I beg to move,

That, with effect from 1 October 2009, the following amendments and related provisions be made in respect of Standing Orders:

A. SELECT COMMITTEES RELATED TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

(1) That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended in the Table in paragraph (2) as follows—

(a) leave out items 1 and 11; and

(b) insert, in the appropriate places, the following items:

With this we shall discuss the following: Motion 5—Parliamentary Pensions—

That this House endorses a package of changes to the Parliamentary pension scheme, backdated to 1 April 2009, which is judged by the Government Actuary to make savings equivalent to 2.9 per cent. of payroll, thus capping the Exchequer contribution at 28.7 per cent., consisting of—

(1) an increase in member contribution rates—

(a) from 10 to 11.9 per cent. for a pension building up to an accrual rate of 1/40th of final salary for each year of service,

(b) from 6 to 7.9 per cent. for a pension building up to an accrual rate of 1/50th, and

(c) from 5.5 to 5.9 per cent. for a pension building up to an accrual rate of 1/60th; and

(2) the application of the scheme’s maximum pension limit of two-thirds of final salary to all scheme members for future service.

Amendment (a), at end add

‘and calls on the Leader of the House to bring forward further proposals which will cap the Exchequer contribution for 2009–10 at its 2008–09 level.’

On the machinery of Government changes, the House will be aware that when changes are made to the structure of Departments, a Government motion is needed to make the necessary consequential changes to the structure of departmental Select Committees. The motion therefore reflects the creation on 5 June of the new Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which takes on the responsibilities of the former Departments for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and for Innovation, Universities and Skills. Shortly after the new Department was created, the Select Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills published a report recommending the re-establishment of a Select Committee on Science and Technology. That reflected the final recommendation of the former Science and Technology Committee, which was abolished in 2007, when the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills was created.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House received a letter in support of the proposal from the chief executives of the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Institute of Physics, the Institute of Biology and the Royal Academy of Engineering and from the executive secretary of the Royal Society. I am pleased to say that the Government accept the Committee’s recommendation. The motion provides for the re-establishment of a Science and Technology Committee as part of the family of departmental Select Committees and it has a remit to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Government Office for Science.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early in her speech and to the Government for having listened to the learned societies’ call to re-establish the Science and Technology Committee. It is being re-established today, however, as a departmental Select Committee, whereas it was a free-standing Committee before, with cross-cutting oversight of all Departments, including outside agencies. Will my hon. Friend confirm that, despite the Committee being set up today as a departmental Select Committee, it will still have the remit of the former Science and Technology Committee?

I shall address in due course the good point that my hon. Friend has just made.

The motion and the steps to be taken reflect the position between 1992 and 2007, when the Science and Technology Committee was appointed to examine the work of the Office of Science and Technology, part of the old Department for Trade and Industry. The role of the Government Office for Science is somewhat narrower than that of the old Office of Science and Technology. Although the interpretation of the Committee’s terms of reference is a matter for the Committee itself, the Government hope that it will take a wide-ranging approach to its remit, examining the full scope of science policy and related matters across the Government. That approach certainly worked well for the old Committee, which conducted inquiries into subjects as diverse as evidence-based policy making, classification of illegal drugs, regulation of hybrid embryos and the work of the research councils.

There is an argument for establishing an explicitly cross-cutting Committee with its own Standing Order to examine such issues, and we are sympathetic to that idea, but at this stage in the Parliament, the new Committees can be expected to run for only seven months from October, so we think it right for us to revert to the old status quo, retaining the existing membership and chairmanship of the two Committees, but changing their titles and terms of reference.

Like the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), I am a former member of the Science and Technology Committee and a member of the current Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee. I welcome what the Minister said, particularly her interpretation that it should be possible for the Committee to consider how science is dealt with across Government Departments. As she said, the focus on evidence-based policy making means that there is a role to play in scrutinising the Government carefully in respect of their treatment of evidence at large across Departments. That is one of the reasons why I welcome this motion today.

That is another well-made point.

The Government will, of course, be happy to reconsider the position in the next Parliament if the Committee’s experience suggests that any change is needed.

As Chair of the soon-to-be Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, may I say how much we welcome the pragmatic approach adopted by the Government on this issue? I promise my Committee’s wholehearted and pragmatic support for the arrangements that the hon. Lady has outlined to the House this afternoon.

I thank the hon. Gentleman.

The second motion concerns pensions. Public service pension schemes must be affordable and sustainable in the long term. The cost of the parliamentary pension scheme has risen, mainly because of increased longevity. Today we are considering changes to the scheme that will limit the impact of that increase on the taxpayer.

I entirely accept that the costs of the scheme should rise to reflect increased longevity. However, will the Minister explain the gearing effect of the three different regimes, which are based on accrual rates of one fortieth, one fiftieth and one sixtieth of final salary respectively? A Member would have to live for 3.54 years, 3.95 years and 4.76 years beyond retirement age to achieve the annual amount put in by the 5.9 per cent., 7.9 per cent. and 11.9 per cent. pensions respectively, given what their funds should have created in the meantime.

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I cannot answer that off the top of my head. However, I will ensure that an answer to that specific question will reach him.

As the Minister will know, the issue of increasing pension costs because of longevity also applies to the police pension scheme. Why in the case of the police pension scheme will the whole cost of longevity be borne by the taxpayer rather than by the contributions of the police themselves?

If the hon. Gentleman waits for the rest of what I am going to say, he will see that issues need to be resolved and discussed, and that a wider debate needs to be had. This short debate is probably not the time for that. I am happy to take interventions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but people will have time to make speeches this afternoon.

No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) will pursue the matter of the police pension. I had correspondence with the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). She has replied on his behalf, confirming that the Treasury, as the employer of Members of Parliament, took a contribution holiday of 14 years from the parliamentary contributory pension scheme. The Minister confirmed that to me, but she did not say how much the taxpayer and the Treasury were saved as a result. How much has that holiday affected the deficit that the pension fund has recently faced?

We can look at that issue in the wider debate as we go forward. However, as I have to keep emphasising, the key thing is not to go back in time. We are where we are in terms of the pension scheme. The real factor is that its cost is escalating because of longevity. There were both Labour and Conservative Governments between 1989 and 2003. The question was not about a pensions holiday, but about reducing the Exchequer contribution when there was a surplus. That situation does not pertain now. The key thing is for us to focus on the feelings of the public about their funding of our scheme. That is what I am really talking about today.

rose—

rose—

I am not going to take any more interventions at the moment. My speech is short, but it is important that I get through it. We have until 5 o’clock, and I really must make progress.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) is chair of the trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund.

Indeed; there are Members with great expertise in the Chamber, and I am sure that they will make their contributions. However, it is important that I lay out the position.

The changes proposed in the motion before the House will cap the Exchequer contribution in line with the resolution of the House in January 2008. On 24 January 2008, the House endorsed the recommendation of the Senior Salaries Review Body that the cost to the Exchequer of the accrual of benefits should be limited to 20 per cent. of payroll. That figure excludes payments to pay off the deficit identified in the 2005 valuation of the fund; the two elements have been treated separately.

The Government Actuary published his valuation of the scheme in March 2009, and he advised that the Exchequer contribution would need to increase from 26.8 per cent. to 31.6 per cent. of payroll if no other action was taken. As I mentioned, that is primarily because members of the scheme are living longer and pensions are therefore payable for longer. On 31 March this year, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House announced in a written statement that the Exchequer contribution would be capped at 28.7 per cent. of payroll. That was in line with the recommendation of the Senior Salaries Review Body, as already endorsed by the House. My right hon. and learned Friend proposed a set of changes that would make the necessary savings of 2.9 per cent. of payroll, and proposed that those be backdated to 1 April 2009.

The changes consist, first, of an increase in member contribution rates, which will yield a saving of 1.7 per cent. of payroll. Secondly, the scheme’s maximum pension limit of two thirds of final salary is to be applied to all scheme members in future. That change will yield savings of 1.2 per cent. of payroll. The increase in member contribution rates will mean that scheme members will have a choice of paying 11.9 per cent. of salary for an accrual rate of one fortieth; 7.9 per cent. for an accrual rate of one fiftieth; or 5.9 per cent. for the new accrual rate of one sixtieth, which is coming in shortly. All those are laid out in the motion.

The other proposed change will mean that, from 1 April 2009, no member of the scheme will be able to build up further benefits in excess of the two-thirds limit. Only a small number of scheme members can currently do so. It is important to make the point that, on average, an MP in the House serves just over 12 years. The motion therefore brings forward the interim measures necessary to cap the Exchequer contribution immediately, in line with the January 2008 resolution of the House.

The Minister has just mentioned a matter that has an impact on me, so I declare that interest.

Will it be worth while for an MP over the age of 65, who has reached the maximum two thirds of final salary, to continue to contribute to the scheme, or will they in fact be making a contribution for no return? If there are to be limited returns, what will they be?

