The House will know that today at noon the nation will remember those who died in London in the terrorist attacks. I regard it as appropriate that we should join the nation in observing the two-minute silence when the House will be sitting, and I will interrupt business accordingly. I should be grateful if those responsible for chairing Committees would also make appropriate arrangements. Instructions will be issued to heads of departments so that those members of staff who wish to observe the two-minute silence should be enabled to do so. The House will also wish to know that I have received very many expressions of sympathy and condolence from the Speakers and the presiding officers of other Parliaments in all parts of the world. I will place these in the Library for the information of all Members.

Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 18 July—Second Reading of the Crossrail Bill.

Tuesday 19 July—Second Reading of the London Olympics Bill.

Wednesday 20 July—Motion to approve the draft Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order 2005, followed by remaining stages of The Regulation of Financial Services (Land Transactions) Bill.

Thursday 21 July—Motion on the summer recess on the Adjournment.

Friday 22 July—The House will not be sitting.

The House will not sit again until Monday 10 October, and the provisional business for that week, following the summer recess will be:

Monday 10 October—Remaining stages of the Civil Aviation Bill.

Tuesday 11 October—Remaining stages of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill.

. Wednesday 12 October—Opposition Day [6th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 13 October—A debate on combating benefit fraud on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Friday 14 October—Private Members' Bills.

Last week's business questions were, of course, dominated by the tragic events in London, as will this week's be, as we will break at midday to pay our respects to those who lost their lives.

The Prime Minister spoke yesterday about his plans to introduce new anti-terrorist legislation at the earliest opportunity, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition pledged the Conservative party's support for him as he seeks to do so. Will the Leader of the House indicate what timetable he envisages for such legislation to be introduced? He will have my personal support in ensuring that the legislation passes smoothly and quickly through the House, but I am sure that he will agree that we must not allow the recent terrible events to interrupt our normal democratic processes, otherwise the bombers will have achieved their objectives. So, may we have an early debate on the financial crisis facing many national health service trusts? In my constituency, the local primary care trust is asking doctors where it should make £8 million-worth of cuts. In other parts of the country, such as Hampshire, doctors are being warned that they may have to stop referring patients to hospital later this year. Will the Leader of the House allow the House time to debate how a big jump in Government spending on health can actually lead to health cuts in many parts of the country and to patients being denied the treatment they deserve?

May we also have an urgent statement from Health Ministers about the food supplements directive in the wake of yesterday's unwelcome decision by the European Court to overturn its preliminary ruling and uphold the forthcoming ban on many vitamins and supplements? Judging by the comments of the Prime Minister and other Ministers over the past few weeks, the Government finally appear to have understood the absurdity of the situation, but can the Leader of the House tell us what they plan to do about it?

Will the Leader of the House arrange for the House to be briefed before the recess about the threat of a withdrawal of services by criminal barristers who are in dispute with the Government over legal aid and who want to withdraw their services in September, before the House returns? He will share my concern about the implications of such a move for our court service. Can he give the House more information about what is happening and when we might expect a statement?

Finally, I congratulate the Leader of the House on his new weekly e-mail rounding up events in Parliament. But will he make doubly sure that the e-mail works? It has helpful links, but when I tried to use them last week I simply saw a sign saying "page unavailable". Next time, will he make sure that the e-mail works? I hope that it is only a blip in his plans for open government.

The Government are committed to bring forward further legislation to deal with the terrorist threat to the United Kingdom. Consistent with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, it is important that there is maximum opportunity for consultation and I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for his indication of continuing support from the Opposition; I recognise that that is so for all parties represented in the House. It is crucial that we move quickly to provide our security authorities with the appropriate powers that they need to deal with the threat to our society, but at the same time it is equally important that we get any new legislation right and that it is brought forward by consensus. I assure the hon. Gentleman, as I assure the House, that the Government will move quickly in that matter, but it is important that we get it right. That is our clear ambition.

The hon. Gentleman has obviously been reading back copies of Hansard, as the other matters he raised are familiar subjects that have been raised repeatedly at business questions. However, given the huge, record increases in health service funding under the Government, I do not accept that it is unreasonable to expect NHS trusts to manage their budgets properly. In the unlikely event that the hon. Gentleman were to have experience of government, I am confident that he would say the same. As the Government are finding enormous extra funds for our national health service, we rightly expect that money to be spent properly and effectively, according to sensible principles.

Questions on food supplements were raised yesterday and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave a clear answer on behalf of the Government. We want safe supplements to remain on sale, but we do not want to impose unnecessary burdens on industry and we want consumers to have a wide choice of supplements. We shall adopt those principles in ensuring that any legislation is dealt with sensibly and practically.

I have dealt recently with the question of legal aid funding for criminal barristers, which primarily concerns efforts by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to curb the considerable costs of long, complex trials. It seems to me wholly sensible, and in the interests of lawyers and their clients, that the costs of legal aid are properly administered and distributed to ensure that we continue to have the high standards in our courts that the country has always enjoyed.

I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman's computer did not work properly. Of course, that cannot possibly be the responsibility of the Government, but I am sure that someone can give him appropriate advice on accessing the right links.

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the proposed industrial action by cleaners employed by outside contractors, which is, I understand, due to take place next Wednesday? Can the Government use their good offices to try to ensure that people employed by contractors have the same conditions as those directly employed by the House, so that we do not have cleaners who are paid only £5 an hour, with no sickness pay and no pension? That is deplorable. We would not stand for it in our constituencies; we would make our protest, and we should do so here. As for the so-called rest rooms, I visited them only the other day. They are slums on our own doorstep. When we consider our accommodation for Members or Officers, why should our fellow citizens have as rest rooms places that Dickens would have recognised in his time? This is totally unacceptable. We must treat those who clean up after us properly and that includes those who are employed by contractors. Why have contractors in the first place?

My hon. Friend has made his point with his usual considerable force. I can assure him that I have looked to have the matter placed on the agenda for the next meeting of the House of Commons Commission.

Did the Leader of the House read in today's press reports of a £2 million donation to the Labour party? Does he agree that it raises important issues? Does he recall that on 16 December 2004 I asked his predecessor if we might have a debate on the report of the Electoral Commission, which made recommendations that would reduce the dependence of all parties on large donors and increase the number of smaller donations? His predecessor was sympathetic to the idea of a debate, but nine months later we still have not had it. May we have that debate?

