Wales Bill

Debate between Glyn Davies and Jonathan Evans

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the occasion of the Bill’s return from the House of Lords in much improved form, if I may say so. In general, I welcome the Bill although I am concerned about some elements. Perhaps it is a Welsh trait that we can never completely agree on things, and I want to touch on one issue where I am not in agreement.

What I welcome in particular is the new reality of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition shaping the process and future of devolution and driving forward, leaving—if I may say so to the shadow Secretary of State—Labour languishing in its wake. He may describe that as a U-turn, but that is the reality today. I want to make just one important point, which is very much a personal view. I disagree with one specific aspect of the Bill, but I would like to emphasise my overall support: it is a very good and welcome Bill.

I would like to put my point in context by painting some background to my personal journey in the devolution debate. I was not in favour of the form of devolution on offer in the referendum on 18 September 1997. It seemed to me to be creating a permanently unstable constitutional settlement. A settlement is the last thing it was. I attended the count in Llandrindod Wells leisure centre, watching the TV coverage as the decision of the voters of Wales came through and they decided in favour of establishing a national assembly for Wales. I drove home knowing that there was no going back. The people had spoken, albeit by a tiny margin of 0.6%. We were now facing an entirely new question: how would devolution work in practice? I concluded immediately that the new Welsh Assembly would eventually become a law-making, tax-raising Parliament based in Wales. That has influenced my thinking on the issue ever since. I did not want to be dragged, kicking and screaming, and trying to refight the 1997 devolution referendum. I preferred to get ahead of the curve and identify where we were going to get to, and move towards that in a positive and smooth way. That was not a change of mind, but a recognition of a new reality.

[Jonathan Evans]

My hon. Friend, through his service in the Assembly, has been one of the individuals who has encapsulated the position adopted by the Conservative party. Although the party battled against establishing the Assembly in the first place, and although the margin was only 4,000 in a million, nobody could claim other than that my hon. Friend and the party in Wales have not been dragged back to the previous debate, but have moved forward and sought to make a success of the devolution settlement.

[Glyn Davies]

Nowhere has that been more obvious than in the contribution from those on the Front Bench when we started today’s debate.

The Government of Wales Act 2006, introduced by the Labour party, moved things forward quite a lot, as did the 2011 referendum in relation to tax-raising powers. The Wales Bill takes us further down the road to what I consider to be the inevitable conclusion, but not far enough for me on tax levying responsibility. I will be blunt about my view: it is a mistake that the Bill requires a referendum before devolving responsibility for levying part of income tax collection to the Welsh Government. That is properly an issue for a general election. The Welsh Government are not financially accountable to the people of Wales until they are responsible for levying a degree of income tax. It is also my personal view that financial accountability through responsibility for income tax is so fundamental to a proper, grown-up National Assembly for Wales and Welsh Government that we should not devolve extra responsibility until this principle is accepted—no financial accountability, no new powers.

The First Minister, and perhaps Labour Members here on the Opposition Benches, do not want financial accountability. How convenient it is to bask in the credit of every spend that the people of Wales approve of and blame the UK Government for every difficult decision needed to bring order to the United Kingdom’s finances. We see the First Minister in Wales scrabbling around for any reason he can come up with to avoid committing to a referendum. First, it was lockstep, which is removed by the Bill. Then it was the Barnett deficit, until it became clear that it is a rather smaller Barnett deficit than we thought. I hear now that air passenger duty might be another reason, and if that is resolved, there will be another one. The reality is that Welsh Labour in Cardiff is desperate to avoid financial accountability. It does not want to be properly financially accountable to the Welsh people.

Liverpool Care Pathway

Debate between Glyn Davies and Jonathan Evans

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Mr Weir, I would like to say how much of a pleasure it is to serve under the chairmanship of a fellow Celt. I declare an interest as a board member of Living and Dying Well, which specialises in research into and opposition to the legalisation of assisted suicide.

I shall begin with a summary of the current position. The “Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient” was developed by the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute Liverpool as a framework for health professionals to use to ensure that people who are dying have as comfortable and dignified a death as possible. The pathway was developed and has been in use since the 1990s. Today, about 130,000 of the 450,000 patients who die in hospital care every year die while being cared for on the pathway. It has also been exported and is now in use in more than 20 other countries.

