Commons Sitting of 8 September 2004

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Northern Ireland Assembly
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will reinstate the Northern Ireland Assembly without Sinn Fein in the light of the Independent Monitoring Commission report. [187641]
    Bob Spink: What recent representations he has received on re-establishing the Northern Ireland Assembly. [187642]
    Helen Jackson: What progress he has made towards restoring devolved government in Northern Ireland. [187646]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): The Independent Monitoring Commission's report emphasised the importance of participation by all sides of the community in the context of peaceful and democratic means. We are currently engaged in intensive political activity with the aim of restoring stable and inclusive partnership government in Northern Ireland. It is important to draw on the high degree of commitment among the Northern Ireland parties to bring about resumed devolution at an early stage. Recent meetings with all parties have given me confidence that the restoration to Northern Ireland of stable devolved government is within our grasp.
    Mr. Robathan: The Secretary of State talked about commitment, but he will know that is over six years since the Belfast agreement was made, and that Sinn Fein, as the Independent Monitoring Commission found out, remains responsible for paramilitary violence. When will the Government say that the peace process will go ahead but without those people, who are inextricably linked to terrorism, go about their murderous business making life hell for many people in Northern Ireland and have failed to give up their weapons as promised six years ago?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman will know that one of the two issues that we will discuss next week at Leeds castle in Kent is the decommissioning of weapons, which was part of the Good Friday agreement. He is right that in the past six years we have not had sufficient decommissioning from any of the paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. Secondly, the business of paramilitary activity, whether republican or loyalist, must be addressed. In particular, republican paramilitary activity, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said only yesterday, must be addressed before we can restore devolution in Northern Ireland. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that next week we will make a very serious effort to try to resolve those difficulties, and I believe that it will be a moment of decision for the peace process in Northern Ireland.
    Bob Spink: But does the Secretary of State at least accept that all forms of violence and threats of violence, including punishment beatings and the retention of weapons, are quite incompatible with power sharing? Will he therefore state quite firmly that that will therefore result in the exclusion of Sinn Fein?
    Mr. Murphy: There is no point the hon. Gentleman saying "at least", as I have always agreed with that premise—and indeed the Government have always accepted—that there is no place in modern democratic society in Northern Ireland for paramilitary activity of any sort. He will be aware that paramilitary activity has been an issue in Northern Ireland for more than 30 years, and the Good Friday agreement made it clear that it had to stop. For various reasons, it has not stopped in the past six years, but it has certainly diminished. The ceasefire is now 10 years old and Northern Ireland is undoubtedly a better place, but the hon. Gentleman is right to bring to the attention of the House the importance of that central issue.
    Helen Jackson: Question 4, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady's question has been grouped, and she need only ask a supplementary question.
    Helen Jackson: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker.
    I commend the Government and the Secretary of State on the patient way in which they have pursued the restoration of devolved government over the past few years and in the past month. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is that patience in making sure that all parties and sectors of the community in Northern Ireland are brought into politics that will ensure the successful reinstatement of devolution?
    Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She knows, because she herself was deeply involved at the time of the creation of the Belfast agreement, that we cannot have a lasting accommodation or settlement in Northern Ireland unless it allows for proper power sharing between nationalism and unionism. That means that there must be proper North-South arrangements and a principle of consent, which was enshrined in the agreement. I am certain that every political party in

    703
    Northern Ireland that will be present in Leeds castle in Kent next week is serious about trying to make that breakthrough and ensure that that deal is made.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: The Secretary of State will be aware of the statement from the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland last Thursday, in which he indicated that of the 25 major drug gangs in Northern Ireland, two thirds are run or organised by paramilitaries. Does he accept that much more damage is now being done to our community by drug trafficking, intimidation and other forms of protection rackets than by security-related matters? Will he take that on board at the inter-party talks—and indeed outside the talks—and address paramilitary activities which are not security-related but which are having a much greater impact on our community than those other matters?
    Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend is right to bring to the House's attention the fact that many in paramilitary organisations are engaged in criminal activities, and that those activities have no place in Northern Ireland. They are a corrupting influence on society in Northern Ireland and they must stop—of course they must. I commend the work of the PSNI in dealing with those issues. My hon. Friend, who is a member of the Policing Board, is aware of those matters. He will also agree that next week the central issue of paramilitary activity in all its forms must be addressed if we are to move forward in the peace process.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: I know that the Secretary of State will not want to talk up the possibility that the talks next week may not succeed, but yesterday his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister touched on the fact that the Government must obviously consider what they would do in those circumstances. If the talks next week do not succeed because paramilitaries refuse to completely decommission their illegal weaponry and bring to a complete end their paramilitary and criminal activity, the Secretary of State would have only two options, other than collapsing the Assembly as a whole: to have an Assembly without an Executive, or to have an Executive without Sinn Fein. Is he considering those two options?
    Mr. Murphy: The Government will have to reflect at the end of next week if we do not achieve what we want to achieve, but, in the hon. Gentleman's words, we have the ingredients of a deal in front of us in Leeds castle next week. The Government are working not on the basis that we will fail next week, but on the basis that we will succeed. We will have to see what happens at the end of the talks. I repeat, though, that the talks next week are a crucial part of the process, a crucial phase and a point of decision, not a staging post in any further discussions.
    Mr. Michael Mates: But what is the point of going to Leeds castle to discuss decommissioning and the ending of paramilitary violence, since everybody knows that that is the precondition for any political progress? If the Secretary of State goes there without that precondition, is he not simply raising hopes, and in the end will he not disappoint more people than he serves?
    Mr. Murphy: The right hon. Gentleman is right to point to the importance of those issues before a deal can be achieved, but there are other issues, too, which we have been discussing in the past two weeks in Northern Ireland—for example, how the Assembly operates, the mechanisms of the Executive, its accountability to the Assembly, and issues such as human rights, equality and so on. Although the right hon. Gentleman is right to point to the principle that is so important in trying to ensure that we get a breakthrough—that is, the end of paramilitary activity, decommissioning, the stability of the institutions and the restoration of confidence—the details of those matters still have to be addressed. That is what we will be doing next week in Kent.
    Mr. Seamus Mallon: As the political entourage from Northern Ireland wends its way towards Leeds castle, will the Secretary of State make it clear that while we all welcome the worthy efforts of the Democratic Unionist party poachers to become the head gamekeepers, that Pauline conversion cannot be at the expense of the agreement or any of its institutions? Will the British Government and the Irish Government be the custodians of the Good Friday agreement and protect its integrity, and not on this occasion succumb to the shabby-deal syndrome that has bedevilled so many of these meetings?
    Mr. Murphy: I hope there will be no shabby deals. I am sure there will not be, but I can say to my hon. Friend that the fundamentals of that agreement to which we all signed up in 1998 are essential to any accommodation that we can ever achieve in Northern Ireland. I repeat them: there is the question of sharing power, the principle of consent, proper North-South arrangements and other matters. They must form the bedrock of any agreement, but every party that is going to the talks next week, including the DUP, is going on the basis that we want to try and make an arrangement and get a deal that will restore devolution in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. David Trimble: This autumn marks one year, which has been frittered away, since the Assembly election, and two years since the Prime Minister said in a speech at Belfast Harbour Office that we have reached a fork in the road. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government will be left with no credibility if they are still hanging around that fork in the road after the talks at Leeds castle?
    Mr. Murphy: The year or two since we had to suspend devolution in Northern Ireland have, of course, been frustrating. No one wanted to suspend devolution, no one wants direct rule and every party in Northern Ireland wants the restoration of devolution. I think the right hon. Gentleman agrees that we have reached a stage at which we must make proper decisions, because we cannot allow the process to drift. We must address those central issues and reach the conclusion that we all want.
    Mr. David Lidington: May I first wish the Secretary of State well in next week's discussions? Whichever political party we come from, it is in all our interests that an enduring and just peace should be reached in Northern Ireland. The key to

    705
    political progress in Northern Ireland is surely that the republican movement, which has an electoral mandate that entitles it to participate in government, should not only use words to say that it wants violence to end but demonstrate through its actions that it renounces and breaks completely with paramilitary violence in all its forms and that it is prepared to offer evidence that that commitment is permanent rather than temporary.
    Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, and we all wish all the Northern Ireland parties well in their deliberations next week. He is right that words are important, but that they are not enough. He knows that since we last held such talks, the Independent Monitoring Commission has been established to examine such issues. It has an important role to play as, indeed, has the Decommissioning Commission, which is headed by General John de Chastelain.
    Mr. Lidington: Is not the logic of the Secretary of State's answer that the British Government should say—as the Republic of Ireland's Government already do—that a party that has failed to make clear its permanent separation from paramilitary violence cannot take part as of right in the government of any part of the island of Ireland?
    Mr. Murphy: That was part of the Good Friday agreement, by which Ministers had to sign up to codes of conduct and arrangements that meant that they would renounce violence in all its forms. Paramilitary activity, which must stop, has continued during the past year or so. The best deal for Northern Ireland will tackle paramilitary activity and allow all parties in Northern Ireland to take their rightful seats in the Assembly and the Executive.
    Lembit Öpik: Will the Minister confirm that all outstanding issues relating to the review of the agreement, such as designations and the lack of shared responsibility in the Executive, will be on the agenda during the Leeds castle talks next week to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Assembly, and that we will not face either unilateral agreements with one party or another or quick-fix solutions that do not take us forward?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is right about quick-fix solutions, which no one wants. We have been busy over the past few weeks dealing with the issues that he rightly identifies. We cannot deal with every issue during the three days in Leeds castle, but we will certainly deal with the important issues.

    Peace Process
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: If he will make a statement on the peace process. [187645]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Spellar): As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and the hon. Members for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and
    706
    for Castle Point (Bob Spink), we are engaged in intensive negotiations with a view to bringing about a complete and definitive end to paramilitary activity and the restoration of the devolved institutions on a stable and inclusive basis.
    Mr. Carmichael: Looking forward to the talks at Leeds castle next week, can the Minister assure the House that there are certain lines below which the Government will not go: in particular, that there will be no question of amnesties for those who are on the run until circumstances have been created whereby all those who feel unable to remain in Northern Ireland because of paramilitary threats are able to return to their homes; and further, that there will be no question of people being released or pardoned for crimes before a proper appearance in court?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman is right that the issues that he identifies are dependent upon acts of completion. As the Secretary of State said here today and the Prime Minister said yesterday, it must be absolutely clear that any party that wants to sit in Government is not connected in any shape or form with paramilitary activity and that all paramilitary activity ceases completely. That is what we are aiming to achieve next week, and those are the preconditions for the restoration of devolved Government and all the other objectives that we all desire.
    Mr. John Hume: Given that for the first time in history the people of Ireland as a whole, North and South, have overwhelmingly voted for the Good Friday agreement, the Minister will agree that paramilitary organisations can no longer claim, as they have always done, to be acting in the name of the people. Will the Minister tell all the political parties involved in the talks that it is now the duty of all true democrats to implement the will of the people, which means implementing all aspects of the Good Friday agreement and not trying to renegotiate it?
    Mr. Spellar: May I pay tribute to the part that the hon. Gentleman played in bringing about that agreement and, indeed, the much-improved situation in Northern Ireland? Although we still have further steps to go, we should remember that at the peak of the troubles 497 people were killed by paramilitary activity; last year it was nine, and this year, to date, it has been only three. That is three too many, but it is a major difference. The hon. Gentleman is right that the fundamentals of the Good Friday agreement are the basis on which the talks will take place next week. They provide the way forward that we hope to bring about at Leeds castle next week.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the Minister agree with the conclusion of the second report of the Independent Monitoring Commission that
    "Law enforcement…is far from normal"?
    In respect of the decision that will be taken tomorrow by the Chief Constable on the full-time reserve, will the Minister explain to the House how many officers will be available for operational duties in each district command unit?
    Mr. Spellar: In a sense, the hon. Gentleman answered his own question in the way that he framed it. As he said, the Chief Constable will announce his determination tomorrow. I am afraid that we, and he, will have to wait on that announcement.

    Genito-urinary Medicine Services
    Mrs. Iris Robinson: If he will make a statement on genito-urinary medicine services in the Province. [187647]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Angela Smith): At present, genitourinary medicine services are delivered at four hospitals in Northern Ireland. The service has come under increased pressure, and work loads have doubled since 1995. I fully appreciate that waiting times for communicable diseases must be kept to a minimum and that patients should have access to a fast, effective sexual health service. To that end, a number of steps are being taken to address the current pressures.
    Mrs. Robinson: I thank the Minister for that reply. However, she will be aware that only four consultants in Northern Ireland specialise in genito-urinary medicine, yet the Royal College of Physicians recommends that there should be one consultant to every 120,000 people. It is a matter of grave concern that we have increasing waiting lists and that we are understaffed in this specialist field of medicine. Can the Minister indicate what is being done to attract doctors, particularly junior doctors, to it? Will she consider extending the outpost clinics to rural areas of Northern Ireland rather than concentrating the services at the Royal Victoria hospital?
    Angela Smith: The hon. Lady is right: we do have vacancies for consultants. May I tell her, though, that four specialist trainees are undergoing training and that that is sufficient for projected needs in Northern Ireland. The first of those trainees should be able to take up a specialist consultant's post in about a year's time.
    The hon. Lady is also right to consider the way in which we deliver services. We are addressing that issue in terms of prevention and treatment. We are aiming to provide a more holistic approach so that people can access services not only at hospitals but in community settings such as GP surgeries.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Under-Secretary referred to prevention. Although we welcome the work that has been done on treatment, does she agree that more needs to be done in sex education? Will she have a discussion with her colleague who deals with education to ascertain whether more funding can be provided to educate young people on tackling some of those problems in a world where there is so much pressure on them to experiment before they have an understanding of the issues?
    Angela Smith: The hon. Gentleman is correct that prevention is an important part of controlling sexually transmitted infections. I assure him that education plays an important part in the 35 recommendations that the
    708
    Department is currently considering. We are concentrating on that not only for the young but for the not-so-young.

    Royal Irish Regiment
    Mr. Gregory Campbell: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the future of the home battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment. [187648]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discusses all relevant issues with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in relation to the profile of the Army in Northern Ireland. The situation in respect of the Royal Irish home battalions has not changed since the statement that the Defence Secretary made on 10 June 2003.
    Mr. Campbell: Does the Under-Secretary accept that, when attacks such as the one that happened in the past three hours in a police station in Londonderry occur, it is essential that the Royal Irish Regiment is not only retained but used and deployed to protect police stations and Army installations in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Pearson: I have received a report on the attack on the Strand Road police station. Obviously, the matter is being investigated and I utterly condemn the senseless violence involved. It will not stop us engaging in the talks; we need to move forward.
    I pay tribute to the Royal Irish Regiment, which has a distinguished history at home and abroad. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, it continues to play a vital role. I stress that no decision has been made about the members of the armed forces who would be included in a permanent end-state garrison in Northern Ireland. We are currently recruiting new members to the home service battalions. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to come to order—it is very noisy.
    Lady Hermon: The Under-Secretary rightly paid a warm tribute to the RIR and its predecessor, the Ulster Defence Regiment. In the continuing discussions about the RIR's future, what genuine, active consideration has been given to creating a fund for UDR widows and their families, akin to the police fund for RUC widows and their families?
    Mr. Pearson: The hon. Lady makes an important point. However, that is a matter for the Ministry of Defence, which is aware of the issue. I shall make arrangements for the Ministry to contact the hon. Lady.

    Parades Commission
    Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson: What plans he has to review the (a) membership and (b) remit of the Parades Commisson; and if he will make a statement. [187649]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson): The current members of the Parades Commission have been appointed to serve until the end of next year. I have been considering policy on future parades legislation and structures and I hope to be in a position to bring forward proposals later this year.
    Mr. Donaldson: Although we had a relatively quiet summer this year, the Under-Secretary knows that some of the Parades Commission's decisions have caused widespread concern in Northern Ireland. The commission made decisions that were sometimes unnecessary and resulted in appalling situations where there had been no potential for unrest. Far from increasing the remit of the Parades Commission, is it not time for the Government to review its role? Far from resolving the parades issue, the commission is part of the problem, not the solution.
    Mr. Pearson: I agree that we have had an overwhelmingly peaceful marching season. Out of nearly 2,200 parades, disturbances, which were mostly minor, happened at only 16. Upholding the rights of marchers and protesters is a difficult problem with which to grapple. The Parades Commission performs its duties in the most difficult circumstances and it needs everyone's full support.
    Clearly, we will reflect on the most recent marching season, but let us not get this out of proportion. The two recent marching seasons have been the most successful in most people's living memory. Great progress is being made in Northern Ireland. If we can make sensible reforms to parading legislation, we will clearly wish to do so, but let us not forget the progress that has been made.

    EU Enlargement (Agriculture)
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: If he will make a statement on the impact of the enlargement of the European Union on smaller family farms in Northern Ireland. [187650]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson)There is expected to be little impact of enlargement on smaller family farms in Northern Ireland in the short to medium term. Competitive pressures from the new member states are forecast to increase only gradually, and, of course, enlargement brings the potential of new export opportunities for farms of all sizes.
    Mr. O'Brien: I appeal to my hon. Friend for greater consideration and assistance to be given to small family farms in Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to pensions and other benefits, which many people will enjoy, but which some of those small farmers will be denied. Will he give serious consideration to the impact on small farms of the enlargement of the European Community?
    Mr. Pearson:I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments. Farming is going through a major process of transformation, with the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy and issues such as enlargement. The Department is doing a lot to support farming families. We will continue to review that, and we will take on board my hon. Friend's comments.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. John Greenway: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 September.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Before listing my engagements, I know that the whole House will join me in sending our profound sympathy and condolences to the people of Beslan and Russia. I have spoken to President Putin, and expressed that on behalf of the British people. We share in Russia's grief in this dark hour for that country, and we mourn with the people of Beslan as they continue to bury their dead. The video released last night simply underlines the inhumanity of terrorists who can target and murder children. It is evil that was, until it happened, beyond the contemplation of anyone.
    The whole House will also join me in sending our condolences to the families of the three British soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq since the House rose on 22 July. They were doing an extraordinary and heroic job, and we can be proud of them.
    This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Greenway: First, may I associate my Ryedale constituents with the sympathies that the Prime Minister expressed to the people of Beslan and to the families of British soldiers killed in Iraq during the recess?
    What possible justification can there be at this time for cutting infantry numbers by 6,500 and abolishing some of our finest regiments, such as the Prince of Wales's Own Regiment, the Duke of Wellington's Regiment and the Green Howards in Yorkshire? Does the Prime Minister not recognise that that regimental system, sustained and supported by local communities, sets the British Army apart from all others, particularly in the vital role of peacekeeping? Would not it be an act of extreme folly to lose those qualities in these uncertain times?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the amount of money that we are putting into defence is increasing, not decreasing. It is important that we use that money effectively in the future, and the plans put forward, which have the support of the chiefs of staff, allow us to make sure that we can carry out the duties that our armed forces do superbly around the world, and allow us to do that in a modern way. That is necessary, because some of the things that we require today were not required a few years ago. [Interruption.] I cannot refrain from pointing out to Opposition Members who are shouting at me that defence spending was cut substantially under the Conservative Government.
    Sir Stuart Bell: Building on the comments of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, is it not a fact that to combat the lethal, dangerous and odious relationship between nationalism and fundamentalism, moderate opinion, both majority and minority, in our country and elsewhere, has joined together in attack and condemnation of these horrendous events?
    The Prime Minister: What is important, as I said to President Putin in our telephone call, is that we recognise that this extraordinary form of virulent and extreme terrorism is an evil that we all face and that we must confront together. I express my total solidarity with him and with the Russian people in doing so.
    Mr. Michael Howard: I join the Prime Minister in expressing our anguish and heartache at the terrible events in Beslan. We shall never forget the haunting images that have filled our television screens in the last few days. I also join him in expressing our deep regret at the continuing loss of life in Iraq, and in particular the loss of the three British servicemen to whom he referred.
    Do not these events show yet again that we must be resolute in our determination to defeat terrorism wherever it takes place and to protect the safety of people in our own country? Will the Prime Minister look again at the possibility—about which I wrote to him on Sunday—of appointing a single Minister to be responsible for homeland security, with nothing to think about and nothing to do apart from protecting our people from the threat of terrorism?
    The Prime Minister: I join the right hon. and learned Gentleman in, and concur wholeheartedly with, his remarks about the need to fight terrorism effectively abroad and here. It is not simply because it came from him that we have not accepted the proposal for a particular Minister to be in charge of homeland security; it is because we believe that the present arrangements under the Home Secretary work well. I should also say that we have someone who co-ordinates all our security measures across Government and we believe that that works well.
    Of course we do this on the basis of advice. If we were advised that there were better ways of dealing with the security situation, we would adopt them, but I actually think that our security forces are currently doing a very good job on behalf of this country. We believe that, given the joint terrorism action centre and the measures taken by the security co-ordinator, these procedures are as good as they can be.
    Mr. Howard: I understand the points that the Prime Minister has made, but it is of course for advisers to advise and for Ministers to decide. I ask him to continue to keep this question under review.
    Let me turn to other matters. Does the Prime Minister regret the resignation of his Secretary of State for Work and Pensions?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I do, because of the substantial contribution that my right hon. Friend made to reducing unemployment and providing help for the
    712
    poorest pensioners. One of the best things that he did was, of course, implementing the new deal, which has helped 1 million people into work. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now withdraw the absurd proposal to scrap it.
    Mr. Howard: In that case, why would friends of the former Work and Pensions Secretary—whose departure the Prime Minister has just regretted so much—say that he was
    "sick and tired after three months of poison and briefing against him"?
    Who could possibly have been responsible for that?
    The Prime Minister: Why do we not actually debate the policy? Why do we not debate what we are doing? Let me just tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what we have done on welfare reform: 700,000 children have been lifted out of poverty, 1.8 million pensioners have been lifted out of poverty and pension credit is helping pensioners by providing up to £1,000 a year. The new deal is giving us 1 million extra people in work and a 30 per cent. fall in new entry to incapacity benefit. That is a record of which my right hon. Friend and we can be proud. Name me a Conservative Government who ever achieved it.
    Mr. Howard: Why will the Prime Minister not break the habit of a lifetime and just answer the question for once? He apparently thinks that the membership of his Cabinet and the way in which he runs his Government are of no consequence. He thinks that they do not matter. Well, they matter to his party chairman, who complained last night about the
    "ill-discipline and briefing within the Westminster village",
    and they matter to his former Chief Whip, who knows a bit about the way in which this Government are run and who has attacked what he called
    "the style of government that allows ministers of the crown to be briefed against".
    Who is responsible for that style of government?
    The Prime Minister: The fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to start debating briefings in the press with me only indicates the utter absence of any policy proposals on his part. He has just published today his proposals on student finance. One would think that he might ask me about them; perhaps he is about to do that. Or perhaps it is because they actually treble the interest rate on student loans that he will not.
    I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what the test of a Government is. It is not what appears in the newspapers every day, but this: 2 million extra jobs, the halving of unemployment, the introduction of the minimum wage, the lowest interest rates and inflation for 30 years and 2 million pensioners lifted out of poverty. I said this a moment or two ago, and I repeat it now. What Conservative Government of whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a member ever achieved an economic and social record like that?
    Mr. Howard: I will certainly respond to the Prime Minister's challenge on our proposals for student finance. I will tell him the difference between his

    713
    proposals and ours: Labour has broken its promise and scrapped free higher education; we will keep our promise and restore free higher education. This Government are giving more money to poorer students, but taking it straight back through student fees; we will have lower student debt and grants for poorer students. That is the difference between our policies and his.
    Is it not extraordinary that the Prime Minister simply refuses to answer for the way in which his Government are run? In the last few days, his former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, his former Chief Whip and his current party chairman have all criticised his style of government. Will he now, at the Dispatch Box, accept responsibility for the style of government that they have so clearly condemned?
    The Prime Minister: I am glad that I lured the right hon. and learned Gentleman on to student finance, because I would like to talk a little about that. First, his policies have a gaping hole of £500 million in them, which will be withdrawn from universities. Secondly, he says that he would keep student grants for poorer students. Actually, we set that at £2,700. Perhaps he could just confirm that his grant is £1,500, which is a halving of our grant. Thirdly, he would not restore free higher education, because instead of students getting interest rates at the rate of inflation, a commercial rate of interest would be charged, so instead of interest being 3.5 per cent., it would be 8 per cent. That means that the amount that many people on average and lower incomes pay under student finance would treble—a typical Tory policy.
    As for the style of government, that is surely a matter of the record of the Government, and the record of this Government is one of which we can be and are proud.
    Mr. Howard:Is not the shambles of the way in which the Government are run one reason why they have so completely failed to deliver on their promises? As the Prime Minister's Pension Secretaries come and go, let me quote the words of his first Minister for Welfare Reform. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) yesterday said:
    "The big issue that ought to be worrying the whole of the Government because it's worrying voters, is that when Labour came to office we had one of the strongest pension provisions in Europe and now probably we have some of the weakest".
    Is that not the fact of the matter and the record of the Prime Minister's Government? Is the pensions crisis not down to the failure of his Government and is it not time that he stopped changing his Ministers and started changing his policies?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not agree that we should change the policy, because it has delivered for pensioners, in real terms, £10 billion extra a year. It means that 2.5 million pensioner households benefit from the pension credit and the minimum income guarantee. It means free TV licences for the over-75s, a winter fuel payment of £200 a year, reduced VAT on fuel, restored free eye tests and now the pension protection fund, which will help people whose pensions are unfunded by their employers. All those things will help pensioners now and in future.
    But the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal on pensions is this: he wants to get rid of the state second pension. Let me spell out to the House what that means.
    714
    Twenty million people would lose out, including 15 million low-income households and 2.5 million carers. It is a disastrous policy. [Interruption.] Oh yes, we will remind people of this from now until election day. His other policy is that the pension credit, which helps 2.5 million people, will be phased out. If that is not the case, perhaps he will stand up at the Dispatch Box and tell us.
    Mr. Adrian Bailey: I associate myself and my constituents with my right hon. Friend's remarks about the tragic events in Beslan and the death of our servicemen in Iraq.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that, ultimately, defeating Muslim terrorism in Iraq depends on the majority of peace-loving Iraqis having a stake in their own community? What assessment has he made of progress in restoring vital public services such as education and health, and other measures designed to improve the quality of life for the great majority of peace-loving Iraqis?
    The Prime Minister: What is happening in Iraq and in Afghanistan is vital to the fight against international terrorism. Essentially, in Afghanistan, 10 million people have registered to vote, despite people often being assassinated on the way to registering, and in Iraq we have a UN-blessed process that should lead to elections in January 2005. The terrorists in both those countries are trying to stop the electoral process and the reconstruction, because they know that if we manage to put Afghanistan and Iraq on their feet as stable democratic countries, that is the biggest blow that there can be to international terrorism. I assure my hon. Friend that we will stick with this and see it through, because it is in the interests not only of security in those countries but of global security.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: May I entirely associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the very proper expressions of sincere condolence to the citizens of Beslan and their families for the appalling atrocities that have been visited on them, and to the families and loved ones of the three British soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq since we last convened here?
    Returning to domestic pensions policy, does the Prime Minister recognise the fact that the typical woman retiring today will draw a basic state pension of just £51, which is little more than half the full state pension level? When does he intend to introduce steps to overcome that continuing blatant discrimination against women in the operation of the pension system?
    The Prime Minister: The interaction of the state second pension, which I was talking about a moment ago, and the pension credit is designed precisely to ensure that we help people on the lowest incomes in particular. As the right hon. Gentleman has asked about pensions, I must say that I cannot agree with his proposal of yesterday, that single pensioners over 75 will get an extra £25 a week by abolishing the Department of Trade and Industry. He says that abolishing the DTI would bring in £8 billion immediately, but that is not the DTI's administration costs, it is the entire budget that it administers. Abolishing it would mean the whole of British science being cut by two thirds and all regional

    715
    selective assistance would cease. When we have this debate on pensions, we should at least have it on the basis of serious costed proposals.
    Mr. Kennedy: Over coming months we shall certainly have that debate and the ultimate test on the outcome will be decided by the electorate at the general election—but let us get back to the policy that we are living with, which is the Government's policy, which I asked about. The Prime Minister refers to pension credit, yet according to the Government's own figures published today, 2 million pensioners—two out of five of those eligible—are not receiving the means-tested benefits to which they are entitled. He should not be surprised by that, because we know that the Government, again according to their own figures, budget on the very assumption that there will not be that take-up. Surely, in a comparatively wealthy country such as ours, we could now afford, politically and economically, to offer our older citizens the genuine dignity and positive security that they deserve.
    The Prime Minister: Of course, everyone in the House would agree in principle with that, but the question is how we are to pay for it. We established the Pensions Commission last year under Adair Turner, which will publish its interim findings in October, precisely so that there can be a proper public debate about not only today's pensioners but future pensioners. There are real issues there and if we want to commit ourselves to funding even greater state provision for people who will become pensioners in future years, we must say how that will be paid for, and we must do so in a realistic way, from the taxpayer base that we have.
    I am sure that that will be a major issue over the coming months. When the interim report by Adair Turner's commission is published, we can at least see what the facts are and then what the real choices facing our country are.
    Mr. James Plaskitt: In Warwickshire, 35 antisocial behaviour orders have been issued to date—six in my constituency—and 30 more are under consideration. Does my right hon. Friend agree with Chief Superintendent Whitehouse in Leamington who tells me that ASBOs are now much easier to obtain and highly effective in dealing with some of our worst offenders?
    The Prime Minister: I think that ASBOs are far easier to obtain now, which is why somewhere in the region of 2,500 of them have been granted. As my hon. Friend would recognise, they are part of a wider range of measures on antisocial behaviour. On the basis of a visit I made to Harlow recently and other visits around the country, I think that antisocial behaviour legislation is now being used by local authorities and the police to make a real difference to antisocial behaviour. There is nothing that makes people in this country angrier than not using the new powers that have been given to the police and local authorities. I urge them to use those powers.
    Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: How much hope does the Prime Minister hold out for making progress on the agreed road map for peace in the middle east?
    The Prime Minister: Progress depends critically on two things: first, on an end to terrorism, or at least the best possible methods of achieving that end; secondly, on both sides being willing to negotiate the solution set out in the road map. I hope very much that we can return to the road map. We need to do that—it is vital. I mentioned Iraq and Afghanistan earlier as part of the front line in the war against terrorism, and it is also true to say that progress in the middle east would make an enormous difference to the ability to recruit people to international terrorism.
    Bob Russell: What about the wall?
    The Prime Minister: Liberal Democrat Members shout about the wall and about Israel. We have made our criticisms of that clear. However, it is also fair and right to point out that innocent Israeli citizens are being killed and maimed by terrorist acts. If we want a lasting solution, we have to stop the terrorism as well as urge Israel to negotiate.
    Anne Picking: I am sure that the whole House will welcome the Commission for Africa and congratulate the Prime Minister on setting it up. Does he agree that there is no better cause here at home than that of supporting fair trade? In my own community, sterling work is being done to support the cause and our local authority is planning to become a local authority fair trade council. Will he use his good offices to encourage other local authorities to do the same?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend says and we support fair trade—about £500,000 goes to various promotions. Sales of fair trade products have risen by almost 50 per cent. in the last couple of years. I entirely agree that it is one important way in which people can show their commitment to those countries that desperately need fair trade to be extended.
    Andrew Selous: Does the Prime Minister believe that it is acceptable that some pensioners have to spend a third of their income in council tax?
    The Prime Minister: We would all like to see council tax come down, but it can do so only if councils decide to levy less council tax and if the central Government grant to local government is maintained. I have to point out to the hon. Gentleman that his party's policy is to freeze the grant given to local authorities, which would make a £4.5 billion shortfall in the money given to local authorities. That cannot help reduce council tax for pensioners or anyone else.
    David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if the reports that action will be taken within this fortnight to bring into law a hunting with dogs Bill are correct, it will be warmly

    717
    welcomed on this side of the House? Is it not totally unacceptable that the House of Lords should have some permanent veto on a measure that has been carried with such a large majority in the House of Commons? Hunting with dogs is a barbaric practice that should have been abolished years ago.
    The Prime Minister: I have said that we will find a way of resolving that issue and we will.

    Ministerial Visits
    Mr. Anthony Steen: If he will pay an official visit to Berry Pomeroy castle, Marldon, Devon.
    The Prime Minister: I have no current plans to do so.
    Mr. Steen: The Prime Minister knows that castles were built in the south of England to repel invaders, mostly from the continent. Increasing numbers of people in the west country feel that the freedoms for which they fought have been eroded by the European Union and that their homes are no longer their castles. Does he agree that we need an early referendum on the European constitution so that Britain can lead the way in that process, and not be the last country to enter it, after all the others have reached a decision?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman over Europe, but that will not surprise him. However, I point out that the creation of the EU and our membership of it mean that the wars that used to divide our continent no longer do so. It is important that we weigh that in the balance when arguing about whether to be in favour of Europe. However, I will tell the House about Berry Pomeroy castle. I gather from its website that it is haunted£primarily by a blue lady called Margaret.

    Engagements
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: Does the Prime Minister agree that mobile phone masts should be subject to normal planning control? If so, when will he amend planning guidance so that local people have a proper say about where they are sited?
    The Prime Minister: As I have said on many occasions, our approach to this matter should be based on the science involved and the real safety issues. Of course people should be consulted about where masts are sited, but it is also important that we make the phone system work adequately.
    Jane Griffiths: Since the House rose on 22 July, we have all had reason to be proud of the achievements of Team GB in Athens. Will my right hon. Friend add his congratulations to my constituent Sarah Webb, who won a gold medal with her team mates in the women's Yngling sailing? Will he also congratulate everyone in Team GB, whether or not they were medal winners?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to send my congratulations to Sarah Webb, to all those who won medals at the Olympic games and to all those who took part. They did superbly for Team GB, and I am sure that the whole House would want to send our best wishes and thanks.
    Bob Spink: Is the Prime Minister aware that children's hospice week begins on 18 September? Will he acknowledge the wonderful work done by the people in that service? Children's hospices in England get about 5 per cent. of their income from public funds, but the Little Haven hospice in my constituency receives less than 2 per cent. Does he accept that that is wrong? Will he accept responsibility for looking into the matter and not pass it on to the primary care trust?
    The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to the considerable work that the hon. Gentleman does in respect of the hospice movement. All of us would like greater funding to go to the hospices. An additional £48 million in funding has been made available over the next three years by the New Opportunities Fund and £15 million of that will go directly to children's hospices. We are always aware of the need to do more, and we will try to do more, but it is important to recognise that we have increased the funding significantly. We will increase it even more, as we can, although that has to be weighed in the balance with other health service priorities.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since a dispersal order was put in place in part of south Lowestoft in my constituency, the number of violent offences there has already fallen by 49 per cent? Will he join me in congratulating Chief Inspector Sydney and his team? Does not that show that, when local authorities use the measures contained in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which was introduced by this Government, they are effective in cracking down on crime and antisocial behaviour?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to pass on my congratulations to the police in my hon. Friend's constituency, and to the others engaged in trying to deal with antisocial behaviour. There is increasing evidence from around the country that the powers can work if they are implemented. It is important for Members of Parliament, local authorities and the police to be aware that there are substantial additional powers that can be used, for example, to close down houses used for drug dealing. More than 20,000 fixed-penalty notices have been given up and down the country and other powers allow us to target very young children whose parents do not exercise proper parental responsibility.
    There are now a whole series of measures to deal with that and it simply requires imaginative use of them at local level. I am delighted that in my hon. Friend's constituency there is yet another example of how that can be done.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the Prime Minister agree with the proposal from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards that any Member—any Member—who lies or misleads the House should face investigation from the commissioner?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the commissioner for standards is right in saying that and I hope that no hon. Member lies to the House. That has always been the case; it should always be the case and, as far as I am aware, it is.
    Vera Baird: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the American company, Huntsman, on yesterday's announcement that it will build a £200 million polyethylene plant in my Redcar constituency? The deal was made possible by a £16.5 million grant from the Labour Government. Will my right hon. Friend continue his support for the Teesside chemical industry and does he agree that 120
    720
    long-term, skilled jobs for Redcar are a prize that would never have been achieved under the regional policies of the Conservative party?
    The Prime Minister: It is obviously fantastic news for the company and the employees because it safeguards almost 800 existing jobs on Teesside and adds more than 100 extra jobs. That is great news for the whole of Teesside. My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right in saying that it was in part done with regional selective assistance of £16.5 million, and I would simply point out to the leader of the Liberal Democrats that, under his proposals, that money, too, would not have been available; throughout the country, there are massive regional selective assistance programmes that would be cut if their policy had its way.

