On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That the House sit in private.

Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 163 (Motions to sit in private):—

The House divided: Ayes 0, Noes 38.

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

I do not know what the statistical odds are, but this is the first time in more than 41 years that I have drawn one of the first seven slots in the ballot for private Members' Bills. Although I got such a Bill through in the past, it was on the back-of-the-Chair principle whereby all I had to say was, "Today". That was how persuasive my arguments had to be.

I hope that we can all agree at least about the Bill's objectives; it is up to individuals to decide whether they agree about the details. There is unanimity that emergency workers attending emergencies should be neither impeded nor assaulted. If that happens, the victims of the emergency that they are attending will be put at risk. An assault on an emergency officer is therefore a double assault. Often, the emergency services operate in a team of police, ambulance and fire brigade. Anything that impedes part of the team impedes the whole team.

The scale of the problem is difficult to establish because there are no national statistics. For example, Manchester fire service estimated that 200 attacks or attempts to impede its workers occurred in a year, yet Government figures suggest only nine incidents in nine months in the same year. There are no reliable statistics. That is worrying and should be remedied. If one does not know the magnitude of a problem, one cannot know what priority to give it.

It is alarming that the mindless arrogance and vandalism behind the attacks is spread throughout the country. Numerous brigades report attempts to cut off water supplies, cutting hoses and stoning ambulances, fire engines and, indeed, firemen. Scaffold poles have been driven through windscreens, risking impaling the drivers. Even more warped is the fact that many fires are deliberately started to lure the services into ambushes. I could not believe some of the things that I was told when I started looking into the matter. What grotesque, bent mind would think of putting razor blades under a banister to catch firemen hauling heavy equipment up the stairs?

I am sorry for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman so early but I hope that he will reassure those of us who are worried that the Bill risks gilding a lily. Why is existing law unable to cover the dreadful events that he is describing? Why does he believe that the Bill is essential? I am more than happy to support it if I am persuaded that existing law cannot cover the events. However, I would be unhappy if we introduced a new Act simply because we were not prepared or able to implement existing Acts.

One of our greatest missions in life is to make the right hon. Gentleman happy. I think he will leave the Chamber slightly, if not entirely, reassured.

I gave the example of razor blades and a banister. Further examples include a live electricity cable fixed to the inside of a door handle so that the firemen have no warning of what awaits them, and, even more grotesque, holes in floors covered with mats or other material, so that as the firemen go into a first or second storey room, they are unaware that they are about to step into a hole. In the past year, a fireman was shot in Borehamwood, and there was the tragic case in Scotland of a young baby who was killed by someone firing at the fire brigade attending an incident. It is thought that one bullet missed the firemen and killed the poor young child.

I shall quote from a letter from Des Prichard, the chief fire officer of East Sussex. Writing on behalf of all the fire chiefs throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland, he states:

"Attacks do not impact only on firefighters, they ultimately impact on communities. If equipment or vehicles are damaged, they are unavailable for duty."

But the more important point is this:

"If, in certain areas, attacks occur regularly, crews have to wait until escorts are available to accompany them"—

so they are delayed waiting for the police, who otherwise would not need to be there, to take them to the incident. He continues:

"Ultimately, if we are prevented from carrying out our jobs because of attacks, there is no doubt that our operational response will be affected and we may have to reconsider the types of incidents we attend."

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on coming so high in the ballot and introducing such a worthwhile Bill. He mentioned the tragic incident that happened in Scotland. The young lad's name was Andrew Morton. Is my right hon. Friend aware that legislation of the type that he proposes already exists in Scotland and is regarded as successful?

Being a non-lawyer and being instinctively lazy, having discovered that there was a working and workable Act in Scotland, I asked for the help of the Clerks of the House to transpose the Scottish Act—

Good for you!

Rest assured—the Scottish experience has been very much taken into account.

The chief fire officer suggests that across the country the fire brigade may have to reconsider the types of incident it attends. He continues:

"To have to take this action would be tragic and also affect community safety."

I am sure we all agree with that and are alarmed by the prospect. The question is how we deal with it.

I was trying to transpose a Scottish Act to existing legislation in England and Wales. I have agreed that, in Committee, I will propose separating the impeding offence from the offence of assault, and the Government have agreed that they will support an offence of

"impeding an emergency worker responding to an emergency".

That is welcomed by the fire services and especially by the ambulance service—I spoke to its representatives yesterday—because at present it has no such protection at all. There will be a penalty of £1,000, which the Minister, with whom I have been liaising throughout, assures me is the same amount that a similar level of offence would incur in relation to action against the police.

The Bill will be backed by a series of other measures. There will be a package of measures particularly geared to dealing with the problem of juvenile offenders, many of whom are very young. Some are young yobs, and some, although they are not too young to be called yobs, are even below the age of 10.

My right hon. Friend mentioned the impeding offence. Is that not the assurance that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was seeking? Whereas there is a law of assault that could apply in any case, the police have protection against assault and obstruction in the course of their duty. The loophole in our law is that there is no offence of obstructing the ambulance or fire service on the way to deal with an emergency. Is that not a loophole that the Bill plugs?

Yes, and an important one. The emergency services welcome the Bill as an important addition to their protection. Fines do not deal effectively deal with juveniles because they either cannot pay them or do not pay them, or both. That is where the package of support measures will help. That can come only from Government and will be set out by my hon. Friend the Minister.

I am interested, too, in the point made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). Section 21 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 makes clear provision to achieve the same aim, provided the Government introduce a statutory instrument to include offences in secondary legislation. Has the right hon. Gentleman explored that and the provisions of the Police Act 1996 with the Government?

The Bill gives us an immediate vehicle to achieve the desired result, so that ceases to be necessary.

The Bill, as I said, will be backed by measures to be announced by the Government. It has been welcomed by Barry Dixon of Manchester on behalf of chief fire officers.

May I bring to my right hon. Friend's attention an incident that occurred in the west midlands? A young boy impaled himself on his bicycle. Other young people stood around and, to use that perverse phrase, indulged in happy slapping—that is, taking photographs on their mobile phones of his pain and discomfiture. The emergency services arrived and the young people surrounding the lad obstructed them and prevented them from giving the young lad the attention he desperately needed. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Bill and the supporting measures from the Government will address such incidents?

The aim is to address such incidents when they happen, and, more importantly, to stop them happening in the first place. That is much more difficult and requires a major educative programme, which I would ask the Government to introduce. I hope the Minister will give some reassurances on that.

Where the Government and I differed—here I shall delight the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who finds himself in an unusual alliance—was on the issue of assault. I accept that there is legislation that should and would provide for the same penalties as the Bill envisages. The problem is that it is used either rarely or not at all. The other emergency services see that the police have separate legislation embodying the same sentences and that cases involving the police are taken through to successful prosecution and sentencing, whereas the fire brigades and ambulance services have difficulty with such cases. That is why we are asking for a separate Act.

This is where I shall destroy the weekend of the right hon. Gentleman. The Government and I had discussions, and they made it clear that there is a sticking point for them, so enamoured are they of the argument made by the right hon. Gentleman. There is a sticking point to the extent that I could have lost the whole Bill—

Oh!

The right hon. Gentleman says "Oh!", but he said he supports the Bill. The choice I had to make, which also had to be made by fire brigades officers, the Fire Brigades Union and the ambulance workers, was over whether they wanted to lose their new defence of taking action against impeding in order to go down fighting for legislation that would almost certainly be lost due to means that we all well understand in this place—being talked out either today or, most certainly, on Report, which is the death ground of so many private Members' Bills.

Instead—not with enthusiasm, but in the hope that the good will is genuine in respect of what has been offered in return—I have agreed that in Committee we shall remove the repetitious element dealing with assault. I want my Bill to go through, so I am willing to rely on the written guarantees I have received, which the Minister has undertaken to reiterate today. She has particularly assured me that she will try to ensure that there are measures to achieve more prosecutions under existing law—it seems to be the will and machinery that are lacking—and that the Government will try to improve the sentencing guidelines. In that respect, they envisage assault on an emergency worker being treated as an aggravated offence. It would therefore involve a higher sentence.

I thought I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that the Minister has given him an undertaking that measures will be taken to ensure that there are more prosecutions. I would be interested if he explained that further, because I had always understood that a great alibi of this Government, and indeed of the previous one, was that prosecutions were entirely a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service, so how would the Government deliver on that undertaking?

With respect, the right hon. Gentleman has anticipated what I was about to say. I wonder how impartiality could be retained in that context, but Ministers indicated that that is what they are willing to try to do. I do not understand how the Home Office works—very few people do—and I look forward to an exposition from the Minister.

My right hon. Friend mentioned protection for emergency workers. I am intrigued by whether community support officers are included in the Bill's definition of a constable. If they are not, would they be excluded from that protection?

I honestly do not know the answer, although I shall try to establish it. My hon. Friend the Minister, who is more of an expert in those legal matters, might deal with that on behalf of the Government.

I wonder whether the Government pointed out in their discussions with the right hon. Gentleman the fact that, by taking action in the health service, they have been able to increase the number of prosecutions by ensuring that instances are pursued, properly reported to the police and looked into, rather than disregarded, as can sometimes happen in Government services.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The advantage of dialogue between Ministers and Back Benchers was shown on this occasion, because I was able to enlighten the Minister on the activities of NHS security management and the seventeenfold increase in the number of prosecutions it has brought. That shows the value of a catalyst, as well as the inadequacies of the CPS, which are equally worrying. One is bound to wonder how someone other than the CPS can show a will to enforce legislation, over which the CPS sometimes seems dilatory.

In relation to the points made by the Minister about sentencing guidelines—we all know how those work—my doubt, which I put to her, is this: if she can do this now that I have introduced my Bill, why on earth has she not done it already? Months ago, in the House of Lords, Baroness Scotland was making the same argument—we can get the Sentencing Guidelines Council to alter its guidelines to the courts—yet, as far as I can establish, up to the time of my consultations with the Minister there had been no progress in that respect.

It is not my intention to labour the issue; the case is made. I have said that I would substantially amend the Bill in the House of Lords—gosh, that would be an achievement. I am due to retire at the end of this Parliament, but I assure the House that no one has made any offers to me at this stage. At the moment, I should confine myself to a Committee Room Upstairs, inadequate as it may be.

May I make it clear to the Minister that, while I accept her assurances, which I genuinely believe were made in good faith—I have a high regard and respect for her—she has to realise that the Members of Parliament sitting here, our colleagues who are unable to be present, the emergency services and the press will monitor performance against the commitments given today? Now it is up to the Government.

I commend the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) on his good intentions in introducing the Bill, and I am sure there is consensus across the House that attacks on emergency services workers are disgraceful and abhorrent. However, my concern is that the existing law should be able to protect emergency workers from attacks of all sorts made during the execution of their duty. That will be the thrust of my brief comments.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned genuine emergencies in which emergency services—whether the police, ambulance crews or fire service personnel—deal with victims, such as members of the public whom they are attempting to help. However, there are additional victims when the emergency services come under attack. Such attacks impede them as they attempt to provide assistance to the victims of a road accident, a fire or whatever it happens to be, thereby exacerbating the effect of those attacks.

Matt Wrack, general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, has warned about the increase, in communities across the country, in what he describes as "recreational attacks" carried out by young people for their amusement. He says:

"Many attacks are in deprived areas with poor youth facilities and poor housing".

There might well be poor youth facilities and housing in those areas, but that is not an excuse. I would like to see parents brought to book to answer for the bad behaviour of their unsupervised children. If those young people are below the age of criminal responsibility, the parent should be held responsible. Parents should know where their children are and what they are doing while they are outside the home. If children cannot be trusted to behave in an acceptable way, parents should entertain them in their homes, and teach them the difference between right and wrong.

Fire service personnel in particular are victims of hurled insults and spitting, a particularly nasty habit. Such actions do not cause permanent injury but are exceedingly demoralising, and such seriously antisocial behaviour affects the way in which fire crews are able to go about their duties. I would like legislation to cover that, if it is not covered already.

I concur absolutely that these are serious offences that must be dealt with. I have two caveats, however, about what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do. First, I feel that the existing law should and could deal with all the offences that he has mentioned. The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and sentencing guidelines ought to be able to deal with all those serious offences. There is no doubt that they need to be dealt with, and that there should be more prosecutions, but I remain to be convinced that existing law does not allow the police to bring that about.

I follow my hon. Friend's argument about assault, and I think that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) covered that matter in his comments and in his conversation with the Minister. Is my hon. Friend equally satisfied, however, about the issue of impeding? The right hon. Gentleman correctly laid a lot of emphasis on making sure that the definition of impeding actions should be made absolutely clear and explicit and that there should be a mechanism to deal with them. Do my hon. Friend's reservations extend to that, or is she happy, as I think that I am now, that the right hon. Gentleman is focusing in on that element of the Bill?

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, as that was going to be my next point. Not having a comprehensive knowledge or understanding of all the legislation on the statute books, I want to hear more about whether existing law allows the offence of impeding to be covered, or whether we need an additional law. Of course, the way in which the impeding is done has a large bearing on this. I would be surprised, for example, if the act of putting a large missile across a road to prevent access by a fire tender was not covered by existing law. Impeding could take a wide range of forms, and I am sure that people might find imaginative ways of doing it. Do we need a separate law simply to cover a loophole in relation to impeding emergency workers attending accident scenes?

My other caveat is about where we draw the line. Who is an "emergency worker"? Were the law extended to include ambulance and fire crews, should it also include nurses and doctors in accident and emergency wards, who, as we know, have to deal with violent and unpleasant people, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights when there has been a lot of binge drinking? Should we include council workers on the council tax desk, in the emergency housing service or in the reception area of a town hall, where people get extremely angry? The hapless council worker who cannot resolve such people's problems is in the front line and often subject to attacks. Should we include social workers who attend people's homes in difficult circumstances, who could be open to violence, insults and attacks? Should we include teachers in schools? Should we include MPs in their surgeries? How far will we let the legislation extend?

I want to be convinced on two points. First, does the law as it stand cover all those eventualities, including the offence of impeding emergency services attending accident scenes?

I was following the hon. Lady's remarks carefully, and I was interested in her comments about Members of Parliament. Is it her experience that many constituents make recreational visits to MPs?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, a large proportion of visits to MPs' surgeries are recreational, but do not involve insults or violence. I regard such visits as part of the job, and I am happy to deal with them all.

I hope that the Minister will say whether the existing law covers all those offences, and also whether it should. If it does, why are they not being dealt with more seriously?

I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady's argument, and she has made legitimate and valid points. Does she agree, however, that one of the benefits of the Bill is that it publicly highlights the issue of assaults on public servants across the board, and gives an incentive to all the law enforcement agencies involved to consider measures to protect those who are subject to abuse in carrying out their public duties, irrespective of whether they are technically classified as emergency workers?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. How far the employer can be responsible for the unquantifiable number of likely attacks on employees is an interesting point.It is incumbent on employers to ensure every possible safeguard for their employees, but some attacks are completely unexpected and executed in more and more imaginative ways. The fallback is that there must be protection in law. We must define the offence of impeding and the groups of people who would be covered. We must also decide which groups of employees would be covered by additional legal safeguards over and above those which every member of the community already enjoys—if that is the right word. Any member of the public who is assaulted has had an offence committed against them. If emergency workers who are assaulted are protected by a special law, will that raise the threshold of proof? Will there have to be additional evidence? If so, I am slightly worried that introducing a special offence might make securing a conviction more difficult.

We all intend, I hope, to ensure that emergency workers are protected in law, that the laws are workable, and that cases can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion in the courts.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) on coming so high in the ballot, and on his wisdom in choosing this subject.

I am particularly pleased to be able to support the Bill, because I am a former nurse who often worked in the accident and emergency service and greatly valued the teamwork of fire and ambulance crews. We have heard some shocking things from Members today, and the material from the Library contains further shocking information. Reading press releases issued over the past few months, I have been struck by the horror of incidents that had occurred throughout the United Kingdom. I was particularly struck by the fact that ambulance and fire personnel had gone into schools and asked young people to put their hands up if they had ever thrown stones, been abusive or planned attacks on our valued public services. The question was asked without prejudice, so that the young people would feel that they could confess to such actions. As I was not there, I cannot say how it went, but I think we should adopt that approach of confronting the perpetrators.

I believe that the Government's respect agenda will allow us, as Members of Parliament, to go into our communities, meet ambulance and fire personnel and establish what we can do to help them in our constituencies. We should work as a team, which of course we are if we are part of the public sector. Our police are protected, and rightly so, but we unintentionally instil in other "blue light" public servants a sense of being undervalued if we do not afford them the same protection.

I am thinking of people who must work in quite unbelievable circumstances. There was a time, many years ago, when ambulance personnel were thought of as glorified taxi drivers, but people know different now. Our ambulance personnel are extremely well-trained paramedics, with the skill to save our lives and keep us alive while they take us to accident and emergency departments.

I accept what the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) said about nursing and other staff in A and E departments in the spirit in which she meant it, but being in a department is very different from being at the roadside dealing with an incident, and having to be on the scene from the start. Of course, many nurses and doctors will accompany ambulance crews to incidents that require an entire team. Our fire officers do not just fight fires; they may be on the scene to deal with road accidents and other traumatic injuries. If the Bill is passed, our pride in our public servants will be reinforced by the Government and, if we achieve consensus—as I hope we will—by the House.

The "Not Alone" guide, which provides protection for NHS workers, is a step forward. The NHS security management services recognise that training is paramount for those who work alone. I worked as a district nurse for some years, and I worked alone in houses. Finding a house or block of flats and then going in, a district nurse is never entirely sure what awaits her, and may feel very vulnerable. Having a mobile phone may not be enough, because there may be no one back at the centre to take the call at that time of night. The system must become more sophisticated. We have tracking devices now. We have technology that enables us to protect all those who are working to make our lives better, and to help us and our communities through crises.

