27 Feb 2007 : Column 1485
House of Lords
Tuesday, 27 February 2007.
The House met at half-past two: the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich.
Pensions: NHS
Viscount Trenchard asked Her Majesty’s Government:
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the accounts were made available on the NHS pension website on 26 February 2007 and in printed format on 27 February 2007. I declare an interest as a preserved member of the NHS pension scheme.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and for his open acknowledgement that the accounts were made available only late last night. I am not surprised, especially given that the noble Lord has an interest in this matter, that the Government were not keen to make these accounts available to the public as early as they might have done; they indicate that the liabilities of the National Health Service pension scheme have increased over the past year by some 26 per cent to £165.4 billion and that the net deficit to be funded by the taxpayer in the current year has increased by no less than 45 per cent to some £9.3 billion. Is the Minister aware that public sector resource accounts are required by law to be published by 31 January and that these accounts, bearing the date 26 February, are therefore nearly four weeks beyond the statutory publication date and 11 months out of date? Further—
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, further, is the Minister aware that the Treasury’s faster closing initiative requires that public sector resource accounts be made available by the Summer Recess? Can he—
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, can he give the House an assurance that the next set of accounts will be made available by the Summer Recess?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, NHS pensions are a source of endless fascination for some of us. The statutory deadline for laying the scheme accounts is 31 January, and the accounts were laid before Parliament on 30 January. I said in my Answer that the accounts that I referred to were made
27 Feb 2007 : Column 1486
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I, too, declare an interest as a National Health Service pensioner following my 35 years of dentistry. Can the Minister assure all NHS pensioners that their pensions are safe? That is what everyone worries about today.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am delighted to pay tribute to the dedication of the noble Baroness in her service to the NHS not only as a dentist but as chair of an NHS trust. If I may say so, the NHS pension scheme is a very good scheme and one in which I have confidence.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, is not the real problem the fact that the Government completely lost control of the doctors' pay bill? They have had increases of between 30 per cent and 60 per cent in the past three years. An average GP is now earning more than £100,000 a year. That means that, retiring today, they are on a pension pot which would cost £1.25 million to buy in the private sector. Is not the real problem that, for many years to come, that will gobble up all the increase in national health spending?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords, that is a rather bleak picture. The noble Lord will know that in fact the Government have been criticised by the general practice committee of the BMA for recent decisions taken over the dynamisation of the value of the GP pension fund. Yes, there have been issues about the cost of the contracts, but they are about incentivising doctors—consultants and GPs—to enhance the services that they give patients. Encouraging signs are emerging on that basis.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, given that the private sector final salary pension schemes have all but been closed because of the Chancellor’s raid on them by changes in taxation—among other things—how can the Minister possibly pretend that it is sustainable to continue with final salary pension schemes in the public sector with a retirement age of 60? Surely it is a fraud on pensioners to pretend that that is sustainable; it is not.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that the Government reached agreement on changes for the Civil Service, teachers and NHS pension schemes, which are subject to negotiation—certainly for the NHS. Some provisions are for new employees not to receive pension from the
27 Feb 2007 : Column 1487
Anatole Kaletsky, writing in the Times on 19 October 2006, stated:
“Anybody with a thorough understanding of pensions knows that Mr Brown’s ‘tax raid’ was not the root cause of the industry’s demise. Occupational pensions and life assurance were destroyed by foolish court judgments and well-meaning but misconceived regulations under the Thatcher and Major governments”.
