House of Commons (Administration) Bill

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Please can we make sure that our electronic devices are turned to silent? There is to be no tea or coffee, but the Minister will be delighted that we will allow Coca-Cola.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

I’ve drunk it.

[The Chair]

There will be no Coca-Cola, either, then.

This is a private Member’s Bill and we do not have a programme motion to agree, so we will start straightaway with clause 1. There is no set finish time this afternoon. Our proceedings will be concluded either by our finishing with the Bill or by the Committee agreeing to adjourn.

Clause 1

The Fund

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 8, page 4, line 16, leave out “(Administration)” and insert “Members’ Fund”

The amendment is consequential on amendment 15. This provision of the Bill textually amends existing legislation so as to refer to the Bill. This Committee amendment secures that the textual amendment uses the new short title which results from amendment 15.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 13, in clause 8, page 4, line 22, leave out “(Administration)” and insert “Members’ Fund”

The amendment is consequential on amendment 15. This provision of the Bill textually amends existing legislation so as to refer to the Bill. This Committee amendment secures that the textual amendment uses the new short title which results from amendment 15.

Amendment 15, in clause 13, page 5, line 20, leave out “(Administration)” and insert “Members’ Fund”

Without clause 10 (see amendment 14), the Bill will deal only with the House of Commons Members’ Fund. The amendment changes the short title of the Bill accordingly.

Amendment 16, title, line 2, leave out from “Fund” to end of line 3

The amendment is consequential on amendment 14. The long title no longer needs to refer to the subject matter of clause 10.

Clauses 8 to 13 stand part.

That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.

[Dr Coffey]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans.

Amendment 12 will be necessary should the Committee decide that clause 10 should not stand part of the Bill, as the Government intend to argue. The Clerks have advised that leaving out clause 10 would necessitate a change in title from the House of Commons (Administration) Bill to the House of Commons (Members’ Fund) Bill. Amendments 12, 13, 15 and 16 would amend the short and long titles to reflect that.

The Government oppose the inclusion of clause 10 because we believe that it is appropriate for the estimates to remain separate. It is currently the responsibility of the Government to lay the Members estimate before the House and of the Speaker to lay the Administration estimate before the House. The current division of responsibilities is appropriate and should remain.

[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.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I have sat down.

[Mr Betts]

I hoped the Minister was going to give way because, with respect, she did not answer the question. The issue at this stage is not whether we should amalgamate the two estimates, though there is actually quite a strong case for that, given the disparity in size. If the Treasury really is so upset about £22 million that it thinks we need this great panoply of extra audit committees, extra scrutiny and extra laying of separate estimates, it has got its priorities a little bit wrong. In every other respect, the Government and the Treasury are encouraging public bodies to look for easy administrative savings—sometimes quite difficult ones—by sharing. That is what they are encouraging local government to do.

The question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East asked the Minister was: is it not true that the Bill as drafted does not ensure the amalgamation of the two estimates, but simply enables that to happen, with a very important caveat, which is that the Treasury can say no; and if the Treasury’s position remains that it does not want to approve the amalgamation, it can maintain that position? The Bill as drafted has an enabling provision whereby if in the future all the parties agree that it is a good idea to amalgamate the estimates, that amalgamation can take place. The Treasury would still have a veto, but if there were a change of mood, approach or position in the future, we would not need another piece of primary legislation to enable that to happen. We all know—some of us better than others—how long it has taken to get this piece of primary legislation this far.

All the Bill does is enable. The Bill still leaves the Treasury in the driving seat if it wants to remain there. I really do not understand the Minister’s position. She did not answer the fundamental question that my right hon. Friend raised, and it would be helpful if she responded to it.

[Mr Chope]

I did not want to join this discussion, but if a perfectly reasonable question is put to a Minister on such a Committee, it is conducive to the orderly conduct of the Committee’s proceedings if the Minister responds. Otherwise the issue will be raised again, perhaps on Report. I would have thought it is better to resolve the issue now. There may be a simple explanation, and if there is not we are owed an explanation of why there is nothing simple about it. The Minister may be doing what she has been told by the Treasury, which may have instructed her not to say anything. If that is so, perhaps she can tell us that those are her instructions. I am sure that it is possible to enable the Bill to proceed with everyone agreeing on its content and with good will on both sides of the Committee. To facilitate that, I invite her to respond to the question that has been put.

