The first ever cross-government strategy to tackle obesity is being published today. The House last discussed this subject in October, when the then chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, and his foresight team published the report “Tackling Obesities: Future Choices”—the result of two years’ work by some of our most eminent scientists and academics, seeking to determine how we can deliver a sustainable response to obesity over the next 40 years.

I shall just remind the House of the challenges identified in that report. Foresight said that with 23 per cent. of men, 24 per cent. of women and 18 per cent. of children clinically obese, and with no expectation of any spontaneous reversal of obesity trends, those figures will rise to 60 per cent. of men, 50 per cent. of women and 25 per cent. of children by 2050. That will have a severe impact on the health of individuals, increasing the risk of diabetes, cancer, and heart and liver disease. The cost will be felt in every part of society, not just in headline financial or health terms, but in personal ways, by affecting the lives and opportunities of millions of people.

The overall cost to society is forecast to reach £50 billion over the next 40 years based on current trends, including a sevenfold increase to the NHS. However, as foresight said, such outcomes are not inevitable, and if we take action now the trends can be reversed. Halting the obesity epidemic is primarily about individual behaviour and responsibility—how people choose to live their lives, what they eat and how much physical activity they take. It is also, as I shall outline, a matter of the commitment of the private and voluntary sectors. However, the Government have the most significant role in expanding people’s opportunities to make the right choices for themselves and their families, in ensuring that people have clear and effective information about food, exercise and individual well-being, and in ensuring that policies in a wide range of areas promote an environment that supports people in their desire to maintain a healthy weight.

The Government have set themselves a new ambition of being the first major country to reverse the rising tide of obesity in the population by ensuring that all individuals are able to maintain a healthy weight. Our initial focus is on children: by 2020, we intend to reduce the proportion of overweight and obese children to 2000 levels. To help to fulfil that ambition, foresight suggested that the Government should focus their action on five main policy areas. I should like to set out the initiatives that the Government are announcing today in each of the five policy areas. They will be financed with £372 million of extra funding between 2008 and 2011.

The first initiative concerns the healthy growth and development of children. The strategy begins from the start of a child’s life, with early identification of at-risk families, and plans to make breastfeeding the default option for mothers. For school-age children, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, who has worked closely with me, set out yesterday, the Government will continue to invest in healthy schools, including making cooking a compulsory part of the national curriculum. We will also take measures to increase participation in physical activity by the least active children, and develop policies to ensure that the lunches that children bring to school are as healthy as those now provided as school meals. To support and empower parents to make changes to their children’s diet and physical activity at all ages, we will invest £75 million in an integrated marketing campaign.

The second strategy is promoting healthier food choices. It sets out a healthy food code of good practice, which we will develop in partnership with the food and drink industry and other relevant stakeholders. The code will challenge the industry to adopt voluntary practices to reduce consumption of saturated fat, salt and sugar. We will also ask Ofcom to bring forward its review of the restrictions on advertising unhealthy foods to children and report early findings by September. On the broader environment, we will promote the flexibilities already contained in planning regulations, so that local authorities can limit the spread of fast food outlets in specific areas, such as those close to schools or parks.

The third policy is building physical activity into our lives. The initiatives range from those focused on the individual—for example, a Walking into Health campaign, which aims to get 30 per cent. of the population walking at least 1,000 more steps every day—to those directed at whole communities and businesses. For example, we will invest £30 million in Healthy Towns, which means working with selected towns and cities to learn from the successful EPODE model used in France through a whole-town approach to promoting physical activity.

We will also set up a working group with the entertainment technology industry to incorporate devices that allow parents to manage the time that their children spend watching TV or playing sedentary games online much more widely. We will review our overall approach to physical activity, including the role of Sport England to ensure a clear legacy of increased physical activity up to and beyond the 2012 Olympic games.

The fourth policy area is creating incentives for better health. Individuals, employers and the NHS need to have stronger incentives to prioritise the long-term work of improving health. In that strategy, we lay out plans for working with employers and employer organisations to explore the way in which companies can best promote good health among their staff and make healthy workplaces part of their core business model. We will pilot and evaluate a range of different approaches to using personal financial incentives to encourage healthy living.

The fifth and final strand is personalised advice and support. When people are overweight or obese, they need access to personalised services that are tailored to their needs and support them in achieving real and sustained weight loss. We will support the commissioning of more weight management services by providing increased funding in the next three years. Our intention is that people have easy access to highly personalised feedback and advice on their diet, weight, physical activity and health, providing them with the information to encourage healthy behaviour. We will explore the potential to develop further the NHS Choices website so that it provides advice on diet and activity, with clear and consistent information on how to maintain a healthy weight.

The measures in those five policy areas are only the first steps towards our objectives. We will continue to examine not only the best emerging evidence of what works, but whether everyone in society—employers, communities and individuals—can participate fully in the programme. Our research will be part of wider efforts to develop our knowledge through the newly established obesity observatory. We will publish an annual assessment of the progress being made and use that to develop and intensify our policy focus as we acquire evidence on what works best.

Foresight pointed out that there was at that time no concerted strategy or policy model that adequately addressed the problem of obesity anywhere in the world. It added that the work assembled for the project gives the UK a platform from which to become a global leader in tackling a problem that is challenging policy makers across the world. The report has been produced with the full participation of the interim expert group of distinguished scientists and academics, which was created from the foresight project and contains many of the leading scientists and nutritionists who worked on it. The expert group will continue to guide us, placing science at the heart of our policy response, so that we are better able to grasp this opportunity to tackle the most profound public health risk that this country faces. I commend this statement to the House.

I thank the Secretary of State for supplying a copy of his statement during the past hour. I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who was already on a tour in the north of England when the Secretary of State said that he planned to make this statement.

Reversing the trend of rising obesity is a social responsibility in which everyone has a role to play. The UK now has more obesity than anywhere in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development except for Mexico and the US. England has a higher rate of obesity than anywhere else in the European Union, with a rate of 22.6 per cent. in the UK compared to 10 per cent. in France. Obesity could also cost £60 billion by 2050, on the Government’s own forecast figures.

With the rising tide of obesity, hospital treatments for the condition have spiralled on Labour’s watch, across all age groups and both sexes, with grave inequalities increasing among socio-economic groups. Most alarmingly, obesity among children is sharply on the increase, rising from 10 to 17 per cent. among children aged between two and 10 in the decade to 2005, with 31 per cent. of children in that age range in England now either overweight or obese. We therefore agree that there is a public health crisis in obesity, which is something that we have been urging the Government to prioritise for years.

The question is: how do we tackle it? Does the Secretary of State agree that we cannot leave the problem to doctors, thus recognising what Dr. Colin Guthrie has said:

“The GP’s role has changed so much over the past 10 years. We have so much else to do in our practices. We are swimming under targets to meet so many things”?

Does the Secretary of State also recognise what Dr. David Haslam, the medical director of the National Obesity Forum, has said:

“I am rewarded”—

by the quality and outcomes framework—

“for identifying an obese person. I then make a list, put it in a draw, close it and forget about it. It is good that obesity has made it into the GMS contract as a disease in its own right, but it is a catastrophic failure—a complete and utter waste of time—that it has done so in its present incarnation”?

There is no question but that obesity is a crisis that needs tackling, but what needs to happen without more overweening, nanny state, maddening lifestyle diktats?

We certainly agree that the Government have a duty to ensure that people have the information they need to make informed choices about the food they eat. The Government have so far failed in that duty, and the information is simply not available. At last we now have a commitment to cross-party working—again, something for which we have called for years. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire wrote to the Secretary of State only yesterday, building on the many representations that he has made on the issue over the years.