Energy: Government Department
2.42 pm
Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether they are considering the creation of a separate department, at Cabinet level, to deal with energy in all its aspects.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there are currently no plans for the creation of a separate department to deal with energy in all its aspects.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that, when the former Department of Energy was abolished in 1992, there was an abundant supply of oil, coal, gas and other energy sources, prices were low and the environment was not a major item on the agenda? Is not the situation now entirely different? We face a serious threat of energy insecurity, prices are high, fuel poverty is a serious social issue and the environment is very high on the agenda. In those circumstances, should not the Government seriously consider, along with other apparent changes in departmental responsibilities, the re-creation of a Department of Energy at Cabinet level to bring a focus to those crucial issues, as cogently argued by the noble Lords, Lord Whitty, Lord Patten, Lord Palmer, and others?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that the energy position is vastly different from that in 1992. The Government recognise that in their policies on energy supply and its guarantee, and environmental issues. The noble Lord will not mind if I say on this occasion that not all issues are reducible to the machinery of government, but he will recognise that collaboration between government departments is important in this area, and a Cabinet committee chaired by the Prime Minister deals with energy and the environment.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, as the last Secretary of State for energy, I agree entirely with his answer? It is not the reshaping of portfolios that is required but the right decisions. There are some very tricky decisions to be made, and it is about time that the Government got on and made some of them.
27 Feb 2007 : Column 1488
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his first comment. These decisions are a little more than tricky; they are very difficult indeed. The future and well-being of our people and the future of the wider environment in terms of world climate change depend upon our following the right strategy. That is why the Government are making the environmental dimension such a high priority. The climate change Bill will be brought before this House in the very near future. However, I agree with the noble Lord wholeheartedly that the issue revolves around accurate and correct decision-taking by government.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, with renewable energy being so important and, rightly, now at the top of the Government’s agenda, four different ministerial departments currently have to deal with renewable energy issues. Given that, does the Minister agree that the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has great merit?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord will recognise that, because of the diverse nature of renewable energy sources, the issues will always span more than one department. So the issue is the overall strategy that the Government need to pursue and the targets they need to hit rather than the creation of specific government departments.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me. In our recent debate on the electricity industry, I referred to the appointment in the DTI of Mr Mark Higson as head of its nuclear consultation and liabilities team. I believe that his role will be to remove the barriers to new nuclear build. Does the noble Lord recognise that this includes responsibility for radioactive waste management policy? With the Select Committee studying this issue, we recently saw a Defra Minister. Who is now actually responsible for radioactive waste policy? Is it Defra or is it Mr Higson in the DTI?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government draw on expertise wherever they can in tackling these issues, but the lead department with responsibility for nuclear waste management policy is Defra.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, what is Mr Higson’s role?
Lord Teverson: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the climate change Bill. Can he confirm that a substantial climate change Bill will be brought forward during this Session rather than having, as was reported in the press recently, just a pre-legislative session as opposed to consideration of a full Bill? Can he confirm that the full legislation will come before Parliament during this Session?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord’s Benches are the most enthusiastic about pre-legislative scrutiny of any government Bill. I can at least promise him that there will be pre-legislative scrutiny, so he ought to be entirely satisfied.
27 Feb 2007 : Column 1489
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, will the Minister kindly give a very short definition of Mr Higson’s role?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, identified, Mr Higson’s role is in the Department of Trade and Industry.
Baroness Trumpington: Doing what, my Lords?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am answering questions for the Cabinet Office on the machinery of government, so it is not entirely surprising that I do not have itemised in my brief the contribution made by every civil servant to this issue. Although I have the greatest respect for that official’s role and the contribution he will make, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, asked me about the responsible department, and I answered that question accurately.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, does the Minister believe that there is any virtue in the suggestion that when someone, even in the Cabinet, proposes the creation of a new department, they should simultaneously nominate a department that should be got rid of instead?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that would be a welcome development but a novel one.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I wish to follow the point made by my noble friend Lord Teverson. The Minister said that the climate change Bill would be before the House “in the very near future”. Will he confirm that that is what he meant by those words, and will he define “the very near future”?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I was describing the process of pre-legislative scrutiny, on which the noble Lord had questioned me. I merely indicated that we would be engaged in that process in the very near future. I recognise that we are not as far advanced with the climate change Bill as we had once hoped, but there is no doubt about the importance that the Government attach to this legislation. It is equally important that we get it right, and pre-legislative scrutiny will contribute to that.
