Heath, Webb and Willis on Government, pensions, science, etc.

10.56.45am BST (GMT +0100) Sat 27th Jun 2009

• [Jun 25] David Heath (Somerton & Frome): I SHALL deal first with the points about the machinery of government. Alan Duncan has echoed things that I have said in the past about the way in which the Government changes departmental nomenclature and reorganises desks and offices apparently on a whim, without any thought for the consequences of those moves.

It worries me that we so regularly see changes to the structure of Government Departments that appear to be based mainly on the desire for titles for those in the Cabinet, rather than on a genuine cost-benefit analysis of how they will make the Government run better.

The reason for the changes that we are debating today is that that which was cast asunder has now been reunited, all in order to add to the splendour of the titles of the-what is called now?-the First Secretary of State. I think that that is now the principal title of the noble Lord Mandelson of Foy and Hartlepool, or wherever it was-

Andrew MacKinlay (Thurrock, Labour): The supreme pontiff.

• David Heath (Somerton & Frome): I am not sure whether the noble Lord Mandelson builds many bridges, but we shall see.

I do not think that this is the right way of doing business. I hope that we will eventually reach a point at which, if a Prime Minister wishes to change the structure of government, he will argue the case properly by putting a paper before the House and allowing Select Committees to consider the consequences, before then proceeding on a basis of knowledge and understanding of the properly projected advantages and disadvantages, rather than on the rather haphazard basis that we have at the moment.

Having said all that, these changes have been made and we need to respond to them in regard to the way in which we organise the Committees of the House. As the Minister knows, my hon. Friend Mr. Willis, Dr. Iddon and I have been discussing the consequences of the changes for the Science and Technology Committee. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Leader of the House did not immediately see the strength of the argument and just accept what was a perfectly proper request, particularly as it was backed up-as the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East said-by the learned societies, which know a thing or two about these matters.

The Science and Technology Committee, before it was renamed, was an ornament to the House. It was a very valuable body. I served on it for three years in what I like to think of as its golden age. It was a wonderful Committee, precisely because it did not have to spend all its time looking at the activities of a particular Department and because it could range so widely over the scientific and technological aspects of the way in which the Government operate and pick out the areas in which it had particular expertise, or draw on such expertise, in order to inform the House and the Government. That is why the terms of reference are so important. I am pleased that the Deputy Leader of the House expanded on the Committee's role in her own words as it is not said on paper. I hope that some sort of Pepper v. Hart procedure will be adopted in the House, so that there is no misunderstanding on the part of the Government as to the range of the Committee's activities.

In its previous manifestation, the Science and Technology Committee sometimes ran into difficulties. As the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East will remember, we received a very dusty response from the then Home Secretary when we were looking at aspects of the scientific response to terrorism. He made it very clear that he did not think that this was anything to do with the Science and Technology Committee and asked us please to poke our noses somewhere else rather than in his Department. He not only discouraged us from looking at what the Home Office was doing, but he actually put pressure on the Department for Transport to ensure that we did not know what that Department was doing either.

I hope that it will be very clearly understood in Government that the Science and Technology Committee has a roving brief, that it must be able to follow its nose in deciding what is appropriate for it to look at and that it must be able to define its own role. If it does so, it will be able to perform the very useful tasks that it has done previously and we should wholly welcome that.

In moving on to deal with pensions, let me say immediately that for me to talk about that subject in the presence of my hon. Friend Steve Webb or Sir John Butterfill is nonsense; I have nothing like their expertise and I will not pretend to have it. My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon will therefore explain the consequences of his amendment himself.

I was a little surprised to read in some of this morning's newspapers that the initiative to amend the pensions motion came from Mr. Cameron. When I looked at the amendment, I could not see his name. I could see the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Northavon and for Twickenham, Mr. Field and my hon. Friend Dr. Harris, but not the name of the right hon. Member for Witney, so I wondered how he could have been responsible for the Government's change of heart- [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton can explain.

Alan Duncan (Rutland & Melton, Conservative): Since I have been invited to explain, perhaps I could put it down to the unique influence in this House of both the Leader of the Opposition and myself.