I want to work with the Government on the respect agenda, and I think that all of us, as Members of Parliament, have a duty to take that agenda into our constituencies. The reason why so many of us are here today to support the Bill is that we have a responsibility to find out what is happening in our areas and what we can do about it, and to pass legislation that will benefit everyone. If we do that, there will come a day when it will no longer be necessary for us to come to the House on Fridays to discuss how we can protect ambulance personnel and firefighters who work for the greater good of us all. We must send the message today that we value all those workers equally.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). As he knows, this issue has been dear to me for a long time. A number of Members on both sides of the House signed early-day motions that I tabled in the last Parliament and in this one, which called for protection for emergency workers in line with that provided in Scotland.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for informing me, when I took the Bill on, that work was in progress to transpose the Scottish legislation to a possible Bill, and I confirm his long-standing interest and support.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his recognition. It gives me great pleasure that we are discussing the Bill today, and it gives me even more pleasure to learn that the right hon. Gentleman has reached a compromise with the Government enabling the Bill to proceed at least in part, if not in total.

I know that any Member who moves the Second Reading of a Bill—such as the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound), who is sitting behind the Minister—must compromise on certain clauses if the Bill is to proceed. That does not mean that others cannot argue that the original intent is worthy of consideration, and challenge the Government to justify the changes that they seek. What must also be justified today, however, is the contention that the offences specified in the Bill cannot be dealt with by existing legislation. That was raised by the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) and by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who I am sure will enlighten us further should he be lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if the offences could be dealt with by existing legislation, this debate would be a waste of time and we would do better to press the Government to enforce that legislation. It has become clear to me, however, that the existing law is not working, and is not adequate to deal with the growing number of assaults and cases of services being impeded.

In the last Parliament, I had the pleasure of being part of the Liberal Democrat team shadowing the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I had special responsibility for the fire and rescue services, and was a member of the Standing Committee considering the Bill that became the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004. That Bill was generally welcomed, and was supported by all three parties in principle if not always in detail. As the party spokesman, I visited different parts of the country to speak to fire crews. I was horrified that, wherever I went, I heard tales of assaults on crews. I visited the Strathclyde control room, which it is particularly worth looking at because the Government plan to reproduce that model across the rest of the United Kingdom. The stories staff told me were similar to those I had heard from the rest of the country. I heard about fire crews not just being attacked but being deliberately set up, with a call being made and an ambush laid across the road. Perhaps a car would be set on fire, or crews would be called to a dead end, pull in, find their way blocked and be stoned and attacked by youths.Such tales will be familiar to ambulance and fire crews in Northern Ireland, but to find that people are doing that for kicks, in a part of the UK where there is not such civil disruption, is a serious and dangerous trend.

The growing number of attacks on nurses in hospitals is again well documented, but, as I acknowledged in an intervention, the Government have taken action to deal with that. When I asked questions about that matter previously, I was told that the Government believed that this legislation was unnecessary because they had already taken steps to deal with the problem, and I accept that a lot of work has been done.

The incidents that I have been made aware of are to do with binge-drinking, or drink-related violence in hospitals. While the Bill is focusing on protecting workers, as the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said, a similar amount of work must be done to educate people to realise what they are doing. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the 24-hour licensing laws have exacerbated the current problem?

The hon. Gentleman is taking us into a different area, which I do not think is the subject of today's debate. As far as I am aware, in my area, 24-hour licensing has not had a significantly detrimental effect. We will have to wait a while before any proper evidence suggests whether there has been such an effect.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will but I do not want to go too far down that route.

I just wondered whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that the managing director of the Wetherspoon's chain was on the radio this morning confirming that since the laws have been revised, the situation has improved, not got worse.

rose—

Order. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will endeavour to ensure that we do not go too far down that diversionary path.

I thank you for your direction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not aware that Tim Martin had said that. He is a constituent of mine—[Interruption.] I stand corrected. Tim has now moved on; he used to be director of that company. The new director made those comments.

I come back to the legislation under discussion. I hope that the Minister will say, and be able to prove in Committee, should we get that far, exactly why the Government wish the assault provisions to be stripped out of the Bill, why they feel that that matter is adequately covered and why the Bill does not aid existing legislation. What is sought, and what I sought in my campaign, is to ensure that emergency workers have equity with the police, who are already offered protection under their own legislation. That comes back to the comments by the hon. Member for Upminster about whether this Bill is creating separate legislation. As I said, such legislation already exists for the police. The Bill extends that protection to other emergency workers who are going about their duty.

When we were brought up in the 1950s and 1960s—and the 1970s and 1980s—the issue was not so important and emergency workers did not require such protection because, to be blunt, assaults were not committed. Times have changed. When times change, it is for us as legislators to ensure that we keep up. That is why I believe that this is an important Bill.

The hon. Lady mentioned the categories of people listed in the Bill. They include members of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. I have a lifeboat station in my constituency and I am told by members of its crew that, occasionally, people try to impede them and that they have been assaulted when they have been going about their duty. Also included are social workers—there was some cross-Bench chat about that earlier, when some concern was expressed. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst seemed to be saying that MPs act as social workers. Occasionally, perhaps we do, but not in the context of an emergency.

The Bill clearly defines that a social worker would be protected under the legislation when taking action

"required or permitted by

(i) a care order;

(ii) a supervision order;

(iii) a child assessment order;

(iv) or emergency protection order".

Also covered are approved social workers within the meaning of section 145(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983, chapter 20. There are specific cases where social workers have been attacked, or impeded in going about their duties, which can be deemed, in terms of child care or mental health, to be an emergency within the meaning of the Bill. Measures to protect social workers were added to the Scottish legislation after a Lib Dem amendment was accepted by the Scottish Executive. I am very pleased that they are included in this Bill.

I believe that enough of a case has been made for the Government to answer questions on how they are responding to attacks on emergency workers, and for the Bill to go to Committee stage to be considered in greater detail. If the right hon. Gentleman and other Members are not convinced, they will have an opportunity at a later stage to reject or to vote against the legislation. I urge them at this stage to support the Bill. It should move on to Committee, Report and eventually Third Reading. It is worthy and well supported across the country.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) on having the perspicacity and good fortune to choose this as a subject for the Bill and on coming high in the ballot. I also congratulate him on his good fortune in having asked me to be one of its sponsors. It means that I am very much in favour of it and will trouble the House only with relatively brief remarks today.

Three hours it is then.

As my hon. Friend says, three hours it is then.

I am chair of the Fire Brigades Union parliamentary group. In that capacity, I have had discussions with the Fire Brigades Union, which wholeheartedly supports the Bill. Before coming to the House, I was the solicitor for the Fire Brigades Union for almost 20 years. In that capacity, I saw many cases of firefighters who were injured as a result of arson or assault. Some injuries were career threatening. Some firefighters even had to retire as a result of what happened to them. For that reason, I strongly welcome the additional protections afforded by the Bill and, in particular, the Government's assurances as to how such offences should be treated in future.

The Fire Brigades Union recently published research showing that attacks on UK fire crews were running at some 40 a week and that the problem was getting worse. The research found that under-reporting meant that the figure could be as high as 120 attacks a week. In some parts of the country, fire crews are served a daily diet of bricks, bottles and missiles as they attempt to fight fires. In other incidents, ambushes have been set for firefighters. The attacks include scaffolding poles being thrown through the windscreens of fire engines. That not only impedes, puts at risk and injures the firefighters but puts the fire engine out of action not only for that fire call but potentially for many other fire incidents that it would otherwise have attended. Crews have been attacked with concrete blocks, bricks and bottles. They have been shot at and spat at. There have been direct physical assaults them. Equipment has been tampered with, stolen or even urinated on. The number and ferocity of the attacks seem to be getting worse. It can never be part of anyone's job to get a brick or bottle in the head as they are simply doing their duty.

Many attacks take place in deprived areas with poor youth facilities and poor housing, where bored young people turn to drugs and alcohol. In some areas there seems to be a culture of recreational violence with fire crews as the targets, often when dealing with fires that those vandals have set themselves to bring the firefighters into the trap that they have created.

My hon. Friend said that some 40 attacks happen every week and that that figure could be as high as 120 as a result of under-reporting. Does he think that creating the offence in the Bill would increase the level of reporting to the higher figure, and does he agree that there is currently under-reporting because action is rarely taken?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We know that if people have little confidence in the legal system they are less likely to report a crime, whether it be an assault on a firefighter, or other emergency worker, or domestic violence. Domestic violence is now treated much more seriously. The statistics have gone up, not because there is more domestic violence but because women know that if they are subject to it, it will be taken more seriously by the police. Similarly, if we send out the clear message from the House by allowing this Bill to pass through Parliament that we, as parliamentarians, are standing up for our emergency service workers and will not tolerate this, people will report offences more and the legal system will treat them far more seriously.

If firefighters cannot carry out their jobs because of violent assaults, the communities in which those assaults are being committed are being put at risk. Fire crews welcome the Bill because it complements the package of measures that are being put in place to tackle the underlying problem. The FBU hopes that it will get widespread support.

Some important points have been made in the debate about the position of public service workers generally. The Government's position is that the Sentencing Guidelines Council can put forward clearer recommendations to judges and that sentencing can be sufficiently flexible to embrace not only emergency service workers such as fire crews and ambulance staff but public sector workers generally. It cannot be right that anybody serving the public, whether as an emergency worker or more generally—I am thinking of the examples given by the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson)—should be subject to assault or abuse. Everybody doing such a job is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity and to have their customers treat them as the customers would expect to be treated by public service workers.

The proposed new offence of impeding an emergency worker would plug a significant gap in the law, as we have learned from discussions with the fire service. The current law is somewhat vague. The hon. Lady mentioned road blocks. A road block may well be an offence, but there is a world of difference between creating an obstruction on the public highway and obstructing a fire engine or an ambulance on its way to an emergency call. One is potentially a relatively trivial offence that is unlikely to be the subject of prosecution, whereas, under the Bill, the other would be subject to prosecution with, it is to be hoped, a severe sentence as a result.

The new offence would also deal with the problem of traps. My right hon. Friend gave graphic examples of the kinds of traps that can be set. Whether or not such a trap amounted to an assault, it would certainly impede an emergency worker.

When fire service personnel are injured as a result of an attack, that has a career-threatening effect on them because they need to have a high level of fitness and ability. Once that is lowered, it often means the end of their career in that service, as well as possibly reducing their opportunities for further employment; and they could be a very long way from retirement age.

The hon. Lady makes an important point. When I was a solicitor for the FBU, I handled many compensation cases on behalf of firefighters who had been injured in such circumstances, some of whom had indeed been unable to continue in their chosen careers.

The proposed impeding offence goes beyond the question of assault. If a fire engine on the way to a fire call is impeded and slowed down, that could result in the loss of valuable minutes in attending that call. Although nobody in the fire crew may have been hurt or directly assaulted, the people depending on that emergency response may find that they have suffered as a result through greater destruction of property, or possibly even injury or loss of life. The new offence would do a great service not only to fire crews and ambulance workers but to the general public as a whole, who may otherwise have their emergency response delayed.

I am pleased that the Ambulance Service Association, which wrote to me the other day, also backs the proposals. It said that

"in 2004/05 more than 1300 ambulance staff in England suffered a physical assault from a patient or a patient's carer, relative or friend. The 2004 NHS staff survey shows that nearly half of all ambulance staff had been threatened with assault or subjected to verbal abuse whilst at work in the preceding 12 month period."

That sort of behaviour is wrong and must not only be condemned in this House and by the public at large but treated seriously by our legal system. We must give the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police the tools that they need to do the job, and I believe that the Bill would go a long way towards achieving that.

The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said that he had waited 41 years for the chance to promote a private Member's Bill. He may well have set a record. I wish that most colleagues had to wait equally long, but that is probably too much to hope for.

I, too, welcome the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. As has already become clear, it seeks to deal with a problem of which we are all becoming increasingly aware. I suppose that we are entitled to ask why something has not been done before, but that is often the case when we think about legislating in this place. I believe that the Bill seeks to deal with a genuine and urgent problem. However, the right hon. Gentleman himself says that it is not quite right. I wish that more Members would admit that on Second Reading, but they are usually reluctant to do so.

I hope that the way in which the Bill proposes to import elements of Scots law into English law will not set a precedent because, given what I hear about what goes on north of the border in that rather eccentric little Parliament that we unfortunately set up, I hope that we have no intention of following what it does, which seems to be increasingly socialistic, regulatory and eccentric, to say the least. I would rather that we avoided as much of that as possible. Nevertheless, it may be that it very occasionally does something moderately sensible and we should follow its example.

The right hon. Gentleman was, typically, very open with us. I was intrigued to hear that he conducted negotiations with the Minister and her Department, as is sensible with any private Member's Bill, and that they had together rapidly concluded that the Bill in its current form probably should not go on to the statute book. It is not unusual for that negotiation to take place, but rather unusual for it to be so openly described. We are in the odd position of being asked to give a Second Reading to a Bill that is not in the form in which even its promoter wants it to get on to the statute book. He is saying to us, "Trust me, trust the Minister: when the Bill emerges from Committee, it really will be one that you will all want to support." Normally, I would be very reluctant to do anything of the kind, but since it is the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister whom we are talking about, on this occasion the House should be prepared to give them a degree of latitude. As has been pointed out, not least by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), we can of course pause during subsequent stages and consider the Bill in detail and at leisure, just to make absolutely sure that what the right hon. Gentleman has said today—and what the Minister will doubtless say subsequently—comes to pass.

It is therefore not quite as odd as it may seem that we can look at the Bill's thrust and purpose—and at the objectives as set out by the right hon. Gentleman, and elaborated on today—make our judgment on that basis and agree that there is a real problem to be dealt with, that there is a real necessity for a Bill, and that this Bill is the vehicle to allow us to deal with it. Once we have listened to the Minister and the Bill has gone into Committee, we can look at it again on Report and Third Reading, and I hope, if I may say so helpfully to the right hon. Gentleman, that he does not leave that process too late or allow it to take too long. Time runs out rather quickly in the private Member's Bill process, so he should look at the calendar and bear it in mind that the other place will have to consider the Bill, as well. If it gets a Second Reading today—I am very confident that it will—I urge him to try to see it through Committee as quickly as possible and to bring it back here in good time, so that the House can consider it and get it into shape.

All in all, this is an auspicious day. I again congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and I hope that he does not have to wait quite so long for his next private Member's Bill.

I, too, begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) not only on coming so high up in the ballot, but on seeking to legislate on such an important subject. I have the greatest respect for him, not least because of the help and support that he has given to me as an extremely new member of the Public Accounts Committee. He has considerable experience as a member of that Committee, and I thank him for his help.

I am pleased to be here to support my right hon. Friend's Bill this morning. It is the first time since I was elected last May that I have remained in Parliament on a Friday; I shall be back in my constituency tonight. I am actually here to support the next Bill on the Order Paper—I promised a group my constituents who are extremely exercised by the issue of planning permission for mobile phone masts that I would do so. However, it is a pleasure to support, in passing, my right hon. Friend. I shall keep my remarks extremely brief in my desire to enable him to secure a Second Reading.

I share my right hon. Friend's outrage at the instances of assault on emergency workers. These people have dedicated their lives to public service—a fact that the public should respect in the way that they treat them. I am therefore glad that, thanks to the work of my right hon. Friend and other hon. Friends, Ministers have a renewed focus on the need to ensure that sentencing guidelines for the existing offence of assault take account to the greatest possible extent of the fact that the victims of such assaults work in the public services. Indeed, we have a manifesto commitment to do that, and I am all in favour of manifesto commitments being delivered on as soon as possible. I hope that the negotiations that my right hon. Friend and others have held with the Department on this issue will lead to that commitment being realised sooner, rather than later. I also hope that the Bill will have a deterrent effect on those who seek to perpetrate such horrible offences.

I note, however, that the number of such offences is falling. I am told that the figure is down from 37,776 in 2003–04 to 11,482 in 2004–05, the last year for which data are available. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said that much of such crime is unreported, but I hope that this downward trend can nevertheless continue.

There is no doubt that the influence of alcohol plays an important part in such assaults, as others have pointed out this morning. In my constituency, there is a significant problem with assaults in the accident and emergency department of Burnley general hospital. I cannot imagine anything worse than sitting there in some pain while delays are caused by altercations and acts of aggression against hospital and ambulance staff.

I want to raise a particular issue, to which I hope the Minister can respond. Sometimes assaults are racially motivated, and I have certainly heard of such incidents occurring in my constituency. I find it absolutely abhorrent that some members of the public—under the influence of alcohol or otherwise—assault hard-working public service workers simply because they are from a different ethnic group from their own. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that the double whammy of racially aggravated assault against emergency workers will be dealt with extremely severely, and that she is negotiating with the Sentencing Guidelines Council to ensure that that happens.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's pragmatic decision to amend the Bill to close a loophole, so that those who impede emergency workers can be dealt with with the severity that such an offence deserves. I hope that, in the light of that amendment, all Members will ensure that the Bill proceeds to the next stage.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) on introducing this Bill, on having responded to pressure from representatives of emergency service workers, and on the transparent and accommodating way in which he has worked with the Government in order to make progress on this issue.

There clearly is a problem, in that although existing legislation deals in theory with a range of such crimes, it demonstrably is not as effective as it should be. It is obvious from the Government's response and from negotiations with the Sentencing Guidelines Council that steps are being taken to ensure that the failure of legislation to deal with the problem will be addressed. None the less, it is also obvious that a range of offences are being perpetrated against emergency workers that are not covered by existing legislation. I welcome my right hon. Friend's recognition of that fact, and his willingness to abandon elements of his proposals that might have complicated existing legislation, so that the Bill can make progress.