Lord De Mauley: My Lords, do the Government prefer arrogance or incompetence as the explanation for their role leading to the High Court’s decision on the nuclear energy case last week?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government have recognised the High Court decision; we are abiding by it and are therefore extending the consultation. The whole House will recognise the enormous pressures on the Government on energy decisions—much of it from many parts of this House with regard to nuclear development. Nevertheless, the High Court indicated that the consultation had not been as extensive as it might have been. The Government will ensure that extensive consultation takes place before decisions are taken.
27 Feb 2007 : Column 1490
Food: Salt Content
2.51 pm
Lord Harrison asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What steps they will take to ensure further progress in the reduction of the salt content of supermarket economy food ranges.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Food Standards Agency is working with all sectors of the food industry to reduce levels of salt in food. The FSA believes that salt reduction should apply to all products in a company’s portfolio, whether they are standard, premium or value lines.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that to maximise the public health benefits associated with the reduction of salt in manufactured foods and products, especially in the economy range of those items, food manufacturers as a group and the supermarkets must act in a co-ordinated way? Does he agree that building on the successes of the recent campaigns sponsored by the NCC, the FSA and the Government would bring enormous benefit to the most vulnerable in society—children, the elderly and those in low-income households?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords, I pay tribute to the industry—the manufacturers and retailers—for the work that it has done with the FSA and the development of voluntary targets. The NCC survey showed that 35 per cent of economy products surveyed met the FSA salt targets compared with 44 per cent of non-economy products. There is some way to go. We would like to see the gap closed between economy and other products, and those targets are due to be met by 2010. We are encouraging the industry to go faster, but we acknowledge the work that it has carried out so far.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, the products that have been referred to are obviously important because they apply to the most deprived in society, but do the Government have plans to introduce a compulsory salt limit if voluntary action fails to meet the necessary target? Will the same approach be applied to processed foods, which remain too high in saturated fats and sugar? When will such a statutory limit be imposed in the future?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, these are clearly matters for the Food Standards Agency to consider, but, so far as salt is concerned, it prefers a voluntary approach at the moment. That must make sense, as the industry has met with the FSA, has agreed to voluntary targets and is clearly making progress. It surely makes sense to work with the grain there.
Baroness Neuberger: My Lords, given that everyone in this House will know that bread is the biggest source of salt in the UK diet, will the Minister
27 Feb 2007 : Column 1491
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, there is currently no legal requirement to declare the quantity of salt, although the amount of sodium must be given if a low-sodium or low-salt claim is made. Much of the legislation around the labelling of food is controlled by European legislation, and we are in constant discussion with Europe. In the mean time, though, one must pay tribute to the work of the FSA in generally encouraging companies to introduce labelling. There are signs of considerable success in this area. We should simply continue the efforts to encourage more labelling and to make it more transparent and easily understandable.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will take this unnecessary and vitriolic assault on salt with a pinch of salt.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is very difficult to follow that. Let us be clear: salt has many attributes. The approach of the FSA with the industry is gradually to reduce the level of salt so that the daily intake comes down but essentially consumers do not know the difference. None the less, salt is still being used to give flavour—bread without salt is not a great thing to eat—as a preservative and in other good ways.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, following my noble friend’s earlier reply, it is a great concern that at the moment there seems to be a stand-off between the Food Standards Agency and the supermarkets on labelling. Will the Minister ensure that the simplest and most easily understood method of labelling for all products in our food, whether salt or other ingredients, will be the final outcome of the deliberations that I know the Government are embarked on?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this is a question of the food traffic light system that the FSA has developed, which some supermarkets are not using, although many are. I draw noble Lords’ attention to a survey published by the BBC this morning that shows that the public overwhelmingly support traffic light food labelling because it is much more straightforward and easy to understand.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |