On 15 December 2004, I informed the House that I had commissioned a review into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of four young soldiers at Princess Royal barracks, Deepcut, during the period 1995 to 2002. As I told the House then, I was aware that its scope and nature may not satisfy all those, including hon. Members, who have been calling for a formal public inquiry into combat deaths in the armed forces, especially the four deaths at Deepcut. I said that by concentrating on the circumstances of the four deaths, the review would focus on the issue at the heart of current public concern.

The review has been undertaken by the distinguished human rights lawyer, Mr. Nicholas Blake, QC, and is now complete. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. This morning, the families had the benefit of a briefing by Mr. Blake on his conclusions. I know that this will be another difficult day for them; the passage of time, in such sad circumstances, does little to lessen the pain. I hope that they will find at least that Mr. Blake has addressed carefully and sensitively the questions that have troubled them. I acknowledge the dignity with which they have conducted themselves over this long period.

I am grateful to Mr. Blake for the thorough and professional way in which he has approached his task. In conducting his review, he has had the full co-operation of the Ministry of Defence. He has had full and unrestricted access to our records, and all serving and retired soldiers were encouraged to help the review in any way they could. I am satisfied that the report, which runs to 416 pages, plus annexes, represents an independent, objective and comprehensive analysis of all matters that have a bearing on the four deaths, and that Mr Blake has not been constrained by his terms of reference. Importantly, he has been able to tackle the wider issues.

There were three issues about which much comment had been made on events at Deepcut: the alleged suspicious circumstances of the deaths, a claimed culture of bullying and the need for a formal public inquiry. I am pleased to note that Mr. Blake makes substantial findings on all three points. First, he has concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the deaths of Sean Benton, Cheryl James and Geoff Gray at Deepcut were self-inflicted. Given the recent coroner's inquest into the death of James Collinson, he understandably refrains from reaching any conclusion on that particular death. However, he comments that the opportunity for self-infliction was afforded by the policy of frequently assigning trainees at Deepcut to guard duty, unsupervised by experienced soldiers.

The review found a number of factors that may have contributed to the trainees' unhappiness and may have made them more susceptible to self-harm. The review considers that,

"although the Army did not cause any of the deaths",

there were institutional failures to identify potential sources of risk and subsequently to address them. On the question of bullying, Mr. Blake states that there is no evidence that any of the trainees were bullied to death. However, he accepts that some trainees at Deepcut—probably only a small minority—experienced harassment, discrimination and oppressive behaviour. Those who did not complain appear to have had little confidence that the system could or would address their grievances. These are important criticisms, which will be addressed.

Finally, on the question of a public inquiry, as I indicated in my response to the earlier House of Commons Defence Committee on this matter, I did not consider that a formal public inquiry was required. The Defence Committee was of a similar view. In a carefully reasoned examination of the arguments for such an approach, Mr. Blake has concluded that a public inquiry into the immediate or broader circumstances surrounding these deaths is not necessary. I reaffirm my earlier position and concur with his conclusion.

This review, taken alongside the other inquiries and inquests into the deaths at Deepcut, has set out with great clarity the circumstances of the four deaths and the context in which they occurred. We now need to move on and take forward the changes that are required. We accept Mr. Blake's conclusions and welcome the opportunity to address his recommendations. We accept that there have been shortcomings, and we will do all that we can to address them.

Although the purpose of the review was not to attribute blame, Mr. Blake has described a disturbing catalogue of allegations of misconduct at the relevant times. The Army authorities will carefully examine the report to see whether there is any indication of professional misconduct or negligence that might make administrative action appropriate. In addition, any matters that suggest that a disciplinary offence may have been committed will be referred to the Royal Military Police for further investigation. We will also have to take into account the overall training environment in which our personnel were working and the constraints faced by those in the command chain.

Mr. Blake understands the importance, particularly for the Army, of recruiting under-18s, but he has highlighted weaknesses with regard to their appropriate care. We are alive to that issue and we are improving the standard of care and support afforded to young recruits. For example, trainees' surveys have been established and a note of guidance for all commanding officers covering all aspects of working with under-18s has been produced. Furthermore, Mr. Blake particularly commends the specialist training regimes for 16-year-olds established at the Army Training Regiment, Bassingbourn, and the Army foundation college, Harrogate. However, there is clearly still more to do, especially in extending best practices such as those at these establishments, and we are committed to implementing such changes as far and as quickly as we can.

The quality of our armed forces and the professional way in which they were, and are, meeting their operational commitments is evidence of the quality of military training, and I pay tribute to that without hesitation. The report describes the British Army as a unique and extraordinary institution. For the past decade or more, it has been sent on a wide variety of operational deployments in many parts of the world, involving great personal danger and regular personal sacrifice.

The report notes that many of the young people who are, or were, accepted as recruits into the Army have had very challenging lives as children. A high proportion were from single-parent homes, some had left school with no qualifications, and many had deficits in basic skills. The report comments that it is a remarkable challenge to turn these young people into effective soldiers forming part of a disciplined and interdependent team. It is worth noting that Deepcut alone sent approximately 10,000 trainees into the field Army during the period covered by the review.