Access to Literature (Visually-Impaired Children)
12.32 pm
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about accessible formats for printed works for visually-impaired children.
The Bill aims to build on the important changes brought about by the Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Act 2002. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) and the noble Lord Morris of Manchester on the passage of that private Member's Bill on to the statute book.
However, visually impaired children still face problems in accessing literature. Children who are visually impaired or have other reading disabilities such as dyslexia are not getting the accessible information that they need to ensure that they have opportunities equal to their non-disabled peers, both in education and in leisure reading. Jacqueline Wilson, the popular children's author, has given her support to the Bill and, with many other famous authors, supports the important Right to Read campaign.
Access to literature for visually impaired children, who cannot read standard print text, is made possible through accessible formats such as large print, audio tape or Braille, or synthesized speech for children with a reading disability such as dyslexia.
Visual impairment in children is fortunately a low-incidence disability, with approximately 23,000 children between birth and 16 years of age in the UK affected. I recently met a family in my constituency with a baby born blind and they feel very isolated.
In addition, about 4 per cent. of the population are severely dyslexic. A further 6 per cent. have mild to moderate problems. Synthetic speech output or audiotape is often one of the only ways in which children with dyslexia can access literature.
The Department for Education and Skills states that funding is available for the provision of accessible information through the schools access initiative, which can be used for the production of materials to enable access to the curriculum for children with reading disabilities.
However, recent parliamentary questions have revealed that it is not clear nationally how much money is being spent on access to literature for children with reading disabilities via that initiative. Reports from teachers, support workers and the voluntary sector identify significant shortages.
I am delighted that I no longer hear of cases where children who are wheelchair users are prevented from attending their local schools and that funding is available for appropriate adaptations, but I am concerned about the adequacy of funding for visually impaired children. On making inquiries of the local authorities in my area, I discovered variations in policies. In one authority, any expenditure under £3,000 had to be financed by the schools from devolved funding. The threshold was higher in the two other local authorities.
722
Despite the obligations laid on schools and local education authorities by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, children are not getting the materials that they need or want in the format that they require. Textbooks can cost several thousand pounds to adapt into accessible formats, and specialist teachers spend many hours adapting textbooks for students in individual schools. I have learned of teachers in Dorset this summer spending much time producing "Romeo and Juliet" in large-print format. Currently, there is no national co-ordination of accessible information for schools, leading to duplication and resource wastage.
The Royal National Institute of the Blind's "Shaping the Future" campaign report, published in 2000, found that one in three blind and partially sighted pupils in mainstream secondary schools did not always get their school test and exam papers in their preferred format and that 25 per cent. of secondary pupils in mainstream schools said they did not usually get handouts in a format that they prefer. No major study similar to "Shaping the Future" has been undertaken since the introduction of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. However, organisations such as the VI Forum—an e-mail group for teachers and support assistants working with blind and partially sighted children—regularly feature stories of pupils not getting the materials that they need to gain access to the curriculum.
The RNIB carried out an informal survey of teachers, asking them which key stage 3 and 4 textbooks they would like the charity to produce during the 2004–05 academic year. Seventeen subjects and 129 different texts by 22 different publishers were requested, but the RNIB has the capacity to produce only 10 publications in accessible formats. A teacher asked the RNIB to transcribe two music scores into Braille. To cover costs, an £800 charge had to be made for the work, but the teacher had a total annual budget of only £500 for four students.
The Right to Read Alliance has argued for some time that a constructive step would be to increase the schools access initiative budget and provide dedicated funding to support the national co-ordination of publishing in alternative formats and to commission centrally not only specialist books but those for which there would be a particularly high demand.
Given the relatively small number of blind and partially sighted children in the school population, too much financial responsibility has been put on schools. The problem is exacerbated by the diversity of materials that children need and the range of formats. My Bill therefore proposes that national co-ordination of accessible format materials be undertaken to avoid duplication and resource wastage.
A second problem is knowing what accessible information resources are available. Moves towards solving that problem have already taken place with the creation of Revealweb, supported and managed by the RNIB and the National Library for the Blind. That online database contains all the accessible format works available from the not-for-profit sector. It therefore allows anyone—parents and teachers—to search for

723
where they could find an accessible format copy of a book that they need for a child. My Bill proposes that a similar initiative be established to include accessible format works produced commercially. That would enable the parents and teachers of children with reading disabilities to find out whether the books that they are looking for are already available in accessible formats.
There are still cases where a visually impaired child will not be able to access a newly published book at the same time as other children. One of the major barriers that not-for-profit agencies face in making accessible format copies of literature available at the same time as, or soon after, print versions are published is gaining access to the electronic files of the text. If a document has to be scanned and then formatted, months can be added to the time taken to produce accessible formats. Publishers and voluntary sector transcription agencies working together can build relationships based on trust, whereby early access to electronic versions of texts can be arranged. My Bill proposes an improvement to that situation.
The library and statistics information unit at Loughborough university conducted a survey of library authorities in 2000 and found that only 5 per cent. of library authorities had a written policy on services for blind and partially sighted people and that only 25 per cent. had a specific budget for those services.
It also conducted a survey of 600 blind and partially sighted people in 2001 that found that 50 per cent. had not used their public library in the last three years. The other 50 per cent. who had used libraries reported difficulties with using the services on offer. My Bill includes a modest proposal for library services.
724
In addition to the measures contained in my Bill, I want to raise the issue of the VAT that is levied on the audio books that people with reading disabilities rely on to access literature. I hope that the Government will work at European level to secure a reduction of the VAT levied on audio books, bearing in mind that print works do not attract VAT.
In conclusion, a lack of accessible-format curriculum materials and books is having a profound effect on the opportunities available to children with reading disabilities. A number of solutions are needed to improve that situation and my Bill contains some simple proposals, including dedicated funding within the schools access initiative budget to ensure efficient co-ordination and production of accessible information; the establishment of a complete database of commercially available accessible-format works, to complement the Revealweb database; the establishment of a national repository for electronic versions of texts that have been published to facilitate the transition of works into accessible formats; and libraries to have written policies on services to blind and partially sighted people and allocate a budget for those services. I hope, therefore, that the House will support my Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Annette L. Brooke, Mr. David Heath, Sandra Gidley, Mr. Phil Willis, Brian White, Linda Perham. Rachel Squire. Mr. David Amess and Peter Bottomley.

ACCESS TO LITERATURE (VISUALLY-IMPAIRED CHILDREN)
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about accessible formats for printed works for visually-impaired children: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 October, and to be printed [Bill 149].
Opposition Day
[16TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Pensions Policy
  Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business, and I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  12.42 pm
  Mr. David Willetts: I beg to move,
  That this House regrets the Government's failure to tackle the pensions crisis; expresses concern that present and former employees of Turner & Newall and those in a similar position do not know what assistance, if any, they will get from either the Financial Assistance Scheme or the Pension Protection Fund; regrets the inadequacies of Government efforts to encourage people to build up retirement savings in funded pensions; condemns the spread of means-tested benefits; draws attention to the Government's recent failure to deliver benefits to pensioners competently; further regrets the Government's wider failure to reform the welfare system for older people; notes that the National Pensioners Convention is lobbying Parliament on 8th September; and calls for Government action to tackle the crisis in funded pensions and to ensure dignity and security in retirement for older people.
  I wish to draw the attention of the House to my interests, which appear in the Register of Members' Interests.
  I begin by bidding farewell to the previous Secretary of State, who is sadly not in his place. We will miss him. He was a decent and honourable man—[HON. MEMBERS: "He still is."] It is a pity that he will no longer serve on the Front Bench. Those Labour Members who shouted that he still is decent and honourable might like to reflect on why he was the victim of such a sustained campaign of spinning aimed at undermining his position as Secretary of State. He had to wake up every morning and read over his breakfast comments such as the following:
  "Mr. Blair is known to be looking for fresh thinking on the pensions crisis after warnings from Adair Turner, his pensions guru, on the seriousness of the situation."
  That is what The Guardian said. The Sun said:
  "Tony Blair is alarmed by the failure of successive ministers to grapple with the pension crisis."
  Back in July, as the Secretary of State set off for his summer holidays, he had to read:
  "Andrew Smith is set for the sack, according to ministerial sources, after failing to tackle the pensions crisis."
  We have had a Secretary of State brought down by spin and dissatisfaction at No. 10 with the quality of his performance in tackling the pension crisis.
  The right hon. Gentleman resigned two days ago, and we still do not have a Secretary of State to replace him. It is always good to see the Minister for Pensions, who is jovial and amiable—we always enjoy debating with him—but it would be convenient to have a Secretary of State here.
  As pensions are in crisis, as we are debating the subject and as the National Pensioners Convention is here, it is a slight oversight that we do not have a Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in the
  726
  Chamber. I do not know whether hon. Members here are candidates for the post, but I can see a very strong candidate on the Labour Benches.
  In the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps the best person to speak on behalf of the Government would have been the Chancellor of the Exchequer. After all, that important constitutional text, the Granita pact, set aside economic and social policy as a responsibility of the Chancellor, and he has been fighting a successful rearguard action over the past two days to keep it that way. He is the guy who is responsible for the £5 billion a year tax on our pension schemes that has wrought such havoc. He is the guy who is obsessed with introducing more and more complicated means-testing. It is a pity we do not have him here to defend the Government's policies.
  So we do not have the right hon. Gentleman and we do not have the Chancellor. Instead, what we have is a shambles, with a serious and growing crisis in our pensions.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: I accept that the country faces some serious problems as a result of people retiring now and those who are about to retire. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that part of the problem is the failure of the Pensions Act 1995 to solve the problems facing some occupational pension funds, contrary to what the House was told at the time?
  Mr. Willetts: The 1995 Act set in place a regime with the minimum funding requirement and regulation of pensions that was intended. It improved the security of our pensioners. I am afraid that the problem has arisen since 1997 when, among other things, the Government reduced the level of protection provided by the minimum funding requirement. Conservative Members, who have watched a £5 billion a year tax imposed on our pension funds and the reduction in the level of protection provided for the minimum funding requirement, are not going to hear the Labour party suddenly claim that it is all our fault.
  Mr. Peter Lilley: My hon. Friend will doubtless recall that the 1995 Act was introduced to deal with the crisis created by Robert Maxwell removing hundreds of millions of pounds from pension funds. The current crisis results from this Chancellor introducing the Robert Maxwell memorial tax, which removes £5 billion a year from pension funds.
  Mr. Willetts: My right hon. Friend puts the point with customary precision and honesty. That is exactly the case and it is good to have his authoritative intervention.
  Kali Mountford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: I want to make a bit more progress, but it might be possible to hear from the hon. Lady in a moment.
  I want to remind the House of what has happened in the past 10 days. Last Monday—only nine days ago—hundreds of thousands of pensioners could not get the pensions to which they were entitled when they went to

  727
  their post office because an official of JP Morgan in New York pushed the button on the computer programme to stop all payments. That was why for several hours on Monday we all had constituents who were unable to get the pensions to which they were entitled. The House ought to receive a proper explanation from the Minister, which I hope we will hear in a moment, about what went wrong and why the new system, which is being imposed on many reluctant pensioners who would much rather carry on being paid through the order books with which they are familiar, has already crashed and caused such distress.
  Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend think it despicable that just as the Secretary of State has been scapegoated by the Government, the Post Office was scapegoated by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), on Radio 4. When he was asked what responsibility he would take, he said none. He said that the Post Office was at fault and the Government were not to blame, but was it not the Government who instituted that system in the first place?
  Mr. Willetts: As always, it is everyone else's fault, but never the Government's. The test of their performance on pensions is which is closing more rapidly—the post offices or the pension schemes. I never quite know which it is because they are both closing under this Government.
  Earlier this week, the main steel union, the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation Community union, confirmed that it will take Ministers to court for failing to protect its members' pension funds.
  I hope that we shall hear from the Minister about what was referred to in the press as the "unsatisfactory negotiations" with the Department that led the union to decide to take legal action.
  The latest figures show the scale of pension deficits in our leading companies. The top 100 companies alone have a deficit of £42 billion in their pension schemes with possibly another £20 billion on top of that to cover factors for which they have not allowed.
  Kali Mountford: Which of the Conservative party's policies should give us some sense of security about its ability to handle pensions? Would it be the pensions holiday, the cutting of the state earnings-related pension scheme without telling anyone or the mis-selling of pensions? Which of those policies should give us confidence?
  Mr. Willetts: I shall turn to our policies for tackling the pensions crisis. I am proud of those policies, and what is happening at the moment—the collapse of funded pensions and the spread of mass means-testing—shows that our policies are needed to get funded pensions going again in our country.
  We have had post offices failing to pay benefits, new figures on the state of the pension deficit, and we have seen the Pensions Bill staggering through the House of Lords. There have been new amendments, and clauses tabled and withdrawn. At the latest count, 360
  728
  Government amendments have been tabled in the Lords. We read that the Government are so desperate to get their Hunting Bill through that they are willing to contemplate abandoning the Pensions Bill in order to do so. I see the Minister shaking his head. If he can give a categorical assurance that the Government will not abandon the Pensions Bill in favour of their obsession with banning hunting, I would be very interested to hear it. [Interruption.] Does he wish to come to the Dispatch Box and give that assurance?
  The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): The Government and our supporters in the House are absolutely determined to ensure that the Pensions Bill receives Royal Assent. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will ensure that that is done so that, among other things, the protection fund will be up and running in April next year.
  Mr. Willetts: I guess that that was the Minister saying that he would not allow the Government's obsession with the Hunting Bill to get in his way. He is the Minister responsible for the Pensions Bill, and I should warn him that some of the briefing has affected him as well. On the BBC "News at Ten O'Clock" the night before last, the political editor said:
  "A senior source told me tonight that the Pensions Bill is still in a shambolic and chaotic state."
  That is what No. 10 is saying about the Minister's Bill. He had better watch out because at that rate, I do not think he will be the new Secretary of State.
  Mr. Peter Pike: I know that the hon. Gentleman is an expert on the subject of pensions but does he accept that many of the problems of shortfalls in funding would not have been created if companies had not had pensions holidays when the stock exchange and the market were in a different position a few years ago?
  Mr. Willetts: When the hon. Gentleman says "different position", he means everything was a lot better. That is what "different position" means. In that different position, under my party, when pensions had surpluses—those were the good old days—it is right that there were contributions holidays. Of course, there were also increases in benefits for members of pension schemes that went beyond what was necessary according to the terms of the pension or the law of this House. Everyone participated in the benefits of those pension surpluses.
  Mr. David Tredinnick: Will my hon. Friend explain why, if everything is so marvellous and the Government have done such a wonderful job, hundreds of pensioners have come to Westminster today—including some from Hinckley and Bosworth—to complain about the atrocious situation the Government have created?
  Mr. Willetts: Exactly. One of the reasons we have called the debate is to show that we care about the plight of millions of our pensioners. The Government cannot even field a Secretary of State to handle the subject. Our pension funds are in crisis, pensions are not being paid through post offices, and we had the latest figures on

  729
  pension credit this week as well. They showed that out of the 4.8 million pensioners eligible for the pension credit—as we know from a parliamentary answer from the Minister to me—3.1 million pensioners are claiming it. That means that 1.75 million pensioners eligible for the new means-tested benefit are still not receiving it. After next month, it will be impossible for them to claim the full backdated benefit from the introduction of the new pension credit. As we have always warned, the Minister has a massive problem of low take-up of his complicated means-tested benefits. No wonder the National Pensioners Convention, and just about every outside group, is pressing for the reversal of the pernicious spread of means-tested benefits.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend mentioned in passing the role of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). Am I right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman was struggling hard to produce the right results and was about to recommend the unthinkable? If his proposals had been taken into account by the Government and implemented, many of the problems we are facing today would not be with us.
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Perhaps I could briefly remind the House of the cycle that we have been through. We have been told again this week in the briefing from No. 10 that the Government are about to get serious about reforming welfare and tackling the pensions crisis. We have been through this before. In fact, we have been through it several times. Before the 1997 election, it was stated:
  "Social security requires very bold thinking."
  The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was appointed as the Minister for Welfare Reform because
  "Mr. Blair saw welfare reform as crucial to his administration."
  Sadly, the right hon. Gentleman left the Government because they were not willing to embark on serious welfare reform.
  Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for almost 15 minutes. Is it not fair comment that both the major parties, looking back on their records, may well regret some of the things that they have done, but they never set out with the intent to arrive at the current position? The crucial matter in the debate is what both the major parties plan from now on. If I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the ideas that I advanced, which are ideas for the future. Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he give us a clear idea of where the Opposition stand on the matter? Although lots of pensioners are rightly here today, it is pensioners in the country who want to know where all three parties stand before they cast their votes at the next election. During the next election, for the first time ever, the majority of those turning up at the ballot boxes will be pensioners.
  Mr. Willetts: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As he knows, my party has been putting forward constructive proposals concerning the pensions crisis, how to reform the mess of state benefits for pensioners, and how to encourage more funded pensions saving over many years. We shall continue to do so, and I hope to touch on that in my remarks.
  730
  However, we are talking about a Government who do not even have a Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to explain their policies on a major crisis affecting our country. The Opposition are entitled to hold the Government to account for that. We have been told again this week not to worry, as the matter is about to be tackled, No. 10 is about to make it a priority and the Prime Minister will focus on it during the third term. To remind everyone, we were told that he was going to tackle it as part of his first term. When the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister, he was appointed to do precisely that.
  We were then told that the matter was to be the Government's priority in their second term. They have endlessly produced documents announcing that they are about to start tackling the pensions crisis because they are committed to doing so. We endlessly go through the same cycle, where Secretaries of State come and go, but the situation gets worse and worse. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) was Secretary of State for four years. During that time, an average of 50,000 members were affected by pension schemes being wound up every year. He produced Green Papers, and announced that
  "the time for talking and discussing is coming to an end. We now actually need to implement our programmes."
  He said that in July 1998.
  The Secretary of State who has just left office was there for two and half years. During his time, 60,000 people a year were affected by the winding up of pension schemes. He began the job announcing that he was insisting that reform of welfare was vital to Labour's second term. What has happened? The problem has got even worse. This week's briefing sets out the matter as a priority for the third term. That is not good enough. The Government have been in office for long enough to seriously tackle the crisis instead of making it worse. Millions of pensioners are trapped on means-tested benefits and many pensioners are not claiming the benefits to which they are entitled.
  Household saving was 10 per cent. of household income when we lost office, but it is now down to 6 per cent. Funded pensions are in crisis and many of our constituents are worried about the severe financial problems they face as a result of their pension schemes winding up. Tackling the pensions crisis would therefore be one of our priorities in government.
  Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: Is it not the case that many young people are dissuaded from taking up pensions because of the lack of incentives? Are we not putting ourselves in a position that will lead to our having a disaster on our hands in 20 years time?
  Mr. Willetts: Indeed, which is why I should like to turn to our policies for tackling the crisis. We have two central propositions. First, we must reverse the spread of means-tested benefits. We are heading for a situation in which more than half of pensioners will be dependent on means-tested benefits. There is widespread consensus among people who have thought seriously about the subject that we need to reverse the spread of means-testing. I could cite to the Minister for Pensions

  731
  comments by the charities, the National Association of Pension Funds and the savings industry, but I shall not do so. I shall simply refer him to what he once said:
  "No one of sound mind could advocate wholesale means-testing".
  Is not the pension credit, which is supposed to go to almost half of pensioners, an example of mass means-testing? Or is the Minister saying that the Chancellor is not of sound mind? Does he still stand by that view? If so, he can join the mainstream consensus, which favours reforming the mess of means-tested benefits for pensioners.
  We are committed to increasing the value of the basic state pension by linking it to earnings, not prices, thus reversing the spread of means-testing. We will not, contrary to what the Prime Minister said again in Prime Minister's questions today, abolish the pension credit. However, as the value of the basic state pension rises, fewer pensioners will need to claim the pension credit. That is the right way to implement reform, and that is what we will do.
  Mr. Steve Webb: As the hon. Gentleman knows, to some extent I support his analysis of the problem, but could he clarify something? His policy would link the pension credit to prices, not earnings. When challenged, he argued that the Government have not promised anything beyond this Parliament. However, if they promised to earnings-link the pension credit, would he do so as well, or would he price-link it?
  Mr. Willetts: If the Government said that they would increase the pension credit in the next Parliament by linking it to earnings, not prices—we are still waiting for a statement of their policy—once we had seen the figures and their modelling we would consider what we would do to the pension credit. We are certainly not obliged, however, to commit ourselves on the pension credit when we have not heard from Ministers. However, it would be interesting to hear the intentions of the Minister for Pensions on the pension credit in the next Parliament.
  The first thing that we must do is reverse the spread of means-tested benefits and reform benefits for pensioners. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), however, is right that that is only half the story. We must also restore incentives to save and offer people new incentives, so that if they put money into a reliable savings product there will be a clear reward. We therefore propose the introduction of a new lifetime savings account—there will be a contribution from the Government alongside the money that the individuals put in—with the aim of achieving a clear and vivid reward for saving.
  I do not know whether the Minister—who knows, he may become the Secretary of State—can signal in his speech that the Government will join the consensus, but I hope that he can. If he agrees that there is too much
  732
  means-testing and that the Government are going to do something about it, that would be welcomed by hon. Members from many parties.
  Ms Sally Keeble rose—
  Mr. Willetts: I hope that the Minister can say something about encouraging people to save more for their retirement, as that would also be welcome, but even if he cannot take those big strategic steps—after all, he does not even have a Secretary of State to consult—I hope that he can answer two specific questions about problems facing pension funds. First, however, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble)
  Ms Keeble: What are the hon. Gentleman' proposals for the 86 per cent. of women who work but who do not make sufficient national insurance contributions to receive the state pension? As their earnings are low they are unlikely to be able to save enough to receive a funded pension of the type that he described.
  Mr. Willetts: Those women would benefit from the greater uprating in the basic state pension. At present, they do not benefit from the pension credit, as it is assumed that they have a full contribution record and receive the full state pension, even though many of them, as the hon. Lady rightly said, do not do so.
  Ms Keeble rose—
  Mr. Willetts: I will give way to the hon. Lady again—let us continue the pensions policy seminar.
  Ms Keeble: I want to press the hon. Gentleman on a point that I would make to the Minister for Pensions, but unfortunately I have to attend Committee. Eighty-six per cent. of women who work do not make sufficient contributions to qualify for a pension, so they do not benefit from the earnings link. Women's earnings are lower, so they do not make enough money to save. What will happen to those women pensioners?
  Mr. Willetts: I accept the hon. Lady's concern about women whose earnings are so low that do not receive any contributory state pension at all, but the proportion of such women is less than 80 per cent. Most women who work are earning enough to make contributions, so even though we would increase the basic state pension by linking it to earnings, we would not raise the lower earnings limit as we do not want to take away from women the opportunity to contribute to the basic state pension. I continue to study with great interest research by the TUC and the Fawcett Society on the problem, as I accept that there is a genuine grievance among women pensioners, many of whom were let down when they were not properly informed by the Inland Revenue in the past few years about the opportunity to contribute to the state pension through higher national insurance contributions.
  I wish to press the Minister for Pensions on two specific points. First, I am sure that many Members have constituents affected by the winding-up of pension schemes. Sadly, over the summer, we have followed the

  733
  problems at Turner and Newall, which could lead to a pension winding-up that would dwarf any previous winding-up.
  Mr. Adrian Flook: Dozens of Turner and Newall employees living in Taunton are affected by the collapse of the fund and appear to be trapped in a less well-off retirement. They have heard about a pot of money—I accept that it is only about £6,000 a pensioner—which is meant to help people like them, but I have been told that it will not. Is my hon. Friend as disappointed as my constituents and me by the Government's failure to act?
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue, which I hope the Minister will address. I have a flimsy document, published a couple of weeks ago by the official Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, entitled "The Financial Assistance Scheme and completing scheme wind-ups". It is OPRA's first attempt to make sense of the Government's hurried announcement following pressure from us and their own Back Benchers for a financial assistance scheme. That flimsy document has an even thinner appendix entitled "Current information about the Financial Assistance Scheme", which includes a paragraph that states:
  "The Minister of State for Pensions, Malcolm Wicks"—
  he is still in post—
  "has explained that the Financial Assistance Scheme…is for those who have lost out because they worked for companies that have become insolvent and wound up their pension scheme underfunded before the Pension Protection Fund…is set up."
  The pension protection fund is due to be set up in May 2005, so the financial assistance scheme would cover everyone up to that date. However, at the bottom of the page another paragraph says:
  '"The current expectation is that the FAS will provide help for members of schemes which started to wind up between April 1997 and May 2004".
  If that statement, which contradicts the earlier paragraph, is true and the FAS only runs until May 2004, it is not OPRA's fault as it does not have the faintest idea of what Ministers are up to or what the Government are doing. Many people, perhaps including Turner and Newall employees, could suffer as there is a gap between the deadline for the FAS and the establishment of the pension protection fund.
  We cannot allow our constituents to live with such uncertainty any longer. The Minister ought to take the opportunity of this debate to give clear assurances that the financial assistance scheme will cover everybody affected by wind-ups until the pension protection fund comes into force.
  Tom Levitt rose—
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful that my hon. Friend has used part of his speech to highlight the problems that a great number of our constituents will face. Would it not be a disgrace if the employees at Turner and Newall, who paid into a pension scheme in good faith, fall between the two schemes, as my hon. Friend described? Even though
  734
  there is no Secretary of State, should we not expect the Minister to make it clear that the Government will not allow that to happen?
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is right. I know that near his constituency, in High Peak—I see the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) trying to intervene—in Chapel-en-le-Frith, many workers are affected. Workers in Lydney in the Forest of Dean are also affected. Those people are extremely concerned, so I hope we will hear from the Minister. As I have referred to his constituency, I shall happily take an intervention from the hon. Member for High Peak, although I hope that he is not present just because of the rather desperate e-mail sent round by the Minister's office to Labour Members, saying that it was very concerned about the pensions debate and that
  "it would be greatly appreciated if you were able to attend at least part of the debate, especially the beginning".
  I do not know whether that includes the Minister's speech. If the hon. Member for High Peak can assure us that he is not present in response to the e-mail, we might be interested in his intervention.
  Tom Levitt: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I have not even seen the e-mail. I am here to represent my constituents, who have been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and others. He and his hon. Friends should not go around giving the impression that the Turner and Newall scheme has collapsed. It has not. Talks are continuing between the trustees, the company's administrators, the trade unions and others to reach a resolution that will enable the company to fulfil the moral obligation that it undertook when it took on its employees who joined the scheme. That must be the primary aim of what is taking place now. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the more we speak about safety nets and about bailing out, the more likely it is that company schemes will fold in the knowledge that they will be bailed out in future? That is not the way to proceed.
  Mr. Willetts: That is a point that the hon. Gentleman might like to put to those on the Government Front Bench. It raises a rather fundamental question about his Government's strategy and the Minister might wish to comment on it. I very much hope that the scheme does not wind up. We are discussing elementary security and insurance for the workers at Turner and Newall if it does wind up in the course of this year. I repeat: I very much hope the Minister will respond to that in his speech. Even in the absence of a Secretary of State, that is the first issue on which we hope the Minister will respond.
  The second issue concerns the pension protection fund—the new insurance scheme coming into force next year. Here, I am afraid, the Minister is in danger of misleading many people who are led by him to expect, after the fund is in place, a degree of security in their pensions much greater than it can offer. Let me quote to the Minister his own words in the past few months about the scheme. He said, for example, on Channel 4 news on 21 July that
  "our pension protection fund when it comes in in April…will bring real guarantees to Britain's pensioners in final salary schemes"—
  real guarantees.

  735
  He said in the same programme that
  "existing pensioners in that company will get 100 per cent. of their pension, workers will get 90 per cent."
  I often meet the Minister in TV studios nowadays. We ought to meet more in the Chamber as well. He said on "Newsnight" the other week:
  "From April, we'll have a Pension Protection Fund. So if their schemes go bust, they won't be left with 30 per cent., they'll get 100 per cent. or 90 per cent., depending on whether they've retired or not."
  Everybody has been led by such remarks to believe that there is a guarantee of 100 per cent. or 90 per cent. of their pension, but may I put to the Minister the words of the person whom he has just appointed to chair the pension protection fund, Mr. Lawrence Churchill, who was asked about the belief that the fund will guarantee the pension? Mr. Churchill was asked whether the fund offers a guarantee. The Government-appointed chairman of the pension protection fund said:
  "No. 'Guarantee' is a very misleading and misunderstood word—a very dangerous word to use in financial services."
  When challenged about how the fund was supposed to pay all the benefits that were promised when it might not have the money to do so, he said:
  "We have been given specific powers to vary the levy to make sure our funding position is adequate and have been given powers to vary the liabilities so I do not see how that situation will arise."
  "Vary the liabilities" is technical language for changing the pension promise, so the chairman of the pension protection fund has specifically, in public, warned about the use of the word "guarantee", although the Minister has been using it. The chairman specifically said in public that one of his options is to cut the liabilities—to cut the value of the pension promise. If that is what he is saying in public, the Minister should make it clear now at the Dispatch Box that the pension protection fund is not a guarantee and that there is no way that he can promise that people will get 100 per cent. or 90 per cent. of the pension that has been promised.
  There are specific powers in the Bill for the chairman and managers of the scheme to cut the level of benefits way below 100 per cent. and 90 per cent., and the incoming chairman has made it clear that he will use those powers if necessary. In the light of that, I hope that the Minister will choose his words much more carefully in future than he has so far on this extremely important subject.
  I very much hope that we will have support for our motion from all parts of the House today, because it tackles a widespread concern. I believe that the majority of pensioners and the majority of people in this country want to see the reverse of means-tested benefits.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend has given a great deal of detail about where the Conservative party stands. Will he go further? Does he agree that the standard old age pension should be exempted from taxation for everyone? Will he go even further and say that the first £10,000 of occupational pension for people who have saved consistently throughout their working
  736
  lives should be taxed at a lower rate than the marginal rate of tax—at a rate of 20 per cent., rather than 40 per cent. as at present?
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend tempts me. One of the many differences between the Opposition and the Government is that the debate on the Government Benches is about which taxes to put up and by how much, whereas the debate on the Conservative Benches is about which taxes we should cut and by how much. I am sure that my hon. Friend's proposal is one of the many imaginative proposals that the shadow Chancellor, our right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), will be considering.
  1.18 pm
  The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "supports the Government's strategy to enable people to save securely for their retirement and to promote retirement flexibility and informed choice; welcomes the Government's Pensions Bill and Pension Protection Fund, which will bring real security for over 10 million defined benefit pension scheme members if their employer becomes insolvent and their pension scheme winds up; further welcomes the £400 million Financial Assistance Scheme which will help people who have already lost out; believes that the Pensions Bill will enable many more people to save with confidence with a new proactive pensions regulator, measures to simplify pensions legislation and improved incentives to work past the state pension age; supports the pensions tax simplification proposals being taken forward in the Finance Act 2004, which will replace eight tax regimes with one simplified system; commends proposals in the Pensions Bill to allow individuals to defer their state pension and draw it as a lump sum; welcomes measures to enable people to make an informed choice in pension provision, including new pilots to provide information and advice in the workplace; condemns the inheritance of 1997, with the legacy of pension mis-selling and millions in poverty, whereby many were expected by the previous Government to live on under £69 a week; believes that the Opposition parties' policies will be unfair to the poorest pensioners, unaffordable and unsustainable; commends the Government's historic commitment to tackling pensioner poverty; and welcomes the extra £10 billion that the Government is spending on pensioners in 2004–05 compared with the 1997 system."
  First, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the important work of our former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). He served the Government well as a champion of disability rights and as a creator of the new deal, and most recently by driving through the groundbreaking pension protection fund. I and my colleagues shall miss him as a friend in Government, and I hope that hon. Members will join me in thanking him for all his hard work and in wishing him well for the future and for the contributions that he will make in the future.
  I start by asking hon. Members to sit back for a moment and imagine a Britain where there are 2.7 million pensioners living in poverty; where the value of the basic state pension has been increased just once in 18 years; where many pensioners are expected to live on just £68.80 a week—and, as a result, some face a stark choice between eating and keeping warm in winter; where pound-for-pound withdrawal undermines the whole benefit system by showing that it sometimes pays not to have saved; where pensioners' benefit forms are 40 pages long; where confidence has been rocked by