However, during the past few months, the Liverpool care pathway has been the subject of some very serious criticisms and allegations in the media, which has led to questions about whether it is indeed a worthy process. I shall explain why I sought this debate and the outcomes that I would like to achieve before considering in greater detail the criticisms that have been made of the pathway.

By any measure, the Liverpool care pathway plays a very significant role in how the end of life is managed in our country. Its role is much greater than most of us realise: 30% of patients who die in hospital care die while on the pathway. The sheer scale of this is why I believe that debate about it is too important to be led by national newspapers, although I certainly do not criticise those newspapers for reporting stories in the way they have done. Indeed, they have served a valuable purpose by raising public awareness of such an important issue. However, there is, almost inevitably, a tendency for newspapers to couch the debate in sensationalist terms. It is up to us as parliamentarians to ensure that this complex and potentially controversial issue is subject to balanced and thorough debate in the House of Commons.

The outcome that I seek today is calm reflection by parliamentarians, including those on the Front Benches, on this most sensitive of issues—calm reflection on the issues without encouraging the spread of alarm and despondency among those entering care, which can result from sensationalist allegations. I also seek a response from Government—from the Minister—that they will ensure that the review on which they have already embarked includes careful and thorough investigation of the allegations that have been made of bad practice. It is important to know whether the allegations are accurate and, if they are, where the weaknesses lie and what needs to be done to put those matters right.

I am a supporter of the Liverpool care pathway, but my aim today is not to defend or to attack the pathway, those who have made allegations of shocking bad practice, or the media, which have given the allegations such great publicity. It is to promote open and genuine debate in Parliament. In any case, I am not in a position to judge how much substance there is to the various criticisms that have been made, but I do know that we cannot avoid death and I also believe that most people do not fear death so much as they fear the process of death. The aim of the Liverpool care pathway is to ensure that the process is as compassionate, dignified and free from pain and discomfort as possible and, importantly, consistent with public safety. Our aim should be that the pathway is used in a way that retains public confidence—that it is being used in accordance with the principles on which the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute developed it.

I hope that the Minister will agree that we must ensure that the pathway is subject to the very highest levels of scrutiny and that the framework can be allowed to be implemented only against a background of total transparency. There must be discussion with patients or with patients’ families or carers and there must be clearly available avenues through which complaints and concerns can be channelled. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the very serious allegations reported in the media will be thoroughly investigated and that, if any examples of bad practice are found, action will be taken to expose those responsible, to hold them to account and to do everything possible to prevent it from happening again. The experiences at Winterbourne View and hospitals in Worcestershire and the appalling and chilling events that took place in Stafford are too raw in the memory to allow anything else. It is only through audit and disciplinary measures, if and when appropriate, that the Liverpool care pathway will retain the integrity needed for it to be acceptable and the confidence of those who might use it.

Two years ago, I had never heard of the Liverpool care pathway. I first took an interest in it as a consequence of my concerns about and opposition to the legalisation of assisted dying. I was hugely surprised by how widely the pathway was in use. I had no idea that 130,000 patients in hospital care died while on the pathway every year and I do not think that many people realise that today.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to a fellow Celt. I congratulate him not just on securing the debate, but on the tone in which he has introduced it. He referred to the number of people who are on the Liverpool care pathway, but to help the debate has he done any work on the expansion in numbers since the 1990s? Did we swiftly move to 130,000? Is that a consistent number, or has there been a gradual increase over time? I ask that because of course it is the rolling out of the pathway that may lead to some people having less expertise—less skill—and then, as a result of that, some of the instances that my hon. Friend refers to some poor reporting of?

[Glyn Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the need for training and expertise for all those who are responsible for putting people on the pathway and for looking after them when they are on it. I want to come to that later in my comments.

