Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement concerning the publication of the White Paper outlining the Government's policy on health improvement.

Over the past eight months of the consultation we have seen speculation after speculation about the contents of the White Paper and alleged leak after alleged leak. I regret the fact that some of that, unfortunately, has been relatively accurate. Much of it has been highly inaccurate and some of it has been sheer fantasy. Today, I want to tell the House the reality.

Last century saw undreamt of progress in the health of the people of England, gathering pace after 1948 as the establishment of the NHS permitted free universal provision of immunisation, screening and treatment to make inroads into ill health and premature death. It should be a matter of pride that a child born today is likely to live nine and a half years longer than one born on the eve of the formation of the national health service in 1948.

The role of Government, however, in the prevention of ill health during that period was often characterised by a top-down approach. This White Paper is different. It is about enabling people to exercise choice; it is about extending opportunity and offering security to those who want to choose a healthier life; it is about people improving themselves. In the White Paper, it is the public, not Whitehall, who, for the first time have set the agenda and identified what "for their own good" means. Over the past eight months, we have consulted, discussed, listened, canvassed and calculated public opinion on a wider scale than ever before to get in touch with people's real concerns, to ask what they wanted and how they could help to realise their aims.

People know that in recent years new opportunities have been opening up rapidly, but with them come growing inequalities. Paradoxically, affluence and comfort often bring their own health challenges—growing obesity, lack of exercise and more casual sexual relations. Faced with these, many people want more opportunities to live healthier lifestyles. They know that they will become healthier only through their own efforts. However, they look to Government to assist them with information about healthy and unhealthy choices—not to make the decisions for them, but to provide them with clear information to allow them to make the decisions.

Now that the NHS is improving waiting times, reducing waiting lists and improving emergency care departments, that frees up time and space in the NHS for effective action on prevention, to help people make those changes and decisions for themselves. That is why this White Paper commits us to ensuring that health services such as sexual health services, the NHS stop smoking services and obesity services all benefit fully from the drive for modernisation and improvement that is spreading across the rest of the NHS.

Our starting point is informed choice. That means an approach that respects the freedom of individual choice in a diverse, open and more questioning society. It also means addressing inequalities so that everyone can have real choice—addressing the differences that locality and social conditions make. [Interruption.] It may not interest those interrupting, but it is a sad fact that even today a male child born in Manchester lives at least seven years less than a child born in Kensington and Chelsea. Those inequalities cannot be tolerated any longer. To improve the nation's health, we need everybody to have the chance to make more healthy choices, not just the better-off.

We will not be successful in tackling these inequalities unless we work in different ways. We need to reach people where they live their lives, and provide services that are accessible to them and that derive from their local communities. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister and I were determined that this White Paper would set out action that maximises the positive impact that local authorities and others can have to help people make those healthier choices. For example, this coming spring the communities for health programme will bring all parts of the community and locality together—statutory and voluntary organisations, businesses and individuals—in campaigns to improve local health. Working with local government we will be targeting funding to give greater priority to areas of high health need. New investment in primary care facilities for some 50 per cent. of the population by 2008 will focus on the most deprived areas of our communities.

In our widespread consultation, people made it clear that they often want to change, but they lack accessible help and advice. So, to help the public make healthy choices, we will provide them with clear information on those choices. Building on the success of NHS Direct, which had 7 million advice and assistance calls last year, we will introduce a completely new service—Health Direct, a telephone, online and digital TV information service, making advice on health, nutrition, diet and a whole spectrum of public health issues available to everyone, not just to the better-off.

We will give specific help to specific groups. Thirty years ago, almost half the adult population of this country—46 per cent.—smoked. Today the figure is 26 per cent. We will take another 2 million people off that figure over the next five years. Ultimately, people need to make the decision to improve their own health themselves, and to give up smoking everywhere, not only at work and in the pub, but at home as well. The Government cannot make that decision; it is a personal decision. We can help, as we helped 125,000 quitters last year through NHS smoking cessation services. We are radically extending our campaign against smoking and will extend our smoking cessation services.

We will introduce action to put hard-hitting picture warnings on cigarette packets; further restrictions on tobacco advertising; tough action on shops that sell cigarettes to children; improvements in the way in which the NHS helps people to stop smoking and to stay stopped; and further reductions in tobacco smuggling. And, as I will outline later, we will see smoke-free environments becoming the norm both at work and at leisure.

Others have told us that they would like help too. Many people today, such as busy mums, have told us that they want their families to eat more healthily, but they need more easily accessible and simple information to guide them. Together with the Food Standards Agency, retailers and the food industry, we will develop a simple code for processed food to indicate fat, sugar and salt content for shoppers to help people choose what they require for a healthy and balanced diet.

Our general approach is, of course, to recognise the right of adults to make their own informed choices, but people, particularly parents, feel differently about children. Parents know that their children's health is primarily their responsibility, but in our discussions they told us that government, businesses and anyone who has an influence also shares that particular responsibility to protect children from premature exposure to a world of adult choices, and they want the security of knowing that that will be done. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I will ask Ofcom to consult on advertising to children on television and will work with the industry to limit other forms of advertising to children outside television itself.

Led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, we will develop our approach to health in schools to ensure that everything that a school does—lessons, sport, food, school nurses, personal, social and health education—is brought together in an co-ordinated whole school approach to health to start children on the right path to a healthy life.

We will increase activity for children in schools. The Government are investing an unprecedented amount—more than £1 billion up to 2006—in physical education and school sport. We are developing more sports specialist academies, strengthening the protection for school playing fields and helping more children to walk or cycle safely to school. In an age in which obesity has trebled in a generation, and in which, if the number of obese children continues to rise, we face the prospect of children having a shorter life expectancy than their parents. To be effective, the support that we provide to combat that must be personally tailored to the realities of individual lives, with services and support personalised sensitively and flexibly and provided conveniently.

Through new technology and investment, we intend to offer everyone in England the opportunity to develop their personal health guide and, starting with the areas of greatest disadvantage, we will provide people with NHS health trainers to support their motivation in making the difficult decisions to choose healthy lifestyles. That which the better-off regard as of assistance in a healthy lifestyle should be available to the rest of the people of England too.

Healthy living starts at a young age, which is why we have decided to provide funding so that by 2010 every PCT in England will be resourced to have at least one full-time school nurse working with each cluster of primary schools and secondary schools in their area.

One of our greatest challenges is in respect of sexual health. It is a staggering fact that no fewer than one in 10 sexually active young women is today infected with chlamydia. We have to bring this problem out of the shadows and into the forefront of our attention. We therefore intend to launch a new national campaign targeted particularly at those at risk of catching sexually transmitted infections or of unplanned pregnancies; to accelerate the implementation of our chlamydia screening programme to cover the whole of England by 2007; and to offer the same fast access to high quality genito-urinary medicine services that patients expect of other NHS treatment—in other words, by 2008 everyone referred to a genito-urinary medicine clinic should be able to have an appointment not within weeks but within 48 hours, and we will make that a priority.

We recognise, too, the damage that excessive alcohol can have on individuals, families and society at large. That is why we will work with the Portman Group to cut down on binge drinking and with industry to develop a voluntary social responsibility scheme for alcohol producers and retailers in order to protect young people; support Ofcom in strengthening the rules on broadcast advertising of alcohol, particularly to protect the under-18s; and invest to improve services to help the NHS to tackle alcohol problems at an early stage.

But there is another area where people want a greater degree of security and protection in maintaining a healthy lifestyle for themselves and their families. I have stressed throughout that our approach has been guided by informed choice on the part of individuals, with Government playing our role in providing information, encouragement and support to assist individuals in making the healthy choices. We do that because we believe that in a free society men and women ultimately have the right within the law to choose their own lifestyle, even when it may damage their own health.

People do not, however, have the right to damage the health of others or to impose on them an intolerable degree of inconvenience or nuisance. We therefore intend to shift the balance significantly in favour of smoke-free environments. From 2006, we propose to introduce changes to ensure that all Government Departments will be smoke-free; that all enclosed public places and workplaces—other than licensed premises, which are dealt with separately—will be smoke-free; that all restaurants will be smoke-free; and that all pubs and bars preparing and serving food will be smoke-free. Other pubs and bars—about 20 per cent. of those in England—and membership clubs will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free, but smoking in the bar area will be prohibited everywhere.

We will therefore ensure that people are able to go to their workplace or to choose to go out for a meal or a drink without damage, inconvenience or pollution from second-hand smoke, but do so in a way which, while protecting that right of the majority, still allows a degree of choice—albeit more limited than before—to the minority. I believe that that is a sensible solution that balances the protection of the majority with personal freedom for the minority in England.