The Bill will do a number of things to assist in dealing with the problem. For a start, it will go some way toward addressing what must be a demoralising experience for emergency service workers. How often do we read newspaper headlines lauding to the skies the efforts of fire service workers and ambulance crews? Any straw poll of the public would show that emergency workers number among the most highly rated people in this country. One can only try to understand how demoralising it must be for them to be confronted with the violence and obstruction that seems to form part of their daily lives in pursuing their duties. To date, the Government, and even the wider public, have not focused on this problem sufficiently. The Bill will perhaps help to raise such workers' morale, and help them to feel that the Government and the public are concerned and are going to do something about this problem.

The Bill is important in another way. If people are not confident that action will be taken when they report a criminal offence, their inclination is not to bother to report it. By drawing public attention to the issue and demonstrating that action is being taken, the Bill will—I hope—encourage people, not only in the emergency services but in other public services, to report such attacks. That will put pressure on employers and law enforcement agencies to do something about the problem.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Fire Brigades Union and many firefighters say that many incidents are not reported for exactly the reasons he gives. Fire brigade officers and staff in my constituency in Greater Manchester are very concerned that the issue is not taken seriously enough because of that under-reporting.

The hon. Gentleman's evidence accords with my personal experience and other reports from elsewhere. The irony is that the enactment of the Bill might prompt a surge in the number of offences, but that might misrepresent what is happening. It is because it would be apparent that we are doing something about the problem that the reporting of offences might increase.

My right hon. Friend described a range of incidents that he had uncovered in his work on the Bill, and they are probably reflected in the experience of many other hon. Members. I have several examples from the west midlands. I intervened on my right hon. Friend to describe a bizarre, so-called happy slapping incident, and the Bill might offer a potential way to deal with such incidents. A couple of years ago, there was an incident at West Bromwich bus station when two female ambulance service personnel answered a distress call. On arriving, they found someone who was drunk and who proceeded to assault them physically. As if that were not bad enough, some more drunken young people weighed in on the assault, although it might have been thought that those two ladies would have enjoyed the support of the public in that critical situation. Not only was the assault a disturbing and traumatic experience for those two young ladies, but their services were lost to the ambulance service for a considerable time. It is an appalling reflection on our society that such assaults should go unprosecuted.

We have also heard about incidents involving the fire service. In the west midlands, in 2004 there were 76 attacks on firefighters, and in 2005 there were no fewer than 143. We should be cautious about the use of such statistics, because they may reflect an increase in reporting and a greater awareness of the problem, but one incident in Coventry stands out, in which someone tried to drop a car battery on a firefighter from the 16th floor of a tower block. Happily, it missed, but one can only wonder at the vicious mindlessness of someone who is prepared to perpetrate such an attack. Public service workers who have to run such risks in carrying out their duties deserve our sympathy and support.

My right hon. Friend has described the incidents in Manchester and Merseyside, so I shall not repeat them. Many of the incidents are a result of drink or drugs—mainly drink. We have discussed the potential impact of the changes in licensing laws on the problem and I happen to believe that dealing with such incidents is not only a matter of legislating to prevent them, but of legislating against antisocial behaviour in a range of areas. Although it is too early to make any definitive pronouncements, there is some evidence that the changes in licensing laws are having an impact, and that will need to be carefully monitored to see whether any amendment to the law is needed to prevent such incidents.

The Government must also consider diversionary activities, especially for young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) commented on the attempts made by firefighters to visit schools to talk to young people. That could be taken further. If we could show young people how the emergency services work—within the health and safety requirements—it might provide a bonding effect in communities that could prevent some of the incidents that we have heard about today.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is some irony in what he has just said? For many years as I was growing up, I wanted to be a fireman—

Firefighter.

Well, I am a man, so I would have been a fireman. We now have a generation who do not want to be firefighters, but instead want to cause them harm. That is why we need an emphasis on education.

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, although many areas have long waiting lists for becoming firefighters. Many people still recognise that firefighting is an important, valid and rewarding occupation. However, I agree that it is ironic that a small minority of people appear to be prepared to act in such a profoundly antisocial way for no obvious or logical reason.

At the opening of the new fire station in Teignmouth, I was told that there is now a waiting list for the Teign fire crews. The hon. Gentleman mentions the fact that fire brigades are working with young people, but is he aware that some sadly feel constrained in doing so because the new legislation does not contain a duty of well-being for the combined fire services that now stand alone, outside the auspices of local authority control? The Government could consider providing those fire services with a duty of well-being that would allow them to do more of the work to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, although I cannot comment on the details about his constituency. In general, we need to take a fresh look at the legislative and regulatory approach so that we can encourage our young people to engage with our public services and understand just how they operate. We need to think outside the box. Changes in legislation that may not appear to have immediate relevance to the issue will in fact have an impact on it and we need to be aware of that.

The Bill will encourage a more proactive engagement of all the public services, especially the police, with the fire brigades and ambulance services, with better co-ordination to ensure that there are more prosecutions. As was pointed out earlier, there is a lack of prosecutions under existing law, so by focusing public attention on the issue the Bill will go some way towards ensuring that all the agencies establish procedures to provide more evidence and an extra incentive for the Crown Prosecution Service to undertake more prosecutions.

The antisocial behaviour order agenda could be a way of restricting the activities of certain antisocial young people who try to perpetrate vicious ambushes and stunts on the emergency services. In a small but significant number of areas, there seems to be a culture in which violence against members of the public services is part of a game designed for kicks—a sort of video nasty that is not on video. We must break that culture, and although the legislation cannot deal with all the social and psychological problems that lie behind that pattern of activity, it will undoubtedly be part of our armoury in taking action against it.

I welcome the Bill. It cannot solve the problem alone, but by making it easier to prosecute people who deliberately impede those who carry out vital emergency services it will go some way towards addressing the problem. A secondary impact of the Bill, which may be more profound in the long run, is that it will focus attention on the issue and may stimulate other action to address the problem.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) on the Bill and thank him for asking me to be one of its sponsors. I have enjoyed working with him and learned much from his experience, as we negotiated with the Home Office and representatives of the emergency services, who gave us the benefit of their wisdom and experience. I certainly hope that the Bill will become law and that it will protect emergency service personnel who need and deserve our protection.

It is one of the most wicked things that people think it is funny deliberately to try to entice into a trap and set upon people with a sense of public service who attend because it is their job to protect the public. It is a waste of resources. It wastes the time of emergency workers. It is dangerous and it undermines the ethos of public services that we should support and develop. I will support anything that tackles that. The Bill is one step among other measures, including the respect agenda, which is an important aspect.

In my constituency, a gang of boys on the Bemerton estate regularly call out the emergency services, especially the fire brigade. When the firefighters arrive, the boys throw stones at them. Things are getting worse and I am concerned that they will get out of hand. The Bill recognises the seriousness of the offence and will cut into criminal behaviour at a certain level, so that it can be dealt with before it spirals out of control.

The Bill is well judged and it has my support. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his wisdom in choosing this matter to bring before the House. It keys in excellently with our respect agenda. The Bill has my full support and I wish it well—as I do the next Bill, so I shall keep my contribution as short as possible so that it, too, can get through.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), first, on securing the opportunity to present a Bill and, secondly, on choosing such an important topic, which is close to all our hearts.

It is important to remember that although 99.9 per cent. of the population, and indeed 99.9 per cent. of our young people, always show the utmost respect to our emergency workers—as they sincerely deserve—a number of people, unfortunately, do not. That small number of individuals takes up a disproportionate amount of the time and attention of the emergency services. Their behaviour is completely reprehensible and we need to send them a clear message: not only is impeding or assaulting emergency workers unacceptable in itself, it also delays them and prevents them from dealing effectively and efficiently with the victims of an emergency, with possibly tragic consequences.

I know only too well from my career as a teacher and schools inspector that we have to spell out the law clearly. We must make it absolutely clear that any form of insulting, impeding or assaulting emergency workers is wholly unacceptable. We must give the highest possible level of protection to our firefighters, our ambulance staff, our coastguards, our prison officers, our social workers and the staff in our hospitals, who frequently deal with extremely difficult and dangerous circumstances.

Whether we like it or not, our young people, and the population in general, are more fearful of, and thus more respectful towards, police officers than they are of emergency workers. The Bill will send a clear message that emergency workers must be given the same respect as the police. It must be backed by continuing efforts in schools to drive home the message that we will not tolerate any attack, whether verbal or physical, on emergency workers. It will be much easier to get that message across if teachers can tell young people that impeding or assaulting an emergency worker is as serious an offence as impeding or assaulting a police officer.

We must also send out a clear message that being under the influence of alcohol is not an excuse to be rude, unco-operative or aggressive towards any emergency worker. Perhaps all bottles and cans of alcohol should carry the warning: "Alcohol can cause people to indulge in behaviour that they subsequently regret. Being under the influence of alcohol is no excuse in law"—although another Member may be able phrase it more simply. We might also consider doubling the penalties for any offence committed under the influence of alcohol.

It is high time that we, the overwhelming, law-abiding majority, showed our support for our emergency workers, and made it absolutely clear to the small despicable minority that we shall tolerate no form of assault, aggression or verbal abuse towards any member of our very valuable emergency services.

I too welcome the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and I congratulate him on his campaign to raise the issues it addresses. These are important issues affecting our emergency workers; we have heard today how they suffer from the modern scourge of unwarranted assaults while they are trying to save lives.

Although the measures in the Bill would evidently attract support from Members on both sides of the House, my support stems from the fact that Greater Manchester has one of the worst records for attacks on firefighters, so I shall focus on that branch of the emergency services. There have, unfortunately, been some 350 attacks on firefighters in Greater Manchester in the past two years. The Manchester Evening News has run an effective campaign to focus attention on the issue, and I commend the paper and its reporter, Neal Keeling, for doing so.

It is clear that within Greater Manchester, Salford, which is one of the two local authorities covered by my Worsley constituency, has a technical problem with assaults and attacks on firefighters—a record that Salford's MPs would like to lose as soon as we can. A recent example from Salford highlighted in the Manchester Evening News concerned a fire engine being vandalised and burgled as the fire crew worked to rescue a woman and her 12-year-old son from their burning home. To damage a fire engine while the fire crew is working to save lives is seriously to risk loss of human life.

Hon. Members will have read the articles and briefings cataloguing the increasingly severe nature of attacks on firefighters, involving, as we have heard today, many cases of arson and the setting of deliberate traps for fire crews. Yesterday, Councillor Fred Walker, chair of the Greater Manchester fire authority, told me of the problems encountered by our fire crews. Fires have been deliberately set at the bottom of a terrace in a cul-de-sac. Fire crews raced to the scene and found that they had been cornered—bricks and other objects were thrown at them while they tried to put out fires. Also of great concern to Councillor Walker is the trend, described by my right hon. Friend, of causing fires in abandoned buildings after laying traps specifically to hurt firefighters attending the scene.

I find the callous and deliberate nature of those attacks absolutely chilling. It is vital that both our fire services and the police treat each incident of attacks and assaults on firefighters with the seriousness that the incidents deserve.

As I have mentioned, Greater Manchester comes out badly in the statistics compiled by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, as do Merseyside and the west midlands. However, other areas such as London record a very low number of incidents, and there seems to be an issue of under-reporting.

The fire service and elected Members serving in fire authorities also want to see attacks and assaults on fire crews treated seriously following prosecutions. There is seen to be a difficulty when a fine is imposed, given that most offenders are juveniles who do not have the means to pay a fine. It is welcome that antisocial behaviour orders are increasingly used to deal with those who attack firefighters; given that most of those concerned are juveniles, parenting orders also have a role to play.

Councillor Walker told me that he would also like the courts to make increasing use of community penalties. There are a number of worthwhile community schemes, jointly run by the fire service and organisations such as the Prince's Trust. Greater Manchester fire service has a young firefighters scheme, which focuses on boys and young men in target areas where there is the most violence against crews. The aim is to work with the type of kids who are non-joiners—who do not engage with these services or with out-of-school activities. If those young people can understand the work of the fire services at a younger age, it can help dissuade them from getting involved in attacks on fire crews as they get older.

The Prince's Trust also has a 13-week scheme for young people, run in conjunction with the fire service and football clubs such as Manchester United. Young people completing the scheme get a certificate of attainment, which can improve their employment prospects as the scheme is highly regarded by employers. I commend the fire service and the Prince's Trust for their community schemes, because those can both help young people and develop better support for the fire service within the community.

Although I have focused on attacks on firefighters, attacks on doctors, nurses, paramedics and ambulance crews are of equal concern and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) for highlighting those concerns.

It is right and timely that we should focus on the issues faced by our emergency workers. The Government's respect agenda gives us an additional framework so that Members of Parliament and councillors can work with the police and emergency workers to deal with the problems in their area; I fully intend to do so in my constituency.

We also need better recording of incidents, and better follow-up of incidents by the police, resulting in prosecutions wherever possible. Finally, we need imaginative and appropriate sentencing to deter future attacks.

I think it is agreed across the House that we are discussing a very serious problem. Assaults on people at work in the emergency services and our public services are at an unacceptably high level. The latest figures show that in 2004–05 there were more than 11,000 physical assaults against national health service acute services staff. I know from just one of the NHS trusts serving my constituency that there were 163 physical assaults on staff in the last financial year, and 183 the year before. That brings home to me the scale of the problem. There were more than 1,300 physical assaults on NHS ambulance staff across the country in 2004–05.

We also know that this is a growing problem. In my local ambulance service, violent incidents against staff increased from 221 in 2001–02 to 300 the following year. I am sure that hon. Members from both sides of the House will be able to relay the fact that this is not only an issue of great public concern but one that is clearly increasing, and therefore merits serious consideration of what further measures are necessary to tackle it.

Hon. Members have expressed some objections to the Bill and it is worth our reflecting on them. Whereas there seems to be a consensus across the House that a new offence of impeding an emergency service worker is needed, reservations have been expressed—I suspect that we may hear them from the Minister—about creating a new offence of assaulting an emergency services worker. It is contended, first, that existing legislation is adequate to deal with such assaults; and, secondly, that a specific offence of assaulting an emergency worker or somebody working in public services might make it harder to prosecute those offences. It is argued against those views that, as has been pointed out, there is already a separate offence in Scotland, giving protection specifically to emergency service workers, passed by the Scottish Parliament last year, and there is of course an existing separate offence of assaulting a police officer.

At one stage the Government did take the view that specific measures were necessary to deal with this problem. The Labour election manifesto said,

"we will introduce tougher sentences. . . for those convicted of assaulting workers serving the public."

But those tougher sentences did not feature in the Violent Crime Reduction Bill, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) moved amendments to create an offence of violence against a public servant, addressing broadly the same problem that this Bill seeks to address, the Government rejected that approach, preferring to rely on sentencing guidelines as expressed by the Sentencing Guidelines Council, that assaults on people working in the public sector are aggravated. It is true that the number of convictions for attacking, for example, NHS staff has risen. However, we must consider whether Parliament needs to send a stronger signal both to express concern about assaults on emergency service workers and to deter people from committing such offences in future.

My judgment is that we need to send such a signal, partly because of the increase in the number of offences and the scale of the problem that exists and partly because, as has been pointed out, the effect of assaulting or impeding an emergency service worker could put the public at risk if those workers are taken out of action. So harm is being done not just to the people who work in the services, but to the public broadly. Therefore, on public policy grounds, a specific offence or an aggravated offence to stop that may well be justified.

I am not persuaded by what I have heard so far about the Government's reasons for rejecting a specific offence of assaulting an emergency services worker or, indeed, of creating some kind of aggravated offence, not least because Parliament has accepted already that certain offences should be considered as aggravated—for instance, racially motivated attacks—and it has proved perfectly possible to prosecute people for those offences. I am not sure whether the obstacles that people sometimes claim will be placed in the way of the specific offence are necessarily viable, but I will listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say.

After examining the Bill and listening to what the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and other Members said, I share the consensus that these issues should be examined in Committee. People who work in public services do a vital job, often in difficult circumstances, and we all rely on them. The House should send a very clear signal that we believe that assaults on ambulance staff, firefighters, doctors and nurses are totally unacceptable. For that reason, we support the Bill. I hope that it will receive a Second Reading and that these detailed issues will be examined in Committee, so that the precise need for and wording of additional measures can be scrutinised. I very much hope that the Government will share what is clearly a great deal of support for the Bill on both sides of the House.

I start by thanking the Father of the House for giving us the opportunity to demonstrate the consensus that exists among hon. Members on both sides of the House in our admiration of and support for emergency services workers, who risk their lives for us all regularly. The emergency services represent a powerful statement of the way in which we in society care for one another. It is an important symbol of our civilisation that they provide a platform of security on which we can depend when we face an emergency, thus helping us to work better as a society and the individual members of society to feel more secure in facing the challenges that we face.

We have had a classic Second Reading debate. We have demonstrated broad consent about the issues. We have raised queries about the precise way in which the Bill might deal with the issues about which hon. Members are concerned. I hope to be able to deal fully with two fundamental issues—first, how we deal with assaults on emergency workers, and secondly, how we deal with those who impede emergency workers.

Will my hon. Friend explain the current offence of impeding a firefighter, because it is still not quite clear to me?

Certainly. That is an important part of the point that I was about to come to, which was raised by the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). Is there a gap in the law, and if so, where are the spaces? That is a perfectly proper question to address. We have an offence under section 44(3) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, which is in force and states:

"A person commits an offence if without reasonable excuse he obstructs or interferes with an employee of a fire and rescue authority taking action authorised under this section."