  737
  pensions mis-selling; and where carers and people with long-term disabilities lose out on building up rights to the state pension.
  We have all lived in a Britain like that and we have all got constituents who have suffered in a Britain like that. What new Government could possibly fail to act? That was the Britain that the Labour Government inherited in 1997, and we could not sit back and preside over such an unjust mess.
  We are proud that we have cut absolute pensioner poverty by two thirds, lifting 1.8 million pensioners out of poverty; we are proud that about 20 million people gained from the introduction of state second pensions in April 2002, including 5 million carers and long-term disabled people; and we are proud that pension credit rewards those who have saved something for their retirement, but have missed out in the past because the system knocked such savings straight off their benefits.
  Annabelle Ewing: The Minister did not mention that after seven years of a Labour Government, one in four pensioners in Scotland still lives in poverty. Surely the Minister accepts that that is a disgrace. The way forward is to replace means-testing with a decent basic state pension.
  Malcolm Wicks: Although I might dispute the figures, I am proud of our achievements and am determined to achieve more in the future. I am not complacent about older people who face hardship and do not re-emphasise the legacy that we inherited simply to make comparisons with the previous Government. Although it is important to remember the context in which this Government have acted, 1997 is history and, thankfully, Britain has moved on.
  Mr. Mark Prisk: The Minister mentions the economic aspect of the pension credit, but what about its human aspect? Is he ashamed that the Government humiliate 70-year-olds by asking them to give personal details, such as the person with whom they live, to perfect strangers in order to pursue the misguided idea of more and more means-testing? Does he understand how humiliating that is for my constituents and others who, at that time in their life, should not have to do such a thing?
  Malcolm Wicks: I do not recognise that portrait. The income-testing of pension credit is a million miles away from old-fashioned means-testing. When I speak to elderly people—I may do that more often than the hon. Gentleman—and hear their experiences of claiming pension credit, which happens over the telephone or, where necessary, by a home visit, I hear nothing but praise for the system, which is a reaction also shown by our surveys. The hon. Gentleman should get out more and talk to older people instead of conspiring with others to present a portrait of pension credit that runs the risk of putting off people who need help.
  Conservative Members do not always appear to have moved on, which is why I felt the need to begin my remarks by referring to the 1997 legacy. As the Government have acted, Conservative Members have fought to oppose us. I agree with the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) that it would have been nice to
  738
  achieve consensus—I do not agree with Sir Keith Joseph's remark that post-war consensus was a slippery slope to socialism and state control—and he is now a man of consensus who has, in that sense, moved on.
  On 8 June 2000, in the House of Commons, the hon. Member for Havant called the winter fuel payment "a gimmick" that the Conservative party would abolish. Well, the winter fuel payment is some gimmick: in the past financial year, winter fuel payments have helped 11.5 million pensioners in about 8 million households by providing £200 at the right time of year, just before Christmas. From last year, households containing someone over 80 years old have received £300. Does the hon. Gentleman still think that the winter fuel payment is a gimmick? I think that it provides important support for all pensioners at the right time of year by taking the fear and the sting out of the arrival of electricity and gas bills.
  Mr. Miller: Before my hon. Friend moves on from the 1997 legacy, does he agree that part of that legacy was the way in which the Pensions Act 1995 failed to meet commitments given to this House? Does he agree with me, my right hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and others that people such as the H. H. Robertson workers must be considered sympathetically? Will he closely examine the file on his desk to make sure that those people who were let down by the 1995 Act are protected?
  Malcolm Wicks: My hon. Friend has done a great deal to campaign for that group of workers, and I pay tribute to him. Sadly, too many such examples exist and we must examine them carefully. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's remarks about the 1995 Act. I have never made too much of the matter myself because of the complexities of pensions legislation, but we are changing the legacy of the 1995 Act in the Pensions Bill, although I do not want to make a political point about that process.
  Mr. Willetts: I want to return to the winter fuel payment because the Minister has mentioned it before and I want to make the position clear. Four years ago, we proposed incorporating the winter fuel payment into a higher state pension, a process by which no pensioner would have lost. That led Labour candidates in the general election to tell pensioners that they would lose their winter fuel payment, without telling them that it would automatically go into their weekly pension payment. That is a typical example of Labour campaigning and we have learned our lesson. We do not propose to change the winter fuel payment in any way, and it will not even be incorporated into the basic state pension.
  Malcolm Wicks: To quote the late, great Roy Orbison, "Running scared"— [Interruption.] Hon. Members will see why I am not in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. As a former Minister for Lifelong Learning, I am encouraged that the hon. Member for Havant has learned his lesson and that the so-called gimmick is now part of Tory strategy—some of us were finding it difficult to get to grips with Tory strategy, but it was only because he was speaking at the time.
  Mr. Tony McWalter: Before my hon. Friend took that amusing intervention, he said that he would not make political capital out of the 1995 Act. However, that Act opened a huge gap between those people in pension funds who were already pensioners and were entitled to the assets of the fund, and those who were not yet pensioners and were forced to take whatever leftovers from the table that their fund could provide. The Government have corrected that injustice and I hope that my hon. Friend is extremely proud of that achievement and will never go anywhere near the foul provisions of the 1995 Act.
  Malcolm Wicks: We have learned a great deal from the failings of part of the 1995 Act, not least that the minimum funding requirement was nothing of the kind. Much of the new Pensions Bill is about addressing those issues, and I have been suitably chastised for not attacking the Opposition.
  David Winnick: Will the Minister give way?
  Malcolm Wicks: I am happy to give way to the second ever Labour MP for Croydon, Central.
  David Winnick: Prior to 1997, when the Labour Government introduced the winter fuel allowance, the only scheme was the Tories' cold weather payments. In order to be eligible, people had to be on income support, and even then it had to freeze for seven consecutive days before some £8 was paid. Compare that with what we have done in office—the Tories should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
  Malcolm Wicks: Again, I would not be complacent because there is still a road to be travelled, but with the winter fuel payment, the home energy efficiency schemes in Scotland and Wales, and the Warm Front scheme in England we are starting to make serious inroads into the horror of the "old and cold" problem, as it has been called, and the problems of fuel poverty. Of course, I am very proud of that.
  Now that we have had some clarification of the Conservatives' view of the winter fuel payment, perhaps we can get some help on their view of pension credit. At first, Conservative Members said that they would scrap pension credit. Then they said that they would "reconsider it". [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Member for Havant is denying that they would reconsider it. Then they said that they would keep it. But they continue to carp away at what they describe as an extension of means-testing and still pay no attention to the importance of helping the poorest pensioners; that is a key weakness of their strategy. Indeed, last year the then shadow Chancellor, who is now Leader of the Opposition, conceded that under the Tory plan presented by the shadow Secretary of State,
  "Those who are entitled to the pension credit and do claim…will not be better off"
  under the Tory plan. Perhaps the Opposition spokesman will want to justify that in the wind-ups. We, within an overall strategy on state pensions, want to
  740
  benefit most the poorest and the hard-pressed, who are often women and the older elderly, yet the Leader of the Opposition says, honestly and accurately:
  "Those who are entitled to the pension credit and do claim…will not be better off".
  How does the hon. Member for Havant justify that?
  Mr. Willetts rose—
  Malcolm Wicks: Perhaps he is about to reconsider.
  Mr. Willetts: Let me make this absolutely clear. First, there has never been any proposal to abolish the pension credit. We wanted an alternative approach—we were supported in that by the Liberal Democrats and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—but we never said that the pension credit should be abolished. If the Minister has any evidence that we ever said that, I should be very interested to look at it, because it was never in my mind. We want to increase the value of the basic state pension so that fewer pensioners need to receive it. If one increases the basic state pension, it follows that nobody loses. This is a policy in which there are no losers and the gainers are the people who are not claiming the pension credit. The Minister talks about the problem of the poorest pensioners; the problem is that 1.7 million of them who are entitled to the pension credit are not claiming it. They will be the main beneficiaries of our policy: that is why it is better.
  Malcolm Wicks: The record will show that, by implication, the shadow Secretary of State agrees with the Leader of the Opposition—I suppose that that is what is one has to do in his position. Under his strategy, those who are entitled to pension credit and claim it will not be better off. That is inevitable, because if the strategy for four years or so is to raise the basic state pension in line with earnings, meanwhile only raising pension credit in line with prices, most of the resource will go to the better-off and less of it will go to the poorer. That is why, although the Shadow Secretary of State is in denial, I pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition for understanding the unjust statistics that would be involved in the implementation of the Tory strategy.
  Mr. McLoughlin: The Minister keeps talking about helping the worst-off pensioners. Why then is the winter fuel allowance paid to everybody irrespective of their income?
  Malcolm Wicks: Because our pensions strategy, like all pensions strategies, seeks to strike the right balance between overall support for all pensioners and special support for the most hard-pressed, many of whom are women and the older elderly who do not have full national insurance contributions. Different Administrations will reach different judgments on that balance; I am presenting our judgment. The fact that older people—for physiological reasons and because they often live in the least energy-efficient homes—may suffer from the cold more than younger people is an added reason for the winter fuel payment.
  Mr. James Arbuthnot: I should like to credit the Minister with a genuine wish to help the poorest pensioners, but does he not accept, like the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), that over a period of years that will inevitably be achieved at the expense of building up the long-term pension provision that this country had in 1997, of which we were able to be so proud and which we sadly no longer have?
  Malcolm Wicks: I hope to address those issues later. Obviously, I always take seriously the important contributions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field.). I look forward to his helpful comments: the wounds heal faster than one might think.
  Next month sees the first anniversary of pension credit payments. More than 3 million people in Great Britain now receive pension credit, two-thirds—2 million—of whom are women. What is more, more than 1.9 million households receive more money than before because of its introduction.
  In today's complex 21st century society, the role of Government in pensions has evolved considerably since Parliament first legislated—courtesy of the Liberals—to introduce the state pension. That was slightly less than 100 years ago. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Havant says that the Liberal proposals of our friend Lloyd George were means-tested. In fact, as I have told the House before, they were subject to two tests—a test of means and a test of moral character. I may also have said that of Members currently on the Liberal Benches half would fail one test and half the other, although I am not sure who would be in which half.
  To meet the demographic challenges of an ageing population, Government policy needs to be affordable, sustainable and fair. The Government's approach has rightly targeted extra state support at those who need it most and encouraged private funded provision for those who can afford to save. That has enabled us to strike a fair balance between being fair to the poorest, fair to those who have saved, and fair between generations by not levying big tax rises on future generations. By contrast, the policies of the Conservative Opposition are unaffordable, unsustainable and unfair.
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Malcolm Wicks: I will, but then I must make some progress in order to be fair to others.
  Mr. Robinson: I am sure that my hon. Friend will come to this point, and I was anxious not to interrupt his exposition, but I am grateful to him for giving way. We have been in correspondence regarding Turner and Newall and Federal Mogul, and I thank him for his constructive tone in that. While in no way wishing to make his difficult position more difficult, he must be aware that that matter affects the constituencies of many Members on both sides of the House and that there is great concern about it. If by some cruel accident of timing the pension were to find itself in limbo between the two schemes, it would be unthinkable to us, and ethically and politically impossible for the Government,
  742
  were the Government not to take action to ensure that a certain level of provision in line with the pension protection fund was forthcoming.
  Malcolm Wicks: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about that issue, to which I shall turn shortly. I certainly understand its importance.
  Conservative policies are unaffordable, as even on the basis of the party's own figures there would be a £500 million-a-year black hole by the end of a Tory Parliament. Does anyone really know where their money would come from? Last year at the Conservative party conference, the hon. Member for Havant said that he would abolish the
  "useless schemes and wasted money"
  of the new deal. He has been quite honest about that. Nearly 1 million people have found work through the new deals, yet the shadow Secretary of State would scrap them. They have been a major contributor to our ability to move back towards full employment and to abolish, among other things, long-term unemployment among young people.
  Conservative policies are unsustainable because the earnings link would cost £12 billion by 2020, rising to £69 billion by the middle of this century—2050. No party—certainly, no tax-cutting party—could ever deliver those funds. Moreover, their policies are unfair, because an in-built feature is that within around 20 years incomes for the poorest would drop from 21 per cent. of average earnings to 16 per cent. of average earnings. This Labour Government—indeed, only a Labour Government—have proved able to tackle pensioner poverty while ensuring that our policies are affordable, sustainable and fair.
  However, tackling pensioner poverty is only part of the story. Again, I would like to ask hon. Members to sit back for a moment and imagine. This time, I ask them to imagine a Britain where people lose their pensions when their company goes bust and leaves the pension scheme underfunded; a Britain where people are not saving enough for their retirement and individuals have lost confidence in the security of their pensions.
  We have seen that Britain all too recently. The challenges that face—[Interruption.] The challenge is not to harrumph but to take action. The challenges that face funded pension provision in this country are very real. However, the Government—and only a Labour Government—have acted to meet those challenges.
  I have met many of those who lost some or all of their pensions when their employer became insolvent. I have seen what it has done to their lives as I heard their quiet and dignified stories of shattered security and shattered dreams for the future. Sometimes their health gives way through stress, sometimes family life and marriages are affected. All those lives are changed for ever.
  However, I have also met people who do not face that risk. Members may remember Mr. Johnson. I first mentioned him on Second Reading of the Pensions Bill. He is 58, has worked for the same employer for 30 years and has contributed to his occupational pension throughout that time. When his employer went bust, Mr. Johnson knew that his pension was safe because he is an American and the US Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation meant that his pension savings had been protected for decades.

  743
  What Government could sit back and watch while hardworking Britons lost their pensions? Not this Government. While Opposition Members were busy declining to give the Pensions Bill a Second Reading—we shall remind them of that in the months until next spring or the following spring—the Government took pride in the fact that, through the Pensions Bill, we were making the pension protection fund a reality. It will bring genuine security and peace of mind to more than 10 million defined benefit pension scheme members. The Government, and only this Government, are building confidence that a pension promise made will be a pension promise honoured.
  I am afraid that there is more of the sorry tale of woeful resistance from Opposition Members. Some of those who had their accrued rights cut were employees who worked for solvent employers. When those employers wound up their defined benefit scheme underfunded, non-pensioner members could receive cash equivalent transfer values, which were too low to provide them with the pension that they expected at retirement.
  Again, the Government acted. We introduced the full buy-out regulations so that trustees can require solvent employers who want to wind up their pension scheme to buy out members' rights in full. However, as recently as July, the Leader of the Opposition prayed against the regulations. The Labour Government, and only the Labour Government, are building confidence that a pension promise made will be a pension promise honoured.
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: The Minister passed over the passage in his speech that dealt with the pension protection fund. Will he tackle the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Havant asked: does the pension protection fund constitute a guarantee to members of funds whose employers find themselves in financial difficulties? Is there a guarantee or does the fund have the power to vary liabilities? if the latter, in what circumstances does the Minister believe that the fund may use the powers?
  Malcolm Wicks: Our firm intention, as the shadow Secretary of State rightly said, is that if a final salary scheme cannot fulfil its duties through the pension protection fund by taking in and investing the scheme's assets, which are often considerable, and through the levy, which we believe will average £20 a year per member—perhaps less than insuring a summer holiday—we shall have the funds to enable us to pay existing pensioners 100 per cent. and workers and scheme members 90 per cent.
  We have learned lessons from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation in Washington. To raise the levy there, the PBGC needs to return to Congress. It is not for me to comment on American politics, but that is a more complex process. We, albeit with a cap, will enable the board of the pension protection fund—a board that is deliberately at arm's length from the Government; it is not a Department for Work and Pensions agency—to raise the levy if necessary.
  We have an in-extremis provision because in an extraordinary economic or business situation, in which perhaps several FTSE 100 companies went bust, there
  744
  might not be funds even after raising the levy. In that case, the board, with the Secretary of State's permission, could cut benefits. The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) is right in that respect but such a provision would apply only in extremis. Calamities can happen in any economy, which would mean that specific things could not be done. However, we have set out the provision in the Pensions Bill and we have discussed it in Committee. We have costed the provision carefully and I am certain that, allowing for even a large company to go bust, we will fulfil our commitments. That is why I, as a lay person, use the term "guarantee."
  Mr. Dorrell: The Minister gave a long answer; the issue is complex and I want to crystallise his reply: the pension of the American worker to whom he referred is guaranteed, the British equivalent would not be.
  Malcolm Wicks: It is a different situation in the States. We have learned important lessons from the States but any reasonable person who examines the position and understands how to fund the provision, allowing for one big company to go bust from time to time, could use the term "guarantee". I believe that that is reasonable vocabulary. If a meteorite hits Britain, the provision obviously cannot be guaranteed. I am confident that, in 10 or 20 years, we shall look back and appreciate that the provision has been successful. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for giving a proper and detailed answer; I shall try to be shorter next time.
  Mr. Lilley: Does the Minister agree that, if a levy of around £20 per member of private pension funds, which are not guaranteed by the state, is to be made, it should be extended to members of public sector pension funds, which are guaranteed by the state, including hon. Members? In all fairness, we should not be exempt from making a contribution towards underwriting funds if members of private sector funds have to make such a contribution or have it made for them.
  Malcolm Wicks: The right hon. Gentleman is an expert in the matter, but with all due respect, I believe that that is more of a debating point than a substantive point. Clearly, the state ultimately stands behind most public sector pension schemes and we are making reforms to those schemes. For example, we believe that we should no longer have a position whereby one can draw a pension, albeit reduced, at the age of 50. We contend that, in future, that should not happen until the age of 55. That will be discussed with the professions and the unions. Several such developments are occurring. That is the way to tackle issues about funding in the public sector, not the way that the right hon. Gentleman described.
  Mr. Djanogly: The Minister is speculating about what may happen in the future. Can he extend his guarantee to those people who are already in such a predicament, for example, the members of the Samuel Jones scheme in my constituency? They are currently left in an insolvent scheme and are consequently suffering.
  Malcolm Wicks: Let me make some progress because I think that that would be helpful. In the previous

  745
  Opposition Day debate on the subject in February, Opposition Members attacked the Government again, on that occasion for not promising assistance to those for whom the pension protection fund was going to be too late. I puzzled about that. They declined to give the Pensions Bill a Second Reading and then wanted to make it retrospective. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), with several other parliamentary colleagues, admirably led calls to act.
  The Government found £400 million without breaking any of their other spending commitments. When I presented that to the House on Report, I outlined a clear set of steps and a timetable for action. Earlier this summer, I spoke at the consultation event and we remain very much on course with the timetable. I am proud that the Government are introducing the financial assistance scheme. As for the hon. Member for Havant, he used warm words but did not even sign the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West.
  I have been asked about the worrying situation at Federal Mogul or T and N—Turner and Newall. Obviously, we are aware of the terrible uncertainties faced by members of the T and N scheme. My colleagues in the Department have met a number of people connected with the scheme since July, including the trustees, the scheme lawyer and trade union representatives. In August, I met concerned Members of Parliament, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West, who have an interest in the T and N scheme. I understand that discussions are still ongoing between Federal Mogul, the independent trustees and the administrators regarding the future of the UK pension scheme.
  On issues of this kind, may I make a plea that many such cases relating to solvency or insolvency have an extraordinary complexity. Often, a foreign company has an involvement. In the case of T and N, an added complexity is that it faces huge cases relating to asbestos, which has affected the whole future of that company. Let us avoid the knee-jerk questioning about whether we will definitely spend taxpayer's money on this group or that group. It is far more complex than that. We are not yet absolutely sure what will happen to that company or its pension scheme. It is an ongoing issue. I assure everyone in the House that we are keeping the issue carefully under review.
  We are on course with the steps that we are taking on the financial assistance scheme. We very much hope that the scheme will be in being by the spring of next year, and that payments will be made as soon as possible. The pensions challenge facing the Government, and Governments across the developed world, are very real. I make no attempt to hide that.
  Mr. Willetts: Setting aside the case of Turner and Newall, does the Minister accept that the financial assistance scheme needs to cover all people who lose out from wind-ups until the point at which the pension protection fund comes into force?
  Malcolm Wicks: We are acting for the future with the PPF, hence our determination that the Pensions Bill will be on the statute book. I hope that everyone in both
  746
  Houses will help us with that, and I think that they will. We are faced with more immediate situations, which require the establishment of the financial assistance scheme, with £400 million of the public's money—not because the public were at fault but because it was an important contribution. We have also said that we feel that the pension industry should make a contribution. I am still hopeful about that, and we are still in discussions about it.
  We are monitoring carefully any schemes that are now in difficulty. I am concerned about those affected. Given our track record of establishing the PPF and the assistance scheme, we have good intentions about trying to help people. I cannot, however, say more about particular schemes that are in different stages of wind-up.
  Through the Pensions Bill, we have taken great strides in bolstering security and confidence in funded pensions. Alongside the pension protection fund, the new flexible and proactive pensions regulator will further bolster security by tackling the risks to members' benefits, while enabling well-administered and secure schemes to continue without unnecessary regulatory burden. While the Pensions Bill is a cornerstone of the Government's reforms, it is only one step on the road to our goal of enabling people to save adequately and confidently for their retirement. Our programme of informed choice measures will empower individuals to take greater control of their retirement planning. Our age discrimination legislation—as well as the improved options for state pension deferral in the Pensions Bill—will open doors to greater opportunity for working longer, breaking the cliff-edge between work and retirement.
  I have spoken about the past—in particular, the legacy that this Government inherited on coming into office in 1997. I have spoken about the present and the action that this Government have taken, despite opposition along the way, to tackle the injustice of pensioner poverty and to bolster security and confidence in funded pensions. But what of the future?
  First, this Government have had the courage and vision to see the value of independent expertise. We look forward to the first report of the independent Pensions Commission sometime next month and a report from the employer taskforce by the end of the year. The findings of those reports will be of immense value in informing the way that our policies develop to meet the challenges that lie ahead.
  Finally, I would like hon. Members to imagine once more: a Britain where pensioner poverty is nothing more than an unpleasant chapter of history; where women no longer face disadvantage in the workplace or in saving for retirement; where the pension protection fund has been set up and is enabling people to look forward to the future with confidence; where individuals are empowered to take control of their retirement planning, and able to take informed decisions about how and when to save and work; and where everyone—employers, trade unions, Government and individuals—are working together to make the British pensions partnership the envy of the world.
  That is the consensus that I want. That is our vision. This Government are acting and will continue to act to make that vision a concrete reality.
  1.55 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: May I begin by joining in the tributes that have been paid to the outgoing Secretary of State? All of us who worked with him, whether in government or in the House, never doubted for a moment his sincerity and commitment, and we wish him well in his future role, whatever that might be, in the House and beyond.
  The Liberal Democrats welcome this debate. No doubt when the former Secretary of State heard that we were announcing our pension proposals yesterday, he looked at them and thought, "There's the answer. No point in my carrying on." Very decently, the Conservatives have given us an opportunity to bring those proposals to the House at the earliest opportunity. We are therefore grateful to both the Government and the Opposition for setting us up in that way.
  I have no problem with the Conservative motion. It has been deliberately designed to focus on the analysis that we have in common, and I will ask my hon. Friends to support it in the Division later this afternoon. The opportunity to hear some of the Conservative proposals and to scrutinise them in a slightly more detailed manner has been fruitful. As I mentioned to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) in an intervention, he has a problem. Were the Government to make the pledge that I anticipate—to link the pension credit to earnings—his policy falls down one of two unacceptable routes. If he says, "If the Government are going to link the pension credit to earnings, we will do it as well"—
  Mr. Willetts: Could do.
  Mr. Webb: As the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, he could do. He would then link the pension credit to earnings, and the pension to earnings, but the gap between the two, as he knows, is huge£25 a week at the moment. If both go up proportionately, that gap will never close. The chasm of savings disincentives, which he rightly describes, will therefore always be there.
  Mr. Willetts: It will get no worse.
  Mr. Webb: As he says, it will get no worse, but there will still be a substantial gap between the pension and the means test. All his rhetoric about incentives to save, his buy-one-get-one-free incentives, his lifetime savings account, and so on, will fall foul of the fact that people who do save will be penalised for doing so, because the chasm will remain.
  The hon. Gentleman's alternative strategy, which I anticipate him operating were he ever to have the chance to do so in government, would be to break the link between earnings and the pension credit. That is the only way to close the gap, and that is what he wants to do if the Government do so. Compared with what the Government would promise—an earnings link for the poor—he would offer a price link for the poor. While we agree that many poor people fail to claim, more than 2 million poor people still do claim. For a Conservative party to stand for election on the grounds that it will give less money to poor pensioners than the Government would have done is the wrong priority and unacceptable. Either he does less for the poor, or he fails
  748
  to tackle the savings incentive problem, if that is what the Government pledge. I therefore hope that the Government will pledge that, and I will be interested to know how the Conservatives will square that circle.
  Naturally, the principal concern must be the direction in which the Government are taking us. I was dismayed by the Minister's response today. We all enjoy his bloke-ish style, but when we are dealing with matters of precision and entitlement, and with people making choices about their financial future, we need more than just being a good bloke. To say, "I am a layman, and when I say 'guarantee', we all know what I mean," is just not on. People have made mistakes about their future pension provision on the strength of Government leaflets that tell them that their pensions are guaranteed. We have discovered that the guaranteed minimum pension is not guaranteed after all. For the Minister, not having learned the lessons of the last few years, to tell people, "Don't worry, your company pension is now guaranteed," when it turns out that it is not, is unacceptable.
  I hope that the Minister will take a message from this debate: however much he might like to be informal, people expect the Minister for Pensions to be the one person who is precise in his choice of language, so that they know where they stand.
  Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are two theories about why the Minister goes around saying this. One is that he does not understand what he is saying. That is ungenerous. The other is that he is being very clever, and that every time he says the pension is guaranteed it becomes more difficult for the Treasury ever to do anything other than pay 100 per cent., or 90 per cent. At some point in the future someone will go to the Treasury and say, "You must cough up to rescue the pension protection fund after everything I have been saying." I do not know which theory the hon. Gentleman endorses.
  Mr. Webb: Given a choice between whether the Minister is very stupid or very clever—[Laughter.] If it is a subtle negotiating ploy—and if it is, it is beyond me—it is a high-risk strategy. People are going to make decisions based on it, and if it does not turn out to be successful, other people will be vulnerable. That would worry me.
  I am also concerned about the Minister's response to the perfectly proper question asked by the hon. Member for Havant about the position of workers between the time when the priority order on wind-up changed and the time when the pension protection fund comes in. I gather that in the other place Baroness Hollis has started referring to that period as the "sandwich year". I accept that we cannot talk in great detail about individual schemes. It may well be that the Turner and Newall workers' pension fund will not be wound up, and obviously we all hope that that is the case. But workers of that sort, and many others, want to know where they stand.
  When the financial assistance scheme was presented to the House during the Report stage of the Pensions Bill, the Minister never said, "This will not apply to people from now on." If I am wrong I am happy to be corrected, but I am convinced that at no time during the

  749
  hours we talked about the issue were we told that the protection would not apply in future. I do not suppose that, when we voted just a few months ago, a single Labour Member thought that if a firm in his constituency went to the wall after the vote, there was a danger that it would not be covered by the hardship fund. I do not suppose that one of the Minister's colleagues was aware of that.
  And the Government have not even decided yet! The Bill will finish its progress through the House in a few weeks. When will the Government make up their mind? People need to know where they stand now. I find it extraordinary that the Minister says, "Well, we are still thinking about it." I think that that is totally unacceptable.
  When the financial assistance scheme was proposed, we were promised something else on which the Government are now backtracking. We were promised a three-yearly review, which was another sop to the Back Benches. "Yes, perhaps £400 million is not enough," we were told, "but do not worry—we will look at it again in three years." The workers who have been suffering as a result of wind-ups, who have had meetings with the DWP, have been told by officials that the three-yearly review was not about the amount of money in the scheme, but about how it was carved up. If in three years' time it is proved that there was not remotely enough money, the Government have made no undertaking to increase the amount.
  The basis on which the Minister's hon. Friends accepted his compromise is being undermined by the day. Four hundred million pounds was never enough. The promise was of a three-yearly review; but if the review does not examine the amount and the adequacy of that amount, what is the point of it?
  Mr. Dorrell: Varying the liability.
  Mr. Webb: Indeed.
  We have grave concerns about what is being done for the security of occupational scheme members, and also about where things are going with pension credit. As the hon. Member for Havant said, we are given new figures each month about how they are going. The most recent figures, which have just come out, show that pension credit is running out of steam. The most recent month was the worst month ever for new cases: just 33,000 people went on to pension credit, while 1.7 million are missing out on the money to which they are entitled. The Government are not even beginning to scratch the surface.
  Can the Minister confirm that every one of those 1.7 million who are missing out is, by definition, living below the poverty line—that every one is living below the minimum level that society considers adequate? If all those people are living below the poverty line, when the Minister talks about doing more for the poorest pensioners he should be concentrating on them. His policies are doing nothing to assist Britain's poorest pensioners. [Interruption.] They do not get the money. If they do not get the money, it is very hard to see how they benefit.
  The Minister talked of the past and the future. There are three possible futures. The Minister's strategy of mass means-testing does not just apply to the 50 per
  750
  cent. of all pensioners who are currently entitled to means-tested benefits; it is a projection that perhaps three quarters of all pensioners will be entitled to means-testing. This is the paucity of the Government's vision. Over seven years, the Government had a chance to establish a long-term vision of the sort of society in which they wanted older people to live. The vision that they have set before us is one of mass means-testing, in which three quarters of pensioners retire too poor to live on what they have accumulated, and have to go to the Government for a top-up. How can that be the vision that we want for the future?
  When the Prime Minister was quizzed by a journalist at his press conference yesterday—"What is your answer to the pensions crisis, Prime Minister?"—he began by talking about welfare to work and incapacity benefit. Then he suddenly realised that that was not the answer to the pensions crisis, and said, "Well, we have asked Adair Turner." Seven years in, the Prime Minister's best answer on the pensions crisis is, "Adair Turner will report next month with some analysis"—to which we all look forward—"and after the election he will tell us what his recommendations are. Then we might look at the pensions crisis." That was the Prime Minister's answer. If the Prime Minister does not know how things are going, what hope is there for pensioners?
  The Government do not seem to have a strategy for tackling the imminent crisis, but their long-term vision—their target—is the means-testing of three quarters of all pensioners. That is not a future that I want to see.
  Tom Levitt: Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that when resources are finite, it is necessary to focus them on where they will produce most benefit in order to meet a target. That means focusing most help on the pensioners who are most in need. How can the hon. Gentleman justify the alternative philosophy—relieve poverty and make the poorest pensioners better off by giving more money even to the richest?
  Mr. Webb: I am slightly puzzled by what the hon. Gentleman has had to say. Perhaps he has not been listening. The poorest pensioners in the land today—this is a statement of fact—are those who are entitled to, and not claiming, pension credit: 1. 7 million of them. If the hon. Gentleman can tell me how putting extra money into pension credit helps any one of the poorest pensioners in the land, I should love to hear it. But clearly it does not: it does nothing at all for those people. The central plank of the Government's strategy does nothing for them. What does do something for a good many of them is using the basic state pension which they do all claim. We propose to focus on the older pensioners—those over 75—the majority of whom do not claim. We are focusing on the poorest pensioners by using age as an indicator.
  Tom Levitt: I acknowledge that some pensioners have a difficulty with claiming anything to which they are entitled. They need help. Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that take-up levels for pension credit are far higher than they ever were for income support in the days when pension credit did not exist. I hope he will take this opportunity to pay tribute to those in my

  751
  constituency, in the Gamesley ward, who have ensured that 97 per cent. of all pensioners are claiming the benefits to which they are entitled.
  Mr. Webb: I suspect that the proportion of those entitled to pension credit who claim it is lower than it was under income support. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman mentioned that ward—perhaps there is a by-election—but what about the people whom he claims to represent who are not covered by this complicated system? He seems to think that just a few more advisers or another helpline will crack it, but it is endemic. It is systemic. It is part of the structure of these benefits that they have high non-take-up rates. Another advertising campaign or another leaflet will not solve the problem.
  The one thing that these people all claim is their pension. That is the only genuine—now I am going to use the word guarantee, and I mean guarantee. Putting the money in the pension guarantees that it will reach the people who are entitled to it.
  One blueprint, then, is mass means-testing. The second option, the Conservative alternative, has some threads in common with our proposal, and I have some sympathy with elements of it. Using the basis state pension as a mechanism is clearly better than using mass means-testing. My difference with the hon. Member for Havant is this. We know that, because of a decision made by the Conservatives 25 years ago, the basic state pension has declined dramatically relative to the earnings that it attempts to replace. Retirement pensions are about replacing what people used to earn; if a pension is becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of average earnings, it is doing less and less of a job. The hon. Gentleman's decision to re-link pensions to earnings at a pathetic level, making them useless, by definition freezes the pension at that percentage of average earnings. It does nothing to raise it to a better level.
  Therefore, for a long time to come under his proposals, large numbers of pensioners would still need to claim means-tested top-ups. I think that he proposed a figure of £7 by the end of the Parliament. That is a small step in the right direction, but the pensioners who lost the most from the Conservatives breaking the earnings link— they were perhaps 60 when Mrs. Thatcher, as she then was, broke the link—are now in their 80s and cannot wait for the hon. Gentleman to get round to bringing the pension up to a decent level. They will no longer be around then, and a figure of £7 by the end of the Parliament is no good for someone in their 80s who is getting a pathetic pension. That is why we want to concentrate on the "old" elderly as a first priority. That is my difference with the hon. Gentleman on how one improves the basic pension, which is a legitimate area of debate.
  Let me explain my second concern about the Conservative approach. The hon. Gentleman wants to encourage private savings, which is obviously a good thing. He talks about the lifetime savings account, which is still not terribly well defined. We do not know much about it, but we do know that it is an instant access savings account. People can take their money out any time they want, so if they get a big credit card bill or they want to go on a nice holiday—Conservative Members
  752
  might want to pay their children's school fees, for example—they just dip into the fund. An instant access savings account is apparently the solution to the pensions crisis and to the fact that not enough money will be ours, guaranteed, in 30 years' time.
  I do not follow the logic. The hon. Gentleman thinks that if people know that they can have their money, they will put it into the account. Well, they might, but they might also take it out, so I do not see how such an account would solve the problem.
  We are having a constructive debate, and I have a further query that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) might be able to answer when he winds up. The hon. Member for Havant has this "buy one, get one free" notion, which is quite a good slogan. "Bogof" is the phrase he uses—at least, I think that is what he said. The idea is that the state matches savings pound for pound. However, given that he proposes no overall increase in taxation, that money must come from somewhere. Either he intends to take some of the pension tax relief to pay for his incentives—I do not think that he plans to change pension tax relief, unless there is something he has not told us—or to take some of the national insurance rebates. That sounds quite redistributive, but he has not been very up-front about who would lose. If one matches the savings of small savers and pays for that from somewhere else, one has to take money off someone, somewhere. The hon. Gentleman has been a bit coy about where that money would come from. I presume that it would come from higher earners, because they get the big rebates, but funnily enough we have not heard anything about that. There is a sense that we are getting a little more of a fleshed-out Conservative policy, but it is still extraordinarily vague. I hope that we will get more detail from him this side of the election.
  Kali Mountford: Before the hon. Gentleman moves off the funding of Tory policies, perhaps he would like to advise the House about the funding of his own. Given what he has just said about the rather light presentation made by the hon. Member for Havant, perhaps he would like to flesh out his own presentation.
  Mr. Webb: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that invitation, because that is precisely what I was planning to do. We have taken the view that the fundamental problem for both today's pensioners and tomorrow's is sorting out the basic state pension. Sorting that out would deal with today's extremely poor, who do not claim the means test, but it would also deal with the incentive to save. If we get the pension clear of the means test, anyone who saves a pound would keep it, and it would be worth saving. Tackling the basic state pension is therefore a good answer for today's pensioners and for today's workers, who are tomorrow's pensioners.
  Mr. McWalter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Webb: I should make progress as the debate is only short, but I will certainly deal with the point that has been raised.
  How do we tackle the basic state pension? We have argued that we need to start with the oldest pensioners. The pension has fallen so far for so long that we cannot

  753
  deal with the whole thing at a stroke, so we would start with the oldest pensioners, who the Minister said tend, on average, to be the poorer pensioners. I am glad that he agrees with us on that. For the over-75s, we propose to raise the basic state pension to the original level of the minimum income guarantee—£105—to link that to earnings and, critically, to pay it on the basis of citizenship, not according to the record of national insurance contributions.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) said when he challenged the Prime Minister today—the House will have noticed that he got no answer—women continue to be the poor relation on pensions. It is unacceptable that at the start of the 21st century, the typical woman—not an extreme, hypothetical case—retires on a basic state pension of just over £50 a week, even though the full pension is £80. How can that be acceptable? We do not think that it is. Society should stop saying that the work that women have done in the past—caring for children and elderly relatives, and doing fairly menial, meagrely paid part-time work—should not be rewarded. Rather, it should be properly recognised in the pension system. It is no good saying that it will all be sorted out in 50 years' time, which is the Government's schedule. They talk about the state second pension, but it will not be fully in place for 50 years. Those women need justice now, which is why we propose a citizenship basis for the pension.
  Once we have got the basic state pension structure in place—we want to extend it, but we would have to start with the over-75s—the question arises as to where the £2.7 billion, which would be the net cost in the first full year, rising to just over £3 billion by the end of a Parliament, would come from. My colleagues and I have been considering the entirety of what the Government do. As a whole, they spend some £500 billion on the entire range of activities. If neither of the principal Opposition parties can say that it would have a different priority in respect of 1 per cent. of what the Government do, we might as well all give up and go home. If we cannot say that 1 per cent. of what the Government do would be a lower priority for us, and that spending money on other things would be our higher priority, there is no difference between us. We have looked at what the Government do, and the Liberal Democrat shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), will present a full and detailed breakdown of the £5 billion figure that we have identified.
  Let me give a concrete example. The Prime Minister was mistaken in what he said earlier. He suggested that the £8 billion that we referred to in respect of the Department of Trade and Industry was more than is spent on administration and that it applies to the whole DTI, but he did not understand that that figure is for the entire Parliament, not a single year. Our policy requires that a Parliament run for four years, so the sums add up perfectly well.
  Through the DTI, we spend hundreds of millions of pounds subsidising arms exports to dodgy regimes. The Government may think that a good thing; we think that there are bigger priorities. We would not cut the number of paperclips or bureaucrats, but we would cut one of the things that the Government do in order to free up money for something that they should do more of. We
  754
  have a list of such things, and that is the basis on which we could fund the first round of pension improvements in the short term.
  The citizens pension is the central and first element, and I will touch briefly on the company and private sectors. There is too little confidence in company pensions. Too many people have lost out, and they should be properly protected, as we discussed at the start. We want people to have to opt out of, rather than into, their company pensions. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) suggested that, and we think it a good idea.
  On personal pensions, there is the idea that National Savings should run a personal pension scheme. It is a brand that people trust and it will not go bankrupt or fleece people with charges. There needs to be a way for people to save with confidence.
  Let me draw the threads together. A decent basic state pension would tackle pensioner poverty today and give people confidence to save. If they were clear of means-testing—the chasm whereby saving is not worth doing was created by the Government—the incentive to save would be restored. The state would be doing its bit, and the individual would be free to choose by how much to top up in old age, or how much they want to spend now. That seems the right combination. The future that the Government are offering is not one that most people would want to retire into. Our proposals would provide a much more positive future for the pensioners of today and tomorrow.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 15-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches.
  2.18 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: Like other contributors to the debate, I begin by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who was until very recently the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. When I first entered the House and worked with Neil Kinnock, who became the Leader of the Opposition, he used to refer to a member of the Government as being 100 per cent. pure grease. I think that all of us in the House know that the former Secretary of State was 100 per cent. real decency. He was distinguished in his extraordinary ability to undersell his qualities, unlike most politicians who reach that rank. The Minister hinted that he hopes that we will see my right hon. Friend in many different roles in future, and I certainly underscore those comments.
  I hope that not only the Whip on the Treasury Bench but the Prime Minister, as he considers his reshuffle, will note the Minister's contribution in defending the Government's policies. Indeed, I hope that he will be more ambitious in his reshuffle than even the press are hinting at. There is now a galaxy of Ministers of State who would be real additions to the Cabinet as we face the next general election. My hon. Friend always says that he worries when I speak that I might be wounding him. Our friendship goes back a long way and I know

  755
  how deep his St. Sebastian complex is. I hope that nothing I say today or any other day will have the effect that he fears.
  We face a real crisis in our long-term pension provision, because in the past we could disguise the fact that our state retirement pension was inadequate because our occupational schemes were such a success. That crucial prop now looks less certain than at any time in the past 50 years. When the Prime Minister says that he is serious about long-term pension reform, I hope that he will read this debate and consider contributions from all parties in the House for the remoulding of what the consensus should be. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour Members have all spoken about the long-term reform that is needed in this new and uncomfortable situation. Sadly, it is no longer the case that most of our constituents will have adequate occupational pensions to make up for the inadequacies of the state provision. We need now to review our schemes root and branch.
  Part of the problem arises because the Chancellor has been so successful in helping the poorest pensioners now. No one in the House disagrees that the most urgent demand that the Government faced on coming to power in 1997 was to tackle the deepest poverty in our country, which was found generally speaking among pensioners, and as the Liberal Democrats rightly say, among the oldest pensioners in particular. However, the Government's policy is inadequate in that if we rely solely on a means-tested pension credit approach, we may help the poorest pensioners now but we begin to affect on an increasing scale the behaviour of the rest of our constituents. If about half the working population cannot save and know that they will make themselves better off if they blow all their savings on having a good time and rely on taxpayers when they retire, that not only spells a serious fiscal problem for the state but raises some fundamental questions about how we think free societies survive. I do not believe that a free society can survive in the long run if there is an increasing number of people in work whose standard of living is determined by one of the tax credits for those below working age, so that regardless of how long or hard they work or of whether they get a new job or qualifications, they face a marginal tax rate of 70 per cent.
  Mr. McWalter: Does not my right hon. Friend welcome the fact that if a pensioner has the full single pension of £80 and has saved to get an occupational pension of £20, the pension credit will top up their income to get beyond what they would have had if they had not saved in the first place?
  Mr. Field: I do, but it would have been much simpler to have disregarded the income in the first place; then we would not have had to have this hugely complicated scheme that we now suffer.
  Before that valuable intervention, I was trying to say that while we need to debate the details of policy, we should also have clear in our mind's eye how we think free societies survive and how our policies can contribute to that. I applaud the Government for wanting to help the poor in work and the poor in retirement, but that was never by itself an adequate
  756
  strategy, and it is certainly not adequate when it affects people's behaviour by making them better off claiming benefits than trying to improve their own lot.
  Some suggestions have been made today that are valuable in trying to build a long-term consensus on the next stage of pensions policy. I welcome unreservedly the Conservative Opposition's proposal to freeze the uprating of pension credit eligibility and divert the money. We will never free ourselves from an expanded means test net unless we are prepared to take such decisions. Similarly, I welcome the Liberal Democrat proposal of significantly increasing the retirement pension for the very oldest of our constituents. It is a form of selectivity that works, in contrast with all the difficulties encountered with means-testing. It is selective in going only to those of a certain age, but we know from all the published figures that they will tend to be among the very poorest in our communities. Some, thank goodness, will have adequate pensions, but they are a very small minority, and even if they began their retirement life with an adequate pension, once they are into their eighties, with only price inflation, the situation looks very different.
  The basic question concerns the state retirement pension itself. Unlike when the Government first came to office in 1997, we now have a consensus including everyone in the country—we wait only for the Government to join it—on the fact that no long-term pension reform can possibly get off the ground unless we make strides to increase significantly the first pension, which everybody claims.
  There are proposals for a pay-as-you-go scheme and others, with which I am associated and which I put to the Prime Minister before I resigned, for a universal protected pension combining pay-as-you-go with a funded scheme. As the Government and the Department for Work and Pensions know, and as No. 10 knows, we have asked the assistant Government actuary to recost those proposals. One of the excitements is whether we will get those recostings before the assistant Government actuary retires. Those details will be very important to the debate that I believe will evolve after Adair Turner makes his first report from the Pensions Commission. I hope that the Government will use the opportunity of that report to say that we have done very well in tackling the immediate poverty that pensioners now face but we have not yet turned to the longer run and laid the foundations for a reform that will command support not only in the House but—more importantly, because we come and go as Members of Parliament—among the electorate. The starting point must be proposals for significantly increasing what we used to call the state pension—a benefit that I hope will be called in the near future by another name.
  It is good fun to knock the Opposition for saying that they would freeze pension credit, but everyone who looks seriously at this question knows that at some stage someone must have the courage to freeze it before it gets even more out of hand.
  It is easy to poke fun at the Liberal Democrats for wanting to channel some of our existing resources to the oldest pensioners, but any serious person knows that that should be part of the new consensus.