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern. The matter has been discussed at length over many years, though he will forgive me if I remark that only rather more recently by Conservative Members than was the case, say, before 1997. I simply make that factual observation and make no criticism of the right hon. Gentleman for raising the issue. The matter seems to interest Conservative Members today in a way that it did not before, possibly indicating their lack of ambition to sit on this side of the House again, rather than remain where they are. These matters are important and the House should discuss them. Given the Conservative party's concern about them, it will no doubt devote some of its Opposition time to the matter.

In paying respects to all those who have been involved in working on the aftermath of last week's atrocities, we can barely begin to imagine the distress of those who have lost loved ones.

May I raise a difficult and sensitive question? I intend no reflection on the excellent work of the coroner for inner London and his staff, but clearly there are deficiencies in the system that are becoming increasingly evident. Is it possible for the Government to bring forward the anticipated coroners courts Bill so that Parliament can address these issues as a matter or urgency?

I welcome yesterday's written statement from the Foreign Secretary on providing information to Parliament on European Union issues. Can the Leader of the House now tell us what he proposes to do to improve scrutiny of European matters and when we can expect proposals to be put before the House?

May we have a statement or a debate on child protection following today's report from the various inspectorates entitled "Safeguarding Children", which reveals that the sharing of information between the police, the NHS and social services is shambolic? Given that it is now three years since Soham, is it not time that we acted effectively to avoid such a tragedy occurring in future?

Finally, may we have a debate on the civil service? Returning to the so-called yob tsar—I am not sure whether that is a job title or a personal description—Louise Casey, who opined:

"Doing things sober is no way to get things done",

and has now received a warning from the Home Office, apparently with the full support of the Prime Minister, is it not time that we introduced a civil service Bill as a matter of urgency?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about those who have been engaged in such difficult circumstances, assisting the public and dealing with the aftermath of last week's tragedy. We have all rightly paid tribute to the emergency services, but may I add a further group whose members have not always received the respect to which they are entitled? The people who work for London transport are engaged in a number of important tasks, but they have not always been given the credit that they deserve, not least the remarkable bus driver who, on Friday, was back driving the No. 30 bus, only a day after those terrible events.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not criticising in any way the work of the coroner service. There has been misplaced criticism of the timetable, but I urge him to bear in mind the fact that the coroners are engaged in a difficult and sensitive task concerning the bodies of the people who were so terribly killed. They are also collecting evidence and ensuring that material is examined with a view subsequently to pursuing criminal proceedings against those responsible. I note the hon. Gentleman's concern about the need to introduce a Bill, and I assure him that that will be done as soon as possible.

As for improving the House's arrangements for European scrutiny, I am looking carefully at a number of reports. As a former Member of the European Parliament, I believe that it is important that we find more effective ways of linking with the European institutions, and I am keen that that should take place as a matter of urgency. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the need for continuing vigilance in child protection. Great progress has been made and, although there are criticisms in the latest report, it is important to give due recognition to those improvements. Obviously, there is still more to be done and the Government will consider the report's findings carefully. We have already addressed a number of issues raised in the report, but it is important that we make further progress.

It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman continues to highlight the case of one particular individual. There is a civil service code, and civil servants are not generally in a position to answer back when they face criticism from politicians. It is important that we give effect to the code and allow the civil service to deal with those matters as outlined in the code.

Following the tragic and evil events of last week caused by terrorism, there is already fallout in the Asian community—not just the Muslim community but the Hindu community and the Sikh community—to which I belong. Given the serious effects on multiculturalism and the great society that we have built up, can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the matter, as it is important that we discuss it on the Floor of the House and show strong support for the spirit of multiculturalism?

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. It may not answer his question directly, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will want to keep the House fully informed of developments following last week's appalling events. I am confident that he will want to make a further statement to the House before the summer recess, and I hope that that will provide an opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to raise the issues that my hon. Friend mentioned. It is vital that there should not be a backlash against our Asian community and that we continue to maintain and support strong principles of multiculturalism. I am grateful for his observations and I am sure that the House is too.

The thoughts of the whole House are naturally dominated by the terrible events that took place in London last week and yesterday in Iraq. However, it should be aware of serious terrorist incidents that have taken place in Northern Ireland in recent days in Londonderry, in Moira and in my own constituency of north Belfast, where lethal blast bombs were used against police, civilians and journalists the other night. We have had a sinister statement this morning from a dissident republican group warning of further violence. Many people in Northern Ireland, however, are sceptical about the difference between violence by dissidents and violence by mainstream provisionals. Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to reassure people in Northern Ireland that the necessary resources will be given to the police and the Army to safeguard innocent people and protect them from the increased threat?

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the broader question of terrorism as it has affected our society. There are times when we say, perhaps rather complacently, that we as a country have had experience of terrorism, without thinking through the implications of that for people in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, who have been directly and personally affected by it. The appalling events of last week bring home to all of us the terrible personal tragedy for the families and friends of those who have lost their lives or been terribly injured, so it is important that we continue to debate and discuss the evil of terrorism from whatever source it arises. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will continue to do that.

May I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) regarding the cleaners in the House? The problem is that many years ago it was decided to go for indirect employment—creeping privatisation—on these premises. One of the things that the Leader of the House should put on the agenda when he discusses the matter next week is ways and means of bringing the cleaners back under the direct control of the House's facilities. Then they will get paid the same as the other cleaners, and the restrooms mentioned by my hon. Friend could be eliminated at a stroke.

I am sure that is one of the matters that will have to be discussed by the House of Commons Commission in due course.

Tomorrow I will be at the funeral of a constituent, David Cheshire, a good and honourable man who had done the right thing and paid into an occupational pension scheme for more than 20 years. Two weeks after the occupational pension scheme went into liquidation along with the Dexion Company that he worked for, David found out that he had prostate cancer, which was terminal. He has left a widow with no pension whatsoever. David had done the honourable thing, along with some 80,000 other workers in this country, and paid into an occupational pension, only to have it stolen. Will the Leader of the House find time for us to debate the matter and see whether the compensation package offered by the Government is suitable?