Does the Secretary of State agree that current food labelling practices are fragmented and confusing, with different manufacturers using different systems and some using none at all? The traffic light labelling system, which the Government advocated in 2004, added to that confusion because it is based on the concept of good or bad food, when what matters is whether a person’s diet is good or bad. The system does not work in practice, either. If a wholemeal bread roll is low in sugar, moderate in fats and high in salt, would it merit a green, amber or red light? If fruit juices, cheese or fish have red traffic lights, how will people understand that they can form part of a healthy diet? How does a crude traffic light system deal with the major differences between the diets of adults and children?

Since 2004, we have been calling for food labelling that is based on information about food’s nutritional value and its contribution to a good diet. That means that people should be given information about the recommended daily amounts of calories, fats, sugar and salt. Such a system would be well understood by the public and would help people to put together a good diet. That is why for more than three years we have argued for a combined multiple traffic lights and guideline daily amounts system. In its food and health action plan in 2005, however, the Department of Health said that by early 2006 there would be

“a clear, straightforward coding system that is in common use, and that busy people can understand at a glance, to find out which foods can make a positive contribution to a healthy diet”.

Does the Secretary of State accept, however, that little progress has been made?

Does the Secretary of State also accept that we should jointly advocate the traffic light GDA front-of-pack labelling system, making Britain a leader in the European debate on the issue? The matter has been handed over completely to the European Parliament to dictate directives on food labelling. As the Secretary of State well knows, I, on two occasions, and two of my colleagues, have introduced private Members’ Bills that would have given the Government the opportunity to pick up the issues of both country of origin labelling and standards of production. The question now is whether we can lead in that debate and ensure a common European position, given that the trade in foods requires standards that are recognised across Europe.

In 2005, the Government promised that they would take simple steps to clarify food labelling. They have not delivered. The Food Standards Agency has been strongly pushing the traffic light model, which the Department of Health strongly supported. As the Secretary of State well knows, food labelling is only a matter of voluntary practice.

The Secretary of State’s statement is a series of repackaged announcements, which were in Labour’s last obesity strategy but have not been delivered. Labour did not even attempt to tackle obesity until 2004, with its public health White Paper “Choosing Health: Making Healthy Choices Easier”. A comparison between the 2005 report setting out delivery dates for the commitments in that White Paper, and today’s strategy, shows that little progress has been made.

What of cooking in schools? Who could object to increased teaching of cooking in schools? We do not. But at what point does the curriculum allow teachers the discretion to balance cooking with enough physical education and sport? It is not the fault of teachers, but sport has been squeezed out by an emphasis on the core curriculum, obsessive health and safety rules and a mass sell-off of playing fields under this Government, especially in the late 1990s.

On the issue of junk food—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has gone over the time allocated to the Opposition. In fact, I have given him a minute over. Rather than being overweight, he is over time. [Interruption.] I am watching the clock as well. Back Benchers must get a chance to speak.

The hon. Gentleman can be described as Confused of Eddisbury, because on the one hand we are castigated for introducing an overweening nanny state, while on the other we are told that we have not taken enough action in this regard. I listened to him saying that we have made a commitment to cross-government working on the issue. I have looked through the document carefully, and I find that I have made no such commitment. Given the response from Conservative Members, I think that it would be a bit futile.

Let us deal with the questions raised. The constructive part of the hon. Gentleman’s speech was his recognition that the issue is a real public health threat, and his acceptance that everyone has a role to play. That was absolutely right. As for the reference to GPs, this country now has 18 per cent. more than it had in 1997, and it will have yet more—we are creating 250 GP-led health centres across the country. When I talk to GPs, they do not tell me that they have to be incentivised to deal with someone who is overweight. Given that an overweight person who loses half a stone becomes half as likely to develop type 2 diabetes, GPs need no incentivising. I also remind Conservative Members that GPs now spend on average 10 minutes more with every patient than they did in 2000, so there is more time being devoted to this issue at primary care level.

The hon. Gentleman spent a large part of his contribution talking about food labelling, which is one aspect of a very wide-ranging debate. Let me pick up on the points that he raised. Yes, we have championed the traffic light system, and we have done so because consumers regularly tell the FSA that that is the system they prefer. It is clear, it requires no translation, and it is very accessible. However, we say in the report that we would like to move to a single system.

Incidentally, we are leading the world in that our food retailers and manufacturers have, to a large degree, accepted the need to put information on packets. We should congratulate them on that. The problem is that there are three different methods, and I think that we would all like a uniform system. Our view is that the expert independent group that we set up should look at the three systems and at all the evidence, and make a recommendation on which system we should adopt, whether it be the traffic lights, the monochrome system or the hybrid system. When we get that recommendation, we will work with the industry to try to establish a single system. That is the most constructive way forward.

The hon. Gentleman said that this strategy was a repackaging of old initiatives, and that there was nothing new in it. Let me remind Opposition Members that we are putting more than £100 million into cycling—

Hear, hear!

To the huge admiration of my hon. Friend the Minister. Cycling England has received about £14 million, and it is now going to receive something like £120 million, which will do an enormous amount to increase cycling levels.

Cooking has never been a compulsory part of the national curriculum at key stage 3. For the very first time, in this strategy we are announcing that it will become compulsory, and we are recruiting 800 extra teachers to ensure that it is properly taught. That is an enormous step forward. I also want to mention Healthy Towns. When we debated the foresight report, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) rightly looked at what was happening in France and Finland to see whether we could reproduce the kind of model that exists in those countries. The Thames Gateway presents a perfect opportunity for us to do that, by taking a whole-town approach. Such approaches have had startling results in France, using the EPODE model. That is just one of many new, fully funded initiatives in this proposal.

I want to make a final point to the hon. Gentleman about school sports and the myth about playing fields being closed. Playing fields closed under the previous Conservative Government. To close a playing field now, a school has to get the authority of the Secretary of State and prove that it will put the money back into new resources for sports and physical activity. Twenty-two per cent. of children in this country were doing four hours of high-quality sport and physical activity each week when we first measured it after coming into government; now, the figure is 86 per cent. We have a good record on this, and if we are going to take a cross-government approach to tackling this issue, I would ask for a less miserablist approach from those on the Conservative Front Bench.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this very constructive set of proposals. Experience shows that, provided we take the public along with us at a speed they are happy with, we shall make much better progress, especially in areas such as smoking and environmental issues, where the public can be educated in order to improve the situation for the future.

May I ask the Secretary of State to concentrate on two issues? One is that we need yet tougher regulations on advertising to children foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar. I still believe that that is a major part of the problem. Secondly, will he see what he can do to help GPs to help people with weight problems by making more interventionist strategies available? At the moment, GPs can monitor people’s weight but there are not enough interventions available to them to help people to manage their weight and obesity problems.

My hon. Friend is right to raise those two issues. This month, we have introduced the first restrictions on advertising to children. Ofcom said that it would review the situation after a year, but it has now agreed, as part of this strategy, to use just six months’ information. We therefore have the prospect of having an evidence base for whether to move further by September. This is a delicate issue, and there are different views on all sides, but I think that that is the right way to proceed.

My hon. Friend asked about GPs. This is more than an obesity strategy; it is a public health strategy. The body set up to tackle obesity is very much a cross-government public health body. All the issues involved—from breastfeeding through to taking more exercise and having a healthy diet—apply right across the public health spectrum. We therefore need more interventions, and GPs need more resources for that. That is why we have announced £372 million over the next three years as part of this package.