  757
  Those two reforms alone will not deal with the pension crisis that people are lobbying us on today. We also have to tackle the most fundamental of the issues—the inadequacy of the state first pension that we all require. We did not have to face that problem in 1997 because the weakness of the state pension was covered by the generosity of a growing occupational pension scheme. That option is no longer open to us, and I hope that, long before the next election, the Government will lay proposals before the country making it clear what specifically they would do about this matter when we win our third term of office.
  2.30 pm
  Mr. Peter Lilley: The greatest domestic failure for which the Government will be remembered is having presided over the collapse of the British pension system. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who has just made a characteristically positive and objective contribution to the debate, for having done more than anyone to highlight the scale of that failure and the seriousness of the problem. He pointed out that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said earlier, the incoming Labour Government inherited what was probably the strongest pension regime of any country in Europe. To meet our future pension liabilities, we had set aside and saved more money than not just any other European country, but all other European countries put together. Now, in the words of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, that has been reduced to rubble.
  A series of Secretaries of State have shared responsibility for presiding over this collapse. Sadly, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead was not given the chance to implement his own constructive and imaginative ideas in an attempt to alleviate or avoid the problem. The outgoing Secretary of State is no more or less responsible than his predecessors for having presided over the deterioration and having failed to stem or remedy it. I would love to be able to congratulate him on being the only one who had accepted responsibility and resigned because of that failure, but, unfortunately, new Labour Ministers are reluctant to resign at all—and, when they do, they do not accept responsibility and attribute their resignation to something else. Nonetheless, I pay tribute to the former Secretary of State's good faith and integrity while in office, and he certainly should not have been subjected to the humiliating series of leaks of the last few weeks that attributed all the responsibility for the cumulative failure to him alone. Everyone knows that the real responsibility lies not just with him or his predecessors, but with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has effectively reduced the Department for Work and Pensions to a subordinate department of the Treasury. Each of the Secretaries of State can claim in defence that they were simply obeying orders.
  It is the Chancellor who was responsible for the two most damaging policy decisions that contributed to the weakening of our pensions regime. The first was the decision to introduce the pensions tax—the abolition of advance corporation tax credits, which effectively siphoned £5 billion from our pensions schemes every year. The second was the decision to extend means-testing. The pensions tax effectively cuts the yield on savings in pension funds by 25 per cent., and the
  758
  potential extension of means-testing to more than three quarters of all future pensioners withdraws 40 per cent. of the benefit from every extra pound of saving that they may have made.
  The combination of that 25 per cent. loss on yield and 40 per cent. loss on the benefit of extra savings is very significant. As a result, it is literally inadvisable to save. It would probably be illegal for any financial adviser to advise the bulk of the population to make any additional savings for their pensions, unless they are very rich indeed. No wonder that the savings ratio is this country has halved over the lifetime of the Government.
  There is another underlying problem that affects all developed countries, for which no one can blame the Government although they have aggravated it: people are living longer without working longer or saving more during their working lives. Any solution must either encourage or require people to save more or to work longer.
  I would like to believe—I stand at the libertarian end of the spectrum—that it is possible to encourage savings by increasing incentives, introducing better incentives or reducing disincentives. However, frankly, it would be bizarre to introduce a fresh set of incentives while retaining all the disincentives that I have just spelled out. It would be like running up a down escalator. We cannot remove the existing disincentive of means-testing if we rely on a purely voluntary system because many people will not volunteer to save enough and will retire without an adequate pension—and we will have to make provision for them, which will be means-tested. The disincentive of means-testing remains in the system: we cannot leave people destitute, even if they are destitute as a result of their failure to respond to generous incentives that would have made it worthwhile for them to save.
  I reluctantly came to the conclusion that it is essential to require everyone to contribute during their working lives towards a pension that will be sufficient to ensure that, when they reach retirement, they will not depend on means-tested benefits. We already compel people to contribute towards a state pension. Everyone in work has either to contribute to that or to make an equivalent contribution to a private pension system. We also have an element of compulsion in the tax system. We tax people—generally those who have worked hard and saved for themselves—in order to pay for the means-tested benefits for those who have not chosen to save enough, even though they could have done, to secure a decent pension for their old age. Rather than compelling the prudent to pay through taxes twice to support the imprudent, we should require everyone to make sufficient provision during their working lives for a pension in retirement so that they will not require means-tested benefits.
  Mr. Webb: The right hon. Gentleman advances an interesting case, which he has put to the House before, for compulsion. Will he clarify what he would do for the low earners who currently benefit from a highly redistributive basic pension and a very redistributive second state pension? How will those people who are able to contribute only a small amount of absolute cash secure a decent pension that is enough to live on?
  Mr. Lilley: My system is internally redistributive and is designed precisely to achieve that and to mirror some

  759
  of the redistribution that is inherent in the state pension. I propose that everyone will be required to be members of a pension fund. They will receive a flat-rate rebate paid into that fund from the national insurance fund sufficient to ensure that, over a working life, they will be part of a fund that is adequate to pay for a pension. Together with the basic state pension, it would ensure that they would not need to rely on means-tested benefits. The state would guarantee that minimum state pension so that if the fund fell short for whatever reason, the state would top up the pension to the guaranteed level, which is above the means-tested level.
  Of course, there would have to be provision to ensure prudent personal investment rules so that people did not take advantage of that guarantee.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I have a great deal of sympathy with what my right hon. Friend is saying. However, if he is going to make proposals that will lock people into compulsory saving schemes, does he not have to address the question of the consequence of inheritance tax on those savings? People will be locked into pension schemes and, in the absence of inheritance tax concessions, their descendants will not inherit the moneys compulsorily saved. Moreover, does he not agree that a second problem that must be addressed is the question of compulsory annuity?
  Mr. Lilley: Yes, although I think that my right hon. and learned Friend raises second-order issues. As I shall explain in a moment, I believe that people would have to use the money to ensure that they have a pension that keeps them clear of dependence on means-tested benefits. However, if they died before they retired and acquired an annuity for the rest of their lives, they would be able to transmit their savings to their heirs. Whether those savings would be liable to inheritance tax would be a matter for the Chancellor of the day but, as I say, that is a second-order issue that we do not need to address at this stage. At present, most people are not in a position to pass on savings, and their heirs are not in the happy position of receiving 100 per cent., or 60 per cent., of what is left.
  My proposals would have several key and valuable consequences. First, everyone in work would acquire a pension adequate to keep them above the means-testing level, and they would therefore be able to avoid means-testing when they left work. We would thus be able to allow the pensions credit system, and the means-testing associated with it, to wither away.
  Secondly, everyone would have greater incentives to save. Moreover, since they would have their own pension fund, they would find saving much easier. One of the greatest inhibitions against people making additional savings is that they do not have a pension fund. Setting one up is a major process for most people, even those who are financially sophisticated.
  The evidence from Australia in that respect is very encouraging. The introduction of mandatory superannuation schemes has led to the amount of voluntary saving doubling in size. People are required to save more, but their voluntary saving on top of that has doubled.
  760
  Thirdly, ownership of their own funds would give people more choice about when they retire. They would be free to retire whenever their fund could provide a sufficient basic pension that would mean that they would not depend on means-tested benefits. They would have a double incentive to work and save longer: every extra year worked would mean that people could contribute more to their funds, and that they would have a year less of retirement to finance. They would therefore be able to enjoy a better pension during retirement.
  The evidence is that people with money-purchase schemes work longer, whereas people with final-salary schemes tend to end work earlier. Where people have the double incentive to work and save longer, the evidence is that they respond.
  If we were to introduce such an incentive to get people to save and work longer, the only way for the Government to meet the sensible target that they have set—which is to increase the share of future pension liabilities that are met from savings from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent.—would be to require people to work longer. I challenge the Minister, or whoever winds up the debate, to tell us in what other way the Government could meet that objective.
  One overall benefit from my proposal would go much wider than the benefit that would accrue to future pensioners and the pension system. Above all, my approach would lead to the greatest transfer and extension of wealth to ordinary people to have occurred since the extension of home ownership and the right to buy. As a result, more people would have independence, self-respect, and power over their lives. They would have choice about savings and the timing of their retirement, and everyone would have a common interest in the prosperity of the economy in which their savings were invested and on which they would depend for enhanced benefits in the future.
  In the spirit of the two speakers who preceded me, I urge the House to look positively at my proposals, and to consider whether they should form part of a new consensus for us to work towards. That would enable us to overcome the enormous problems in respect of pensions that any future Government will inherit.
  2.46 pm
  Kali Mountford: In the interests of maintaining consensus across the House, I shall keep my comments brief. However, I want to say something about my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), as I do not think that the House can praise him too highly. My only quarrel with what the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) said is that he could have been a little more generous about my right hon. Friend, whose experience of Government is without equal. He is a man of great diligence and, as I found when I played a brief and modest role in the Department, a delight to work with. I cannot speak of him too highly.
  The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden made an interesting contribution to the debate. Much fresh thinking has been brought to the table today, but there are problems with all the proposals that we have heard. The debate began with some remarks about consensus and common thinking. The hope was

  761
  expressed that we could join together in dealing with the problems posed by an increasingly ageing population. However, those problems are not new, having been identified as far back as the 1980s. None of us can stand back and say, "It wasn't me, I wasn't there, I didn't do it." That would be wrong, as none of the problems under discussion is new to any of us. The solutions to those problems are not new either, although members of different parties approach the matter from different directions.
  The problem that pension schemes sometimes fold is also not new. Many people working in the textile mills in my constituency lost their jobs and pension entitlements way back in the 1980s. Thousands of textile jobs were lost when the mills closed, and thousands of people lost their pension entitlements as their pension schemes folded. What is the difference between what happened then and what is happening now?
  One difference is that the people who lost their jobs in the textile industry in my area were mainly women. It was believed that they were simply earning a little pin money for their families and that they did not make a great contribution to the economy. However, I must disabuse the House of that perception. Those women contributed hugely to the economy, earning some 5 per cent. of gross domestic product, a level that continues to this day. We cannot ignore the contribution made by those women, and neither can we say that our provision for future women pensioners could be covered by the suggestions made today.
  The women who did not make contributions because their pension schemes folded, or because they were ill advised about the choice of national insurance contribution, or because they had breaks in employment thanks to the natural progress of family life, could find themselves left out of any new solution that may be proposed. We need to look more imaginatively at how we can help them. Quite rightly, the second state pension has appropriate provisions, and it is good to have a Government who have looked at ways in which people who are carers in families can be deemed to have made contributions throughout their lives. In that way, they will be able to enjoy suitable pension provision in the future.
  Women who make a valuable contribution have been ignored in the past, so we should look further to see how the state second pension could benefit women and what else could be done. However, while making that modest request to the Government, it is right to recognise their groundbreaking move to include women in such pension schemes.
  We must also recognise the huge problem of pensioner poverty that faces us; simply to move on, with one fell swoop, as though all that happened before had never occurred, is to deny the past. As I went round my constituency in 1996 and 1997, I met people who were freezing in their homes. That does not happen any more. It is right that the debate has moved on to how to encourage saving and how to find people a better standard of living for the future. At least we have moved from the debate about how on earth we could provide for the very poorest. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and I have held conversations of that type across the Chamber in the past. How do we define the very poorest? Is it the person who claims no benefit at all? Is it the person who relies only on state pension and
  762
  has not applied for any other benefit? Is it the person who is at least at minimum income guarantee level, or is it the person who could, but does not, claim pension credit? All those people are worthy of our consideration.
  One way not to deal with the problem is to decry all the opportunities for bringing families a better household income by simply saying that means-testing is a bad thing and that we should not target pensions. We have heard today how, at least in part, the Opposition parties would try to fund their schemes. To give the Liberal Democrats some credit, we have at least heard a fuller account of what they would like to do, but we have not heard a full enough account of how they would pay for it.
  We know that all Governments have to make choices—between one group of possible beneficiaries and another, one type of payment and another, or one type of service to the community and another. It is right to put all those things into the pot and consider them, but let us not pretend that unless there is some move on taxation and a promise to change other provisions, if we put extra provision in one place other services will not have to be cut. We should be clear about which they might be.
  We certainly know a lot about the problems that could arise from the Tories' proposals. They have no real pension proposals, but their overall social policy proposals cannot be funded except by cutting other services. We have heard half a story from the Liberal Democrats and I should like to hear the rest. What would happen to the Department of Trade and Industry? Which young people would, or would not, have opportunities in the future? To rob one generation to pay for another is not the right way forward. We will not encourage people to stay in employment, to earn their living and save properly by taking away the means for them to obtain employment. I should be wary of any cuts in the DTI budget without knowing precisely what they would be.
  We must also be careful not to discourage people from taking up the opportunities that could be available through the Pension Service. I want to say a few words about how marvellous the administration of that new department is. Staff from the service come to my constituency regularly to meet community groups. They do not simply sit behind a desk waiting for somebody to phone or turn up; they are proactive. They go into communities in rural areas such as mine and seek people out to advise them about what their benefits could be. They make it clear that those benefits are not a charitable donation or a Government handout to unworthy people who have not saved for their retirement or who have not worked and made proper contributions. There is a clear recognition of people as citizens. The service offered is a good one and people are surprised at how much benefit they can receive.
  David Taylor: I endorse the point my hon. Friend makes and pay tribute to the staff of the DWP at Loughborough, who are incredibly effective in North-West Leicestershire in targeting the sort of people to whom she refers. The proportion of take-up will increase significantly due to a sea change in attitudes.
  Kali Mountford: Absolutely; my hon. Friend is correct. The consensus that is growing—at least on the Labour Benches—will build opportunities for pensioners in all communities, whether or not their MP has recognised the brilliance of that service delivery. I recommend it to everyone.
  As time is short, I shall end on a happy note and repeat that the Pension Service is marvellous. I commend my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions for his administration of that service and, in particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East for his vision for it in the future.
  2.55 pm
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I begin by declaring a personal interest. Like all MPs, I am a member of the final salary scheme of the House, but I am also a member of the final salary scheme of a private company of which I am a director and shareholder, and in that capacity I am involved in how to work through the pension funding crisis that is the main focus of the debate.
  One of the most attractive aspects of the House is that although we can have passionate arguments across the political divide, when people leave office we usually find something nice to say about them. It is not difficult in the case of the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) to recognise the obvious decency and humanity of the man, but that should not in any way detract us from recognising the central failure of the Government that was accurately described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley).
  The Prime Minister has clearly noticed that failure, because the No. 10 briefing machine was in overdrive during August, making it clear that the pensions crisis was the responsibility of anyone in the Government but the Prime Minister. The main concern was to ensure that responsibility attached to the previous Secretary of State, seeing him, to a degree, as a surrogate for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. For the reasons to which my right hon. Friend referred, this developing crisis is indeed a key responsibility of the Chancellor.
  Let us understand the key elements in the background to the present pensions issue. My right hon. Friend rightly referred to the fact that until the end of the 1990s, under Governments of both political complexions, we had built up a system of co-funding of pension liabilities between the state and a growing private sector. That was healthy in principle, because it encouraged saving self-help, and was attractive in practice, because it meant that each new generation of retirees was able to look forward to better-funded retirement—better retirement benefits—than previous generations. That is not to detract from the fact that there was a continuing problem of pensioner poverty for those who had been retired for some time, but until 1997 we were able to point out that each new generation saw that problem decrease because benefits for new generations of retirees were on a continuously improving trend.
  Since 1997, we have seen that process go sharply into reverse. In July, Mercer estimated that, even after the considerable stock market recovery that has taken place, the FTSE 350 companies between them had a £64 billion deficit in their pension funds. According to the CBI earlier this year, all companies had a total deficit
  764
  of £100 billion in their pension funds. That means that those companies have made commitments of £100 billion to their former and current employees that they cannot finance.
  Against that background, it is no surprise that we have seen the majority of final salary schemes close to new members. Replacement schemes are less generous in the benefits they provide and there is a continuing and developing problem of how we deal with unfunded deficits when companies get into difficulties—as happens occasionally, hence the discussion earlier this afternoon about the pension protection fund and the way in which the Government's financial assistance proposals will work.
  I do not blame the Government entirely. It is clearly true that a number of other factors have been involved: declining investment returns and increased longevity, unmatched by increasing working lives, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden said. All those things are true and have contributed, but the Government cannot escape from the fact that it was their choice that imposed a £5 billion additional burden on pension schemes. If we apply the minimum funding requirement rules, for which my right hon. Friend was responsible when he was the Secretary of State, to express the net present value of the reduced contribution that the Government are making through dividend tax relief to those pension funds, we find that roughly £40 billion of the £100 billion deficit in today's pensions funds is the result of the Government's policy choice. So although the Government are not the sole author of the developing crisis, they are a very major contributory factor.
  My central point, therefore, is that against the background of a developing crisis, in which huge additional burdens have been put on employers and new generations of retirees face declining benefits into the future instead of improving benefits, the time has come—indeed, it has long since passed—when we urgently need a new approach to rebuild the public-private partnership strategy. The Government love to talk about partnership, but they inherited a partnership strategy—a co-funding strategy—in pensions that was broadly working. That is not to say that it did not need to be maintained and refined; of course, it did.
  We urgently need to rebuild the co-funding of pension liabilities that was the cornerstone of the policy pursued by my right hon. Friend when he was the Secretary of State. The rebuilding of that partnership requires individual employers and employees, the private sector and the state to play a part in rebuilding a new consensus. There has been a fair amount of talk this afternoon about the need for a new consensus, and I wholeheartedly endorse that, but it must be based on a move away from the mass means-testing of pensioner benefits.
  It is ironic that the Chancellor loves to talk about the need to give people incentives when they are in work—he loves to talk about welfare-to-work—but his policy has created the deep problem of disincentives for people to save. I listened with great respect to my right hon. Friend make the case that we cannot get out of the hole without compulsion. Like him. I am instinctively resistant to that case; but, like him, I suspect that, in the end, that will be an important part of the new consensus that must be built.

  765
  Finally, I urge on the House the proposition that all this is part of a much bigger issue. I strongly believe that the modern welfare state, given our constituents' expectations, is affordable only on the basis of co-payment. I have spoken in health debates, along with my right hon. Friend, and in education debates about the need to establish co-payment—individuals and the private sector contributing to the cost of those services—as the only basis on which the welfare state of the future can be built. Pensions funding is but a part of that issue, and the most serious charge against the Government on pensions is that they have allowed the co-funding, the partnership between the public and the private sector on which my right hon. Friend's policy was built, to crumble. In doing so, they have done no favours either to this or to future generations of pensioners. Furthermore, they have undermined the principle that is important way outside the pensions issue, but goes across the whole of the future planning of the welfare state.
  3.4 pm
  Mr. Tony McWalter: I will try not to use up my full time, to allow other hon. Members to take part.
  Like many other hon. Members, I very much want to commend the record of my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who was not only a man of deep compassion and responsiveness to the concerns of Back-Bench Members, but was highly numerate—a virtue that is not always displayed in such debates, particularly by the Liberal Democrats.
  In the short time available to me, I want to concentrate on the fact that, in a pensions system, we look for justice and responsiveness to need. Reconciling those two things can be very difficult. Certainly, it is pretty easy to have a system that gives people incentives, thus rewarding those who have saved and worked hard all their lives. The best way to give an incentive is to do what the last Conservative Government did: to put people who have not managed to save and build up a strong pensions record on income support, which, I seem to recall, was about 50 quid a week. Of course, that was not the only taxpayers' contribution. People got some council tax benefit and, if appropriate, housing benefit and so on, but the reality was that they were forced to live on poverty incomes. Sure, that was a great incentive for people to fear those conditions and to save; but, as a result, large numbers of our citizens were in fear, want and in the cold.
  I speak with some passion because I recall the plight of my own parents—now, sadly, some years deceased. They died at a time when my earnings were relatively humble, and I was unable to help them from the condition of living on income support under a Conservative Government. I do not want to go back to those days. The Government saw that need, and we acted and sorted it out.
  I was at a lunch the other day with a woman of 82, who told me that she has never in her life been less concerned or worried about money. The result of our policies has raised her income from that derisory 50 quid to £105 a week. That is not a fortune; she has financial problems, of course. There are things that she would like to do—visit her grandchildren more often and so on—
  766
  that she finds hard to do on that money, but she has a degree of confidence and assuredness about that £105. The only thing that she did not want to do—other people do not want to do it either, but she bit the bullet and did it—was to ask for it. It is true that many people still will not ask for that money, but our system says that, if people do not have a full pensions contribution record, we will still ensure that they have the money to live on in some level of comfort and decency.
  The National Pensioners Convention, which is lobbying outside today, goes on and on about the basic pension. Well, the basic pension was no good for that 82-year-old woman; it was no good for my mother; and it was no good for people who worked hard all their lives because the pension system is contributory and, under the rules, they were regarded as non-contributors. The basic pension never addressed their concerns.
  I can think of a fairly old Labour solution: first, it says, "Money is no object," and, secondly, its asks, "Why not raise the basic pension to exactly the same level as the minimum income guarantee?" That is what the National Pensioners Convention leaflet says. It also says, "By the way, ignore the contributions principle, because that principle will still create a differential."
  That is a nice response to need and it would certainly simplify the system. I do not know whether the Liberal Democrats have quite reached that point. That policy is very old Labour in that it does not worry about the cost, but the crucial point is that it is grotesquely unjust. How would it distinguish between those who have worked hard to contribute all their lives and those who have not? For a working man to receive the full pension of £80 at 65, he has to have contributed for 44 years. I will not get the full pension myself, unless I do something about that. If someone starts work after 21—I did a post-graduate course and started full-time work after that age—they will not have a full pensions record. I may decide to make up those contributions, but under the old Labour policy that I have described, there would be no incentive for anyone to do so.
  Those people who paid for 44 years—or perhaps made additional contributions to build up their record—would get the same as everybody else. That is not fair, and that is why the Government introduced the pension credit. If people have savings, the Government will not rip them off, but give them credit for those savings. If people have additional pensions, the Government will give them additional money to recognise the contribution that they have made and the extent to which they are not claiming state benefits, such as council tax benefit.
  People need to ask for the means-tested benefits, but if they do so they will receive a sum that most pensioners feel is comfortable. If people have saved or made additional provision for themselves, that is taken into account. In that way, we try to combine responsiveness to need with justice. All the other solutions we have heard today are based on violating the principle of responsiveness to need. The Hitchin and Harpenden solution—I remember it well—was to lower the amount people received in income support to an appalling level to frighten them sick at the prospect of having to rely on it, and thus encourage them to save.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is getting a little worked up and he seems to think that I was arguing for lower pensions. On the contrary, I argued for increased pensions for everybody with a redistributive element to ensure that even those on low earnings ended up with a better pension, above the means-tested level.
  Mr. McWalter: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he believes that the basic pension should be £105 for everybody? Or does he think that those who do not receive a full basic pension should be worse off than those who do? The Conservative party did not even understand the question about women who have worked hard all their lives but do not have a contributions record. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) asked what the Conservatives would do for such women, but none of them seemed to understand or be able to respond to that question.
  We call the Government's policy responding to people's needs, but the Opposition call it means testing. If means testing sorts out poverty and gives people a decent quality of life—as well as rewarding people who have worked hard and saved all their lives—it is fair, just and responsive to need. I have heard nothing from the Opposition, or from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), that remotely begins to address the agenda that my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East adopted—he did a very good job—in order to reconcile those principles.
  3.14 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: I wish to move away briefly from the mainstream of the debate and concentrate on those words on the Order Paper about competence of delivery. I wish to introduce the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) who will shortly respond to the debate, to Mrs G. She is a real person who lives in Birchington in my constituency and who telephoned my office today. She is in her 70s and is very proud and independent. She has inoperable cataracts and suffers from tinnitus. She is on her last post office order book, and she represents thousands like her in this country. She has been told that she cannot have another book. She has also been told by Post Office staff that for reasons of confidentiality they cannot help her to access her money through her PIN number. She cannot read her PIN number because of her eyesight.
  The Government documents that Mrs G has received have simply told her that all the help she needs will be available. Her experience is that such help is not available. When she telephoned my office today she said that she had met an elderly gentleman in floods of tears in the post office because he could not access his money under the new system.
  The system that the Government are introducing is not ready and it is not working. It is being imposed on thousands of elderly people. I have no problem with its introduction from now on, but it should not be done retrospectively. It is being introduced in a manner that is unfeeling, uncaring, insensitive and causes distress.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): I would like to assist both of the constituents the hon. Gentleman mentions by suggesting that he alerts them to the fact that those who cannot operate any form of account, including the Post Office card account, can be paid by cheque. We have ensured that there are no circumstances in which people who cannot operate an account will be left without their money. I hope that he will communicate that to his constituents quickly.
  Mr. Gale: Some people do not have accounts into which to pay cheques, so that does not help, unless the Minister is talking about a money order. There is a modest group of people for whom the present system does not work. Those people should be able to retain their order books for the rest of their lives. That would work. What is proposed at present is not working.
  3.17 pm
  Tom Levitt: About 100 years ago, a gentleman by the name of Frood developed a successful line of brake linings. The company became Ferodo, a name synonymous with brake linings. In turn, it became part of the Turner and Newall group and remained so for many years. Some 10 years ago, Ferodo—which is still known by that name in the High Peak—became part of the Federal Mogul group, an American-led consortium. To this day, of the 20-odd sites that Federal Mogul has across the UK, the one at Chapel-en-le-Frith is one of the most successful and profitable. Indeed, just a few years ago, it could boast a thousand employees. Although it does not have so many today, it is still—by some way—the largest private sector employer on a single site in my constituency.
  I do not need to remind the House that the Turner and Newall pension fund that Federal Mogul inherited is in considerable difficulty. However, it has not yet folded and talks continue on how best the company can meet its obligations to its work force, past and present and across the globe, not just in Chapel-en-le-Frith. Some 40,000 people in this country are members of the Turner and Newall pension fund. Only 10 per cent. currently work for Federal Mogul. Half of them are existing pensioners and the remainder are deferred pension holders, who have at some point made a contribution to the fund but have not yet started to draw their pensions.
  All those 40,000 people were led to believe throughout, no matter when they worked for the company, that in return for their contributions and those put in by the employers, there would be a pension when they came to retire.
  Until a little while ago, there was no reason to think that there was a problem, but in fact problems arose about three years ago when the American company Federal Mogul—not Ferodo or Turner and Newall—put itself into chapter 11 administration in the United States for reasons to do with protection against insurance claims on asbestos cases, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, and the company's situation in the United States. The reasons for going into administration had precious little to do with the way in which the company was operating in the United Kingdom.
  Nevertheless, even when the company went into administration, it was not flagged up that that could lead to a problem with the pension fund. Indeed, as far

  769
  as we know, that pension fund was muddling along, no better and no worse than any other, and people had a full expectation of receiving their pension. Indeed, a letter went out in July to all fund members from the trustees and the company's administrators to say that some issues had to be addressed. However, it was not until about three weeks later that a second letter went out saying that there was a crisis and that it was impossible to see how the pension fund could meet its obligations. Again, that is an interesting issue because no real problems were mentioned before.
  The problem is that the company has been in administration for three years and needs to come out of it. Its situation is not sustainable and it has been in administration for longer than originally anticipated. If I understand the rules correctly, the pension fund of a company in administration has to be performing at a higher level, more effectively and profitably, than the pension fund of a company that has not gone into administration if it is to make the leap out of administration. It is that required level of funding and performance that is causing all the problems.
  In response to the situation in Chapel-en-le-Frith, across High Peak and elsewhere, a local Conservative councillor in Chapel-en-le-Frith has started going around doing a passable impression of Mr. Frazer of "Dad's Army", taking a "We're all doomed" approach to solving the problem. That has done nothing other than generate panic, concern and unnecessary worry. We need all groups to work together to ensure that the company meets its obligations.
  Over the past few weeks, I have met fund members, corresponded with pensioners and deferred members, visited the site several times—I am going there again next week—and contacted other Members of Parliament. My hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) and for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) and I have established an all-party support group for pension fund members of Turner and Newall. As a group, we met my hon. Friend the Pensions Minister in the middle of August to ensure that he was fully acquainted with our concerns and those of our constituents. I assure the House that he was and that he takes the matter seriously, as he described earlier. Next week, our group has meetings with the trustees of the pension fund and the company's administrators to express the concerns, which I know from today's comments are shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, about the future of that pension fund and the 40,000 people who are its members in one way or another.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. From his discussions with Ministers, has he discovered whether the pension scheme will come under the terms of the financial assistance scheme if it goes into wind-up, which we all hope does not happen, between now and next April?
  Tom Levitt: As a group and as individual Members of Parliament we have made the case strongly to Ministers that for all sorts of reasons—short term, long term, political and personal—the pension fund should not be allowed to collapse in ruins. As I said in an intervention, it is principally the responsibility of the people who led
  770
  the fund members to believe that there would be a pension at the end, because they were partners in creating that pension, to ensure that those pensions are paid. To talk about finding them a convenient and easy way out, which allows them to throw their hands up in the air and say, "Well, in that case we wash our hands of the pension scheme and will rely on the Government to bail us out", would not be a responsible approach.
  I do not prejudge what will happen because I want the scheme to be rescued and, if at all possible, I want it to be rescued by those who were involved in making promises about the outcome of the scheme in the first place. Incidentally, those same people have awarded Federal Mogul a contributions holiday in 18 of the past 25 years. I do not know whether that was irresponsible or a result of complacency, based on the best possible financial advice, but I do know that when the pension fund trustees advised the company only a year ago that it should continue to make contributions, that advice was not heeded.
  Mr. McWalter: Is my hon. Friend aware that such situations are not usually the result of company profligacy or meanness, but the result of the 105 per cent. rule introduced by the Conservative party? It meant that companies were not allowed to have assets to cover liabilities above 105 per cent. That is the main reason why most companies had to give themselves contributions holidays.
  Tom Levitt: I understand that that may be the explanation and I would be interested to hear that confirmed for this specific case. However, the fund's investments were in stocks when stocks were falling, in gilts when gilts were not doing well and in bonds when they were not doing well. A report in the national press a few weeks ago said that because of a rising stock market and rising interest rates, typical pension funds this year are 25 per cent. better off than they were last year, but that does not apply to the Turner and Newall pension fund, which has not been sufficient for what is necessary to cover even normal expectations, let alone the worst-case scenario.
  Some money is on the table from the Federal Mogul company in America, but it is not sufficient. There were meetings in the middle of August and at the beginning of September, and there will be further meetings between the trustees, the administrators and the trade unions. The Transport and General Workers Union and Amicus in particular have done a thorough, responsible and effective job in keeping the issues going to set the basis for a settlement on the grounds that I mentioned.
  I wish those talks well. I understand that there are considerable assets in the company, and I am adamant that the first line of defence for those 40,000 members of the pension fund has got to be to ensure that this huge international company with significant assets throughout the world meets the moral obligations it had when it took on every single employee in the first place and agreed a deal under which a pension would be paid.
  3.29 pm
  Hywel Williams: I would like to ground the debate in the experience of my constituents, many of whom depend on Turner and Newall pensions.