I am certainly concerned about the particular case that the hon. Gentleman raises. Not only have the Government brought forward a comprehensive compensation package to deal with the kind of situation that he describes, but we have taken steps to look at ways in which we can ensure that existing pension schemes are properly managed and properly funded, and impose tougher and tighter regulation on those schemes in order to prevent precisely the kind of difficulties that he so eloquently describes.

Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early statement or debate on the miners compensation scheme? In my constituency, Wansdyke, the last pit closed more than a quarter of a century ago, which means that the average age of claimants is that much higher than in the country as a whole, and many of them are dying before receiving the compensation from which they should be entitled to benefit. Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the Department of Trade and Industry to that, so that the claims of older miners can be prioritised over other claimants, even though that is a difficult challenge?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important issue—important not least to me as the Member of Parliament for a former mining area. I am familiar with the individual difficulties of large numbers of my constituents and the constituents of other right hon. and hon. Members. This is the largest compensation scheme attempted by any Government anywhere in western Europe and there have been around 400,000 payments already. The practical difficulty is that each case has to be assessed on its own merits. That is part of the reason why the cases have taken more time than we would have liked. I can assure my hon. Friend, however, that great urgency is attached, particularly to the claims of older members of our communities. It is important that we get payments to them as quickly as possible.

In an answer a few moments ago, the Leader of the House referred to the Government's financial assistance schemes for people who have lost a large part of their pensions. From successive business questions he will be familiar with the case of APW Electronics in Eastleigh, which is one of a very small number of firms—half a dozen, or fewer—that fall outside the scheme. Will he please arrange for a statement from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who I am pleased to see has just taken his place on the Front Bench? We feel that the Secretary of State will have more sympathy with those pensioners who have lost three quarters of their pension, given that he is in the fortunate position of having had an £18,000 pay-off when he resigned as Home Secretary only five months before rejoining the Cabinet.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels it necessary to make such a cheap political point in the context of a serious and important issue in relation to his own constituents. If I may say so, he undermines his argument by coupling it with such an observation. I have dealt with the case on previous occasions. It is important that people should receive proper compensation. The Government scheme exists, but this particular case involves a company that apparently has the funding available to provide proper compensation. That is one of the basic qualifications. No one in the House would want to see taxpayers' money being distributed to pension schemes that were in other respects viable. I am sure all hon. Members would stand by that.

Will the Leader of the House consider asking the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on the situation of my constituent, 18-year-old Michael Shields, who is in prison in Bulgaria on a charge of attempted murder, which carries a sentence of up to 20 years? Will he ask the Foreign Secretary to consider particularly whether the court proceedings in Bulgaria are compatible with Bulgaria's membership of the European Union?

I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary responds in detail to my hon. Friend, perhaps not in the form of a statement, but in the form of a letter.

If we cannot have a debate in Government time on party funding, could we have a debate on Government-sponsored tax avoidance by prominent Labour party donors? Can it be morally acceptable that the richest man in Britain, and the third richest man in the world, pays no tax whatsoever in the UK, or is that £2 million money well spent?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been vigorous in pursuing those who avoid and evade their taxes. Whenever he does that, we receive loud complaints from Opposition Members about the way in which we seek to ensure that our tax system is vigorous and effective.

I thank the Leader of the House for finding time for the Second Reading of the Crossrail Bill. Is he aware that residents and businesses in the Reading area will be looking for amendments to the Crossrail scheme to ensure that the continued service of the excellent high speed trains into Paddington is not impeded?

My hon. Friend will have every opportunity to make observations on behalf of his constituents on Second Reading of the Bill on Monday. We all look forward to reading his speech.

There seems to be a problem in the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of what is happening in the NHS. He complacently says there is more money going into the NHS. However, in the Cotswolds the deficits of the primary care trusts are getting bigger and bigger every month, we are making doctors and nurses redundant, and we are closing wards. I had one constituent whose death was certainly accelerated by the changes. Will the Leader of the House pay a visit to the Cotswolds during the long recess? He can have an enjoyable holiday and I will arrange a meeting for him with the heads of all the PCTs in Gloucestershire so that he is aware of what is happening on the ground, so that in the autumn we can have an informed debate with Ministers.

I am not in any way complacent about the magnificent extra funding that the Government have made available to the national health service—I am extraordinarily proud of it. As I said to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) who raised the same question earlier, that extra funding has to be properly managed and properly spent. It has to be used correctly by trusts to improve medical care. I am a regular visitor to the hospital in my constituency, where I can see for myself the excellent progress that has been made in providing treatment and facilities for my constituents and those of many of my neighbours.

The hot weather, unseasonable flash flooding in north Yorkshire and the increased severity of winter flooding all show that climate change is a real problem, and I congratulate the Government on making it one of their G8 priorities. Will the Leader of the House find Government time to debate the achievements at the G8 and what still needs to be done to combat climate change?

I emphasise my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's point in his statement about the G8's achievements that we have made real progress on climate change, and it is important that it continues. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) has said, the House must continue to discuss and debate those matters, and I am sure that appropriate opportunities to do so will arise in due course.

Will the Leader of the House make Government time available to debate the rising number of suicides throughout the United Kingdom and, in particular, in Northern Ireland, where the increase is especially serious, so that we can discuss ways to provide help through the various agencies?

I was not aware of those statistics, but if that is the case, it is an extremely disturbing development. I assure the hon. Lady that the Government will provide her with a thorough response in due course.

Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 571 on House of Lords reform, which has been tabled by some eminent right hon. and hon. Members?

[That this House welcomes the Government's commitment to a free vote on the composition of Parliament's revising chamber; believes that the House of Lords should be replaced by a chamber which is predominately elected; and believes that the Second Chamber of Parliament Bill, presented in February by the then honourable Member for North Cornwall, endorsed by the Right honourable Member for Livingston, the Right honourable Member for North West Hampshire, the Right honourable Member for Rushcliffe and the honourable Member for Cannock Chase, and supported by other leading Members of both Houses, provides a valuable basis for further discussion and decision.]

When can we expect a debate on House of Lords reform? Does he agree that despite the right hon. and hon. Members of great intellect who have sat in this place over the years, there are many examples of their getting things completely wrong?