The point is to set a limit so that people in that situation will not be able to accrue further benefits. The vast bulk of members of the scheme are those who have entered the House newly or in the past couple of Parliaments. The average service of an MP is just over 12 years, so as I have said, only a small number of members of the scheme are in that situation. [Interruption.] I can get the hon. Gentleman a detailed answer to his question, but we are getting into a lot of detail, whereas I am laying out general principles. As I have said, the motion brings forward the interim measures necessary to cap the Exchequer contribution immediately, in line with the January 2008 resolution of the House.

I believe that the amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb), my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) supports the changes to the scheme put forward in the motion tabled by the Leader of the House. However, it calls on her to bring forward further proposals to cap the Exchequer contribution for this year at its 2008-09 level. Achieving a freeze in the Exchequer contribution at 2008-09 rates could involve a further increase in member contribution rates, an increase in pension age, some combination of the two, or other measures. There are a great number of possibilities that we could consider. Clearly, further analysis will be needed on the various options that would avoid an increase in the Exchequer contribution.

We expect there to be more wide-ranging reform in the future. On 13 February this year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister commissioned the Senior Salaries Review Body to conduct a fundamental review of pension provision for MPs, Ministers and other parliamentary office holders. I know that some of the right hon. and hon. Members who are in their places are starting to engage with that review. The Prime Minister asked for it to consider the full range of options for reducing the Exchequer contribution. Those options included, but were not restricted to, increases in the pension age, increases in members’ contributions, changes in the accrual rate and a consideration of the overall merits of defined contribution or money purchase arrangements. We are considering the Government’s evidence to the review, and we will make an announcement in due course.

Will the Minister indicate whether she proposes to accept the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Steve Webb)?

Members are running just ahead of where I am in my comments, and I will come to that in a moment. I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention.

I have outlined the changes necessary to limit the impact on the taxpayer of increases in the cost of the parliamentary pension scheme. The interim measures in the motion will enact the earlier decisions made by the House to cap the Exchequer contribution. The Government were already considering further measures to avoid an increase in Exchequer contributions from the pre-April 2009 level. The amendment is consistent with that further consideration. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House is therefore content to return with further proposals to ensure that the Exchequer’s contribution this year does not exceed that of last year. Because all these measures affect the current year, and because there are many detailed questions to answer, I am sure that it will assist Members to know the extent of their contributions to the scheme when we return to the debate. We will do that as soon as possible, and we will present all the various options that could make the freeze happen.

I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for giving the Government’s position on these two motions. As she said, we are discussing the establishment of a dedicated Select Committee on science and some changes to the parliamentary pension scheme, to which an amendment has been tabled, primarily by the Liberal Democrats.

The changes to the machinery of government in the last reshuffle were, I fear, made in a hurry, and in many respects for all the worst reasons. Because the Prime Minister did not have the power to change his top team as he wished, he had to satisfy a clash of ministerial egos by carving up a Department completely on the hoof—so much so that some civil servants returned to their desks after lunch to find that their Department had been abolished in the meantime. As I am afraid is often the case in reshuffles, no serious thought was given to the implications for hugely important areas of policy on the back of the reshuffle that was suddenly conducted.

In this case, I think we all accept that the biggest loser, apart from some individuals, was science. When the Prime Minister took up his post in July 2007, he broke up the Department for Trade and Industry and shoved science into the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. As a result, the Science and Technology Committee was abolished and subsumed into the wider Committee on that Department, despite the serious protestations and concerns of the science community.

In the Prime Minister’s latest Cabinet reshuffle, science became a bit of a plaything of the noble Lord Mandelson, and was seen right from the start as being just one part of an over-inflated and largely unaccountable department. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has 12 Ministers in all, half of whom—including the supposed Science Minister—are not in this House. The latest report of the Select Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills made it clear that because the Committee’s remit was stretched so wide, it had struggled to give Government science policy the level of scrutiny that it deserved. The new DBIS Committee, being even larger, would have been totally unable to handle the scale of the issues at hand, as it will already have to deal with the Royal Mail and EU regulation, along with universities and measures to stimulate manufacturing.

There are two reasons why it is particularly important at this time to scrutinise the Government’s spending and activity on science and technology. First, as the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee said, there is a widespread view that British technology and its research and innovation can help us climb out of this recession. The weakness of the pound is providing a much—needed boost for manufacturing opportunities. Although a weak pound is not good for everyone, the Government should be encouraging manufacturers to seize the initiative by investing in research and development. Secondly, science will be central to Britain’s ability to respond to the major challenges of the future, from climate change to tackling swine flu or any other form of pandemic flu.

The creation of a new Select Committee on Science and Technology is therefore an important step in holding the Government to account and ensuring that science policy is not merely a departmental addendum. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) has been ardent in his campaigning for such a Committee. We welcome the decision and hope that the Committee will go about its work with all the energy and enthusiasm that this area of activity merits.

Let me turn to pensions. The question of pensions generally is one of the most potent areas of public debate. Ten years ago we had some of the best pensions in the world; now we have some of the worst. The public sector seems to do far better than the private sector. In the private sector, which used to have many amply funded final salary schemes, the vast majority of schemes, if they have not closed already, are heading towards the closure that their funding now requires. In the middle of all that and all the difficulties that we have faced over the past few weeks, this House looks as though it has one of the most protected and generous schemes, compared with anybody else. We have the trustee of the scheme on our Benches this afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), who will go into the details more than me.

The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on it: our pension scheme looks as though it is one of the most generous, but when we look into it, we see that it is no more generous than many other public sector schemes. If I was to retire at 60, I would receive no more money from the parliamentary scheme than I would have received from my other pension scheme, as a classroom teacher. We do ourselves a disservice by making it appear as though we have a very good, copper-bottomed pension scheme. It is a good scheme, but it is no better than many others in the public sector.

The House will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. There are many arguments surrounding the scheme, many of which are difficult to put in the current climate of public opinion. By and large, the scheme would have been totally self-funding, had the Government not taken such a long contributions holiday. The Minister has today made the point that the tenure of Members, unlike others in the public sector, is quite short, at only 10 or 11 years. Indeed, the final salary is exactly the same in one’s 30th year in this place as it is on the day one is first elected. In that sense, there is no progression through the ranks of seniority, which would otherwise dramatically add to the pay-out made.

All those arguments are understood, but we have to accept that we are living at a time when, given the position in the public sector and the private sector, our pension scheme sticks out like a sore thumb. The policy of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is to wind up the scheme for new entrants. In the meantime time, however, we have to look at its funding, its benefits and its terms and conditions, to which end the Government have tabled their motion today.

One element will be welcomed by the public, which is that we are going to contribute more out of our pay packets. However, there is another, unfortunate aspect, which is that we are in the middle of a number of changing forces, which would have made it better for the Government not to have tabled anything at all just at the moment. The trustees are looking at the scheme in detail, as is the Senior Salaries Review Body. In the middle of all that, the Government have tabled today’s motion, but at the same time, they are asking the Exchequer to contribute more. That is what people find difficult.

The Government could have looked at alternatives. The main reason, above all others, why the actuaries looked at the arithmetic and decided that the fund needs more money is that former members—and, as the predictions of the actuaries go, existing and future members—are living longer. The issue is longevity much more than it is the value of the fund. At a time when the Government intend to raise the state pension age, it looks odd that they have not considered, as their first priority, raising the age at which former members can benefit from the pay-out.

The key point is that all those things were looked at, but two points pertain to today’s debate. One is that we needed a simple interim measure to cap the Exchequer contribution, and that is what we have in today’s motion. The Government have to enact the decision made earlier by the House. The second and most important point is that there was already a review—the Prime Minister asked the Senior Salaries Review Body for a review in February—so in some ways we are moving ahead on things ourselves, even though there is parallel action outside this place. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that a great deal of work has been done, and that it will be possible to present a spread of options for hon. Members to review. We are aware that the SSRB is also undertaking its own review and taking evidence from hon. Members, and we would not wish to prejudge any recommendations that it might make.

Despite what the Deputy Leader of the House says, she should, in all honesty, admit that the Government have been rather clumsy about this. If he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, the chairman of the trustees, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West will be able to explain this in detail, but I am not confident that we have been consulted in the depth that the issue merits. So, something that was sprung on us by the Government has rather backfired, leading to their having to face the full wrath of the newspapers last night, and seeing what they were planning to write the next day—that is, today—forced them to change their mind about their attitude to this issue.

So it is that the amendment tabled by the hon. Members for Northavon (Steve Webb) and for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) appears to have been accepted by the Government, and taxpayers are not now going to face a demand for much greater contributions. With the amendment having been accepted by the Government, I sense that the whole House is likely to agree to proceed on that basis. Nevertheless, I very much hope that the Government will be less clumsy on this issue in the future.

I shall deal first with the points about the machinery of government. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) has echoed things that I have repeatedly said in the past about the way in which the Government changes departmental nomenclature and reorganises desks and offices apparently on a whim, without any thought for the consequences of those moves. It worries me that we so regularly see changes to the structure of government Departments appear to be based mainly on the desire for titles for those in the Cabinet, rather than on a genuine cost-benefit analysis of how they will make the Government run better.

The reason for the changes that we are debating today is that that which was cast asunder has now been reunited, all in order to add to the splendour of the titles of the—what is he called now?—the First Secretary of State. I think that that is now the principal title of the noble Lord Mandelson of Foy and Hartlepool, or wherever it was—

The supreme pontiff.