  771
  There is a particularly acute circumstance in my constituency, in that people who used to work for Ferodo were persuaded to stay with the Turner and Newall scheme when the company was taken over by Friction Dynamics. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will be familiar with the long-running dispute at the Friction Dynamics plant at Caernarfon. It is particularly ironic and cruel that the workers at Friction Dynamics on strike—or locked out, if you will—for three years are now facing uncertainty, having won their industrial tribunal case, defeated the new employer, seen that company go into administration and been denied the compensation that they are due. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) earlier that it is a question of uncertainty. I do not think that we are all doomed, and I do not want to contribute to such a picture.
  My constituents joined the Turner and Newall scheme. They had to do so, and there were advised that it was very safe. Many of them deferred their pensions when Friction Dynamics took over, and they are now ruing their loss. I understand that the current deficiency in the Turner and Newall scheme is £875 million, which puts the offer of £400 million to the initial scheme referred to by the Prime Minister earlier in some context.
  Tom Levitt: For the record, the figure the hon. Gentleman cited is the buy-out figure if the whole thing collapses. To keep the scheme running would involve significantly less than that, but it would still be a substantial figure, and more than the one currently on the table.
  Hywel Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. I accept that a substantial amount of money would still be required. I have received correspondence from several constituents, including Mr. Gerald Parry, who led the workers during the lockout. I shall not name the others owing to the pressure of time, but they are all pressing the Government to work with the trade unions and the company to resolve the matter, to ensure that the company administrator and the independent trustee take full account of their long-term needs, and to ensure that funds are provided for the pension assistance scheme if necessary.
  I shall briefly quote another of my constituents, Mr. David Bartram of Y Groeslon. Perhaps this is the most significant thing I can add in my brief contribution. He says:
  "The current situation has shaken everyone's faith in the pension industries' abilities to deliver the promised long term benefits."
  That is a very significant statement, as it is indicative of the corrosion of people's faith in the system created by the whole affair. Significantly, he closes by saying:
  "If I were now starting my working career, I would be taking a very different view of the pension industries or looking for a job in government/local authority service."
  We do not want to encourage such attitudes in Caernarfon, where the public sector looms very large, and where there is a certain lack on entrepreneurship, or in the other objective 1 areas in Wales for that matter. My constituents are worried and concerned, and they are looking for help and reassurance.
  3.33 pm
  Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I want to follow on where the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) left off. There is a company in my constituency that used to be called Wellman, which became Turner and Newall, and ultimately Federal Mogul. Currently, 80 of my constituents are in the situation described by the hon. Gentleman as the company's ongoing situation.
  The hon. Gentleman was being almost kind about the level of deficit we could be facing if things go wrong. I have looked into the matter, and the shortfall world wide is just under £1 billion, of which the deficit in this country is £300 million. The initial discussions that Amicus has had have been absolutely first class—the hon. Gentleman is right about that. The company has already offered to pay £65 million, which is woefully inadequate at any level. About £29 million a year will be needed for the next eight years, which adds up to a total of £232 million, to sustain the current level of the scheme.
  Yet again, I urge the Minister to look at the problem, because unless the rules for the pension protection fund are changed, at least eighty of my constituents, and perhaps up to 400 people in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook), could be affected. I do not know exactly how many people who have taken earlier retirement or opted for other forms of retirement are involved, but I receive letters almost daily from individuals affected by the problem.
  Will the Minister look at the issue as a matter of urgency, because 40,000 people—an awfully high number—will be affected? The company said that it was moving from my constituency to Poland, but in fact it had already filed for bankruptcy under chapter 11, although it did not make that clear. Many employees were given leaving packages before the company moved, and were removed from the company scheme. People who took early retirement are not angry, but perturbed and concerned. There is, however, obviously concern among pensioners.
  Unusually for a Conservative MP, I represent an industrial town that is home to British Cellophane, Trig Engineering and many other multi-national or international companies. Many people wonder whether the current problem is the tip of the iceberg, as world wide there are a terrifying number of company wind-ups. I do not expect the Minister to give us an assurance now, but can he tell us in the next few months, or years if necessary, how many companies will be affected? Many people do not believe that their scheme is secure but, as has been argued eloquently by Members on both sides of the House, the Government cannot be blamed because the problem goes back many years. However, people would be grateful for an assurance that the Government will look at their schemes.
  In conclusion, I urge the Government to look at the protection fund, as that is extremely important to many people who worked in good faith for a company which has filed for chapter 11 in America and will ultimately fall into administration.
  3.37 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am delighted to take part in this debate, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger), who spoke about the subject with passion and knowledge.
  It is difficult not to have considerable sympathy with the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), and I join the Members who have queued up to pay him abundant plaudits today. On Monday morning, he woke up and faced a triple whammy. He was supposed to appear before the Work and Pensions Committee this morning, would meet the pensioners' lobby today, and speak in our debate this afternoon. No wonder he resigned. However, we do not need the resignation of the Secretary of State to tell us that the Government's policies on pensions are in deep trouble. Means-testing is set to rise inexorably, and only a couple of days ago, the latest figures on the pension credit showed that almost 2 million pensioners are still not receiving the benefits to which they are entitled. As we know, the Department itself assumes that 1.4 million pensioners will not claim pension credit even though they are entitled to it. No wonder a recent poll by Age Concern revealed that the majority of people who receive pension credit do not like it at all.
  The collapse of a savings culture was discussed eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), and the problems of the computer crash and direct payments more generally were discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). Recent figures confirm that more than 1 million workers are working beyond the usual retirement age, which is another sign of the crisis in pensions. Importantly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), discussed the need to rebuild co-funding to tackle the crisis. Demonstrators have come to Parliament today because they want a decent state pension, and support our policy of restoring the link between the state pension and earnings. I am pleased that in our debate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) supported that policy.
  There are therefore many problems, but every time Ministers think that the situation cannot get worse, it does.
  Just today it is revealed that the main steel union is pressing ahead with its court case against the Government over the inadequacy of their rescue package. On occupational pensions, the sad truth is that the Government's plans are fundamentally flawed and the PPF is likely to end up as a clumsy and unstable political creation that cannot deliver the guarantee of which Ministers have boasted.
  Ministers claim to have drawn lessons from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation in America, but they are not starting off with a fully risk-based levy so that the PPF is properly funded and good schemes do not subsidise the bad. In the first few years there will be a flat-rate levy for the PPF. We believe that will make it financially vulnerable.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said in opening the debate, perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all this is the growing gap between the Government's spin on the lifeboat that it is creating
  774
  for individuals through the PPF, and the reality. As we heard, people who have not yet retired will get only 90 per cent. of their entitlement at best. Indeed, there is to be a cap on the compensation payable in each case. Also, the Government are diluting the indexation rules so pensioners will receive even less. As if all this were not enough, the Government are taking powers, as we heard, to cut benefits payable under the scheme if the resources are not available—a point that has clearly not been lost on the new chairman of the PPF and which was, in effect, conceded by the Minister during his speech. The PPF is very far from being a total guarantee.
  We, the CBI and the National Association of Pension Funds, among others, have been warning that the totality of the Government's proposals, including the ill-considered anti-avoidance provisions, may well have unintended consequences and deny decent pension security to future generations. With her typical delicacy, Christine Farnish of the NAPF said of the Department for Work and Pensions:
  "I think they are very challenged by the complexities of these issues."
  A recent survey by the Engineering Employers Federation shows that one in three employers might scrap their final salary schemes if the Bill goes through in its present form. That is on top of all the final salary schemes that have already closed under the Government.
  The Bill has been largely overshadowed by legitimate concerns about the 65,000 workers who have already lost substantial pension rights when their companies went bust and who will not receive any compensation from the PPF. We have always recognised that we cannot use the levy of the PPF retrospectively, but we have consistently argued for compensation to be provided through the use of so-called unclaimed assets. At the very last moment, when they were facing defeat in the Commons by a cross-party coalition, the Government cobbled together their rescue package, but details of that package are still in short supply. One aspect that has emerged is that there is to be no cash for the victims of solvent wind-ups. Once the Government deemed that workers who had lost out were deserving of help, what moral basis can there be to exclude those who were involved in wind-ups of solvent companies that still left them potentially destitute?
  More workers are continuing to become potential claimants on the £400 million before the PPF is up and running in April next year. It is already clear that £400 million will not be enough to go round. Assuming a pensioner lives for 20 years, it will provide less than £1 a day on average. Over the summer the Government promised to put more flesh on the bones of their financial assistance scheme, but what has begun to emerge is deeply disturbing. I have touched on the blatant unfairness with respect to solvent wind-ups, but there are other questions. Will compensation paid under the scheme be subject to tax and will it be means-tested? People need to know the answer to such questions. If further funds are not available from the pensions industry or industry more generally, do the Government intend to top up the £400 million if it proves inadequate? Will they reconsider the issue of unclaimed assets?
  As the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) and others eloquently described, in the early summer massive problems came to light at Turner and Newall.

  775
  Forty thousand pensioners and future pensioners could be affected. The possible shortfall could be £875 million. I am meeting a delegation from Derbyshire tomorrow, including the Tory prospective candidate for High Peak, Mr. Andrew Bingham, who has been very energetic on the issue. I shall be interested to hear what he has to say.
  On the face of it, such a massive pensions failure could swamp the PPF, if it happens on its watch. In the short term, it demonstrates the inadequacy of the financial assistance scheme. It has been suggested that schemes that collapse between May this year and April next year, when the PPF is supposed to open its doors, will not benefit from the financial assistance scheme. The Government's briefing suggests that those people will be protected by the new priority order on wind-up, but all that does is change how the cake is divided up; it does not increase the size of the cake.
  Will those people risk falling between two stools? The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), should come clean about that matter, because the Minister for Pensions carefully avoided the question. Will the workers of a company such as Turner and Newall benefit from the financial assistance scheme—yes or no?
  Tom Levitt: I shall put the hon. Gentleman's question straight back to him: if he were in the Minister's shoes, would he find £875 million of taxpayers' money to bail out that scheme?
  Mr. Waterson: Unlike the Labour party, we have a policy. We would re-examine the use of unclaimed assets to compensate people, and I shall tell that to the delegation tomorrow.
  We currently have no Secretary of State—the Department is rudderless; everyone except Ministers agrees that the financial assistance scheme is inadequate; the Pensions Bill lurches from disaster to disaster; the PPF will not provide a full guarantee; and the pensions crisis deepens and worsens as Ministers come and go. In the past few days, we have finally learned just how much the Government really care about pensions. The Government have spun the idea that they are prepared to jettison their Pensions Bill in its entirety to allow the hunting Bill on to the statute book, which is designed to pacify their own Back Benchers. They should ask the workers at Turner and Newall whether they prefer a hunting Bill or a Pensions Bill—I can imagine the workers' answer.
  Under this Government, things are rarely as they seem on the surface. Perhaps it has finally dawned on those deep in the Department for Work and Pensions that their strategy is hopelessly flawed and that Ministers have been pursuing the wrong issues, in the wrong way and at the wrong time. Perhaps it is with quiet relief that they prepare to sacrifice the Pensions Bill and return to the drawing board, hoping that they can blame somebody else.
  Oscar Wilde described hunting as
  "the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable."
  Under this Government, pensions policy has become the incompetent in pursuit of the unworkable.
  3.48 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): This has been a good debate on a subject of great importance to all our constituents. We have heard contributions from two former Secretaries of State and a former Minister of State, and most hon. Members have paid tribute to the most recent Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), with whom I had the privilege to work, and I can confirm that those tributes are well deserved.
  We have heard thoughtful and moving speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) and for High Peak (Tom Levitt). My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak described the plight of his constituents who are affected by Turner and Newall's difficulties, as did the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams).
  I thank the Opposition for their generosity in using their parliamentary time on a subject that we are delighted to debate in the House, in the country and on the doorsteps in the months ahead. We are happy to debate it because, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions told the House, we are proud of our record. This year, pensioner households will be £26 per week better off in real terms than they were when we took over, and the poorest pensioner households are £33 per week better off than they were under the Tory Government.
  We are proud that as a result of pension credit and the other measures we have taken there are now 1.8 million fewer pensioners living in poverty: poverty that not only disfigured their lives in their final years but was a scar on the nation; an injustice made worse during the years in which the Conservatives were in government.
  We are proud that we have boosted pensioner incomes by £10 billion a year, compared with the £10 billion that the Conservatives lifted from the pockets and purses of pensioners when they were in office.
  We are proud that it is a Labour Government who have brought forward measures to restore security and public confidence in pensions. We are doing that through our proposals in the Pensions Bill, to which Conservative Members declined to give a Second Reading, as we will continue to remind them, which sets up a pension protection fund giving protection to more than 10 million members of defined benefit schemes to ensure that the tragedy faced by thousands of people left with neither a job nor a pension should never happen again. We are doing it through the £400 million that my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East, when he was Secretary of State, secured for the financial assistance scheme to help many of those who have already lost out.
  So we are very happy to debate these issues on the basis of our own record and our plans for the future, which, despite the demographic challenges outlined by my hon. Friend in his opening remarks, provide a firm foundation for secure retirement in the future. We are also happy to debate them because of the record and

  777
  plans of the Opposition parties, both of which would have pensioners believe that they will spend an extra £16 billion on their plans, given the chance. The question has to be: who will pay for it and how?
  The Tories would abolish the state second pension, which gives 20 million people the chance to build up a decent second pension for the first time. Five million of them are low earners, 2.5 million are carers, most of them are women, and 2.5 million are disabled people with broken work records. The Conservatives, if they had their way, would let pension credit, in the phrase of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), "wither on the vine"; or, in the words of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), "die a natural death". I will look forward to seeing them on the doorsteps in the weeks and months ahead telling that to the 3 million pensioners who are each receiving, on average, £42 in pension credit. Perhaps those hon. Gentlemen would like to come with me to Kent to tell the pensioner in her 90s who was recently visited by the Pension Service to be told that she was entitled to £66.92 a week in pension credit, with a back payment of £2,678, that she will get no help at all from their plans for basic state pensions. If they would like to come with me, I will give them a lift.
  Around half of those entitled to pension credit are single women and more than a quarter are women aged over 80. Those are the people who would pay the price for Tory pension plans.
  We have heard certain right hon. and hon. Members allege that pension credit discourages people from making proper provision towards their pensions. I have to tell the House that the reality is quite the opposite. The purpose of the pension credit is to encourage people to make some provision for themselves. Indeed, the Financial Services Authority concludes:
  "The Pension Credit will mean that for most people, most of the time, it will pay to have saved".
  That is the very basis of our policy.
  I have said who will lose from the Opposition's plan to uprate basic state pensions in line with earnings.
  Now there's an idea, but I wonder who scrapped the earnings link in the first place. Who called such a policy "wild and uncosted"? Who called it, "not well targeted" and "not affordable"? Who said in January:
  "Breaking the earnings link in 1980 played a crucial role in this picture of British success … a triumphant success"?
  We all know that it was the hon. Member for Havant, who tries to persuade us and pensioners that he is a reformed character. He is going through a form of restorative justice, telling pensioners how sorry he is to have cut their pensions in the past. He is a reformed character, and so, apparently, is his current leader, who was in government throughout the period when pensioners' incomes were decimated.
  We are not daft and neither are millions of Britain's pensioners, many of whom are here today to lobby the House. The hon. Member for Eastbourne, who is sitting next to the hon. Member for Havant, let the cat out of
  778
  the bag when, in the presence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary with responsibilities for the disabled, he told the National Pensioners Convention:
  "I'm here for your votes".
  Nice try, but I am sure that members of the convention will see through such opportunism, as we do.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): They booed him.
  Mr. Pond: I fear that the hon. Gentleman was booed. The Opposition will be judged on their record, not the flannel that they produced today.
  I have respect for many of those who argue for reintroducing the earnings link, including many who lobbied the House today, but not the opportunists on the Opposition Benches. However, it would take 14 years for a basic pension that was uprated by earnings to reach the guaranteed level of pension credit. In that time, the poorest pensioners would gain nothing. Many of them do not have that time to spare. The earnings link is promised only for the first Parliament—perhaps four or five years—of a Tory Government.
  The Liberal Democrats also want to spend £16 billion on what they call a citizens pension. It would mean an extra £100 a month for those over 75, no questions asked. How will they pay for it? They intend to scrap the Department of Trade and Industry: out goes investment in world-class science and technology; out goes the £2 billion that the Government are investing in the post office network, and out goes the Department that administers the national minimum wage and protects the rights of working people and consumers. Of course, those plans, too, would do nothing for the poorest pensioners.
  Those are the plans of the Opposition for state pensions. They are opportunist, half-baked and barely half-believable. What are their plans for private and occupational pensions? Silence. They have none. They had nothing to offer today and they have nothing to offer for building security in the long term.
  Pensions are of vital concern to all our constituents, of all ages, and the debate has highlighted again the challenges that we face. Those challenges—the changing landscape of occupational pension provision, stock market pressures, and the demographics of increasing longevity—are very real. They have to be taken seriously and we must have the long-term plans to deal with them. We are prepared to have the courage to take on those difficult challenges: to rebuild confidence and security in occupational and private pensions; to ensure that we do not use the threat of poverty in retirement as the only incentive—as offered by Opposition parties—to save. We want to give people genuine incentives to save.
  Sir John Butterfill: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
  Mr. Pond: I cannot give way because I am short on time.

  779
  Conservative Members came to the House today with no substantive plans to provide security such as that which the pension protection fund and other provisions in the Pensions Bill offer. They declined to give that measure a Second Reading. Today, they argued against our proposals but offered nothing in their place. The House will see through the Opposition's cynical opportunism and so will pensioners.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 310.

  Division No. 238]

  [3:59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Fallon, Michael

  Allan, Richard

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Amess, David

  Westminster)

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Flight, Howard

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Flook, Adrian

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bacon, Richard

  Francois, Mark

  Baker, Norman

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Baldry, Tony

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Barrett, John

  Gidley, Sandra

  Boswell, Tim

  Gill, Parmjit Singh

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Goodman, Paul

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Surrey)

  Grayling, Chris

  Brady, Graham

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, John

  Breed, Colin

  Grieve, Dominic

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Hague, rh William

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hammond, Philip

  Burns, Simon

  Hancock, Mike

  Burstow, Paul

  Hawkins, Nick

  Burt, Alistair

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Heald, Oliver

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Heath, David

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Cameron, David

  Hendry Charles

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Hermon, Lady

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Fife)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Holmes, Paul

  Cash, William

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Chope, Christopher

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Clappison, James

  Jack, rh Michael

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Collins, Tim

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Conway, Derek

  Keetch, Paul

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Cotter, Brian

  Inverness

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Curry, rh David

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Stamford)

  Lamb, Norman

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Lansley. Andrew

  Howden)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Leigh, Edward

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Doughty, Sue

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Lidington, David

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Fabricant, Michael

  Loughton, Tim

  780

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Soames, Nicholas

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Maples, John

  Spring, Richard

  Mates, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Streeter, Gary

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mercer, Patrick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Syms, Robert

  Coldfield)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Moore, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Norman, Archie

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Teather, Sarah

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Thurso, John

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Ottaway, Richard

  Trend, Michael

  Paice, James

  Trimble, rh David

  Paterson, Owen

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Pickles, Eric

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Dinefwr)

  Walter, Robert

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Watkinson, Angela

  Randall, John

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Redwood, rh John

  Weir, Michael

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Whittingdale, John

  Rendel, David

  Wiggin, Bill

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Willetts, David

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  M-Kent)

  Willis, Phil

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Wilshire, David

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Ruffley, David

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  (Macclesfield)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Wishart, Pete

  Selous, Andrew

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Young, rh Sir George

  Shepherd, Richard

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Simmonds, Mark

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns &

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Kincardine)

  Gregory Barker

  NOES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ainger, Nick

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Alexander, Douglas

  Borrow, David

  Allen, Graham

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Darwen)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Wallsend)

  Austin, John

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Browne, Desmond

  Baird, Vera

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Banks, Tony

  Burden, Richard

  Barnes, Harry

  Byrne, Liam (B'ham Hodge H)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Cairns, David

  Battle, John

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Beard, Nigel

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Caplin, Ivor

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Casale, Roger

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Caton, Martin

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Challen, Colin

  Berry, Roger

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Best, Harold

  Chaytor, David

  Betts, Clive

  Clapham, Michael

  Blackman, Liz

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  781

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Hendrick, Mark

  Pentlands)

  Heppell, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Chryston)

  Heyes, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Clelland, David

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cohen, Harry

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Colman, Tony

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Sefton E)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Corston, Jean

  Urmston)

  Cousins, Jim

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Crausby, David

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hutton, rh John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Cummings, John

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Highgate)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jamieson, David

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jenkins, Brian

  David, Wayne

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Davidson, Ian

  Hatfield)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Denham, rh John

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald

  Dismore, Andrew

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Doran, Frank

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Kidney, David

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bow)

  Edwards, Huw

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Efford, Clive

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lammy, David

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Lepper, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Flint, Caroline

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Follett, Barbara

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Love, Andrew

  & Rye)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  McCabe, Stephen

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gerrard, Neil

  McDonnell, John

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  McFall, rh John

  Gilroy, Linda

  McGrady, Eddie

  Godsiff, Roger

  McIsaac, Shona

  Goggins, Paul

  McKechin, Ann

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mckenna, Rosemary

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Grogan, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Hain, rh Peter

  MacShane, Denis

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hanson, David

  McWilliam, John

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Healey, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  782

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Martlew, Eric

  Sheridan, Jim

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Merron, Gillian

  Short, rh Clare

  Michael, rh Alun

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Singh, Marsha

  Miliband, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Moffatt, Laura

  Finsbury)

  Moran, Margaret

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morgan, Julie

  Southworth, Helen

  Morley, Elliot

  Spellar, rh John

  Mountford, Kali

  Squire, Rachel

  Mudie, George

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Mullin, Chris

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Lochaber)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stringer, Graham

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Perham, Linda

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Picking, Anne

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Plaskitt, James

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Pound, Stephen

  Trickett, Jon

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Truswell, Paul

  E)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Prescott, rh John

  Kemptown)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Purchase, Ken

  Tynan, Bil (Hamilton S)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Rammell, Bill

  Ward, Claire

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  White, Brian

  Bellshill)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  NW)

  Wills, Michael

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Winnick, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  C)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Ruane, Chris

  Woolas, Phil

  Ruddock, Joan

  Worthington, Tony

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Chester)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Salter, Martin

  Wyatt, Derek

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sawford, Phil

  Jim Fitzpatrick and

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Joan Ryan

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House supports the Government's strategy to enable people to save securely for their retirement and to promote retirement flexibility and informed choice; welcomes the Government's Pensions Bill and Pension Protection Fund, which

  783
  will bring real security for over 10 million defined benefit pension scheme members if their employer becomes insolvent and their pension scheme winds up; further welcomes the £400 million Financial Assistance Scheme which will help people who have already lost out; believes that the Pensions Bill will enable many more people to save with confidence with a new proactive pensions regulator, measures to simplify pensions legislation and improved incentives to work past the state pension age; supports the pensions tax simplification proposals being taken forward in the Finance Act 2004, which will replace eight tax regimes with one simplified system; commends proposals in the Pensions Bill to allow individuals to defer their state pension and draw it as a lump sum; welcomes measures to enable people to make an informed choice in pension provision, including new pilots to provide information and advice in the workplace; condemns the inheritance of 1997, with the legacy of pension mis-selling and millions in poverty, whereby many were expected by the previous Government to live on under £69 a week; believes that the Opposition parties' policies will be unfair to the poorest pensioners, unaffordable and unsustainable; commends the Government's historic commitment to tackling pensioner poverty; and welcomes the extra £10 billion that the Government is spending on pensioners in 2004–05 compared with the 1997 system.

  Hospital-Acquired Infection
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches in this debate and has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.16 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I beg to move,
  That this House notes with deep concern the increased levels of hospital-acquired infection and, in particular, that the incidence of methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has doubled since 1997; welcomes the report by the National Audit Office 'Improving Patient Care by Reducing the Risk of Hospital-Acquired Infection: a Progress Report' (HC 876); regrets the lack of timely action by the Government which this discloses, including higher bed occupancies and the resultant impact of Government waiting list targets on infection control measures, lack of surveillance data other than hospital-wide MRSA and post-discharge surveillance and isolation facilities, and lack of progress on a national infection control manual; is deeply concerned that recommendations for bed or ward closures by infection control teams have been refused; and calls on the Government now to act urgently to secure the action needed to reduce hospital-acquired infections.
  A week ago, the Health Minister, Lord Warner, announced what he described as the first national campaign to promote hand cleaning by health care staff. Well, 150 years on from Florence Nightingale's work in the Crimea, I think that we can fairly say that it was not the first such campaign—but what did it tell us about the Government's response to the crisis of hospital-acquired infection? Four and a half years ago, in its 42nd report in the 1999–2000 Session, the Public Accounts Committee made the following recommendation:
  "Hospital hygiene is crucial in preventing hospital-acquired infection including basic practice such as handwashing. We find it inexcusable that compliance with guidance on handwashing is so poor… We… look to"
  the NHS executive
  "to audit progress and report back to us by the end of 2001."
  Four and a half years later, the Department of Health announces a campaign. Only now is it showing, in this limited respect, the urgency and determination to achieve cleanliness and hygiene in our hospitals that have been urged on it not only by the PAC but by others.
  We do not know the extent of hospital-acquired infection and the costs that it imposes. That, too, the PAC asked for four and a half years ago—it was asked for but not achieved. What we do know is the human cost: several thousand lives needlessly lost and patients suffering weeks, even months, with their wounds failing to heal. Every Member of Parliament will know from constituents of the pain and distress that these infections cause. That is why we all want and expect the risk of hospital-acquired infection to be combated with all the energy and urgency that we can command, and why we in the Opposition brought the matter to the attention of the House immediately on its return.
  The National Audit Office report, four and a half years on, lays bare the failure to act or to achieve the progress called for by the PAC and, frankly, by so many others. In June 2000, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) made exactly the same points here in the House.

  785
  I hope that we do not have a debate in which Opposition Members all say that the glass if half-empty and Government Members all say that the glass is half-full. The issue is too important for that and my contention is not that nothing has been done. NHS staff across the country are becoming more aware of the need for comprehensive infection-control measures. I and other hon. Members know that exemplary work is being done in many parts of the NHS so that patients see clean wards and can be confident of not contracting infections.
  Equally, however, some places are not clean and infections are endemic, sometimes even in high-risk areas. What is deeply disturbing and lies at the heart of the debate is the fact that, far from doing everything that they could to deliver safe care to patients, the Government have not done so. Worse, they have pursued their obsession with central targets, which have frustrated the achievement of effective infection-control procedures. The purpose of the Opposition motion and today's debate is to require of the Government the urgency of action demanded more than four years ago, but which has been so sadly lacking.
  The evidence is depressingly clear. In 2000, the Public Accounts Committee said that the NHS did not have a grip on the extent and costs of infection. It recommended that the nosocomial infection national surveillance scheme be developed and made mandatory. Ministers chose not to do so, as the National Audit Office report of July describes it. It says:
  "Instead of developing mandatory specialty specific surveillance of bloodstream, surgical site and urinary tract infections whose information would be fed back to clinicians to improve practice, the Department focussed on trust-wide surveillance of MRSA bacteraemias and other specific organisms, together with plans for mandatory reporting of orthopaedic surgical site infection."
  That is methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the bloodstream, rather than MRSA where surgical site infections are concerned. It continues:
  "This is a critical issue. Leadership and clinical responsibility is at the heart of infection control measures. Data which is not specialty specific is not leading to clinicians taking their responsibility for reducing infection, nor is it equipping patients with the key information about the incidence of infection in the wards to which they may be admitted for operations, especially if they are high-risk areas."
  Mr. Andrew Miller: I have taken a close personal interest in the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, and I would counsel him to be very careful about the way in which he uses statistics in this matter. For example, a small specialty unit might have only a few patients, but they may all have come in from dozens of surrounding general hospitals. Such units are almost certain to be statistically high up in the league tables. It is a distortion of the efforts made to manage controls. I urge the hon. Gentleman to be extremely careful with the data.
  Mr. Lansley: I was not planning to elaborate on that, but the hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. The Public Accounts Committee report—I did not originate the proposal—in a sense suggests being much more careful with the data. Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman what is happening at the moment. The currently published MRSA rates measure incidence
  786
  rather than prevalence, so they do not tell us the likelihood of arriving at a hospital without infection and acquiring it while within that hospital or particular clinical department. We are told only about the total incidence of hospital-acquired infection—or, more particularly, MRSA bloodstream infections in the hospital.
  I know how important that is, because Addenbrooke's hospital in my constituency had the second-highest incidence of MRSA. A significant part of the problem was the extent to which the hospital was admitting patients from other clinical contexts, in which MRSA had been detected. The House will be aware of many instances in which hospitals have said that their data were influenced by the extent to which there is MRSA in nursing homes, and by the number of patients from those homes being admitted to hospital.
  I do not dispute that it is important to get statistics absolutely clear. We are raising this subject now in part because clinicians want the available data to be much more specialty specific and related to clinical departments. In that way, the data will not be obscured by information that is hospital-wide. Clinicians will then be able to act on the information that is under their control and to be judged accordingly by general practitioners and patients. That is an example of how patient choice will play a role.
  The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): The hon. Gentleman speaks about the need for both testing and data to be specific and reliable. Does he understand, therefore, why we have chosen to test for MRSA infection in the bloodstream, but not in open wounds or in respiratory or urinary tracts? It is because, for good scientific reasons, the reliability of the data varies in each case. The incidence of MRSA infection in urinary or respiratory tracts is very low. We are not being negligent, but we are exercising judgment. The hon. Gentleman can query our judgment, or qualify it, but I assure him that we are not being lazy in this matter—there is no question but that we want to cover every eventuality. Our approach is based on the reliability of the scientific data that can be derived from the various forms of infection.
  Mr. Lansley: I am making the same point that was made by the National Audit Office. If the Government have specific reasons for departing from the recommendations made by the NAO and the Public Accounts Committee—that the mechanism in the nosocomial infection national surveillance service be continued—they have failed to make them clear. I accept the point made by the Secretary of State about MRSA infection of urinary and respiratory tracts, but it is possible, relevant, practical and desirable to undertake NINNS surveillance in respect of surgical site infections, and of some specialties.
  Indeed, the Government are proposing to undertake such surveillance in respect of orthopaedics in 2005. If that surveillance is relevant for orthopaedics, why is it not relevant for a range of surgical-site infections that have been part of the NINNS scheme?
  Dr. Reid: I did not say that such surveillance was irrelevant; I said that it was not as reliable. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we are extending the

  787
  surveillance beyond the bloodstream tests, but my point was merely that when we started the surveillance, we chose a limited application because the data gathered in that way were more reliable. I do not need to point out to him that no data were collected over the entire 18 years of the previous Conservative Government. We have responded to the problem, but we have done so first in those areas where the data are more reliable so that we could get a picture as soon as possible. We are now about to extend the surveillance.
  I am interventing in the hon. Gentleman's speech because no party political points are involved. I am not trying to score points, and I know that he is not trying to do so either. My aim is merely to explain the scientific basis of the advice on which I am operating.
  Mr. Lansley: In the same spirit, the Secretary of State will accept that if some of what is considered to be good practice—for example, the screening of patients before admission to hospital for elective surgery, and post-discharge surveillance—were to be carried out in full, it is possible that the problem of the reliability of data could be dealt with. However, the point is to generate data on which people will act. In some circumstances, the best could be the enemy of the good. I put it to the Government that at the moment they are pursuing the best, rather than what is good.
  Clinical teams need to take responsibility for the matter. Indeed, the Government's amendment states that
  "mandatory MRSA surveillance raised the profile of infection control with senior managers".
  It did, but as the NAO said:
  "The main concerns of mandatory MRSA surveillance were that the denominator data was inappropriate as it was collected across the whole hospital, and as a result, clinical staff did not relate to it, and trust management considered it to be a problem for the infection control team rather than clinicians."
  The Secretary of State will recall that elsewhere the NAO found too often a tendency for people across the NHS to see the responsibility as one for the infection control team, or somebody else, rather than theirs. Taking responsibility and giving leadership is central to what we are trying to achieve.
  The Government amendment also talks of the advantage of imposing another Government target. As we know, targets set are not necessarily targets met. Even targets apparently met often have unfortunate consequences elsewhere. Nowhere is that more true than in the effect of Government waiting list targets on infection control. The NAO reported that 50 per cent. of trust senior management had difficulty in reconciling targets for in-patient waiting lists with the requirements for infection control. Ministers may say that by its nature that is difficult and that the job of management is to do difficult things. However, in response to the 2000 report, Ministers also said that by 2003–04 bed occupancy could be reduced to 82 per cent., yet the NAO found that 71 per cent. of trusts were operating at higher bed occupancy rates than that, averaging 89 per cent. and 91 per cent. for orthopaedic and vascular surgery respectively.
  Where those objectives come into conflict, patient safety must come first, so it is nothing less than an outrage that the infection control teams reported to the
  788
  NAO that 12 per cent. of them had requested bed or ward closures but had been refused. The situation is worse than that. I asked a trust chief executive if he had refused such a request. He said:
  "They know our situation so they won't ask."
  Only a few days ago, a consultant told me of an exchange in an internal hospital meeting when the infection control consultant said that MRSA and Norwalk had persisted because the trust had overridden advice to shut wards due to the need to achieve waiting list targets. The chief executive had agreed to that.
  What is the Secretary of State's response? Last week, he was asked on the BBC "South East Today" programme whether by having fewer targets—as we propose—staff would be free to ensure cleaner wards—[Interruption.] Yes, fewer targets; getting rid of central targets imposed on hospitals, including the in-patient waiting list, which we are talking about, and its deleterious effects on the NHS. In response to that question, the Secretary of State said:
  "I take the advice of the chief medical officer on this".
  Where is that advice? Does the Secretary of State propose publishing it? Will he undertake to publish it today?
  I looked in "Winning Ways", which the chief medical officer published last December. Of course, the Secretary of State published his own document in July. Is not it interesting that the Secretary of State, when pressed on a difficult issue, says that he takes the chief medical officer's advice, yet where there is an opportunity for him to push himself forward and take the initiative, he publishes his own document rather than letting the chief medical officer do it?
  I have looked at the two documents. If everything the Secretary of State does is based on the CMO's advice, why was so much that the CMO said only last December left out of the Secretary of State's document in July? He left out any reference to reducing infection—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the Secretary of State says it was additional. In fact, the document was described as a summary of action, so almost by definition it was not intended to be additional; it was a summation of what was being done. There was no reference to reducing infection risks from invasive procedures. There was no advice on the prudent use of antibiotics and no reference to including infection control in the curricula for undergraduate and postgraduate health professionals. The Secretary of State's document made no reference to the role of infection control teams.
  One wonders what was the value of the Secretary of State's additional document in July, other than simply to offset the fact that the NAO was publishing its report, which was so deeply critical of all that had been done. The Secretary of State hides behind the chief medical officer when the criticism hits home, but he has his own public relations view pushed forward when he wants. I have not spoken to the chief medical officer about this issue.
  Mr. Miller: Ah.
  Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman perhaps suggests that I should have spoken to the chief medical officer. Indeed, one of the first things that I did when I was

  789
  appointed to the health team was to write to the CMO asking to have a conversation with him about such matters. I was denied that opportunity. I was informed that as the CMO is a civil servant, he would expect me to discuss policy issues with Ministers, so I shall do so. I cannot therefore say what the CMO advised the Secretary of State, which is why I ask the Secretary of State.
  My personal view is that the CMO would say that if, after the necessary risk assessment, an infection control team recommended a ward closure, the requirements of in-patient waiting list targets should not override that recommendation. If the position is otherwise, the Secretary of State and other Ministers have required that that should be so. Their overriding intention to pursue their misplaced in-patient waiting list structure over the interests of patient safety has led to the current problem. Such things have not been done on the CMO's advice, yet the Secretary of State told the BBC that all this was happening because of that advice. Perhaps the Secretary of State would like to tell the House what advice there was and whether he will publish it.
  Dr. John Reid: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is making a point, but I must admit that I am a bit lost about what it is. Advisers advise Ministers. The chief medical officer advises the Government. We act on that advice. Sometimes, on the basis of the information and advice that we receive, we publish documents or take action publicly, for which we are responsible. Sometimes, we directly publish documents by the chief medial officer. When advice is put into the public domain, people can read it. When advice is given to Ministers on policy issues, it is a long-standing convention of some centuries in the House that it is not published. The hon. Gentleman may not like that, but this is hardly a unique case. I am not quite sure what point he is making.
  Mr. Lansley: The point is simple, and I will not detain the House too long. If the Secretary of State does not take responsibility for his own decisions but attributes them to the advice of the chief medical officer, the advice ought therefore to be in the public domain. I have searched the advice that is in the public domain and there is nothing to suggest that any chief executive who overrides an infection control team's recommendation to close a ward would be acting other than against the interests of patient safety and contrary to the clinical situation.
  Dr. Reid rose—
  Mr. Lansley: The Secretary of State must let me continue; otherwise time will go on and we will intrude on the time for Back Benchers.
  Dr. Reid rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
  Mr. Lansley: I must remind the Secretary of State that the motion refers to many other ways in which failings in action have been laid bare by the NAO report. I will not be able to detail them all, but I want to ensure that the House is aware of them.
  790
  On isolation facilities, the NAO report said:
  "In our original report, we found that isolation facilities in some NHS trusts had been significantly reduced and that many infection control teams believed that facilities for isolating patients were unsatisfactory … The Committee of Public Accounts specified that increased investment in isolation facilities was required. In 2001, the Department assured the Committee that the need for isolation facilities was being addressed. However in 2003, we found that while 56 per cent. of trusts had undertaken a risk assessment to determine the number and quality of isolation facilities in the last three years, only a quarter had obtained the required facilities."
  Will the Secretary of State tell us what steps the Government will now take to meet that recommendation, which has not been met in the past four and a half years?
  I shall mention post-discharge surveillance. The NAO report said that, four and a half years ago,
  "we identified between 50 and 70 per cent. of surgical wound infections occurred post discharge but that only a quarter of infection control teams were carrying out any post-discharge surveillance and that there had been no systematic evaluation of the reliability of different methods.
  The Department told the Committee that they had commissioned some research and expected to have the results in late 2000. The Committee recommended that these infections should be monitored through NINSS … We found that only 21 per cent. of infection control teams had carried out any post-discharge surveillance since our last report."
  Will the Secretary of State tell us what he will now do to ensure that post-discharge surveillance of surgical wound infections is carried out?
  The NAO report also stated:
  "In 2001, the Department commissioned a feasibility study to consider producing a National Infection Control Manual. However there has been little progress on this to date. Responses to our survey and in our workshop showed there was strong agreement on the value to NHS staff of a national manual that could be adapted for local and specialty use. Given the strong evidence of wide local variability in the use of existing guidelines, and significant reinvention of the wheel, there is a need for templates to facilitate local adaptation of national guidelines."
  The Government keep on publishing new documents and providing endless guidance, but NHS staff are looking for templates and a manual to enable those guidelines to be put into practice. Where is the manual? The Government have had four and a half years to produce one, but where is it?
  In the December document "Winning Ways", the chief medical officer said that
  "A rapid review process will be established to assess new procedures and products for which claims of effectiveness are made of their ability to prevent or control healthcare-associated infection."
  In a debate in July, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) made specific reference to several new products and processes that have been offered to the NHS. He is not able to vouch for their effectiveness—nor am I—but that is why a rapid review process should be established. Ebiox is a non-alcohol cleansing product. NewGenn—which is close to Cambridge, so I have met the company staff and used their products—also makes non-alcohol hand cleansing products, which have been used in several NHS pilots. New synthetic antibacterial agents have been developed for the treatment of MRSA. Companies have produced targeted antibiotics and even coatings for walls and doors that—[Interruption.] The Secretary