The negative coverage in our national media has probably increased awareness of the Liverpool care pathway. To that extent, I think that it has been a very good thing, but because I do not believe that the scale of the pathway is widely known, I think that it is right to say something about what the Liverpool care pathway is and what it is not in order to set out the context of the debate,. It is certainly not and must never be any form of “euthanasia by the back door”—a phrase that I have heard—nor is it a form of clinical treatment or even any specific type of care. It does not instruct doctors or nurses to provide this or that treatment. What it does is prompt them to consider whether certain treatments are appropriate in individual circumstances. It supports—it does not replace—clinical care. It is no more than a framework of good practice, backed up by training and education, to guide doctors, nurses and other health professionals towards delivering the high levels of palliative care that have been available in hospices for many years. It enables them to be transferred to hospitals, care homes and patients’ homes. It is about the appropriate way to look after a patient who is clearly dying through the last few days and hours of life.

Some other points should be made in this debate. The Liverpool care pathway does not recommend, as some have suggested, that dying patients should be deprived of food and water, although food and water may be withdrawn in individual cases if clinicians believe that that is the right step to take. The Liverpool care pathway does recommend to doctors and nurses that they explain to dying patients, or more often their next of kin, exactly what is happening and why. Secrecy forms no part of the Liverpool care pathway whatever.

It is also important to emphasise that there is nothing irreversible about being placed on the Liverpool care pathway.

Stoma Care

Debate between Glyn Davies and Jonathan Evans

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for that generous introduction. It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship for the first time in my political career, and I hope that I will enlighten you.

Every year, more than 40,000 people in this country are diagnosed with bowel cancer. Bowel cancer is the UK’s second biggest cancer killer, but if found early enough, 90% of patients can be treated successfully. Often, colon or bladder surgery will lead to the fitting of stoma products or bags. Two thirds of such patients are estimated to need stoma care for the rest of their lives. With more advanced screening and the excellent work that is being done to raise awareness, it is expected that those patient numbers will only rise to even higher levels.

Valuable work is being done by many charities in this sector, and I give particular praise to Lynn Faulds Wood for her efforts in highlighting the prevalence of bowel cancer and for campaigning for greater awareness and early intervention. The charity Beating Bowel Cancer has designated this week as “be loud, be clear” week, and the charity is at Westminster today—its members are at the Speaker’s apartments as I speak—raising awareness among our parliamentary colleagues.

We are all in debt to such individuals and organisations for their campaigning work, but I want to make it clear that the focus of this debate is not on the challenges of bowel cancer itself, but on two specific concerns in relation to the current operation of stoma care—the care of those who have had colon or bladder surgery and require the fitting of medical devices, such as stoma bags. My concern relates to the private commercial sponsorship of stoma nurses and the potential impact of major changes that are being discussed between private sector manufacturers and primary care trusts that might eliminate any patient choice in relation to the medical appliances that they receive.

I am grateful to the three major patient groups in this sector—the Colostomy Association, the Urostomy Association and the Ileostomy and Internal Pouch Support Group—all of which have supported me in drawing attention to these issues and provided helpful background information.

Let me set this debate in context. There is almost daily comment about the Government’s proposed reforms of the NHS, and any such debate regularly throws up the charge that change in the NHS inevitably means privatisation of the NHS. Only last week, the House debated those issues, and over the weekend the head of the Royal College of Nursing added his voice, on behalf of the nursing profession, to those who are calling on the Government to abandon their reforms. It has therefore been a major surprise to discover over the past 18 months that the vast majority of NHS nurses who provide stoma care through health trusts in the UK actually have their salaries met by private commercial sponsors.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

I am one of the 40,000—I contracted bowel cancer in the past and have had a colostomy. I also have a commercially sponsored stoma nurse, who is a guardian angel. We need to realise that a number of stoma nurses are marvellous. My stoma nurse made it clear to me that there were alternative products that I could have used, but it so happens that I accepted one from the same company that was paying for her. It was clear that I could choose any product that I wanted, and I was not put under any pressure.

[Jonathan Evans]

I respect my hon. Friend’s views on many matters and also have only praise for stoma nurses, but that does not take away many of the concerns in relation to sponsorship. Sponsors have a direct interest in the clinical decisions made by nurses, because they are the manufacturers of the products that are being prescribed under the NHS.