I am not sure whether the noble Lord Mandelson builds many bridges, but we shall see.

I do not think that this is the right way of doing business. I hope that we will eventually reach a point at which, if a Prime Minister wishes to change the structure of government, he will argue the case properly by putting a paper before the House and allowing Select Committees to consider the consequences, before then proceeding on a basis of knowledge and understanding of the properly projected advantages and disadvantages, rather than on the rather haphazard basis that we have at the moment.

Having said all that, these changes have been made and we need to respond to them in regard to the way in which we organise the Committees of the House. As the Minister knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and I have been discussing the consequences of the changes for the Science and Technology Committee. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Leader of the House did not immediately see the strength of the argument and just accept what was a perfectly proper request, particularly as it was backed up—as the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East said—by the learned societies, which know a thing or two about these matters.

The Science and Technology Committee, before it was renamed, was an ornament to the House. It was a very valuable body. I served on it for three years in what I like to think of as its golden age. It was a wonderful Committee, precisely because it did not have to spend all its time looking at the activities of a particular Department and because it could range so widely over the scientific and technological aspects of the way in which the Government operate and pick out the areas in which it had particular expertise, or draw on such expertise, in order to inform the House and the Government. That is why the terms of reference are so important. I am pleased that the Deputy Leader of the House expanded on the Committee’s role in her own words as it is not said on paper. I hope that some sort of Pepper v. Hart procedure will be adopted in the House, so that there is no misunderstanding on the part of the Government as to the range of the Committee’s activities.

In its previous manifestation, the Science and Technology Committee sometimes ran into difficulties. As the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East will remember, we received a very dusty response from the then Home Secretary when we were looking at aspects of the scientific response to terrorism. He made it very clear that he did not think that this was anything to do with the Science and Technology Committee and asked us please to poke our noses somewhere else rather than in his Department. He not only discouraged us from looking at what the Home Office was doing, but he actually put pressure on the Department for Transport to ensure that we did not know what that Department was doing either.

I hope that it will be very clearly understood in Government that the Science and Technology Committee has a roving brief, that it must be able to follow its nose in deciding what is appropriate for it to look at and that it must be able to define its own role. If it does so, it will be able to perform the very useful tasks that it has done previously and we should wholly welcome that.

In moving on to deal with pensions, let me say immediately that for me to talk about that subject in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) or the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) is nonsense; I have nothing like their expertise and I will not pretend to have it. My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon will therefore explain the consequences of his amendment himself.

I was a little surprised to read in some of this morning’s newspapers that the initiative to amend the pensions motion came from the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). When I looked at the amendment, I could not see his name. I could see the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Northavon and for Twickenham, (Dr. Cable) the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), but not the name of the right hon. Member for Witney, so I wondered how he could have been responsible for the Government’s change of heart—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton can explain.

Since I have been invited to explain, perhaps I could put it down to the unique influence in this House of both the Leader of the Opposition and myself.

Unique and almost invisible! That is something on which we all congratulate the hon. Gentleman. Let us set that aside, however, and simply say that the strength of the argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon is about to adduce is so strong that it is unanswerable, so the Government will accept the amendment.

On a serious note, it is almost unbelievable to reflect how adept this House is at producing public relations disasters. To be asking for yet more taxpayers’ money to support the MPs’ pension scheme at the precise moment when there is so much criticism of what we do is quite extraordinary. That is why the amendment is so important. Is there a deficit? I understand that deficits are reported by actuaries, but I have no confidence in actuarial science. I suspect that exam papers for actuarial science are very similar to exam papers in economics; as it used to be said, the questions are the same each year, it is just the answers that change. Actuaries never seem to be consistent for more than one year, but there we are.

I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my welcome for the Government’s acceptance of the amendment tabled by our hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Steve Webb). It is surely vital for the House to reduce the costs to the taxpayer—both in the short term and, as the Deputy Leader of the House pointed out, in the medium term, hopefully as a result of the Senior Salaries Review Board review—because it is simply unsustainable for us as MPs continually to go back to the taxpayer asking for more money for our pensions. It is unsustainable in terms of MPs’ pensions and, ultimately, with so many people living longer, that kind of action will be unsustainable in terms of public sector pensions more generally.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the issue is longevity, as I suspect it is, some of our constituents will have an easy answer to the longevity of MPs—

Off with their heads.

My hon. Friend reads my mind perfectly. Longevity is something we have to live with—[Interruption.] I am sorry. The view of the general public, rightly or wrongly, is that pension schemes are uniquely helpful to Members of Parliament. We must take account of public opinion in that respect.

We must take careful cognisance of a further reason: there is a problem with all public sector pensions. Unless we in the House can clearly demonstrate that we are taking a lead, we will not be able to introduce the necessary reforms to public sector pension schemes. Public sector pensions are not constructed in the same way as private sector pensions now are. There is an unsustainable difference, and unless we are prepared to take difficult decisions, we will not be able to square that circle. We will not persuade a single person working in the public sector that there is a necessity to reform pension schemes if we are unable to reform our own.

I agree wholeheartedly that the consequences of longevity should be borne by the members of a scheme. Is Liberal Democrat policy therefore that the consequences of longevity should be borne, for example, in the police force scheme, by the policemen themselves, rather than by the taxpayer?

There are real problems with the police scheme. As the hon. Gentleman might recall, I used to be chairman of the Avon and Somerset police authority. One of our recurrent problems in balancing our budget each year was the difficulty of paying for the police pension scheme. Many things are not clearly understood about the police pension scheme, not least the contribution made by police officers, but the difficulty has never been resolved.

The same applies to the pensions of chief fire officers, for instance. When I was leader of Somerset county council, I worked out that the council was sustaining in work or pension 10 chief fire officers, who tend to retire early and who had schemes that cost a lot of money. I do not resent public sector workers having adequate pensions, but we must accept that there will be increasing difficulties in paying for some of those pension arrangements out of the public purse. We must be honest about that, as we must be honest about all our difficulties with the national Exchequer and the deficits that we are building up. We must work out how to do so with respect for the individuals concerned, understanding the circumstances of those who work in the public sector while recognising that the current position is increasingly unsustainable.

I have listened with care to my hon. Friend’s wise words. Does he agree that it is impossible for the House to change public sector pension arrangements for other groups until it has tackled the issue for Members of Parliament? It is no good taking splinters out of other people’s eyes when we have planks sticking in our own.

I always thought that the biblical expression was “mote”, but perhaps we no longer refer to motes in the House. However, my hon. Friend is right.

I have listened carefully to the debate, which seems to be ranging into the parliamentary pensions under review by the Senior Salaries Review Body. Should Members of Parliament accept that review in totality before it reports?

It is part of a fragmented process.

I note the comments of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton from a sedentary position, and he is right. We have not given a sufficiently clear brief as to what exactly we expect to emerge from the process. I seriously hope that when we ask external bodies to look at these matters, we accept the results of what they say. However, we also have to be aware of the context in which we work and, as I have suggested, set an example of how we expect pension schemes in the rest of the public sector to evolve. I would have some difficulty if the two were incompatible. That is my honest response. However, my argument has always been that when we ask independent bodies for their advice, generally we should accept it unless there are strong reasons not to do so.

As I said, I am no expert on pensions. It is important that we hear from those who are experts. They can ask all the difficult questions, such as those that the hon. Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner) put to the Deputy Leader of the House. I have great sympathy with her; a glazed look came over her eyes as she was asked those complicated questions, to which I certainly would not know the answer. On the basis that the Government are going to accept the amendment, I hope that we can agree to the motions. I also strongly welcome the fact that the Government have accepted, albeit with a slight time delay, our arguments on the Science and Technology Committee.

I want to elaborate on my intervention on the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan). However, I start by saying that I welcome the Government’s new-found heart on the Science and Technology Committee. I wish that every success and hope that we can call it the “Ian Gibson Memorial Committee”, although that might be too controversial at the moment.

We do ourselves a great disservice. A canard has been allowed to spread, deliberately and maliciously, that we have an all-singing, all-dancing, most wonderful pension scheme that cannot be improved on, and that we must feel really guilty about anything to do with it and must never argue back that it is a high-contribution scheme, which has evolved over time and takes account of many of the frailties of people who serve in the House. It has to be looked at from the position that many do not do well out of the parliamentary scheme.

My starting point is that although the average time of service is 12 and a bit years, which some of us have just about reached, many hon. Members do not serve anything like that time. Many people who come into politics, particularly parliamentary politics, have made enormous sacrifices in their lives. They do not have other pensions to fall back on. I know from personal experience, having talked to people who retired at the last election, that the pension on which they were relying from this place was effectively the only decent pension they got, but of course it was only for the time that they served here.

The hon. Gentleman is my constituency neighbour and nobody would accuse him of being greedy or grasping, and his conduct repeatedly shows that he is not that kind of person. Therefore, I am slightly puzzled by his argument. He seems to be saying that for people with a poor pension record who come into Parliament, the parliamentary scheme should make up for lost time. That would apply to people who have had nothing before and those who have very generous provision, because the same rules apply to all of us. Surely he is not saying that our scheme should make up for the mess of the rest of our pension rights, whether we have them or not.