This White Paper promotes the opportunity for healthy living in a manner and scale unseen before. It envisages investing at least £1 billion in public health over the next three years. It treats our fellow citizens as adults capable of making their own decisions, while providing advice, information, encouragement, resources and personal support for those who want to make the healthy choices and protection from the effects of those who do not want to make those choices. It begins the transition of our health care away from just a national treatment system for illness and towards a true national health service. It offers the opportunity for healthy living to everyone who wants to take it, and the security of knowing that for those who do so a degree of protection will be afforded to them and their families. In doing so, it begins to fulfil at last the founding vision of a true national health service. I commend it to the House.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the customary hour's advance sight of his statement. The House will have seen copious leaks of the White Paper and will be able to judge how many of them were informed speculation and how many were just spin. In any case, after all that, what have we got? Labour's big conversation has turned out to be all talk. After seven years of a lack of priority for public health, all the Government can offer is gimmicks and a nanny state. [Interruption.] As one would expect, the Secretary of State—[Interruption.]

Order. Hon. Members must allow the hon. Gentleman to speak.

At least they are awake while I am speaking, Mr. Speaker.

The Secretary of State did not admit to the extent of the Government's failures on public health, so let me tell the House about them. Levels of obesity in this country have risen by more than a third in the last decade, and at a rate far greater than in the rest of Europe. Obesity may soon be this country's greatest preventable cause of disease and premature death. The proportion of people who smoke, which fell by a third in the 1970s and 1980s has been virtually unchanged since 1997. British teenagers are now among the healthiest drinkers—[Laughter]—I mean the heaviest drinkers in Europe. We are seeing serious levels of liver disease—[Interruption.] I am sorry that Government Members find this funny, because liver clinics in hospitals are treating increasingly younger people with serious liver disease. Several thousand young people are dying from the consequences of liver disease and liver failure.

The number of new HIV diagnoses has doubled since 1997. Sexually transmitted infections are increasing. Chlamydia incidence has more than doubled and that of gonorrhoea has increased several times more than previous recorded levels. We have seen serious syphilis outbreaks where previously there were none. MMR vaccination rates are down to 82 per cent. because the Government lost control and public confidence in vaccination went down. The number of hepatitis C reports has doubled and up to 200,000 people may have the disease but be undiagnosed. TB is up by 15 per cent. and respiratory disease is this country is twice the EU average. According to the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust,

"there is no sign of any progress since 1997 in reducing inequalities in health."

Listening to the Secretary of State, one would imagine this was year zero in public health. But five years ago, the Government published a White Paper on public health. At that time, the current Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was the Minister of State in the Department of Health. That document said nothing about tackling obesity at the very time when it was rising in this country much faster than in other European countries. In contrast, the 1992 "Health of the Nation" White Paper published by the Conservative Government set out plans for tackling obesity and was regarded by the World Health Organisation as a ground-breaking document.

Five years ago, the Government said that they would introduce a sports strategy. Since then, young people have been doing less exercise. There has been a reduction in time spent on physical activity and fewer children participate in sport out of school. The lack of sport and exercise in recent years is at least as significant a cause of rising obesity in children as their diet. Of the £700 million promised four years ago from the lottery for sport in schools and communities, barely 1 per cent. has been spent.

In the document published five years ago, the Government said that health action zones would tackle inequalities. Now they have been abandoned. Five years ago, the Government said that the Health Development Agency was going to tackle public health problems, but now they say that it is to be abolished. It was all talk, just as the present White Paper is all talk. Again, five years ago, the Government said in their White Paper:

"We do not believe in the old 'Nanny State approach'",

yet now they believe in the new nanny state approach, but not in doing things that really work.

For years, public health needs have lacked priority, the public health service has fragmented and the messages given out by Government have been inconsistent and incoherent. Yet the Government have not understood that the solution lies in reversing those failings. [Interruption.] The Government should give public health a priority and create a unified and influential service. They should provide coherent and consistent messages based on evidence. Instead, the Secretary of State reaches for more gimmicks and for bans.

Four months ago, the Secretary of State said smoking was one of life's small pleasures, but today he wants to ban it in public places. [Interruption.] Does he not realise that, in the time that it takes to implement legislation, the industry could and would deliver a voluntary code? That would remove smoking from up to 80 per cent. of the space available in public houses. It would ban it from the bar area, and people behind the bar would not be able to smoke.

I am also confident that we could expect the industry to achieve a smoke-free environment wherever children have access. Typically, the Secretary of State did not even mention the central importance of achieving smoke-free environments in those public places to which children have access. The Government's approach simply risks delaying progress. It could send smokers home and thus expose families and children to more second-hand smoke.

On the advertising of foods for children, Ofcom said this year—[Interruption.]

Order. The House will settle down. Some of the hon. Members who are shouting have put their names down to be called to make a contribution from the Back Benches, but I shall refuse to call them if they do not settle down. If the shouting continues, what could happen is that the House might hear only the Front-Bench spokesmen, and perhaps the Chairman of the Health Committee, and no one else.

On the advertising of foods for children, Ofcom this year said that a total ban on such advertising would be "ineffective and disproportionate". The FSA and the industry are working towards a new advertising code, so is not the Secretary of State offering a mere gimmick?

Traffic-light labelling of food is another half-baked idea that the Department communicated to the press.

It is not.

Order.

The traffic-light labelling is based on the concept of good or bad food, but what matters is whether a diet is good or bad. How would the system work? 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 of children?

Different people need different diets. If I had high cholesterol, I would eat less in the way of fats. If I had high blood pressure, I would reduce my salt intake and I would reduce my sugar intake if I had diabetes. Traffic-light systems do not enable people to get the information that they need, but the Secretary of State should say whether he has such a system in mind. If he does, will it be acceptable to industry, and to the European Commission?

Does the Secretary of State agree that food labelling should be based on information about foods' nutritional value and their contribution to a good diet? That means people should be given information about the recommended daily amount of calories, fats, sugar and salt. Such a system would be well understood by the public, it is essential when it comes to putting together a good diet, and it is not likely to fall foul of EU restrictions. Adopting such a system would mean that Britain would lead the European debate on these matters. Will the Secretary of State accept that the Opposition are right to argue for a scheme like that in preference to a crude traffic-light system?

The inadequacies of the statement that the House has just heard are too many to list, but some are really striking. Where is the commitment to mental health, and especially to the provision of access to services for the 75 per cent. of young people who have mental health problems yet have no access to those services? Where is the commitment to a national campaign aimed at all young people to encourage and empower them to resist peer pressure to engage in early or unprotected sex, or in the misuse of drugs or the abuse of alcohol?

Where is the commitment to an immediate national roll-out of chlamydia testing? What attempt is being made to ensure that people who attend genito-urinary clinics are not turned away? One third of clinics now report that they frequently have to do that. Where is the commitment to evidence-based screening by family doctor services, as opposed to the gimmicks of asking GPs to turn into lifestyle gurus or sending people to fitness trainers? The Secretary of State may want a Carole Caplin approach to health policy, but we have >an NHS short of physiotherapists, community nurses, midwives, district nurses, chiropody services, occupational therapists, dentists and radiographers. The Government need to sort out their priorities.

The White Paper is a missed opportunity. The public health service needs a Cabinet champion. It needs the restoration of a high status role for public health professionals, which they had when they were medical officers of health. It needs independent, evidence-based reports and recommendations from an independent public health commission. It needs a service with focus, with resources and with the ability to lever change. We need behavioural change, not a nanny state. We need public health teams with staffing and resources to do the job, able to engage GPs, health visitors and school nurses—in each school—in delivering the service.

We need Government-wide action. We need sport. We need exercise for young people. We need other Departments that have not been delivering on their part of the public health obligation to do so. We need a Government—they will be the next Conservative Government—who will take the action to give us organisation, resources and leverage across the public and private sectors to deliver public health objectives. In doing so, we will support an NHS that is genuinely focused on promoting good health and reducing disease—we will not leave the NHS simply to treat the consequences of public health failures.

I do not quite know how to respond to that. There was not much there in the way of constructive suggestions. As a matter of fact, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had time to read anything that was supplied, but there is a whole section on mental health, which he does not appear to have seen.

If I pin together everything that the hon. Gentleman said, it was that just because we cannot do everything, we should not do anything. That is the philosophy that ran through it. For instance, it is true that we are prepared to take the legislative and regulatory path to ensure that people are protected from second-hand smoke, but the idea that that somehow prevents the industry from moving ahead with smoke-free areas is utter fantasy. Leaving aside the fact that the industry has had several decades to do that, let me make it plain that I would welcome the industry moving ahead. If the industry wants to move, before we have legislation in place, to exactly the point at which we want to legislate, we will all enjoy that. Now, though, that is just an excuse from the Conservatives for doing nothing.