Having studied the second volume of the diaries of my distinguished predecessor, Richard Crossman, which covers the period in which he sought to find ways to reform the House of Lords from the position that I currently hold, I recognise the difficulties of achieving the right result. The Government made progress by removing the overwhelming majority of hereditary peers, a change for which great intellects from Tom Paine onwards have argued. The Government are committed to continuing to establish a consensus on the way forward, because a single political party cannot drive through such reform. We must achieve a wide consensus on the way forward and establish constitutional arrangements for the United Kingdom that are consistent with the requirements of a 21st-century democracy.

The Leader of the House will be aware that the level of council tax is a concern across the country. Yesterday's statement on the changes to the local government pension scheme will have concerned my constituents and, I am sure, other hon. Members' constituents, who fear another council tax hike. Will the Leader of the House make time available for an urgent debate so that we can properly question the Deputy Prime Minister and Ministers from his Department?

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is extremely concerned about the level of council tax and has taken appropriate action in relation to a number of local authorities, most of which are represented by Conservative Members. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members should use their considerable influence to encourage those Conservative-controlled councils to hold down their council tax increases, in which case we would all be very pleased.

One year ago, the APW company pension scheme had a significant but manageable deficit. Government rule changes made it in the company's interests to shut the scheme, which crystallised the debts into tens of millions of pounds and cut pensions by three quarters. Can we debate pensions and examine in detail why the Government's refusal to assist companies when they are still solvent is simply not tenable?

I commend my right hon. Friend, who has pursued that issue with considerable determination and emphasise that the Government are consulting widely on the question of future arrangements for pensions. The issue is complex and difficult, and it is a sensitive subject for many people. I have already set out the rules on compensation for that particular scheme, but we should examine individual cases with a view to making sure that justice is done for the pensioners concerned.

Given the debate that will take place in the Lords this afternoon and the contribution that the former Chiefs may make, will the Leader of the House arrange for one of the Law Officers to make a statement to clarify the legislation on the International Criminal Court? It would be improper if soldiers were denied the proper protection of the courts-martial system—being judged as professionals by professionals. It would be outrageous indeed if, figuratively, officers were to wake up and find themselves in the cell next to Milosevic.

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the general proposition. It is vital that the very high standard set by our armed forces on the conduct of those who serve the country is maintained, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has made that point. I assure the hon. Gentleman that members of our armed forces will continue to benefit from the courts-martial system and to uphold the law, which is something that they have always done excellently.

When can we debate the disability living allowance and the eligibility criteria? My constituent, Mrs. Angela Jackson of Lisvane, Cardiff, was severely disabled before her 65th birthday. At the time, she was critically ill in intensive care and was in no state to fill in the forms to claim disability living allowance. She is now paralysed from the waist down and is not eligible to claim an exemption from road tax, which accompanies disability living allowance, because she is over-65. The situation is grossly unfair, because she could not fill in the forms before she was 65 and she has now been excluded from those benefits. When can we debate that unfair situation?

I am not familiar with the particular case raised by my hon. Friend, although many similar cases have arisen in my constituency. I understand the concern among those who claim the variety of incapacity benefits that the form-filling and bureaucracy is sometimes extremely frustrating, particularly for those people who are least able to do it. Let me emphasise that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is looking thoroughly at ways in which we can reform the incapacity benefit system, which is often criticised by people who suggest that those who are not necessarily eligible are receiving benefit. On the other hand, we will all have had in our own constituencies cases where those who are deserving have not been properly supported. My right hon. Friend's ambition is to ensure that we target this financial help from the taxpayer on those who are most in need and most deserving.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to take a grip on terrorism and deport more terrorists. What he did not say is that under successive Governments the UK has become a haven for different extremist groups, including the Armed Islamic Group—the GIA—which has been raising money here to finance terrorism in north Africa. Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Government will deport all terrorists, including to countries such as Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Yemen and Saudi Arabia?

I do not accept for a moment the suggestion that this country is in any way a haven for extremist or terrorist groups. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government will use the full range of powers available to them to deal with such organisations. Moreover, should the security services require further powers, they will, as I said earlier, be the subject of further legislation that I hope can be taken forward on a cross-party basis.

May we have a debate in Government time on the proliferation of mobile phone masts, particularly next generation masts, which are springing up right across the country? The public are deeply concerned about the health implications and have not been reassured by the Stewart report. We need a major debate on the Floor of the House about this issue.

Hear, hear.

I know—I can tell—that this matter concerns many Members. Shortly before the election the Government commissioned research on identifying the future direction of mobile phone technology, including the need for mast developments and the potential for increasing the sharing of masts. That research will inform the review of development rights that the Government are conducting. There is a thorough investigation into the planning arrangements for telephone masts, which we take very seriously.

Information has come into the public domain in my constituency to the effect that those responsible for mental health are going to reduce the number of mental health beds by 34, despite the clear need for such beds. Mental illness is still the Cinderella of the national health service. Will the Leader of the House treat this matter very seriously and arrange for the appropriate Minister to make a statement, either before we rise for the summer recess or soon thereafter, on the number of mental health beds in the United Kingdom, or arrange for a debate in Government time?

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this important issue. Mental health provision is not always given the publicity and attention that other parts of the health service receive. That is precisely why the Government intend in due course to introduce a mental health Bill to provide further help and assistance for this important area of our national health service. I am not familiar with the particular circumstances in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but I will ensure that they are dealt with by the appropriate Minister.

Yesterday, BAT Industries announced the transfer to the far east of all cigarette production in its factory in Southampton—a decision that was taken far beyond these shores and regardless of the efficiency and dedication of the 500 workers in my constituency who will lose their jobs over the next two years as a result. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the responsibilities of companies such as BAT for the retraining and possible re-employment of people affected by such decisions and on whether there is sufficient capacity in learning and skills councils and regional development agencies for assistance with re-employment and possible re-use of the sites of factories that have been relocated in this way?

I certainly share my hon. Friend's concern about the impact of such an announcement on the individuals who stand to lose their jobs and on the families affected. Let me emphasise that the Government, through the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments, have a range of measures available for retraining and re-employment. I agree, however, that such multinational companies have a responsibility to assist their former employees in finding new jobs.