No, I am not saying that. I would have voted for the amendment because it is right and proper in these times of austerity that we in this place make sacrifices, and I am pleased that the Government saw the rightful nature of the amendment and accepted it. My point is that we need to argue the case that parliamentary pensions are not the golden goose that some people pretend they are, and I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), who knows the true situation much better than probably anyone else in the House and I do.

Unless we make that point, we shall for ever be written about as though the pension were one of the perks that go with the job—one of the elements that make us more equal than most. As we heard from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), many other people in the public sector receive better pensions than we do, and that may be a good thing. The hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) shakes his head. He ought to talk to some chief police officers and chief fire officers. If they were honest, they would say that their pensions were far better than ours. They have security, which is the one thing that we never have in this place. Given the way in which things are going, some Members may have even less security than they thought they had. We need to introduce some balance.

I sympathise with much of what my hon. Friend is saying. He has mentioned balance. Surely public sector pensions—perhaps including ours—have been in the firing line recently not because they are particularly good, but because of the failure, weakness and diminution of pensions in the private sector. I have every sympathy for anyone who is currently suffering a threat to his or her occupational pension. Should not the Government, and indeed all of us, seek ways in which to ensure that the private sector does not suffer as it seems likely to?

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I entirely agree with him. Perhaps we should spend more time thinking about private pensions, rather than indulging in navel-gazing by discussing our own pensions.

The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton)—I might call him my hon. Friend in this context—made a useful observation. We are in our present mess because, as has happened with so many other pensions, we allowed an undue holiday to arise, with the result that the pot is far less full than it should be. Let me reinforce the hon. Gentleman’s point by saying to the Minister that it would be good to see the figures. If nothing else, that would enable us to hold our heads a little higher and to say, “Yes, this is the additional Treasury support for which we have asked—after all, the Treasury is our employer whether we like it or not—but the Treasury gained throughout the period during which there was either no contribution or no additional contribution, as there should have been, because of the holiday.”

Notwithstanding what has been said about the so-called £5 billion raid, I have always been adamant in my belief that one of the two greatest problems in the public sector is the pension holiday. That is certainly true in much of the private sector, but anyone who considers some of the ways in which local authorities have manipulated pension funds over the years will see what I mean. The other great problem is the mania for early retirement. In the Equality Bill Committee on Tuesday, I argued against what is lovingly described as “the national default retirement age”, which I used to call “65”, because I consider it to be a form of discrimination. As I said then, one of the things on which we ought to pride ourselves—I will cast no aspersions—is the fact that no such discrimination exists in the House of Commons. Many Members remain here until they are well past 65 and there is no pressure for them to go any earlier, other than what the electorate might do to them. The early retirement mania has never affected this place in terms of its representation.

I have some information that may help my hon. Friend and others who have referred to the pension holiday, as the reduction in Exchequer contributions has been described. This year’s increase is entirely due to higher costs caused by the longevity to which Members have referred. It is possible that the years of reduced Exchequer contributions led to increased contributions in 2003 and 2006, but it remains the case that the Government do not pursue a policy of overfunding during a period of surplus. Whatever Members may think about actuarial science, the Government have to follow the guidance of the Government Actuary.

I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I always thought it the epitome of madness that when more money was available, we imposed a cap, so that when we were then in a time of difficulty, we never had enough money because no surplus had been built up in the better times. I never saw the logic in that, but that is of history.

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent and informative speech. Does he know whether any inquiry or survey has been conducted into how much early retirement, particularly in local government but also in other areas, may have cost pension funds, because people have been able to retire from 50 onwards? I am not referring only to Sir Fred Goodwin and his pension, and the £17 billion pension pot. Is it not true that indulging in early retirement has been very costly for pension funds, because people are drawing a pension very early and living to a ripe old age?

I am beginning to think that we are a double act—but of course we are not. Some years ago I put a number of parliamentary questions to the Treasury because I wanted an estimate of those figures, to which the answer was, sadly, “We cannot, and we won’t.” I think that does us all a great disservice, because I believe this issue should be debated. I argue strongly with my colleagues in the public sector that they have a duty in respect of their retirement age. If I were still a teacher, I would be retiring in a couple of years’ time, but I think I would be fairly useful as a classroom teacher beyond that age. Thankfully, many teachers carry on working beyond that age, but there is still a belief that 60 is the retirement age—that that is the age at which people should go, come what may. I shall park that point now, but I feel strongly about it.

I want to make two further points. We talk about longevity being the cause of the problem. I cannot prove this, but I have been told by more than one Minister that one reason why the parliamentary scheme was always so robust was that until comparatively recently, being an MP was not the best line of work to be in for having a long and deserving retirement. It may well be that we are becoming more like those in all other walks of life, and are beginning to have a quality of life after we leave this place, but it is important that we look at the reasons for the particular nature of any scheme and argue the case for its special qualities and characteristics.

Let me turn to my second point. The Labour party has a benevolent fund, because until comparatively recently many people retired from this House in a very poor state. We rightly continue to support those people, as those of us who are much better off with a much higher standard of pension provision have an obligation to support those who are not. Again, I want to put on the record that, in contrast with the message that has often been put across, it is not true that we have done much better over a long period than others in the public sector, many of whom we represent. The parliamentary scheme has evolved over time. It is a good scheme now, but it was not always so. Many people have suffered, and we must learn the lessons from that.

This is not special pleading. I absolutely would have supported the amendment of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)—I was going to refer to him as “right hon.”, but that is only a matter of time—because I agree with him that we must give such a lead. However, it annoys me—occasionally my blood does boil—that whenever the BBC or Sky or the papers are talking about “greedy MPs”, they always have the throwaway line, “who have gold-plated pensions.”

We should at least put on the record that those pensions are not quite as good as some suggest. I have been fortunate because I have been able to conflate my teacher’s pension with the parliamentary scheme, which puts me in a better position. But as I said to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), we have achieved the position that many schemes should be in—a claw-back, so if someone retires before 65, they are seriously penalised.

If we really want to get across the message that our pensions are not as gold-plated as is often assumed, we are the last people who should make that case. We need someone independent, such as the SSRB, to make that case for us.

The House appears to be relatively unanimous about the motion, but behind it is a much larger debate about whether we should continue with a defined benefit contribution scheme, like most of the public sector. Does my hon. Friend think that that is something that we should protect?

My hon. Friend always asks me easy questions. It is worth fighting for a defined benefit scheme, because that is the gold standard that has been created over a long period of time. However, I accept that we cannot have the public sector doing one thing and the private sector doing something else entirely. That is hypocritical and unfair, and we have to have the debate. However, in the public sector, the debate would be much more reasonable if people accepted that 65 was the normal retirement age. In that case, they would make contributions up to that age, which would deal with many of the problems arising from unfair demands on the fund.

My hon. Friend has drawn a contrast between the public and private sectors, and it is unfair to the private sector. Does he agree that in the longer term we should look to a universal pension arrangement for employees, under which we all have defined benefit schemes with the heavy involvement of the state, as necessary?

Yes, and we have to make the argument that people will have to make reasonable contributions. We are supposed to take the lead on this, but we have let people down by allowing them to believe that their contributions can remain the same even if they live longer and retire earlier. That does not add up, and it has brought many funds crashing down.

I shall conclude my remarks on that gloomy note, but I hope that the next time a journalist makes the throwaway observation that MPs’ pensions are gold-plated, they will also publish their own pension arrangements and what they have managed to get out of the system. They might discover that they are somewhat better off than MPs.

In the debate so far, there has been a lot of conjecture and of looking back to the past, and I wish to try to put it into context.

There was indeed a considerable period during which the Treasury did not contribute the correct amount to the parliamentary scheme. If one looks back to the previous valuation that was conducted by the Government Actuary, one clearly sees that the deficit was approaching £50 million, all of which was attributable to the Government failing to pay the employer’s contribution, which is, of course, funded by the taxpayer. That might or might not have been a correct decision, but it did mean that there was a deficit that had to be covered. The Government suggested that it should be covered by increased Government payments over 15 years.

That has been part of the problem in the perception of where we are going now. The Government’s contribution now looks unreasonably high, whereas a high proportion of it is related to their failure to contribute in the past. That is not just a criticism of the present Government; it also applies to the previous Government.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—I do not demur from what he has just said. However, can he help me to understand something that is puzzling me about the motion? The combined contribution, including the deficit contribution to which he refers, is 28.7 per cent., but the Government Actuary says that, per year, 8.5 per cent. is the cost of servicing the deficit—that is the figure in the most recent review. So, 28.7 minus 8.5 is 20.2. The Government are trying to cap at 20 per cent. Does he understand why the Government have made proposals that do not achieve the 20 per cent. cap but bring it to 20.2 per cent.? I do not understand it, and wonder whether he can explain it to me.

I think I do. May I come to that in due course? I shall try to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, and if he does not understand when I explain it then, I shall have to apologise to him at that time.