In practice, one of the frustrations for the fire services has been that it has sometimes proved quite difficult to fulfil all the requirements of section 44 for a specific offence, because a fire officer must show that he has been "authorised in writing" to do certain things. That can be a quite laborious process, and it seems to be one of the things that has occasionally inhibited the success of prosecutions.

The House is absolutely agreed: in every contribution, I have heard a belief that we should have an effective prosecutorial mechanism to protect emergency service workers from being obstructed. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) for his willingness to use the Bill to create a simpler, more straightforward offence of impeding or obstructing that could perhaps fulfil all the specific requirements under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004. Of course there is no such offence in relation to ambulance workers, but he is trying to create a simple offence, whereby we could deal with the gap in the law for emergency service workers across the board.

Perhaps the Minister will address this point in the fullness of time; but just in case, may I pre-emptively ask her what assessment has been made of how the Scottish legislation has worked so far? As we have a body of legislation that covers the offence of assault, what assessment has she made of why problems have arisen in bringing sufficient prosecutions to deter this form of activity?

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not immediately respond to those questions, because I believe that what I will say later will answer them. If I do not fully answer them, I invite him to intervene on me again, but I hope that it will be easier for hon. Members to hear the response to those points later in my speech, because it will then make better sense to them.

I shall deal with the question of whether we need legislation on assault—I will refer to the Scottish experience—and with whether there are gaps in the offence of impeding. I have already addressed to a degree some of the defects in the existing legislation, but are there further gaps? If there is a gap in the law, who should be covered and what action should be taken? Is this all a matter for the courts—or, as some hon. Members have said, can it be dealt with by taking further action, including the work that we are already doing with the respect action plan and so on?

Assault is the most serious aspect, and following my assurances and explanations the Father of the House, who is promoting the Bill, has generously agreed to focus not on assault but on amendments to address a gap in the law. Comprehensive measures in our existing law already deal properly with assault and attacks in a wide range of circumstances. The offences include common assault, actual bodily harm, which is committed if a person's injuries are more than superficial, and grievous bodily harm, which is a very serious offence. Shockingly, emergency service workers have been the victims of those more serious forms of assault. A wide range of penalties can be imposed for the different criminal behaviours associated with assault and other violence. The sentence for common assault can be a maximum of six months' imprisonment or a fine of up to £5,000, and the sentence for grievous bodily harm, manslaughter or murder can be life imprisonment.

Those offences cover everyone, so we do not think that we need a specific offence of assault on emergency workers. Such a provision would add nothing to the existing law, and, as I was explaining to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), a specific offence could cause complications because a person's specific circumstances at the time of the assault would have to be proved, which could have the unintentional effect of inhibiting a successful prosecution. I hope that we will be able to amend the Bill substantially in Committee. It would provide for a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment for such an offence, but that is the same penalty as the maximum sentence for common assault. The provision would thus add nothing practical to the protection that the law already offers.

If an offence of common assault, actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm were committed against a member of the emergency services, do sentencing guidelines say that the sentence should be weighted? Will the Minister comment on the position of the Sentencing Guidelines Council?

I will explain fully the way in which the Sentencing Guidelines Council works later, but it may be helpful if I quote from the overarching principles that it issued in December 2004. Paragraph 1.23 identifies

"Factors indicating a more than usually serious degree of harm"

that must be taken into account when determining a sentence. One such factor is:

"Offence is committed against those working in the public sector or providing a service to the public".

It is obvious from the debate that Parliament takes seriously the problem affecting people who perform the special duty of providing emergency services. However, such people are already covered by a specific aspect of the guidance on seriousness, and we hope that the Sentencing Guidelines Council will consider the matter further.

Does the Minister not accept that when dealing with assault, it is important to make it clear, to young people especially, that emergency workers are a special case because they save people's lives? That point is rather lost in the guidance of the Home Office and the courts on how things should be weighted. I do not know of many 16-year-olds who would say, "Oh, this is weighted, so I won't do it." If there were a clear red line to say that an assault on such workers would be an aggravated assault, they would be more likely to take account of that.

We need to be honest about what influences 16-year-olds' behaviour. The hon. Gentleman is right that guidance from the Sentencing Guidelines Council does not tend to make much difference to them, but I am not convinced that the existence of an aggravating factor does, either. Sentencing can have an impact if it has serious and clear consequences. It is important to use education and community sentences. We must ensure that the message that we have been sharing with each other during the debate is not kept in the confines of the Chamber, but spread more widely by campaigns such as the protect our heroes campaign, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) and is run by the Manchester Evening News, and the respect campaign. The message must go out to young people that emergency workers could save their mums, families, or friends. We must decide the most effective technique that will ensure that people who are tempted to commit such an offence are deterred—that is what all of us want—and that those who commit the offence are effectively prosecuted and convicted.

The Minister said that a specific additional offence would add nothing to the existing law, and expressed scepticism about whether aggravated offences add anything—so does she think that racially aggravated offences add nothing to the existing law?

No, I am absolutely certain that they add a great deal to the law. Let me say why, and explain why the offence that we are talking about is different. We made a substantial change to the law to ensure that there was a specific aggravating factor for racially and religiously motivated offences of all kinds because of what happens when an offence is committed against a person in a category shared by many other people in the community. If a person is attacked because of their faith or race, other members of the same community are terrorised. Such an act should be a statutory aggravating offence because of the terrorising effect on those who share the person's characteristics. An assault on a person would not have the same terrorising effect on those who shared his or her profession. None the less, emergency workers need to be properly protected, so if I can make progress with my speech I will describe the actions that we will take to deliver that. There is consensus in the House about what we want to achieve. If hon. Members give me time to explain how we can do that, we can get consensus on that, too.

We all know about the vulnerability of private Members' legislation; indeed, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) mentioned it in a slightly guarded way. I hope that we can build consensus about the important lacunae that exist in the law and use this opportunity to deal with them. We should not try to move forward with private Members' legislation on too wide a front so as to put its progress at risk.

Thank you for giving way. At the point of my intervention, you were describing quite rightly—

As the hon. Lady has now committed the offence a second time, I must point out that when she says "you", she is referring to me. I am sure that that is not what she intends.

My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I spoke earlier about what is almost antisocial behaviour among young people and about the respect agenda. Will the Minister give any more information about how Government legislation on those matters can assist this Bill?

Absolutely. I shall come on to that issue. As well as specific parts of the respect campaign that can make a positive contribution, we have developed some other important tools and techniques. We have developed antisocial behaviour orders and measures to deal with parenting, such as parenting orders, allowing us to intervene early and use schemes such as those mentioned by some hon. Members to educate and engage young people, perhaps with their local fire services, for example. All such measures can make a difference.

I think that our consensus is not only about catching, prosecuting and convicting those who are guilty of assaulting and obstructing emergency service workers, but about preventing such activities from happening. Having listened to the debate, I think that there is a very clear view that although catching, prosecuting and convicting are one very important tool in prevention, as has been shown by the work of the NHS security authority, education can also play a role. The respect agenda includes the possibility of providing such education.

I described why I felt it was unnecessary to include in the assault offence a statutory aggravating factor, which the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) mentioned. Indeed, I think that it is also unnecessary to have a wholly separate assault offence. As I said, assault is assault, and it is proper that we should deal effectively with all assaults and violent crime. We need to seek as far as possible to resist the temptation to over-complicate the law by creating very specific offences. As I said, such offences are often difficult to prove and act as another burden when matters are dealt with in court.

Does the Minister agree that the situation in Scotland is not really comparable? The Scots created a new offence partly to ensure that courts would sentence appropriately for such actions, whereas elsewhere we have the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which does not exist in Scotland.

That is absolutely true. The Sentencing Guidelines Council provides a mechanism that can read across to all sorts of offences. For example, there are other at-risk groups: other public sector workers are rightly included in the present overarching principles, which also cover teachers who are beaten up by angry parents. Such issues should be a factor that is dealt with in sentencing. It is inappropriate that someone who is serving the public by teaching children should be more vulnerable because they are in that situation.

It is therefore wrong to try to over-complicate the law by slicing off little bits and creating legislative ghettos if we can deal with the problem properly under existing law. I hope to persuade hon. Members that we can do that within the scope of a single offence. That means better constructed, less complicated and clearer law and greater ease in securing prosecutions. I believe that we all agree that people need to understand the law. Some hon. Members suggested that adding bells and whistles to it will make it easier to understand but I do not accept that. The law needs to work well on the ground and creating different offences for different groups of people is a recipe for confusion.

If I understand the Under-Secretary correctly, she is not willing to give special treatment to people who expose themselves to danger far more than the rest of us. Is she aware of the success of such measures in America, where the extra powers to protect the police and the fire and ambulance services have acted as a deterrent to attacks on them?

I am, of course, willing to give those people extra protection—the debate is about the most effective mechanism for doing that. If the hon. Gentleman has listened carefully, he will have heard my commitment to my right hon. Friend to work with the Sentencing Guidelines Council to ensure that the sentencing guidelines mechanism, which does not exist in Scotland, is used to ensure a more effective penalty.

Clear evidence exists to show that a separate offence does not necessarily produce lengthier sentences. There is a specific offence of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty, and in some ways it is common sense to have such an offence. Police are different from other emergency service workers because obstructing or assaulting a police officer is often part of a pattern of criminality. Someone who tries to impede a police officer might be trying to prevent their own capture and conviction and that is one of the reasons for the separate offence.

However, let us consider the sentencing for that offence, which carries the same maximum penalty as that suggested in the Bill. The penalty is the same as that for common assault. In the past two years, however, those sentenced to custody for assaulting a police officer have received slightly lower sentences than those convicted of common assault. In 2003, the average sentence for assaulting a police officer was 2.8 months as opposed to three months for common assault. In 2004, the average sentence for assaulting a police officer was 2.9 months compared with 3.1 months for common assault. I concede that the differences are not large but they show that a specific offence does not guarantee a more effective penalty.

Let us not split hairs—let us focus on what we agree about. Hon. Members from all parties want someone who is convicted of assault on an emergency service worker to receive a sentence that reflects the seriousness with which the House views such an offence. That is common ground.

I fully understand my hon. Friend's point but I am worried about the statistics that she cited. It appears that the courts regard assaulting a policeman as less significant than assaulting a member of the public. Are discussions being held with the Sentencing Guidelines Council to assess why that is the case and whether anything is being done about it?

I—

Just say no.

I am having discussions. I had intended a little later in my remarks to describe how the Sentencing Guidelines Council operates, so I shall proceed to that if it helps hon. Members. I have mentioned the existing sentencing guidelines—the over-arching principle of seriousness. A consultation by the Sentencing Guidelines Council is under way, dealing with violent crime and specifically assault. We will work with the council to ensure that it is fully aware of the circumstances of emergency workers and the unique dangers that offences of assault or obstruction can involve when they are directed against emergency workers.

Let us be clear about the nature of the Sentencing Guidelines Council. It is not just a guidance council. It is an important body chaired by the Lord Chief Justice. It has seven judicial members, including a district judge and a lay justice, and four non-judicial members with experience of one or more of the following—policing, criminal prosecution, criminal defence and the interests of victims. In the process of producing guidelines, there is wide consultation and an opportunity for Ministers and Parliament through the Home Affairs Committee to contribute to consideration of what should be contained in the guidelines. The council is supported by the Sentencing Advisory Panel, an independent body originally set up to provide advice to the Court of Appeal.

rose—

I am trying to be generous in taking interventions, but the difficulty is that I could end up being confusing. I will, however, give way to the hon. Gentleman.

I have listened with great interest to the Minister. Her approach is very worthy, but what is needed is action, not more consultation and talk. We want something done.

As I have pointed out to the hon. Gentleman, we already have action in the overriding principles of December 2004. We are in the process of developing the sentencing guidelines on violent crime. The process has started. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is a slightly lengthy process, but I predict that it will come to a conclusion at about the time that we would be able to implement the offence proposed in the Bill. It is not an instant process. We are dealing with sentencing for crime so it is, rightly, a properly elaborated process, but a powerful process. It is not vague. It has specific aspects, including a duty properly to consult, and I do not accept that that is a bad thing.

rose—

I am about to describe how the process will work with respect to violent crime, but I shall first give way to the hon. Gentleman.

I must go back to the statistics, which show how damaging the current system is. We want to move the level of protection for the fire service and the ambulance service up to that for the police, yet the statistics prove that even the police are not getting the protection that they want. Surely we should consider compiling a new set of laws that bring all three services up to the same standard.

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has not understood. I do not mean to patronise him, but I pointed out that introducing a separate offence does not guarantee the outcome that he and I both want—that a sentence for an assault on a worker who is protecting the public should reflect the seriousness with which Parliament views such assaults. We both agree on that.

The hon. Gentleman suggests that the way to achieve that is by creating a separate and specific offence. I have pointed out how the use of a separate and specific offence in relation to the police does not achieve that end. However, I am in the middle of describing—I will finish, and when I finish I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept the point that I am making—the way in which the sentencing guidelines procedure works, and the fact that the Sentencing Guidelines Council is in the process of consulting about how it should treat violent crimes, including assault.

On that point, part of the difficulty is that my hon. Friend has not outlined the full statistical position on assaulting a police officer compared with common assault because she has not told us either the difference in the number of prosecutions in each category or the conviction rates vis-à-vis both categories.

My hon. Friend has spent a lot of time talking about assault on individuals. What about attacks on vehicles being used by emergency services in their work? I am particularly minded of the recent FA cup match between Manchester United and Liverpool. A Manchester United player suffered an horrific injury and had to be taken from the ground in an ambulance, which was pelted with bottles and glasses by a scandalous minority, although I do not know whether they were Liverpool supporters or not. Would such disgraceful behaviour be covered by a separate offence of obstruction and impeding?

It would, and the point my hon. Friend raises relates to the biggest gap in the law. There is no offence involving protection from being impeded or obstructed available to ambulance workers, and he has given a particularly gross example of impeding and obstructing. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his generous offer to ensure that the Bill could provide us with an opportunity to deal with that lacuna in the law, but I think I owe an explanation to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have asked how I can ensure that the seriousness of assaults on emergency services workers can properly be reflected through the sentencing guidelines procedure.

The Sentencing Advisory Panel has already started the consultation on draft guidelines covering sentencing for all violent crimes against the person, so, as I have already said, we are in the middle of that process. Sentencing guidelines will be issued in due course, following the consultation and consideration by the council. We expect them to reiterate that the victim being a public servant is a serious aggravating factor in any offence of violence and to explain that attacks on any victim who is serving the public can have a serious impact on the ability to deliver the public service. In this example, that specifically increases the seriousness of the offence.

Is my hon. Friend aware of how much support there is out there among the public for ensuring that we send a clear message that any form of assault or violent crime is unacceptable? Only recently in my constituency, 2,000 signatures were collected, asking for an increase in a sentence felt to be too lenient for, in this instance, deliberate manslaughter. I beg her to look carefully at sentencing for violent crimes, which is such an emotive issue in the public eye. It is important that we say clearly that no civilised society can ever tolerate any form of assault or violence against the person.

My hon. Friend is right. That is one reason for this Government introducing powers to appeal against unduly lenient sentences, which were not previously available to the prosecution. That is an important way to build public confidence in our legal system.

I assure the House that we will work with the Sentencing Guidelines Council to ensure that, in formulating the relevant aggravating factors for offences of violence, the council is aware, specifically, of the harm that an attack on an emergency worker can do, and that in responding to an emergency, even a short delay can endanger the lives of emergency workers and specifically endanger also the lives of the people to whom they are responding—there may be only a few minutes in which to reach them. We will ensure that the Sentencing Guidelines Council is aware of the suggestion made many times in this debate—I am inclined to send it a copy of Hansard—that the guidelines should mention that specifically.

Let us be clear. If a sentencer intends to depart from a sentencing guideline, they must explain in open court why they are not taking that factor into account. This is not merely something that exists in a bench book—it is clear guidance that a sentencer needs to implement. If the specific nature of an emergency worker responding to an emergency is included as a particularly aggravating factor in the guidelines on violent crime—we want to encourage the Sentencing Guidelines Council to do that—the sentencer must reflect that aggravation in the sentence that they hand down. If they do not intend to do so, they need to explain why in court. I do not believe that all hon. Members were aware that the process works as specifically as that, and I think that they will be reassured. We all want to achieve the aim that sentencing properly reflects the seriousness of this matter.

On that point, will the guidelines include a mandatory minimum sentence for assaults on emergency workers involving knives?

We have some powerful minimum sentences and specific legislation for knife use. Those underpin the additional aggravating factors. The powers on knife crime apply to all people, but when the sentence is handed down the fact that the person involved was serving the public would be an additional factor. If we can persuade the Sentencing Guidelines Council to ensure that the specific circumstances of an emergency service worker are reflected, that factor could also be taken into account.

I am trying to be helpful. What the Minister has just said is reassuring. However, I have still not heard enough about why an aggravated offence does not work, and why she is taking this line of argument. Rather than prolong this debate and that point, however, will she agree to meet me and the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) before the Committee stage—I hope that we get that far—to go through that argument? It is our intention to help the Government introduce this legislation, but we wish to test those arguments.

We can do that in Committee, and I am happy to discuss the matter with the hon. Gentlemen. Having set up the Sentencing Guidelines Council, we should use it as effectively as we can, and I am happy to discuss with them how it works. It is a relatively new animal, and not everyone is completely familiar with it. In my view, the experience of the offence under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 is significant. It is interesting that this debate has focused on the fire services, which currently have an offence that is quite complex and has recently been reiterated in law. There have been difficulties, however, in securing effective prosecutions. Part of the reason for that is the difficulty of demonstrating what constitutes an offence of this kind. We need a fairly simple definition of the offence, while also ensuring that it can be dealt with by means of a sentence.