  791
  of State appears to want to make two speeches, one of them from a sedentary position. I do not know whether those products will work, but many people want to know when the rapid review process will start, because there are means by which the NHS could more effectively combat infection that are not being adopted.
  Mr. Eric Pickles: I have a company in my constituency that makes a hand-washing machine that would facilitate infection control. Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem is that the commissioning process and the bureaucracy of the health service militates against decision making? The way in which the NHS operates has a dampening effect on innovation.
  Mr. Lansley: The NHS has historically been poor at introducing new products and processes. Sometimes that is to its advantage, because in America large amounts of money can be spent on new products and processes that are not necessarily effective or cost-effective. However, when we have a problem that is getting worse and that we have to tackle, the NHS should be able to assess the cost-effectiveness of attempts to do so. After all, we have the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which leads the world in techniques for measuring clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The monopolistic nature of the NHS should not be a constraint on the adoption of innovative techniques. Indeed, it should be a means of disseminating such techniques more rapidly, but that is not happening in the area of infection control technology.
  I shall not go on because hon. Members on both sides of the House want to speak. Our motion is measured and accurate. It requires the Government to act urgently in the future because that was lacking in the past. In the circumstances, we are right to call for that. The information that clinical teams need and for which they will take responsibility must be provided. The power given to ward-based teams—ward sisters, matrons or whatever they are called—is not the issue; what is important is that they have effective control over hygiene, cleanliness and the environment for their patients. They must be able to act in line with contractual procedures that equip them to do so.
  We need patient choice to incentivise hospitals to meet patients clear and increasing demands for clean and safe hospitals. That is more effective than the targets that the Secretary of State talks about. We need to get rid of the targets and the constraints that prevent hospitals and NHS professionals from meeting the requirements of patient safety, which they so much want to do. We need the Health Protection Agency to pull a range of organisations and sources of guidance together to ensure that infection control measures are disseminated within the NHS rapidly. We need a rapid review process for new technologies and processes.
  My experience in different parts of the country over the summer showed me that patients are deeply concerned. As chance would have it, only yesterday a lady told me of the three months that she spent in hospital as a consequence of MRSA infection and the distress and pain that it caused her. Many other patients
  792
  are deeply distressed about the prospect of going into hospitals that they believe—rightly or wrongly— will put them at risk of acquiring an infection.
  Doctors and nurses across the country tell me that they know how to deliver infection-free environments and that they have experience of doing that. They know that they can do it if they are given the support and the freedom to deliver the requirements of patient safety without being contradicted by Government targets and bureaucracy. That is what is urgently required now, not after the general election. It is what we have called for and why we have tabled the motion. I urge hon. Members to support our motion and resist the Government's amendment, which contains no sense of the urgency for which we have called. I hope that hon. Members give the Government the same message that constituents and the public have given us over the summer—that this is an urgent requirement which needs to be reflected in Government action now.
  4.47 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the Government's commitment to ensure that patients can have confidence that National Health Service hospitals are clean, safe environments with infection firmly under control; congratulates the Government on its action plans for reducing infection rates, 'Winning Ways' and 'Towards cleaner hospitals and lower rates of infection', which include the new target for a year-on-year reduction in MRSA, and the designation of directors of infection prevention and control to bring about local change; notes that the National Audit Office report concluded that the introduction in 2001 of mandatory MRSA surveillance raised the profile of infection control with senior managers; expects that the new target will act in a similar way, and deplores therefore the suggestion that the target be abolished; acknowledges that improving patient safety is a difficult medical issue that calls for the hard work and care that is the hallmark of NHS staff; welcomes therefore the 77,500 extra nurses and almost 19,400 extra doctors that have become a part of patient care since 1997; and therefore congratulates the Government on a comprehensive programme of investment and reform that has equipped the NHS to deliver improvements in patient safety, and to reduce hospital-acquired infections."
  Although we use these words often, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the subject and the Government's approach to reducing health care-acquired infections. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) gave a reasonably balanced speech, although at its centre was a mistake also made by the Leader of the Opposition, which is to imply, if not to state specifically, that hospital-acquired infections, especially MRSA, are the result of party political decisions of the Labour Government.
  It is important to get the matter in perspective. We should acknowledge the problem, but it has existed for many years—indeed decades. The Leader of the Opposition was ill advised to introduce party politics on a matter such as MRSA. The problem has existed under both parties in government. It has not just arisen overnight; it has been there for decades. I use those words advisedly—I notice that there is some opposition to them—because they are not mine; they are the words of the Conservative Health Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), in Hansard on 19 March 1997, after 18 years of a Conservative Government. I have substituted "MRSA" for "E. coli" and "the Leader

  793
  of the Opposition" for "the hon. Member for Thurrock", who was advising the Government not to make the issue party political. People will notice that what was, in a set of objective circumstances, giving rise to a decades-long problem in the dying months of a Conservative Government, has suddenly become a new issue as a result of the Labour Government some seven years later.
  It is far too serious to treat the problem as a party political one, or to undermine it by exaggerating the novelty of the problem. The situation is serious enough without trying to imply that it is more serious than it is. In a sense, that undermines the credibility of the problem.
  The Government's approach to the matter sits in the context of our efforts to update and improve the NHS. It cannot be seen in isolation of them. Some of those efforts are criticised by the hon. Gentleman, but I remind the House of them. There is more capacity and more money being put into the NHS in a sustained way than ever before: an average of 7.6 per cent. growth in real terms during the past four years. That has helped to expand capacity and, compared with 1997, the figures speak for themselves. There are more staff than ever: 77,500 more nurses and 19,000 more doctors working in the NHS. Sixty-eight major new hospitals have been built, are under way or are planned. That point is relevant, and I shall return to it later.
  As a result—without in any way diminishing the deaths and misery caused by hospital-acquired infections—there are now 280,000 fewer people on the in-patient waiting list, compared with March 1997, and hardly anyone at all is waiting more than nine months for a hospital admission. More importantly, health outcomes for patients in general have improved. Premature deaths from cancer are down by more than 10 per cent., and coronary heart-related premature deaths are down by 23.4 per cent. Those are staggering changes. Out of fairness to NHS staff, let us remember that there are thousands of people alive today who would not have been had the NHS not introduced its reforms, and had we not introduced our improvements to the NHS. Staff have worked hard to achieve all that, so let us give them credit.
  That is the context within which we are facing the challenge of hospital-acquired infections, a major one by any standards, and specifically, MRSA. What is the objective position as regards hospital-acquired infections? Almost by definition, hospitals are places where infections are concentrated. That has always been the case; it is not a phenomenon restricted to the current time or Government. What is the volume of hospital-acquired infections? I notice that the hon. Gentleman made no reference to the volume of such infections in comparison either historically or internationally.
  Our estimates show that up to 9 per cent. of inpatients acquire an infection of some kind. They also show, as far back as we have reliable data, that that has not changed materially since 1980, not 1990. In 1980, the number of those infected stood at 9.2 per cent.; today, it is estimated to be 9 per cent. I shall go further. The advice I have is that, as far as we can make out, the total volume of hospital-acquired infections as a percentage has not substantially changed for the past 50 years.
  794
  What has changed within that overall total is the main type of bacteria or organisms that we have to deal with. Today, it is MRSA, but if one goes back to the 1950s, one finds it was staph aureus—the methicillin-sensitive organism. In the 1970s it was E. coli, in 1980 it was pseudomonas and in 1975 it was klebsiella. A mutation has occurred. As we have been successful in controlling some types of infections through antibiotics—and perhaps the overuse of them—others have grown to present the problems we have today.
  I do not wish in any way to diminish the seriousness of the problem, but I caution against historical exaggeration of such infections as a novel problem with which we have had never had to deal before and which is exclusive or enhanced under a Labour Government.
  Health care-acquired infections are not just a problem in this country. The estimated rate of infection here is 9 per cent., compared with 7 per cent.—admittedly, a lower figure—in the Netherlands, 8 per cent. in Spain and Denmark, and rates of 6 to 10 per cent. in France, and 5 to 10 per cent. in the United States. In giving those figures I do not wish to diminish in any way the scale of the problem. I want to make sure that we take it seriously by avoiding exaggeration. However—
  Mr. Lansley: I understand what the Secretary of State is saying, but he will accept that the incidence of MRSA in particular has risen dramatically since the mid-1990s. I entirely accept, however, a number of bacteria constitute MRSA and that they have developed over time. Indeed, I have corresponded with him about the need to prepare for the possibility, hopefully remote, of an outbreak of vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. In the international context, we are lucky not to have experienced an outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome, but some countries have combated MRSA, as they did SARS, with a dramatic change of culture within their health care systems. For example, a Dutch strategy was based on the policy of search and destroy set out in "Winning Ways". Clearly, other countries with an increasing incidence of MRSA responded in completely different ways, and the Secretary of State must explain why that was not the case in Britain.
  Dr. Reid: I shall come on to that. We have set the record straight and got rid of the tabloidy misrepresentations of a novel problem in certain quarters. I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman was guilty of such behaviour today, although the Leader of the Opposition, in search of another bandwagon, jumped on that one without much success. We do not diminish the seriousness of the problem by putting it in the correct context, which helps us to identify the challenge facing us. However, as I was about to say before the hon. Gentleman intervened, it is true that MRSA infection has become more of a problem in the United Kingdom. It has replaced problems previously caused by E. coli and other organisms that I mentioned. There are complex reasons for that, including some unknown ones, but it is possible to identify a number of the interrelated causes.
  The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire asked me to grapple with the reason why MRSA is more prevalent in the UK, even though the overall infection rate is lower here than in some countries. Part of the

  795
  answer is that the strains responsible for most infections in the UK are different from those in many other countries. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) is asking about strains of infection. He is much more qualified than I am, but I am advised that about 12 to 15 years ago, we witnessed the development of Thames strains—two particularly virulent forms of MRSA that are not common in other countries, but which are particularly well adapted to spread between patients compared with other strains.
  Mr. Paul Burstow: If I understood the Secretary of State correctly, he said that when one looks at the totality of health care-acquired infections and compares the UK's performance with that of other European countries the UK is doing better. If so, where is the evidence? As I understand it, the surveillance systems in place do not collect that information.
  Dr. Reid: Our figures are based on the data that is collected and the estimates. No country is compiling data in forensic detail on all aspects. I have given the hon. Gentleman our best estimate. The rate of hospital-acquired infections—the aggregate sum that he mentions—in England is 9 per cent. Twenty-four years ago it was 9.2 per cent., based on the same estimates but perhaps less data. Historically, therefore, as a global aggregate sum, the current rate is not out of kilter with what has been the case for 24 years. Indeed, I am told by my advisers, including some very well qualified advisers, that the rate has probably been of the order of 9 per cent. for the past 50 years. The comparable rate in the Netherlands is 7 per cent., 8 per cent. in Spain and Denmark, between 6 and 10 per cent. in France and between 5 and 10 per cent. in the United States. Those are the best estimates available to me.
  However, within those aggregate totals, it is true that we have a particular problem with MRSA, which we are attempting to face. In order to do so, we must understand why we have that problem. The first reason that I identified is that there are a number of strains under the generic name MRSA. At least two of those strains, which we used to call the Thames strains because they originated in this region, are particularly virulent in crossing from patient to patient. They are a different strain from those that occur in some other countries.
  A second objective fact is that we have a higher proportion of patients who are susceptible to infection than we had 20 or 30 years ago, because of the increasing number of elderly in our country, largely as a result of the success of the national health service in maintaining people for a longer period.
  Thirdly, infections are caused by a wide variety of micro-organisms, often bacteria from our own body. As the NHS undertakes increasingly complex and invasive medical procedures in vast numbers—remember, we are dealing with some 7.5 million treatments a year in our hospitals—and our patient population is increasingly susceptible because of age or immuno-suppression, it is perhaps not surprising that the rates of hospital-acquired infections are not decreasing.
  796
  From the complex battery of reasons, I have given three that are objective circumstances. That does not lessen the seriousness of the problem, but it begins to get us towards a mature debate on the causes so that we can address them. That is surely what the entire House wants.
  Linda Gilroy: Before my right hon. Friend moves on, can he tell me whether he has made any assessment of the extent to which the accuracy and transparency of our collection of data in this country is comparable with data collection in other countries, and whether that might be another factor in the differing rates?
  Dr. Reid: Yes, in general terms. In terms of international comparisons to date, we have done more than any other country to collect such data. In historical terms, I was about to say that we had done 100 per cent. more than the previous Government, but in fact we have done an infinitesimal percentage more than they did, since they did nothing at all about collecting such data. Does that mean that we have satisfactory and reliable data on detail and volume? No. I am not content with that.
  That is why, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire was kind enough to say, we started off with the most reliable indicator for the compilation of empirical data—the search and study of bacteria in the blood. For a host of technical reasons it is much easier to identify infections there than in a wound, because there might be a wound without bacteria, bacteria without a wound, or bacteria all round a wound, making it much harder to test. It is not as reliable for culturing as blood. For all those reasons, we did not start off with open wounds. We did not start off with respiratory or urinary infections either, because in both those cases the incidence of MRSA is much less.
  We started off by testing for bacteria in the blood, and, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said, we are developing certain orthopaedic procedures.
  We take the problem seriously. Indeed, it is rare, if not unique, for a Secretary of State for Health publicly to declare that the issue is one of our great challenges. It is easy not to collect data, not to declare the problem and pretend, because the data have not been collected, that the problem does not exist. I took the opposite approach—I said that the first step in tackling the problem was openly to admit that we have a problem. We have had the problem for decades, but I think that I am the first Secretary of State for Health publicly to declare it as a major priority.
  The figures indicate how serious the problem is. Our surveillance shows that 7,600 known MRSA bacteraemia or blood stream infections currently exist. To put that in context, that is about one in 1,000 patients. Although we do not yet collect data from other areas, if we include the other main area of infection—surgical wound MRSA infections—the best estimate is that 23,000 incidents of infection have occurred, which is about 0.3 per cent. of patients or three in 1,000.
  That is, of course, three patients too many. Some hon. Members may know a loved one or friend who has suffered pain or lost their life because of such an infection, in which case 100 per cent. of that person's life

  797
  is lost. That is why we must take the matter seriously. I present the figures to put it in perspective, because some recent headlines have been so alarmist that they might discourage people from going to hospital to receive treatment for conditions that could kill them.
  I accept that we do not yet have enough data on the incidence of hospital-acquired infections, but, from the data that we have, we do not believe that such infections are increasing significantly. That is not my judgment—it is the judgment given to me by my advisers—but I take responsibility for accepting it. The base data on bloodstream infections show a slight increase of the order of 5 per cent., perhaps less, over the past three years. The problem is great and the incidence of infection has increased, so we should take the matter seriously—I shall come on to how we are taking it seriously—but the magnitude of the problem is not as alarming as some stories have claimed.
  Mr. Simon Burns: If I heard the Secretary of State rightly, he said that the increase was about 5 per cent. over the past three years. How does he square that judgment with the figures from his own Department and the Health Protection Agency published in July this year, which show that the increase for blood infections with MRSA was 3.6 per cent? If one adds cases of less severe infection, MRSA, and the total number of blood infections, the increase was just more than 9 per cent.
  Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman may have misheard me. I started with the aggregate volumes of hospital-acquired infections before going on to the specific subject, MRSA, which I admit is a problem area. The figure that I just gave is for MRSA.
  Mr. Burns: In order to ensure that we are speaking on the same basis, will the Secretary of State clarify that the increase was 5 per cent. over three years?
  Dr. Reid: I said just less than 5 per cent.
  Mr. Burns: How can that be squared with the Department of Health and Health Protection Agency figures, which show that for MRSA the year-on-year increase to July was 3.6 per cent.?
  Dr. Reid: The figures are wholly compatible, unless my arithmetic has gone completely mad. As 3.6 per cent. in one year is less than 5 per cent., it is entirely possible that the total was of the order of 5 per cent. over three years. It is not crucial whether the figure is 4 per cent. or 6 per cent.—I said that is of that order, because the figures are based on estimates. If the hon. Gentleman sees a contradiction, I am more than happy to check it and write to him.
  I accept that we do not yet have adequate data. One of the reasons why we do not have comparable figures going back to before 1997 is that comprehensive data have been collected only under this Government. Although we have had this problem for 50 years, with the same aggregate volume of hospital-acquired infections, previously no data were collected at all. We were not only the first Government but, to my knowledge, the first country anywhere in the world to introduce mandatory surveillance for MRSA
  798
  bloodstream infections. Although we may not have done everything as quickly as the Opposition would like, it is hardly fair to say that we have done nothing: we have led both at home and internationally.
  Not knowing the figures did not mean that there was nothing there—all the best estimates suggest that there was. The previous Government's laissez-faire approach meant that Parliament would not have been able to have such a debate, nor would the tabloids have been able to write the headlines. No one gave them the information to alert them to the seriousness of the problem because no one collected that information in the first place.
  Although we know that not all health care-associated infections can be prevented, this is an important patient safety issue on which we are determined to take action. Contrary to some of the advice that is being thrust upon us, there is no simple quick fix to preventing these infections. We need a multi-strand approach because the causal relationship between the factors is multifaceted. It is not just a matter of cleanliness—it also depends on the patient's age, the severity of their illness and the intrusiveness of some operations.
  The two most important risk factors in contracting an infection are the severity of the patient's illness and the use of devices such as catheters which provide an entry route for bacteria. Our action plans for reducing infection rates and addressing those two risk factors are set out in two publications: a public report by the chief medical officer called "Winning Ways"; and "Towards cleaner hospitals and lower rates of infection". Copies are available in the Library. Those were informed by the advice not only of the chief medical officer, but of the chief nursing officer, both of whom have played a vital role in giving me continuing advice on the implementation of our programme of action. It is the action of any responsible Government to ensure that sound, evidence-based policies are implemented.
  Although we take advice from everyone concerned, Ministers are ultimately responsible. Naturally, I therefore take responsibility for any actions that we have taken to combat the problem and any failings that people perceive in them.
  Mrs. Iris Robinson: The right hon. Gentleman will know that one way of creating public confidence in the set-up of hospitals is to ensure that instruments are properly sterilised. He may be aware of the recent disclosure in Northern Ireland whereby endoscopic instruments were found to have bodily fluids retained within them. As a result, many hundreds of people had to be recalled to have investigative procedures carried out to check that they did not have infections. It is important that NHS staff correctly follow procedures to ensure that instruments are properly sterilised, to give confidence to people in Northern Ireland.
  Dr. Reid: Yes, I am aware of the incident that the hon. Lady mentioned. We have tried to tackle the matter in several ways. At one stage, we tried to introduce disposable instruments, but they led to complications that resulted in injury, discomfort, pain and further problems. The hon. Lady is right that the instruments that are used constitute an important element of hygiene, especially since the treatments are becoming

  799
  increasingly intrusive as we find more treatments that, on the face of it, relieve pain, but are so intrusive that they create a further risk.
  I was trying to explain that we are considering a multifaceted problem. Other important risk factors include the age of the buildings and increasing antibiotic resistance. It is not simply a matter of cleanliness, which I shall tackle later. Any balanced and objective assessment would recognise that the age of our hospital buildings and the fact that people have perhaps overused antibiotics, leading to the mutation of organisms, which become more resistant, are important. Those reasons are not exclusively associated with a particular Government of a particular political persuasion.
  Buildings are part of a legacy that we inherited and we hope that the risks that they present will diminish, because we have the biggest building programme in NHS history. However, that cannot be completed overnight. We must also consider the design of buildings. Many countries have far more single rooms in hospitals, making isolation easy.
  Of course, cleanliness is also essential. Everyone makes that point. To be fair, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire pointed out that we have known that since the time of Florence Nightingale, and perhaps even before then. Cleanliness is not less important nowadays, but, ironically, it and the standard of hygiene may have to be far greater, even though we have new hospitals, because the resistance of the bugs that we are trying to kill is much greater. Getting rid of them is not as simple as spreading a bit of Dettol or a few antibiotics around.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I worked in theatre in the 1970s. In my experience and that of other friends and colleagues, who have been senior nurses—call us old bats if you like—the standard of cleanliness on the wards is not as good as it was years ago, because of procedures. To give one quick example, some nurses use their hands to open pedal bins and then deal with patients. We are not considering rocket science. We simply need discipline and good management of nursing and other staff, including doctors, on the wards. That has deteriorated and perhaps the greatest proponent of explaining the reason for that is Claire Rayner.
  Dr. Reid: I would not even begin to think of the hon. Lady as an old bat, a young bat or any sort of bat. Her comments are not batty—I agree with every word that she said.
  Let us consider other problems that might affect cleanliness. The age of hospitals matters. In the 1970s, some of our hospitals were 35 years younger. Hospital design matters, as does the fact that we have had long waiting lists, which we are trying to reduce. Staff shortages are important because people have less time. The points that the hon. Lady made about cleanliness also matter. As she said, it is not rocket science. That is why we are trying to introduce gel and the placing of such items at the foot of the bed. We are trying to emphasise to nurses, who are better trained than ever in many matters, that the basics are important.
  800
  I dare say that some people would write to me and say that the process of contracting out cleaners that the previous Conservative Government introduced opened the way for cheapness as a substitute for cleanliness. A host of reasons exists, but I do not believe that any of us are, at heart, interested in identifying them in a party political way. We are all trying to ensure that the practical measures, which the hon. Lady mentioned and which may help us to combat lack of cleanliness or hygiene are put in place.
  This morning, a meeting of NHS matrons took place on the subject. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Minister addressed NHS chief executives and told them that cleanliness was a huge priority. Cleanliness and hygiene are not extras in the NHS but the fundamental premise on which we treat patients.
  Therefore, cleanliness is essential, and we are working to improve both infection control and cleanliness, since even in the absence of clear evidence, common sense suggests that there is a link between the two. There is not statistical and scientific evidence to show that, but my intuition and common sense tell me, as the hon. Lady tells me from her experience, that there must be such a link.
  Such work is not always easy in an area in which, we believe—and the Opposition urge us to go further on this—that we should decentralise control. We are being asked to ensure the application of national standards of hygiene and cleanliness in a context in which we are decentralising power to the front line. That is not easy, but it is essential, and that is why we are doing it from the centre.
  If the hon. Lady wants us to set that as an objective, and to drive it with guidelines and targets, I am with her. Her Front Benchers are not. They want such an outcome to arise spontaneously, like something out of the "Book of Revelations", but I think that we should insist on a national standard of cleanliness in our hospitals. That is why we have set a new objective for the reduction of MRSA, which is the responsibility of every member of a hospital from the top down. We have strengthened the role of the Healthcare Commission in that area. We have introduced the National Patient Safety Agency "clean your hands" campaign—the non-rocket-science, basic practice, which the hon. Lady recommended. We have introduced a matron's charter to put matrons back in charge, and ward sisters more in charge, of what happens in wards. In addition, we are prepared to learn not only from best practice at home but abroad. We are therefore bringing in experts from other countries, which sometimes have a significantly lower rate of MRSA than this country. We are also trying to improve the design of hospitals. All of that is under way, in addition to introducing extra staff and resources.
  Mrs. Browning: I cannot let the Secretary of State get away with suggesting that I said that there should be targets. In the 1960s and 1970s, we did not need targets to maintain good practice on hospital wards. It was achieved through management, procedures and training. That does not require the setting of targets.
  Dr. Reid: I merely point out to the hon. Lady, with great respect—this in no way diminishes her

  801
  contribution to the national health service at that time—that the aggregate rate of hospital-acquired infections in the 1960s and 1970s was exactly the same as today, and perhaps higher, according to the advice that I am given. The problem is that, within that aggregate total, some of the bugs that we are fighting are more and more resistant, with dreadful consequences.
  Mr. Mark Francois: Like many other Members who have participated in the debate, I have had casework involving MRSA, so this issue is also important to me. In the event that an infection control team makes a formal recommendation to close a ward because of a serious infection on it, and there is a tension in the hospital management because that may affect waiting lists, should the advice of the infection control team take precedence and the ward be closed?
  Dr. Reid: I do not know the specific example to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If he asks me about general principle, clinical priorities and clinical need take precedence over everything else. That is the nature of the national health service. That is why the position on waiting times and waiting lists is determined by clinical need. That is why, on the four-hour target for accidents and emergencies, if a doctor says that a person should stay for more than four hours for clinical reasons, we allow that, and it is not counted. There should be no doubt about that. He will understand why I cannot comment on a specific example, the details of which I do not know. As a general guide, however, all of us in the House would agree with the proposition that clinical need should guide the actions of those who work in the national health service.
  We agree that more needs to be done. As the recent National Audit Office report recognises, however, our work has moved infection control up the NHS agenda with a priority that no previous Government have given to it. That is precisely why there is public debate on the issue at present. In July, we introduced the new objective—the new target—on which I know that Opposition Members do not agree, although God knows how we are supposed to get rid of MRSA by removing as an objective of the NHS the combating of MRSA. That seems a perverse logic, but it is the logic of their position.
  That will not improve patient safety; it will do the opposite. We know that having an objective, a target, according to which managers, staff and hospitals are judged when information is issued to the public, must ensure that the issue is given greater priority in the NHS and in hospitals. The National Audit Office report concluded that the introduction of mandatory MRSA surveillance raised the profile of infection control not just with staff on the wards, but with senior managers. We expect the new target to operate in a similar way.
  Let us briefly consider the alternatives that have been put to us. I have explained to the House that the aggregate number of infections is no greater than it has been for 50 years. The first misrepresentation of the position is the claim that it is much greater than it was; the second is that the problem is entirely due to the fact that we are treating more patients in the NHS more quickly. I remind the House that the awful length of the waiting lists with which we have to deal must make dealing with them a priority—and also that they are a legacy of neglect of the NHS.
  802
  We do run the NHS at a very high bed occupancy rate. That is because it is treating more patients and cutting waiting lists. Of course increased activity means that we need to work even harder to reduce the risk of infection, and that is what the NHS is doing.
  We believe that it is possible to be both clean and efficient. We believe that it is possible to achieve targets, and good infection control. The Opposition seem to be arguing—I am sorry if I have gained the wrong impression—that we should keep more people waiting longer to go into hospital, with all the distress, anguish and, no doubt, deaths that that may entail. They seem to suggest that making people wait longer than they should for treatment is, somehow, a logical, fair and effective way of combating the increase in MRSA and other hospital-acquired infections.
  Let me say to the Opposition that people should not be made to choose between lingering in pain and increasing the risk to their health by remaining on a waiting list, and going into hospital more quickly than is normal and incurring a risk of contracting MRSA. As I have said, we believe that it is possible to be clean and efficient, and we must ensure that that is achieved.
  We will be actively helping NHS staff to achieve the aims specified by the chief medical officer in "Winning Ways". The requirement for each trust to designate a director of infection prevention and control does not mean the creation of another bureaucrat, as the caricature suggests. No additional post is being established. What we are saying is that responsibility must be taken at the top, rather than trusts passing it down to the nurse at the bottom.
  We know that health care-associated infection is a vitally important subject—an issue of great public concern. We are tackling it. We will restore patients' confidence that NHS hospitals are clean, safe environments with infection firmly under control. Our approach is the same as it has been throughout. We are increasing capacity and reducing waiting times, and we are confident that clear objectives and a sustained management focus will achieve results.
  This is, however, a complex issue, which does not lend itself easily to populist, or popular, instant solutions. It is complex in medical terms, and it calls for the hard work and care that are the hallmark of NHS staff. It will only be solved by extra capacity and by newer hospitals, better design, more research into drugs, more nurses and shorter waiting lists. All those things are just as essential as the key issue raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning)—that of cleanliness and hygiene.
  The problem will not be solved by party-political rhetoric from the Opposition, from me, or from anyone else. I began with a long quotation from a Conservative, which I thought quite apposite and fairly balanced. Certainly the problem will not be tackled by the introduction of charges, a reduction in the number of doctors or the taking of money from the NHS. Nor will it be helped by a constant backdrop, or refrain, of criticism of NHS staff who are trying to perform a very difficult task—and, in my opinion, succeeding.
  That is why the Government will reject all those options and will continue to give the support, staff, money, capacity, resources, research and guidance on hygiene and cleanliness that is required to improve all

  803
  our hospitals. If we achieve a sustained reduction in hospital-acquired infections, that will be for the first time not only under this Government, but in 50 years. The project is therefore worthy of common support and effort across the House, and I thank the Opposition spokesman for giving us the opportunity to exchange ideas on constructive ways to tackle the problem.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Paul Burstow: I, too, am grateful for this opportunity to debate a very important issue. As has been suggested, much of what we are referring to in respect of controlling infection and tackling MRSA and other infections in hospitals is not rocket science. It is basic, scrupulous attention to hygiene and cleanliness—basic good practice.
  Often bandied around in debates such as this, in the press and elsewhere, is a figure that has been around for quite a few years, and which was cited in the first National Audit Office report in 2000. Every year, the death toll arising from infections acquired in hospital is about 5,000. An additional 15,000 people may well die as a result of infections, but that figure is even less hard than the 5,000 figure. So since 1997, about 35,000 people have lost their lives as a result of infections that they picked up in hospital.
  The Secretary of State was right to rehearse the fact that this phenomenon did not commence on the first day of the Labour Government in May 1997; it has been with us for a long time. However, that is not an excuse or reason not to do more now to address a problem that many of our constituents still feel is not under control. The truth is that we do not know the scale of the problem. The Secretary of State gave various figures, many of which are based not on the mandatory systems of surveillance that I acknowledge the Government have introduced, but on estimates. I hope that, after the debate, he will place in the Library all the calculations and the basis for those estimates, so that we can consider the figures objectively and in the clear light of day. It would be useful to see precisely how some of them were arrived at.
  It is worth considering some of the research published over the last few years. I shall cite one or two examples, not least of research that was undertaken and published by the Public Health Laboratory Service, as was, in 1999. It found that patients who pick up health care-acquired infections in a hospital tend to stay in that hospital for about 2.9 times longer than a patient who does not suffer from such an infection. So those beds are being occupied by people who, had they not acquired an infection while in hospital, would not be occupying them. Those beds could be being used by other patients, so capacity is being wasted in the NHS because of poor practice. On average, the stay of a patient who has acquired an infection in hospital is an extra 14 days, according to the 1999 research. It also estimated the cost of the additional treatment required as in the region of £3,000 per patient. No wonder the NAO estimated the cost of hospital-acquired infections as being £1 billion.
  804
  In his response to the official Opposition's motion, the Secretary of State gave no indication of what the Government intend to do to address the NAO's criticism of the Government and the NHS for failing, since the NAO's first report in 2000, adequately to address the lack of an estimate of the cost of hospital-acquired infections. The figure in that report is still the only one that exists, and it would be useful to know whether work will be done on that.
  The Secretary of State said that at any one time, nine in every 100 patients are likely to have a hospital-acquired infection, but that information dates back to 1996; we have no up-to-date figures. Probably the most surprising figure—again, it comes from the 1999 PHLS research—is that, after factors such as age and diagnosis have been taken into account, a person who acquires an infection in hospital is 7.1 times more likely to die in hospital than someone who is not suffering from an infection.
  We must show that we are taking the issue seriously, without spreading alarm and despondency, but in a realistic way.
  The Secretary of State cited various figures, but we have no information on the actual number of deaths—the figure of 5,000 is based yet again on estimates. We do not have an accurate and reliable way of collecting the information, and the death certificates themselves do not include it. What plans do the Government have to commission the specific research that would be necessary to determine how much MRSA and other health care-acquired infections contribute to the likelihood of patients' dying and how many die annually? It would be useful to get a true fix on the problem.
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I am having slight difficulty in following the hon. Gentleman's point. Obviously, additional statistics can always be helpful, but surely we do not require statistics to demonstrate the common-sense point that a hospital-acquired infection can hardly be conducive to a patient's health and should therefore be avoided at all costs.
  Mr. Burstow: I do not think that there is any dissent anywhere in the Chamber from that self-evident point, but there is concern about the rising figures and the considerable number of people who die, and it would surely be sensible to ensure that we have sound, reliable data that can be used to reassure people that the NHS is a safe place to get treatment, as sometimes it is portrayed as far from that.
  The spotlight in these debates tends to focus on MRSA, but as the Secretary of State acknowledged, other bacteria can and do wreak havoc in our hospitals. The NAO rightly covered all the infections, and the motion, which frankly is a good summary of the NAO progress report from July, identifies a number of the criticisms but does not move the debate on much.
  The NAO report makes depressing reading. It found that progress by both the NHS and the Department of Health in getting to grips with the infections was patchy: there was some good progress by individual trusts, and the Government had made positive responses to some of the recommendations in the 2000 report, but the picture was not consistent. The Department has issued reams of

  805
  guidance to the NHS on the control of infection, and the chief medical officer, in "Winning Ways", said that the Healthcare Commission
  "will be asked to make infection control a key priority when assessing hospital performance".
  However, that does not mean that the commission will publish a national report on infection control and hospital infections. Indeed, there has been no national audit of compliance with infection control standards in the NHS and Health Ministers have confirmed in writing to me that the Government have no plans to undertake one.
  When I undertook my own survey of the NHS a couple of years ago to find out how trusts were doing in undertaking compliance with the guidance that had up to then been issued by the Department, I was passed a copy of an e-mail sent to press officers in NHS trusts by the Department's press office. It said:
  "Dear colleagues,
  You may wish to be aware that the following is the Department of Health's 'line to take' for our press office to respond to enquiries about completing this questionnaire survey. I would be grateful if you could let me know if you are dealing with any enquiries from your professional colleagues."
  It went on to say:
  "A Health Service Circular which set out a programme of action for the NHS on the management and control of Hospital Infection was sent to all hospitals in England in February 2000. A revised 'infection control' controls assurance standard, issued in October 2001 and national standards of cleanliness for the NHS, issued in April 2001, together cover many of the questions in Paul Burstow's survey. In addition, both the Patient Environment Action Team visits and the Commission for Health Improvement regular review visits assess hospitals against both standards and publish their reports.
  The Department is mindful that the NHS should not be overburdened by responding to requests for information"—
  I agree with that—
  "from a variety of sources".
  What really puzzled me was that, having asked written question after written question and having been told time and again that the information was not held within the Department, it was surely not unreasonable for an MP to try to seek the information at a more local level. The message seemed to be that ignorance was bliss.
  When "Winning Ways" was published last December, the chief medical officer provided a possible reason why the Department was not keen on my survey. What he had to say then was:
  "Despite the extent of the guidance issued to the NHS, such data as are available show that the degree of improvement has been small."
  Surely ensuring compliance with the guidance issued by the Department of Health over the last few years should be a matter of concern to Ministers. The Secretary of State says that the guidance is a key part of driving improvements forward from the centre, but how can the centre be confident that it is happening if it is not auditing compliance on the ground?
  The Secretary of State also talks about a target for reducing MRSA bloodstream infections. Quite apart from our arguments about the Government's obsession with targets and tick boxes, infection control professionals are expressing some serious concerns
  806
  about the Government's target. The Infection Control Nurses Association told me that the method of collecting data in connection with the target is seriously flawed because it fails to exclude patients who acquired their infections in the community—in care homes and elsewhere—or at other hospitals. It also compares infections acquired in a given year with the bed data for the previous year, which makes it hard to get a proper fix on whether or not performance is improving. If a trust already has a low infection rate, the target penalises it most unfairly—typical, perhaps, under this Government. The focus of the target is solely on one bacterium—MRSA—and it excludes all other organisms that can and do cause problems in the NHS.
  Other resistant bacteria also pose a threat, which is why it is important to have information about them. Currently, however, there is no requirement to undertake surveillance and report on those other infections. The matter has already been debated across the Dispatch Box, but it needs to be repeated. Back in 2000, the National Audit Office made some very important recommendations about the need for a clear picture—not just nationally or trust by trust, but in relation to specialties. As paragraph 3.3 of the NAO progress report of July this year states, there is
  "still a lack of robust information on the majority of infections at both local and national level. As a result it is still not possible to say whether there has been any tangible measurable progress."
  It went on to point out that its original recommendations had made it clear that there should be
  "specialty specific surveillance of bloodstream, surgical site and urinary tract infections"
  and that such information should be "fed back to clinicians".
  I heard what the Secretary of State had to say about the advice he was given about whether moving forward with mandatory surveillance should be the first priority, but I am puzzled that in the NAO progress report of July this year, the Department's concerns and the reasonings behind its introduction of mandatory surveillance across trusts were not rehearsed. That is most puzzling; there must have been discussions at official level. Perhaps when the Minister replies to the debate, he can explain why the Secretary of State's explanation offered today was not covered by the NAO in its progress report earlier this year.
  Paragraph 3.11 of the report continued:
  "The main concerns on mandatory MRSA surveillance were that the denominator data was inappropriate as it was collected across the whole hospital, and as a result, clinical staff did not relate to it, and trust management considered it to be a problem for the infection control team rather than clinicians."
  Surely that is the key theme: there must be a feedback loop to the clinicians so that they can identify where the problems are and start to make the necessary changes. At the moment, the system does not offer the information necessary to do so. That is why putting something along the lines of the NAO recommendations in place should surely be a priority for the Government. I have heard nothing yet about the degree of urgency that the Government attach to that.
  My survey produced at least anecdotal evidence that MRSA and other hospital-acquired infection patients are often treated on wards because of a lack of isolation facilities and staff. There are Government guidelines on