• David Heath (Somerton & Frome): Unique and almost invisible! That is something on which we all congratulate the hon. Gentleman. Let us set that aside, however, and simply say that the strength of the argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon is about to adduce is so strong that it is unanswerable, so the Government will accept the amendment.

On a serious note, it is almost unbelievable to reflect how adept this House is at producing public relations disasters. To be asking for yet more taxpayers' money to support the MPs' pension scheme at the precise moment when there is so much criticism of what we do is quite extraordinary. That is why the amendment is so important. Is there a deficit? I understand that deficits are reported by actuaries, but I have no confidence in actuarial science. I suspect that exam papers for actuarial science are very similar to exam papers in economics; as it used to be said, the questions are the same each year, it is just the answers that change. Actuaries never seem to be consistent for more than one year, but there we are.

Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire): I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my welcome for the Government's acceptance of the amendment tabled by our hon. Friend Steve Webb. It is surely vital for the House to reduce the costs to the taxpayer-both in the short term and, as the Deputy Leader of the House pointed out, in the medium term, hopefully as a result of the Senior Salaries Review Board review-because it is simply unsustainable for us as MPs continually to go back to the taxpayer asking for more money for our pensions. It is unsustainable in terms of MPs' pensions and, ultimately, with so many people living longer, that kind of action is will be unsustainable in terms of public sector pensions more generally.

• David Heath (Somerton & Frome): My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the issue is longevity, as I suspect it is, some of our constituents will have an easy answer to the longevity of MPs-

Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove): Off with their heads.

• David Heath (Somerton & Frome): My hon. Friend reads my mind perfectly. Longevity is something we have to live with- [Interruption.] I am sorry. The view of the general public, rightly or wrongly, is that pension schemes are uniquely helpful to Members of Parliament. We must take account of public opinion in that respect.

We must take careful cognisance of a further reason): there is a problem with all public sector pensions. Unless we in the House can clearly demonstrate that we are taking a lead, we will not be able to introduce the necessary reforms to public sector pension schemes. Public sector pensions are not constructed in the same way as private sector pensions now are. There is an unsustainable difference, and unless we are prepared to take difficult decisions, we will not be able to square that circle. We will not persuade a single person working in the public sector that there is a necessity to reform pension schemes if we are unable to reform our own.

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative): I agree wholeheartedly that the consequences of longevity should be borne by the members of a scheme. Is Liberal Democrat policy therefore that the consequences of longevity should be borne, for example, in the police force scheme, by the policemen themselves, rather than by the taxpayer?

• David Heath (Somerton & Frome): There are real problems with the police scheme. As the hon. Gentleman might recall, I used to be chairman of the Avon and Somerset police authority. One of our recurrent problems in balancing our budget each year was the difficulty of paying for the police pension scheme. Many things are not clearly understood about the police pension scheme, not least the contribution made by police officers, but the difficulty has never been resolved.

The same applies to the pensions of chief fire officers, for instance. When I was leader of Somerset county council, I worked out that the council was sustaining in work or pension 10 chief fire officers, who tend to retire early and who had schemes that cost a lot of money. I do not resent public sector workers having adequate pensions, but we must accept that there will be increasing difficulties in paying for some of those pension arrangements out of the public purse. We must be honest about that, as we must be honest about all our difficulties with the national Exchequer and the deficits that we are building up. We must work out how to do so with respect for the individuals concerned, understanding the circumstances of those who work in the public sector while recognising that the current position is increasingly unsustainable.

Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove): I have listened with care to my hon. Friend's wise words. Does he agree that it is impossible for the House to change public sector pension arrangements for other groups until it has tackled the issue for Members of Parliament? It is no good taking splinters out of other people's eyes when we have planks sticking in our own.

• David Heath (Somerton & Frome): I always thought that the biblical expression was "mote", but perhaps we no longer refer to motes in the House. However, my hon. Friend is right.

Andrew Love (Edmonton, Labour): I have listened carefully to the debate, which seems to be ranging into parliamentary pensions under review by the Senior Salaries Review Body. Should Members of Parliament accept that review in totality before it reports?

Alan Duncan (Rutland & Melton, Conservative): It is part of a fragmented process.