Much has been made of sentencing—rightly—but if a conviction is not gained first, all the sentencing guidelines in the world will not make a blind bit of difference. During her discussions with my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) in Committee, my hon. Friend must ensure that one of the Bill's purposes is to make convictions as easy as possible to secure, consistent with the burden of proof and standards of evidence.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there anything that you can do to protect the House and the Minister from the instruction that the Whip has just handed the Minister, very visibly? I fear that the Minister may have been told to sit down quickly, in which case she will not have an opportunity to answer Members' questions amply enough. Can you do anything to protect the Minister from harassment by her own Whip?

Absolutely nothing.

The Minister does not require the assistance or protection of the Chair. I can inform the House that the note passed to me was drawing my attention to the fact that my hon. Friend was trying to intervene, because I had not noticed. I shall be happy to pass the note to the right hon. Gentleman.

It will be in code.

The right hon. Gentleman is one of the great conspiracy theorists of the House, but to suggest that "Take Jim Dowd" is code for "Hurry up and sit down" is pretty ridiculous.

My hon. Friend made an important point. We all agree that we want convictions for these offences, but the Government see two potential barriers. One relates to determination to proceed, on which action is being taken. The NHS security authority is one example. I am happy to give a commitment to the House; I have already spoken to the Attorney-General about the possibility of improving guidance to the Crown Prosecution Service.

The other barrier is the fact that proving the offence is being made more complicated. We have the opportunity to create a very simple offence of impeding. What we do not want is a series of narrow, specific offences involving aggravating factors, which will merely mean that more must be proved in court. We need a simple, straightforward definition. We all oppose assaults, whoever the victim may be. We all agree, however, that an assault on an emergency worker has a particular quality, which we want sentences to reflect. We do not want to have to prove more; we want an assault to be an assault to be an assault. Assaults on emergency workers nevertheless have that special quality.

I am finding it difficult to persuade the House of my view, but I hope that I shall be able to do so. It is an important point of principle that it is best to provide adequate guidelines on sentencing, rather than increasing the number of facts that the prosecution must prove in order to secure a conviction. The more factors that are added to the law, the more barriers the prosecution must hop over. It should be a straightforward process that an assault leads to conviction, but an assault in the circumstances specified in the Bill should have more serious consequences than an assault in other circumstances. However, we should not put extra burdens on the prosecution by adding to the things that it has to prove: the presence of an aggravating factor and other particular circumstances. I feel strongly about the matter. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his generosity in agreeing that we should focus on the big gap that exists and use the tools that we already have to deal with serious assault.

It was not possible to do that in Scotland. The reason is that Scotland does not have the Sentencing Guidelines Council. Scotland had to create specific offences. It has slightly different sentencing mechanisms. The way that our sentencing system is constructed means that the nine-month sentence is not available. We are trying to create simple, straightforward law—I am glad to have the endorsement of the right hon. Gentleman, who said that it is quite a good thing to try to be simple and straightforward—and to ensure that the seriousness of this particular offence is taken into account.

I hope that we can achieve consensus across the House. I think that we agree on the outcome that we want. I am prepared to spend time following this debate to explain and to discuss with Opposition Members the way in which the Sentencing Guidelines Council is capable of operating and the powers that it has, so that we can agree that that part of the Bill is not essential.

However, there is a part of the Bill that is essential. That is the measure to deal with obstructing or impeding an emergency service worker who is responding to an emergency. There are already offences of obstruction, just as there of assault, but they do not cover everyone or every activity; it is not necessary. I have referred to the firefighters offence. There is also a police officers offence, but there is no offence that covers obstruction of other emergency workers such as ambulance workers or members of the coastguard, who deal with emergencies offshore. We have identified that as a gap in the legislation that covers emergency workers. It is the only gap that we have identified. Other matters can be dealt with within the framework of existing legislation.

If hon. Members look at the respect action plan, they will see that we specifically identified the possible need for an offence of obstructing an ambulance worker. We said that we would consider introducing such an offence, so we specifically welcome that part of the Bill. We believe that it would be a step in the right direction to ensure that deliberately obstructing an ambulance worker is an offence. As I have outlined, the offence of obstructing a firefighter is not as simple and clear as it could be, so we think that making it simpler and easier to use would be an improvement. Therefore, the Bill has something to offer. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for introducing it. I was glad that he said that he will table amendments in Committee to ensure that the issue of obstructing emergency workers responding to an emergency can become the core of the Bill. There are real benefits to be gained from that.

In addition to such an offence, we need to recognise that there is more to do. As well as having an offence of obstructing an emergency worker in responding to an emergency, we need to try to prevent that offence from occurring. We need to ensure that behaviour that often begins with exuberance and high spirits does not escalate into obstruction and violence. As we have heard during the debate, that has often happened.

I am glad that my hon. Friend has come on to that point. Although it has been helpful to hear all that she has said about sentencing, at that stage an offence has been committed. It is important that we look also at prevention. I hope that she is coming to that. A number of hon. Members, me included, touched on the respect agenda. Perhaps she can say how we can send a strong message about the unacceptability of assaults or impeding emergency workers. That is important to the emergency workers involved.

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have been struck by the fact that the fire service has welcomed not only the agreement that my right hon. Friend and I have reached as regards how to proceed with the Bill, but the elements of the respect action plan that are about dealing with the growing problem of antisocial behaviour, which can blight areas and make life very difficult for some people. The respect action plan sets out our goals and reiterates the need to tackle antisocial behaviour by dealing with disrespect in every walk of life. Tackling disrespect in general can often have a specific effect in a particular area. We need to focus not only on disrespect towards emergency workers but general issues such as school discipline and attendance. We must involve schools and parents in tackling disrespectful behaviour that results from truancy and inadequate supervision of excluded children.

We want to ensure that young people have an opportunity to make a positive impact on society. They might do things such as creating traps because they want adventure and to do bold and brave things. They do not usually have those opportunities, so they take these very antisocial measures. We as Government, and all of us, need to ensure that there are constructive, challenging activities for young people, with appropriate opportunities to get involved in sport or volunteering, for example, so that they feel that they can have an impact on society in a positive way, not by being destructive.

I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically endorse the Minister's comments. Is the Home Office having discussions with public services to see how they could stimulate that sort of participation, and if not, will it?

Yes, we are having discussions with a lot of people about the respect agenda. I have mentioned schools and parents. We must ensure that we help to support families who are in difficulty. The respect action plan establishes projects to work intensively with the most problematic families. The hon. Member for Upminster highlighted the role that parents have to play. Respect must be promoted right across Government. We must look at how every programme and funding or inspection regime contributes to dealing with the problem. Neighbourhoods must get the power to ensure that local services deal quickly and effectively with disrespectful behaviour by a minority—for example, by cleaning up graffiti. We must have speedy, visible reparative justice through measures that extend the powers available to deal with crime and antisocial behaviour by getting young people involved in sorting out the problems that they create.

The respect agenda is not only about the public services but about the public realm. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley referred to the Manchester Evening News campaign. The media are an important part of the public realm. I applaud the protect our heroes campaign, which is promoting the respect agenda by highlighting destructive behaviour toward Manchester's firefighters. Through that campaign, the Manchester Evening News has done a substantial amount to help make the city's firefighters safer.

We should recognise that fire and rescue services have already introduced measures to tackle attacks on firefighters. We have spoken to them about this issue and they have been encouraged to report incidents, so that the police and prosecuting authorities can make prosecutions where appropriate. Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate requires fire and rescue services to complete a monthly return on the number of assaults, so that the figures can accurately reflect the problem on the ground. Members have indeed pointed out that we need better statistics to drive effective action. Fire and rescue services are also introducing measures such as video cameras in cabs of appliances in order to help identify offenders.

I appreciate the Minister's giving way on the under-recording of offences, which is a matter of great concern to firefighters in my constituency, who are members of the Greater Manchester fire and rescue service. In what way will such initiatives produce practical benefits for firefighters in my constituency?

Officials at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are working with the Association of Chief Police Officers to support the development of a memorandum of understanding between the fire and rescue services and ACPO, in order to develop a better working relationship between the two services, thereby leading to the more effective pursuit of prosecutions against those who would obstruct or assault firefighters. Such discussions are under way, so as well as improved reporting and the collecting of evidence through, for example, installing videos in cabs, ACPO and the fire and rescue services are working together on that memorandum of understanding.

In addition, the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association has set up a "task and finish" group—the language used in such services sometimes differs from that used by others—which is being led by assistant chief fire officer Alan Richardson of the South Wales fire and rescue service. The group's task is to look at all matters relating to assaults on firefighters, with a view to making recommendations and promulgating best practice; it will report in April. Such measures and the better co-ordination of police and fire services will play a very important role in increasing the number of prosecutions and in improving the safety of our fire services.

Returning to young people and the respect agenda, we need to recognise that although young people can be responsible for thoughtless behaviour and do not always consider the consequences of their actions, they might not be able to pay a fine, which is the proposed penalty in such circumstances. I assure the House that we will also consider greater use of the early interventions now available to us, such as acceptable behaviour contracts and, where appropriate, parenting contracts and orders. A parenting order is available when, for example, a conviction has been secured in a court. So if one secures a conviction for obstruction in respect of a minor, who might not be able to pay a fine, one could attach to that a parenting order as part of the sentence.

We are also willing to use antisocial behaviour orders for all age groups to stop antisocial and potentially dangerous behaviour before it escalates. We will work to ensure that those measures are used consistently, so that we send a clear message about the serious nature of such behaviour when aimed at emergency workers. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) described estates in her constituency where a culture had developed of entrapping and targeting firefighters. ASBOs and other orders can be more effective in areas where such a culture has developed to nip such behaviour in the bud and prevent inappropriate obstruction of the work of the emergency services from escalating into violence and assault.

We also need to encourage the courts to make greater use of community penalties where appropriate. For example, young people involved in incidents against members of the fire and rescue service might be required to become involved in the brigade's youth schemes, as hon. Members have mentioned. The Government encourage effective local partnerships of that sort, which can enable requirements of community sentences to be carried out by children and young people. There are a number of excellent schemes involving fire services across England and Wales, the aim of which is to help young offenders to understand the harm they have caused. There are similar schemes involving health workers. Workers in those services can be the most powerful advocates, because they can describe the possible consequences of that antisocial behaviour much more impressively and with greater intensity than a more formal court process. We need to make the most of that when tackling this issue in relation to young people. We also need to ensure that local youth offending teams, as well as fire brigades and health services, are aware of the good practices that have worked well in other areas. Expertise that has been built up around the country must be shared to encourage the adoption and adaptation of good practices in whatever way is best for an area.

We also need to encourage the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to adopt a more active policy on investigating and prosecuting incidents. Many hon. Members have pointed out that the health service has already made significant progress in that area and shown what can be done, especially with regard to incidents occurring within the hospital setting. However, with the emergency services, such offences can happen anywhere, and that can pose greater challenges. Nevertheless, placing our focus on the issue can produce significant results. I am glad that the health service and the fire and rescue service are looking at options, too.

I assure the House that I will actively encourage the emerging agreements and do whatever else I can to ensure that the CPS and the courts are aware of how dangerous incidents that involve the emergency services can be. As I have said, strong guidelines have been issued by the Sentencing Guidelines Council to ensure that the fact that a victim of an assault was serving the public at the time is regarded as a substantial aggravating factor.

Will my hon. Friend clarify whether the umbrella definition of emergency workers will include nurses and staff, such as porters, in accident and emergency and other hospital departments?

Our aim is to try to construct a simple offence. I have described at length the difficulty if an offence is complicated; for example, where we say, "These people are in but those people are out." In Committee, I hope that we can amend the obstruction provisions so that an emergency service worker responding to an emergency will be covered by the obstruction offence. That is where there is a big gap. A nurse accompanying an emergency team would certainly be covered, but the offence would not be designed for circumstances inside a hospital where it is much easier to control the situation. However, we can examine that point in Committee.

People who go to emergencies to protect us are extremely vulnerable, as Members have made clear. That vulnerability is what we want to deal with; those workers are vulnerable to obstruction and the consequences of obstructing them can be serious. The resources available to workers attending an emergency are not as substantial as those for people treating patients in a hospital; for example, there may be security staff, although it is of course a great pity that most of our A and E departments require security staff. Teams responding to an emergency are very vulnerable and obstruction of them can have serious and substantial consequences. That is the main thing we have to deal with and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for allowing us to use the Bill to protect people against that obstruction.

The Manchester Evening News campaign and other campaigns across the country show that there is a huge public appetite for dealing with the situation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill will also send a message to the relatives of the work force—our heroes? Families know that when someone leaves for work they may be in a very vulnerable position. We are really saying thank you to the family members of emergency services personnel.

Absolutely. It is a complete outrage that people who serve the public should be subject to the type of behaviour that has been described in the House today. I shall be proud to work with my right hon. Friend and, I hope, with Members on both sides of the House to make sure that our emergency workers are safer in future.

If we are clear about making a real difference where there is that gap in the law, if we do not over-complicate the issue and if we work with the tools that are already available, we can make those heroes—who save lives and on whom our society depends—safer. If we achieve that, we should all feel proud.

My speech has roamed far, partly because I wanted to be generous about taking interventions, for a particular reason. I hope that we can gain the consent of Members on both sides of the House to enable the Bill to deal with a gap in the law.

Our debate has highlighted the increasing and tragic dangers faced by our emergency workers, but we will do them no favours if we create a law that raises expectations but achieves little in practice because it is flawed. Let us be honest: that has happened before. The Government cannot therefore support the additional, not necessary, offence of assault. The law already exists to pursue a range of assault offences, and to create specific offences would make for complicated law, which risks having unintended consequences. Sentencing guidelines ensure that the courts must hand out tougher sentences for those whose victims are serving the public.

I have outlined the non-legislative measures whereby we can deal with these offences and, we hope, prevent them from happening in the first place. However, there is a gap in the law in relation to obstructing an emergency worker. There is no offence of obstruction in relation to ambulance workers, and I have been able to show the House that the present offence in relation to firefighters does not work as well as we would wish. I am therefore glad that my right hon. Friend has agreed that he will introduce amendments to deal with this issue in Committee and I look forward to working in Committee with him, and with Members across the House, to bring back on Report a Bill that deals with less but deals with it well. When we come to do that, we can all feel very proud of ourselves indeed and we can ensure that those people, those heroes, upon whom we depend for our lives, will be safer in future.

I am pleased to support the Bill.

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall make a few brief comments. First, I thank everyone who took part in this morning's debate for the very positive way in which it was conducted. I hope and believe that a clear message will go out from the speeches that, regardless of party, in all parts of the House there is enormous respect and regard for our emergency services, and a determination that they shall get the protection they need.

Secondly, it has been worth being here to be a witness to the most unexpected marriage of minds between the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the Minister. I advise her not to be dazzled by his charismatic style; he can be a fickle fellow, and I must tell her that I am not optimistic for the survival of the relationship.

I thank the Minister for trying to meet my concerns. I will read in detail what she has said and we shall liaise between now and Committee to work out appropriate amendments to achieve what the House obviously wants.

I thank the sponsors of the Bill, particularly the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross), who provided me with the original idea arising from the Scottish Bill, and my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who made up for my legal inadequacies by joining me at consultations with Ministers and explaining to me what they were talking about.

It is not often that we in the House praise the press, but the Manchester Evening News has been ahead of all the press in this country in campaigning for months, absolutely consistently, in support of the emergency workers. I want the newspaper to know that that is recognised in the House. Other hon. Members have said the same.

Finally, there is one person to whom I want to pay particular tribute—Barry Dixon of the Manchester fire service, who, on behalf of all the emergency services, led not only in briefing me but in supporting me as I worked on the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Today's Order Paper says that there are four written ministerial statements. I understand that three of them have already made their way to the Library, but the fourth—probably the most important of the four—on police force restructuring has yet to do so. May I seek your guidance on the reason for any delay?

I understand that that statement is due to be put before the House today. I have no knowledge about when it will be produced, but it should be before the House today, and I trust that that will be the case.

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

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who is just leaving the Chamber, said of the Emergency Workers (Protection) Bill, which we have just debated—at a length that occasionally made me feel that curling offered unexpected excitements, after watching it during the Olympic games—that she did not like the Bill and it was unnecessary, but none the less she was willing to discuss it in Committee, because she thought that it could be a vehicle to make some useful amendments to the law.

I hope that the Minister who will deal with this Bill and I can negotiate on exactly the same basis. I expect him not to endorse my Bill, but to acknowledge that there are some serious difficulties with the way in which the system operates now. Therefore, let us find a means to discuss that together, so that people can feel that a transparent process is taking place, which will lead to the calming of some people's fears and passions.

There is huge support for the right hon. Gentleman's Bill from all sorts of quarters. A large number of my constituents believe that they are affected by such masts, and they certainly want the law to be changed to protect schoolchildren. So I have come here to support his Bill.

I am very grateful indeed to the hon. Lady for her support. There is huge concern throughout the country, and my view is very simple: when there is concern, the job of politicians is to try to find ways to deal with it. I hope that I have found a pragmatic way to deal with that concern.

The Bill is something of an old favourite. I plead guilty to what could be called parliamentary plagiarism: I am the third of the lone parents who have introduced such a Bill in succession. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) for beating the path along this road.

My right hon. Friend would be wrong to describe himself as a lone parent. This is more like the Child Support Agency: the Bill has more parents than one could possibly imagine. There is much support in the House for the Bill, so can we hope that the Minister will not talk it out?

I share that thought, although I have some caution about the analogy with the CSA, given its productivity and the Government's view of it, which is rather generally shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Reference has been made to three attempts to introduce such a Bill, but I point out to the right hon. Gentleman and other colleagues that there has been a wide variety of Bills on issues relating to phone masts. I introduced one myself—it was not the same as this Bill—in an attempt to place on a statutory basis the Mobile Operators Association's code of conduct. I have reservations about parts of the Bill, but even if not through the opportunity that he is offering, the Government need to take a detailed look at the concerns about how the mobile network operators currently go about getting their planning permissions.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I agree with what he says. In referring merely to what one might describe as the Bill's direct line of descent, I would not wish to exclude all its relatives.