Will the Leader of the House be kind enough to make space in Government time for a debate on centralisation in the national health service? Many of my constituents are deeply concerned that a centre of excellence in my constituency—the upper gastro-intestinal cancer unit in Frimley Park hospital—may close in order to be merged with the cancer services at the Royal Surrey hospital in Guildford. As a result, we may lose consultants, the goodwill of patients, personalised health care and a tradition of excellence. Is not it a great pity that when we get welcome extra resources into the national health service we find that, as a consequence of a failure adequately to reform, we lose consultants instead of bureaucrats and busy-bodies in the Department of Health?

Notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman's observations, I can assure him that dedicated civil servants are working in the Department of Health trying to ensure precisely that facilities such as those that he so well describes continue to be available not only to his constituents but to all our constituents across the country. There has always been a necessary tension between providing that range of facilities locally, at a distance that our constituents can readily take advantage of, as against concentrating specialist services so that the highest standards of medical practice can be followed. It is an extremely difficult dilemma. Nevertheless, I believe that the concentration of specialist facilities providing those very high standards, with the latest research and technology, means that our constituents can enjoy the best services.

I am not familiar with the particular case that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health contacts him and explains the background.

May we have a debate before the recess on antisocial behaviour, because this is the time of year when the problems of gangs of young people abusing and intimidating residents can get worse? A debate would give us the chance not only to praise the work of the four save the neighbourhood teams that are already doing an excellent job in my constituency but to hear when the Home Office will be able to fulfil its promise of a neighbourhood policing team in every community. In areas in my constituency, notably East hill, Balham and Northcote, a more visible policing presence is still urgently needed.

My hon. Friend is right to raise an issue that, if my constituency mailbag and surgeries are anything to go by, is raised with all Members of this House on an all too regular basis. The Government have recognised the problem of antisocial behaviour and continue to put extra resources into policing and the provision of community support officers and neighbourhood wardens, all of whom are dedicated to dealing with the problem. However, I anticipate that more action will have to be taken, because the problem is not going away. In due course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will make proposals as to how we can provide extra services to support young people. That is the heart of the problem and a matter that we need to address urgently.

The Leader of the House may be aware that the Department of Health is in possession of a report into allegations that the British Pregnancy Advisory Service helped to facilitate illegal abortions in Spain. Will he ask the Secretary of State for Health to come to this House to make a statement on why she refuses to release that report, despite a request under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and why she refuses to accept any further written questions about when she will release the report or even read it?

I was not aware of the report. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will give careful consideration to any recommendations in, or implications of, the report and will inform the hon. Gentleman as and when appropriate.

Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House and talk to us about the dangerous lack of allergy consultants in the United Kingdom? In my constituency, several children cannot even see a consultant. The best parents can be offered is paying £150 to a GP specialist. That is not good enough. The report of the Select Committee on Health stated that there should be 40 more allergy consultants in the UK as soon as possible.

I am sure that hon. Members would not want the time that they suggest that my right hon. Friend should spend at the Dispatch Box answering their questions on those important issues to detract from her huge responsibilities to continue to improve the national health service. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, every four weeks, there are questions to health Ministers. There are a good number of health Ministers and I am sure that they would be delighted to deal with such important questions on those occasions.

BILL PRESENTED

London Olympics

Secretary Tessa Jowell, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Clarke, Mr. Secretary Hain, Secretary Alan Johnson and Mr. Richard Caborn, presented a Bill to make provision in connection with the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games that are to take place in London in the year 2012; to amend the Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Act 1995; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 18 July, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 45].

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

As we have discussed many times, the Bill contains much that commands broad support. On Second Reading, I said that two specific issues were absent from it. The first is the problem of the calculation of interest. I note that an amendment on that has not been selected but it needs to be resolved. The second is data sharing. I know that the Under-Secretary shares my concern and that of many others, including the Conservative spokesman, that there is a long way to go in resolving the problem.

In a sense, it goes without saying that the best decisions about whether to lend are made when both parties—the lender and the borrower—have access to full information on which to base a judgment about whether it is appropriate to lend and about the amount to lend in the circumstances. However, at the moment, all too often, only the borrower has access to the full information. For many reasons, borrowers may be in denial about their capacity to service a loan or the amount borrowed on a credit card. We must therefore find a way of ensuring that both parties have access to the full information to make objective and wise decisions based on the principle of responsible lending.

Often, people build up unsustainable debt from several different sources. We are told that that is one of the prime causes of the crises that occur when people suffer health problems and sometimes worse. Increasingly, consumers shop around, obtain different credit cards, spend on them and also take out loans. Perhaps there is no defaulting for some time on any of those products, but unbeknown to each lender, borrowers are building up unsustainable debt and the crisis ensues.

There are two broad problems. First, data sharing generally takes places only when there has been a default—when someone has not paid on time or exceeded an overdraft limit and so on. When no default has occurred, but an unsustainable debt might be building up, information is not shared.

The second problem is historic and I shall describe it in a little more detail shortly. Before I reach the core of the new clause, I make a plea to the Under-Secretary to use his authority to sort out the whole problem. The new clause deals with part of it. It is permissive, not mandatory and therefore enables fuller data sharing. However, there is another side to the difficulty: ensuring that the industry does its duty and takes the opportunity that the new clause provides to make sure that data are shared. The Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the industry, the office of the Information Commissioner and the Inland Revenue should get together urgently and set a timetable for achieving full data sharing. Even if the Under-Secretary opposed the new clause, I would welcome a commitment from him to ensure that that happens.

The Treasury Committee's inquiry showed that there is a feeling that the talking has gone on for a long time but there has been a lack of action. Part of the responsibility for that lies with the Government in legislative reform, which we are providing today, and in facilitating and putting pressure on the industry to respond. I know from discussions with the industry that, for example, APACS, the British Bankers Association and FLA are up for it and keen to discuss the matter with the Government to get it resolved.

Let me deal with the historic problem, which the new clause tackles. The Data Protection Act 1998 requires lenders to notify individuals that their data will be shared and the purpose for which they will be used. That legislation led in due course to the industry including standard clauses in the application process to ensure the consent and knowledge on the part of the consumer for any new agreement after data protection legislation came into force. There is no problem for new agreements; consumers have given their consent. However, there is no provision for any account opened or agreement made before the introduction of the standard clauses in contracts. Nothing provides for consumers to agree to their data being shared. Many accounts—credit cards and current accounts—have a long life. I have had my current account all my adult life.