A very substantial Government contribution was necessary to bring a deficit back in line with where it should have been. It arose from the failure to contribute the correct amount, as originally advised by the Government Actuary. The Government Actuary, to be fair to the Government, said, “Well, things are going rather well. The stock market is looking pretty good, so you can probably tolerate not paying in.” That is one of the problems with the way in which pensions have been funded in the past, and I want to expand on that point a little further, if I may.

If, at the previous valuation, the Government had been making the correct contributions, the Members’ scheme would have been about £5 million in surplus rather than nearly £50 million in deficit. That, I think, is worth bearing in mind as background. Today, the Government Actuary is saying, “Now we have to take into account longevity. We have reviewed the problems of longevity and we have found that we probably have not made enough allowance for the improvement in people’s lives over many years. We need to adjust for the fact that people are likely to live longer.” The impact of that is to reverse the situation. We now need to raise, probably, another £50 million or thereabouts. There will have to be increased contributions to cover that element. That problem would not be there if we had dealt with it earlier.

My view is that the present system of valuing pensions, whether in the public sector or the private sector, is stark raving bonkers. We ask actuaries, every three years, to value each scheme and to try to see where the pitfalls or benefits might lie. When times are really good and stock markets are going up, they say that we should not bother to put any money in because we will come through with a surplus. When times get bad, they say, “Gosh, you’ve got to put a shedload of money in. Times are terrible, and you have to put more money in.” That is at a time when most schemes—certainly those in the private sector—have not got any money, because times are bad.

That has to be a crazy way of dealing with final salary pension schemes. It seems to me that the actuarial profession should, over many years, have been taking a long-term view. Pensions do not go from year to year—they cover 30 or 40 years at a time. We should therefore establish what the appropriate contribution should be from the scheme sponsor—and, indeed, from the scheme members if they also contribute, as we do—over a period of 30 years or more.

Those figures are available. Quite a few analyses have been performed over the past 30 or 40 years that make it clear what has been going on, despite all the huge ups and downs in the markets. They show that schemes that have invested in shares have gone up by about 8 per cent. per annum, while those that have invested in property have gone up by about 7 per cent. and those in Government bonds have risen by about 6.5 per cent.

That is what has happened over a 30 or 40-year horizon. There have been wild variations within that, but the people who run pension schemes should fund for long-term liabilities. At the moment, people in both the public and private sectors are paying the price for tolerating wild valuations that are merely snapshots in time and bear no relation to what is likely to happen over a long period.

The adverse effect of longevity means that schemes must be adjusted for the increase in people’s lifetimes. That can achieved in only one logical way, and that is by increasing retirement ages in line with the increase in longevity so that people who live a long time fund the cost of receiving their pension provision over a longer time than was originally anticipated. They will have to wait a little longer before they draw their pensions and if they choose, for whatever reason, to take their pensions early they will suffer a diminution in what they get. Obviously, people who are seriously ill can take sickness retirement, which can be covered through insurance.

That is how schemes should be structured. Our scheme is not so structured, however, and neither are most private sector schemes.

Last year, the Government said that costs were rising and might rise still further. Without taking into account what they were having to pay to make up the deficits that had been allowed to accrue, they sought to cap the Government contribution at 20 per cent. The House debated that proposal, and accepted that there would have to be some capping of the Government contribution to protect the taxpayer. We then had to look at what we might do thereafter.

More than a year ago the Government said that they would instruct the Senior Salaries Review Body to look at the issue, and to make recommendations to the Government and the House about how the scheme might be amended for the future. If they had issued that instruction, we might have had the SSRB report before us today, as we debate what is almost a crisis adjustment. Sadly, for reasons that I can only begin to guess at, the Government did not in fact instruct the SSRB until earlier this year.

The Government’s proposal before the House today has an air of crisis about it, in that it says that, if something is not done, they will go over the 20 per cent. limit, backdated to 1 April. The amendment takes a further step backwards, and adopts the approach that we would have had were we looking at the matter a year ago. It will not solve the problem that I have identified, for which the Government will have to come up with something after the end of the debate today.

One other element to which I should refer is the proposed removal of the rights of hon. Members who have been here since before 1989 and who have reached the limit of their contributions under our scheme to continue making pension contributions after they have reached the age of 65. That will have an impact, which relates to what the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) said, in that it will produce an additional 1.2 per cent. of savings.

The trustees have considered that point, as we have considered many other proposals—largely produced by us—to reduce the cost of the scheme. It was at the initiative of the trustees that the right to retire before 65 without penalty was removed. We have also considerably tightened the rules on early retirement for ill health. We think that in the past there may have been some abuses, which were expensive, although nothing like the abuses in some other areas of the public sector. Nevertheless, the change will produce significant savings. We are still waiting for the Government to implement it and we are slightly surprised that it was not included in the motion.

There is no question but that the trustees would try to obstruct reasonable changes. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) is not entirely happy with the situation, but it must be remembered that Members who wish to contribute further sums towards their retirement have other avenues for doing so, albeit on a money purchase basis.

Will my hon. Friend be able to indicate during the debate whether it would be appropriate for somebody such as me, and other Members who are over 65 and have reached the full two thirds of pension, to discontinue from 1 April further contributions to the parliamentary contributory pension scheme? Would we lose benefits if we discontinued our payments to the scheme? Can my hon. Friend help me on that point? Clearly, we have to give the Department of Resources instructions as to whether to continue paying contributions to the pension fund.

It is my understanding that Members affected by the change would not be able to continue making contributions, but their rights under the scheme would continue to be safeguarded. The only change for my hon. Friend would be that if he wished to continue saving for his retirement, he would be unable to do it through the parliamentary scheme but there would be opportunities for him to do so elsewhere without losing his rights as a member of the scheme.

The saving is about 1.2 per cent. The object of the changes proposed by the Government is to save rather more than that. The figures go from 10 to 11.9 per cent. for those on one fortieth of final salary, from 6 to 7.9 per cent. for those on one fiftieth and from 5.5 to 5.9 per cent. for those on one sixtieth. That is all fairly transparent, and means that Members will be paying considerably more this year, because the change will be backdated to last April. On that basis, for those on the upper level scheme, the net cost would have been about £60 a month. If the Government accept the Liberal Democrat proposal or something similar, the amount could double and the cost would be about £120 a month to Members.

There may be other ways of dealing with the situation. My view is that the simplest way by far would be to increase the retirement age. The Government Actuary has said clearly that the entire cost of what we now seek to fund relates to increased longevity. We could thus conclude that if the change relates to longevity we must increase the retirement age to pay for it, without going through complex shenanigans to change this or that contribution. Changing the retirement age would be a very simple solution.

There is a significant read-on to other defined benefit schemes, whether in the private or public sector. The public have to understand that increased longevity means that more will have to be paid into pension schemes. There might be an argument about who pays but, inevitably, that is what must happen. However, the same effect could be achieved by raising the date of retirement.

Let me say a few other things about the scheme because all sorts of aspects of its nature are misunderstood by not only the general public, but even apparently well-informed members of the actuarial profession. Most members of the public think that ordinary Back Benchers retire on the basis of the Back-Bench salary, but they also think that Ministers and other office holders in the House will enjoy a pension based on their increased salaries. They think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will retire on a pension that is two thirds of his salary as Chancellor, but that is totally untrue. The Chancellor’s pension will be the same as that of the humblest Member, except that the additional 10 per cent. contributions that he pays while he is a Minister will be reflected in a modest supplement to the pension.

The only exceptions to that arrangement have been Prime Ministers, Lord Chancellors and the Speaker, although I gather that some of them have said that they will not take the extra money. That is an honourable position, but individuals must make up their own minds. The public assume that our scheme is the same as every other and that as we rise up the ladder and reach more senior positions, we get a bigger pension, but we do not. That point needs to be clearly made because it addresses the biggest misunderstanding about the parliamentary scheme. That is not to say, however, that our scheme is not better than that of many of our constituents, but it is not quite as gold-plated as the media have led the public to believe, so it is important to get that on record.

It is also important to put it on record that the level of the contributions made by Members—10 per cent. with the one fortieth scheme for which most hon. Members opt—is almost unprecedented. I think that only the police pay more, but their payments reflect the fact that they can retire at least 10 years earlier than we can.

After 30 years.

My hon. Friend is right.

We face the problem that the Government have made a proposal that is neither fish nor fowl. It does not deal with the long-term problem nor correctly anticipate what might come out of the SSRB. The motion is a stop-gap that probably need not have been tabled at all. The whole thing could have been left until we received the SSRB report. It is impossible to imagine that the House will not accept the SSRB’s recommendations about our future pay, so I would have preferred us to have made the whole adjustment at that time, retrospectively if necessary.

I am pleased to be able to follow the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), who has given sterling service to the House over many years through his chairmanship of the parliamentary pension fund. I was privileged to serve on the fund for a good six or seven years after 1997 and I saw the skilful way in which he steered the fund and coped with the problems that were faced.