Similarly, on Ofcom, it is true that it opposed a total ban on television advertising of foods for children, but we are not proposing a total ban and Ofcom was not opposed to restrictions. Once again, because the Conservatives say we cannot do everything, they claim we cannot do anything at all.

Similarly, we are asking the Food Standards Agency, together with the industry, to work out a simplified form of indicating the nutritional value of food, but that does not stop us conducting a campaign at the European level as well. On the Government Benches, we are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. We can do several things at once. Just because we are not doing everything does not mean we cannot do several things.

I am rather disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's response. The world has moved on in the past quarter of a century, but it is obvious to me that the Conservative party has not moved with it. What we heard today, again, were the same tired clichés and the same old vapid slogans—an accumulation of several centuries of Tory philosophy and thought dedicated to doing nothing and changing nothing. They are always on the side of the status quo, and always on the side of the producer and against the consumer. We are not going to act that way. Having consulted the people of this country, we are going to give them the information and resources that they need and the back-up and support they need. We are going to give that to everybody, not just the better off, so that they can make choices for themselves and their families that will give them a longer, healthier life.

In contrast to the Opposition, I warmly welcome today's statement, which is both comprehensive and brave in many respects. The Government have listened to a range of recommendations, including from the Health Committee, picked them up and run with them, and I genuinely appreciate the steps that have been taken.

I wish to press my right hon. Friend on two points. One concern of mine is to put public health in the engine room of government. What steps have been taken structurally to ensure that public health concerns are addressed collectively across Departments when policies are being developed? Secondly, I accept that the Government are taking brave steps on the smoking issue, but I am slightly disappointed by the exemption, which will cause concerns. From my limited experience of standing at public bars, I am at a loss to understand how it will be possible to prevent smoke from elsewhere in a public bar getting to the bar area. I am particularly interested in the legal advice that the Government have received under health and safety legislation about protecting the interests of those staff working in bars where smoking will continue to be permitted.

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that he and the Health Committee have done on this issue. They have been a catalyst and, in some ways, a cattle prod for Ministers to make progress. He makes two very good points. The first is the nature of our approach across government. It is essential to recognise that people can make healthy choices, but they cannot always make them in circumstances of their own choosing. Therefore, people's social circumstances, and in some cases their geographical locality, can help or hinder them in making healthy choices.

We have tried across government to work together and, indeed, we have established a Cabinet Committee—Misc. 27 for the "afactionados" who like to know such names—on which I can get together with my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to try to ensure that in schools, on sports fields and across the health service we are working towards a common end.

I realise that the smoking exemption will be controversial. My hon. Friend said that he had limited experience of standing at bars. As someone who has perhaps a little more experience of doing that, I have thought about the issue carefully and discussed, argued and debated it. I have tried to balance the protection of people going about their daily business at work and at leisure who want to do so in a smoke-free atmosphere and who want to avoid the damage, pollution and inconvenience of second-hand smoke—people talk to me about their clothes smelling of smoke—with remembering that this is England and we take people's freedoms seriously. We should not try to prevent people from doing what is legal by other means. I have tried to provide an exemption that will not require a huge bureaucratic invention, because pubs are already classified into those that serve food and those that do not. It will also mean that people will not be forced into alleyways or out of the bar room and into their own living rooms to smoke even more there, because most of the evidence about the damage of passive smoking is based on those who live with a smoker. We have to be careful that in trying to solve one problem, we do not create another.

I have tried to strike a balance between the protection of the majority and the freedom of the minority. Let us see how that works. I think that it will be a compromise that will commend itself to the vast majority of people in England.

I thank the Secretary of State for the opportunity to see the statement in advance. I agree that doing nothing to tackle the causes of ill health is not an option. A report by the Treasury estimated that the cost of doing nothing would add £30 billion a year to the cost of health care by 2020. By how much does the Secretary of State believe his package will reduce that estimate?

The scientific evidence on second-hand smoking damaging health is overwhelming. Does the Secretary of State accept that passive smoking kills? What is a safe level of smoke? Does he accept the World Health Organisation research that shows that ventilation systems cannot guarantee a safe working environment? His proposals will consign those staff who work in pubs that do not serve food to an unsafe environment.

The Secretary of State's proposals on clear labelling are welcome, although we would prefer a mandatory scheme. How will he monitor the codes of practice to ensure that they are being complied with? He referred to schools, which play a vital part in reinforcing healthy habits of diet and exercise. Given that nutrition was but an afterthought in the current school meals standards, why does the White Paper say that it will be another three years before new standards for nutrition will be brought in?

The White Paper says next to nothing about poverty, poor housing and poor environment and the Department's role in developing health-promoting policies across government. Why are there no plans in the document for auditing the impact of Government policies on people's health—not just Department of Health policies but all Government policies? Clearly, there is a growing gap between the richest and the poorest in this country, and in terms of health it has grown over the past seven years.

We heard today that the Secretary of State spent eight months consulting, yet he has just announced that he plans to conduct more consultations—he wants more consideration and debate, and more voluntary codes. The White Paper demonstrates that the Government, far from having courage, in fact lack the courage to take the necessary action to deal with the wide range of public health threats posed in this country. Through his statement today, the Secretary of State is saying that he is willing to allow us all to continue eating, drinking and breathing smoke at the last chance saloon.

I shall start with the hon. Gentleman's last point. We think that what we are doing is proportionate to the challenges we face. It involves a combination of Government action, voluntary action and partnership, with legislation and regulation where necessary. There are a number of reasons why we are staging in action on smoking from 2006, 2007 and 2008. For instance, there may be a requirement for legislation for the latter stages. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that by 2006, Departments and the health service will be smoke free; by 2007, we intend that to apply right across all workplaces; and by 2008, all the regulations and legislation will, we hope, be in place for licensed premises. It is a matter of staging in and it will require legislation, not just reliance on voluntary measures.

The costs of what I announced in the White Paper are in the order of £1 billion, but many times that amount will be saved. The hon. Gentleman is correct—the Conservatives take a very short-sighted view when they fail to recognise that this is on the grounds not only of good health for the nation, but of efficiency for the NHS. It is impossible to say exactly how much will be saved as that will depend on the effectiveness of how we proceed, but it will be many times £1 billion. The process will be overseen by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which will be tasked to look at the effectiveness of the White Paper. That is not a full audit across government, but it goes some way towards it.

The hon. Gentleman asked me a straight question: do I accept that passive smoking damages health? Yes, I accept that. All the evidence shows that passive smoking increases the risk of cancer by about 23 or 24 per cent. and of coronary heart disease by about 25 per cent. I accept that. That is why I have done what I did today to try to protect people, including workers, because the vast majority will be working in an industry where 90-odd per cent. of restaurants and pubs—taking the two together—will be smoke free, and we will be prepared to legislate to ensure that in the remainder the bar area will be smoke free, too.

I think that I have covered most of the points that the hon. Gentleman made. Reviews are under way at present on nutrition in primary and secondary schools. We have looked at one and are in the course of considering the other, and I have been in close contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on the matter.

I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially his announcement about screening for chlamydia. Will he go further and look into how sexually transmitted diseases can be prevented through education and an understanding of appropriate sexual behaviour, so that the lives of many are not ruined by irreversible damage that could be prevented?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, and we intend to try to highlight the issue in a major campaign because of the reservoir of anguish that is building up, particularly, although not exclusively, through chlamydia. Although chlamydia has no symptoms, it can lead to infertility and other serious complications further down the line, which is a source of possible anguish and cost for the future. So we will not only lead that campaign, but we fully intend to make much more information much more widely available, including through all the online internet services that young people use so often.

As a very part-time health professional, I am keen on any move that helps to reduce tobacco smoking and damage. I have talked to a number of publicans and restaurateurs in my constituency, and off the record, particularly away from the public bar, they are basically keen on a ban, but a total ban, perhaps for commercial reasons. I wonder whether the Secretary of State has left that door open.

In some ways, the hon. Gentleman may be right. I can understand why such a ban could make things easier, for commercial reasons, for the providers, but our job is to look at the interests of the public— not the producers or providers, but the consumers. I therefore think that the balance that we have reached is appropriate, from the point of view of balancing the protection of the majority of people who want smoke-free areas with the protection of the rights of the minority in England who want to smoke a cigarette without damaging the health of others. That is what we have tried to do, while allowing diversity.