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me early sight of his statement. Last time we discussed this subject, I challenged him to join me in taking part in the 10 km London run. He has not come back to me on that yet. Perhaps the enthusiasm of the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), for physical exercise in the form of cycling suggests that he might be more up for it. However, I am still waiting to hear from the Secretary of State and, indeed, from the Conservative spokesman.

We all agree about the scale of this problem. It is growing at a much faster rate than anyone anticipated, and this country has the worst rates of obesity anywhere in Europe. By 2010, there will be 1 million obese children, which is a pretty frightening statistic, and we are now seeing the onset of type 2 diabetes among children, which had previously not been the case. We must also consider the knock-on health consequences—including heart and liver disease, as well as the mental health problems and low self-esteem that go with obesity—as well as the cost to the NHS and the economy.

I welcome the statement’s commitment to placing science and evidence at the heart of policy making in this area. It is always welcome when the Government are prepared to change the habits of a lifetime by moving away from gimmicky, headline-driven policy making to policy making that is based on science. I also welcome the focus on physical activity.

Is it not the case, however, that the Government are their own worst enemy? Their record so far has clearly been woeful. Of course it is absurd to suggest that they are responsible for all of these problems, but they over-promise and under-deliver. The 2004 White Paper made a grand spending commitment, but the Faculty of Public Health Medicine said today that only half the money that was promised has been put forward. Why should we believe the spending commitment that has been made today, when that previous commitment has not been met? Furthermore, the target of eradicating childhood obesity by 2010 has been quietly dropped in favour of a much vaguer commitment to achieving a target by 2020.

The main issue that I want to raise is the fact that the statement says absolutely nothing about growing health inequalities. That is more relevant in the area of obesity than in any other, and there is clear evidence of a growing divide in regard to weight. The foresight report was clear in raising that concern. Will resources be targeted at those disadvantaged groups in which the problem is the greatest? Low levels of breastfeeding are particularly prevalent in disadvantaged groups. Will resources be targeted at that problem as well, as there is a clear link with obesity?

The statement makes reference to tackling fast food premises, which hit the headlines over the weekend. What is the substance behind that proposal? The statement also talks a lot about the efforts to be made in schools, but the fact is that, since the Government’s introduction of the healthy eating strategy, 425,000 fewer children are eating school meals. What are the Government doing to address that concern and to encourage more children to eat school meals? The statement then lurched into nanny state mode, when it proposed to

“develop policies to ensure that the lunches children bring to school are as healthy as those now provided as school meals.”

How on earth are we going to do that? Will it involve the introduction of the lunch box police? How on earth can we dictate to people in that way?

The food industry clearly has a big part to play in all this, and it would be sensible to arrive at one system for food labelling. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that such a decision will be based on evidence? Different systems are being considered at the moment; will the decision be based on evidence—

To be fair, I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman.

That was a bit confused as well. The hon. Gentleman is trying to have it all ways. On his first point, I am tempted to say that my comments on whether I enter the cycling marathon will be delivered through a spokes person—

It is a run, not a cycling marathon.

Yes, but that would not have made such a good joke.

At least we are agreed on the scale. I noticed that the Liberal Democrats very quietly dropped their commitment to free adult social care yesterday. If we had put resources into that, we would not have had enough money to invest properly in public health.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to using the relevant science. Let me mention Professor Susan Jebb from Cambridge university, who played an exceptional role in the foresight review and is now the chair of our expert group. She has looked at all these proposals in great depth and approved them.

Let me deal with the more negative aspects—for example, the hon. Gentleman’s comment that the Government’s record was “woeful”. We can always have a knockabout and say that we have not done all that we should have done. I accept that, but woeful? Let me just clarify on school sport that when I mentioned four hours, I meant to say two hours of high-quality PE in schools—[Interruption.] Well, the record has been put straight. Back in 2002, the first time it was measured, the figure for such provision was 22 per cent., but it is now at 86 per cent.—a massive increase, well ahead of our target.

For the first time ever, we have introduced restrictions on advertising to children. I accept that some would have liked us to go further, but this is the first time that it has been done. We have introduced front-of-pack labelling. Yes, there is confusion about the different systems, but we are far ahead of the rest of Europe in that respect. Furthermore, an enormous revolution has taken place in school food. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) said a few moments ago, we need to take the public with us. Pictures of parents putting fish and chips through school gates are depressing, but we are moving forward on all those fronts.

The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) asks what we are doing to encourage take-up of healthy school meals, so let me remind him that Hull had three healthy school meal projects being run under a Labour administration; the incoming Liberal Democrat council cancelled them, setting us back in tackling obesity—yet here we have Liberal Democrat Members demanding to know what more we are doing to counter obesity.

The hon. Gentleman is also wrong to say that we have a more lax public service agreement target. In fact, we have a tighter target because instead of simply seeking to halt the increase, we want to reverse the trend in child obesity—a much more difficult task—by 2020.

The hon. Gentleman asked two further questions. On fast food outlets, there are restrictions, but there is flexibility in the current planning rules. We do not want to introduce unnecessary rules; we need to use existing regulations to allow local authorities to stem the increase in those outlets near schools and parks. As for lunch boxes, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families is not suggesting that we need lunch box police. What we are talking about are the sorts of ideas that we saw working in the Green Dragon school in Brentford today. The head teacher and other teaching staff take responsibility for looking in a child’s lunch box—it is much easier in a primary than in a secondary school—and if they find that the child has just a bag of crisps and a chocolate bar, they send a message back home. Some schools actually use a traffic light system, putting on a red, green or amber sticker to send an appropriate message to parents.

The hon. Gentleman’s final point was about health inequalities—a crucial issue. Obesity is a health inequality issue, as well as a public health and prevention issue, so the most intense activity should be focused on the poorest areas. We announced a £72 million investment in a public information system that we will want to use throughout the country, but it will be targeted where the problems are the most serious. I accept that obesity is a health inequality issue, and I believe that we need to use this strategy to tackle the broader health inequality problems we face.

I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s positive statement, particularly his encouragement of breastfeeding and compulsory cooking lessons. How would he build on the very successful GP exercise on prescription programme, particularly its extension to younger patients? Also, how does he intend to build on the successful school cycling initiatives, which have done very well in some parts of the country but have not been taken up as enthusiastically as I would like in other parts?

My hon. Friend has hit on two really important aspects of the problem. Exercise on prescription is being looked into further as we speak; it is a very important part of our plans to encourage more exercise. On school cycling, we have a very good relationship with the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Department for Transport and have sought to increase the number of children participating through Bikeability. Some of the extra resources we are putting in will be invested in that.

It is obviously sensible to try to bring together the different systems of nutritional labelling and I am sure that the Secretary of State would accept that, in view of the food trade, it makes sense to attempt to achieve that on a Europe-wide basis. Does he also accept, however, that if we want to guide people’s choice and help them to make informed decisions about what to eat, they need to know about the nutritional qualities of food as well as about its drawbacks? Should we not move towards a system of information that is about more than just deterrence, as that could make a contribution to people sustaining a healthy diet?

The right hon. Gentleman makes two important points, the first of which is the significance of European competency, which was, incidentally, given by the Conservative Government, who I believe took the right decision. Nestlé, for example, is based in Switzerland and distributes its goods across the world, not just in Europe, so we need an international approach to the issue. I would try to convince the Commission that we should have a derogation to do our own thing in this country rather than be held back by the slowest countries in the European Union—but that is a debate for another day.

The right hon. Gentleman’s other important point was about deterrence and how to secure the best system. I believe that we should be looking into not only how a system of food labelling gives information to consumers, but how it encourages changed habits, so we need to highlight healthy food options. When items are labelled red under a traffic light system, it is not saying that people should never eat them, but that they should take into account the fact that if they are to maintain a balanced diet, they should not eat items such as chips every day. I am sure that a system can be devised that the food industry will buy into and that will take account of the right hon. Gentleman’s very important points.

My right hon. Friend’s statement was welcome, but does he agree that one thing that the Government can do to fight obesity, particularly in children, is to provide modern and inspiring sports facilities? Will he work with colleagues across Government to ensure that that happens so that an excellent school—albeit one that is some way down the list in Building Schools for the Future—such as Sir John Nelthorpe school in Brigg, that has no sports hall now, could gain funding for one? Government-inspired renaissance projects such as the one in Goole, which has an excellent sports village concept, could also gain funding. May I assure my right hon. Friend that should he be able to help with the Goole project—

Order. There are quite a few supplementary questions there.

My hon. Friend is an expert in covert lobbying for schools in his constituency. I know from my experience in education and the work carried on by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families that the school sport partnership is one of the Government’s great success stories. Although Building Schools for the Future is an important element in replenishing all school facilities, including sports, it is not as if there is inactivity in the meantime. The school sport partnership is already an important part of what has happened and will be an important part of what happens in the future. On the matter of the school in my hon. Friend’s constituency, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families suggests that my hon. Friend meet the Minister for Schools and Learners.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a sad reflection on this Government that one of their key objectives is to get the number of obese children by 2020 back to 2000 levels, yet they have been in power for 10 years and the problem has got progressively worse during this Labour Administration? Notwithstanding the importance of food inputs, is it not a fact that getting people to exercise every day is the most important issue? What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that schools provide compulsory physical training and that people are made aware of the different exercise options—the relative merits of cycling, walking 5,000 steps and running, for example? What is he doing to introduce advertising—

Order.

Obesity, as foresight pointed out, has trebled over 30 years. I am perfectly willing, representing the party of Government, to take whatever responsibility we have in that matter. However, as the hon. Gentleman seems to recognise, there is a much wider responsibility in society. In his final comments, he came close to expressing the overweening nanny state argument.

We have made huge advances in the provision of high-quality sport and physical exercise. There will be two hours a week in 100 per cent. of schools by 2010, and we will then progress to five hours a week.

As one who, 15 years ago, presented a Bill to introduce a harmonised system of nutritional labelling using the traffic light system, I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the drive towards a single scheme. I am afraid my Bill received no support from the Government of the day, but it is good that it has received support from our Government. May I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that he puts the health of our children above the health of the advertising industry?

Yes, we will put the health of our children before the interests of any group that is acting in a way contrary to the health of our children, but the advertising industry has worked with us to introduce the system that Ofcom implemented this year. It is the first time that we have had any legislation at all. If we are to move further, we would like to do so with the full commitment and continued co-operation of the advertising industry, although obviously the health of our children comes first.

Does the Minister accept that in recent days, for good or ill, we have developed a celebrity culture, particularly among the youth of the nation? Would it not be appropriate for those in the public eye who have a particularly healthy and good lifestyle to offer their support, so that young people can look up to them as role models and take the exercise that they need?

We are considering using as role models people who had serious obesity problems when they were very young. At the weekend, there was a story in the papers about a male model who has shed about 10 stone and now appears in the kind of magazines that interest youngsters. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we need such role models—including many Labour Members, I might add—as part of a national campaign to get the message home to young people.

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, but will he think again about the possibility of providing more space in the national curriculum? The progress made in providing two hours of sport a week is significant, but two hours in a whole week is not a huge amount. Should we not give sport the same status that we give to maths, English and science? Should schools not be assessed on achievements in running, swimming and cycling in exactly the same way as they are assessed on achievements at level 4 in key stage 2, or the gaining of five A-C grades at GCSE?

This is an important issue, but I remind my hon. Friend that we will progress from two hours in every school to four hours and then five. Furthermore, every school will be an extended school by 2010. That will provide huge opportunities for extra-curricular activities, not just in dance and drama but in sport.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about cycling. The extra money for Bikeablity will enable it to help us in a number of ways, as it has wished to do for many years, and I am sure that its contribution will be enormous.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that the Treasury is a key ally in his Department’s campaign to improve the nation’s health through, for example, the taxation of alcohol and tobacco? In the context of his statement about obesity, will he contact his colleagues in the Treasury and find out why those who join fitness centres in order to reduce their weight must now pay VAT on their membership fees?

I am sure that the Treasury will be aware of points made by Members throughout the House about how we can use the taxation system in our drive to tackle obesity. The Budget traditionally deals with that, and I think that the example given to the rest of us by the right hon. Gentleman—a distinguished cyclist in the House—will be taken into account when it is presented in a few weeks’ time.

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Will he join me in commending head teachers such as Anthony Edkins of Harrop Fold school in my constituency? He has focused on the three issues of obesity, under-age drinking and teenage pregnancy among his pupils. As part of the focus on obesity, he has brought in a celebrity chef to teach young people about food values and to make the subject enjoyable. Is that not a great example?

I agree, and there are other great examples throughout the country. We have picked up some of that best practice. Only this morning I was with young Lizzy Butler, a 14-year-old from Leeds. In her school, the Watch It campaign has been remarkably sensitive in dealing with youngsters who have Lizzy’s problem of being overweight, and changing their lives completely. That initiative was launched jointly by the NHS and the school, and we can spread it much more widely with the resources that we are investing in the programme.

I commend the expansion of cycling through a very successful network in Bedfordshire. May I also draw the Secretary of State’s attention to the work of the Kids’ Cookery School, a charity based in west London which for some years has been working with children from a variety of backgrounds to introduce them to cooking and eating healthy food? Will he assure me that the work of charities of that sort will be made available across Government, so that their expertise and success in bringing good food to the notice of children will not be lost in what might otherwise be a top-down state-run scheme?

I will give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The Minister of State responsible for public health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), visited the Kids’ Cookery School recently, and tells me that the Department learnt an awful lot from what is happening there. Indeed, organisations across large swathes of the voluntary sector are crucial allies in our strategy.

I welcome the statement, but may I pursue the point about taxation? Given that incentives will be needed to get couch potatoes to the gym, is there not a case for tax relief on gym membership?

If I may, I will leave such questions to the Treasury. We have a Budget coming up. Representations can be made and questions can be asked of Treasury Ministers, and I am sure that my hon. Friend is as adept as any on these Benches at putting his view across.

Does the Secretary of State agree that healthy minds are as important as healthy bodies, and that access to high-quality United Kingdom-produced children’s programmes contributes to that? Will he bear in mind the damaging impact that restrictions on advertising have already had on the UK children’s programming sector, and will he resist any moves to extend the advertising ban further? That would do little to tackle obesity, and would do more damage to an important part of the broadcasting landscape.

What we have there is the balance of the argument. The covert point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), who has now left the Chamber, is that whatever the effect on the advertising industry, we should plough on regardless in the interests of children’s health. Now, the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) has made a point about the effect on the industry. We do not believe that there is currently any proof of such dire effects, but we must listen to the industry. We do not want there to be fewer high-quality children’s programmes because we have taken certain measures. In that event, children might watch programmes made overseas and tune into channels on which there are no restrictions.

I understand the argument entirely, and so does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. He is part of the ministerial team examining the issue, and will remain part of it. The voice of the DCMS will be an essential element of where we go next, after we have had the review in the summer.

I warmly welcome the determination to increase the promotion of breastfeeding. Evidence is becoming stronger all the time that babies who are breastfed are not just healthier, but protected from harmful weight gain in childhood and from obesity in later life. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the work of the Breastfeeding Manifesto Coalition, and will he consider implementing the seven points in the manifesto, which are consistent with his strategy?

As my right hon. Friend the Minister responsible for public health mentioned at a meeting last week, we are considering that seven-point manifesto. There is no difference between us on the importance of encouraging breastfeeding. We introduced the 26-week period of maternity leave so that we could be consistent with the World Health Organisation’s drive in favour of six months of breastfeeding. Whatever we decide in relation to the manifesto, the coalition is crucial in helping us to implement the strategy. Breastfeeding is an essential part of beginning the process of good, healthy nutrition and tackling the problems of obesity.

The Secretary of State’s third action point was to build physical activity into our lives, and I entirely endorse that; it is one of the crucial planks of the strategy. Why then did the Minister for Schools and Learners confirm in a written answer that this Government are cutting the number of places for physical education teachers from 1,450 in 2005-06 to 1,180 in 2007-08—a cut of 25 per cent. in the very people needed to tackle the problem?

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, let me say that he can ask that question when he has the relevant Secretary of State in front of him. My recollection from when I was doing that job is that we had a large increase in the number of PE teachers. [Interruption.] Well, I would have to look at that in detail. I will not take it as read from the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I mean no disrespect to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]

Order. Let the Secretary of State reply. The hon. Gentleman might not be satisfied with the reply, but it is the reply he is going to get.

My recollection is that we had increased the number of PE teachers and people dealing with sports in our schools, although I do no know whether they come under the heading of “PE teacher”. The situation might be similar to that in public health, where we have a huge increase in the number of people dealing with that but they are not categorised in our staff census in the same way as they were before. I think that the hon. Gentleman might be usefully be present for Department for Children, Schools and Families questions.

I welcome the statement, especially as there is currently a debate about the role of Sport England, and therefore probably about the role of primary care trusts and others working with the county sports partnerships. In view of the fact that there is a tight timeline for that—it is expected to have a broad strategy very soon and to have its business plan in place by April—can the Secretary of State give an assurance that the policy review he mentioned in his statement will be implemented in parallel with it rather than at a later stage, especially as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recognises that physical activity is one of the most cost-effective ways of tackling the obesity problem?

We will try to do it in parallel, but there is some work to do. The basic discussion we are having is about whether Sport England should focus on sport alone. We could use its network and, importantly, its reach into local communities to focus on activity that might not be sport-related, such as more walking and healthier lifestyles. There is a lengthy debate to be had and many issues for us to address, such as finance. If we can go through that process in time to introduce the policies in parallel, it would obviously make sense to do so.

We have already heard how, sadly, the Jamie Oliver revolution has resulted in an exodus from school dinner tables, as children either bring in unhealthy pack-ups or leave the school premises to buy their favourite food: chips. In an effort to reverse this trend, will the Secretary of State discuss with Ministers responsible for school menus whether the status of oven chips in school meals should be reviewed? Although Scarborough’s most famous product qualifies for three green traffic lights and is less than 5 per cent. fat, it is lumped into the same category as the unhealthy deep-fried alternative, which is why it is not served up more regularly in school meals.

It is chips with everything in this debate. That is a matter for the School Food Trust to look at. On the point about declining numbers, that always happens: in such circumstances, there is always an initial decline in the number of children eating school dinners. The SFT believes that although schools must pay more attention to whether their menus are attractive, the figures will gradually increase and things will eventually improve. That is certainly our experience in Hull, where we introduced the policy on school meals pre-Jamie Oliver. There should not be a counsel of despair because of the initial reaction of some children and some parents. If we keep at it, we can turn things around. I was at Green Dragon primary school in Brentford this morning. One big issue is that primary school children are much more receptive to these messages, and we need to ensure that the good habits continue when they go on to secondary school.

Those of us who are overweight already get enough stick at home without having to come to work for another beating. What we need are some carrots and some incentives. If the Secretary of State will give an undertaking to come to Banbury to listen to concerns about the future of local NHS services, I will give an undertaking to lose a couple of stone by Easter.

The hon. Gentleman draws attention to the importance of carrots in this policy. The five-a-day campaign is important. He has started with carrots; there are another four to go. I am sure we will see a svelte Member for Banbury very soon.

I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), because the last time I dared to mention having lost a stone and a half, I was taken to task by one of the more delectable parliamentary sketchwriters, who disputed that at great length in her column. Having said that, I am a little puzzled by the idea of inspecting children’s lunch boxes to remove forbidden fruits—or, rather, forbidden chocolates. Given that children, for good reasons, now have more disposable income than 30 years ago, how will that solve the problem of them simply going out afterwards and buying whatever unsuitable food they wish to purchase?

I am afraid that that suggests that if we cannot do everything, we should do nothing. Schools across the country are already doing what we seek to do on school lunch boxes: work with parents to ensure that they have information and advice. The hon. Gentleman will have seen what children in his constituency have in their lunch boxes. Some of them come to school, probably having had no breakfast, with only a packet of Hula Hoops and a chocolate bar in their lunch box. Irrespective of what they might eat outside the school, our responsibility is what happens inside the school. Having put, with all-party support, a lot of effort into getting school meals right, we should use—without introducing the lunch box police or being heavy-handed—the initiatives that teachers themselves are introducing and spread best practice. At all stages, we should work with parents rather than against them.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Next week, we begin our consideration of the treaty of Lisbon. Some Members are strongly in favour, others are passionately hostile and the majority may well descend into a narcoleptic trance. Whatever our attitude, however, we need to know what we will debate on Tuesday. At present, no programme motion has been tabled. We do not know what is going to be debated and we cannot table amendments. Will you reprimand the Government, Mr. Speaker, for yet again being so blatantly disregardful of this House, and ask if we can have that information so that, whatever our attitude, at least we have something to debate?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I reinforce what my right hon. Friend has said, but not only from the perspective of Members of Parliament? It is important that outside interest groups know what we are debating on particular days, so that they can make representations to Members. At present, both Members and outside interest groups are entirely unaware of the programme.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I endorse what my right hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend have said—that the fact that the Government have not tabled this programme motion is leaving perilously little time to table amendments that could be selected. In fact, the situation is worse than that: I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury has distributed to the Labour party a schedule of what he proposes for the debate, and yet Opposition Members have not had the opportunity to have that information.

Let me say in reply to the points that have been made that, as I understand it, the situation is that there is to be a full debate on Monday on how we proceed in this matter. I do not know if that is of any help, and of course I am not a Government manager, but that is my understanding. Tomorrow, there is business questions and if Members catch my eye they are entitled to raise this matter with the Leader of the House.

rose—

The hon. Gentleman should let me finish. The Government will have heard the concerns Members have expressed through this point of order. I hope that this is of assistance to them. Members will understand that I have certain limitations in these matters, but these concerns will be heard.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for interrupting earlier; I thought that you had finished speaking. On Monday, at 11.45 am, the Government placed Command Papers 3710 and 3711 in the Vote Office for Members. Those Command Papers were central to the debate that started that afternoon and they were 356 pages long, so Members could not properly address that Second Reading debate. Will you, through your normal offices, make the Government aware that whatever we are going to debate on Tuesday and Wednesday next week, we need to receive the relevant papers and information in good time, so that we can have a meaningful and informed debate?

The point was well made by the hon. Gentleman that all relevant papers should be available for hon. Members before any debate in this House starts, and I am sure that it will also be taken up.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the regulation of Christmas savings schemes; and for connected purposes.