However, the number of young people, particularly those under 18, that the services employ places particular responsibilities on us to recognise their potential vulnerability. We are committed to improving the way in which all our recruits are trained, developed and looked after. In view of that, and in light of the recommendations made in previous recent reports by the Defence Committee and the adult learning inspectorate, work has already been done, and continues to be done, to make changes for the better.

As in society as a whole, bullying, harassment and other inappropriate behaviour can never be totally eliminated in the armed forces. However, it is essential that we establish an environment in which bullying is wholly unacceptable. At every stage of their training and careers, it is made very clear to personnel that bullying and harassment, in any form, is not tolerated, and that it is part of their duty, and a function of leadership, to eliminate it.

It is a sad and unfortunate fact—again, just as in wider society—that the armed forces will never be able to eradicate the tragic incidence of suicide or self-harm. However, the risks can be reduced to a minimum by careful management, pragmatic policies and better understanding, knowledge and education. As the Blake review makes clear:

"Every Officer, NCO, civilian instructor and trainee should be alert to any sign of abuse and be required to report it through the chain of Command, so prompt and effective action can be taken".

The Armed Forces Bill, currently being scrutinised by a Select Committee of this House, contains proposals to streamline the complaints redress system, including provision for an independent element. Also, the Bill will consider aspects of the procedures applying to boards of inquiry. The review makes recommendations in those two important areas. We will give full consideration to those recommendations, and the Bill gives us the opportunity to implement any changes deemed appropriate.

The report has identified areas in the training environment, especially between 1995 and 2002, that required improvement. It cites examples of inappropriate behaviour that should not have taken place. It also identifies areas where we can, and should, improve the way in which we manage the young people for whom we are responsible, and we accept those observations. We now need to look at every one of Mr. Blake's 34 detailed recommendations to see how they should best be taken forward to address the weaknesses identified as quickly and as effectively as possible. I also urge right hon. and hon. Members to take time to analyse Mr. Blake's report in full prior to forming their own opinions.

Mr. Blake has given us a detailed and painstaking report of considerable substance. I am confident that it will provide further impetus for improvement. I can assure the House of my determination to deal with the issues that he has raised, and I undertake to provide a detailed formal written response to the House on all the recommendations. I am determined to ensure that everything possible is done to prevent similar tragedies occurring in the future.

I have enormous confidence in the dedicated men and women working as instructors in our training organisation. I want to make sure that they have the support, the resources and the facilities that they need to pursue excellence. The trained young men and women they produce lie at the very core of how we deliver on the defence interests of this country. Their efforts have to be matched by commitment from the very top of the MOD.

Mr. Blake concluded his report with his profound condolences to each of the families concerned. On behalf of the Ministry of Defence, I again add my condolences.

I am grateful to the Minister for his statement and for allowing us advance sight of it.

This is a statement that all of us in the House wish had never been made necessary by events. It deals with complex and difficult issues. Above all, it deals with the very human tragedy of the death of four young people, whose pride in their endeavours is all too obvious from their photographs in the first four pages of the report. I reiterate my sympathy and that of my colleagues for the families, whose grief and sadness few of us will be able to understand.

The issues are complex, because they require a difficult and sophisticated balance. On the one hand, the British Army needs individuals who will put themselves in the line of fire to protect us. That inevitably requires a robust and tough training programme, and a culture unlike that of civilian life. On the other hand, the Army has a duty of care to each individual under its command.

As the Minister makes clear, social trends in this country have increased the number of recruits from broken family backgrounds, with poor academic achievement and, often, deficits in basic skills. That the Army is able to turn so many of them into world-class soldiers is something of which we should all be proud. Equally, however, we should be alarmed that the suicide rate of those under 20 in the Army is well above that in the comparable civilian population, and significantly worse than in either the Air Force or the Navy. That requires further academic research, and I hope that the Minister will ensure that it is undertaken.

The key questions are whether any of the deaths could have been foreseen, whether there was any cover-up or failure of investigation, and whether anything would be usefully served by a public inquiry. Let me deal with those questions in order.

The factors that might contribute to individual deaths include the make-up and suitability of the recruits, their disciplinary and supervisory framework, and the physical environment in which their training took place. Let us remember that of the four recruits, Geoff Gray and James Collinson were under 18, Cheryl James was just 18, and Sean Benton had been described in his records as having an immature personality. Additionally, both Sean Benton and Cheryl James had medical records of self-harm prior to recruitment. My questions to the Minister are whether or not there is sufficient profiling of potential recruits, how parents can be better involved in the recruitment interviews, and whether there should be automatic availability of NHS medical records prior to a recruitment decision.

Next, there are major questions about the disciplinary and supervisory regimes affecting the four recruits. In all cases, the regime for unsupervised armed guard duty for inexperienced soldiers gave the opportunity to obtain a weapon, and to provide an isolated spot in which to use it. That breaks two rules in the duty of care to vulnerable individuals. In addition, cuts in the number of non-commissioned officers make the environment less secure and diminish the relationship with recruits. As a consequence, the trust in the chain of command to deal with grievances, including bullying and abuse, will diminish.