The hon. Gentleman said that the average term of a Member of Parliament was now considered to be 12 years. I am sure that he recalls that one of the first things that we did after 1997 was to review the average span of time spent as a Member of Parliament, and it was eight years in those days. To draw on the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who made an excellent speech, that shows that many Members leave the House in what would otherwise be the middle of their career. They then find it difficult to resume the career that they had before entering Parliament. Often, their income, and their pension in particular, suffers as a result, because they can never return to the position they would have had if they had not entered Parliament. I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud on one point. He talked about the pension scheme being a perk. It is always wrong to think of pension schemes as a perk. In any walk of life, a pension scheme is one thing and one thing only: it is wages deferred, and we must always regard it as such.

What I said is that the pension is perceived as a perk.

I entirely accept my hon. Friend’s correction. He is right that the pension is often perceived as a perk, but it is wages deferred. It should always be considered as such in calculations of the whole remuneration package. That is true whether we are talking about Members of Parliament or any person in the public or private sector work force. It is absolutely right that we should contribute to the costs imposed on the fund as a result of longevity. In so far as the proposals seek to achieve that, they should be accepted by Members in all parts of the House.

I should like to reinforce the remarks of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West. He said that actuarial calculations are a snapshot. It is particularly ridiculous for a snapshot taken at a time of global shares meltdown in 2008-09 to set the pattern for the future. Of course, the previous actuarial calculations related to 2005. He made the point very well that had the employer’s contributions been maintained over that period, the fund would, in 2005, have been in a £5 million surplus, rather than the £50 million deficit that it found itself in. It is important to recognise that actuaries looking at pension funds always seem to take account of the good times, in terms of stopping putting contributions in, but of course it is precisely at the bad times that they reassess, look at the stock market and say that the fund has a much lower valuation than they believed it would have, so extra money has to be put in. Usually, that demand falls not only on the employer’s part of the contribution, but on the employees’ part, too. That is a way in which employees—I am referring not simply to Members in this House, but to employees who contribute to any pension fund—end up being short-changed by that method of valuation.

I wish to put a specific point to my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House. I am sorry if it caused her confusion and consternation when I intervened on her earlier. I will try to make my point more clearly now. She will note that whether the accrual rate is one fortieth or one fiftieth of final salary, the increase in percentage contribution demanded is 1.9 per cent. In paragraph (1)(c) of the motion, which relates to an accrual rate of one sixtieth of final salary, the increase in percentage contribution is simply 0.4 per cent. My question does not relate simply to the disparity between those percentage rates. It is based on a calculation of the respective total percentage contributions, which are 5.9, 7.9 and 11.9 per cent.

I know that my hon. Friend wishes to write to me, and I am trying to lay out this question as clearly as I can in order to receive as full an answer as possible. On a £64,000 salary, those percentages represent respectively £3,776, £5,056 and £7,616. If she then calculates what one fortieth, one fiftieth and one sixtieth of that salary is, she will find that it equates respectively to £1,066, £1,280 and £1,600 in retirement.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Not at this stage, because I want to set out the question as clearly as I can.

We have the answer.

The hon. Gentlemen may need to the listen to the question before they provide an answer.

To achieve each sum, the respective gearing would be 3.54, 3.95 and 4.76 years in retirement. That inequity does not reflect different longevities or anything like that, and the disparities in the costs to the pot should be met from the fund that has accrued from the investment of those initial sums from now until retirement. I therefore wish to receive an explanation of the differential gearing effect of those contribution rates.

My hon. Friend the Minister passed a note to me stating that

“if Members contributions are to increase, it is fair that all Members pay the same increase”,

but that cannot be right. They should pay rateably equivalent increases for the benefits that they hope to accrue, not simply the same standard 1.9 per cent. I now give way to the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb).

indicated dissent.

Okay.

I also listened carefully to what the pension fund chairman, the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West, said about changing the retirement age. That is a way to introduce a sliding scale, but would one be able to take one’s pension benefits only after 65 years old, or would the benefits be reduced if they were taken at 65? If it were the former, and people were unable to access their pension benefits until they were older than 65, there might be difficulties for people who had left the House and gained employment with a pension cut-off age of 65.

The retirement age is simply a target set by the scheme. If a member sought to retire before that date, they would suffer an actuarial diminution in their pension. That is the way it always works with such schemes, but the move to 67-years-old, which I have suggested, is in line with what we are doing on national insurance-based pensions, whose starting age will go up over the years to 68. We have already recognised the need for that move on state retirement pensions, and there is no reason why we should not do the same thing with our own.

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his clarification and, in that respect, I entirely agree.

In addition, I add my welcome to this afternoon’s proposals to reinstate the Science and Technology Committee. It is excellent that the Government have listened to the points that have been made and reintroduced it.

I shall principally address the pensions issue before us, but I should like to place on the record my appreciation of the Science and Technology Committee, which has been chaired with exceptional ability by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). His whole Committee has contributed a great deal to the House, and I am pleased that it will be able to continue to do so until the general election.

Amendment (a) stands in my name and those of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and my hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). I shall seek to move the amendment formally at the end of this debate, but I should like now to address the reasons behind it. I would like clarification from the Deputy Leader of the House, who I hope has had the chance to seek inspiration, on the issue that I raised in intervening on the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill). I apologise if I did not explain my question terribly clearly.

The motion in front of us says that the Exchequer contribution will be 28.7 per cent.; that much seems unambiguous. However, page 25 of the Government Actuary’s report published in March 2009 says that the amount needed to clear the deficit is 8.5 per cent. per year; there are two components—the amount for the recurring liabilities and the amount to clear the historic deficit, and the second of those is 8.5 per cent. According to my maths, if we take 8.5 per cent. from 28.7 per cent., we end up with 20.2 per cent. I am aware that that 8.5 per cent. was 8.7 per cent. last year—and 28.7 minus 8.7 is 20, so I can see why that would have appeared to be the right number. This year, however, it does not appear to be the right number, as 28.7 minus 8.5 is 20.2.

I cannot see how what the Government’s unamended motion proposes is consistent with the resolution of the House that the Exchequer contribution should be restricted to 20 per cent. I might simply be missing something; that is quite possible, given the technicality of the area. However, I hope that the Minister—perhaps with some advice—will clarify the point before the end of the debate. Whether the figure should be 20 per cent. or 20.2 per cent., amendment (a) is about this transitional year, prior to the Senior Salaries Review Body reporting on a more root-and-branch reform. I have a lot of sympathy for what the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West said about increasing retirement ages; that is a good direction in which to go. Pending that, however, what should we be doing for 2009-10?

We are all aware that the world has moved on. A 20 per cent. Exchequer contribution was first mooted two years ago, in 2007. That has been the backdrop to our deliberations for a two-year period, but we would all accept that the world of 2007 was very different from ours today. What seemed appropriate then as a cap on the Treasury contribution does not seem so now. It was a very different economic environment. That was not quite so before the crash, but we were certainly not in the full depths of the economic problems. The position of people in many other pension schemes was not as apparent as it is now, and public attitudes to the House were obviously different then.

I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). We should not apologise for existing or for the work that we do, and we should not give an inappropriate impression of the pensions and benefits that we receive. However, many of us feel that the world has simply moved on so much that it is inappropriate in 2009-10 to ask the taxpayer to make any additional contribution to our pensions in comparison with 2008-09.

It is sometimes suggested that that is a hair-shirt approach, but it is worth putting the issue in context. We are talking about the difference between an employer contribution of 28.7 per cent—or 20.2 per cent., which takes away the deficit bit for the sake of comparability; that is how I think it should be—and 18.1 per cent. or 18.3 per cent., depending on what people think the right number is. In other words, we are arguing about whether the taxpayer should put 20 per cent. or so or 18 per cent. or so of our salary into our pensions. Such figures would be beyond the dreams of avarice for anybody in the private sector and for quite a number of people in the public sector. Occasionally we need to remind ourselves that although, as the hon. Member for Stroud said, some people right at the top of the public sector in certain professions have exceptionally generous pensions, their numbers are relatively small. The vast swathe of public sector workers retire on vastly less generous pensions than we do.

One of the issues that has been raised is whether we should simply accept what review bodies say. It is a serious point; if we second-guess the independent review bodies and do a bit more of the hair-shirt, what is the point of those bodies? However, even those bodies accepted that we have to take account of the changing world in which we live.

I want to quote what Sir John Baker said in June 2008. He referred to the 2007 Senior Salaries Review Body report, which referred to the Exchequer cost of the accrual of benefits for MPs being in principle limited to 20 per cent. But he also stated, at paragraph 63, that

“the best solution would be for the Independent Body to continue to consider MPs’ pension arrangements bearing in mind the unusual career pattern of MPs”—

that was the point that the hon. Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner) made—

“and the evolution of pensions in the public sector and wider economy.”

That is the crucial phrase. In other words, even the independent review body was saying that these things are not set in stone, and that the world outside, public sector pensions and the wider economy are moving on. We in this House should therefore have discretion not always to have to wait for the next independent review, which might take 18 months or might not be due to report for another year. We have to make a decision more or less today, and in a sense we are probably nearly three months late in making it, because whatever we do will be backdated to 1 April.

Even Sir John Baker said that the independent body should bear in mind what is going on in the wider economy. Prior to the SSRB’s report, we already know what is going on. Only this week, we had reports of the further demise of private sector final salary schemes, and it important that we as a House show that we know what is happening in the wider economy.