• David Heath (Somerton & Frome): I note the comments of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton from a sedentary position, and he is right. We have not given a sufficiently clear brief as to what exactly we expect to emerge from the process. I seriously hope that when we ask external bodies to look at these matters, we accept the results of what they say. However, we also have to be aware of the context in which we work and, as I have suggested, set an example of how we expect pension schemes in the rest of the public sector to evolve. I would have some difficulty if the two were incompatible. That is my honest response. However, my argument has always been that when we ask independent bodies for their advice, generally we should accept it unless there are strong reasons not to do so.

As I said, I am no expert on pensions. It is important that we hear from those who are experts. They can ask all the difficult questions, such as those that Barry Gardiner put to the Deputy Leader of the House. I have great sympathy with her; a glazed look came over her eyes as she was asked those complicated questions, to which I certainly would not know the answer. On the basis that the Government are going to accept the amendment, I hope that we can agree to the motions. I also strongly welcome the fact that the Government have accepted, albeit with a slight time delay, our arguments on the Science and Technology Committee.

• . . Steve Webb (Northavon): I shall principally address the pensions issue before us, but I should like to place on the record my appreciation of the Science and Technology Committee, which has been chaired with exceptional ability by my hon. Friend Mr. Willis. His whole Committee has contributed a great deal to the House, and I am pleased that it will be able to continue to do so until the general election.

Amendment (a) stands in my name and those of Mr. Field and my hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). I shall seek to move the amendment formally at the end of this debate, but I should like now to address the reasons behind it. I would like to seek clarification from the Deputy Leader of the House, who I hope has had the chance to seek inspiration, on the issue that I raised in intervening on Sir John Butterfill. I apologise if I did not explain my question terribly clearly.

The motion in front of us says that the Exchequer contribution will be 28.7 per cent.; that much seems unambiguous. However, page 25 of the Government Actuary's report published in March 2009 says that the amount needed to clear the deficit is 8.5 per cent. per year; there are two components-the amount for the recurring liabilities and the amount to clear the historic deficit, and the second of those is 8.5 per cent. According to my maths, if we take 8.5 per cent. from 28.7 per cent., we end up with 20.2 per cent. I am aware that that 8.5 per cent. was 8.7 per cent. last year-and 28.7 minus 8.7 is 20, so I can see why that would have appeared to be the right number. This year, however, it does not appear to be the right number, as 28.7 minus 8.5 is 20.2.

I cannot see how what the Government's unamended motion proposes is consistent with the resolution of the House that the Exchequer contribution should be restricted to 20 per cent. I might simply be missing something; that is quite possible, given the technicality of the area. However, I hope that the Minister-perhaps with some advice-will clarify the point before the end of the debate. Whether the figure should be 20 per cent. or 20.2 per cent., amendment (a) is about this transitional year, prior to the Senior Salaries Review Body reporting on a more root-and-branch reform. I have a lot of sympathy for what the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West said about increasing retirement ages; that is a good direction in which to go. Pending that, however, what should we be doing for 2009-10?

We are all aware that the world has moved on. A 20 per cent. Exchequer contribution was first mooted two years ago, in 2007. That has been the backdrop to our deliberations for a two-year period, but we would all accept that the world of 2007 was very different from ours today. What seemed appropriate then as a cap on the Treasury contribution does not seem so now. It was a very different economic environment. That was not quite so before the crash, but we were certainly not in the full depths of the economic problems. The position of people in many other pension schemes was not as apparent as it is now, and public attitudes to the House were obviously different then.

I accept the point made by Mr. Drew. We should not apologise for existing or for the work that we do, and we should not give an inappropriate impression of the pensions and benefits that we receive. However, many of us feel that the world has simply moved on so much that it is inappropriate in 2009-10 to ask the taxpayer to make any additional contribution to our pensions in comparison with 2008-09.

It is sometimes suggested that that is a hair-shirt approach, but it is worth putting the issue in context. We are talking about the difference between an employer contribution of 28.7 per cent-or 20.2 per cent., which takes away the deficit bit for the sake of comparability; that is how I think it should be-and 18.1 per cent. or 18.3 per cent., depending on what people think the right number is. In other words, we are arguing about whether the taxpayer should put 20 per cent. or so or 18 per cent. or so of our salary into our pensions. Such figures would be beyond the dreams of avarice for anybody in the private sector and for quite a number of people in the public sector. Occasionally we need to remind ourselves that although, as the hon. Member for Stroud said, some people right at the top of the public sector in certain professions have exceptionally generous pensions, their numbers are relatively small. The vast swathe of public sector workers retire on vastly less generous pensions than we do.