There is one very specific issue. Can the Minister tell us how much he believes the indeterminate length of phase 2 training contributes to recruit dissatisfaction, and what the Government intend to do about it? The fact that all those failures occurred does not just represent a clear institutional failure on the Army's part—worse, they had been highlighted for many years by individual commanding officers whose internal and external recommendations were often ignored or implemented too late. As the report produced by Colonel Haes back in 2001 states,

"the Army Training and Recruitment Agency does not have a coherent policy that can be costed and measured. The ATRA is failing in certain aspects as a result of reduction in the military workforce and increased obligations . . . the current situation is tenable only as long as there is no major incident or complaint".

The physical environment at Deepcut also attracts considerable criticism. There was poor quality accommodation, especially in the case of sanitary and washing facilities. There were poor recreational facilities, leading to a restricted personal life, and a configuration of the camp that led to more frequent guard duties. The Minister must deal with those issues as a matter of urgency.

While the report makes clear that there is no evidence of collusion or cover-up, or failure of investigation, it is essential that the Royal Military Police ensure that their investigative procedures are equal to the best practice in civilian policing. Although the report suggests that that is best done by its being brought within the regime of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, I think that we would be wise to consider whether a further incursion of civilian institutions into the Army would be more beneficial than an internal mechanism.

Finally, there is the issue of a potential public inquiry. The conclusion reached in the report that,

"no new reliable evidence as to how the four trainees met their deaths is likely to be available"

is a powerful one. There are those who believe that a public inquiry is essential to restoring public confidence in the Army. First, I do not believe that the British public have a general lack of confidence in the British Army. Secondly, I believe that rather than dealing with any specific anxieties, such an inquiry would be likely to provide further scope for ill-informed speculation with the potential to damage both morale and recruitment. The Government must consider that extremely carefully.

So what have we learned, and what do the Government need to do? We need better recruitment selection as a matter of urgency. We need training for NCOs so that they can understand and deal with specific vulnerable individuals. We need trainees to understand what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour from their superiors, and a grievance procedure whereby they are taken seriously. We must end the practice of guard duty being used as a punishment for trainees. To encourage future recruits and, therefore, future soldiers, both recruits and their families need to be confident that the British Army can deliver a culture of nurture and training, free from bullying and harassment. For this, proper supervisory ratios are crucial.

Ultimately, the British Army must learn from the mistakes that it made in these terrible tragedies, and ensure that the self-sacrifice referred to in the military covenant is met by an equal duty of care from the institutions of the Army itself.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening comments, and it seems that we are more or less on the same territory regarding our analysis of what needs to be done. He will appreciate that this issue goes back to 1995, when substantial changes were made that undoubtedly impacted adversely on the training pipelines' capacity to deliver. As ever, it takes time to turn such a situation around. We have been under constant examination and there has been a constant process of renewal and investment. Each time, we must ensure that what we do has an effect. The hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be wrong to rush to a judgment or a solution; we have to make sure that our efforts deliver.

The hon. Gentleman made a number of specific points, but I take issue with his analysis of the suicide rate. I do not want to debate statistics, other than to make two points. First, one death is one death too many, but he was right to point to the increase in the number aged under 20 who committed suicide, or for whom an open verdict was recorded following an inquest. Secondly, for those aged 19 and under, the standard mortality ratio was significantly high during 1989 to 1993 and 1994 to 1998. However, for the period 1999 to 2003, the ratio, although still high, was not statistically significant. As I said, I do not want to trade statistics, and one death is one death too many, but let us not over-extend the analysis.

The hon. Gentleman made a very good point about the need for medical profiling and the involvement of parents. Mr. Blake's report is very clear on these issues and we already engage very closely with parents. Anyone who cares to visit a training establishment will see the joy on the parents' faces. As the hon. Gentleman said, even at those locations other than Deepcut that have been criticised, parents are delighted to see how the Army has turned their sons and daughters into members of society of whom they can be proud. However, more needs to be done and we need to make use of medical profiling. We need the best analysis of those who are coming into our care.

On phase 2 and soldiers awaiting training, the statistics show that improvements have been made. The number of soldiers awaiting training for more than 14 days each month has reduced by 59 per cent. across the Army, and by 45 per cent. at Deepcut. We are alert to the gap between phases 1 and 2—to what could happen in between if such soldiers are not given attention and gainful employment—and we are seeking to make improvements.

On the Haes report, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, if Colonel Haes visited the training establishments today—as the adult learning inspectorate does, both announced and unannounced—he would find an entirely different regime. It is not perfect and it does need improving, but some substantial issues have been addressed.

I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said about the Royal Military Police, and we are alive to this issue. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary will run a slide rule over the RMP's special investigations branch, which is at the critical end of the investigative capacity, to make sure that the RMP meets the very high standards that have been set. That is not to say that it does not already do so; the RMP is already audited and examined frequently through case review. It has high standards, and it meets the high standards expected of the civilian police, but there are lessons to be learned, as ever. Even in respect of the civilian police, we must constantly examine what is being done in our name.

The hon. Gentleman referred to guard duty being used as a punishment—a critical issue with which the report deals. Mr. Blake makes a very powerful and potent point about guard duty, which is under review. Indeed, we have made considerable progress. No under-17s are involved in guard duty and we are increasingly employing civilians to carry it out. It is proving difficult to recruit people to take on this job in the areas where establishments are located, but we have invested considerable resources and we are trying to build capacity. Over time, that type of guard duty will no longer apply. Its use as a form of punishment is under review, and my guess is that it will not continue.

I thank the Minister for advance notice of his statement and for the opportunity to go into the Ministry of Defence this morning to read the report on these tragic events. I echo the condolences expressed to the families concerned.

The Minister made only an oblique reference to the review's recommendation 26, which I consider the key recommendation. It states:

"There should be established a Commissioner of Military Complaints (the Armed Forces Ombudsman) independent of the 3 services".

The Minister said that he will give further thought to that proposal, which is of course supported by the Defence Committee. Does the Ministry of Defence's own Army survey not show that a staggering 85 per cent. of soldiers say that there is bullying in the Army, and that in the past 12 months more than a quarter of soldiers had lodged complaints and were not satisfied with the way in which they were handled? The review notes that independent commissioners work well in the Australian and Canadian armed forces, and that commanding officers here said that they could see no difficulty with the idea. I therefore urge the Minister, even at this stage, to use the Armed Forces Bill to introduce that sensible recommendation.

The UK is the only European Union country to recruit 16-year-olds into its armed forces. Does the Minister agree with recommendation 12.48, which states that the expense of improving the regime for young people in the Army is the

"necessary price to pay to be permitted to recruit"

them? What action will he take on the review's recommendation that young recruits should be in an environment dedicated to their needs, and that, in the case of 16-year-olds, such an environment should be exclusive to that age group? Is it not clear that, as the review and the Armed Forces Pay Review Body's report have found, accommodation and facilities for single people in the Army are profoundly unsatisfactory, and that they certainly were at Deepcut?

Will the Minister act on the review's recommendation 12, which states

"that instructors should be vetted for suitability to work with young people, in a way no less vigorous than in civilian establishments"?

Given the allegations of abuse in the report, is that not vital?

Finally, is it not vital that Surrey police implement recommendation 33, which says that they should disclose all the papers from their investigation to the families of the deceased so that they can decide whether to press for fresh inquests or, indeed, to renew their call for a public inquiry? Will Ministers implement the proposal that the Royal Military Police be brought within the regime of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, so that it can apply best practice and determine whether the RMP is sufficiently well resourced? That did not appear to be the case at the initial Deepcut inquiry.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the general tenor of his remarks. He has touched on some key issues, and he should be aware that the establishment of an ombudsman is a subject for the Armed Forces Bill. In the light of the Defence Committee's comments and of our own conclusions on what is desirable, we have come up with a set of measures that we think will tackle this issue. However, Mr. Blake has examined it in detail and made a recommendation, so it is only proper that we consider it. I must point out that the Liberal Democrats have a representative on the Armed Forces Bill Committee—

They have two.

Yes, two, but they did not attend when the matter was discussed this morning. However, I do not want to dwell on that.

On complaints, Mr. Blake found that the culture was that people were not prepared to make complaints, because they went nowhere. We have sought to address that problem in the Armed Forces Bill, and edicts on the problem have gone out to everyone involved. We have taken the matter on board, and I accept Mr. Blake's conclusion that everyone—from the most senior officer right through to recruits—must take responsibility. That concerns not only those who feel that they have been harassed or bullied; anyone of any rank who witnesses such incidents should report them. That is the sort of culture that we want to instil in people. It is an important matter, we are alert to it, and Mr. Blake places great emphasis on it.

The question of young recruits cannot be avoided. I do not know whether the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) agrees with the conclusions that the Government have reached on the matter, but the main Opposition party does. We consider it proper to continue to recruit people younger than 18, although there is no time today to go into all the reasons, and it is clear that we have a duty of care for those young people. Significant success has been achieved at Bassingbourn and Harrogate. We must take account of best practice, but implementation has resource implications and cannot happen overnight.

That leads to me to the question of single-living accommodation. We are aware of the need to give young recruits more freedom to lead their own lives in the training establishments. I can therefore tell the hon. Gentleman that we are re-profiling our resource allocation to try to lift the spend on single-living accommodation.

The hon. Gentleman is right about the vetting of instructors. We are constrained by the law in that regard, but with the Department for Education and Skills and the Home Office, we are looking urgently for ways to ensure better assessment of instructors. The matter has implications across the whole education sector, and beyond. We need better ways to capture information about those who may put young people, and others, at risk.

The hon. Member for North Devon asked about the recommendation relating to the Surrey police. That is a matter for that force, but I hope that the recommendation is taken on board, as I think that it will be a substantial help. The coroner's inquest into the death of James Collinson was conducted before a jury, and all the relevant issues were ventilated. That is the key and, although it was not the case with the three earlier inquests, that is not a matter for the MOD. It is for the families to decide whether to take legal action to reopen the inquests, and I agree with Mr. Blake's recommendations in that regard.

rose—

Order. The House has a great deal of business today. I appreciate that this is an extremely sensitive subject, but I still hope that questions can be brief. I can then try to call every hon. Member who is seeking to catch my eye.

My right hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that many families who lost children at Deepcut and elsewhere are very disappointed that the Government have again rejected a public inquiry. However, I chair the all-party group on non-combat deaths, and I welcome many of the proposals that have been made. Will he elaborate a little further on the proposals in Nicholas Blake's report for independent oversight of such matters? Will the ombudsman have retrospective powers, and be able to set up inquiries on his own initiative? Is there any indication of the scale of the problem beyond the Deepcut perimeter fence?