[Dr Coffey]

I feel that I have responded. I can read exactly the same response into the record if that is required but, as I have already said, there has been considerable consideration by the Government. The answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East is still valid, and it is the answer that I offer on behalf of the Government. I am not sure why my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch believes that I have not said anything, because I have replied. He may not have liked my reply, and the hon. Member for Sheffield South East may not like it either, but I have replied.

[Mr Betts]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Coffey]

No, I will not give way, because I have replied to the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East.

[Mr Brown]

I accept that the Minister has replied, and I will not push the point because, of course, I wish the Bill well and I take the point about the ambitions of the hon. Member for Mole Valley for the duration of this Committee.

I ask the Minister to ask her Department, and particularly the Treasury, to consider the possibility that on this point they may be mistaken and that the answer she has given to the Committee may not stand up to close scrutiny. When one looks at what the Members estimate actually covers, the amount of control that the Treasury, or indeed anybody else, could properly exercise over the very narrow individual budgetary heads to which I referred earlier, and that are covered by this part of the House’s estimates, is very narrowly drawn. The principal matters are the Short money, which is a matter for a resolution of the House, and nobody else can go beyond that—we decide it collectively. Traditionally, it has always been done by consent through the usual channels, and then by the Leader of the House and the Opposition spokesmen. It has been done by complete and harmonious agreement in the past, although I agree that that might not be what is happening now, but that does not alter the point that it will have to be decided on the Floor of the House.

The other items that are covered relate to the necessary computer assistance to Members, the postage system and some other administrative costs. It is now very narrowly drawn, because all those sorts of matters are properly dealt with by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. The amount of actual control that the Treasury says it does not want to relinquish over either an independent public body, over which it should not be exercising any undue control at all, or the narrow items under this budgetary head is absolutely minimal. In that context, and perhaps with that awareness, I invite officials to think again. It is a pity that we are missing this opportunity, because parliamentary opportunities to address such detailed questions do not come along very often, I accept that such opportunities would not come along at all if the Government did not help, which is why I do not want to push the point any further. Will the Minister oblige me by having further discussions with officials on the narrow points of substance that lie underneath the estimate?

[Dr Coffey]

It goes without saying that of course I will share with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government any concerns raised by the Committee.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

Amendment made: 13, in clause 8, page 4, line 22, leave out “(Administration)” and insert “Members’ Fund”.— (Dr Thérèse Coffey.)

The amendment is consequential on amendment 15. This provision of the Bill textually amends existing legislation so as to refer to the Bill. This Committee amendment secures that the textual amendment uses the new short title which results from amendment 15.

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Repeals and transitional provision

Amendment made: 8, in clause 9, page 4, line 36, leave out subsection (2).—(Mr Chope.)

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 disagreed to.

Clause 11

Commencement

Amendments made: 9, in clause 11, page 5, line 12, leave out from “force” to end and insert

“at the end of the period of three months beginning with the day this Act receives Royal Assent.”.

Amendment 10, in clause 11, page 5, line 14, leave out subsection (2).—(Mr Chope.)

Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Short title

Amendment made: 15, in clause 13, page 5, line 20, leave out “(Administration)” and insert “Members’ Fund”.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)

Without clause 10 (see amendment 14), the Bill will deal only with the House of Commons Members’ Fund. The amendment changes the short title of the Bill accordingly.

Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule

House of Commons Members’ fund: Trustees’ powers and proceedings

Amendment made: 11, in schedule, page 6, line 8, at end insert—

“4A The trustees may enter into arrangements for the transfer (by sale or otherwise) of liabilities or commitments (which may include future liabilities or commitments) on such terms as the trustees may agree.”.—(Sir Paul Beresford.)

The amendment would allow the trustees to make arrangements under which an insurance company or other commercial institution would undertake to adopt liabilities or commitments of the Fund in return for one or more commuted payments.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Title

Amendment made: 16, in title, line 2, leave out from “Fund” to end of line 3.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)

The amendment is consequential on amendment 14. The long title no longer needs to refer to the subject matter of clause 10.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.