One of the issues that has been raised is whether we should simply accept what review bodies say. It is a serious point; if we second-guess the independent review bodies and do a bit more of the hair-shirt, what is the point of those bodies? However, even those bodies accepted that we have to take account of the changing world in which we live.

I want to quote what Sir John Baker said in June 2008. He referred to the 2007 Senior Salaries Review Body report, which referred to the Exchequer cost of the accrual of benefits for MPs being in principle limited to 20 per cent. But he also stated, at paragraph 63, that

"the best solution would be for the Independent Body to continue to consider MPs' pension arrangements bearing in mind the unusual career pattern of MPs"-

that was the point that Barry Gardiner made-

"and the evolution of pensions in the public sector and wider economy."

That is the crucial phrase. In other words, even the independent review body was saying that these things are not set in stone, and that the world outside, public sector pensions and the wider economy are moving on. We in this House should therefore have discretion not always to have to wait for the next independent review, which might take 18 months or might not be due to report for another year. We have to make a decision more or less today, and in a sense we are probably nearly three months late in making it, because whatever we do will be backdated to 1 April.

Even Sir John Baker said that the independent body should bear in mind what is going on in the wider economy. Prior to the SSRB's report, we already know what is going on. Only this week, we had reports of the further demise of private sector final salary schemes, and it important that we as a House show that we know what is happening in the wider economy.

Andrew Love (Edmonton, Labour): We have a prominent but small scheme, and the question for us is whether we should give a lead to the private sector or whether, because the scheme is relatively small and funded, which is unusual in the public sector, we should be a lag indicator. That will be critical to how things evolve.

• Steve Webb (Northavon): That is a very thoughtful comment. In my view, we have to be a leading indicator. We must be able to consider what is happening in the public sector with some credibility. Public sector pensions are very diverse, and I do not have a blanket view about them. The amount that workers put in, the salary that they get, their job security and the physical demands on them are different, and there is not a one-size-fits-all answer to the public sector pension issue.

That is why our party believes in having, perhaps as the first act of a new Government, an independent commission, ideally with buy-in across the political spectrum, to review public sector pensions urgently. It could ensure that they are fair to the taxpayer, who makes a substantial contribution to them, and to public sector workers. Some of them at the top do extraordinarily well, but some at the bottom have pretty rotten jobs with pretty poor salaries and end up with pretty poor pensions. There is a balance to be struck, and if we want to say anything about later retirement ages, for example, it would be appropriate for us to have examined our own scheme first and been willing to take the relevant conclusions on the chin ourselves.

David Drew (Stroud, Labour): One point that must be addressed is that those who leave a scheme early often receive enhancements. There is a belief that those enhancements come almost from outer space, but in fact they come from the scheme. They have a disproportionate effect on lower-paid people who serve their full term and then end up with an even poorer pension.

• Steve Webb (Northavon): The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. We have been doing some research on local authority chief executives and senior officers, for example, who seem to retire very early and get substantial boosts to their pension on leaving. As he rightly says, that money comes from somewhere-either from other scheme members or from council tax payers, or I suspect from both. That needs to be addressed.

To return to our own scheme, the amendment argues that we should return the Exchequer contribution for 2009-10 to its 2008-09 level. As the debate has illustrated, there are a wide variety of ways of doing that. A number of my colleagues have said that we will already be putting £60-odd extra a month in as a result of the main motion, essentially reversing the pay rise that we have had, and that their preference would be for any further rebalancing in line with the amendment to come in the form of diminished scheme benefits rather than increased current contributions.

I have an open mind about what the right mixture is, but I would be happy to enter into conversation with the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West, the chairman of the trustees, and with the Leader of the House and her colleagues. Assuming that the amendment is passed, I will be happy to discuss with them how to achieve the right mixture in a way that deals with taxpayers' concerns but is fair to hon. Members.