The options would be, first, to say, "You shall not smoke anywhere at your leisure", and then to say, as is now happening in Sydney, with the Health Minister there, or in California, given the campaigns there, "You shall not smoke in the open air or on the beaches", the effect of which could be to increase the amount of smoking that goes on in the home, by pushing people to accept that that is the only place that they can smoke. All the damage in respect of passive smoking that hon. Friends and colleagues have mentioned is based on passive smoking damage to those who live with a smoker at home. I am trying to get the balance right. None of us is infallible and time will tell, but I think that our approach is proportional and balanced.

My right hon. Friend is right to say that the critical issues are those of lifestyle and personal choice. Although he has outlined the education initiatives, with the emphasis in the statement on sport and physical activity, will the Government take initiatives with the national curriculum to ensure that people make informed choices, so that we can really begin to improve health in this country? We are getting messages from different parts of society, but a comprehensive message should start at basic school level.

Absolutely. My right hon. Friend has hit on critical point. I can give him some satisfaction by telling him that we will do exactly that, and I have been talking to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills about it. Indeed, this afternoon I will go a school where the education incorporates practical and theoretical advice at primary level on nutrition and food and the history and narrative of balanced diets and healthy living. I have now extended the healthy school project—the free fruit—from the pilot areas to the whole of England for every four, five and six-year-old going to school, and we also have the five-a-day programme. All that is essential because it is not Jesuitical to say that if we have a child by the age of seven who has learned healthy living, it will stand them in good stead for the rest of their life. That is exactly what will happen.

We are all very concerned about the rise in the number of sexually transmitted illnesses. Has any research been carried out to ascertain whether there is a link between the rise in sexually transmitted illnesses and the availability of the morning-after pill?

I do not think, off the top of my head, that I am aware of research on that specific item. However, if the hon. Lady will allow me, I will write to her.

Why did my right hon. Friend choose Ofcom, which does not support a ban on advertising to children of food high in fat, sugar and salt, to liaise with the food and drink and television industries, which are also against a ban? May I suggest that he should choose another organisation that is perhaps a little less biased, such as the Food Standards Agency or one of the 120 organisations, including the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of General Practitioners—the list goes on—that have backed my call for a ban on the advertising of high fat and sugar food and drink to children? If he did that, I reassure him that more than 240 Members of Parliament from both sides of the House would support him, as would between 76 and 81 per cent. of the public, who have been extensively polled.

My hon. Friend was too courteous to point out that many of those who signed the motion and supported that very call were Conservative Members. They regarded it as worth while and not nannyish, to use an expression that they tend to use. I used Ofcom to make the decision in the first instance because it is the independent body that has been set up to study such issues, and it has already started its consideration. It is true that it said that a ban, in itself, would not find favour with Ofcom, but it was not opposed to restrictions. I have also made it clear that if, after a reasonable time, the Government find it impossible to achieve their required end or cannot go in the direction in which they wish to go, I will then consider introducing legislation.

A number of possibilities are available. One is the total ban before a certain time that my hon. Friend outlined; another is a tapered approach by which foods of a particular nature could not be advertised before a certain deadline, and would then be regulated after that and restricted. After another deadline, the provisions would be wider. One thing is certain: we cannot confine our approach just to television advertising—it must extend beyond that. However, this is our starting point.

I remind the House of a well-known interest that I have declared in the Register of Members' Interests.

Does the Secretary of State accept that as his statement was riddled with constant references to the role of individual responsibility and personal choice in our society, he rather betrayed his guilt that his original instincts had been overruled? He has been rolled over by well-intentioned but very powerful lobbies, many of whom sit behind him. He has embarked on an extension of the criminal law, bans on advertising and regulation into areas of choice as to what people drink and eat—their choice of diet—and whether they smoke. That is an extraordinary extension of the role of the state into individual liberty and choice of lifestyle in this country.

Does the Secretary of State further accept that the major pressures upon the health service, for which he is responsible, come from the fact that we have the longest-living, fittest and healthiest specimens of the human race who ever walked these islands? Fortunately, he has to contend with advances in medical care and ever-increasing age expectation, but he has difficulty in doing so. Will he therefore not believe, among the statistical nonsense, all this stuff about the billions of pounds that the proposals will save? Will he make sure that he concentrates on worthwhile things, such as improving the services to deal with sexual ill health, and not start employing yet more campaigners, counsellors, lifestyle advisers and health gurus? They make up an industry in themselves and they will consume his resources and introduce an interventionism into the lives of individual citizens in which Governments should not engage.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman, whom I know well, is an archetypal lifestyle guru in his own way. It is just not true that we are dictating to people what they should eat or drink. At their request, we are giving them advice and information in an easily accessible and understandable fashion about what they might or might not want to eat. They can ultimately make their choice. I do not see why he should complain about dealing with the complicated things on the back of processed food that one has to be a biochemist or have hours at hand to understand. I do not understand why it is objectionable to put such messages in a simple fashion.

Ultimately, people will make their own choices. I have made it plain today that they will make their own choices about smoking and drinking; I know that as well as anybody. People make their own choices and they pull themselves out of their own ill health or their own disadvantage. The question is whether we should help them in doing so.

All we are trying to do is to say, "If you wish to live a healthier life, here is the information that will allow you to do it." The one area where we are saying, "You shouldn't be able to do that" is when people are damaging the health of others. We are saying, "In a civilised society, your rights have to be constrained in case they impinge upon the rights and damage the health and lives of others." That is all we are doing with passive smoking. I would have hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would think that the solution I came up with was a balanced one that might attract the support of such a balanced person as himself.

May I direct my right hon. Friend to the passive smoking issue? This welcome White Paper builds on the very good work that the Government have been doing since 1997 in this area—in stark contrast to what happened under the previous Government. In a very extensive survey that I carried out in Wirral, West, more than 90 per cent. of those surveyed—including societies, clubs, members of the public, workplace operatives and companies—said that they wanted a ban on passive smoking in the workplace and other public places. On that basis, why will my constituents be left asking why there should be inequality between localities. In my right hon. Friend's locality in Scotland there will be a ban; in my locality in Wirral, West there will not.

My hon. Friend is right that people in England will have a freedom that apparently will not be available to people in Scotland, but I have to do what I think is right. It may be some consolation to him to know that what I am doing is actually what the men and women of England want us to do. There is no question about the statistics on this. The Office for National Statistics figures and the various other scientifically balanced opinion polls that have been carried out are quite clear that when people are asked whether they want a general ban in the workplace and in restaurants, more than 90 per cent. answer yes, but when it comes to pubs, 80 per cent. are opposed to a total ban. About 20 per cent. support a total ban but more than 80 per cent. support restrictions. I place no emphasis on that one way or the other, but that is where men and women in England are. That is not the only reason I reached the decision that I did, but having reached it at least there is some consolation for the House in knowing that that is what people outside the House and the Chamber actually believe should be done.

The Secretary of State has just announced wide-ranging restrictions on smoking in public places, and speaking purely personally I wholeheartedly welcome what he has just done, in the name of public health. May I press him on the issue raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford)? From the point of view of public health, and from the point of view of the customer or the employee, why has he chosen to exclude pubs and bars that do not prepare food?

First, I wanted to get a balance between protecting the majority's health and preserving the minority's rights.Secondly, a distinction is already made between restaurants and pubs that sell food and other pubs that do not. There is already a classification, which is to hand, which means that no additional bureaucracy or definition will be necessary, because that classification is already carried out through the local authorities.

Thirdly, I made that choice because it is the nearest position to that which the public, in our consultation and in all opinion polls, said that they wanted. It is slightly ahead of public opinion because what public opinion would have us do is to have restrictions within a pub itself, rather than restrictions among pubs. So, it is not exactly replicating public opinion, and it is not, as some people say, behind public opinion—it is slightly in front of it. For those three reasons, this seemed the most balanced way of doing things.

I welcome the White Paper and the important measures contained in it. Will my right hon. Friend say more about how he envisages that the campaigns mentioned in the White Paper will be designed and delivered to reach young people, especially young women who have problems with not only sexual health, but drinking and smoking, and who, by and large, have the responsibility of feeding young children? We all know that it is exceptionally hard to reach those people with such a message.

Yes, indeed. The first thing that we want is a public information campaign at a level such that sexual health matters break out of the shadows in which they have traditionally been dealt with. That traditional situation will come as no surprise to hon. Members, because few people come to our surgeries to complain about a lack of information or the inadequate service of a GUM clinic for the obvious reason that they are embarrassed about such matters. Getting rid of such embarrassment is the first necessary step towards tackling the problem.

We need a public information campaign to alert people to dangers and we must draw on every single facility used by young people to achieve that. We must use not only people in the community such as health trainers, assistants, advisers and GPs, but cinemas, online websites and magazines that are especially popular with young people. Those are the vehicles through which we should try to deliver the message.

