrupted nature of people’s careers, an increasing
number find themselves in need of help. The fund currently has around
67 beneficiaries, mostly very elderly former Members or their surviving
dependants. Most professions and many firms have similar funds to meet
their social responsibilities towards members of their
profession.
Details of
the fund’s work can be found in its annual report and accounts,
which are laid before the House each year. An appropriation motion is
introduced every year in line with the archaic legislative
requirements. It enables the trustees to continue to make awards to
ex-Members and their dependants, having regard to individual
circumstances. The fund is governed by a bewildering variety of Acts,
and it is gratifying to know, Mr Gale, that you will be able to
simplify them and explain them to members of the Committee should they
have any
concerns.
The
Acts stipulate the basis on which payments can be made and the amounts
payable. Some payments are known as as-of-right payments; others are
awarded at the trustees’ discretion. The discretionary payments
can be recurring to improve a person’s standard of living, or
they can be one-off grants to improve the quality of life and meet a
one-off need. As-of-right beneficiaries are
such because they are either not entitled to a parliamentary pension
because they left the House before 1964, when pension entitlements
began, or are widows and widowers of former Members, who have a
parliamentary contributory pension fund benefit below the current
specified level and the fund makes up the
difference.
The
average value of the recurring payments is about £2,300 per
annum. A handful of one-off grants are made each year, with an average
value of only about £4,000. Relatively small sums can make a
great difference in some circumstances. As some hon. Members will be
aware, an extensive review of the fund was completed in 2007, and
conclusions on the review have been reached and endorsed by the
trustees and the Members Estimate Committee in November 2007. Following
that, the House of Commons Members’ Fund secretariat has held
meetings with officials from the Office of the Leader of the House to
discuss the practical steps that needed to be taken before proposals in
line with the MEC’s decision can be implemented.
However, the
implementation of the changes requires changes to primary legislation,
but the House of Commons Members’ Fund secretariat was informed
that there was not enough time on the Floor of the House to enact new
legislation during the last parliamentary term. New legislation in line
with the conclusions of the review would move the quasi-pension
payments to the Treasury or another body. That would eliminate the need
for the Treasury contribution to the fund, and this part of the annual
appropriation motion would cease to be necessary. However, until such
time as the changes can be implemented, such a resolution remains a
requirement of the legislation.
Finally, I
pay tribute to my fellow trustees for the work that they undertake very
diligently on the fund’s
behalf.
10.34
am
The
Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons
(Mr David Heath):
It is a joy to be in this warm Committee
Room this morning, Mr Gale. I am grateful to the right hon.
Gentleman for bringing the motion before the Committee today. I do not
want to say too much to add to what he has already said. As he has
indicated, the charming proceedings in which we engage may be brought
to a conclusion in the future by a change in primary
legislation.
The
purpose of the fund is to assist elderly former Members, their widows,
widowers and dependants. It provides payments for former Members who
left the House before the parliamentary contributory pension scheme was
introduced, and it provides grants for specific purposes to former
Members who are facing
hardship.
The
trustees, the Members Estimate Audit Committee and the Members Estimate
Committee all considered a review of the fund in 2007. The MEC
concluded that the monthly contribution from Members should be raised
from £2 to £5 and that £1 million—based on
a 2007 valuation of the fund—should be refunded to the
Treasury.
The
fund will also be divided into two parts. The benevolent function of
making grants to former Members who face specific hardship will
continue to be exercised by the trustees. The function of making
as-of-right payments to former Members who do not have a pension will
be transferred to the Treasury, which will use the Exchequer
contribution to do so.
The changes
will require primary legislation and, until a suitable legislative
vehicle can be found, the motion is necessary to appropriate the
Exchequer contribution to the fund. I hope that we will be able to
expedite that process at some stage in the future, but, until then, I
commend the
motion.
10.36
am
Helen
Jones (Warrington North) (Lab):
It is a pleasure to serve
under your chairmanship, Mr Gale. I spent too long as a Whip passing
notes to Ministers telling them to wind up and sit down, so I do not
intend to speak for long. The motion is a routine application for the
annual appropriation for the Members’ fund. The fact that some
former Members still need money from the fund, whether as recurring
payments or as one-off grants, and that the sums are relatively low, as
the right hon. Gentleman has said, shows that the fond belief among
some people that Members retire on gold-plated sums showered upon them
from the public purse is false. Many Members do not stay in the House
long enough to build a large pension entitlement, and many others have
difficulty finding employment when they leave the House, as anyone who
has spoken to some of those who have recently left will know. I hope
that, when the Government talk about reforming MPs’ pensions in
future, they will bear in mind that many are not entitled to large sums
when they leave the House or, indeed, any sort of decent
sum.
The
fund therefore remains necessary, and we support the motion. I thank
the right hon. Gentleman and his fellow trustees for their work on our
behalf, which is no less valuable for being unseen in public. The House
is grateful to them all, and I urge my hon. Friends to support the
motion.
10.38
am
Steve
Baker (Wycombe) (Con):
I support the benevolent intent of
the fund. I will not waste your time by explaining why, Mr Gale,
because I believe that all hon. Members support it. I am certain that
the fund is necessary, and I join the applause for the trustees and
their work. However, we now live in an era of the big society and
public austerity, and I am not perfectly convinced that our benevolence
should be funded by the
taxpayer.
As
an ex-member of the Royal Air Force, the RAF Benevolent Fund is a
subject close to my heart. It is
funded largely by donations from serving members of the RAF at a rate of
half a day’s pay per annum. The £215,000 a year taken
from the Treasury divided by the 650 Members of Parliament is just
£330 a year, which is less than half a week’s gross pay
for an MP.
I recognise
and applaud the benevolent intent of the fund, but it is my belief, in
these straitened times, that MPs should support the fund and that we
can generally afford to do so. We should take it upon ourselves to show
a lead to the public by stopping the taxpayer contribution to this
benevolence and funding it from the salaries of current hon. Members.
For that reason, I oppose the
motion.
10.39
am
Mr
Lilley:
I urge my hon. Friend not to oppose the motion,
because the fund is actually entirely in agreement with him. The review
recommends that the Treasury contribution should cease. The regular
payment of quasi-pensions to widows of former Members who were not, for
technical reasons, covered by the ordinary pension legislation will be
handled by the Treasury in the same way as it handles other
people’s pensions. We will also hand some of the money that has
accumulated in the fund back to the Treasury.
This is
probably the first example of a public body voluntarily offering money
back to the Treasury, but we were a small cog in the big society before
it was even born. Thereafter, the fund will be funded entirely by what
remains of the existing fund, plus a monthly contribution from MPs. I
would slightly qualify the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the House,
who said that it had been agreed that that should be increased to
£5 a month. The Members’ fund thought that hon. Members
should be ready to increase the amount, but it did not believe that to
be immediately necessary.
I hope that
my hon. Friend will feel that we are moving in exactly the same
direction; all that is required is primary
legislation.
10.40
am
Steve
Baker:
Having heard my right hon. Friend’s remarks,
I am persuaded and support the
motion.
Question
put and agreed
to.
10.41
am
Committee
rose.