Andrew Love (Edmonton, Labour): I thank the hon. Gentleman for being liberal in taking interventions. Is not the weakness of both the amendment and the motion that these ideas have been brought forward by Members of Parliament, for Members of Parliament? There is little or no trust outside in MPs taking decisions about themselves. Would it not therefore be better to refer all this to an independent body? I submit that the SSRB has not always been seen to be independent on public sector issues, so perhaps we should roll the whole thing into the Kelly review, which appears to have the confidence of the public and which will report later this year.

• Steve Webb (Northavon): One of my concerns about that suggestion is that it would mean yet more delay. As our debate has illustrated, these are complex matters. Bringing the review under a different review body, which would not quite have to start from scratch, but which would have to get up to speed quickly, could delay things further. Either way, we need a decision for 2009-10, and as I have said, we are already nearly three months late in making it. Until we have heard the views of independent experts, the public will expect us to make a decision now. They will judge what we do, and to go by the indications that we have been given in the past 24 hours, and certainly the feedback that I have received, the public welcome what we have done.

There is a slight danger of grandstanding. I am fully seized of that risk, but hon. Members might be interested to learn that some of the media comment about the amendment has almost been saying that this might be the moment when people finally get it. I would not be so arrogant as to suggest that that was down to me, but there is a sense of the commentators saying, "Perhaps we're seeing a change in mood." Given everything that we have been through, it might be helpful to us to send a signal that we are looking at things differently. I hope that that will be constructive, rather than to the detriment of other colleagues in the House.

Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey): Perhaps my hon. Friend will answer on the record a question that I have asked him privately): what independent authority or body supports the amendment? In other words, is there a case for his proposal being agreed to now, on the basis that people outside this place have said, "This is the right thing to do; therefore we should get on and do it"?

• Steve Webb (Northavon): My hon. Friend might have missed the bit when I dealt with that point. The independent Sir John Baker says in paragraph 63 that we should consider not just the normal matters, but

"the evolution of pensions in the public sector and wider economy."

In other words, we should not just take such decisions in a vacuum. He was talking about what the independent review bodies should do, but as we have to take an interim decision for ourselves, he has given us the authority to look at what is happening in the wider economy. That substantiates the case for saying that it is entirely appropriate for us to take into account, in our interim decision making, what is happening to public sector pensions, where retirement ages are rising, and what is happening in the private sector, where there are some dreadful things. That is only right and proper.

Before concluding, I would like briefly to thank the 23 hon. Members who supported early-day motion 1389, which was the precursor to amendment (a). I am grateful to them all, particularly Peter Bottomley, who was the one Conservative MP to give his support, four weeks ago. I was grateful for the support of the other 197 last night, which was obviously what clinched things. However, I am also grateful to those hon. Members who were willing to go out on a limb, because I am aware that I probably lost my copy of "How to Win Friends and Influence People" in raising the matter in the first place.

To reflect what Mr. Love said in his intervention, we need to move to a situation with pay and pensions where we hand decisions for wise and independent assessment over to those who are not seen to be partisan and who will take account of what is happening in the wider economy and the public sector, although it is also critical that we ask them the right question. I hope that we can reach that point after this interim year. I also hope that in responding to this debate the Deputy Leader of the House will say whether she feels that the substantive motion hits the 20 per cent., because I do not believe that it does. However, I would also commend amendment (a) to the House.

• . . Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough): Perhaps it is time for a change of mood. I have listened to most of this debate, which has been about the changes to Members' pensions, and I agree with Mr. Love. I have listened to Sir John Butterfill and my hon. Friend Steve Webb, who bring incredible expertise to this area, for which the whole House will thank them, but at the end of the day, unless things are done independently of the House of Commons, I suspect that the headlines that Mr. Drew constantly referred to in his contribution will continue, because journalists will simply wrap them up according to how they want to portray Members of Parliament. I thank those hon. Members for their contributions, none the less.

I want to make a brief contribution to the debate in order to thank the Deputy Leader of the House and the Government for the way in which the machinery of government changes have restored the Science and Technology Select Committee to the business of the House. I believe that the Government made a mistake in 2007 when they got rid of the Science and Technology Committee as a separate cross-Government scrutiny Committee. That occurred because of the speed of the changes that took place when the present Prime Minister took over; the speed with which the Departments were reorganised took everyone by surprise. He certainly did not consult me at the time; had he done so, I would have told him that certain responsibilities needed to be protected.

I am grateful for the speedy way in which the science Minister, Lord Drayson, responded within three days to the Leader of the House to say that our idea clearly needed support and that he supported it. I cannot remember a Minister responding to the Leader of the House in such a clear way before. That spoke volumes about how the House and the broader science community view the importance of science in tackling all the great global challenges that we face. It would be inconceivable for a Department the size of the new Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, with all its responsibilities, not to have anyone examining the very machinery that will deliver the changes. The changes could involve the environment, energy, the green technologies or the plethora of health reforms coming out of our laboratories and our pharmaceutical and technology companies. Without being able to scrutinise all those matters, the House, the Government and our nation would all be the poorer. I want to put on record our genuine thanks to the science Minister.

I also want to put on record my thanks to the many learned societies and organisations-including the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Royal Society, the Institute of Biology, the Institute of Physics, the Campaign for Science and Engineering and many others-that did not just sit and say, "Woe is us!", but wrote and lobbied the Government about the changes.

Above all, I want to thank the members of my present Committee, the Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills, including Dr. Iddon, who was in his place earlier, for the enormous job of work that they have done over many years-in some cases, since before I arrived here. We heard earlier about the distinguished contribution of my hon. Friend Mr. Heath to the Committee in its halcyon days.

This is probably the only chance that I will have to put on record my thanks to Dr. Ian Gibson, the former Member for Norwich, North. I do not wish to comment on the circumstances in which he left the House, but it is important to put on record his enormous contribution to the House and to science, including his work in supporting cancer charities. He encouraged the Government to introduce cancer plans and followed that up. He also worked on embryology, and we should acknowledge that the draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill was largely a result of his early work. I want to put on record my thanks to him, along with those of our Committee and, I hope, of the House, and to wish him well in his early retirement.

The machinery of government changes have raised a number of specific issues for science and technology. The Leader of the House wrote a letter to me in which she said that re-establishing the Science and Technology Committee,

"with a clear understanding that it will pursue a wide-ranging agenda"-

on science and technology across the House-

"offers the best solution".

Will the Deputy Leader of the House expand a little on that? I understand perfectly well why she does not wish to introduce new Standing Orders for a new Committee and instead to make all those arrangements under Standing Order No. 152, but for the Science and Technology Committee to work effectively, it is important that it has the power to scrutinise science budgets. The research councils spend the majority of the Government's money for pure science, and it is in respect of the protection of pure science that there is the greatest concern that the move into the new Department for Business, Innovation and Skills might see a shift towards greater transactional science and the use of science for business at the expense of basic pure science. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will be able to reassure me on that.

On the plight of universities, I am not betraying a confidence when I say that I had discussions this morning with the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge university, Alison Richard. She expressed very real concerns about how universities are going to be scrutinised within this massive new Department. I fully accept that my Committee will be able to look at the research elements of universities-that is right and proper-but issues related to teaching, undergraduate work, access to universities, how we keep our universities world class and so forth is a job for a Committee on its own, particularly given that a review of fees will take place and that the former Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills has committed to reviewing the form and function of higher education in the future.

As for the structure, the new Committee will have 14 members. I smiled earlier when Alan Duncan spoke about the Conservative party's passion for science. Adam Afriyie is a glowing example of that commitment, as he has maintained a huge desire to promote science on behalf of the Conservative party, and I pay tribute to him. I say to the Conservative Front Benchers, however, that although there were four Conservative members of the Committee since 2007, only one has ever turned up for active participation. Two members of the Committee-Nadine Dorries and Bob Spink-have never once attended a single Committee meeting.

Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire, Conservative): : Bob Spink is not a Tory.

• Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough): Well, he was when he became a member of the Committee. [Interruption.] I do not want to intrude on grief-or, perhaps, happiness, depending on which way one looks at it. With the exception of the fantastic contribution of Mr. Boswell, a fantastic member of the Committee, unless we get all the parties actively participating in scrutiny, the Select Committee will not achieve what it should. I say that in a good spirit, not in a negative manner.

Overall, I can tell the Deputy Leader of the House that we are delighted with the changes, as is the broader community of science. I only hope that the Committee will live up to the House's expectations in the few months before we have a general election and I retire for my pension.