On 22 January 2003, the Welsh Assembly Government asked for legislation to ban smoking in public places in Wales. Will the Secretary of State tell the House his Government's intentions for Wales regarding that issue?

Public health is devolved to Wales, so it was out of respect for Wales, not disrespect, that I referred to England today. Matters such as advertising, however, apply consistently throughout the United Kingdom, so the House will legislate on them for Wales. I hope that discussions will continue between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh Assembly on a range of such matters. I hope that many of the measures in the White Paper, including perhaps those on smoking, will commend themselves to Wales. If the Assembly wants us to assist it, as we pass legislation, to carry forward its public health programme—I know that the First Minister is deeply committed to that—I shall be happy to try to oblige.

I welcome the statement and the White Paper, and do not believe that difficult and debateable issues of balance should distract from the positive package of measures. I have also conducted a survey among my constituents and, of the 600 people who responded, 75 per cent. wanted a ban on smoking in public places.

In cracking down on binge drinking, which it is obviously right to do, is my right hon. Friend worried that we might be creating conditions for binge smoking? How will striking the balance that he set out help smokers to quit, and how can he guarantee that people will have the choice of a smoke-free environment if the only pub in their neighbourhood is a smokers' pub? Will he listen to representations on the issue and be prepared to concede that the balance that he has struck might need to be readdressed?

I assure my hon. Friend that I do not want to set other hares running by saying that I shall think about that and come back with another idea next week. We are where we are, and a great deal of thought has gone into our proposals. It is true that the measure will not stop people smoking by itself, although it might discourage them. However, it is only one of a range of measures. We helped 125,000 people to give up smoking last year and I want to double—and more—that number over the next few years by using smoking cessation services, hotlines, information, high taxation, the fear created by the warnings displayed on packets, restrictions on advertising and the availability of nicotine patches on the NHS. A whole host of measures is required.

I have said all along that a ban is the sexy item on the agenda, but on its own it will not significantly reduce the number of people who smoke. We must be careful not to ghettoise people smoking in their front rooms. If a group of people comes together to smoke, at least we may assume that it is largely composed of smokers who are damaging their health anyway through smoking, rather than passive smoking. At least we are minimising the danger of passive smoking, but the measure on its own will not reduce smoking, which is why we have a battery and array of assistance, resources, advice and information. At the end of the day, we just say to people, "If you keep smoking, you're going to kill yourself." That is the biggest and most persuasive factor.

The Secretary of State treated us to his little list of people who would be helped by the measures, but let me remind him of the people he missed out—the old and the vulnerable. Does he agree that damp conditions and cold housing are for many the biggest contributors to poor health and that the White Paper misses the opportunity to deal with that problem?

Yes, I agree with the first statement, but not the second. Addressing the problems and inequalities faced by the most vulnerable is a large feature of the White Paper. I have in particular dealt with the Deputy Prime Minister on that. The hon. Lady is right about cold, damp, flu and so on. Vaccines, insulation, better housing and transport have a direct effect on health. We have known that since the Black report many decades ago. I say in all modesty that the Government are doing a great deal across many areas and we will continue to work across Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), the Chair of the Select Committee, asked us to.

As chair of the all-party groups on primary care and public health and on obesity, I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State, who has done a marvellous job on setting out how public health can be improved. As he knows, I am working with a group of internationally acclaimed experts on obesity to set up a national institute of obesity. How does he envisage that institute working closely with the Government to achieve the necessary aim of tackling obesity?

My hon. Friend makes the pertinent point that such things cannot be done by the Government alone. It requires a combination of Government, local government, partnerships, charities and, ultimately, individuals. He mentioned one of the important institutes that we want to work closely with over the coming years. The fact that we have prioritised the issue in the way that we have means that smoking has taken the headlines in much of the press, but out in the real world there is a huge concern and thirst for information on healthy diets and how to combat obesity. We will certainly work with the institute on that.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and congratulate him on what he has achieved and will achieve. I am also pleased that Wales may have the opportunity to introduce its own measures on the back of other legislation. I am sure that he knows that a working party in Wales is consulting on public health issues.

May I also express my disappointment that the measures to provide smoke-free work places dos not extend to bars? What legal advice has my right hon. Friend received on the position of bar staff who may be affected by passive smoking and who will be the only employees left exposed to it?

No, I have not received legal advice on that. Ultimately, it would be up to individuals to take a civil action, as anyone is free to do in any circumstances. I merely point out that, after we accomplish the proposals that I have set out, every bar that serves food and every restaurant in England will be smoke-free, which is a huge step forward in the protection of everyone, including those who work in those environments, from passive smoking. I have also said that I want to ensure, in legislation if necessary, that the bar area is smoke-free, even in those areas where smoking is permitted.

In addition, one might reflect on the fact that if 90 to 95 per cent. of the aggregate number of restaurants, bars and so on are smoke-free, workers will have a huge choice, which does not exist now, on where they work, as will customers on where they go. By any standard, although this is a public health measure and not an employment or health and safety measure, workers will know that it is a huge advance on where we are now.

Constituents of mine employed in casinos would like a workplace ban on smoking. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the eight new super-casinos that have just been announced by the Government will have such a ban and that different regulations will not apply to them?

If the right hon. Gentleman lets us build the things, we might then decide who will be allowed into them. I have said that the exclusions will be pubs that do not sell food and certified membership clubs—it is as simple as that. The latter are classified as clubs that one cannot walk into off the street; one has to apply for membership, then wait for a certain period. Presumably—I am not a member of such a club—they include some of the London clubs, along with the Royal British Legion and golf and rugby clubs that have memberships. Such bodies may or may not be smoke-free. I think that many will go smoke-free, but it will be for their members to decide.

I too welcome the White Paper wholeheartedly, especially the plan to help more people to walk or cycle safely to school. Will the Secretary of State enlarge on how he plans to do that?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. In the past 10 years or so we have made some, but not vast, headway in that respect. I have been speaking to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and considerable extra money is being put in. There are two dimensions worth highlighting: first, cycle lanes and, secondly, the journey to and from school. The issue is complex, because we have to take into account the fact that parents' fears and the desire to walk or cycle to school rise and fall according to the horror stories that appear on television and the dangers of traffic. We are trying as much as we can to encourage a reduction in the school run and an increase in walking or cycling to and from school. I hope that we will be able to develop that in the coming years.

rose—

Order.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will recall that the Government argued that the redeployment of Black Watch troops was to enable American forces to launch an attack on Falluja. My constituents are remarkably concerned about the destruction of that city, culminating in today's reports of the murder of an injured, unarmed Iraqi civilian by US marines. Has no Minister asked to come to the House to make a statement in response to the genuine concern arising in my constituency and, I have no doubt, throughout the rest of the country about what appears to be a rapidly deteriorating situation in Iraq? I know that you cannot demand that a Minister come to the House to answer questions, but I shall be grateful if you can assist me in obtaining for my constituents some direct response from a Minister on a matter for which Ministers are in no small measure responsible.

I appreciate the concerns that the hon. Lady expressed, but I have no knowledge of any Minister wishing to come to the House to make a statement.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, of which I gave Mr. Speaker prior notice. Yesterday evening, the BBC carried an extensive report on the public health White Paper, including quotations from the document—lines such as, "In the foreword the Government will say," and quotations from the Department of Health spokesman. This morning, all the main newspapers carried detailed reports about the White Paper and bullet-points, which we now know were accurate, setting out the main provisions, and The Sun had a question-and-answer briefing on how the ban will hit at work and play. Is it not discourteous to the House that Ministers did not make the statement here first, but gave all that information to the media 12 hours earlier? Is that not particularly serious, given that Mr. Speaker and his predecessor have made the point on a number of occasions that the House should be told first?

With this particular Secretary of State, there have been two other occasions in recent years when that guidance has been specifically brought to his attention, in respect of the strategic defence review and the MRSA clean-up announcement, yet, again, here we are, on his watch, with an announcement made to the media ahead of the House.

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You may recall that on 8 December last year, Mr. Speaker heard a point of order from me about a similar offence by the same Secretary of State, who had announced on a non-sitting Friday new policies on MRSA and failed to make any statement in the House. Mr. Speaker told him in no uncertain terms that Ministers were expected to make announcements in the House. You may also recall that Mr. Speaker promised that I would be called at Question Time the next day to allow the Secretary of State to make such a statement. He then defended himself on the ground that the statement that he had made outside the House contained nothing new, as was the case during the first 10 minutes of his statement today.