A long time.

Thank you. Many people's credit agreements will predate the introduction of the standard clauses and thus fall outside the scope of the new provisions for ensuring that data can be shared. The industry estimates that some 40 million accounts—42 per cent. of the market—fall into the category where there is no data sharing. How can the Government be serious about sorting out the problem of the lack of data sharing if there is no such sharing on 40 million accounts? Yet the industry says that it cannot share data unless there is a legislative change.

I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's argument but I wonder whether that is where the problem lies. There have been genuine problems in my constituency of people accumulating debt that they could never afford. The main problem was people starting with a set of new credit arrangements fairly recently. Surely the problem lies with shopping around on the internet or responding to the many millions of pre-approved applications for loans and credit cards. I wonder whether the measure is necessary when we should mostly be saying: caveat emptor.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. As I said earlier, there are two problems. There is the historic problem, which the new clause addresses. There is also the problem that there is generally no data sharing in relation to modern accounts in circumstances in which the borrower does not default. A default triggers the sharing of information. The industry says that it is extending that provision, and that by the end of the year, it will have introduced much broader sharing of information, so that it will be sharing the good data as well as the bad data. If that actually happens, we will see a real advance. I am not suggesting that the new clause will resolve all the problems. We need a combination of legislative reform and pressure on the industry to deliver a much wider sharing of information from the kind of new credit agreements that the hon. Gentleman has described.

The industry has a wide knowledge of people's credit. One area that is very dangerous is the transfer of credit card balances to new credit cards. There are some wonderful offers out there, but the problem is that the credit card companies know that a balance is being transferred to a new card, with a whole new credit limit, yet the existing credit card is not cancelled. So the borrower automatically gets double the amount of credit, and they can do that every six months. There is not one credit card company that cancels the card from which the balance is being transferred. Its credit limit remains in place. If someone with a £5,000 credit limit transfers that balance to a new card, they will find themselves with a combined credit limit of £10,000. They can do the same thing six months later. The danger is that the credit card companies have the information, but they are not using it to protect the consumer.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He makes a good point. There is a big problem with the transfer of credit. Sometimes it can work in the consumer's interest, if they can get a genuinely lower rate of interest and use the system. However, there are real dangers involved. I am not suggesting that the new clause will be a panacea to resolve all the problems of irresponsible lending in the credit industry.

Further to the hon. Gentleman's point, the Treasury Committee noted that people often transfer their credit card balance having received a commitment of a nil rate of interest for perhaps a year. However, they are often not told that new purchases on the card will be charged at the full rate of interest, or that when they pay off some of the balance, it will be taken off the balance transfer, not the new purchases. They therefore find that they are paying interest when they did not expect to. So there are many problems, and they all come down to the practice of responsible lending. We still have a way to go to get the industry fully to understand the importance of that concept.

I am seeking to address one specific historic problem, which is that, in the view of the industry and the Information Commissioner, there cannot be a full sharing of data. The commissioner has advised the industry that it would be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 to share data without consent. Incidentally, the problem has got much worse because, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) pointed out, there has been a revolution involving people shopping around. In the old days, all our needs were met by one institution—a bank or whatever. Now, people shop around for the best value product, so the need to address the problem of data sharing has grown considerably.

The Information Commissioner has said that, under the old agreements in which there is no provision for data sharing, a lender would need the customer's consent to share such information. The only solution available at the moment, therefore, is for the lender to go to the customer and ask for their consent. Members will appreciate, having sent out political mailings to people, that the response rate to such requests would be tiny. The industry reckons that it would be less than 1 per cent. We cannot resolve the problem simply by seeking consent under the existing rules. New clause 1 seeks to address that.

I have sympathy with the objectives of the new clause and with the need to promote greater data sharing on an historical basis. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that we need to be careful about forcing consent, as it were, on members of the public? The Data Protection Act is there for a reason, after all. The new clause would give fairly wide powers to credit reference agencies and other organisations to extract consent from individuals. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should think about the implications of what could be quite a serious breach of data protection principles.

I fully accept that. I have thought about the issue, and I realise that there is a balance to be struck. We could simply say that this provision breaches the principles of the Data Protection Act; therefore there is nothing we can do. However, the consequence of doing that would be too serious, and I cannot accept that that is the right approach. So while I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's point, it is my judgment that we should reform the law in the way that I have proposed. The consequence of not doing so could be very serious. At worst, it could be a matter of life or death. We have all come across awful cases of people taking their own lives because of the mess that they have got themselves into. There is a responsibility on all of us to address the problem, and to ensure that judgments on offering credit are made with the fullest possible information available.

Some people have expressed concern that the new clause could lead to predatory lending. Other jurisdictions have suggested that, where there are provisions for data sharing, some unscrupulous lenders could use the information to target vulnerable consumers. However, the specific provisions of subsection (4) will address that concern, in that it sets out the conditions under which the information can be shared. It will prevent any risk of the information being exploited for the purpose of predatory lending.

The information could be used to encourage more blanket mailings. More and more paper lands on our doorsteps each day, and we end up being offered credit for this, that and the other. This results in two problems. First, some of the offers are pre-approved, which can be a problem if that mail is intercepted. We all know from our constituency mailbags that people have had their information misused by others. Secondly, such offers can encourage people to take credit when perhaps they should not. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the protection offered in the new clause to ensure that those things would not happen?

The hon. Gentleman raises a genuinely serious point. We all suffer from those mailshots, but some people are better able than others to identify the dodgy ones. There has been a revolution in the availability of credit, but there has not been a commensurate revolution in financial literacy and education. People are therefore often very vulnerable to such approaches. However, the conditions set out in subsection (4) ensure that the use of information to target mailshots at vulnerable groups would be prohibited. Lenders would not have permission to do that.

Data sharing is of value to both the lender and the consumer, but when we talk about breaching the principles of the Data Protection Act, we must remember that we are seeking to act primarily in the interests of the consumer. From the lender's point of view, it would enable better, more informed decisions. It would mean a reduction in credit losses and in the amount of time spent handling accounts. From the consumer's point of view, which for me is the most important, it captures those cases to which I referred in which unsustainable debts build up unnoticed, and helps to prevent such a crisis from occurring. It helps existing lenders to monitor what is going on with their customers—if they can see, through access to information, that their customer is building up an unsustainable debt elsewhere, it enables them to make an earlier intervention to warn their customer of the potential consequences. At the moment, the lender is completely ignorant of such looming problems.