We have a prominent but small scheme, and the question for us is whether we should give a lead to the private sector or whether, because the scheme is relatively small and funded, which is unusual in the public sector, we should be a lag indicator. That will be critical to how things evolve.

That is a very thoughtful comment. In my view, we have to be a leading indicator. We must be able to consider what is happening in the public sector with some credibility. Public sector pensions are very diverse, and I do not have a blanket view about them. The amount that workers put in, the salary that they get, their job security and the physical demands on them are different, and there is not a one-size-fits-all answer to the public sector pension issue.

That is why our party believes in having, perhaps as the first act of a new Government, an independent commission, ideally with buy-in across the political spectrum, to review public sector pensions urgently. It could ensure that they are fair to the taxpayer, who makes a substantial contribution to them, and to public sector workers. Some of them at the top do extraordinarily well, but some at the bottom have pretty rotten jobs with pretty poor salaries and end up with pretty poor pensions. There is a balance to be struck, and if we want to say anything about later retirement ages, for example, it would be appropriate for us to have examined our own scheme first and been willing to take the relevant conclusions on the chin ourselves.

One point that must be addressed is that those who leave a scheme early often receive enhancements. There is a belief that those enhancements come almost from outer space, but in fact they come from the scheme. They have a disproportionate effect on lower-paid people who serve their full term and then end up with an even poorer pension.

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. We have been doing some research on local authority chief executives and senior officers, for example, who seem to retire very early and get substantial boosts to their pension on leaving. As he rightly says, that money comes from somewhere—either from other scheme members or from council tax payers, or I suspect from both. That needs to be addressed.

To return to our own scheme, the amendment argues that we should return the Exchequer contribution for 2009-10 to its 2008-09 level. As the debate has illustrated, there are a wide variety of ways of doing that. A number of my colleagues have said that we will already be putting £60-odd extra a month in as a result of the main motion, essentially reversing the pay rise that we have had, and that their preference would be for any further rebalancing in line with the amendment to come in the form of diminished scheme benefits rather than increased current contributions.

I have an open mind about what the right mixture is, but I would be happy to enter into conversation with the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West, the chairman of the trustees, and with the Leader of the House and her colleagues. Assuming that the amendment is passed, I will be happy to discuss with them how to achieve the right mixture in a way that deals with taxpayers’ concerns but is fair to hon. Members.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being liberal in taking interventions. Is not the weakness of both the amendment and the motion that these ideas have been brought forward by Members of Parliament, for Members of Parliament? There is little or no trust outside in MPs taking decisions about themselves. Would it not therefore be better to refer all this to an independent body? I submit that the SSRB has not always been seen to be independent on public sector issues, so perhaps we should roll the whole thing into the Kelly review, which appears to have the confidence of the public and which will report later this year.

One of my concerns about that suggestion is that it would mean yet more delay. As our debate has illustrated, these are complex matters. Bringing the review under a different review body, which would not quite have to start from scratch, but which would have to get up to speed quickly, could delay things further. Either way, we need a decision for 2009-10, and as I have said, we are already nearly three months late in making it. Until we have heard the views of independent experts, the public will expect us to make a decision now. They will judge what we do, and to go by the indications that we have been given in the past 24 hours, and certainly the feedback that I have received, the public welcome what we have done.

There is a slight danger of grandstanding. I am fully seized of that risk, but hon. Members might be interested to learn that some of the media comment about the amendment has almost been saying that this might be the moment when people finally get it. I would not be so arrogant as to suggest that that was down to me, but there is a sense of the commentators saying, “Perhaps we’re seeing a change in mood.” Given everything that we have been through, it might be helpful to us to send a signal that we are looking at things differently. I hope that that will be constructive, rather than to the detriment of other colleagues in the House.

Perhaps my hon. Friend will answer on the record a question that I have asked him privately: what independent authority or body supports the amendment? In other words, is there a case for his proposal being agreed to now, on the basis that people outside this place have said, “This is the right thing to do; therefore we should get on and do it”?

My hon. Friend might have missed the bit when I dealt with that point. The independent Sir John Baker says in paragraph 63 that we should consider not just the normal matters, but

“the evolution of pensions in the public sector and wider economy.”

In other words, we should not just take such decisions in a vacuum. He was talking about what the independent review bodies should do, but as we have to take an interim decision for ourselves, he has given us the authority to look at what is happening in the wider economy. That substantiates the case for saying that it is entirely appropriate for us to take into account, in our interim decision making, what is happening to public sector pensions, where retirement ages are rising, and what is happening in the private sector, where there are some dreadful things. That is only right and proper.

Before concluding, I would like briefly to thank the 23 hon. Members who supported early-day motion 1389, which was the precursor to amendment (a). I am grateful to them all, particularly the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), who was the one Conservative MP to give his support, four weeks ago. I was grateful for the support of the other 197 last night, which was obviously what clinched things. However, I am also grateful to those hon. Members who were willing to go out on a limb, because I am aware that I probably lost my copy of “How to Win Friends and Influence People” in raising the matter in the first place.

To reflect what the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) said in his intervention, we need to move to a situation with pay and pensions where we hand decisions for wise and independent assessment over to those who are not seen to be partisan and who will take account of what is happening in the wider economy and the public sector, although it is also critical that we ask them the right question. I hope that we can reach that point after this interim year. I also hope that in responding to this debate the Deputy Leader of the House will say whether she feels that the substantive motion hits the 20 per cent., because I do not believe that it does. However, I also commend amendment (a) to the House.

Perhaps it is time for a change of mood. I have listened to most of this debate, which has been about the changes to Members’ pensions, and I agree with the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love). I have listened to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) and my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Steve Webb), who bring incredible expertise to this area, for which the whole House will thank them, but at the end of the day, unless things are done independently of the House of Commons, I suspect that the headlines that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) constantly referred to in his contribution will continue, because journalists will simply wrap them up according to how they want to portray Members of Parliament. I thank those hon. Members for their contributions, none the less.

I want to make a brief contribution to the debate in order to thank the Deputy Leader of the House and the Government for the way in which the machinery of government changes have restored the Science and Technology Select Committee to the business of the House. I believe that the Government made a mistake in 2007 when they got rid of the Science and Technology Committee as a separate cross-government scrutiny Committee. That occurred because of the speed of the changes that took place when the present Prime Minister took over; the speed with which the Departments were reorganised took everyone by surprise. He certainly did not consult me at the time; had he done so, I would have told him that certain responsibilities needed to be protected.

I am grateful for the speedy way in which the Science Minister, Lord Drayson, responded within three days to the Leader of the House to say that our idea clearly needed support and that he supported it. I cannot remember a Minister responding to the Leader of the House in such a clear way before. That spoke volumes about how the House and the broader science community view the importance of science in tackling all the great global challenges that we face. It would be inconceivable for a Department the size of the new Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, with all its responsibilities, not to have anyone examining the very machinery that will deliver the changes. The changes could involve the environment, energy, the green technologies or the plethora of health reforms coming out of our laboratories and our pharmaceutical and technology companies. Without being able to scrutinise all those matters, the House, the Government and our nation would all be the poorer. I want to put on record our genuine thanks to the Science Minister.

I also want to put on record my thanks to the many learned societies and organisations—including the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Royal Society, the Institute of Biology, the Institute of Physics, the Campaign for Science and Engineering and many others—that did not just sit and say, “Woe is us!”, but wrote to and lobbied the Government about the changes.

Above all, I want to thank the members of my present Committee, the Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills, including the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), who was in his place earlier, for the enormous job of work that they have done over many years—in some cases, since before I arrived here. We heard earlier about the distinguished contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) to the Committee in its halcyon days.

This is probably the only chance that I will have to put on record my thanks to Dr. Ian Gibson, the former Member for Norwich, North. I do not wish to comment on the circumstances in which he left the House, but it is important to put on record his enormous contribution to the House and to science, including his work in supporting cancer charities. He encouraged the Government to introduce cancer plans and followed that up. He also worked on embryology, and we should acknowledge that the draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill was largely a result of his early work. I want to put on record my thanks to him, along with those of our Committee and, I hope, of the House, and to wish him well in his early retirement.

The machinery of government changes have raised a number of specific issues for science and technology. The Leader of the House wrote to me in which she said that re-establishing the Science and Technology Committee,

“with a clear understanding that it will pursue a wide-ranging agenda”—

on science and technology across the House—

“offers the best solution”.

Will the Deputy Leader of the House expand a little on that? I understand perfectly well why she does not wish to introduce new Standing Orders for a new Committee and instead to make all those arrangements under Standing Order No. 152, but for the Science and Technology Committee to work effectively, it is important that it has the power to scrutinise science budgets. The research councils spend the majority of the Government’s money for pure science, and it is in respect of the protection of pure science that there is the greatest concern that the move into the new Department for Business, Innovation and Skills might see a shift towards greater transactional science and the use of science for business at the expense of basic pure science. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will be able to reassure me on that.

On the plight of universities, I am not betraying a confidence when I say that I had discussions this morning with the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge university, Alison Richard. She expressed very real concerns about how universities are going to be scrutinised within this massive new Department. I fully accept that my Committee will be able to look at the research elements of universities—that is right and proper—but issues related to teaching, undergraduate work, access to universities, how we keep our universities world class and so forth is a job for a Committee on its own, particularly given that a review of fees will take place and that the former Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills has committed to reviewing the form and function of higher education in the future.

As for the structure, the new Committee will have 14 members. I smiled earlier when the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) spoke about the Conservative party’s passion for science. The hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) is a glowing example of that commitment, as he has maintained a huge desire to promote science on behalf of the Conservative party, and I pay tribute to him. I say to the Conservative Front Benchers, however, that although there were four Conservative members of the Committee since 2007, only one has ever turned up for active participation. Two members of the Committee—the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) and the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink)—have never once attended a single Committee meeting.

The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) is not a Tory.

Well, he was when he became a member of the Committee. [Interruption.] I do not want to intrude on grief—or, perhaps, happiness, depending on which way one looks at it. With the exception of the fantastic contribution of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), a fantastic member of the Committee, unless we get all the parties actively participating in scrutiny, the Select Committee will not achieve what it should. I say that in a good spirit, not in a negative manner.

Overall, I can tell the Deputy Leader of the House that we are delighted with the changes, as is the broader community of science. I only hope that the Committee will live up to the House’s expectations in the few months before we have a general election and I retire for my pension.

We have had an excellent debate on two different motions this afternoon. I am pleased that we were able to discuss the Science and Technology Committee and the structures of such Committees as well as make some constructive contributions to the debate on pensions. I have been asked some specific questions, and I will ensure that good answers are provided to any that I am unable to answer here and now.

We are all grateful that there is such a wide consensus on the new Science and Technology Committee. I regret that a mistaken step was taken in the past when we got rid of something that was doing excellent work. I am sure, however, that there is widespread consensus on the views just expressed by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis).

In business questions today, there was discussion of what Select Committees can do. Let me re-emphasise that it is up to Committees to take a wide-ranging approach to their remit, and to examine the full scope of science policy and related matters across government. Earlier this week, a Hansard Society conference considered the role of departmental Select Committees. We have now moved beyond Departments turning around and saying to Select Committees, “We don’t want to answer that,” or, “You can’t look at that.” That should no longer occur in Select Committees. In the new spirit of reform, if a Select Committee decides that it wants to scrutinise research budgets, for example, it should be able to do so.

I am also aware of the comments of Universities UK that there should be a Sub-Committee devoted to higher education. Clearly, it is up to the new departmental Select Committee to consider that. We would not want to tell it that it should set up a Sub-Committee, although clearly it could do so. Higher education is a key aspect of the work of any business Department—and of the new Select Committee. It could not be otherwise. Education has been a priority for the Government since 1997. Let us hope that the Select Committee sets up such a Sub-Committee.

May I, like other Members, thank the trustees of the parliamentary pension fund for their work, and particularly the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), who spoke lucidly and expansively, for his chairmanship? May I correct the suggestion made by the shadow Leader of the House that there was a lack of consultation with the trustees and chair of the pension fund? My predecessor, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), did consult the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West. In fact, we postponed the motions before the House because he was away for a short time due to ill health, and we felt that it would not be right to consider them without him here. In my new role, I have had meetings and reviewed earlier correspondence—the consultation came in a busy week, but I was glad of the time I spent with him.

On the questions about the 20 per cent. cap and the 0.2 per cent. figure, I cannot give adequate answers in the Chamber now. I will find out the answers to those good questions, and to the detailed questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner).

My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House is content to return to the House with further proposals to ensure that the Exchequer’s contribution this year does not exceed that of last year. As to the main motion, Members have asked both why we did not bring it forward earlier, and why we do not do so later. Whatever happens, the interim step of the main motion is necessary to cap the Exchequer contribution. That will entail back-dated additional payments, so it would have been unfair to people to wait until later this year.

I am glad that we have been able to support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb), my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). If I may repeat an overused phrase this week, we do get it. We understand the context outside the House to which many hon. Members have referred. We will return to the debate, and give Members a chance to vote on or agree the options necessary to achieve a freeze on the Exchequer contribution.

May I accept my hon. Friend’s thanks on behalf of the trustees? There appears to be a consensus across the Chamber on the motion and, I think, the amendment. That makes it all the more important that we have consensus as major changes are made to the pension scheme. I ask the Office of the Leader of the House to take a lead in ensuring that all hon. Members, not just those who have turned up today, are fully consulted so that we take everyone with us?

That is a fair point and I will take it on board.

We will return to the debate and give hon. Members a chance to vote on, or agree, the options necessary to achieve that freeze. We will, of course, later this year tackle the wider ranging reforms resulting from the review undertaken by the SSRB.

We should end on the point that in future we must tackle the problem through an independent body. Like all the other changes that we are making, we should consult Members, but the matters should be decided by recommendations made by another body. We should not have to decide such things for ourselves.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That, with effect from 1 October 2009, the following amendments and related provisions be made in respect of Standing Orders:

A. SELECT COMMITTEES RELATED TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

(1) That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended in the Table in paragraph (2) as follows—

(a) leave out items 1 and 11; and

(b) insert, in the appropriate places, the following items:

B. RELATED PROVISIONS

(2) That all proceedings of the House and of its select committees in this Parliament in respect of the Business and Enterprise Committee and of the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee shall be deemed to have been in respect of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and the Science and Technology Committee, respectively.

(3) That for the purposes of Standing Order No. 122A (Term limits for chairmen of select committees) the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and the Science and Technology Committee shall be deemed to be the same committees as the Business and Enterprise and Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, respectively.

C. LIAISON COMMITTEE

(4) That the Resolution of the House of 13 July 2005 relating to Liaison Committee (Membership) be further amended by leaving out, in paragraph (2), ‘Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform’ and ‘Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills’ and inserting, in the appropriate places, ‘Business, Innovation and Skills’ and ‘Science and Technology’.

D. EUROPEAN COMMITTEES

(5) That Standing Order No. 119 (European Committees) be amended, by leaving out in the Table in paragraph (6) in respect of European Standing Committee C, ‘Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform’ and ‘Innovation, Universities and Skills’ and inserting ‘Business, Innovation and Skills’.

We come to motion 5—

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have clearly not understood the rules. Will I be able to move amendment (a) formally?

Yes.

parliamentary pensions

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House endorses a package of changes to the Parliamentary pension scheme, backdated to 1 April 2009, which is judged by the Government Actuary to make savings equivalent to 2.9 per cent. of payroll, thus capping the Exchequer contribution at 28.7 per cent., consisting of—

(1) an increase in member contribution rates—

(a) from 10 to 11.9 per cent. for a pension building up to an accrual rate of 1/40th of final salary for each year of service,

(b) from 6 to 7.9 per cent. for a pension building up to an accrual rate of 1/50th, and

(c) from 5.5 to 5.9 per cent. for a pension building up to an accrual rate of 1/60th; and

(2) the application of the scheme’s maximum pension limit of two-thirds of final salary to all scheme members for future service.—(Barbara Keeley.)

Amendment made: (a) at end add

‘and calls on the Leader of the House to bring forward further proposals which will cap the Exchequer contribution for 2009–10 at its 2008–09 level.’—(Steve Webb.)

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is growing anger concerning motion 9, which we will shortly reach, because it seeks to require the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Grand Committee to meet in Barnsley. Many Opposition Members feel that it should meet in Bridlington—[Interruption.] I am supported in that view by my hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) and for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart). Will you confirm that under the provision of Standing Order 117A, it is not possible to debate the motion, or the motions that come before it, because of the terms of the Standing Order, even though we have not yet reached the moment of interruption? Because of that, is it not the case that the only way in which my hon. Friends and I can show our displeasure at the motions is by dividing the House?

I can confirm what the right hon. Gentleman says. There can be no debate, but when that motion is reached on the Order Paper, he may well divide the House if he wishes.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you, from the Chair, advise the House whether this is a good issue to refer to the Procedure Committee? It seems that Back-Bench Members will be totally out of the loop in discussions on the time and place where the Regional Committeeswill meet.

The hon. Gentleman is in a position to make that referral to the Procedure Committee himself.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by right hon. and hon. Members. Given that we were given no notice of the motions beyond the fact that they would be on the Order Paper today, is there any way for the Chair to consider manuscript amendments, or will we have no debate and no amendments?

I regret to inform the hon. Gentleman that it is not possible for that to be done today.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that it is only 4.15 pm and the Minister is present, is it not possible for her to explain to us why the meeting of the North West Regional Grand Committee must take place when Parliament has reassembled, but other Regional Grand Committees are to meet when it is in recess? Some Committees are meeting at the same time as both the Liberal Democrat and the Conservative party conferences, yet none are meeting at the same time as the Labour party conference. Can the Minister not stand up and explain those facts to the House?

Answer!

Order. The occupant of the Chair is about to give an answer.

Given the way in which the motions have been tabled, there is no possibility of debate, merely a possibility of votes. I repeat what I have already said: if Members so choose, the House can divide on these issues.