If the Secretary of State for Health had proposed the introduction of such an arrangement—the sponsorship of nurses by commercial organisations—as part of his current reforms, we can imagine the outrage it would have produced. “Newsnight” and the “Today” programme would have relentlessly questioned the Minister. We might even have seen a “Panorama” special on the BBC. The reality is that this extraordinary situation started more than 30 years ago and expanded to its current pre-eminence during the years of the previous Government.

The concept was thought up not by the commercial firms themselves, but by the health care trusts, which first approached the manufacturers to explore the commercial opportunities. The Department of Health does not appear to have played any part in the dialogue, not even in terms of establishing a protocol that could reassure the public that commercial sponsorship does not impact upon clinical judgment, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) has said that he is satisfied that that was not the case in his experience.

Organ Donation

Debate between Glyn Davies and Jonathan Evans

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

This is the first time I have served under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby, and it is a pleasure to do so.

I have several brief comments to make before I start on the substance of my speech. First, I must declare an interest, although not a pecuniary one. I am a member of the Kidney Wales Foundation and it is important that I make that clear at the start. I have been interested in this subject for many years because a very dear friend of mine was one of the first to receive a heart and lung transplant at Papworth. She died about two months ago, but for 20 years we discussed the subject on a monthly basis. We did not agree, but our discussions inspired my interest in transplantation as a whole. In particular, we worked on local dialysis provision in Montgomeryshire.

I thought very carefully about becoming involved in a high-profile way because most of my friends and colleagues in the Kidney Wales Foundation take a different view from me. I am not in favour of presumed consent, whereas nearly all of them are. In my view, the way forward is to ensure that everyone knows about the issue so that people’s views are known when they die. Having a public debate is in itself a very good thing to help to achieve the objectives I want.

I think we all agree about the need to increase the availability of organ donors—those who are in favour of presumed consent and those who want to retain the informed consent system. The difference is that I do not believe that presumed consent will deliver an increase in organs for transplant. The evidence tells me that it makes no difference. The reason I sought this debate is that the Government in Wales have proposed to opt for presumed consent, which would inevitably have an impact on the rest of the United Kingdom and makes this a very proper debate for this Chamber.

I must make it clear that my opposition to presumed consent has nothing to do with ethics or morality, though I believe that there is a strong ethical case for opposition to it. Others, including the Archbishop of Wales, have articulated the ethical arguments much better than I can. It cannot be right to interpret the absence of an objection as a considered declaration of support. They cannot be seen as the same thing. Changing the system from an act of giving by the citizen to an act of taking by the state is a genuine ethical consideration, but my opposition to presumed consent is based not on ethics but on efficacy. There is simply no firm evidence that it will deliver any more organs for transplant.

In the final years of the previous Labour Government, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), began advocating presumed consent, as some hon. Members here may remember. He established a Department of Health organ donation taskforce. I believe that the chief medical officer at the time also supported a change to presumed consent. The taskforce was instructed to examine presumed consent in detail and to provide a report for the Government. The taskforce consisted of a large committee of specialists under the chairmanship of Dame Elisabeth Buggins, with several sub-committees to consider particular issues. Its report, published in 2008, made it absolutely clear that presumed consent was unlikely to increase organ donation rates in the UK and risked diverting substantial resources—it would cost £45 million to establish and several million pounds a year thereafter—from effective solutions. The report is the most comprehensive analysis of presumed consent ever carried out. It runs to several hundred pages.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

I have a copy of the Buggins report here. Did my hon. Friend take from his reading of it the fact that at the beginning of the process many of the people who were part of the taskforce were strongly in favour of presumed consent, and it was as a result of the detailed work undertaken that their viewpoint came to be changed? That was a crucial part of what emerged from the report and is highlighted in the conclusions.

[Glyn Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Because of the brief that the British Medical Association has circulated to Members, I want to quote the report’s conclusions so that we know what the taskforce actually said. One of the main recommendations states:

“The Taskforce’s members came to this review of presumed consent with an open mind, with many sympathetic”

to presumed consent. It went on:

“the more the Taskforce examined the evidence, the less obvious the benefit, and the more multifaceted and multidimensional the issue of increasing donor numbers was revealed to be…The Taskforce reached a clear consensus…that an opt out system should not be introduced”

as it could impact negatively on organ donation.