Consumers who have a good credit record would also be helped. The acknowledgement of that fact, because of the lack of "dodgy data" through data sharing, improves their ability to shop around to get a good deal. There is also a problem with people who have what is described as a "thin file". Because such accounts might be historic ones going back a long time prior to the Data Protection Act, credit reference agencies might have very little information about many consumers. That in itself often makes it difficult to gain credit, and potentially makes it more expensive.

Therefore sharing of information seems to be in the interests not only of the consumer who is liable to get into real trouble but of the consumer who has a good record. Crucially, it also encourages responsible lending. There is interesting evidence that a reduction in arrears occurs when consumers are informed that their data will be shared. When consumers know that information about what they are doing in relation to one particular account will be shared, it does not half concentrate their minds—it ensures that they try to keep their account under control, and therefore encourages responsible behaviour on the part of consumers. According to some suggestions, arrears could be reduced by as much as 50 per cent. simply through the consumer being aware that their data could be shared, because they realise the knock-on effects in terms of access to credit if they get into difficulty.

The new clause is not mandatory—it does not require the sharing of data. It is permissive. Crucially, therefore, it is not just a panacea on its own—it requires the industry to respond by taking advantage of what it would provide and sharing the information. For example, the industry would need to ensure that its codes of practice establish the principle that data sharing is the right approach, and ought to be done as standard practice.

I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest. I feel that it is flawed in certain areas. He has put forward the argument that the publication of a person's indebtedness will provide a disincentive, but under his proposals such a person has the right to prevent the public disclosure of his personal indebtedness. Those two proposals seem contradictory, because anybody who is likely to run up cumulative debts has the right under his new clause to prevent that being public knowledge.

I do not think that that is contradictory in any way. A safeguard is provided that addresses some of the concerns of other Members. We have already established the de facto principle that all credit agreements these days provide a standard clause for the sharing of information—there is no opt-out, it is a fact, and that is what happens. If consumers want credit, they sign up to that arrangement. The new clause addresses the problem of all those agreements that predated the Data Protection Act, and therefore pragmatically helps to address a serious problem that cannot be resolved in any other way, because the response rate to any request for consent would simply be too low.

That is my new clause in a nutshell. It seems to me that there is a strong case for ensuring that there is full data sharing—not the partial data sharing that we have currently. We must do something effective to ensure that that happens. The time for talking is over, and it now seems to me that the Government should act. The new clause is the way of achieving that.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) for tabling this sensible and constructive new clause. I am pleased to offer the Conservative party's support for it. On several occasions in Committee, I raised the importance of making advances in data sharing. I also endorse what he said about asking the Government to sort out the issue in its entirety. A range of issues are involved and we are all looking for them to be dealt with together rather than piecemeal.

There is concern that a unique opportunity to protect consumers is being missed. The Bill does an enormous amount in that direction, but the Minister rejected our pleas in Committee for controls on credit card cheques, which was an issue raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).

I do not think that I rejected it. I said that I would deal with it through secondary legislation on credit card cheques.

I accept the distinction that the Minister makes, but he still said no to our amendment, even if he could see where it was coming from.

The Minister is good at saying no.

The Minister is extremely good at saying no, as the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position. He is the natural heir to General de Gaulle and Margaret Thatcher in saying no so forcefully and regularly.

The Minister also said no to our pleas for measures to stop unsolicited increases in credit card limits and rejected the plea for a responsible lending test, even though it was articulately advanced by his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (John Battle). We are therefore concerned that things that would greatly help the interests of borrowers are not being taken into account as fully as they might be in this Bill.

As I stated in Committee, we all agree that the nature of the credit industry has changed beyond recognition over the past 30 years, and particularly during the past 10 to 15 years. That is the whole point of the Bill—to bring provisions and consumer protection up to a level at which it can successfully respond to those changes. As Members on both sides of the House will know, in 1971 there was only one type of credit card. Today, there are more than 1,300. Thirty years ago, £32 million was owed on credit cards, but today that figure is almost £50 billion. In fact, there are now more credit cards than people in this country. With that, a range of new issues have arisen. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) said, when people transfer the balance from one card to another, the initial card does not get closed. Someone drew to my attention recently the fact that, although she thought that she had closed a card because she had transferred the balance, she then discovered that charges were being put against that initial credit card. She was told that that was because she had not reported the card lost or stolen—she could not just close it. To me, that shows a significant loophole in the current way of operating.

Competition within the industry and the ability of consumers to shop around with confidence for credit deals is greater now than ever before. Consumers can now apply for and open accounts over the telephone and the internet, which is relatively hassle-free. While the increases in competition and greater flexibility and access to the market for consumers are welcome, at the same time, the risks and dangers of accumulating debt have become all too apparent. Members will recall that, on previous occasions, I drew attention to specific cases of individuals who have run up multiple debts on numerous credit cards—debts that have been far beyond what their income allows them to repay. As a result, they borrow more and more to try to alleviate their difficulties, but all that that serves to do is to wind them further and further into unmanageable debt. It is a spiral of debt that we all know and many of us fear, which, in a number of the cases cited by Members, has led to tragic consequences.

On the day of the Bill's Second Reading, the Daily Mail reported the tragic case of Stephen Lewis, a 37-year-old production worker from Worksop in Nottinghamshire, who ran up debts of £70,000 on 19 credit cards despite earning only £22,000 a year. In the end, he felt that he could escape from that huge debt only by taking his own life, leaving a wife and two children.

In all the examples that I have encountered in my constituency or read about in the newspapers, the issue has been new credit rather than any of the old credit arrangements. The new clause, however, proposes to punch quite a big hole in some of the principles of our data protection legislation. I wonder whether it is proportionate to the real problem. Does the problem really lie with the historic credit arrangements that many of us may have? The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) himself said that he had been with his bank all his life—quite some decades now.

I think that if Stephen Lewis's data had been shared more generally, and if the lenders had known that he was already borrowing on a range of credit cards and was well beyond being able to repay the debt on the basis of his income, the lenders would have been more cautious about issuing new cards. That is the kind of case that concerns us.