The concern has not abated; it has increased. I could bring pantechnicons full of letters, petitions and submissions into the Chamber. Of course there will be a quota of cranks and obsessives, but a large proportion of the concern is being expressed by normal responsible citizens. There are two ways of dealing with that: by saying that the concern is uninformed, unjustified, unreasonable and plain wrong, or by saying, as politicians, that irrespective of the intrinsic validity of people's concerns, there is a problem to be dealt with and everyone benefits from our dealing with it. I have introduced such a Bill again, simply because the problem still exists.

I think that the Government share that point of view. Yesterday, by a happy coincidence, they published their review of the consultation procedures that are being carried out by the university of Reading and Arup. I read it in as much detail as I could in the time that I had, and it is a clear, concise document that expresses the concerns well. The industry shares my point of view. I met the Mobile Operators Association yesterday, and it said that there was more that the Government and industry could do. We have achieved a consensus in understanding that there is a problem to be addressed, which is the first step towards a consensual approach.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems that we have had up until now is that many people who have raised concerns have felt patronised, to an extent by the mobile service providers and also, at a previous stage, by the Government? I held a one-day conference on the matter last year. In fairness, I must add that there were representatives from all the groups involved and the dialogue began to make meaningful progress, as had not happened before.

The paternity claims for these measures are spreading so rapidly that we will have to have some DNA testing at the end of the day. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that people are seriously concerned that the consultation procedure is not substantive, and that what they say makes no difference. I will talk about that in a little while.

My Bill is an invitation to the industry and the Government to engage in discussion and find a better planning and consultation framework. My proposals are not prescriptive, but an invitation to negotiate. I have been a Member long enough to know that the chance of Back Benchers producing Bills that meet all legislative requirements is quite small. After all, the Government cannot do that in their own Bills and it takes a great deal of amendment to get them right. This Bill would undoubtedly be little different.

I support the principles behind the Bill, although I think that the right hon. Gentleman has made it a little complex, and the problem could be dealt with rather more simply. I am particularly concerned about 3G upgrades, because no planning consent is required to upgrade existing masts. Will the Bill deal with that? Although the right hon. Gentleman claims that there is great support for his Bill among Conservative Members, I am concerned that few of them seem to be present to back him up. If there is a vote on Second Reading, has he got enough support to carry it?

If no one decided to divide the House—I have not yet found anybody who says that they are hostile to the Bill—it would be immaterial how many hon. Members were present, as with the Emergency Workers (Protection) Bill. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will persuade the Minister to envisage precisely those circumstances. I know that he is an aficionado of Friday sittings and I welcome his interventions—although, knowing a little about his track record, I should say that the briefer they are, the more I shall welcome them.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if mobile phone companies were to come to the community early to outline their needs and plans for the next few years, the community could help to identify appropriate sites? In my community, local residents negotiated with Kew gardens to have a site identified in the gardens for all mobile phone masts in the area. That was done only after direct action that included planting palm trees in locations where masts had been planned. Those palm trees are still there, but the mobile phone companies are happy to have their masts in the campanile. However, there is no methodology for ensuring that that approach has been captured for use in the future.

I have seen some amazing sights, including masts disguised as trees representing extremely rare flora from Latin America. I agree with the hon. Lady, but I would add merely that local authorities have a responsibility too. They should have proper planning frameworks and designate people to talk to the mobile phone companies. Those people should be willing to engage in dialogue, as should local councillors. Too often councillors wait until planning applications are received, and are not alert enough during the consultation process. There is an improvement to be made across the piece.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the organisation Together Against Masts in Burnley and me that, for the very reason that he gives, it is essential to revoke the provisions on permitted development rights? Unless we do that, the public simply will not know where the masts are likely to be located.

My Bill does not propose to revoke permitted development rights in quite as brutal a way as the hon. Lady mentions. What is important is that people should know what is happening and have a proper opportunity to make representations. When they make representations, they should be listened to. The range of considerations that a local authority takes into account should be broader than at present. There is currently a bias in the system against a local authority objecting, for reasons with which we will probably all be familiar.

The right hon. Gentleman prays in aid local authorities, but does he accept that a number of them have made representations to the Government asking for a review of primary legislation?

I do accept that. Indeed, I have the representations; I have a large file dedicated to representations from local planning authorities. The representations have come from across the piece—from lobby groups, individuals, organisations and local planning authorities.

Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify one point about permitted development rights? I understand that his Bill would revoke those rights in respect of antennae, which include satellite dishes. He will know that such rights have recently been amended to reflect changes in technology and support the demand for access to digital TV and broadband. Would not some provisions in his Bill make it more difficult for people to access those digital services?

The intention of my Bill is not to hamper or burden the industry or make it less able to operate, but to try to find a mechanism whereby it can operate with the consent of the people among whom it is necessarily implanted. That is why Committee stages are valuable; they enable us to tease out unexpected or unintended consequences, and also to reinforce consequences that are intended—another reason to grant the Bill its Second Reading.

When the planning framework was put in place in the 1990s and the mobile phone industry was in its fledgling form, there was a natural concern to nurture it. The industry has been nurtured well enough to provide a quite astonishing amount of money for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it has moved on. I suppose that it is now iconic; it is almost a new-age industry. It is not just an industry, but almost a culture as well. Its very pervasiveness has what has made it necessarily a much more political industry—a phrase I use with a small "p".

It is estimated that there are some 50,000 base stations in the country. One cannot get the precise figures from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, but one can see the number of non-domestic hereditaments shown in the rating list, which I happen to have discovered following an assiduous search. On 31 March last year, which is almost exactly a year ago, there were 20,930 hereditaments, and I have a list that breaks down among local authority districts the number of installations in existence. Of course, some districts have more than 300 installations.

To understand why there is concern, we must have what le guide Michelin calls "un peu d'histoire"—a little retrospective look at the situation. There are four broad categories of mobile phone installation. I immediately declare to the Minister that in the hierarchy of anoraks, I am an extraordinarily long way from the top and very close to the bottom, so I shall not speak in extremely technical detail.

First, ground-based masts of more than 15 m in height get the full planning permission. Secondly, at the opposite end of the scale, the very small boxes—I think that they are called pico boxes—that are often masked by shop signs could well be sited every 50 m along a main road. They are governed by de minimis rules. One up from that, we have small base stations, which are up to 4 m high and might sit on top of buildings. They come under the permitted development rules. No planning permission is required but there is a range of consultation processes, depending on the site.

The most sensitive category of mast, on which much of the argument focuses, is the ground-based mast up to 15 m high. Those masts are governed by a voluntary code, under which the site is rated. It is known as the traffic light method. Sites are rated red, amber or green and the rating triggers a specific consultation process.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is perplexing that grading is done by the company that wants to install the mast? Would not it make sense for an independent assessor to do it?

One of the concerns about the consultation process is the lack of an arbitrator or referee. Indeed, the review of the consultation procedures that the Under-Secretary has conducted suggests that there is a case for instituting an arbiter. That would cover my hon. Friend's point.

It may not be in the operator's interest to have a system of red, amber and green, because red suggests some sort of danger to most people, whereas the ratings relate to the appropriateness of the site rather than carrying a medical connotation. Perhaps it would be in everybody's interest to move to something more appropriate to the process.

The role of an arbiter or third party in assessing a site would be irrelevant, because the code of conduct has no legal force. It makes not an iota of difference whether operators choose to abide by it.

That is a good point, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The point is also made in the Under-Secretary's review. There would be no point in having an arbiter if there were no rules whereby he reached his judgment. There is a problem.

My constituents feel strongly about the issue. Many of them believe that red, green and amber relate to the amount of upset that the siting of a specific mast is likely to cause in the local community. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman commented on that.

I merely repeat what I just said: the system is not intended to denote upset, but it is generally assumed to do that. I shall be brief, because I believe that the hon. Lady is the promoter of the next Bill. Her intervention was therefore a heroic act of self-sacrifice—but we have all sacrificed a lot today already.

I am the promoter of the next Bill but one, but I would still like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. Does he agree that one unfortunate side effect of the grading system is that the same sites receive applications for more and more masts, so there is a concentration in a small area, which leads to fears and rumours—one never knows whether evidence will follow one day—about clusters of cancer cases?

I accept that, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the diversity of his interests. He can move from telephone masts to breastfeeding in one sitting.

The local authority has eight weeks to object to a mast, subject to the traffic light system. The most frequent ground for objection is amenity, because health issues are not normally considered to be a valid ground. There are weaknesses in the procedure. As we all know, local authorities are often reluctant to refuse planning applications if they believe that they will end up going through an appeal procedure, simply because of the costs of an appeal. There are problems with the timing and relevance of the consultation. People feel that they are not heard, or that if they are heard, no account is taken of their views. There is no confidence in the traffic light system and, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) said, any arbiter would have no basis on which to make a judgment because compliance is voluntary.

One of the concerns expressed to me by my constituents is that not only must they be vigilant about applications, but when one application is refused, another operator makes an application for the same site. My constituents consider that unfair, and even though the council may refuse the application, they feel strongly about the vigilance and time needed, and the unfairness.

I entirely agree. That is one of the major concerns that has been expressed. Of course, the concerns tend to focus on masts sited near schools and medical facilities.

I had a case in which Orange wanted to site a mast right outside a school in Farnham. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with the current legislative framework is that it allows operators to be extremely arrogant in their dealings with local residents? In that case, the response from Orange was, "If you don't want the mast outside your school, that's fine. Can you find us somewhere else to put it?" It is inappropriate for a mobile phone operator to be able to say such a thing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to address that?

Indeed. Even where operators are required to issue a consultation—for example, to heads and governors of schools if they want to site a mast within range of a school—there is no control over the timing, so the consultation document can arrive on the day that the school packs up for the summer holidays, and by the time school starts again, the consultation period is almost over. Again, that is a loophole that sensible measures could put right.

I accept that there is no present evidence of harm. Sir William Stewart's report in 2001, which was updated in 2004, spells that out, but I have been around long enough to know that politicians and scientists can offer only current evidence. They do not deal in certainties or guarantees. The public increasingly ask for certainty and guarantees, and risk is a much more difficult political issue now than it was a generation ago. Having been at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food during the BSE crisis, I am familiar with the way in which that may work out in practice.

Is this not a key point? The fact that there is no current evidence of harm does not mean that there is evidence of no harm. That is a very different issue, and we surely need to follow the precautionary principle, as the Stewart report suggests.

It is crucial that we understand what the Stewart report recommended. I have taken from the website—a technological feat in its own right, as far as I am concerned—the summary of the Stewart report from the National Radiological Protection Board. It recommends, for example, that

"particular attention be given to how best to minimise exposure of potentially vulnerable sub-groups such as children and to consider the possibility that there may be other sub-groups who may be particularly sensitive to radiowaves"

and calls for a continuing programme of research.

I recognise that Sir William Stewart's report was on a much wider subject than masts, but he stated:

"The fact is that the widespread use of mobile phones is a relatively recent phenomenon and it is possible that adverse health effects could emerge after years of prolonged use. The evidence base necessary to allow us to make firm judgements has not yet been accumulated. What we can say is that there is as yet no hard evidence of adverse health effects on the general public, but because of the current uncertainties we recommend a continued precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies. This approach should be adopted by all involved in this area—including government, the mobile phone industry and all who choose to purchase a mobile phone for themselves, or their family, or their children".

What he is saying, which is entirely sensible, is that a case cannot be stacked up on health grounds, but sane people realise that that situation may not be permanent and we should build into our provision the possibility that that advice may change.

Is my right hon. Friend aware, given his European interests, that there has been research in both Germany and Sweden relevant to this matter, which shows instances giving rise to concern?

I am aware of that, which is why the evidence is a moving phenomenon, not fixed. That is why, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot)—one of the large delegation from Hampshire present today—said, the precautionary principle is the right one to apply. The Government are constantly applying the precautionary principle in a range of areas—in, for example, bioengineering plant and food technology, at both the European and the national level.

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case for his Bill. Will he confirm that the regime he is promoting for England is already up and running in other parts of the UK, such as Scotland and Northern Ireland? The infant that he seeks to produce for England is already an active toddler elsewhere.

My right hon. Friend has taken the words out of my mouth, and it is perfectly possible to reform or modernise the rules without either the intention or the consequence of damaging the industry. Scotland requires full planning permission for the ground-based masts under 15 m, and there is a debate in Wales on which way to go. Indeed, in July 2004 the Scottish Executive commissioned from the university of Dundee a study entitled "Evaluation of Revised Planning Controls Over Telecommunications Development" on the consequences of the changes in Scotland.

I shall not quote from that study, but it states that the strengthening of the planning rules has been no impediment to the mobile phone operators, nor has it caused a burden for Scottish councils that they have not been able to discharge. It is right that within the quasi-federal system in the UK, different policies are being applied in all manner of regions across the country.

The Bill has three core provisions, which are familiar and inherited from the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. That, I think, was put together with a great deal of help from the technical expertise available in the House. The provisions are the precautionary principle, which must accompany the planning applications; the identification of the area and the range of the beam of the greatest intensity, as well as the characteristics of that beam, which then become part of the planning consideration; and the ability of local authorities to remove masts on land used for medical or educational purposes without compensation.

I repeat to the Minister that the Bill represents an invitation to negotiate and engage. We have a common interest in putting to rest vexations and persistent grievances. I know he will agree that we need a process of identification and analysis, followed by the addressing of the issues before us. His consultation document has started that process.

The Minister could stand up and say, "We've got it under control. We've had the consultation and the document has been published. We envisage new guidance and we'll consult on that. Then we will have dealt with the issue." I would say that there is a deep suspicion over this, which is not healthy. We need to proceed in such a transparent way that the industry feels its future is secure, and the constant local guerrilla wars no longer have to be fought. The public must not feel threatened, intimidated or taken advantage of. Local authorities must not feel overburdened.

The best way to achieve all that is through the traditional procedure of taking the Bill into Committee and being open in the negotiations, to try to achieve what the Minister and I both want. At the end of the day, he and I will have a great deal less traffic from my constituents about concerns that I know are very real to them. Also, the industry will not feel that it is guilty of some local trespass all the time.

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is a member of the all-party group on mobile communications, but I understand that the Bill is largely the result of a report from that group. I further understand that the group was criticised in the press last week as being misused by lobbying organisations. Does he share my fear that the concerns he has outlined, which are shared by all our constituents, are being misused by organisations that simply want to promote alternative forms of communication?

That may or may not be the case. I do not belong to the group; I feared that there might be a technical entry qualification, which I would be bound to fail, so I stood outside it.

My concern is simply that we should sort out the problem in a way that lets everybody see that it has been sorted out—clearly and openly. We would all be a great deal more comfortable as a result, whether we are trying to make the industry work or whether we want to feel that our home is not being threatened in any way. Colleagues across the House would then increasingly feel able to concentrate on the easy issues in their constituency burden, such as the future of the Child Support Agency or the Government's tax credits system, which are already taking up a great deal of our time. In that spirit, I commend this measure to the House.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on introducing his Bill. He will be pleased to hear that I support it, so I do not intend to speak at great length. I want to find out about one or two points, however, because this subject is a major issue in my constituency.

I have been checking my records, and I see that in the past 12 months, in one ward in my constituency, Mill Hill, and in its immediate neighbouring planning districts, there have been 14 different applications and issues relating to mobile phone masts. Orange is probably the main culprit, closely followed by T-Mobile and Vodafone. They seem to try to wear down communities and their opposition—and local authority planning departments—through repeat applications and continuing appeals. Something must be done about it. There was even an application for a mobile phone mast to go on top of Barnet hospital, which, I am pleased to say, the hospital authorities came to their senses about and decided not to allow.

The worst case involved a mast upgrade, which does not need consent, for Copthall school. The application was to put a 3G mast on the roof of the school, and there seems little that the school can do about it other than negotiate. To put the matter in context, I have a pile of correspondence about that one mast—not objections, but merely correspondence between the council, school and mobile phone company. We must find ways of dealing with the matter other than hoping for good will from the mobile phone companies.

There is a general problem with 3G upgrades, which has led to the huge upsurge in applications. The issue first arose several years ago with the previous generation of mobile phone masts, and then it went quiet. Suddenly, it has become a major issue all over again.

On the issue of new areas of housing development, of which I have a lot in my constituency of Basingstoke, does the hon. Gentleman agree that more planning in advance of houses being built could allow sites to be set aside for mobile phone operators to use to ensure better coverage in those new areas of housing? At the moment, new houses are built without any consideration for the mobile phone coverage that those areas might require.

The hon. Lady makes an important point. My constituency contains one of the fastest-growing neighbourhoods in London, with potentially 10,000 extra households over the next five to 10 years. The more general point is that developers tend to overlook the whole impact on public services, whether mobile phones or otherwise. It is difficult to devise a strategy whereby mobile phone masts can be erected safely on some of those dense new developments.

The Bill seems rather complex. I am concerned about who will draft the precautionary principle statement. If it is not done independently, I suspect that mobile phone companies will be pleading in their own cause. I am also concerned about who will produce the beam of greatest intensity certificate. Will that be done independently? If it is done by the mobile phone companies, where is the guarantee of independence?

The Bill should be a lot simpler. Mobile phone masts should go through the full planning process to allow people to object. There should be full planning processes for replacement 3G masts—they should not be seen as permitted development simply because a mast is already there. We should have much stronger powers to take into account precautionary principles beyond the code of practice, which is simply not enough. Public concern, most of all about health, must be reflected in those considerations. I know that the scientific evidence is somewhat ambivalent, but the problem is that a clear guarantee cannot be given, and until and unless one can be given, local communities will be concerned, and they are entitled to have those concerns recognised.