I am introducing this Bill as a result of the Farepak collapse, which in 2006 wiped out the Christmas savings of at least 122,000 small savers in this country. I am pressing for light-touch regulation for similar schemes, so that in future all savers’ money is protected by law. Currently, the only bodies that do not regard as savers those who use Christmas savings schemes are this House, the Government and the financial services regulators in this country. In contrast, the people who offer the schemes market them as saving for Christmas, and crucially, the people who put their money in them regard themselves as savers just as much as those who save with building societies such as Northern Rock do. It flies in the face of social justice that this House should protect one set of savers and not the other.

In my first Adjournment debate, on 7 November 2006, I set out three complementary principles for the future of former Farepak savers. The first was to work for immediate relief for the savers. The second was to secure an explanation and justice for the savers. The third was to get better regulation of the voucher industry.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) introduced a voluntary regulation scheme, and it is to his credit that that was in place to protect savers for Christmas 2007. However, as memory fades and we move further away from the Farepak collapse—already 18 months have passed—the likelihood increases of new schemes that decline to join the voluntary scheme, or of existing schemes withdrawing from it. It is therefore the right time to move forward with proper long-term regulation, and I am very grateful for being granted the opportunity to present this ten-minute Bill.

At the time of the crisis, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield, in his role as a Minister at the then Department of Trade and Industry, set up a charity fund that paid £6.8 million to savers at the national level. I was very pleased to be able to co-ordinate action to help savers in my constituency at the community level; many hon. Members on both sides of the House did the same in their areas. People in Swindon will always remember the success of that collective action as a reminder of how people get together when the going gets tough.

However, all our constituents are still waiting to receive the small amount of money left in Farepak after the collapse. I again urge the liquidator to hasten her work to bring a conclusion to this phase of the collapse and to bring closure for those affected. A gap of £29 million that has been lost to the Farepak savers remains. We know how Farepak savers were affected because of the excellent Unison-sponsored report that I helped to launch in the House last November. It found the following: women, particularly those on low incomes, were disproportionately affected by the Farepak collapse; Farepak customers were being ‘prudent savers’, using Farepak as a way of managing their low household incomes; and the victims of Farepak want justice, demanding adequate compensation for their plight and enhanced regulation, and demanding that those responsible be held accountable for the harms that have been committed.

Shortly after that launch, my hon. Friends the Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark), for Workington (Tony Cunningham), for Livingston (Mr. Devine) and for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) joined me for a meeting with our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who undertook to examine the regulatory framework for the prepayment industry to see whether anything more could be done to give Christmas club savers protection in future. He gave a commitment to come back to us on all the issues we raised on behalf of those affected by Farepak, and we look forward to hearing from him.

Christmas 2007 could have been a tragedy for two other groups of people, because Northern Rock ran into trouble in September last year—we all know the outcome for thousands of investors, savers and employees—and Travelscope, the tourism company, went into administration just before Christmas, affecting 40,000 holidays and putting 250 jobs at risk. The Government have rightly acted swiftly to protect Northern Rock savers and investors. Travelscope customers’ money was already protected by the arrangements in place to cover what happens when airline companies or tour operators go bust. The air travel organiser’s licence model is based on primary bonds provided by banks and insurance companies, backed up by a common fund, the air travel trust fund, managed by the Civil Aviation Authority. All those people were safe, unlike the Farepak savers.

I am proposing that the Civil Aviation (Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing) Regulations 1995 can be the model for regulation of the Christmas club and prepayment sector, and there are people in the sector who welcome that idea. I am happy to report to the House that last week I sponsored a briefing on the Post Office’s new Christmas club. That product is due to come to market in the next couple of weeks. The Christmas club is the Post Office’s response to the challenge laid down by Brian Pomeroy in his report on the Farepak collapse. The report suggested that the Post Office would be the ideal institution to produce a Christmas savings product, owing to the extent of its network and the trust that consumers have for the Post Office brand. Such a product will also give local post offices another product to offer customers, and will hopefully help keep open branches such as Guildford Avenue and Wescott Place in my constituency, which are currently threatened with closure.

Funds in the Post Office scheme will be locked away until 1 November 2008. The Christmas club card could then be used as a prepaid debit card with retailers signed up to the scheme or exchanged for gift vouchers at post office branches. I welcome this innovative product, because unlike hamper companies, the Post Office’s product will be governed by strict e-money regulations. That is because it is based on a pre-paid card system. Money will be held in a protected account under the control of the Bank of Ireland, and the funds will be accessible only to club members.

The Post Office has told me that it would welcome regulation, and that its business model would be viable were this House to legislate in this area. The short-term steps the Government took to provide protection for customers’ payments have been good, with existing companies putting in place ring-fenced trust accounts supervised by a new trade association—the Christmas Prepayment Association.

The companies in the hamper industry have introduced new safeguards for consumers’ money in the form of independently controlled, ring-fenced trust accounts. The trusts will safeguard customers’ money should a company go bust. Although such measures are welcome, they are only short-term steps, so I welcomed last November’s confirmation from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform that, for the longer term, the Government have received advice from the Office of Fair Trading and the Financial Services Authority on the regulatory framework. They will consider that further in the light of the Companies Investigation Branch inquiry into the activities that brought about the collapse of Farepak and its parent company, European Home Retail. That is good news, and I hope that the Government will consider giving the green light to this ten-minute Bill.

My intention is that regulation will place future Christmas club savers on a par with savers using other financial products. It will close the loophole that currently exists, and enable Government to look at ways of closing the £29 million gap for the 122,000 people who lost their money with Farepak. It is the only solution, because without regulation we cannot be assured that something this devastating for low-income families determined to keep out of debt will not happen again.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Anne Snelgrove, Chris Bryant, Lorely Burt, Ms Katy Clark, Michael Connarty, Mr. Jim Devine, Mrs. Madeleine Moon, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Bob Russell, Martin Salter, Bob Spink and Mr. Mark Todd.

Christmas Savings Schemes (regulation)

Anne Snelgrove accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the regulation of Christmas savings schemes; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 25 April, and to be printed [Bill 58].

I beg to move,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Timothy John Burr to the Office of Comptroller and Auditor General.

The National Audit Act 1983 prescribes that the Comptroller and Auditor General should be appointed by the Queen on a motion by the Prime Minister with the agreement of the Chair of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. Such a motion has been used only once, in 1987, when the then Prime Minister, now Lady Thatcher, proposed the appointment of Sir John Bourn. I am sure that the House will join me in expressing appreciation for the achievements of Sir John Bourn over his 20 years in service as he leaves at the end of this month.

I first visited Sir John in the 1980s, more than two decades ago, and have always found him to be courteous in his dealings with Members of Parliament. I thank him for the work that he has done. The House will be aware that the Public Accounts Commission, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), is undertaking a review of the governance of the National Audit Office, which supports the Comptroller and Auditor General in his work. The commission has asked John Tiner, the former managing director of the Financial Services Authority, to advise that review.

The position of the CAG was established nearly 150 years ago and it has been some 25 years since the reforms that saw the creation of the NAO, so the Government fully support the review and will allocate space in the forthcoming constitutional reform Bill for any necessary legislation agreed on a cross-party basis. The Government have taken a series of steps to enhance the transparency and accountability to Parliament of public spending, including the introduction of resource accounting and professional financial management in central Government. We will also align budgets, estimates and accounts to a common format to allow expenditure to be better tracked from allocation to spend.

In our “The Governance of Britain” Green Paper we set out proposals for parliamentary scrutiny of certain key positions in which Parliament has a strong interest. I can announce that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office has today sent to the Liaison Committee a list of public appointments that we propose should be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by their relevant Select Committee. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. The list includes the appointment of the future CAGs; the chairs of the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority and the regulators of water, communications, rail and post; chief inspectors; the Information Commissioner; the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and senior ombudsmen. I am also grateful to the Public Administration Committee for its work on the issue, which is timely and relevant. We will welcome the views of the Liaison Committee on the list of proposed appointments. The laws governing certain appointments like that of the CAG will continue to apply.