  807
  the management of patients with infections and they recommend the use of isolation facilities for certain infections.
  However, the guidance admits that the provision of isolation facilities and single rooms in NHS hospitals is sadly lacking. It states:
  "Experience has shown that many hospitals find the present allocation of isolation-single rooms inadequate to deal with the increasing numbers of infected and immunocompromised patients. Hospitals with 10 per cent. of their bed contingent as single rooms often find that this number is inadequate to cope with every infectious patients. Where this is the case, risk assessment is used to inform decisions regarding patients to nurse in single rooms."
  I asked some parliamentary questions to find out where the Government had got to with their programme of expanding the numbers of single rooms so that there was more scope for isolation. Ministers have stated that NHS trusts were individually responsible
  "for determining the level of provision of isolation and single rooms."—[Official Report, 19 September 2002; Vol. 390, c. 407W.]
  I was told that the Government circular relevant to this matter
  "required trusts to undertake a risk assessment to determine the appropriate provision of isolation facilities within each trust"—[Official Report, 2 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 687W.]
  However, surely Ministers should not be in the dark about the progress being made in this matter, or about the level of front-line preparedness to deal with hospital infections. Surely, that knowledge is essential if they are to cope with threats such as severe acute respiratory syndrome. In his strategy for combating infections, the chief medical officer stated:
  "NHS trust chief executives will ensure that, over time, there is appropriate provision for isolation facilities within their healthcare facilities."
  I asked Health Ministers, in questions, how that was going. I was told:
  "As the creation of new isolation facilities is generally linked to local plans for rebuilding and refurbishment it is not feasible to set a national timetable. Over-time is not specifically defined but provides flexibility for chief executives to implement realistic, timed work programmes for isolation facilities."—[Official Report, 12 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 1819W.]
  The Government talk about providing more isolation facilities, but they do not have a grip on what is going on on the ground.
  This is an important debate about the Government's record after seven years in office. The Secretary of State has told us that the estimates show that things have not got better, and that we still have a serious problem with infection. He has made it clear that the Government have not acted on all the recommendations in the NAO report. The case that he made on surveillance is not sufficient justification for not getting clinicians into the loop.
  Reference has been made in the debate to Florence Nightingale. However, this is not rocket science. It is a question of scrupulous attention to basic hygiene, such as hand washing. It is about effective screening, robust surveillance, and giving clinicians the information that they need to adapt, and to learn from mistakes. None of that is present in the Government's approach, and that
  808
  is why we must relearn the lessons that Florence Nightingale taught more than 140 years ago. In that way, we can start to reduce the death toll in the NHS.
  5.47 pm
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: As has been noted already, the issue of hospital-acquired infection is an extremely important topic. However, the Opposition have attempted to skew the debate to make a narrow party-political point. They want to use hospital-acquired infections to support their proposition that we should get rid of targets in the NHS, and in particular those for waiting lists.
  I have never been asked by any constituent to get rid of targets for waiting lists. They are very keen on them, because they want waiting lists to be reduced, and they need the targets to make sure that that happens. However, the logic of the Opposition's approach is that, to reduce the incidence of hospital-acquired infections, we have only to reduce the number of people treated in hospital. It is indisputable that treating fewer people would reduce the rate of hospital-acquired infections, but the consequence is that more sick people would remain untreated and would ultimately die from their untreated conditions. The Opposition's position on this matter is therefore completely fallacious.
  A year or so ago, my own hospital, Milton Keynes general, had a serious problem with hospital-acquired infections. I would argue that that was because the hospital's bed-occupancy rate was incredibly high, mainly due to the fact that the hospital was too small for the population that it serves. That remains so, despite the large numbers of additional beds that have been provided as a result of funding by this Government.
  Primarily, the hospital is too small because for the 10 years before 1997, when the Conservatives were in charge, no extra beds were provided, despite the fact that the population was growing by between 2 and 3 per cent. every year. It was undercapacity that added to the problems contributing to the high rate of hospital-acquired infections, rather than our policy of at least trying to use existing capacity to the ultimate to treat patients, and encouraging hospitals to do that by publishing targets that they were supposed to meet for waiting lists.
  The second point in the Opposition argument was that the Government were not giving NHS staff enough freedom to take the measures necessary to deal with infection. I notice that the Opposition did not really produce any evidence for that claim—I have to say that their evidence is not strong. What they suggest is complete rubbish and, again, I cite examples from my hospital.
  About a month ago, the Secretary of State visited Milton Keynes general hospital and I was able to be there, too. One of the conversations that he held was with a senior nurse about the measures that staff had put in place to try to deal with the problem of hospital-acquired infections. The senior nurse had responsibility for co-ordinating the policy and he described all the steps that had been taken, which indeed are not rocket science but had been learned from experience elsewhere. The staff did not feel constrained in the slightest in taking the initiative to implement those measures, either by the Government's policies or by our waiting list targets.

  809
  It is complete rubbish for the Opposition to suggest that removal of targets would make staff freer to act. It would make no difference to their implementing sensible policies for disease control. However, removing targets would make a real difference to the number of patients who are treated, to the service provided to my constituents and to the pressure on everybody at the hospital to continue to drive up standards across the board.
  My final point is about the impression that the Opposition have tried to give that hospital-acquired infections are new and growing phenomena, and that they are somehow a consequence of the Government's policies on NHS targets. Hospital-acquired infections are not new. Indeed, I can give an anecdote from personal experience. As a very young child, which was several decades ago, I was in hospital for a considerable time and during my stay I acquired every childhood disease that one could catch in a small period of time. The advantage was that when I finally left hospital, cured of the orthopaedic condition for which I had gone in, I no longer had to worry about catching childhood diseases because I had natural immunity to every single one of them. I cite that merely as a truism that everybody knows: hospital-acquired diseases have always been a problem. In part, they are a problem because people in hospital are, by definition, not in the best of health. They are more susceptible to infection; many of them bring infection in with them and they are in an environment where infections, even with the best methods of control, are unfortunately more likely to be passed around than outside.
  These days, there is an additional problem. Because more people are being treated outside hospital in the community, hospital populations are more ill than they used to be, so that in itself is likely to mean that patients are more susceptible and that cross-infection is likely to be greater. Furthermore—a reason that has been ignored completely—there has been a rise in antibiotic resistance, especially multi-drug resistance, which does not only concern practice in the UK. Unfortunately, such resistances spread between countries. There is irresponsible practice in antibiotic use worldwide. Antibiotics have been used for conditions that were not serious enough to warrant them. In this country and elsewhere, they have been doled out by GPs, possibly due to untoward pressure from patients, to treat conditions where the patient should have been told to go home because the infection would clear up. Members of the public also use antibiotics irresponsibly when they do not finish the full course.
  The most extreme case of irresponsible public use of antibiotics, not in this country, is the well-known example in south-east Asia, where prostitutes treated themselves with low levels of penicillin, as a prophylactic, to try to protect themselves from sexually acquired infection. All that they managed to do was to turn themselves into incubators for drug-resistant venereal diseases, not only to the huge detriment of themselves, but to the enormous detriment of everyone else.
  Such practices have led to the unfortunate situation where an increasing number of infections are now resistant to all the common antibiotics. That is the really serious problem, which has led to added pressure on our hospitals and other health resources, so we must have
  810
  even higher standards of hospital hygiene than in the past to ensure that those problems do not get out of control. I very much regret the fact that the Opposition have used this very serious topic simply to make the party political point that they want to get rid of targets and waiting lists. That is a complete diversion from what we ought to be discussing, and they should be much more responsible on such issues in future.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: A number of hon. Members and the Secretary of State have stressed the importance of cleanliness in the hospital environment in seeking to tackle the growing problems of MRSA in our hospitals. I certainly accept that that problem cannot and will not be eradicated overnight, but efforts naturally have to be made to ensure that more is done to minimise and reduce the incidence of the problem, and I believe that cleanliness in our hospitals is a key factor in achieving that.
  During my brief remarks, I should like to highlight my own hospital, Broomfield, which is part of the Mid Essex hospital trust. The hospital was the subject of an article in the British Medical Journal earlier this summer because it has managed in a relatively short time, using excellent practice, to eradicate infections completely on the one ward—I emphasise that it is one ward, not the whole hospital—where the problem was growing. I refer to the orthopaedic ward.
  In 1998, the orthopaedic unit was moved from a dedicated orthopaedic hospital to a district general hospital—Broomfield—and a dramatic increase in the incidence of patients on the elective ward who acquired MRSA was noted. In 1996, before the transfer, there were three new cases of MRSA on the elective ward. By the year 2000, after the transfer, the figure had increased to 29.
  Staff on the orthopaedic ward analysed the situation and came to the conclusion that the increase was associated with elective orthopaedic beds also being used indiscriminately by emergency patients. To test their conclusions, they started to follow the British Orthopaedic Association guidelines and separate elective from emergency work, introducing an MRSA-free zone. Strict admissions criteria were introduced for elective orthopaedics. No inter-hospital transfers were allowed. All patients due to have elective orthopaedic operations were screened at a pre-admission clinic, and any positive patients were given eradication therapy and admitted to one of the trauma wards for surgery, rather than to the elective ward. The practice of admitting day cases to the elective ward was stopped.
  In addition to the standard precautions, a strict code of dress was instituted so that nursing staff wore disposable aprons and gloves for each interaction with patients; alcohol hand rub was installed by every bed—and staff had to use it before and after every consultation; medical staff had to leave their jackets at the door to the ward and wore clean white coats that were washed regularly; and visitors were not allowed to sit on the beds.
  The results of those procedures were dramatic. In the year before ring-fencing, 417 lower limb arthroplasty operations were carried out; in the year after, there were 488—an increase of 17 per cent.—without any increase in theatre capacity or the number of beds.

  811
  But the total number of all infections in postoperative patients fell from 43—nine of which were MRSA—out of the 417 cases, to 15 out of the 488 cases, with no cases of MRSA.
  It must be emphasised that that achievement is confined to the orthopaedic ward, because there has been some confusion, to the detriment of the local hospital, about whether MRSA has been eradicated in all the wards. That is not the case. However, the example shows that if proper procedures are adopted and rigorously enacted, they can have a positive and dramatic effect on the problem. I congratulate the nurses, doctors and consultants, as well as the management of Broomfield hospital. They have introduced a positive procedure that should be studied by other hospitals in the NHS so that it can be emulated and copied to reduce the incidence of MRSA.
  6.1 pm
  Laura Moffatt: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who spoke of local experience in reducing the rate of hospital-acquired infection. I found it an inspiration to hear about the work that has been done, but the most interesting point was that the reduction was achieved when targets and the other pressures mentioned in the Opposition's motion were in place.
  Florence Nightingale is a personal hero to many of us, especially nurses such as myself. She has been quoted enormously in the debate. However, the issue is difficult and complex, and that is why it should never be used in a party political way. Florence Nightingale was indeed keen to ensure that cleanliness was at the heart of treating patients, but she was also keen to ensure that they had lots of visitors, so that their emotional and psychological wellbeing was properly cared for. Indeed, she believed that if patients wanted their pets to visit them, it should be allowed. She understood that patients' happiness was important when they were trying to recover from serious operations. That illustrates the difficulty that we face. It is not as straightforward as saying that everybody must wash their hands and everything will be fine. That is untrue, and it is a target that we cannot possibly achieve. It is wrong to try to give the impression that that is all that needs to be done.
  Many visitors bring hospital-acquired infections with them. Visitors bring their children and they hug and kiss their loved ones—thank goodness they do—but what should be done about that? It is a complex issue that cannot be addressed in the simplistic way that has been suggested today.
  I wish to talk about my experience of working as a nurse. I spent many years nursing patients who needed to be isolated, so I know the difficulties and pain that hospital-acquired infection causes to them. Nurses also suffer pain and anguish when such cases occur. They provide 80 per cent. of care and if they discover that a patient is infected they are desperately sad and unhappy about it. Nurses want to do something about the problem.
  The empowerment that is being delivered to nurses hands them the challenge of deciding how a ward should deal with an outbreak of a particular infection or ongoing outbreaks of infection.
  812
  Any hon. Member who is involved in nursing organisations or their local hospital will see some of the initiatives that are making a difference not only to how nurses deliver, but to the way in which they feel empowered to take their initiatives forward and deal with problems. It is my suspicion that many of the initiatives are nurse led. After all, as they are delivering most of the care, they see what is going on and can bring the whole team together. I stress that it is the whole team. There is little or no infection among those who are treated in the community, with the exception of those who have gone into the community with hospital-acquired infections. It is in hospitals that we need to be most worried. We need to ensure that nurses are at the heart of getting teams together. We need collective decision making, from the cleaner to the consultant, on how staff deal with the ward. That is how we will truly make an impact on hospital-acquired infection.
  A hospital trust close to me ensures that staff have time to sit down with the consultant on a weekly basis, in the protected lunch hour when patients eat their meals quietly without interruption—another Government initiative that is immensely welcome in hospitals. The cleaner can say to the consultant, "But I saw you move from one patient to another without washing your hands." It is difficult to empower someone like the cleaner, who is part of that team, to do that, but if that atmosphere and ethos runs through the team on the ward, that is how we can make an impact on infection.
  I was slightly worried to hear the derisory comments of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). He made it seem as though hand washing was a new initiative and something that we could laugh at, but we are introducing a new ethos, which asks patients to be involved in the campaign. When did we ask patients before to challenge the staff around them and to participate in their own care to ensure that their treatment was of the highest quality? Why should not patients be able to say to a nurse, "I'm concerned that there was no hand washing between one patient and another"? Empowering our patients, staff and visitors is the way to tackle the problems.
  I see genuine improvements in hospitals. The pressures are different. I wish I could put on my rose-coloured spectacles. I started my training in 1970, when we did not collect figures on hospital-acquired infection, and honestly wish that I could go back to those days and pretend that such infection does not exist, but there is a new atmosphere—the pressure is on. We have to ensure that patients are properly treated. The way to do that is to fund our NHS properly so that we can use new devices and technologies, such as silver alloy urinary catheters, which reduce infection. The only way to make that happen is to sustain investment and develop our empowerment of nurses, especially in hospitals. That is how we will get genuine improvement on hospital-acquired infections.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Archie Norman: As many hon. Members, including the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), said the problem of hospital-acquired infection is not new. It is a decade-old struggle, which was temporarily masked by the advent of effective antibiotics. My father worked at Great

  813
  Ormond Street hospital before we had antibiotics. We can understand why an emphasis on nursing discipline, cleanliness and hygiene was imperative in those days. If patients acquired an infection, there was in many cases no way of treating them.
  However, the development of MRSA antibiotic-immune infections is new, as is the much greater intensity of utilisation of hospitals, particularly by higher-risk patients, which creates a higher-risk environment and therefore calls for an intensely greater emphasis on cleanliness and standards of hygiene. That is the challenge we face.
  We should not accept the development of MRSA, or the level of hospital-acquired infection—which has sat at about a level of 9 per cent.—as inevitable. There are hospitals with much lower levels of infection. BUPA reports, in a very different context, that occurrence of MRSA in its hospitals is negligible; I do not know whether that is true. As the Secretary of State has acknowledged, we know that there are differences, particularly in instances of MRSA as opposed to those of hospital-acquired infection. We have a high level of MRSA, but in Scandinavia and Holland the rate of MRSA infection is much lower as a percentage of total infections.
  Equally, there is a wide dispersion of outcomes among NHS trusts carrying out similar types of operation. That suggests that some are doing well, and some are doing less well. The trust in my constituency comes 19th out of 45 in terms of MRSA incidence. In other words, it has a high level of incidence. It is an old hospital that urgently needs rebuilding and—perhaps not coincidentally—has had serious problems with cleaning.
  There has been widespread recognition—and I think that the Secretary of State will acknowledge this—that Government and NHS initiatives on MRSA have produced patchy results. In some cases there has been evidence of effective results. My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) made a point about a hospital in Chelmsford, to which I shall return later.
  What does all of this tell us? Solutions are not just related to what can be done from the centre. I do not want to get into a debate about central targets. Clearly, the Government have to take initiatives, but they cannot just consist of poster campaigns and leaflets—we all acknowledge that. Fundamentally, it is a matter of getting back clinical management control of the ward environment. That means total control that can derive only from a level of culture and discipline from all those who work in the ward environment, which must run through the organisation from top to bottom.
  The struggle to contain MRSA cannot be entirely divorced from the question of how we manage hospitals and their leadership. The debate I have had with the Secretary of State in the past about the balance between central control and targets can become slightly vacuous, but the question is how much emphasis we place on creating the right level of leadership in our hospitals, and giving that leadership—the chief executives and clinical management—the time to create the culture and organisation we want in the wards. I believe that investment in quality local management, and giving it the time and wherewithal to apply the right critical judgments, is critical to making progress.
  814
  At the heart of the problem—this sounds simple but it is not—is a failure of cleaning, hygiene, discipline and training. It is in the culture of the people, and we should not forget that. In turn, those factors derive from the quality and motivation of chief executives. I ask the Secretary of State to think about how much time a chief executive in an NHS trust has to patrol the wards, acting as a leader on the ground, as opposed to sitting behind his or her desk dealing with administration of one kind or another.
  The problem is also concerned with the fragmentation of accountability for the ward environment, which we have debated before. The Government have sought to address it with the appointment of modern matrons, but we still have a far more fragmented control of the ward environment than we had 20, 30 or 40 years ago, when the ward sister was in absolute control, not only of cleaning but of admissions into the ward environment—I know that it would not be practical to do that today. In many cases, she would control whether doctors came on to the ward, and at what time they did so. That has all changed, and with it there has been a decline in the ethos of cleanliness because so many different people have uncontrolled access to the ward.
  The nature of nursing care has changed. Nurses increasingly regard themselves as specialist health care professionals and are less dedicated to total care and, in some cases, less inclined to regard themselves as responsible for hygiene and cleanliness. In many cases, they rely on unqualified nurses to do the job.
  I shall give a brief illustration of factors that lead to loss of control. We have talked about cleaning contractors. Sub-contracting can create a problem, but that depends on how it is managed. No one knows when cleaning will be required—it may be needed, for example, if there is an incident on the ward—but ward sisters should have the discretion to call for it whenever necessary. They must have absolute authority over when cleaning is required or when mess has to be cleared up. A system in which cleaning is determined by a rota, outsourced or is the responsibility of a modern matron on the other side of the hospital simply will not work.
  Hand washing facilities in many of our hospitals are woefully inadequate. Physically, they are in the wrong place. The hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) mentioned doctors who moved from bed to bed without washing their hands, but in many cases hand washing facilities are 100 yds down the corridor. It is impractical to use them, so we must contemplate that design problem. Incidentally, they fall far short of the amenities in many other highly sensitive facilities. Most food manufacturing facilities, for example, have much better hygiene and access controls than our hospitals. Our hospitals are open buildings with free visitor access and no security. Visitors come to the ward and, in many cases, are not invited to wash their hands. They touch the patients and the facilities, then leave.
  Staff uniforms are another problem. Gone are the days of crisp, white, starched uniforms. Many staff go home in their uniform and return wearing it unwashed the next day. It is therefore not surprising that we have a problem, but substantial change is required to tackle it. A total change in culture and management is needed, but it will not be easy to effect. We need a change in attitude to the way in which the ward environment is controlled, who is allowed access and what they are

  815
  allowed to do while they are on the ward. There is a balance to be struck between change and the pressure to achieve targets on, for example, occupancy rates. On the ground, line managers should have the authority to make clinical judgments and should not be burdened with the weight of national targets by top management. I am not making a party political point—it is not a question of targets or no targets—but we must allow people to exercise discretion locally.
  In conclusion, I shall cite the article in the British Medical Journal mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford. At Chelmsford, in a single, small location, there was a dramatic reduction in MRSA and the rate of hospital-acquired infections. At the same time, there was a 17 per cent. increase in the number of operations undertaken. Cost savings and increased productivity were achieved because infected patients were not occupying beds, so the experiment merits serious consideration. The article says:
  "Staff, patients, and visitors had to undergo a major change in culture in order to implement the changes. The senior medical and nursing staff acted as role models in the implementation of new policy, as described by Ching and Seto."
  In other words, improvements were achieved not just by guidelines or a new framework, but by a change of culture and policy and the creation of a completely controlled ward environment.
  6.18 pm
  Linda Gilroy: Hospital-acquired infection and MRSA are serious issues, and I am glad that we have had an opportunity to debate them. They are certainly important to my constituents in Plymouth.
  The problem is not new, as hon. Members have said. As well as being resistant to certain types of antibiotic, MRSA in particular has an intrinsic propensity to spread. Hospital-acquired infection, like many serious problems, has various causes, and there are many strands to its solution. It deserves our serious consideration, and is far too important an issue to become a political football. I pay tribute to the Government for their work in taking it seriously and some of their initiatives are listed at the beginning of "Winning Ways".
  It is an impressive list, even at that time, before our right hon. Friend the current Secretary of State took over, and includes circulars on management and control of infection and a controls assurance standard. In 2003 the National Institute for Clinical Excellence issued guidelines for the primary care and community care sector.
  "Winning Ways" reflects the deep-seated nature of the challenges. It analyses and sets out how to tackle infection at all levels, from establishing a culture of surveillance and investigation to achieving a sharper focus on high quality research, which is needed to underpin best practice in information sharing, monitoring and action. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), one of the Opposition spokespeople, said that we did not want rocket science—we wanted common sense. However, we need both. We need common sense, as I shall discuss in a moment, but we need rocket science to establish which common-sense solutions are working.
  816
  "Winning Ways" also sets out some aspects of hospital management and organisation for action, including the need to appoint a director of infection control. Peter Jenks has recently been appointed to that position in Plymouth Derriford Hospital Trust and is bringing a fresh impetus to the programme that our local hospital established. He described to me the open approach that the trust takes and some of the issues associated with achieving an open culture of reporting. That has considerable challenges attached to it.
  The outcome of an infection is a balance between the intrinsic virulence of the organism, the susceptibility of the host, and the skills and resources available to treat the infection. A benign infecting organism may kill a seriously ill 80-year-old and not so much as raise a fever in a fit adolescent. Likewise, a virulent pathogen is likely to be much more harmful to more vulnerable patients.
  I hope that the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), will agree that it is important for effective, active surveillance and investigation that the recording of these issues is of a high standard and that we are able to compare like with like. He will be aware of the concerns that Plymouth Derriford Hospital Trust has expressed about the recent publication of non-standardised data by the Office for National Statistics and the way in which that sparked some pretty ill-informed coverage in the national press.
  As part of the surveillance systems that have been put in place, all hospitals in England and Wales must report every time an MRSA is grown from the blood of a patient. This is the most accurate national MRSA data and provides a standardised basis on which to make fair comparisons. I hope that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister will do all they can to ensure good practice in the use of statistics to inform not only our debates in the House, but the action that needs to be taken in all our local hospitals.
  I turn now to what I know many of my constituents, whether they are patients, their relatives or people who work in the health service, as well as hon. Members consider to be a crucial aspect of bringing hospital infections under control. Although eight out of 10 Derriford patients rated care in the past year as excellent, patient perceptions of cleanliness remain much lower than I, they and the hospital would like. Through the Derriford cleanliness task force, matrons, members of the infection control team, the cleaning contractor, the unions and patient representatives are all engaged in tackling this key issue.
  As others have described, matrons and ward sisters will take more control over the cleanliness of their wards. They are encouraging domestic and housekeeping staff to be valued as key contributors to patient treatment and welfare. Matrons will have direct accountability for cleanliness standards. I understand, and my right hon. Friend may be able to confirm, that if all else fails, that includes the ability to withhold payment for cleaning services.
  People have rightly said that it is not appropriate for staff who clean toilets to serve meals. The tasks will now be separated in Plymouth Derriford and staff uniforms will identify staff who only serve food. Patients and visitors, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley

  817
  (Laura Moffatt) mentioned, will be encouraged to ask staff questions about cleanliness and report things that they are unhappy with.
  That is all good common sense, and it should never have been anything other than common practice. As the Secretary of State suggested, however, some in my constituency say that the fact that that was not the case stems from privatisation and fragmentation. That has been a particular issue at Derriford, as it has been at hospitals up and down the country.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister has seriously considered ending the two-tier work force in our hospitals sooner rather than later. I also hope that he is examining how contracts can specify outputs that guarantee a minimum quality. That would certainly solve many of the problems that we have experienced in Plymouth. Strong scientific evidence proving a link between cleanliness and health care-associated infections does not exist, but common sense suggests that every care should be taken to achieve the highest possible standards of cleanliness, and patient and public confidence demands that too.
  The debate has generated more light than heat, which is good and not something that the motion might have encouraged. The motion does not do justice to the depth and breadth of the problem and what is and what can be done. Much mention has been made of "Winning Ways". Playing on people's fears in the run-up to an election should have no place in anyone's strategy. If it occurs, we can expect the great British public to rumble it.
  6.26 pm
  Sir George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy). I agree that the debate has been good, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who introduced it in his normal measured and rational way, set the right tone for a constructive exchange.
  Along with other hon. Members who have spoken, I am, of course, anxious that my constituents should not acquire an infection when they go into hospital. Some signs are already apparent that fear of MRSA is beginning to affect people's willingness to have operations. I want to approach the subject not from the point of view of a patient with the infection, but from the point of view of a firm in my constituency that may have a solution, and I shall develop an argument that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire touched on in his opening remarks.
  I welcome what the Government have been doing and the progress that we have heard about in this debate. I want briefly to share the frustrations that both the company in my constituency and I have had in communicating with the Government and their agencies, and gently contrast the rhetoric of urgency and of rapid reviews with the leisurely progress that has been made since last December.
  Bioquell is a firm based in my constituency. It is a quoted company with a market capitalisation of some £60 million, and it has invested heavily in research and development over the past five years. I have been round it, and I was impressed by the professionalism of the operation and the commitment of the staff. It has a long
  818
  record of developing bio-decontamination technology, and last year the US Government selected it for priority research into anthrax decontamination. In the health care sector, it secured contracts to bio-decontaminate three hospitals in Singapore during last year's severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak. In July this year, it was awarded a contract by a French hospital to sterilise two intensive care units that were contaminated with a super-bug.
  Progress at home has been tougher. On 3 December last year, the chief medical officer published "Winning Ways" in which he indicated as part of action area seven that the Department would set up a rapid review process to
  "assess new procedures and products for which claims of effectiveness are made of their ability to prevent or control HAI".
  On 15 December, I wrote to both the CMO and Lord Warner asking for a meeting to follow up the results obtained by a research team led by Professor Gary French, who is one of the UK's foremost authorities in the area—he is professor of microbiology at King's college London and head of the department of infection at St. Thomas' hospital just over the river. In a nutshell, his research shows that the hospital environment is heavily contaminated with MRSA.
  In areas of the hospital where MRSA patients had been treated, 74 per cent. of swabs tested positive for MRSA.
  More surprisingly, in a so-called non-MRSA ward, 43 per cent. of the bed frames were positive for MRSA. St Thomas' is probably a good proxy for all the tertiary hospitals in the UK.
  Secondly, his research demonstrated that conventional cleaning does not work. In one experiment, 90 per cent. of 124 swabs were positive for MRSA before cleaning, but after cleaning the MRSA level reduced only to 66 per cent. The fact that conventional cleaning does not eradicate the superbug is highlighted elsewhere in scientific literature.
  Thirdly, in another experiment the use of new technology reduced the level of MRSA dramatically. Prior to the deployment of the technology, the research team found that 74 per cent. of swabs were positive for MRSA. Use of the technology reduced that to just 1 per cent. That technology, which basically uses hydrogen peroxide vapour with high kinetic energy to decontaminate a room, equipment or furniture has been developed by the firm in my constituency.
  The research that I have described was published in the "Journal of Hospital Infection" earlier this year, and it was referred to in the National Audit Office report. Lord Warner, to whom I wrote in December, neither agreed to my request for a meeting nor, indeed, answered my letter. Two months after I wrote, I got a reply from the chief medical officer that simply referred me to the rapid review process. However, that rapid review process was certainly not rapid. On May 24th, the CMO wrote to Bioquell to say that
  "unfortunately, it is taking longer than anticipated to establish the rapid review process to assess new procedures and products which make claims of effectiveness against HAI. We will let you know when this has been agreed but we hope to start the evaluation before the end of the year"—
  that is, one year after "Winning Ways" was announced.

  819
  That frustration is also reflected in the NAO report. One of its recommendations is that the Department should
  "As a matter of urgency, define how the rapid review process of new procedures and products is to be implemented, and how the findings will be promulgated so that they can be translated into practice at trust level with minimum delay."
  The rapid review process is now set up. It had its first meeting at the end of August, some nine months after "Winning Ways" was published. I hope that the Minister will agree on reflection that that is a disappointing response to a matter that we are told is urgent and right at the forefront of the Government's priorities.
  We have heard a lot about cleaning in this debate. Of course, common sense dictates that cleaning is important, and I welcome the emphasis that the Government are placing on that aspect. Cleaning is a necessary but not a sufficient condition, and the Government are in danger of misleading themselves if they believe that improved cleaning alone will combat MRSA and the superbug—it will not. I am sure that if any of us were about to be operated on we would like to be treated in a room, ward or operating theatre that had been sterilised as well as cleaned.
  There has been ground-breaking research in this country into superbug eradication, but the first hospital to put it into practice is in Paris. I hope that the Minister will understand that from the point of view of a company that genuinely believes that it has a contribution to make, the response is one that can lead only to frustration.
  I want to conclude on a broader but related point. The Government constantly promote the benefits of the knowledge-based economy and urge us all to adapt accordingly. As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) said, MRSA is a global problem that requires a knowledge-based solution. However, the Government should understand that in practice a British technology company has found it almost impossible to get any meaningful action from the Department of Health on testing and adopting its technology, although it clearly needs a domestic base to win export orders. The Department's document, "Towards Cleaner Hospitals and Lower Rates of Infection", which was published in July, says that it will
  "bring the best expertise from abroad to tackle the worst problems at home".
  But the best practice may already be in this country.
  If the Government are really determined to drive forward their agenda on MRSA, I urge them to deal with the rapid review process with more rapidity than they have so far been able to apply to it and to get on with introducing this technology, when it has been tested, into hospitals with the biggest MRSA problem, then, subject to satisfactory tests, rolling it out. I hope that the Minister will make some commitment to faster progress on that particular aspect than we have had so far.
  6.34 pm
  Dr. Andrew Murrison: The first maxim in medicine is that one should do no harm. That is important to bear in mind in the context of today's
  820
  debate. Our constituents go to hospital expecting to get better and many do not understand why they or their relatives get worse. Although we fully accept much of the data that have been exchanged across the Floor of the House, we must also accept that there is a problem of hospital-acquired infections, especially MRSA. We must therefore decide how we will improve matters for our constituents.
  I welcome the Secretary of State's comments that the issue is not party political. It is not our intention to make it so, and we accept at face value his welcome for today's debate as a non-political issue.
  There have been seven contributions from Back-Bench Members. They were all of high quality and constituted a genuine contribution to the general debate on such an important matter. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) did us all a great service by reminding us that much of the data on which we depend is somewhat dated. He made a good point about lack of surveillance of organisms and bugs other than MRSA. The headlines are full of MRSA, but we must remember that the majority of hospital infections have nothing to do with staphylococcus aureus or any related organism and are nevertheless important.
  The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) encouraged us not to make the debate party political. Indeed, up to that point, it had not been. My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) made a series of good points, drawing on his experience at Broomfield hospital. He discussed sharing best practice, which must lie at the heart of our battle with infections.
  The hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) made some useful remarks about nurse empowerment and developed them to include cleaner empowerment. I hope that I can agree with her in some of the comments that I intend to make shortly. My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) spoke about differentials and the reason for different results in different areas of the country and different sectors of health care when tackling hospital-acquired infections. We need to determine the reason for that and, again, spread best practice and learn where we can.
  The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) suggested that our approach should be an amalgam of common sense and rocket science, a term that was repeated several times in the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) made an extremely important point about the rapid review process of innovative products. The Secretary of State did not adequately cover that, so I hope that the Minister will say a little about it in his remarks.
  If we criticise the Government's outcomes, we cannot fault their capacity to launch and relaunch initiatives, guidelines and various circulars. At the last count, we had touched on 12 today. The latest that I can remember dealt with the provision of individual hand-washing facilities for hospital beds—a tub of cleanser for every bed. The target date for that is April next year. That shows poverty of ambition; we need such basic measures straight away—we cannot wait until April next year. Otherwise, the findings of the National Audit Office's recent report, which suggests that we lose 750 people through hospital-acquired infection, will continue to be