If there is a vote on the Bill, I shall vote for it. In Committee, however, I hope to adopt the philosophy of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). Some big changes are needed to make the Bill less complex and more straightforward and to address the concerns of the public.

I am delighted to support the Bill. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) generously gave me credit for an earlier version, and indeed I consider this an important subject. I also thank the right hon. Gentleman for the measured way in which he put his case. He made it very clear that his Bill did not constitute an attempt to disable the mobile phone industry or to close mobile phone networks. I do not want to do that either. I have a mobile phone, as the House will unfortunately have heard earlier today, so I cannot possibly say anything against them. However, I am glad that the issue has returned to the House. I hope that the Minister will not just be sympathetic, as I know he always is, and will not just be emollient, as I know he always is. I hope that he will say "Let us give the Bill some serious examination at the next stage," because that is plainly what the public want and what Members want.

The problem goes back to the Telecommunications Act 1984, which—as the right hon. Gentleman explained very clearly—exempted masts from planning rules, and from the subsequent reiteration by Governments that all matters relating to health were subject to national Government rather than local government decisions. That means that all health aspects have been removed from consideration, as have a wide range of base stations.

The difficulties have been compounded by the oppressive contracts that mobile phone companies arrange with those who permit masts to be placed on their property. That first came to my attention when a secondary school in my area, Marple Hall, agreed to a mast being placed on its property in the early days of telecommunications masts. Following a fair amount of protest from parents and others in the neighbourhood, the school rescinded its decision, only to find that the contract that it had signed did not entitle it to have the mast removed. It had signed away its rights to such an extent that the company could install any replacement mast that it chose, and could carry out any repairs, maintenance or alterations that it wished to undertake. In fact, the school had completely forgone its property rights.

In another case in my constituency, a mast was alleged to be less than 15 m high and thus not to require permission. Again there were bitter objections. Someone went to the trouble of measuring the mast, which proved to be not less than 15 m high, but 16 m high. The local authority took action against the company for installing a mast above the permitted height, on valid planning grounds. Those grounds were challenged by the company. The Secretary of State's inspector upheld the council's decision, and ordered that the mast be removed. The company's response was very straightforward: it said "We will take the 16 m mast down, cut 1 m off and put it back." It is that sort of response—waving two fingers at the law and the intention of the law—that has so deeply angered Members and their constituents.

The right hon. Gentleman covered the health issue very well. It is a question not of manifest and apparent danger, but of a suspicion that it will come to light in future that there were hazards that were not taken properly into account. That is what Sir William Stewart addressed in his two reports.

I hope the House will note that the two other parties in the House are committed to changing the present system. During the debate on the earlier version of the Bill on 18 March, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker)—speaking, I assume, on behalf of the Conservative party—said

"the next Conservative Government will require all phone masts, regardless of size and proposed site, to be subject to the full planning permission process".

I am delighted that, at least then, that was Conservative policy. I am not sure whether the policy has been subjected to a U-turn or has been reviewed in the meantime; perhaps the Minister will tell us later.

In that same debate, some election literature from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne), who is a Labour Member, was read into the record. He said that Labour would

"do everything we can to ensure that there are no more phone masts near schools and hospitals".—[Official Report, 18 March 2005; Vol. 432, c. 570, 568.]

I concede that that was only election literature and that, like manifesto promises on ID cards and other matters, it could have changed since, but I hope that the Minister will say that that is the intention of the Labour Government.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) is a Minister in the Department of Health at the moment, is he not?

I am sure that what I think they call collective Cabinet responsibility will mean that what the Minister says to the House today will bind all his colleagues at all levels. I hope that that will be the case. I hope that what he says will bind the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the new constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie). The Chancellor is, I suspect, the person who is least likely to be happy with the Bill, because he may face some angry phone companies asking whether they can have their £30 billion back. That is the elephant in the room, because fantastic sums of money are involved in the promotion of the industry. Clearly, any constraint on trade is viewed by the industry with the utmost suspicion and it fights against it.

Every Member of Parliament to whom I have ever spoken on the issue has a significant case load of difficult and aggravating planning consents and disputes about the installation of masts. There is no way that the current planning exemptions can be justified. Arguably, they were right to get the industry started, but it is now 60 million customers strong. It is capable of coughing up £30 billion for its next generation of installation. The idea that it needs special help to proceed is outdated and wrong.

The health risks are an additional factor. I am pleased that the Bill deals with that by requiring what amounts to an individual MOT health certificate for those masts that are close to and beaming on health facilities and schools.

On the health issue, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is particular concern about technologies such as terrestrial trunked radio, the use of which is not as widespread and which operates on different frequencies? With those different frequencies, which are not used by ordinary mobile phone users, but are used by the police, ambulance services and others, the health concerns are much greater. Is not that also a good reason for the precautionary principle to be incorporated into planning laws in respect of mobile phone masts?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The problem with the TETRA masts is that they are new. To some extent, we have learned to live with whatever is coming out of the previous generations of masts and become a little more familiar with them, but the new TETRA networks are an increasing concern. Those concerns could be met—indeed, the industry says that they will be met very easily—by stating specific precautionary principles in the Bill.

It is generally said—I was interested in what the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said—that the Bill could be simplified, strengthened and generally improved. I am happy to believe that all those things are true, but none will happen unless it receives a Second Reading. I urge the House to allow that so that the matter may be discussed further, our constituents' concerns may be properly addressed and the interests and anxieties of many hon. Members may be dealt with.

I would like to draw the House's attention to the Christmas-tree effect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said, what do we do where there is legitimate permission for a mast? I refer to one in my constituency on Bigyn hill, which was erected in the early 1960s for police use. That mast has begun to look like a Christmas tree whose loving tenders have bought an enormous number of decorations. One apparatus after another is tagged on, with each adding to the grotesque look of the mast and to the immense concern of the parents of children at the primary school just underneath it. The Bill could deal not only with the masts themselves but with the additional equipment that is tagged on to them.

The second issue that concerns me is how on earth these companies can pick a very densely populated urban area such as Dafen in my constituency and suggest putting up a mast there, right next to Prince Philip hospital, when there are wide open spaces not far away. The people who will be affected in their homes, schools and hospitals must be taken into consideration so that companies do not pick such areas when there are clearly alternatives.

We are all—let us be honest—users of mobile phones. We all need and want the technology, and it would be hypocritical to say that we do not. However, there are alternatives to sticking masts right in the middle of places that are full of people living and working as opposed to emptier areas. We must make that message extremely clear. Masts are clearly being deliberately put in places that are unsuitable when there are more suitable places available. I ask the Minister to give serious thought to the multiple use of masts and to the initial consideration of planning applications.

I rise to speak in strong support of the Bill and to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on presenting it to us. His speech was rational, reasonable and effective. The cross-party support that the Bill has received is very encouraging. This is the third or fourth occasion on which such a measure has been before the House, and it is a pity that we have not made a great deal of progress to date. I hope that the Minister, who is a reasonable man and is listening hard, will take on board the view shared by many of us that it would be good for the Bill to go into Committee so that these matters can be discussed at greater length and in greater detail. As we have heard, this issue concerns many of our constituents.

Of course, we all use mobile phones. Like my right hon. Friend, I am rather challenged when it comes to some aspects of technology, and I came rather late to using mobile phones, but they are absolutely vital to the work that we do and the lives that we lead. However, technological developments always have consequences. These masts are not only an eyesore and a nuisance but a potential health risk.

I want to highlight the situation of residents who are constantly battling with mobile phone operators who keep applying for an opportunity to have a mobile phone mast in an area close to residential properties. When one operator has been refused, another comes along and goes through the same procedure. In parts of my constituency, including Iris avenue, West Heath road and Woolwich road, people have had two or three different operators make the same application once one has been rejected. That creates worry for residents and means that they have to give up a lot of their time in being vigilant and ensuring that they are on the ball as regards what is going on. Often they do not receive notification from the phone company or the local authority because the consultation has taken place in such a narrow area that they are just outside it. I welcome the opportunity that the Bill gives us to discuss how we could make masts subject to the full planning application.

This morning, I met Alan Eaton and the Orange Squash Group, who got together a petition of 750 local residents in the northern part of my constituency. They support the Bill, and I urge Members to enable consideration of it in Committee, so that their concerns about locating such masts in the vicinity of schools or other sensitive sites can be aired, we can establish a new modus operandi and everyone can be happy with where these masts are being located.

I accept that the health issue, which many of us are concerned about, is a very difficult one. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), reports from Sweden and elsewhere show that the location of such masts does give rise to serious health concerns. The danger to health remains unproven, but the fear of those who feel that they and their families will be affected in the long term by the locating of masts near to their schools and homes is very real.

There is also the unresolved issue of electro-sensitivity: in other words, even though there may be no effect on people in general in a given area, individuals could be substantially affected by something that does not affect the majority.

I am very grateful for that intervention and I endorse entirely what the hon. Gentleman says; it is important to bear in mind that such problems could be specific, rather than general.

Many of the mobile phone masts in Bexley could have been located more sensitively, away from schools, hospitals, old people's homes and residential areas. We urge phone companies to locate them away from such areas, but so far, we have been spectacularly unsuccessful, even though there are plenty of open spaces—motorways, for example—that might be more appropriate locations.

I wholeheartedly agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. Does he agree that some residents are concerned about the effect on property prices of placing mobile phone masts in residential areas, and that many such fears could be allayed if mobile phone companies had to go through the proper consultation process that the Bill requires? A resident in my constituency, in consultation with an estate agent, has estimated that erecting just one mobile phone mast in his area would impact on property prices to the tune of some £1 million. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is another reason why we should support the Bill?

That is a very fair and important point and it is another reason why the Bill should proceed to Committee.

This is a worthwhile Bill and it deserves further consideration and discussion. We hear all too often that politicians do not listen to their constituents, but today we have found cross-party support for action on this issue. This is an opportunity for us to take on board our constituents' concerns and to do something about them. I very much hope that when the Minister winds up, he will agree that we should proceed along these lines, have further discussions and support my right hon. Friend's Bill this afternoon.

I, too, want to begin by thanking the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) for introducing this Bill, which deals with an area of planning policy that is challenging to policy makers and is important to many people. The issues to which the placement of mobile phone masts gives rise are significant to many people, and particularly to those in my Hove and Portslade community. I have received a lot of correspondence on this subject, and I have been approached in person by many concerned residents and been made aware of a number of local campaigns. Several forums have recently been held, at which all the stakeholders involved—members of the local authority, residents and representatives of the telecommunications industry—engaged in reasonable debate. As would be expected, the meetings rarely reach a consensus, but they are highly productive. The educative value of the meetings has led to more informed debate on the subject in my constituency. During the election campaign, I also made a commitment to the people of Hove and Portslade to investigate the concerns about mobile phone masts and to act on them when appropriate. I am grateful for the opportunity to do so today.

In 2002, the Government, in conjunction with the mobile phone industry, pledged £7.4 million for research into the safety of mobile phones. I am pleased also that the Government continue to remain committed to investing resources into examining the impact of mobile phone technology on our everyday lives. Ministers are also committed to reviewing current planning procedure for mobile phone masts—a policy that I wholeheartedly support. I applaud right hon. and hon. Members for taking seriously the concerns of our constituents about the issue and I am satisfied that public health remains paramount in the consideration of any current or future policy.

However, given the regulatory framework on the placing of telephone masts, the public still have cause for confusion and concern. That is clearly supported by the continued presence of the issue at the top of many people's local agenda, as many hon. Members are well aware. Indeed, the interesting article written recently by the right hon. Gentleman for his local paper confirms that that is true for Members on both sides of the House. For example, there is a consensus among the scientific community that mobile phone emissions pose no direct health risk to users of phones or those situated near masts, but masts are no longer situated near schools on the recommendation of the Stewart report. If the Government believe the Stewart report evidence that phone masts pose no threat to public health, why recommend such a measure? Such contradictions have fostered hostility towards phone masts in the general public, who sense uncertainty among policy makers on the issue.

It is understandable that concerned constituents, many of whom have young children, seek clarity and reassurance on the issue. It is important that we are able to work together across the House to reach the clarity and consensus that is needed on the matter. Mobile phones have undoubtedly become an essential part of everyday life. It is important that we are able to strike a balance between the needs of many to use mobile phones and the suspected potential health concerns for some of our constituents.

During my surgeries, many constituents have raised the issue of the need for the further installation of the more powerful 3G telephone masts, which has formed part of the debate today. Again, it is a question of balance. One possible solution to the problem is the suggestion that the number of mobile phone relay stations could be reduced by having mobile phone companies share potential installation sites. I am pleased that the Government are looking at that option further as it would greatly reduce the need for other mast sites throughout the country.

The other area that should be investigated before any further legislation is made is the point at which perception of risk to general health translates into actual damage to health caused by the stress of the installation of a telecommunications mast in the vicinity of people's homes or schools. It is not sufficient to say that such effects are merely subjective, and I encourage the Government to consider the effects that constant stress can have on a family with young children. As a mother myself, I understand the concerns that other parents may have about the health of their families. However, that is not to say that my constituents do not understand the ever-growing need for mobile technology in our day-to-day life.

My constituents are understandably concerned when scientific reports recommend restricted phone use by younger children. My constituents do not believe that such recommendations tally with the telecommunications industry assertion that there is nothing to fear from the emissions caused by masts. My constituents' concern is that the scientific evidence gathered so far is not conclusive. Although the Stewart report stated that there was no threat to health, the recommendation that installation sites should not be near schools sends parents a contradictory message. Many of my constituents conclude that if it is not recommended that mobile phone masts be installed near a school, it should not be acceptable for such a mast to be erected in a residential street where many young children live. Whether or not there is a scientifically accurate basis for not installing mobile phone masts near schools, it is on that apparent contradiction that many of my constituents have formulated their stance on the issue.

The report has continued to cause much stress and anxiety, which could in certain instances lead to tangible medical conditions. Constituents' concerns are real and deep-felt and cause genuine distress to all those affected. As legislators, it is our obligation to take their worries into consideration, and I am pleased that Labour-led Brighton and Hove city council has always given high priority to the concerns of local residents.

I am also greatly encouraged by the Government's continued commitment to that field of research following publication of the Stewart report—the most comprehensive study to be commissioned by any Government in the developed world. The report states that there are gaps in our scientific knowledge about mobile phones, and I encourage my hon. Friend the Minister and the mobile phone industry to continue their commitment to pursue an active and forward-looking programme of research to seek answers to those gaps in our knowledge.

On 3G telephone mast installation, I recommend that we err on the side of caution, especially when children are concerned. We already know that our children are more susceptible than adults to the effects of mobile phone emissions. It is, therefore, reasonable that we take a more considered approach to the further installation of the new generation of more powerful 3G telephone masts.

I am eager not to take up too much time, as other Members want to speak, but I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to raise my concerns on this most important of issues. The health of our children should be brought more to the fore, as it transcends the boundaries of party politics. As their elected representatives, it is important that we maintain a dialogue with our constituents and that the results of further scientific studies are made more easily accessible to those who are affected the most.

Again, I highlight my appreciation for the Government's continued commitment to examining the health concerns of those affected by mobile phone masts, and I once more express my appreciation to the right hon. Gentleman for initiating this timely debate.

I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on this excellent Bill. I hope that the Minister will see fit to let it proceed to Committee, as the issue is important for all our constituents. It is especially important in north Hampshire, as is evident by the attendance of several north Hampshire MPs at the debate. The Bill gives us the opportunity to debate a subject that is not only of concern in the minds of many of our constituents, but generates a lot of casework. By sorting out the problem, the Minister will do much to help us all.

Many Basingstoke residents feel that planning rules favour the interests of network operators over the legitimate concerns of local residents. They feel that their concerns are in many ways ignored by central Government, yet cannot be taken into account by local authorities, whose planning powers are severely restricted in the present system. As well as my right hon. Friend's Bill, I should like to consider whether other measures could be added, as I intimated in an intervention earlier.

Twenty-seven per cent. of all phone calls are made on mobile phones, but there is no requirement for developers to take mobile phone coverage into account when seeking planning permission for new developments. In Basingstoke, many new developments are a cause of concern in that regard. Hundreds of homes are being built in places such as Sherfield park and Popley fields, yet no analysis was carried out before the area was developed to assess whether there was sufficient coverage for mobile phone masts—whether more needed to be built and whether more land would be needed for that.

If indeed there is a need for increased coverage in the area, surely it would be easier and more sensible to provide that by planning in mobile phone coverage in the same way as we plan in many other utilities in advance of house building. Perhaps in that way we could also take account of the point that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) made about the impact of mobile phone masts on house prices, which is a concern in my constituency too.

I am pleased that my local authority, Basingstoke and Deane borough council, in support of the Bill today, passed a motion on 16 February which reiterated residents'

"particular concern over the siting of masts near to schools, hospitals, and residential properties";

the widely held perception that

"legislation is weighted in favour of mobile phone companies";

and the deep frustration that local authorities

"currently"

have

"little power to act on"

their

"residents' concerns."

Residents urged us to take part in today's debate, which I am pleased to be able to do.

Although there is a code of conduct for operators, there are too many examples of where residents' real concerns simply cannot be taken fully into account. In Basingstoke we have had numerous problems in that respect, including an operator wanting to site a new mobile phone mast right next door to a school for children with special needs, in the centre of a residential area, with the local council and local residents feeling almost powerless to stop it. The Bill would address many of those concerns by clarifying and firming up the current rules, thereby making the whole system more transparent and building confidence for local residents.