The House is well aware of Mr. Speaker's views on this matter. He has certainly made them plain on more than one occasion, as has his predecessor. I can only say that the Secretary of State concerned was in his place when those points were made.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At 12 noon today, the Home Secretary published by way of a written statement his response to the report by the Prison Service ombudsman, Stephen Shaw, into the fire and incident at Yarl's Wood in my constituency two and a half years ago. The report implicates the Government in a negligent handling of the asylum system, building a detention centre unfit for purpose, refusing to fit sprinklers and placing in it people who should not have been there, at risk both to themselves and to others, including the brave people who dealt with the incident on the day. Have you received any indication from the Home Secretary or any member of his team that he should come to the House to answer questions about his response to a very serious report that implicates the Government in considerable mishandling and negligence?

I am not aware of any request from the Home Secretary to come to the House. The right hon. Gentleman made a written statement but I am not aware of any other request. No doubt the matter is now on the record and will be noted.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require all public authorities and certain regulated companies and organisations providing written means of identification to persons seeking to enter private residences to include braille information about those persons on the written means of identification; and for connected purposes.

This is a modest proposal to afford a degree of protection to a particularly vulnerable group of consumers from rogue doorstep callers. I am thinking of those individuals who are visually impaired in some way.

There is widespread support across the political spectrum for including protection against rogue doorstep callers. There is a political will in the House and elsewhere to improve such protection. Many right hon. and hon. Members have constituents who have fallen victim to the activities of unscrupulous doorstep callers. Concern has been expressed in the House in a number of debates in recent times. Private Members' Bills have been introduced during the Session. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) tabled an early-day motion on this matter that attracted the support of more than 100 Members on both sides of the House.

The Bill that I seek leave to introduce has gained the support of more than 60 Members from all parties represented in the House, as well as from 20 organisations with a particular interest in the matters raised in the Bill. Organisations that support the principles underlying my Bill include the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science, which seeks ways to design out crime, the Royal National Institute of the Blind, the Confederation for the Registration of Gas Installers—the national gas safety watchdog, to which I shall refer later—and the National Federation for the Blind of the United Kingdom, which is active in many constituencies.

The problem of rogue doorstep traders is significant. As recently as May, the Office of Fair Trading concluded that bogus trading was characterised by consumers being

"cold-called and tricked or pressurised into paying large sums often for shoddy goods and services . . . its distinguishing feature is the high degree of deception and intimidation involved."

I firmly believe that the informed consumer is a safer consumer, and programmes such as "Rogue Traders" and "Watchdog" help to increase consumer awareness. Last year, I supported a campaign by journalist Vivienne Parry in Woman's Own that sought to expose gas installers who were operating illegally. Such campaigns can play a huge role in helping to inform consumers about how they can protect themselves, and I pay tribute to everyone involved in exposing bogus activities. More, however, needs to be done because, despite the best efforts of campaigners, the OFT estimates that about 15,000 bogus trading cases are reported each year.

I discovered the full extent of the threat that rogue doorstep callers pose in my capacity as chairman of the all-party group on gas safety. At the very least, rogue callers rip off consumers, but those who undertake gas safety work can endanger lives. CORGI keeps figures on the problem that show that work undertaken by illegal installers has a high chance of incorporating a significant gas safety defect. Consumer protection for gas installation and other kinds of activity is literally a matter of life and death. It is vital that consumers be provided with the necessary information to help them protect themselves. The threat of exploitation is particularly acute for the most vulnerable groups in society, and I am pleased to report that many organisations are already working on innovative projects to increase protection for them. Mencap, for example, has worked with Energywatch to develop accessible communications for people with learning disabilities.

My Bill focuses on increasing information protection for visually impaired people, who are particularly vulnerable in their own home. It would introduce a requirement for all local authorities and certain regulated companies and organisations to include Braille on the identification that they provide for their employees or the people whom they register to go to consumers' homes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mr. Wood) for pointing out that only a small proportion of visually impaired people can read Braille, so my Bill will not solve completely the problems posed by doorstep callers. As well as Braille, organisations should consider other means of assisting visually impaired people such as the password scheme operated by some energy companies that gives consumers prior notification of doorstep calls and issues a password that callers use to identify themselves. The RNIB has clear print guidelines on the use of appropriate font type and size and good colour contrast. I urge other organisations to adhere to those guidelines, but Braille identifiers are an innovative, simple and relatively cheap way of making a difference, and should be pursued. Including Braille on identity cards allows doorstep callers to post their card through the door, enabling a visually impaired consumer to assess whether to open the door to them. The Braille identifier would provide much-needed assurance in what could otherwise feel like a threatening situation.

My Bill does not refer to the national identity card that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering, but particularly given his background, I hope that the Home Office will consider Braille identifiers as part of the national identity card scheme, if it is introduced. The model for it already exists, and Ministers should consider it carefully. CORGI, the national gas safety watchdog, has led the way in introducing Braille on its ID cards for all registered gas installers. There are about 98,000 of them, so that was not a small exercise, yet it was carried out successfully.

British Gas is considering the use of Braille on the ID cards of all its gas engineers who need to go into people's homes. That would be an excellent step forward and I urge British Gas to take it. CORGI, which is still the only organisation in the country using Braille on ID cards, has demonstrated that it can be done successfully, quickly and cheaply. All organisations should be encouraged to follow such a procedure. Given that most organisations periodically renew the ID cards used by their employees, often annually, the phased introduction of Braille seems entirely possible. The technology exists and I am told that it is quite cheap.

There is a rumour that, as the House rises on Thursday, my Bill may not become law. There may be some substance to that rumour, but I am introducing the Bill to raise awareness and stimulate debate in the House and elsewhere about simple and inexpensive measures, such as the use of Braille, that can be taken to protect the most vulnerable in our society from the most unscrupulous. The use of Braille has the potential to improve the information given to a particularly vulnerable group of consumers. I therefore urge the House to give me leave to introduce the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Jon Trickett, Mr. Bill O'Brien, Colin Burgon, Mr. Martin O'Neill, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. David Lepper, Peter Bottomley, Mr. Phil Willis, Mrs. Iris Robinson, Mr. Andrew Hunter, Mr. Fabian Hamilton and Rob Marris.

Braille Identity Cards

Jon Trickett accordingly presented a Bill to require all public authorities and certain regulated companies and organisations providing written means of identification to persons seeking to enter private residences to include braille information about those persons on the written means of identification; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 November, and to be printed [Bill 180].

I inform the House that privilege is involved in a large number of Lords amendments to the Pensions Bill. A full list is available in the No Lobby. If the House agrees to the amendments, I shall arrange for the necessary entry to be made in the Journal.

Clause 4 — Regulator's functions

Lords amendment: No. 1.

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 19, 24, 25, 27 to 29, 33 to 94, 324 to 329, 358, 481 to 498 and 577.

Before I launch into the first of these very large groups of amendments, it might be helpful if I take this opportunity to remind the House about some of the key points of the Pensions Bill. It is nearly six months since we last saw the Bill at the end of May. Since then, there has been the best part of 70 hours of debate in the other place, which has dealt with more than 1,200 amendments, just over half of which are before us today. The other place likes to describe itself as the revising chamber, but, as will be seen later, we do not always agree with its revisions. In this case, however, its contributions have improved the Bill since we last saw it here.

Most of the amendments were tabled by the Government. I make no apology for that, but I want to make it absolutely clear that it is because we have listened not only to Opposition spokesmen—on occasion—but to Back Benchers on both sides of both Houses. We are also indebted to outside organisations that have continued to take an interest by providing briefings, suggesting amendments and participating in continued consultation over the provisions in the Bill.

As I have explained on several occasions, all other things being equal it might have been useful to present the Bill as a draft Bill to allow us to consider some of the technical details. However, all other things are not equal. We are being urged to protect people's pensions—indeed, urged by some to make the pension protection fund retrospective—and we could not afford to delay because of the issues that are at stake.

The Bill is a good and rounded piece of legislation. It introduces a regulator with teeth who, among other things, will now be able to deal with those who have developed so-called pension liberation scams; provides protection for those who might otherwise lose their defined benefit pensions through no fault of their own if their employer becomes insolvent; and provides an important measure of help for those where that situation has already occurred.

Over the summer, we worked with organisations involved in helping ailing companies, led by the British Venture Capital Association, to enable us to improve and clarify the provisions relating to moral hazard. Some of the amendments reflect and respond to their concerns. Furthermore, the Bill now reflects other commitments that were taken forward from this House, including representation for pensioner organisations in the nomination of trustees and the removal of statutory limited price indexation for defined contribution schemes.

The Minister mentioned the ending of limited price indexation for defined contribution schemes. If I am correct, that will be discussed in the hour or so that we have to talk about annuities under a separate group of amendments. Almost certainly, therefore, there will be no debate whatever about these changes. Does the Minister think that that is acceptable?