The motion before the House recommends that Tim Burr be appointed as the new Comptroller and Auditor General with the agreement of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I am grateful for his support.

Mr. Burr has been deputy CAG for nearly eight years, in addition to some seven years’ previous service at the NAO managing the audit of Departments including the Home Office, Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. That was preceded by a distinguished career in the civil service. I believe that Mr. Burr is eminently qualified to become CAG. Mr. Burr has undertaken to serve the House as CAG until the commission’s new governance arrangements can come into effect. I commend the motion to the House.

We are grateful to the Prime Minister for his motion and his words of support. This is an important announcement regarding an important post, and a matter that Parliament has quite properly decided should be taken seriously. That is evidenced by the fact that the motion is in the Prime Minister’s name and that he is here to move it.

I join the Prime Minister in thanking Sir John Bourn for his service. All those who have worked with him have a high regard for what he has done and for his organisation during his period of tenure. I also welcome the Prime Minister’s statement that he will implement the announcement that he made last July about his wish, and that of the Government, for a new process to scrutinise appointments of this nature. If the Liaison Committee and other Committees can act speedily, this appointment will, I hope, be the last when, as a matter of formal record, we are presented with a name but not a full CV—even though we know the details of the career of the proposed new Comptroller and Auditor General—and when no scrutiny of the appointment has taken place. I hope that the Liaison Committee and the Public Accounts Committee will move quickly to implement the new system.

It must be right that senior public servants should be appointed only after Parliament has scrutinised their appropriateness for the post. It is right that when Parliament comes to vote on such motions, it should be assured that the proposal has been scrutinised by Members of the House and that a CV has been presented for consideration.

I want to make two other points about the accountability and openness to which the Prime Minister is committed. The only thing that, unfortunately, marred Sir John Bourn’s career was the subject of expenses. That matter came into the public gaze last year, in particular. He was regarded as having spent more money than was justified in relation to his job. The same issue has surfaced once in relation to the proposed new—

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I must say to him and to the House that the motion is specifically about the appointment of a particular person. Although I allowed the Prime Minister a certain amount of latitude, this is not an opportunity for a general debate.

Of course I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I was not proposing that it should be. My point was that I hope that the new appointee’s period of office, which I believe will begin on 1 February, will see an open regime, such as that which the Prime Minister has advocated elsewhere. The expenses of the new CAG and his colleagues should be in the public domain as a matter of course, as they are for all senior public servants. Our expenses are in the public domain, and that is proper and right. I hope that the new regime will ensure that that happens.

We welcome Mr. Burr’s appointment. We wish him well in his very important job. Scrutiny of the public accounts in this country by Parliament is very important and we all recognise that it is done better now than it has been in the past. We need to continue to do it well. We pay tribute to those on the Liaison Committee and the Public Accounts Committee who are part of the process. It is a good example of public service. It is important that Mr. Burr and his team do a good job to ensure that everything we spend is as well spent as possible, in the public interest.

Yesterday, I received the Tiner review of the governance of the CAG and the NAO, which was referred to by the Prime Minister, although I have not yet had a chance to read it. It is now being circulated to the members of the Liaison Committee and the Public Accounts Commission. The commission will consider it at our meeting with Mr. Tiner on 5 February. We are grateful to him for producing that report so early.

On the question of appointments, I thank the Prime Minister and welcome the pleasingly long list of appointments that will be referred to the Committees of this House. I shall have a response from the Liaison Committee within the next week or so, and we welcome what we have heard.

As the Chair of the House of Commons Commission, I very often work with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who is the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. He will be involved in the selection and appointment, although the Commission will not.

Has my right hon. Friend formed an early view on the suggestion made at the meeting in December by the outgoing CAG, Sir John Bourn, that his replacement should have a limited tenure?

That question was covered by the Tiner review. The Chair of the PAC and I believe that there should be a time limit. I have not read the Tiner review yet, but I suspect that the dispute will be more about the length of service than about whether there should be a limit.

My right hon. Friend will recall our recent discussions in this Chamber about the outgoing CAG, but is he aware that the typical tenure for parallel appointments in other countries is five years? It is never more than 10, and certainly nothing like the 20 years that Sir John has enjoyed—the second longest tenure in the post’s history.

Yes, I am aware of the tenure limits elsewhere. In preliminary discussions, the Chair of the PAC and I made it clear that we hoped that a limit would be adopted, and that up to 10 years would be appropriate. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will be able to contain his impatience in that regard.

There is widespread agreement that there should be a time limit, and Sir John Bourn himself thinks so, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it should be longer rather than shorter? In the US, the Budget and Accounting Act 1921 sets a term limit of 15 years for the equivalent post there. That may be a little long, but might not a limit of only five or six years be too short?

If I give any more commitments to the House, there will not be much point in having the report from John Tiner. I shall stick to what I have said already, which is that the Chair of the PAC and I feel that a limit of up to 10 years should be considered.

As Chair of the Commission, I should like to express the House’s gratitude to Sir John Bourn. We are indebted to him for his 20 years of service. There may be disagreements about some matters, but right at the beginning of his tenure in the post he did something of supreme importance: he made the early and brave decision that the NAO would deliver to the taxpayer £6 in savings for every £1 that the taxpayer gave him to carry out his duties. That was a risky decision, but he achieved the target that he had set. In fact, he increased the ratio to 7:1. At the request of the Commission and the PAC, he then raised it to 8:1, and subsequently to 9:1, which is where it stands today. Under Sir John Bourn, the NAO is producing savings for the taxpayer that are nine times as great as his total annual operational budget. This year alone, the savings are likely to total £667 million, and I am sure that that is delightful news for the Prime Minister. Sir John should feel proud of that achievement, and he deserves the House’s thanks.

Sir John Bourn has also recognised that the House of Commons has a wider responsibility in the world. Like the US, France and other nations, we have experience that is valuable for the emerging democracies. As the Chair of the PAC will no doubt say, our NAO and the system that supports it are greatly admired throughout the world. The NAO has fee-paying contracts with the UN and other international bodies to help emerging democracies establish systems of scrutiny and accountability. Sir John has taken some stick, including some from this side of the House, for the additional work that he has done, but I think that we owe the third world a duty to share our experience. We cannot tell countries what they must do; we can only share our experience, good or bad.

Switching to my role as Chair of the Liaison Committee, I should like to thank Sir John Bourn for a third thing that he has done. One source of grievance between the PAC and the other Committees has always been that the NAO is a PAC asset. The PAC has guarded it jealously over the years but, at the request of the Liaison Committee and with the approval of myself and the Chairman of the PAC, Sir John has changed the NAO’s role. He has started to give support to the Select Committees in the form of evidence and witnesses and, most importantly, by making available specialist secondees who help with the Committees’ staffing and background work. That is an invaluable role for the NAO, and one that is very welcome. I think that Sir John has every reason to be proud of what he has done for the House of Commons and for Parliament in his 20 years as CAG.

Finally, I welcome the appointment of Tim Burr. He is a delightful and very unassuming man, with integrity and great ability. He will do the job well, and I hope that he finds it a fascinating experience.

I am pleased to second the motion moved by the Prime Minister, for three reasons. First, it underlines the bipartisanship and the lack of party politics that should inform the work of the NAO and the PAC. Secondly, it underlines the supremacy of Parliament. The appointment to this country’s oldest public office—it dates back to the 13th century, and has existed in its modern form for at least 150 years—can be made only on the Floor of the House of Commons by the Prime Minister of the day, with the support of the Chairman of the PAC, who is always a member of the Opposition.