The Bill would help residents' concerns to be heard about the health effects of mobile phones. It would require any mast application to include a statement describing any threats to health or the environment, as well as a description of where the radiation emitted by the masts would fall—the so-called "beam of greatest intensity certificate". Both are eminently sensible measures which would increase accountability, transparency and, importantly, confidence in our planning system. The Bill would also help local residents have more say in where masts are sited by removing the automatic right to erect a mast below 15 m in height, and prevent the use of compulsory purchase powers by landowners to acquire certain sorts of facilities.

For those reasons, I shall support the Bill today, and hope that the Minister uses this opportunity to be seen to be listening to the concerns of my constituents, and the constituents of other hon. Members in the House today, to make changes in this important area.

I am grateful to be called to speak in this important debate and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on introducing the Bill. I do hope that it has more success than its predecessors, which ran into the ground, and I am slightly concerned by the inch-high stack of papers that the Minister has on the Dispatch Box in preparation for his summation. I encourage him to take the first and the last sheets and to save the rest for Committee.

I fully support the Bill. It empowers local authorities, gives greater transparency to the planning process and improves consultation with residents. This legislation is well overdue and it is interesting to hear that we are now playing catch-up with Scotland. We have heard that to date there is a national roll-out from the five mobile phone companies of about 45,000 masts, and I understand from reports that we are about halfway through; we are looking at a total of about 100,000 masts, and that is with the third generation network. Nowhere is that more evident than in Bournemouth, where every month or so we have a new application for a mast. We still require another 40 masts in the Bournemouth area.

It could be argued that because we all have mobile phones in our pockets, we should stomach the fact that we need mobile phone masts. Well, we all use cars and we all use electricity, but we still have proper regulation of where roads and power stations are put. The same should apply to mobile phone masts.

We have experienced a litany of problems in the Bournemouth area: poor consultation, and confusion in the interpretation of permitted development, which has led to demonstrations and petitions by the residents. I take my hat off to Bournemouth council for going some way to take steps to support the Bill and to try to rectify the problems that we have encountered. However, I would encourage the council to go slightly further and open up council land to mobile phone masts use—something that is not currently allowed. We still have another 40 masts to go, and there is still an awful lot of confusion about where they are supposed to be placed. If the Bill passes all the relevant stages, it will certainly provide a more palatable, open, transparent and fair process—something with which the whole House would agree.

I thank my hon. Friend for texting me on my mobile phone this morning, thus allowing me to get back from my constituency in time for the start of the debate. He talks about transparency in the planning process. Does he agree that the point of that process is to balance the interests of commercial operators with those of the residents—it is not intended to side with one or the other, but to balance those interests—and that it is for the Government to justify any exemption to that planning process, not for us to argue why that exemption should be lifted?

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and I thank him for making it into the Chamber in order to do so. It is vital that we arm local authorities with the necessary powers to deal with such issues appropriately, and that should start here in the Chamber.

I should like to go further than the Bill. If it is debated in Committee, I shall be keen to pursue a new clause to consider the possibility of introducing a single mast network. That may seem a little strange at first. However, we have a single network for water, but people can apply to many companies for their water. There is a single network for domestic gas, but people can get their gas supply from a number of companies. The same applies to landlines—whether from BT, NTL or any other service provider—as they all share the same system. Why cannot we have the same process for mobile phone masts? That happens in other countries; it could be easily introduced here.

Clearly, there would be some technical challenges, and such a change may well have to wait until the fourth generation roll-out of masts. However, we must start somewhere and the Bill could be the place to do so. I should certainly like such a new clause to include the idea that the Government would report back to Parliament on a feasibility study to find out whether the technical hurdles that would be encountered could be overcome.

Concern has been raised about the cost of the licences. Clearly, the company representatives to whom I have spoken seem very keen to pursue the issue. Of course, they want to protect the money that they put in during the licensing auctions that took place a number of years ago.

It is worth remembering that more than 100 years ago we had a rather confusing telegraph system, with independent companies set up in London and a spaghetti network of wires going across the city's rooftops. Eventually, the Government said, "This is too much."—the sprawl of wires was getting out of control—"Let's have a single system." That is exactly what we could have with the introduction of one network for mobile phone masts, thus reducing the number of mobile masts by about two thirds. That gets to the very heart of the problem that we are discussing.

In conclusion, I fully support the Bill. It would provide local authorities with more power, which they require, and local residents with more say in the planning process. I hope that it will allow us to take the first steps in considering a nationwide mast network.

I, too, will be very brief. Like other hon. Members, I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about the Bill. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on introducing the Bill. Mobile phones are important to all our lives, but the growth in their use has, of course, been phenomenal. There are more than 62 million mobile phone subscribers now, compared with 9 million when the Government first came to power in 1997, and 85 per cent. of households now have mobile phones.

The background to the Bill is a concern of which all hon. Members are aware from their constituencies. In the eyes of our constituents, masts can affect people's health, particularly when they are sited close to schools and medical facilities, without any proper consultation with local communities. As my right hon. Friend and other Members have explained, the problem is that the siting of such masts is effectively outside the planning process. No proper consultation with communities therefore takes place and people feel disfranchised from the decisions that are taken. The Government's own expert committee urged that a precautionary approach be taken to the siting of masts. That is reflected in the Bill, which would ensure that new masts—not existing ones—would be subject to full planning permission and that health considerations could be taken into account when applications were considered.

The precise detail of the proposals will need to be examined and scrutinised—I hope in Committee. We will need to consider their impact on the number of applications and the extension of 3G coverage. The number of planning applications would certainly increase. All those aspects can be dealt with.

The principle of the Bill—that local communities should be properly consulted over the location of masts—must be right. For too long there has been a creeping attitude that the Government know best and a process whereby too many decisions are, in effect, taken out of local control and away from local communities. We have seen that in a number of areas of our lives where the say of local communities has been taken away and responsibility has been moved to a regional level—in relation to the police service, the fire service, planning decisions and so on—or to Government. The idea that is it wrong to consult local communities and involve them in such decisions and that no objections to the siting of masts may be brooked simply because the Government have judged that mobile phones are good for us all is profoundly anti-democratic.

The Labour manifesto for the last election stated, perfectly reasonably:

"People want a sense of control over their own neighbourhood."

If that is to be adhered to and applied, the Government should support the principle behind the Bill and at least be willing to examine the Bill and discuss with us in Committee how it might operate.

Concern about the issue will grow. One suggestion is that 3G technology will require up to four times as many masts as at present. That would mean 135,000 more masts in the country—more than 200 for every constituency. The issue will not go away and it is no longer acceptable to sweep the concerns of local people aside. We must be capable of achieving a sensible balance.

I have left plenty of time in which the Minister can respond without talking out the Bill. If he is still speaking at 2.30 pm, the House will know that the Government's real intention is not to support the Bill. The Bill has had support from hon. Members on both sides of the House and I hope that the Government will therefore allow it to go into Committee so that it can be discussed further.

I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on securing a place in the ballot for private Members' Bills and using the opportunity to debate this significant topic. As he knows, the subject is important to the Government and is of widespread interest and concern to hon. Members and the public.

The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) suggested that there was going to be subterfuge by talking out the Bill, but we are quite clear that we do not support the Bill—we are quite happy to say that. However, where the Government agree with the right hon. Gentleman—I commend him on the tone in which he introduced the Bill—is in recognising that we have to move the situation on and that there is concern and fear because of a perceived health risk, although all the evidence shows that there is no such risk. I will come on to that. I apologise to the hon. Member if it will cause him offence if I am still talking at 2.30 pm, but I have a lot of information to put across.

We published our latest report this week, as the right hon. Gentleman was generous enough to acknowledge. It runs to some 40 pages, but expresses matters concisely and precisely. We are advised that the latest data from the research commissioned as a result of the paper will be with us by the end of April. We are determined to move the issue on in order to reassure the public and deal with the legitimate concerns that are being expressed by hon. Members. I accept entirely that this matter will not go away. The Government are not making any attempt to say that the issue does not need attention. It does need attention, we are giving it attention and we will give it a lot more in the months ahead.

Before I get into the substantive matters addressed in the clauses, I should like to set this discussion in the wider context, which has been referred to piecemeal by hon. Members over the past couple of hours. It has been one of the Government's objectives to create the most dynamic, competitive communications industries in the world, ensuring universal access to a choice of diverse services of the highest quality and that citizens and consumers are safeguarded.

The UK is at the forefront of the service provision of electronic communications technology. It is estimated that, in 2004, the UK communications sector contributed £47.4 billion to the UK economy, forming about 4.1 per cent. of UK GDP. However, it is a fact that if we want our mobile phones to work, there is a need to be within a few hundred metres of a base station. To enable us to send and receive signals from our handsets, some sort of relaying apparatus is needed. The technology of base stations means that each one can handle only a certain number of calls. The more that people use mobile phones, the greater the need for base stations.

The coverage of a cellular system is provided by a network of radio base stations, each with a certain coverage area or cell. A base station is a facility that provides transmission and reception for radio systems. There are three types of cells. Macro cells provide the main structure for the base station network. The base stations for macro cells have power outputs of tens of watts and communicate with phones up to about 22 miles distant. Micro cells are used to infill and improve the main network, especially where the volume of calls is high. They are sited in places such as airports, railway stations and shopping malls. The micro cell base stations emit less power than those for macro cells and their range is considerably shorter. Pico cells have a lower power output than that of micro cells—it is a few watts—and are generally sited inside buildings.

Communication systems are obviously driven by demand. Increase in the use of mobile phones has meant that operators are continually expanding their networks to accommodate customer requirements of service and quality. However, the base stations need to be where the users are. Consequently, the greatest need for base station sites is usually in built-up areas where there is the highest density of mobile users, and within a mile or two of main roads, where demands on network capacity are greatest.

The size of each cell is determined by a number of factors, but particularly the number of subscribers expected to require access to the system during the peak usage period. In areas where call traffic density exceeds the limits of the network, capacity can be expanded either by introducing new sites—macro or micro cells—or by splitting existing cells, thus effectively doubling capacity. Cell splitting requires the erection of additional antennae at the base station site or a new base station site.

The location of transmitter antennae is important. Obviously, signals from one cell will interfere with nearby cells on the same frequency. To avoid blind spots from buildings and hills, antennae must usually be placed high up. In urban areas antennae are often best placed on existing buildings. However, in rural areas, a lattice mast is often required. Technically, that is all a mast is—a tower structure.

There are currently about 45,000 base stations in the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a higher figure, and I am sure that he has the latest data, given his research for this morning's debate. The Mobile Operators Association estimates that the number of base stations will increase to at least 50,000 by the end of 2007. That does not mean 50,000 sites or 50,000 masts, because many of these base stations will be installed on existing structures or be collocated with the apparatus of another operator. If we do not have this infrastructure the handsets will not work at the service level that users expect.

Despite the undoubted popularity of mobile phones, however, there is significant disquiet about the infrastructure necessary to support them. A proposal for a new mobile phone mast is often accompanied by protests and objections, sometimes with justification and sometimes without, often because local communities are not sufficiently well informed.

The Government are sensitive to the public's concerns about the mobile network infrastructure. We acknowledge that many hon. Members and the public generally are concerned about the health and environmental impact of mobile phone base station developments. We recognise that there is a balance to be struck between the regulations and guidelines that facilitate the growth of the mobile phone network and the need to keep its environmental impact to a minimum and address public health concerns. The right hon. Gentleman covered those aspects widely in his introductory speech. The Government believe that the current arrangements broadly strike the right balance.

How does striking the right balance affect one village in Bournemouth, where a population of 50 to 60 is made to have five mobile phone masts from five different companies?

I acknowledge that there are anomalies around the country and I hope to consider the detail of protection and improvements to procedures that relate to planning controls and consultation arrangements for local communities later. However, the hon. Gentleman will have to be patient for a little because I want to deal with the impact on health.

First, let me assure hon. Members that the Government take seriously the need to protect the public from health risks. Indeed, we have spent considerable amounts of time and money on researching whether mobile phone technologies present a genuine health risk. Approximately 25,000 articles have been published in the past 30 years about the biological effects and medical applications of non-ionising radiation. Scientific knowledge about the matter is arguably more extensive than for most chemicals.

In the United Kingdom, we have held two major reviews of the total experimental and epidemiological evidence for health effects due to exposure to radio-frequency transmissions, including those associated with mobile telephone handsets and base stations.

The first report was published in 2000 by the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones and is commonly known as the Stewart report. It concluded that

"the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of the guidelines."

However, the Government acknowledge that it also said

"that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to radiofrequency radiation even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach".

The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) referred to that.

Part of the precautionary approach recommended by the group was the adoption of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiological Protection— ICNIRP—guidelines for public exposure. The Government have introduced standards to ensure that all base stations meet those guidelines, which are five times tougher about public exposure than the National Radiological Protection Board guidelines, which were used previously. Those guidelines are adopted in the majority of other countries in the European Union.

The second major review of the total experimental and epidemiological evidence was undertaken by the then National Radiological Protection Board advisory group on non-ionising radiation and was published in January 2004. That report fulfils the recommendation of the first Stewart report that the issue should be reviewed in three years. It also concluded:

"Exposure levels from living near to mobile base stations are extremely low and the overall evidence indicates that they are unlikely to pose a risk to health".

Seventeen similar reviews have been conducted internationally. They were undertaken by organisations such as France's Commission for Consumer Safety, the Health Council of the Netherlands, the Swedish State Radiation Protection Authority, the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel, the ICNIRP and the World Health Organisation. They all concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any adverse health consequences from exposure to low-level electromagnetic fields.

The Government are not complacent, however, and we have established the mobile telephone health research—MTHR—programme, which is costing around £8.8 million and is funded jointly by Government and industry. The programme is being directed and overseen by an independent management committee led by Professor Lawrie Challis OBE and is made up of leading UK and international experts. It is carrying out research into the effects of mobile phone technology on health and encompasses emerging radio-based technologies. The process will ensure that Government and the public are kept up to date with new research findings.

The programme management committee has been responsible for the selection of proposals to be funded. The programme is funding only research of the highest quality that meets the research requirements suggested by the World Health Organisation and follows its criteria for good laboratory practice. It fits with similar work done in other countries and with the EU framework projects in this area. The programme has funded 25 projects so far.

Work already funded by the programme includes studies of mobile phone users to investigate whether the use of mobile phones can affect the risk of developing brain cancer or leukaemia, studies investigating the effects of mobile phone signals on brain function and the behaviour of exposed people, studies examining how mobile phone signals could produce biological effects as evidenced by changes in exposed cells, and a study investigating ways in which mobile phones affect the performance of drivers.

On 20 March 2003 the MTHR programme announced the first proposal to be supported, which is concerned with mobile phone base stations and is one of the first such studies in the world. The epidemiological study addresses public concerns about possible health risks from exposure to emissions from base stations. The study was selected in recognition of the public concern about the proliferation of mobile phone masts, and of the need for research to investigate whether they could have health effects. The study will also investigate whether people may differ in their sensitivity to radio-frequency emissions.

I shall not go into further detail about health issues now, since those will come up again as I go through the clauses of the Bill. However, I stress that the Government are not complacent. We are committed to keeping the mobile phone technologies under review. In the light of such studies and international research programmes, I can assure the House that if the scientific advice changes, the Government will act.

The Minister said that the Government are not complacent and are keeping the health issues under review. Will he therefore confirm that the Government's decision not to support the Bill is not the result of any deal with mobile phone operators to keep their exemptions from planning requirements in return for the large amounts that they paid for 3G licences?

I can wholly reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case. If I get the opportunity later, I shall deal with previous allegations of deals between Government and mobile phone operators. We have evidence to demonstrate that that is a scurrilous allegation and totally without foundation. We are working with the mobile operators. As the right hon. Gentleman said, having had a meeting with them this week, the operators acknowledge that there is a gap and that progress can be made, and they are keen to co-operate. I hope that is adequate reassurance for the hon. Gentleman that no skulduggery is going on in any way, shape or form.

Let me set out the Government's record in terms of the planning regime and managing the environmental impacts of communications developments. The Government have strengthened the planning regulations twice, in 1999 and in 2001. In 2001 the regulations for prior approval were strengthened so that in effect they are very similar to the arrangements for full planning permission. The current planning arrangements have therefore been given very careful consideration.

The Stewart report on mobile phones and health published in 2000 recommended that telecommunication development should be subject to the normal planning process in order to improve local consultation. The Government considered that recommendation in detail and accepted the importance of ensuring that effective public consultation takes place.

As a result, the changes in 2001 significantly strengthened the planning arrangements for such developments. We increased the time for authorities to deal with prior approval applications from 28 and 42 days to a uniform 56. Public consultation requirements on prior approval procedures were strengthened so that they became exactly the same as those for applications for planning permission. Fees were increased from £35 to £190 to enable authorities to carry out full public consultation.

Our revised arrangements for prior approval applications have the same consultation requirements as applications for planning permission. Therefore, we have met the concerns that led the Stewart group to make the recommendation for full planning permission. The Government have also published revised planning policy guidance, which provides more information on their expectations for standards of consultation with local communities on new communications developments, particularly where the development would be near a school.

In November 2002, we also published the code of best practice on mobile phone network development. The code was produced jointly by central Government and local government and the mobile phone industry. It provides detailed guidance on consultation procedures between operators, local authorities and local people. The Government attach great importance to securing good design in development generally and the code's advice on good siting and design of new communications developments has helped to direct development to the most appropriate locations and to minimise environmental impact and visual intrusion.

Mention has already been made by right hon. and hon. Members of the review that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Welsh Assembly Government commissioned the university of Reading and Arup to undertake in September 2004. Their independent study was designed to assess the impact that the code of best practice on mobile phone network development has had since its introduction, how local authorities have implemented the code and how the public perceive its operation.