It would always be nice to have plenty of time to discuss pensions. I hope that there will be an opportunity to discuss those matters, but we have made our position clear and a vote has been taken on the programme motion.

Several amendments were made to part 1 to enhance the powers of the regulator. We have given the regulator specific powers to tackle the illegal practice of what some call pension liberation but what should, in my judgment, more appropriately be called pension robbery. As hon. Members are aware, pension liberation schemes purport to offer to convert the accrued rights of members of legitimate schemes into an immediate tax-free lump sum. The organisers of these schemes—I should perhaps say scams—target people who urgently need cash and usually charge high commission, ranging from 20 to 30 per cent. of the individual's total fund. An individual could also end up paying as much as 40 per cent. tax on the total amount. Moreover, their provision for retirement is severely reduced, sometimes to nothing.

Clauses 19 to 22 give the regulator the power to apply to the court for an order that the so-called "liberated" moneys, or property representing those moneys, are transferred back to a pension scheme, put into an annuity or insurance policy or given back to the member concerned. Prior to going to court, the regulator will also have the power to make a restraining order over liberators' bank accounts that contain liberated funds. These are important new powers that will enable the regulator to deal with this nefarious practice.

There has been particular interest in the moral hazard clauses, which were first introduced in Standing Committee. Clauses 44 to 58 are intended to deal with the moral hazard that employers may deliberately manipulate their affairs so as to leave the pension protection fund to pick up the tab for their underfunded pension scheme. Such practice would both put members' benefits at risk and increase the levy costs of well-run schemes.

Several concerns were expressed about the scope and effect of the moral hazard clauses. During the debates in the other place, my right hon. Friend Baroness Hollis offered further to consult the industry over the summer to review their impact and to try to find practical ways of allaying concerns about the measures. As a result, several amendments were made. A key message was the requirement for the regulator to provide a clearance procedure. That has been agreed and is reflected in clauses 43 and 47.

Other headline amendments to the moral hazard clauses include: a time limit of six years for which the regulator can consider acts or failures to act before issuing a contribution notice; the exclusion of insolvency practitioners, if acting in good faith, from the scope of contribution notices and financial support directions; and the exclusion of the majority of individuals from the scope of financial support directions. Also, new clause 58 has been added to the Bill to define partnerships and limited liability partnerships for the purposes of the moral hazard clauses.

There is one further significant change to the moral hazard provisions. Much concern was expressed in the House and in the other place about the regulator's power to issue contribution notices or restoration orders in relation to acts occurring after 11 June 2003, corresponding with the date of the announcement in the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The Government continue to believe that the limited retrospection proposed is proportionate as a matter of law.

Can the Minister explain precisely what he means by insolvency practitioners "when acting in good faith"? Insolvency practitioners have only one duty, which is to get the maximum amount of money for the creditors. What does the expression "when acting in good faith" mean in that context?

We assume that insolvency practitioners do act in good faith, given their task. When they do so, they will be excluded from any moral hazard procedures. There is the concern that it might be possible for some practitioners not to act in good faith, perhaps in connivance with others, but if I can provide any further advice on the question later, I will.

I was saying that the Government believe that the proposed limited retrospection is proportionate as a matter of law, but we accept that there may be some who would seek to challenge it, resulting in the regulator being tied up in court for a number of years, unable to act to protect members or the pension protection fund and benefiting only lawyers. For that reason, amendments Nos. 38 and 71 limit the retrospective effect of both contribution notices and restoration orders to acts or deliberate failures to act, and to transactions at an undervalue that took place on or after 27 April 2004, the date on which the moral hazard clauses were introduced in Committee.

The amendments to the moral hazard clauses will ensure that the regulator will retain effective anti-avoidance powers, while removing many of the concerns raised about the potential scope and effect of the original clauses. It has also been necessary to make a number of minor, consequential and technical amendments to part 1 of the Bill to reflect its evolvement, ensure consistency and tighten the drafting.

I thank the Minister for dealing briefly, as he put it, with some of the Lords amendments. I entirely accept what he said about so-called pension liberation schemes and we welcome the fact they have effectively been shut off as an option.

There is a sort of Alice Through the Looking Glass quality to the Bill. I remember saying, to the point of almost bleating, in Committee and earlier that if ever there were a piece of legislation that cried out to start its life as a draft Bill and be subject to the pre-legislative scrutiny procedures of both Houses, this is it. For the Minister to say rather ruefully, at this half-past 11th hour, that that might have been the best way forward is absolutely amazing.

I must correct the hon. Gentleman. What I said was that there was a great demand out there for pension protection now and that is why we needed to introduce the legislation, even if it meant some inconvenience to various colleagues in having to amend the Bill as it proceeded through its stages. The demand was to protect people now and we responded to it.

A broader issue that arises—it is more appropriate to debate it in detail in a later group of amendments—is whether the Government have looked into the issue from the wrong end of the telescope. They should have focused their immediate attention and energies on tackling the problem of people in the here and now who have lost their pension rights, while taking a more measured approach, in respect of time for debate and for implementation, to ensure that they got the Bill right. That was certainly the attitude of the then Government towards the Pensions Act 1995.

I am afraid that matters are even worse than I described. Not only did we not have a draft Bill—[Interruption.] It is not just a matter of inconvenience. We are all here to do our best and to take however long it takes. We could certainly spend a great deal more than four hours today on these important matters without unduly straining ourselves, but we are not being allowed to because of the timetable motion that the Government have forced through. The guillotine has been used in one way or another at every stage of the Bill's passage.

I want to discuss the moral hazard provisions, the really crucial part of the group, in more detail. It is not just that there was no draft Bill encompassing those provisions—I am talking about the original provisions—as they were produced at the very end of consideration in the House. As far as I have been able to discover, there was no consultation and no discussion with anybody about whether the provisions were appropriate, workable, and tackled the issues that they were intended to tackle.

What happened in due course—I shall deal with the issue in greater detail when I move on to specific provisions—is that, having failed consistently to listen to Opposition voices in the House or to consult any relevant outside bodies, professional or otherwise, the Government got themselves in a tremendous mess. They then had completely to abandon their first attempt at moral hazard provisions, go through a consultation process—putting the cart before the horse—and then return with a series of further different provisions to deal with the same problem.

The Minister was right to pay tribute to the work of the revising Chamber, though in respect of this particular legislation, the task was more than just revision. The Lords laboured long and hard—we could not in the House, as our consideration was finished— to try to get the Bill right. The fact that, as the Minister himself said, the Lords tabled 1,200 amendments, surely illustrates the Government's problems. The Government tabled 450 amendments during the Commons stages, adding 62 new clauses and 81 pages to the Bill. It arrived in the Lords with 310 clauses and 13 schedules and has now developed into a two-volume Bill. We rarely encounter that nowadays, except in the case of a Finance Bill.

The Bill grew even longer in the House of Lords. Prior to Third Reading, the Government had made 442 further amendments and added a further 16 clauses and 50 pages to its length. On any view, that amounts to an awful lot of afterthought on the part of the Government and their draftsmen.

Following the Minister, I, too, pay tribute to the work of the Opposition, particularly the official Opposition, in the House of Lords. I am particularly grateful to my noble Friend Lord Higgins. The Bill is still far from perfect, but it has been enormously improved.

I shall now deal with the moral hazard provisions in greater detail. Personally, I have always taken the view that a more accurate description would be "anti-avoidance". I made the point in Committee, though much good it did me, about the importance of those provisions for the likely shape of the Bill. I went to Washington to discuss the approach with people who had more than 30 years experience of this matter. I also spoke to experts here, particularly people in the City of London, actuaries, lawyers and others. One theme that always came across vividly was that the Government would be well advised to get the anti-avoidance or moral hazard provisions right from the start, because if they were not dealt with properly, they could make a total nonsense of the other, doubtless laudable, provisions in the Bill. It is a tribute to the Government's incompetence that, far from those provisions being the first to be considered and dealt with, they were among the last, at least during the passage through this House.

The Minister took us through the moral hazard provisions, and he described their effects fairly. We welcome the fact that the time limit involves going back no more than six years, and we are pleased at what was said about insolvency practitioners acting in good faith. In that connection, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) made a good, practical point. I shall be interested to hear how the Minister deals with that specific question.

We have 672 Lords amendments to discuss this afternoon, and almost all of them are Government amendments. My arithmetic tells me that we have 21 seconds to discuss each amendment. However, in this section of the debate, we have to discuss 183 amendments in 30 minutes, which comes out at under 10 seconds per amendment. That shows the lack of serious scrutiny that will be given to some important matters.