I should point out to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) that the arrangements will not be mandatory, in that if someone says, "You cannot have access to my data", the lender will decide whether lending to that person is appropriate. The lender will have the extra information that he or she may have something to hide. Most of us would be quite happy for our data to be shared because we have nothing to hide, but when people do have something to hide and say, "You may not share that information", the lender should beware. The hon. Member for Rhondda mentioned caveat emptor. I am not sure of the Latin for "the lender should beware".

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but it seems to be based on the presumption that the lender will always act responsibly. I am sure that that is true of the great majority of the credit industry, but it does not apply to all of it.

The hon. Gentleman had a chance to vote for the responsible lending test in Committee, but he voted against it. We certainly want more responsible lending and we had the opportunity to make that difference. It was disappointing that the Committee did not accept the amendment to which the right hon. Member for Leeds, West spoke so articulately.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) for drawing my attention to a constituency case that she had encountered. A mother, whose anonymity I shall preserve for understandable reasons, wrote:

"My son . . . aged 45 suffers from schizophrenia and is in receipt of anti-psychotic medication for this illness. He has built up a credit card debt of over £30,000 for which he pays interest of about £500 a month. I do not know the exact amount because he will not show me the credit card statements. The incapacity benefit he receives can just about service the interest on the credit card debt. He does not want to go bankrupt and he threatens suicide. In view of his illness it is very difficult to reason with him and he is very reluctant to give up the cards."

All Members of Parliament encounter such cases, which cause tremendous concern and distress. The data-sharing arrangements proposed in new clause 1 could help to deal with the problem.

The background to the new clause is a growing debt problem. The number of bankruptcies and repossessions increased by 25 per cent. last year, the number of appeals to the Consumer Credit Counselling Service increased by 60 per cent., and credit card arrears and bad debts are also increasing. Those problems could become worse. We should take the opportunity that the Bill presents and do all we can to prevent them from reoccurring. That means taking every possible step to ensure that lending is responsible. Lenders should be able to use information to ensure that borrowers can afford to enter into agreements.

We all realise that we cannot stop people borrowing too much when they wilfully give lenders incorrect information about their circumstances or other cards that they have, but we can do much more to make such activities more difficult. Data sharing is a crucial part of the process, which is why we support new clause 1. The new clause aims to make it easier for credit companies and credit reference agencies to share their data, so that it is easier to prevent people from entering into unaffordable agreements.

Most members of the credit industry already share, or are about to share, data on their credit agreements with the credit reference agencies, but some problems remain. Lenders first issued credit long before they would have seen a need to share data and, as a result, many credit accounts do not allow for sharing in their respective agreements. Accounts that were opened before lenders decided to share data are governed by the current legislation. They are not eligible for inclusion in credit files until the account holders consent to the sharing of their data.

In the case of accounts with a long life such as credit card or current accounts, decades may pass before the whole portfolio is available. The new clause seeks to solve that problem. As the number of agreements continues to increase because it is becoming easier to enter into them, and lenders seek more sophisticated means of risk management, data sharing becomes increasingly important.

It is beyond question that lenders have a vested interest in lending responsibly. Only a very few loan sharks make their money by preying on people and leading them knowingly into debt that they cannot afford. Responsible lending reduces credit losses, thus creating a financial incentive for the undertaking of credit agreements that do not place the borrower under financial strain. There is also the issue of reputation: lenders do not want to be seen to contribute to individuals' misfortune.

By entrenching in the Bill the credit industry's right to share data, subject to the protection offered to consumers by the Data Protection Act, we can help to prevent individuals from entering into agreements that they cannot afford. Protection of that kind is one of the fundamentals of the Bill, and as the industry evolves yet further over the next few years and decades, the new clause will help to ensure that the level of protection offered to consumers meets those demands.

As ever, the hon. Gentleman is advancing a rational argument, but the new clause gives a very broad definition of the information that is available. Many people would be nervous about the amount of information that might be available as a consequence. A credit card contains a vast amount of personal information about how people live and many would find it worrying that it could be shared quite so readily. Subsection (4) moderates the position slightly, but nevertheless includes a very broad definition of the purposes for which information might be shared.

A recurring theme in Committee was the lack of detail in the Bill. The Minister's response was usually that the issues concerned could be resolved in the courts. I should be happy to see an extra schedule or, alternatively, a provision allowing the Secretary of State to issue guidance in statutory instruments. The new clause, however, heads in the right direction. Of course we do not want information about where everyone spends their money to be available to a range of institutions, but if someone has 20 credit cards and has reached the borrowing limit on all of them, it is surely not unreasonable for a lender to have that information before issuing a further card. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should be cautious, though. One of the Conservatives' worries about the Identity Cards Bill is the amount of information that would be held and would be generally available.

I support the intentions behind the new clause, but may I pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)? The new clause allows the use of

"any information relating to the . . . financial standing of any debtor".

That could presumably cover details of personal relationships, such as a duty to pay moneys to a former spouse. We need to ensure that we are not giving more extensive powers to credit reference agencies than even the hon. Gentleman would want them to have.

One could also argue that, if somebody is looking to take out a credit card or to borrow money, the question of whether they are paying thousands of pounds to a spouse is relevant and should be taken into account in assessing their ability to make repayments. Every time that we take out a mortgage or a loan, we are required to tell the lender about our other outgoings. If we are to encourage responsible lending, it is reasonable for lenders to be able to ask such questions.

We all want to reach the right solution, but under the terms of the new clause, people would have to provide not just financial information but any information. For example, they would have to disclose not merely how much they were paying to an ex-spouse, but any personal information that might have a bearing on their financial standing, such as whether or not they have an ex-spouse. The hon. Gentleman's new clause goes too far in seeking to reach an end about which we are all doubtless in agreement.

We will all agree that we need to strike a balance between requiring the provision of information that is relevant to a lender's reaching a sensible conclusion about whether lending to a particular person is a fair and reasonable risk, and protecting that person's privacy. However, these issues can be resolved. If the Minister were to say that he accepts the new clause and will bring the Bill back in revised form in another place, but with the word "any" removed, we would be prepared to reconsider this issue.

indicated dissent.