The last time I looked, more than 1,700 families were involved in the "Deepcut and Beyond" campaign, and I agree with Mr. Blake when he says in his report that no public inquiry into all the non-combat deaths could ever be concluded, because every such death would extend the process. That is why, as I have made clear many times, we do not favour a public inquiry into these matters. It is not that we have no respect or feelings for the families but, for the reasons that I have given and more, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to go down that route.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) should not conclude that there will be an ombudsman and then ask questions about what that person would do. We have said that we will consider Mr. Blake's recommendations, and that we are looking at how we can introduce an independent non-military presence into the complaints procedure at the higher level. That would give people a guarantee that they could seek redress from someone who was not in the chain of command. The Armed Forces Bill Committee is debating that at present, but we will balance that approach against what Mr. Blake has said. I shall also deal with the matter in my written response to the report.

We have discussed already the catalogue of misconduct in relation to Deepcut, but one member of the armed forces said:

"Sex was a passport for getting off all sorts of things, getting off duties, getting a long weekend at home."

Does the Minister accept that such quotations show how serious the situation had become? Mr. Blake's report was created only as a result of pressure from me and from other parliamentarians, and from Des and Doreen James and other parents of the deceased? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that they are understandably suspicious when he says that there is no need to make any further investigations? Finally, does he agree that, in the interests of respect, it is right to postpone the final judgment about a full public inquiry until the parents have had the chance to review all the materials that Nicholas Blake QC says that they should have the opportunity to review? Then we can wait and see what they feel. The Minister would be giving nothing away by agreeing to wait for the parents to see that information, and to share their point of view, and he certainly would not be compromising his position by so doing.

I take that point, but one of the key issues was the demand for a public inquiry. The Defence Committee said that it would wait for the Blake review, but did not consider that a public inquiry was justified, given the known circumstances. I have given more than once the reasons why I do not support a public inquiry. Mr. Blake's review weighs all the legal considerations and all the aspects, and comes to the same conclusion.

Mr. Blake says that the Army and Ministers have to make a judgment about whether more information would lay the issue to rest. My judgment is that a public inquiry would prolong the matter, and would not lead to a different conclusion. That is Mr. Blake's conclusion, and I am more than satisfied that he has looked at all the available evidence. We cannot allow individual families to have a veto. They have been spoken to and have expressed their views, but they may never be satisfied with the decision. Their point of view will differ from the judgment that a Minister will reach.

I recognise the role that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) has played in this matter. Mr. Blake's report is highly critical of the media's sensational exploitation of the events. Stories have been run that have had no substance, with no subsequent apology for the fact that they were wrong. None the less, I accept Mr. Blake's recognition that the pressure that the media exerts forces further ventilation and examination.

I wanted this report to be completed earlier, and Mr. Blake lists the many external factors that made that impossible. In the intervening period of 15 months, substantial changes in the training environment have been introduced or are now planned. The training regime has not stood still, and it will change measurably for the better in the months and years ahead.

I thank my right hon. Friend for allowing me and other Members who represent the families of the young men and women who died to have sight of the report.

When I met the Grays at their home last week, they were keen for a public inquiry, but one of their main concerns was that in their desire to reopen their son's inquest they did not have full access to the facts. Will my right hon. Friend, who has personally pledged to liaise with our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, make sure that all necessary evidence is disclosed to the family of Geoff Gray and the other candidates? Has he completely ruled out a public inquiry into the way that Deepcut was run? I support the recommendation for an ombudsman. Does the Ministry of Defence have a timetable for looking into that issue?

The key issue is the recommendation relating to the Surrey police. I cannot instruct the Surrey police to do what has been recommended but, as I have indicated, I strongly support the view taken by Mr. Blake and we shall do all we can to ensure that it is imparted both to those who make the decisions at ministerial level and, most important, to the Surrey police. Of course, where there is confidential information, as may be the view of the Surrey police because of the nature of the witness statements they have taken, some matters may have to be deleted for legal reasons. Things have to be looked at in the round, but if there were access to that information it would help families who seek a reopening of the inquest into the deaths of their sons, in two cases, and their daughter, in the case of Mr. and Mrs. James. If that attempt was successful, which is not for me to determine—there would have to be judicial review or some other mechanism—the coroner would have to comply. If the inquests were reopened, there would be an opportunity to raise all those matters, because there is no restriction on where such an inquest could go. That would deal with my hon. Friend's point about the need for a public inquiry to explore what happened at the time of death. A coroner's inquest can do just that, so we are encouraging families to take that route, and they may now have better argumentation for doing so.

I thank the Minister for an early look at the report this morning. Although I acknowledge that Nicholas Blake stops short of asking for a public inquiry, he says that the one constituency that might have an interest in a public inquiry would be the Army itself. That comes on top of the words of the coroner at the Collinson inquest, Michael Burgess, who said that

"the MOD should take whatever steps are necessary to restore public confidence in the recruitment and training of young soldiers . . . including an inquiry held in public".

If the only way to restore that confidence is to hold a public inquiry, and it is in the interests of the MOD to do so, will the Minister think again about a public inquiry?

The hon. Gentleman has had a benefit that other Members have not: he has read the report, albeit in a restricted time—but he has misunderstood what Mr. Blake said. He does not "stop short" of calling for a public inquiry; he says that it is not necessary. He goes beyond that point.

The hon. Gentleman should take time to understand the report—read it, analyse it and absorb the weight of its analysis. That is what I will do. I shall consider my response, but I have nothing to add to what I said earlier about having clarity in respect of a public inquiry. A judgment had to be made by Mr. Blake, and he has made it. A judgment had to be made by the Select Committee, which made it. A judgment had to be made by me and I made it. The Army took a similar point of view, which it expressed to me. It is not a question of a cover-up, but that there is a weight of argument in favour of not proceeding down that road. We know what went wrong and there may still be things that need to be addressed, but let us do so to ensure, I hope, that we can stop the recurrence of such tragic incidents in the future.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the opportunity to see the report this morning, as did other MPs, on behalf of Sean's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Benton. The report was comprehensive in terms of the evidence it reviewed, but it was a review and not an inquiry. May I bring to my right hon. Friend's attention paragraph 2.71? It states:

"If Human Rights law required a public inquiry then this review cannot itself satisfy that obligation given the limitations placed upon it—nor could an Army review."

Paragraph 2.73 states:

"If material comes to light to suggest collusion in a killing or a cover up"—

which has been suggested—

"public confidence would demand a public inquiry."

Although Mr. Blake comes to the view that no inquiry is required, he notes that it is up to the Secretary of State to make that decision if "public confidence" demands it. I believe it does. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

Again, I thank my hon. Friend for acknowledging that he has been given access to the report, but I suggest that he consider a longer time scale rather than alighting on one part of it and deciding that it leads to a certain conclusion. There is other argumentation in the report and the conclusion is that such a course was not necessary. Mr. Blake is a considerable and eminent human rights lawyer, who has weighed up all the information—from his perspective, not that of the Army—and come to that conclusion.

My hon. Friend referred to suggestions that there was collusion or a cover-up, but there is no evidence of that. People may have such perceptions or feelings, but they have no proof. The report involved more than turning over pages of evidence. There was thorough examination of all the documentation. There were talks with witnesses who commented on the conduct of individuals and on the running of the training establishments as well as pointing out ongoing issues. Let us not diminish the review. It is a considerable report. Would more come from a public inquiry? I judge that it would not, and everyone else who has looked at the arguments in the round has come to the same conclusion.

As the constituency Member for Deepcut, I thank the Minister and Nicholas Blake. I, too, extend my sympathy to the families, who have borne their suffering with such dignity. Does the Minister agree that since the period covered by the report, the Army in general and the leadership at Deepcut in particular have taken significant steps to improve training? Will he tell us the steps being taken to ensure that we train and retain experienced NCOs who can both prepare our young men and women for the rigours of the battlefield and extend to them a proper duty of care?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. Our plans to lift quality are well under way—it is a question of getting the infrastructure in place. We plan to establish a leadership course, designed specifically to ensure that those entering the instruction regime and environment realise that it is an important part of their career development, which has not been the case hitherto. We are setting up another scheme for the Army, "Train the trainers", which will roll out for the Air Force and the Royal Navy. Without question, we are homing in on that important ingredient. Those who carry out instruction duties are key to everything we do in delivering people capability and capacity for our armed forces. During the period of the review—from 1985 to the present day—just under 100,000 trainees have gone through that training environment at Deepcut alone. That is a mark of success, not failure, but there were weaknesses in the system and we are addressing them.

The hon. Gentleman asked how we can ensure that there is continuous improvement at Deepcut and elsewhere. The adult learning inspectorate is a fully independent organisation, which can make both unannounced and announced visits to the establishment, and it says that Deepcut has been transformed for the better. Mr. Blake's report includes a good quotation from a young trainee, who says that now people are mollycoddled, and cannot move without someone talking to them to try to find out what is in their mind and what they are up to. A balance needs to be struck, however, because we are trying to create independent people whom we ask to take on a unique task on behalf of our country. It is difficult for our military people to strike that balance, but they have achieved great success in the past and continue to be successful, as the hon. Gentleman is aware from his knowledge of Deepcut.

At the consideration of the Armed Forces Bill this morning, I introduced new clause 24, which would have established an independent complaints commissioner for the armed forces—I was not, I hasten to add, supported by the Liberal Democrat members of the Committee, who were absent. After considering an interesting debate, and, obviously, waiting for Nicholas Blake's report at lunchtime, I agreed to withdraw the motion on the new clause. Can the Minister assure me that the independent oversight of complaints in the armed forces will be seriously considered as part of the Armed Forces Bill? Can he give us a timetable for such consideration, although I realise that doing so is difficult?

Again, my hon. Friend is close to that issue and has been raising it as a member of the Defence Committee. I am grateful to him for initiating that debate this morning. The issue must be ventilated and examined. I cannot dictate the pace of what happens with the Bill, but I guess that it must be addressed on Report, and if not, by the other place. We could then consider it back here again if necessary. It is for both Houses to decide what should be included in the Bill. We will give a very clear indication of what we believe to be right. Without question, what we propose goes a considerable way to address the issue; we have not fully debated it, obviously, but there is an independent presence within it. I will also make a written response on the basis of Mr. Blake's view, but that will be consistent with our view of the way in which the Bill should develop. Making that point is a substantial part of what we are doing at present. Let that debate now ensue.

Although I believe that the Minister's judgment is right in continuing to resist calls for a public inquiry, however painful and difficult that may be for the relatives of the men concerned, may I tell the Secretary of State for Defence that I cannot help but feel that there is still a gap in the procedures of the Ministry of Defence for dealing with very difficult and large questions of this nature, as I pointed out in a letter that I sent to the then Secretary of State some four years ago. Will the Minister consider establishing a more permanent procedure as a clear alternative to public inquiry—perhaps, as I suggested then, a tribunal, chaired by a senior military officer from a different service, with a retired judge and a senior retired police officer, to conduct investigations and inquiries of this nature?

That is but one idea, and I know that the hon. Gentleman has argued for it in the past. I can consider anything in my response, and I will deal with the specifics of what Mr. Blake has said. I do not want to look at a range of other aspects, unless that is consistent with what we seek to do in the Armed Forces Bill. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity when that Bill returns on Report to table such amendments as he feels necessary, but I ask him to listen to the arguments that take place in the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill and consider them in a balanced and non-partisan way to try to find the best answers. There are very good arguments about why those in the chain of command should be respected in all this. They have the ultimate responsibility for the duty of care for those men and women—young and less young—in their care, because they are the ones who have to take them into those dangerous environments into which we send them. So let us not diminish what they do and their responsibility for the people whom they have under their care.

I will not take too much of the House's precious time today to dwell on disagreement about a public inquiry. However, the Minister has enjoined Members to take time to analyse the report in full before forming our own opinions. Will he assure us that if we do so, and if we approach him on a cross-party basis—he is aware of the nature of the cross-party campaign to date—he will be receptive to those reflections, particularly where they are informed by the views of the families?

My hon. Friend knows me from my time in Northern Ireland, and we are always prepared to look at cross-party and individual party submissions to find the best solution. So the answer is yes, but I simply cannot undo the past; I can only try to make the present and the future better. I have compassion and deep feeling for those families, and I regret that aspects of what we were doing—Mr. Blake makes this clear—may have created a climate that resulted in those four tragic deaths. I have also said that, as has come out in the report, if individuals were in the wrong, we must examine that as well. There is no question in my mind about the depth and breadth of the report, and I only hope that those who campaign do so objectively and on the basis of what is deliverable and achievable, rather than trying to paint us into the position of creating the perfect world. I do not have it within my gift to create perfection.

Given the worryingly high number of deaths in non-combatant activities in the past 25 years, does the Minister feel confident enough to tell the House today that in future, there should be no significant difference between the frequency of non-combatant deaths in the armed services and accidental deaths in the community at large? If he could give us that assurance about non-combatant deaths, or at least set out the measures that the armed services are taking to move in that direction, it would be a great reassurance.

Again, I do not think that I have that within my gift, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to examine a lot of those non-combat deaths. They can involve road traffic accidents, or people who are on duty in difficult circumstances that are not combat-related who have been killed in accidents, or because of mistakes by other people. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that he does not accept that the armed forces are unique and work in different circumstances—and, without question, in extremely dangerous environments? He is not comparing like with like, so I do not think that I can answer that question in the way in which he asked it.

Having visited one of the training establishments, I am aware of the improvements that are being made. I welcome the Minister's commitment to consider what further action can be taken in the light of the review, but does Mr. Blake deliberate on any case other than those of the four that have been mentioned, such as that of my former constituent Alfie Manship, who died in Germany some weeks after leaving Deepcut barracks?

Yes he does, at length. I know that my hon. Friend will look at all the conclusions. Indeed, that is one of the issues that I referred to earlier in which the sensational press reporting of certain aspects was not found to be accurate. I know that my hon. Friend will closely examine the report and that the family, whom she represents, will also look at it, and it will help them and my hon. Friend to understand the totality of that circumstance.

The Defence Committee report found that the real failure was that of the Army chain of command to respond either creatively or purposefully to the various reports over the past seven years. That failure of command, which was not recognised by anyone in the Army, led to the ongoing situation. It is still amazing to me that the two commanding officers have still yet to give any public account of what they did in response to the circumstances that they found. I would be interested to know whether the Minister feels that Mr. Blake has ruled out a public inquiry—I do not think that he has—and surely the Secretary of State for Defence should have an opportunity to review his decision on a public inquiry once the parents have had the advantage of having had the report for some time, and all the information available from the Surrey police.

I repeat—I do not know how many times I have done so—that Mr. Blake has ruled out the need for a public inquiry. He says that it is not necessary. I do not think it appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to try to particularise his comments against two commanding officers. It is almost as if he is saying that they are guilty before any other examination. I understand that both of them met the families involved at the time. There has been a very close public examination by the people who were critical; in itself that may not be sufficient, but Mr. Blake and others have done everything that they can. I have met the families in different circumstances, either individually or collectively, to try to talk through some of the issues, and I will continue to do so. Everyone should know that there is a need for clarity. Fudge and uncertainty are not the way to deal with this matter. I make this plea to the hon. Gentleman: he should use his own faculties to consider how best we should address the present and the future. We are trying to address the past, but we must also address the present and the future, because of the tens of thousands of young men and women who are still going through those establishments.