The amendments propose ways to close what the Minister rightly called scams. It is a source of concern that people can be ripped off in this way, and we welcome this attempt to close the loophole. However, I am worried that legislation passed with the best of intentions but in haste is often repented of at leisure. The short amount of time available for consideration of these amendments means that proper scrutiny is impossible and that there may be unintended consequences. As a result, people who are supposed to benefit from the Bill might suffer from other loopholes created by the attempt to close the particular loophole under discussion.

When pensions legislation is made in haste, it is often poor and in need of subsequent amendment. I often wonder what the Government would have done to close this loophole if they had not had this Bill going through the House. The Bill has been around for a long time, so the Government have thought that they could just amend it and add to it whenever anything on pensions has popped up. They thought that they could use the Bill to do those things on pensions that they quite fancy doing. Often, changes have been made long after this House had a chance to consider the Bill, so it is difficult to do justice to the 112 amendments in this group and to spot the bear pits that the Government may have created.

There is no reason why we could not have been allowed time to scrutinise these amendments properly but, for some reason, the Government decided to prevent that proper scrutiny. On behalf of the people whom we are trying to protect by means of amendment No. 1 and associated amendments, I hope that we do not live to rue that lack of scrutiny.

The people who will lose out are those who find that a large part of their pension investment is taken up by charges and fees when they are sold the products that we are discussing this afternoon. That is what will happen if we do not get the legislation right. Given the cursory run-through from the Minister at the start of this debate, it is difficult to tell whether the amendments will have the desired effect.

The financial services industry is notorious for inventing new products, scams and wheezes to get around regulations. The Government have produced these amendments like rabbits out of a hat this afternoon. It is very late in the day, so it is hard to have confidence that thought has been given to all the ways in which the provisions might be evaded.

On the face of it, the amendments look broadly sensible. They attempt to close down undesirable practices and respond to some of the concerns expressed about the Bill. Like the Conservatives, we shall not divide the House on the amendments, although we do want to register our concern that insufficient time has been given for the scrutiny that such important changes deserve.

I want to raise again some of the issues that I raised on Report some six months ago about the scope of the pensions regulator. I remind the House of the business interests that I declared then.

On Report, I said that the scope of the regulator was too wide and that his power to hit individuals was too extensive. I also said that the contributions notices and the FSDs were too wide in scope. The Minister will remember that he brushed those concerns aside. He wrote me a four-page letter on 11 June in an attempt to reassure me, but—to his credit—he began a process of consultation almost from that date. That process has led to the very substantial amendments to the Bill that we are discussing this afternoon.

It would be churlish not to acknowledge the great deal of work that has been done, but much concern remains. There is a great deal of worry about the position of insolvency practitioners, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) has referred already, and about the position of individual investors, as they can still be caught by the regulator. However, a much more general concern remains that the Bill establishes what amounts to a new business regulator. It will be something like the Office of Fair Trading, but by no means all business transactions are referred to the OFT. I hope that the Minister will reassure me that the new regulator will have the resources and skills to deal with what I expect to be a flood of clearance applications.

Given that anything that could be construed as removing assets from a pension fund could be caught for six years, almost every business transaction is likely to be submitted to the regulator for clearance. The secondary effect on business could be that deals do not proceed unless the full pension fund deficit has been made up. As a result, struggling companies may be denied the opportunity to be taken over by others.

Therefore, I still need reassurance about three matters, and I hope that the Minister will supply that reassurance when he responds to the debate. First, will he confirm that the regulator will have the resources to deal with the flood of clearance applications that I expect to be put in? Secondly, is not the six-year period too long? I know that it derives from Inland Revenue statute, but I still think that it is too long and that it may have a deterrent effect.

Finally, will the Minister confirm that the new business regulator that he is creating will not deter the formation, or reformation, of businesses that is characteristic of a healthy economy?

We have had a useful airing of some of the issues. Those that I cannot cover in the few minutes I have, I will deal with in correspondence.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) queried what I meant about insolvency practitioners. We just wanted to make it clear that insolvency practitioners acting in accordance with their functions under the Act cannot receive contribution notices and cannot receive financial support directions, as they are individuals. We meant nothing more than to clarify that.

We have had a welcome for the amendments, if at times—we are used to this—a slightly grudging one. There was no early consultation on the moral hazard clauses. To have consulted before introducing them would have given advance notice to those who wanted to avoid pension liabilities. The changes made in the Lords are not radical, but they make clear on the face of the Bill the Government's policy as expressed in Parliament. We are confident that the moral hazard clauses strike the right balance on protecting members, the PPF, levy payers and business interests.

On the final point from the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), it is not our intention to interfere with legitimate and proper business reorganisation. We have to be concerned, however, to prevent people from dumping pension liabilities on the new pension protection fund. What we are doing has been widely welcomed by outside organisations, and I hope that the House will agree to the amendments that we are suggesting.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 94 agreed to.

Clause 168 — Amounts to be raised by the pension protection levies

Lords amendment: No. 298.

I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the Government motion to disagree, amendments (b) and (c), Government amendments (a) to (k) in lieu thereof, amendment No. 283 and Government amendment (a).

This is an area in which their lordships substantively disagreed with the Government. The amendments deal with the nature of the levy for the pension protection fund. Their lordships made two substantive amendments in the face of Government opposition when a combination of Conservative, Liberal Democrat and other peers prevailed, as reflected in Lords amendments Nos. 298 and 283.

Amendment No. 298 proposes that 80 per cent. of the levy should be a risk-based levy as opposed to one based simply on the number of members of a scheme. Amendment No. 283 proposes that part of the definition of risk will include the risk that the firm become insolvent, and not merely that the scheme itself is underfunded. It seems entirely proper that there should be a substantial risk-based levy and that the definition of risk should have some regard not merely to whether the fund is underfunded but whether the firm is likely to become insolvent, thereby triggering a claim on the fund.

My reading of the Government's amendments to those amendments is that the Government have largely accepted that argument. I am sure that the Minister will clarify the position, but I understand that the Government broadly accept the principle of an 80 per cent. risk-based levy and of allowing the insolvency risk of the firm to be a determining factor, among others, of the risk-based premium. My understanding of Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 283 is that the Government are giving themselves, or the PPF, the power to exempt certain firms from consideration of insolvency in assessing the level of the risk-based premium. Provided the Minister can assure us that that power will be used sparingly and can give some flavour of the circumstances in which it would be used, I have no objection in principle to the idea that using the solvency risk to the firm might not always be appropriate. We welcome the fact that the Government seem to have accepted the general principle.

That said, I have a number of concerns about how things will operate. I hope that the Minister can clarify a point that remains not entirely clear even after their lordships' discussions. As I understand it, after the transition to a risk-based levy, firms will have the opportunity to move to the risk-based levy more or less straight away. However, firms will still have the option, even if we accept the Lords amendments or the Government's versions of them, to put off for several years the evil day when a risk-based premium arrives. That is my understanding of where we will leave the Bill today; if I am wrong, I hope that the Minister will correct me. I think that firms will still be able to say that they do not fancy a risk-based premium and that they will still go for the flat-rate premium for as long as they can.

Has the hon. Gentleman calculated what the loss of revenue in levy not raised would be from that 60 per cent. of schemes?

There would be no loss, because those 60 per cent. of schemes would make the same total contribution to the levy—on a pro-rata basis, not on a risk-based basis. Our amendments would not change the balance of the burden between big and small schemes, but they would reduce the disproportionate bureaucracy—for both the schemes and the PPF—involved in calculating a risk-based levy for small schemes. The levy could be per head or some other pro rata arrangement.

Although the amendments mention 60 per cent. of schemes, they would affect only 1 per cent. of members of schemes. The amendments would save huge amounts of bureaucracy, but 99 per cent. of members would still be covered by a risk-based levy. That is the neat combination that would be achieved by amendments (a), (b) and (c).

In the other place, Baroness Hollis said, in objecting in principle to a risk-based levy, that

"there will be a number of extremely small eligible schemes that are required to pay the levy—applying an extremely complex risk-based calculation to schemes, which might have 10, 20 or perhaps 40 members, would be a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut—and providing the required information may be overly burdensome and costly for the scheme."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 November 2004; Vol. 666, c. 490.]

The House will accept that we have gone further even than the noble Lady suggested by relieving the PPF of the burden of that work for schemes of up to 100 members. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment, given that generosity of spirit and the attempt to address the concerns of the noble Lady.

I believe that the noble Lady last night expressed concern that the amendment had been tabled late in the day, but one of the reasons for that was that the concerns about small firms had been used as an argument to resist risk-based levies. The Government only last night accepted the principle of risk-based levies—it was not until we saw today's amendment paper that we learned of the Government's amendments to Lords amendment No. 298—and our amendment is a tidying-up amendment.

Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that he had seen the Government's amendment before tabling his amendment?