Thirdly, I have worked with Tim Burr for a number of years. He is a man of incisiveness and integrity, and the NAO will be in safe hands under his stewardship until a permanent successor can be found.

I should like to pay tribute to Sir John Bourn, with whom I worked very closely.

I am concerned about how the continuity of work is maintained when one CAG retires and another takes over. First, the NAO has joined a consortium—along with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Clerk’s Department and other bodies—that provides advice on strengthening parliaments abroad. I hope that work will continue.

Secondly, I have been in correspondence with Sir John Bourn about how Health Ministers report to Parliament on independent NHS treatment centres, and he has commissioned an inquiry into that. Will the Chairman of the PAC give an assurance, to me and to other hon. Members with balls in the NAO’s court, that there will be continuity in respect of work that is currently under way?

I can absolutely give that assurance—the king is dead, long live the king! The work will carry on. While Tim Burr is CAG, he will have all the powers and prerequisites of that office, and the NAO will carry on exactly as before.

I should like to pay a short tribute to Sir John Bourn. In numerous private briefings, I have found him to be immensely patient and kind, despite all my shortcomings. He is a wonderful civil servant in that sense. He may be in his 70s, but he has the spark and energy of a man in his 40s.

As has been said, Sir John has been CAG for more than 20 years. He has overseen a revolution in public accountability. He set a very ambitious agenda for the NAO from the outset and he followed some guiding principles that are still adhered to.

First, audit must be unfettered. Sir John fought a long, and ultimately very successful campaign, to secure access to all Government Departments and agencies. Secondly, auditors must be professional and expert and he has equipped the NAO well. Next, we must have sound financial audit that requires modern professional accounting from Government. This is the point that the Prime Minister made, and it is an excellent one. Sir John’s active support for the introduction of accruals accounting—I pay tribute to the work that the Prime Minister did while Chancellor of the Exchequer in that respect—has helped drag Departments from the dark ages of the penny notebook system into the modern world, vastly improving the quality of information available to Parliament. In addition, audit should always be prepared to tackle the tricky issues of the day and not be deterred by vested interests. Sir John has reported on wars, on every major private finance initiative—PFI—deal, on waiting times in the NHS and, most recently, on major projects such as the Olympic games.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the magic three letters PFI, and I am sure that what he says about the Comptroller and Auditor General and the NAO is true in so far as it goes. He says that the NAO has got to grips with modern techniques and methods, such as PFI, but why were the early and middle years reports so insipid and ineffectual? It seems that the NAO was being sucked into the received wisdom that PFI was a good—

Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) will not be seduced down that alleyway. He should not go down that route.

Suffice it to say that, in my view, Sir John has been quite robust, but I will leave it at that. Of course, he could not get involved in the politics or the policy issue of whether we go down the PFI route. That was not his remit.

Sir John and I think that audit should shine light on often neglected areas, and his pioneering work on hospital infections, on services to stroke victims and, just last week, on services to people suffering from dementia, bear testament to his success. As the Father of the House has just said, audit should be able to prove its value. Sir John has set very stretching targets for the savings derived from the work of the NAO; they should generate £9 for every £1 spent. In those ways, Sir John has made a profound and lasting contribution to public audit and accountability. I pay tribute to him.

Does my hon. Friend anticipate that Tim Burr will be able to improve on those financial savings?

It would be difficult to do so. The targets are already stretching and we do not want targets that start distorting the work of the NAO.

I am pleased to second the motion to appoint Tim Burr pending the Government’s new arrangements that will be agreed, as the Father of the House has said, by the Public Accounts Commission, shortly following John Tiner’s review.

Before my hon. Friend finishes his tribute to the outgoing CAG, will he say whether he agrees that the work that Sir John Bourn did to introduce public accountability to the BBC in undertaking its value-for-money audits is something that should go down on the record sheet as one of his great achievements?

It certainly should, and we have a compromise at the moment. The Public Accounts Committee is strongly of the view that we should have full rights of access.

Tim Burr has been a public servant for 40 years. He worked at the centre of government until he joined the NAO 14 years ago, and he has been Sir John’s deputy for eight years. Tim Burr is very well qualified and I am confident that he will continue to develop the NAO’s work during his time in charge.

On the appointment of Mr. Burr, did the Member have a pre-appointment hearing with Mr. Burr before my friend the Prime Minister appointed him?

For Members who have just come into the debate, I should say that it is a temporary appointment, and I will talk about that in a moment if the hon. Gentleman gives me time. The governance of the NAO will be reviewed and the findings will be subject to debate on the Floor of the House, so we do not need to spend a lot of time on that issue now. However, needless to say, I think that we all recognise that the internal controls and administration of the NAO need strengthening. However, the cardinal principle that is very important for the House of Commons remains—that the CAG has the independence to write his own reports free from any interference from whatever quarter.

Can my hon. Friend confirm whether Tim Burr will be an eligible candidate when the new and transparent appointment system is implemented?

Of course Tim Burr will be an eligible candidate, but I have had no conversation with him. He will hold the appointment until a permanent appointment can be made.

This is only the second appointment under the current arrangements whereby the nomination is made by the Prime Minister with the support of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. During the debate the last time this happened, there was considerable support for making the appointment entirely a matter for the House. That is not an unreasonable view, as the CAG is an Officer of the House and he must be independent of the Government. That point was not lost on the Labour party in opposition. Indeed, summing up in the debate on Sir John Bourn’s appointment 20 years ago, the shadow Minister committed a future Labour Government to changing

“the method of appointment so that there is no ambiguity between the role of the Executive and that of the House.”—[Official Report, 16 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1201.]

My view, however, is that—I say this to the Prime Minister, to whom I am grateful for his presence—there is a need for the Government to have confidence in the person appointed because that person has unlimited access to all private papers and persons of the Government. Therefore, my view—of course, the House can take a different view—is that the current situation, in which both the Prime Minister and the Opposition Chairman of the PAC have to agree is not unreasonable. I say that as long as the Government appreciate the difference between selection and appointment. They need to be involved in the appointment, but not in the selection. That should be the job of the House.

In this sense, I want to proceed according to statute and to precedent, and I want to follow closely the precedent set by my predecessor Bob—now Lord—Sheldon. He selected the candidate after exhaustive interviews and that selection was then put to Mrs. Thatcher and she approved it. Clearly the process now needs to be modernised in accordance with good practice. There needs to be openness, open advertising and transparency, and I would need to be advised by a senior board in accordance with modern practice. Although all that can be arranged in agreement with the Government, I hope that the board would consist of a recently retired very senior servant—perhaps a former permanent secretary—a senior accountant from private practice and perhaps a recently retired officer from the NAO. I would need to listen to and consider their advice, but the Government do not need to be involved in that part of the process; otherwise there is the danger that I could find myself steered in classic Whitehall fashion in the direction of a safe candidate. I am sure that that would not be good for the future independence of the position. The Government do not have a right to a final veto.

Needless to say, I want to assure the House that I approach the task with the utmost seriousness. We all want to find someone of the highest calibre, great experience and, above all, independence of mind and spirit. I believe that such a person should serve for a fixed, lengthy and non-renewable term of the order of eight to 10 years, and they should not be allowed to return to the civil service if they came from it. There can be no question of their independence being compromised. All that is for discussion, but I assure the House that I am immensely proud of the independence and the work of the NAO and the Public Accounts Committee. During my watch, I will seek to preserve that.