I was quite shocked to receive the BMA parliamentary brief because it sets out without the slightest doubt to give the impression that the taskforce recommended the opposite of what it did recommend. That is verging on a lack of professionalism. I have huge respect for the BMA and I was very disappointed to receive its parliamentary brief. It will seriously damage my confidence in such briefs in the future, whereas I depended on them in the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Glyn Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I referred to Spain because that is the example that all those who seek presumed consent have quoted for many years. I then referred to Belgium because when it was shown that the evidence from Spain did not support that argument, the example then used was Belgium. If there is evidence from 22 more countries, then I will have to see the results from them as well. I just do not accept that the international evidence supports the move to presumed consent at all.

[Jonathan Evans]

I would like to explore this issue for slightly longer. The evidence indicates that what is important is the awareness, not the presumed consent. The Minister, on a point that I hope to raise with her later, wrote to me to indicate that awareness-raising, from just undertaking the taskforce report, has resulted in donation rates increasing by 28% over the last three years. Nobody could say that that is because of the system – it is because of communication and information.

[Glyn Davies]

I am hoping to come to this issue if I have time at the end of my speech. It is a crucial issue. I value the help that the British Medical Association has given me over the years. However, the Parliamentary brief from the BMA, which I referred to before, shocked me a bit; so I have gone to some trouble to understand its position. The BMA agrees with the move to presumed consent, and has done for many years. The position of the BMA is of great interest. It has been a vocal supporter of presumed consent since it adopted the policy in 1998, long before the report of the organ donation taskforce, which was a comprehensive study into the issue.

The BMA’s current position was overwhelmingly endorsed a few months ago at its annual representatives meeting, a very important meeting which was held in Cardiff and attended by hundreds of doctors representing regional groups throughout the United Kingdom and some special interest groups. Many dozens of motions were discussed over three days and votes are taken. A vote of 51% of those in the hall makes what is being discussed policy for the BMA. It seems scarcely credible that an important organisation can make policy on a complex issue in this way—as a sort of public speaking competition, rather than on the basis of detailed research. I do not accept that the BMA’s position on presumed consent can be treated seriously until it reforms the way it makes policy on complex issues. Given the influence of the BMA on public opinion, and that patients’ lives are at stake, there is a powerful moral obligation for it to undertake substantial research into this position before it continues to carry forward an issue that in my view damages the cause that it purportedly supports.

What is the way forward for patients who are at the heart of the debate? I want to come to the positive way forward. We know that the rate of organ donation is influenced by three crucial factors. The first is the number of potential donors. With rare exceptions, potential donors are comatose patients on life support machines in intensive care units. Inevitably, the level of intensive care provision is a crucial aspect of organ donation, and it is relatively poor in the United Kingdom.

That is one factor. Identification of all potential donors is another. Every patient who is a potential donor should be given the opportunity to become a donor, by early identification and discussion with his or her family. The Spanish have an extensive system of transplant co-ordinators, involving mainly part-time intensive care physicians. There is a lesson there for the UK.

Consent from the patient’s family is also key. This is influenced by background knowledge of transplantation and organ donation; the professionalism of timing, as to when we approach the family; trust in the medical profession and knowledge of their loved one’s wishes. Spain has a national training programme for its co-ordinators and a 24-hour information helpline open to the press and public, and places a high priority on public relations.

Consent cannot be legislated for. In 1990, the refusal rates in the UK and in Spain were the same, at about 40%. Over the last 20 years, the refusal rate in the UK has stayed roughly the same. In Spain, it has fallen gradually to the current level of 15%. There is a dramatic difference in what has happened in Spain, as a result of the systems outside presumed consent. That is the example that we should be following.

The second report of the organ donation taskforce recommended improvement in transplant co-ordination, which is being implemented. This is where the numbers I referred to earlier become apparent: the huge 25% rise in the UK and the 60% rise in Wales. It is a fantastic achievement. This is the approach we should be taking forward, which leads me to the final part of my speech this morning.