  821
  borne out. We cannot afford to let hundreds more patients die in the interim. The latest announcement is perhaps simply a repetition of that lack of ambition by Ministers to get on top of such a pressing problem. I revert to my initial maxim: that we should do no harm in our health service. That must be our first priority.
  On Friday, I had the great pleasure of touring a new primary care centre in my constituency, which happens to be an Army primary care facility. Above all, the one thing that struck me, other than its obvious newness and the enthusiasm of the staff, was the impressive number of hand-washing facilities. I am sure that that was due to the energy of the nursing sister in charge, and that she will do her level best to make sure that all her staff—cleaners, doctors, nurses, medics—use those facilities. Certainly, it is not rocket science, although there is rocket science in relation to innovations, some of which we heard about today from my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire. Fundamentally, however, this issue is not rocket science.
  My constituent, Mrs. Burton of Warminster, who trained as a nurse several decades ago—I am sure that she will not mind my saying that—wrote to me that, sadly, she has recently become a patient in the hospital in which she trained. She gave me a 20-point list of improvements that might be made to standards in hospitals, about which she learned when she was a student nurse, and which, as a patient, she unfortunately observed were not being carried out today. I would be happy to send the Minister Mrs. Burton's list if he would be interested, and I am sure that it would be useful to him.
  Above all, Mrs. Burton was worried about leadership in the NHS. We have heard a lot about that, and we have rightly heard Florence Nightingale mentioned in that context. We have heard about nurse empowerment, and about the recruitment of matrons—3,000 since 1999—apparently with the power to withhold payments to contractors and departments in the NHS that are not cleaning to a satisfactory standard. When the Minister responds, I would be interested to know how many incidences there have been of payment being withheld by matrons as result of that empowerment.
  We must avoid the idea that cleanliness is somebody else's business. That has come across clearly this afternoon. Cleanliness needs to be woven into the fabric of the NHS. The NAO is rightly worried about the balkanisation of the issue—making it someone else's problem, whether the infection control team or the cleaners. I trained in the NHS, and I know full well that I was never given any instruction on hygiene during my years as a medical student. I dread to think how much infection I caused during that time. I know for a fact that, in those years, white coats were never taken from medical students for laundry. Basic measures, such as free laundry for white coats and uniforms, need to be considered. That may cost a bit of money, but as the National Audit Office points out, such infections cost us £1 billion a year, so there are savings to be made. We must not be afraid of investing money, perhaps to save some, if we want to reduce it to crude pounds, shillings and pence.
  Training is exceptionally important. I am pleased to hear that training has now improved, and that medical students and nurses are being trained to apply proper hygiene. That must be fundamental to what they do, and
  822
  it must go further than the ward. It is no good expecting nurses and doctors to put up with shoddy accommodation which is dirty and grimy. We need total quality management in hospitals—everything needs to be clean, including accommodation, which is often not the case. It is no good having "think clean" days, as Ministers seem to want, as in "Towards cleaner hospitals". That balkanises the problem, which the NAO is worried about. We need 365 clean days in a hospital year.
  I part company from those who identify cleaning and ancillary staff as being part of the problem. It is easy for the tabloids to do that. Cleaners often appear to be marginalised—they seem to be shadowy figures in the national health service, and are often not seen as part of the mainstream NHS team. I suspect, from the remarks of the hon. Member for Crawley, that she would probably agree with me on that. Those staff need to be led, managed and made to feel that they are part of the general hospital effort.
  It is no good expecting them to do their job effectively if people ignore them. It is no good saying to them, "You only shift dirt from one corner to another", if no one really takes an interest in what they are doing, and if they are not being managed properly. We hear a lot from the Government about empowering matrons, but we need to be assured that matrons and senior nursing staff have the capacity to lead and manage everyone and every activity on the ward if we are to control this problem. They must be able to lead and manage cleaners, doctors, everyone.
  We have talked about differentials. It is important to compare and contrast what happens in different parts of the country. We know that hospital-acquired infection rates, particularly MRSA rates, vary dramatically. We need to learn lessons from that. Why is it happening? It is clearly not happening just by chance. Why do other countries have a far better record than ours? We need to learn from that as well, and apply best practice.
  Different sectors of the health care system in this country produce different results. There may be many reasons for that. I suspect that Labour Members, in particular, will make the obvious suggestion that it has to do with resources. With respect, that would be the scoundrel's way out. Although it may have to do with resources, I am sure that it has a great deal more to do with management factors. We must be prepared to learn from that too, and decide why parts of our health care system outside the NHS appear to be doing better than the NHS in this respect. We need to establish, for example, why community hospitals seem to be doing very well. I suspect that some of that has to do with leadership. Perhaps leadership is rather better in community hospitals, owing to the sense of togetherness and teamwork, than it is in some of our larger establishments.
  The Secretary of State said he felt that things had been achieved over the past few years, and none of us suggest that it is all bad news. There are people working very hard in this field. Nevertheless, we clearly have a problem. MRSA was first detected in 1960, and declined to almost zero in the 1970s. It has obviously been better managed in the past, and it is our task to ensure that it is better managed in the future.
  6.47 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate all who have spoken in this short debate. They spoke with considerable passion and conviction. I am glad to say that we have all recognised the clear need to reduce the incidence of health care-acquired infections, especially MRSA: that, at least, is common ground.
  This is one of the most extraordinary debates in which I have had the pleasure of taking part. The background was intensely party-political. Last week the Leader of the Opposition made his attack on the Government's stewardship of the NHS, entirely focused on our record on hospital-acquired infections. We were blamed for the incidence of such infections because we had introduced a range of national targets for the NHS.
  One of the extraordinary aspects of the debate is that it rapidly lost most of that party-political dimension. The longer it continued, the more that happened. On one level this is very encouraging: it shows that we can have a mature, grown-up debate across the Chamber, which is very important. I shall pay tribute to a number of speakers shortly, but let me say first that on another level that aspect is disappointing, because I shall have to junk most of the speech that I had prepared. There we are; that is part and parcel of the life of a Minister, and I will receive no sympathy.
  Actually, I may have to inject just a little bit of party politics later—[Interruption]—but, obviously, in a mature and sensible way. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy)—and with the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) and his hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman)—that we should not treat this subject as a party-political football, and we have seen plenty of evidence today that that is not happening.
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) spoke for 17 minutes in his customary style, without—I think—making a single positive suggestion about how we might deal with the problem.
  [Interruption.] Perhaps I missed it. I am afraid that when he started to read out the e-mails, I may not have given his speech the attention that I normally give. I found it slightly odd that he constantly complained that the Government are not being prescriptive enough and should be collecting more data. Having heard many of his previous contributions, I am not sure how that fits with his standard critique that we are being too prescriptive and collecting too much data.
  Tim Loughton: At least he was being consistent in that regard.
  Mr. Hutton: Indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) brought a very sensible balance to our debate, particularly on the question of cutting waiting times and whether abandoning targets would make sense. She is of course right, and that theme underpinned many of the Opposition's contributions. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) found himself on rather lonely ground when he suggested that we should abandon waiting times targets. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) made a very helpful contribution, pointing out that it is possible to make
  824
  progress in reducing incidents of MRSA infections in particular, while also making progress in reducing waiting times. In fact, that was very much the theme of the speech by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells.
  The hon. Member for West Chelmsford successfully anticipated my own speech, as he always does; it is deeply irritating when he does that. Perhaps he and I need to go into a quiet corner and discuss where we are on these issues. I was going to refer to the success of Broomfield hospital, which is an outstanding example of people on the ground dealing with this difficult issue at local level. There are capacity constraints in Chelmsford—the hon. Gentleman knows about the problem, and so do we—but as examples such as Broomfield hospital show, it is perfectly possible to raise awareness and promote best practice across the NHS. Such efforts are a tribute to the local NHS, and I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman endorses the work of his constituents, who are making such a success of that policy.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, on a much broader strategic level across the service, we have been trying to separate out more elective and emergency work. Our treatment centres will help to accelerate that trend, so, coupled with the approach adopted in Broomfield hospital, we are entitled to be optimistic about the future.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) spoke, as she always does, with a great deal of common sense, borne out of her extensive nursing experience. I agree strongly—this was a theme of her speech and no one else's—that nurses have a critical role to play in tackling MRSA and other health care-acquired infections. She was right to highlight that aspect of the problem.
  I agreed with just about everything that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells said. That is a problem for me but probably not for him—a fact on which I need to reflect. He is right: performance is of course variable across the NHS, and there are indeed limits on what the centre can do. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I, the chief medical officer and all my colleagues in the Department of Health do not actually treat patients. Our job, as always in these cases, is to establish the right direction and to invest in the quality of local leadership. Ultimately, that is where this problem needs properly to be located, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said.
  Mr. Lansley: Far be it from me to add anything to what my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) said, but surely one inference that can be drawn from his comments is that it is not central directives, guidelines and targets that deliver performance in the NHS, but leadership and local clinical teams. Indeed, Broomfield hospital is an excellent example of that. The initiative was specialty specific and on the elective orthopaedic ward; it was not hospital-wide or done on the basis of Government guidance.
  Mr. Hutton: The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells will speak for himself; he is perfectly capable of saying what he intends to say in his contributions. I am simply saying that there is a sensible balance to be struck. In

  825
  fact, the hon. Gentleman rightly said that there should not be an argument concerning targets versus no targets. There is a proper place in the NHS for strategic targets, and that is what we have established. The Conservatives referred today to having fewer targets, yet the Leader of the Opposition has been talking about scrapping all targets. Perhaps—
  Mr. Lansley rose—
  Mr. Hutton: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who made a long speech. The hon. Member for Westbury was not interrupted, and I have one or two other points that I want to make.
  I also agreed with the description that was given of fragmented responsibilities for ward cleanliness. In terms of management and leadership, such fragmentation is not acceptable, yet as we know, it has happened. I do not want to inject an unnecessary element of party politics into the debate—I know that some of my hon. Friends want me to—but things started to go wrong when the Conservative Government introduced compulsory competitive tendering, thereby fracturing the responsibility of ward sisters and nurses for cleanliness on their wards.
  I do not want to dwell on that historical point, which we are now moving away from, but we are entitled to point out some of the inconsistencies.
  The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to another important issue: open wards. Open access to NHS wards is a problem, but none of us wants to lock down our hospitals and make them a prison where no one can see a patient until they come out. There has to be a balance. We have been saying to the service—the issue needs to be taken up locally—that we should be concerned not only about the cleanliness and hygiene standards that we operate but about how we share information with patients, their families and the public about the contribution that they, too, can make. I agree, however—this is probably the most important thing—that to get on top of this we will need a total change of culture, leadership and management in the service. Ministers have a responsibility to the House and the service, as well as to taxpayers, to set the tone for that change, which is very much what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been trying to do.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton expressed support for the work that we are doing, for which I am grateful, and rightly stressed the need for accurate information and the importance of data on bloodstream infections.
  The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) broadly welcomed the progress that we are making, for which I am grateful, but he raised some concerns about companies in his constituency. He did not ask me to meet him to discuss those concerns, but I will be happy to do so if he will find it helpful. He referred, as did others, to the rapid review process, which is now under way, and I am advised that the team of officials steering that work is now considering six products. His criticisms are not entirely unreasonable, but the most important thing is that the work has now started.
  We have covered a lot of ground in the debate, but here I am afraid I must part company with some Opposition Members—I cannot avoid it. In these
  826
  debates, we are entitled to compare and contrast what they say now with what they did in office. They had the opportunity to do something about this problem in the 18 years of their stewardship of the NHS, and what did they do? First, they refused to take any action to establish the scale of the problem, so none of us, in the House or outside, had any way of knowing how many cases of MRSA occurred in our hospitals. Collecting the right, information is an essential precondition for developing the appropriate responses, but they never did it.
  Then, the Conservatives forced hospitals to contract out their cleaning services to the private sector. Quality did not come into it: it was the lowest bidder who always won. CCT did not lead to an improvement in overall standards of hospital cleanliness—quite the opposite. They issued two pieces of policy guidance to the service and, interestingly, if hon. Members get the chance to read it, they will see that their advice is entirely consistent with the direction of travel that we have set. That is not an impression that anyone listening to the contribution of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire today could reasonably have formed. There were, however, some important differences: there was no follow-up—they introduced no means of monitoring progress; and neither was there any effective accountability or any requirement to implement the guidance.
  The Conservatives' approach can best be summed up in this way: first, they turned a blind eye and denied that there was a problem; for ideological reasons, they then pursued actions that made it harder to get on top of the problem; and then they took no action at all to enforce their own guidance. They gave the matter no real priority, so very little changed.
  When it comes to dealing with the problems of MRSA and hospital-acquired infections, consistency and a credible track record are not the Opposition's strongest cards. In direct contrast, my right hon. Friend has made tackling MRSA a priority for the NHS, as has been acknowledged by the National Audit Office. We have introduced mandatory reporting, which the Opposition always declined to do. We have set out a clear programme of action that we expect every NHS organisation to take in order to—
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 307.

  Division No. 239]

  [6:59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E surrey)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Allan, Richard

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Amess, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Bercow, John

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Bacon, Richard

  Boswell, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  827

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Keetch, Paul

  Brazier, Julian

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Breed, Colin

  Inverness)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Burns, Simon

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Burnside, David

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Burstow, Paul

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Burt, Alistair

  Lamb, Norman

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Lansley, Andrew

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Leigh, Edward

  Cameron, David

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Fife)

  Lidington, David

  Cash, William

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Clappison, James

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Loughton, Tim

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Collins, Tim

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Conway, Derek

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Maclean, rh David

  Cotter, Brian

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Curry, rh David

  Maples, John

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Mates, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Maude, rh Francis

  Stamford)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Howden)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Dodds, Nigel

  Coldfield)

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Moore, Michael

  Doughty, Sue

  Moss, Malcolm

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Fabricant, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Fallon, Michael

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Öpik, Lembit

  Westminster)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Flight, Howard

  Ottaway, Richard

  Flook, Adrian

  Paice, James

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Paterson, Owen

  Francois, Mark

  Pickles, Eric

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Dinefwr)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Gill, Parmjit Singh

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Goodman, Paul

  Randall, John

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Redwood, rh John

  Grayling, Chris

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Rendel, David

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Greenway, John

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Grieve, Dominic

  M-Kent)

  Hammond, Philip

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hancock, Mike

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Abingdon)

  Ruffley, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Heald, Oliver

  Selous, Andrew

  Heath, David

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hermon, Lady

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns &

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Kincardine)

  Holmes, Paul

  Soames, Nicholas

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Jack, rh Michael

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Spring, Richard

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Steen, Anthony

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Streeter, Gary

  828

  Stunell, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Swayne, Desmond

  Watkinson, Angela

  Syms, Robert

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Whittingdale, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Willis, Phil

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Wilshire, David

  Thurso, John

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Tredinnick, David

  (Macclesfield)

  Trend, Michael

  Young, rh Sir George

  Trimble, rh David

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Walter, Robert

  Gregory Barker

  NOES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Ainger, Nick

  Pentlands)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Allen, Graham

  Chryston)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Darwen)

  Clelland, David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Coaker, Vernon

  Austin, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cohen, Harry

  Baird, Vera

  Colman, Tony

  Banks, Tony

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Barnes, Harry

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Battle, John

  Corston, Jean

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cousins, Jim

  Beard, Nigel

  Crausby, David

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Cruddas, Jon

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cummings, John

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Berry, Roger

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Best, Harold

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Betts, Clive

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blackman, Liz

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  David, Wayne

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davidson, Ian

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Borrow, David

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Denham, rh John

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Wallsend)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Browne, Desmond

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Bryant, Chris

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Doran, Frank

  Burden, Richard

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Burnham, Andy

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Byrne, Liam (B'ham Hodge H)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Cairns, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Edwards, Huw

  Casale, Roger

  Efford, Clive

  Caton, Martin

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Challen, Colin

  Farrelly, Paul

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Chaytor, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Clapham, Michael

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Flint, Caroline

  Follett, Barbara

  829

  Foster, rh Derek

  McFall, rh John

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  McKechin, Ann

  & Rye)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Foulkes, rh George

  McNulty, Tony

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  MacShane, Denis

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gardiner, Barry

  McWilliam, John

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Gilroy, Linda

  Mallaber, Judy

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Martlew, Eric

  Grogan, John

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Hain, rh Peter

  Merron, Gillian

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Miliband, David

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hanson, David

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Moffatt, Laura

  Healey, John

  Mole, Chris

  Hendrick, Mark

  Morgan, Julie

  Hesford, Stephen

  Morley, Elliot

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Mountford, Kali

  Heyes, David

  Mudie, George

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Mullin, Chris

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Sefton E)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Urmston)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Pearson, Ian

  Hutton, rh John

  Perham, Linda

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Picking, Anne

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Pickthall, Colin

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jamieson, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Pound, Stephen

  Hatfield)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  E)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Prescott, rh John

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Purchase, Ken

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Rammell, Bill

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Kidney, David

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Bellshill)

  Bow)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Knight Jim (S Dorset)

  NW)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Rooney, Terry

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lepper, David

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ruane, Chris

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Chester)

  Linton, Martin

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Salter, Martin

  Love, Andrew

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Sawford, Phil

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McCabe, Stephen

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sheridan, Jim

  McDonnell, John

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  MacDougall, John

  Short, rh Clare

  830

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Trickett, Jon

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Truswell, Paul

  Singh, Marsha

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Kemptown)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Finsbury)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Lunesdale)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Soley, Clive

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Southworth, Helen

  Ward, Claire

  Spellar, rh John

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Squire, Rachel

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  White, Brian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Willis, Michael

  Straw, rh Jack

  Winnick, David

  Stringer, Graham

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  C)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Woolas, Phil

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Worthington, Tony

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Wright, David (Tefford)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Tipping, Paddy

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Margaret Moran and

  Mr. John Heppell

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 177.

  Division No. 240]

  [7.15 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Ainger, Nick

  Browne, Desmond

  Ainswirth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Bryant, Chris

  Alexander, Douglas

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Allen, Graham

  Burden, Richard

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Burnham, Andy

  Darwen)

  Byrne, Liam (B'ham Hodge H)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cairns, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Austin, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Baird, Vera

  Casale, Roger

  Banks, Tony

  Caton, Martin

  Barnes, Harry

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Challen, Colin

  Battle, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Beard, Nigel

  Chaytor, David

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Clapham, Michael

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Bennett, Andrew

  Pentlands)

  Berry, Roger

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Betts, Clive

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Blackman, Liz

  Chryston)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clelland, David

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Borrow, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cohen, Harry

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Colman, Tony

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Wallsend)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  831

  Corston, Jean

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jamieson, David

  Crausby, David

  Jenkins, Brain

  Cruddas, Jon

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Hatfield)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  David, Wayne

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Davidson, Ian

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kidney, David

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bow)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Denham, rh John

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Lepper, David

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Leslie, Christopher

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Linton, Martin

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Love, Andrew

  Edwards, Huw

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Efford, Clive

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Farrelly, Paul

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  McDonnell, John

  Fisher, Mark

  MacDougall, John

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  McFall, rh John

  Flint, Caroline

  McIsaac, Shona

  Foster, rh Derek

  McKechin, Ann

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings &

  McNulty, Tony

  Rye)

  MacShane, Denis

  Foulkes, rh George

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  McWilliam, John

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Gardiner, Barry

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Marsden, Gordon, (Blackpool S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Martlew, Eric

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Merron, Gillian

  Grogan, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Hain, rh Peter

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mole, Chris

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Morgan, Julie

  Hanson, David

  Morley, Elliot

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Mountford, Kali

  Healey, John

  Mudie, George

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mullin, Chris

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Heyes, David

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Sefton E)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Pearson, Ian

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Perham, Linda

  Urmston)

  Picking, Anne

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Hutton, rh John

  Plaskitt, James

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Pollard, Kerry

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Pound, Stephen

  832

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  E)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Prescott, rh John

  Stringer, Graham

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Bellshill)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  NW)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Trickett, Jon

  Rooney, Terry

  Truswell, Paul

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Ruane, Chris

  Kemptown)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Chester)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Salter, Martin

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sawford, Phil

  Ward, Claire

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Sheridan, Jim

  White, Brian

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Singh, Marsha

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wills, Michael

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Finsbury)

  C)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Lunesdale)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Worthington, Tony

  Soley, Clive

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Southworth, Helen

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Spellar, rh John

  Wyatt, Derek

  Squire, Rachel

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Margaret Moran and

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mr. John Heppell

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Allan, Richard

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Amess, David

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Cameron, David

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

  Bacon, Richard

  Fife)

  Baldry, Tony

  Cash, William

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Clappison, James

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bercow, John

  Collins, Tim

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Conway, Derek

  Blunt Crispin

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Boswell, Tim

  Cotter, Brian

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Curry, rh David

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Surrey)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Stamford)

  Brazier, Julian

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Breed, Colin

  Howden)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Dodds, Nigel

  Burns, Simon

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Burnside, David

  Doughty, Sue

  Burstow, Paul

  Fabricant, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Fallon, Michael

  833

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Lidington, David

  Westminster)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Flight, Howard

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Flook, Adrian

  Loughton, Tim

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Francois, Mark

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Garnier, Edward

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Maples, John

  Gidley, Sandra

  Mates, Michael

  Gill, Parmjit Singh

  Maude, rh Francis

  Goodman, Paul

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Grayling, Chris

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Coldfield)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Moore, Michael

  Greenway, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Grieve, Dominic

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Hammond, Philip

  Norman, Archie

  Hancock, Mike

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Öpik, Lembit

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Heald, Oliver

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heath, David

  Paice, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Paterson, Owen

  Hendry, Charles

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Hermon, Lady

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Dinefwr)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Holmes, Paul

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Randall, John

  Jack, rh Michael

  Redwood, rh John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Keetch, Paul

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  M-Kent)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Ruffley, David

  Lamb, Norman

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Sanders, Adrian

  Leigh, Edward

  Selous, Andrew

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Simmonds, Mark

  834

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Trend, Michael

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns &

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Kincardine)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Walter, Robert

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Steen, Anthony

  Watkinson, Angela

  Streeter, Gary

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Wiggin, Bill

  Syms, Robert

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  (Macclesfield)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Young, rh Sir George

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Thurso, John

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tredinnick, David

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Gregory Barker

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the Government's commitment to ensure that patients can have confidence that National Health Service hospitals are clean, safe environments with infection firmly under control; congratulates the Government on its action plans for reducing infection rates, 'Winning Ways' and 'Towards cleaner hospitals and lower rates of infection', which include the new target for a year-on-year reduction in MRSA, and the designation of directors of infection prevention and control to bring about local change; notes that the National Audit Office report concluded that the introduction in 2001 of mandatory MRSA surveillance raised the profile of infection control with senior managers; expects that the new target will act in a similar way, and deplores therefore the suggestion that the target be abolished; acknowledges that improving patient safety is a difficult medical issue that calls for the hard work and care that is the hallmark of NHS staff; welcomes therefore the 77,500 extra nurses and almost 19,400 extra doctors that have become a part of patient care since 1997; and therefore congratulates the Government on a comprehensive programme of investment and reform that has equipped the NHS to deliver improvements in patient safety, and to reduce hospital-acquired infections.

  Point of Order
  Mr. James Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is widely expected that a Bill to ban hunting will be announced in business questions tomorrow. However, an answer this afternoon to a written question from the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), released in the Vote Office and the Library at 6.30 this evening, announces that any implementation of that Bill will be delayed by two years. That was the first official notification that the House had of the Government's intention, but anyone who read the Evening Standard at lunchtime will have seen such a delay announced on its front page. The news was also carried extensively on the BBC website. When we inquired of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs parliamentary office why that was, it said that the report was perfectly accurate, but it could not understand why it had been reported.
  In such a matter, which involves the procedures of the House and the implementation of a Bill, it is extraordinary that the public are informed via the media six hours before shadow Ministers and other hon. Members of what the Government intend to do about implementing the Bill on hunting. What can be done—if anything—to protect the interests of the House in that regard
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, and although I am not in a position to comment specifically on the matter that he raises, I can say that the whole House will know that Mr. Speaker strongly deprecates the release of such information to the press before it is put before the House and hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman's point has made that very clear, and it is now on the record.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a further problem in that we will clearly have to consider the implication of the Parliament Act 1911, together with what has been said on many occasions about its use. Our problem is that with the Library closed it is difficult to get at the material that we require. At the moment then, people such as myself cannot do any original research, and it would be enormously helpful if the Library staff could be asked to prepare now a summary and copies of the debates associated with the Parliament Act in 1911, together with what material they can find relevant to the use of that Act on previous occasions.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's great concern about this matter. The Library in Derby Gate is open, and I am sure that the Library of the House will do its best to solve the problems that he has identified.

ADJOURNMENT (PARTY CONFERENCES)
Ordered,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 16th September, do adjourn till Monday 11th October 2004.—[Mr. Heppell.]

ADJOURNMENT (PARTY CONFERENCES)

  Alderman Knight School
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
  7.31 pm
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: I am pleased to have secured this debate on the future of Alderman Knight school in my constituency. I am grateful to the Minister for being here to respond to the debate, and I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and for Witney (Mr. Cameron) for being here to support me in the debate.
  I have raised this matter many times in the House, but I make no apology for returning to it because the school faces closure. Alderman Knight is a special school, accommodating in the main children with moderate learning difficulties but also those with severe learning difficulties, behavioural difficulties and physical handicaps. Gloucestershire county council's cabinet has voted to close the school. There has been a bit of a kickback from the county's education scrutiny committee, but the cabinet and the Liberal Democrat and Labour-controlled council are determined to close the school. Their policy is to include all children with moderate learning difficulties, at least, in mainstream schools. I shall return to that point shortly.
  Whenever I have taken this matter up with Ministers—I also served on a Standing Committee considering a relevant Bill—I have been told that the legislation should not be seen as a green light for the wholesale closure of special schools. However, in Gloucestershire we have seen that programme being put into motion: Bownham Park, the special school at Stroud, has closed. I want to return to that matter, too. If the Government's policy is that their legislation should not lead to the wholesale closure of special schools, they really need to have a word with their friends on Gloucestershire county council, who are not interpreting it in that way.
  There are many reasons to keep special schools open. The Prime Minister's wife alluded to those reasons on 23 June, when she said to me that inclusion can be a very good idea, but we also need special schools. I am sure that she will not mind my quoting her. I would be the first to say that many pupils with special needs can be integrated into mainstream schools—many already are, and very successfully too—but that is not suitable for all children with special needs. For some, integration now can mean exclusion in later life.
  If we take what may seem an extreme example, although I do not think that it really is, and look at the prison population, we find that the majority of prisoners are illiterate.
  There is a link between poor education or the inability to learn and going wrong in later life.
  Mainstream schools will not be able to cope with a massive influx of pupils with special needs. The pupils at mainstream schools will be adversely affected by too many pupils with special needs going into those schools. Again, I make no apology for saying that. It is common sense. The children themselves could not cope with being in mainstream schools. That is my opinion. It is also the opinion of many other politicians, teachers, chairmen of governors, governors and parents. More importantly, it is the opinion of the children.

  837
  I shall read out three letters that I received from children who go to Alderman Knight school. Ben Waters writes:
  "I was at Alderman Knight School for seven years and I used to be very worried about lessons because I was bullied but when I came to Alderman Knight School in 1997 I was very nervous but over the years I became more confident. If I was at Mainstream I wouldn't of taken five GCSE's or I don't think I'd pass them I had a D in English, D in Food Tech, E in Art, E in Science and a G in Maths a lot of those lessons I thought I couldn't do but now I can."
  There is also a letter from Harriet Windsor-Clive who writes:
  "Alderman Knight is my favourite school. It helps me learn and I have good friends.
  I am sad for the younger ones because they will not have a lot more help. I feel very, very sad about my school closing and having to go to another school."
  Jake Rose, who is 11 years old, met the Prime Minister's wife. Jake is autistic. He writes:
  "I am happy at my school. My teachers help me to learn in a way I can understand. I feel safe at my school."
  That is very important. A number of those children have been down to the House of Commons today to make their protest.
  The education portfolio-holder at Gloucestershire county council says that children who are attending a special school now will be able to continue to go to a special school, even if it is not that special school. But if all the special schools are closed, how will that be possible? What about the officers? What are they saying? They say that their policy is to include children with special needs in mainstream schools, so we do not know what Gloucestershire county council is trying to achieve, other than the closure of special schools. The council does not seem to know which way it is going.
  I refer to the flawed process that the county council has undertaken. It has held various consultations with the public. Closure was not mentioned in the final consultation. It was indeed mentioned in an earlier consultation, but the option was rejected by those who were consulted, so unsurprisingly it was removed from the final consultation. However, the council decided that it wanted to go ahead with closure anyway. What on earth was the point of the consultations? How much did they cost the taxpayer of Gloucestershire? Could not that money have been better spent at, say, Alderman Knight school?
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold and I attended a meeting with the county council leaders on 2 July, we were given a briefing paper. My hon. Friend will remember it well. On that briefing paper there is no mention of the option of closing the school. What on earth is the county council doing? The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing.
  The council predetermined the policy before it went out to consultation. I understand that there are rules regarding councillors, who are not allowed to attend meetings if they have a prejudged view—if they have already made up their minds. That is in the code of conduct for councillors. Yet the county council can have a prejudged view to the extent that it can reject the consultation results if it does not like them. It has clearly said that it does not accept keeping the school open
  838
  because that is contrary to the council's policy. I have that in writing. If that is not prejudging the issue. I do not know what is.
  Mr. David Cameron: Will my hon. Friend take it from me, as the father of a severely disabled son who has just completed his second day at a special school, that for many of those children a special school is the only place outside home where they can obtain the love, care, attention and therapy that they need? Given the compelling story of what is happening in Gloucestershire, which is being repeated right across the country, does he agree that it is time for the Department for Education and Skills properly to investigate what councils are doing with special schools? Ministers keep saying that a closure policy does not exist, but closures seem to be repeated not only in Gloucestershire, but elsewhere.
  Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I know that he takes a deep interest in these matters. I entirely agree that the Government should examine what is going on up and down the country, because the wrong things are being done in the wrong way.
  Gloucestershire county council has consulted on merging schools without the prior consent of those schools, and it has failed to consult the children. The level of statementing in Gloucestershire is very low. The council has a duty to provide the education specified in a statement, so it is no wonder that it avoids statementing in the first place.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. Although the school is situated in his constituency, a number of my constituents go to it. Does he agree that Gloucestershire county council is not serving the people that it purports to represent? Denying parents and children the benefit of the school is a terrible thing to do, and those who will benefit from that school will be severely disadvantaged by the decision.
  Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a powerful point. It is not only people in my constituency and those with special needs who will suffer, but those who already attend mainstream schools, who will suffer because of the influx—that is not an insult to the children; it is a fact.
  The council has undertaken a flawed process. I want to make a serious point because I understand that the director of education, who has given councillors recommendations to close the school, may have been in breach of the county council's own guidance. She may have a non-financial interest, which she has not declared at various meetings, and she has not sought to distance herself from involvement in the matter. Both of those points are recommendations from the county council that she serves, and I ask the Minister to look into the matter. If required, I can provide more details that I choose not to make public.
  I also want to draw attention to the behaviour of the leader of the county council, Councillor Peter Clarke. In 1999, he assured me in front of a number of people that there was no intention to close special schools, but we

  839
  have seen the value of that promise. On 9 August, he wrote to the chairman of governors at Alderman Knight school. He said that the chairman had expressed "extreme views", but that is not true. He also said that a letter from the chairman, which was published in a local newspaper, could be construed as "agreeing to extreme measures" and possibly "incitement". That is not true—I have the letter that the chairman of governors wrote and to which Councillor Clarke referred.
  Councillor Clarke went on to say that he was taking the precaution of copying the letters to the county's legal officers, the chief constable and the editor of The Citizen, who allowed that "threat" to be published. There was no threat. What we have here is a man running scared and using legal offices paid for by the taxpayer to threaten and bully. Such behaviour is unacceptable.
  I referred earlier to the education scrutiny committee having kicked back the closure decision to the county. Councillor Clarke attended that meeting as an observer. On leaving the meeting, a number of people heard him say, "We are now going to rip apart the head teacher at Alderman Knight school in public."
  I believe that Councillor Clarke, who is a Labour councillor, has a lot to answer for, and I ask the Minister to look into that.
  For all those reasons, we are considering whether, if the closure goes through, there are grounds for a judicial review, because the process has been flawed. There are also attempts to try to prevent some of our councillors from participating in debates and voting by saying that because they have a prejudged view they are not allowed to do so. Yet the county council is apparently allowed to have a prejudged view.
  I have raised these issues before, and I am aware of the response that I am likely to get from the Minister—although he may surprise me. He will say that it is due to local decision making. However, he will know that if the county council does decide on closure and the school's organisation committee is not unanimous, the decision goes to the adjudicator. When Bownham Park at Stroud was closed, that decision did indeed go to the adjudicator, but he lived in Darlington, which is 225.1 miles away from Stroud, according to Multimap—I looked it up today. Can the Minister explain how that is local decision making and local democracy in action?
  A referendum is about to be held by Tewkesbury borough council—the Government have put that legislation in place—and we are going to raise a fighting fund to fight that referendum. I pay tribute to the chairman of governors, Dave Waters; the head, Ieuan Walsh, and his staff; Councillors Gordon Shurmer and Brian Calway; and the parents and pupils who have fought so hard to save the school. I assure the Minister and the county council that I will do everything in my power to save the school by legal and campaigning means. These children have very special needs. One can imagine the outcry if a Conservative Administration tried to close such a school.
  7.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): I congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury
  840
  (Mr. Robertson) on securing this important debate on the future of Alderman Knight school. I recognise the contributions and presence in the Chamber of colleagues on both sides of the House—my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and the hon. Members for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who has taken up such issues in several forums in the House and outside.
  The hon. Member for Tewkesbury has taken several opportunities to raise the matter—I pay tribute to him for that—through parliamentary questions and debate in the House. This is clearly one of those opportunities. He raised two specific issues relating to the conduct of an officer and a councillor in Gloucestershire. I ask him to write to me with the full details on a confidential basis, and I will of course respond.
  There will always be debates about the pattern of school education, both special and mainstream, in localities. It is important that those debates respond to local needs and demands. Under arrangements introduced in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, the consideration of proposals for establishing, altering or discontinuing maintained special schools are a matter for local decision making. I shall refer to those process issues again towards the end of my remarks. The decision-making structure to which the hon. Gentleman referred consists of the local education authority, a school organisation committee and an independent adjudicator to make decisions where local agreement is not possible. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about the local adjudicator, but we have to have a system in which there is an ultimate decision maker, and if they were not an adjudicator, based wherever they may be based, the only alternative would be a Minister. That would be no more local than having the decision made by the adjudicator.
  Clearly, it is preferable for consensus to be reached locally, as is often the case with such matters. I hope that it will apply to the instance that we are considering. As the hon. Gentleman said, neither Ministers nor the Department for Education and Skills have the power to determine local education authorities' plans in that regard and I would argue that that is proper.
  The policy of encouraging the inclusion of children with special educational needs in mainstream schools is not new. The principle was established in the Education Act 1981 and the Education Acts 1993 and 1996 built upon it. Subsequently, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 strengthened the right to a mainstream education for pupils with special educational needs and reinforced the Government's commitment to improving standards of achievement for all children with SEN so that they can fulfil their full potential.
  I want to emphasise that, from our point of view, inclusion is not simply about the sort of placement that children or their families are offered, but the quality of the educational experience and the extent to which children can learn, achieve and participate in the life of the school. In that context, we believe that special schools continue to have a role in the framework of inclusion, especially in providing education for pupils with severe and complex special educational needs, and working with and providing outreach support for mainstream schools. That is the basis for our policy as set out in the strategy entitled "Removing Barriers to Achievement."

  841
  For too long, we have had an either/or education system, whereby decisions made at one point in a child's development—either a special school or a mainstream school—stick for good. Yet what matters most is not location but the quality of the child's experience. We want not an either/or but a both/and system, whereby mainstream schools have the capacity to meet the needs of most children with SEN and special schools provide education directly for children with severe and complex needs, and, importantly, link much more closely with mainstream schools to share knowledge, expertise and pupils. In such a community of schools, it should be possible for children perhaps to start in special and move to mainstream provision and vice versa, or to move between the two according to their needs at different times.
  In other words, we want an inclusive system, whereby children with SEN have inclusive educational experiences and there is therefore greater social inclusion. We want to promote that through encouraging special schools to participate in federations, clusters and twinning arrangements. We are especially considering the opportunity that the "Building Schools for the Future" capital programme affords for bringing schools physically closer together.
  I want to put on record again that the Government continue fully to support special schools and that we envisage a continuing role for them in a continuum of inclusive education, catering for children with the most severe and complex needs and working more closely with mainstream schools to share expertise and to support all children in both settings. That support stems from the excellent work performed within the sector, such as outreach services to mainstream schools.
  We set up a working group to examine the contribution of special schools and I want to stress how much we welcome its report, which has taken the debate considerably further. I want the contribution of special schools to inclusion to be reflected clearly in the work of the SEN regional partnerships in spreading effective practice and promoting regional and local provision.
  Our strategy recognises that local authorities have a vital strategic role in planning a spectrum of provision to meet children's needs in their area. The strategy makes clear our view that authorities should take account of several considerations, one of which is that some children have such severe and complex needs that we will continue to require special provision for them.
  To emphasise that, my ministerial colleague who leads on those matters, Baroness Ashton, and Sir Jeremy Beecham of the Local Government Association, wrote recently to all LEAs setting out local and central Government's shared view of inclusion, and of the need for strategic planning for special school places. To follow that up, a number of conferences are being planned for the autumn. On supply and demand for special school places, the letter from Baroness Ashton and Sir Jeremy Beecham points out that special schools may need to be reorganised as we move to implement the SEN strategy, and in response to local demand. It will be important for elected members to provide clear leadership and to work with parents and the wider community to persuade them of the benefits of reorganisation, to allay concerns and to help them through the necessary period of transition.
  842
  There must be no question, however, of arbitrary decisions by LEAs to close special schools. The hon. Gentleman talked about wholesale closures, which is not the intention behind the strategy that I have set out. The LEA must go through a consultation process. He has commented on that process in his constituency this evening, reflecting his view and, I am sure, that of many of his constituents. It is important that that is a full and open consultation process, that the authority explains how interested parties can make their views known, and that it can demonstrate how it has taken into account the views expressed during consultation in reaching any subsequent decision as to the publication of proposals. Once the LEA has published its proposals, a two-month objection period will follow, during which anyone can submit formal objections to the authority. I understand that the proposals for Alderman Knight school will be published shortly.
  This evening, the hon. Gentleman has placed on record his concerns and those of his constituents, including a number of pupils at the school, and it is important that those are taken into account as the process moves forward. As he said in his speech, any formal objections must then be sent to the school organisation committee. The committee has a duty to give careful consideration to those proposals and to reach properly informed decisions, based on all the available evidence, including any objections received. If it is unable to reach a unanimous decision, the matter will at that point, as he said, pass to the independent adjudicator for a determination.
  I want to put on record that it is best for parents and others who have concerns to make their views known directly to the local education authority so that it can take them into account as it proceeds with formal consultation and the publication of statutory proposals. I realise that that response will be a surprise neither to the hon. Gentleman, in terms of the content, nor to those involved in the decision, on both sides of the discussion, at local level. I am simply setting out the long-standing policy in this regard that those matters are best determined at the local level.
  Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Witney suggested that we consider again the pattern of what is happening. The fairest response that I can give to that this evening is that I will discuss the matter with my ministerial colleague, Baroness Ashton, who leads on these matters. What I have sought to do in my short time this evening is to set out the general approach of the Government and our view that special schools continue to have an important role to play in education. All of us, as constituency Members, will know of special schools in or close to our constituencies that provide an important education to significant numbers of children and young people. I recognise that Gloucestershire is confronting some difficult issues and has some difficult decisions to make.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding some of the concerns that he has set out, will feel that the process will at least allow those concerns to be fully reflected. Finally, I hope that today's debate in the House will contribute to that ongoing local discussion, consultation and decision making in Gloucestershire.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock.