---

Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington): In the light of newspaper reports this morning that Conservative peers are planning to vote against key elements of the programme on which the Government were elected, will my right hon. Friend allow an early debate on the proposed abolition of the hereditary peerage? As there are murmurings that they may vote against a ban on hunting, will she act with some urgency, so that the hunters may feel what it is like to be hunted?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend raises an interesting issue. I am afraid that I cannot find time for such a debate in the near future, but I shall keep it in mind.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Faversham and Mid-Kent): Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week

13 Nov 1997 : Column 1047

to update us on the number of members of the Labour party elected to public office who are currently under suspension, and perhaps let us know what the party's target is for Christmas?

Mrs. Taylor: Internal Labour party matters are not a subject for debate in the House.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): May I renew my call for an early debate on the operation of the law of perjury? Does my right hon. Friend share my disquiet that, in the many months that have passed since Jonathan Aitken discontinued his libel action against The Guardian, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has spent only 35 days--that is one officer working for 35 days--investigating the serious allegations of perjury against that former Cabinet Minister and Conservative Member of Parliament? Is not there a pressing case for an early debate on the matter?

Mrs. Taylor: I do not think that I can find time for such a debate, but I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to the relevant Ministers' attention.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Having listened to hon. Members' views, can the right hon. Lady confirm that the Prime Minister will make a statement to the House next week on the formula one fiasco, so that instead of continuing to pretend that his handling of the matter has been flawless and fooling no one, he can take the opportunity to show a little humility and strength of character by apologising to the House for his errors of judgment on the matter?

Mrs. Taylor: I do not think that there is any requirement for any apology for any errors of judgment. The decisions that were taken were the right decisions, taken for the right reasons.

Mr. Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire): My right hon. Friend may have noticed that at Question Time, many hon. Members expressed their concerns about higher education funding. She will also have noticed that

13 Nov 1997 : Column 1048

yesterday in another place, there was a debate about preserving the grotesque overfunding of the Oxford and Cambridge colleges. Could not those matters be usefully brought together in a debate, so that right hon. and hon. Members who represent other universities and colleges of higher education can discuss how to redistribute that money?

Mrs. Taylor: As I do not read them out, my hon. Friend may not know that the debates next Wednesday morning include one on Oxford and Cambridge college fees.

Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): I was surprised that the Leader of the House did not respond more favourably to earlier requests for an urgent debate on local government finance in the light of this morning's Audit Commission report, which shows a £1 billion shortfall in the local authority pension fund arising from the number of early retirements. It is projected in a few years to amount to some 12 per cent. of the local government salary bill. The Accounts Commission for Scotland suggests that the Government's changes to advance corporation tax will add 3.5 per cent. of the local authority salary bill to the cost of maintaining pension funds.

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right that an awful lot of money is spent that way, but the liability has not built up since May. Local authority finances are debated in the House from time to time. The next significant discussion of such issues will be on a statement on what used to be the rate support grant settlement, which, as I said earlier, will be later this year.

BILL PRESENTED

Religious Discrimination

Mr. John Austin, supported by Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. Simon Hughes, Fiona Mactaggart, Mr. Terry Rooney and Mr. Marsha Singh, presented a Bill to make discrimination on grounds of religion unlawful; to outlaw incitement to religious hatred; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 January, and to be printed [Bill 82].

13 Nov 1997 : Column 1049

Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That Mr. John Butterfill, Dr Vincent Cable, Mr. Barry Gardiner, Mr. John MacGregor, Dr Nick Palmer, Dr Howard Stoate, Ms Gisela Stuart and Paddy Tipping be appointed Managing Trustees of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund in pursuance of Section 1 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987.--[Mr. McFall.]

4.6 pm

Sir Peter Emery (East Devon): I wish to refer to the hon. Members who are to be appointed trustees, because it is important that something that has, historically, involved considerable battling over many years should be understood by the new trustees. I think that at least five of the eight came to the House at this year's general election.

I am in a happy position because what I am going to say cannot affect me, though it can affect a host of other Members. You will recall, Madam Speaker, that the Labour party won a famous victory by defeating a motion of the Conservative Government in July 1980. It was decided that the pension accrual rate should not be one sixtieth but one fortieth; in other words, that people who had served 20 years in the House could have half pensions. I am delighted to say that the right hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) marched arm in arm with me through the Division Lobby. New Members will not have realised that. Only one of the new trustees was here then.

I am glad that the former Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) is going to be a member, and I hope that he will chair it.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): I could be wrong, but I believe that I am right. The right hon. Gentleman, whom we are pleased to see back in his place, said that the pensions position was 40 per cent., whereas it was reduced to 50 per cent. He said that 20 years' service provides half a pension, but he should have said 25 years' service.

Sir Peter Emery: I was trying to make it clear, so that nobody misunderstands, that, at that time, the referral was one sixtieth. We tried to reduce it to one fortieth so that 20 years' service would give a half pension. The Conservative Government refused to accept the motion of the House and came back, in February 1981, with all the Whips on and proceeded to refer back to one sixtieth. In July 1983, that was changed to an accrual of one fiftieth.

I simply remind hon. Members who will serve as trustees of the great and extensive service given by Mr. Morris, who chaired that Committee. He was a most distinguished Labour Member for many years and is now in another place, I am glad to say. His work in defence of hon. Members' pensions was considerable.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington): Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether the trustees can take evidence? If they can, is he suggesting that he might wish to give evidence?

Sir Peter Emery: I have never considered giving evidence to the trustees. They have prepared a whole host

13 Nov 1997 : Column 1050

of work and it rests very much with the Chairman as to how to proceed. As the at least five of the trustees are new Members, and only one knows of the instances of which I am talking, I thought that the matter was extremely relevant. Sadly, I do not see all the hon. Members in the Chamber, but they should be able to see in Hansard the point that I am making about pensions so that they can bear it in mind in any future action.

I hope that the trustees will be successful, as the Labour party at the time was adamant about moving to one fortieth.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Not everybody.

Sir Peter Emery: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Division Lobby with me. I have the Division list before me--

Madam Speaker: Order. We shall check up afterwards. It is not relevant to this debate.

Sir Peter Emery: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As long as I know that you were with me, that is all that matters.

I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that the trustees understand this matter and can look into it to see whether the present Government will move in the direction that the Labour party urged on the House 17 years ago. Many new Members, who do not necessarily stand a chance of being in the House for more than 10, 15 or 20 years, need to ensure that their pension rights are better protected than at present. It is not exactly the same as in industry because nothing can be quite as problematical for a long stay than being in politics as a Member of Parliament.

It seemed worth while to raise this matter as we appoint hon. Members as trustees because it is imperative that they bear the matter in mind.

---