Pension Protection Fund

Debate between Glyn Davies and Jonathan Evans

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Evans]

I apologise for failing to mention the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). He regularly attends all such debates. I had presumed that he was present for the previous debate on Colombia, without realising that he also wished to contribute to this one. I am happy to put the record straight on that and to give credit to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd and his colleague, the hon. Member for Arfon, for their support for the ASW workers.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Following on from the intervention of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), many years ago, I met groups of people from ASW outside the National Assembly for Wales when they were explaining their case to Assembly Members. If we are going to have a successful pensions industry to which people are willing to contribute, we cannot let these things drift on for decades. This is not the only case, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on highlighting the issue.

[Jonathan Evans]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point and shall now endeavour to make some progress.

Ros Altmann’s letter continued:

“Literature from the government, the Financial Services Authority, the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority and everyone else contrasted the safety of final salary schemes with money purchase arrangements, where members’ pensions were not guaranteed”,

as we see from what happens on the stock market almost daily. That was the guarantee that ASW workers believed they had right up until July 2002, when the company went into liquidation. It was then that John Benson and his colleagues discovered that, despite years of parliamentary inquiry, debate and legislation on pensions, they were no better off than the MGN staff, whose pensions had been stolen. As Ros Altmann put it at the time:

“Simply to say it is a tragedy that thousands of people have had their pension expectations reduced is an insult to those who have suffered in this way. This is not an example of life’s unfairness; this is more like fraud. Other victims of mis-selling receive compensation. Having contributed their money loyally for 30 or 40 years, with the promise of a secure pension and no risk warning from anyone, many now find not that they will get a reduced pension but that they will get no pension at all.”

She went on to say that

“they would in fact have been better off throwing their contributions away, than putting them into their employer’s schemes. Is it any wonder that people are frightened of pensions and have lost confidence?”

The ASW scandal provoked a major campaign, which, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, began during his time at the Welsh Assembly. There was a call for action in this House and the workers were invited to No. 10 Downing street for tea and sympathy with Tony Blair, but more practical help was demanded by others in the House. I pay credit to the hon. Member for Cardiff West in that regard—he was certainly active on behalf of the pensioners—and to my good friend, the former Member for Eastbourne, Nigel Waterson, who played a leading role in supporting the workers and in highlighting the injustice of the situation. The Minister himself was also active and supportive in that debate. The campaign led to the establishment of the financial assistance scheme under the Pensions Act 2004.

At the time that the scheme was put in place, many believed that the outcome would guarantee 90% of expected pensions benefits for affected workers. I have read the parliamentary debates in which many members of the then Government expressed the joy with which workers would greet the news that 90% of their entitlements were safeguarded. Unfortunately, they were sold a line that was both simplistic and inaccurate.

Although schemes such as that for ASW provided up to 5% inflation proofing, the legislation cut it to 2.5%, less than half of the current level of inflation. Over time, that still further erodes the pension value and is further cut by the switch from RPI to CPI, which the Minister has also applied to the financial assistance scheme.

In parliamentary questions on 29 June 2009, one Member rightly exposed that deceit, although he was too courteous to suggest that the deception was in any way deliberate. He said:

“Does she”—

the then Secretary of State—

“accept that this 90 per cent. figure that she uses is highly misleading…because it is not just capped…there are big issues about the inflation protection? Does she accept that many pensioners will get much less than 90 per cent., and that over the years they will see annual falls in their real pensions? Will she look at those cases again?”—[Official Report, 29 June 2009; Vol. 495, c. 6.]

Of course, the hon. Member who was able to identify all those shortcomings is now the Minister himself. Let me make it clear that I am a strong admirer of the Minister. I believe that he is personally motivated to do all he can to help these cheated pensioners. I know that since the election he has met, on more than one occasion, with the ASW pensioners to examine any ways their plight can be alleviated. We are all aware of the difficult financial circumstances that the Government face. Nevertheless, Mr Benson and my constituents have pointed out to me that, in the run-up to the general election, both coalition parties heavily criticised the previous Labour Government for the shortcomings of this scheme. It was, therefore, a reasonable inference for them to draw that some action might be taken to address these failings if we were successful in the election.