I join other Members in thanking the Minister for his statement. As he will be aware, 19 non-combatant deaths took place at Catterick garrison between 1995 and 2001 in the infantry training section alone. Many parents, including my constituent, Lynne Farr, whose 18-year-old son Daniel died at Catterick in 1997, feel that those deaths cry out for some form of inquiry, but the Minister has been quite clear about that today and we all welcome the depth of thought that he has obviously given to the issue. Will he take a personal interest in ensuring that grieving parents whose children have died are kept informed of the steps that will follow the Blake report as issues develop?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments. We recognise that there are non-combat deaths in other areas. I gave the figure of the more than 1,700 families that would come into the ambit of this particular campaign. Lynne Farr is a formidable woman and she argued her case very well. We are considering ways in which she can use her experience as a mother who has had to deal with such tragic circumstances to assist us, and how best to deal with other parents who find themselves in those circumstances. That will be difficult for her, but she is capable and willing to help.

The other element is to make sure that our relationship with parents who have young people at those training establishments is such that they are fully aware of everything that is happening through that process. There should not be any barriers to their understanding. We recognise that having parents on side is critical. Much of our welfare support—and the way in which we are seeking to address things—envelops the parents if they want to be engaged in the process. We must remember, of course, that once the young person is over 18, they are an adult and so there is a balance concerning who has ownership of that person's future. These are very difficult issues, not just in military training establishments, but in life generally, as well. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In his reply to my question on his statement, the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr. Ingram) alleged that I was making some sort of allegation against the two former commanding officers. My point was quite clear: it was that both those officers have yet to give a public explanation of their actions following the deaths that occurred while those young people were in their charge.

I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that he is not raising a point of order; he is simply trying to continue the argument. There are other ways in which he can pursue matters of that kind.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the installation in homes of thermostatic mixing valves to set bath tap water temperature to a maximum of 46 degrees centigrade; and for connected purposes.

I would like to tell the House a story about a little girl called Holly Devonport from Wakefield. Holly was five years old when she suffered scalds to more than half her body. Her mother, Julie, was running a bath and went to get a fresh towel. Holly was perched on the edge of the bath, playing with her Gameboy, and in the split second when her mother left the room, she slipped and fell in. Her mother said that when she pulled Holly from the bath her legs looked like they had been dipped in acid. Holly's agonising injuries meant that she endured a seven-hour operation to graft skin from her stomach on to her legs. She spent six weeks in Pinderfields hospital in Wakefield and six months in a wheelchair. She missed four months of school. She will be scarred for life. I know that many hon. Members in the Chamber met Holly and her mother yesterday and I am grateful to them for their support.

Holly is now 10 years old and yesterday she and her mother came to this place to launch the "Hot Water Burns Like Fire" campaign. The campaign is backed by Age Concern, the British Burns Association, the Child Accident Prevention Trust, the Children's Fire and Burn Trust, Help the Aged and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. They, and I, want to make sure that what happened to Holly does not happen to another child.

Unfortunately, what happened to Holly is happening to another child every single day of the year. Some 600 people a year suffer severe injuries from scalding hot bath water and three quarters of them are children under five. Fifteen pensioners a year die from burns that they receive from bath water. Why are pensioners and children the most vulnerable to scald injuries? The answer is because their skin is thinner and burns more quickly. Also, as any parent of a toddler will know, children have less perception of risk. Pensioners have less physical ability to deal with dangerous situations.

I have heard stories of children dropping toys into the bath and going in to get them and of pensioners getting cramp in their legs while topping up their baths with hot water. Someone e-mailed me this morning to share the story of her mother, who was due to go to a wedding and who was staying in a hotel. She turned on the hot bath tap and was scalded to death by the hot water. She went into burns-related shock. A person might have an epileptic fit, a heart attack or a stroke. They might drink too much or be on drugs and pass out in the bath. Those are everyday accidents, but they have extraordinary and catastrophic consequences for the individual.

My Bill would change the law so that thermostatic mixing valves, or TMVs, are fitted in all new and refurbished homes. Those valves would set the bath tap water temperature to a maximum of 48° C and it would emerge at about 46 ° C, depending on the water pressure elsewhere in the home. Let me put those temperatures in context. At 66° C, hot water burns through skin in two seconds. At 56° C, it takes 15 seconds. At 46° C, the temperature at which the valves would be set, it takes five minutes. If Members measure their own scalding hot baths they will find that the temperature is about 40° C. Nobody can sit in a bath at 46° C, but that temperature would allow people to buy time. I pay tribute to the district council in Wakefield, which, as far as I can establish, is the only council in the country to install the valves as standard across all its housing stock.

Legislation requiring homes to have TMVs comes into force in Scotland in May. Similar legislation has been passed in Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Why can we not do the same in England, Wales and Northern Ireland? We have an opportunity approaching. I understand that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are about to launch a joint public consultation on building regulation G, to look at water-saving devices in bathrooms and water fittings in bathrooms. I plead with the Minister to widen the scope of that consultation to include the installation of TMVs. I thank him for taking the time to meet me earlier this week and I would be grateful if he would meet me later to talk with the representatives of the campaign leaders and the organisations involved about the nature of the injuries that they see.

There may be shouts from the tabloids about the nanny state. There were shouts when we banned hairdryers from bathrooms, put fuse boards on electrical circuits, and passed laws to protect people from carbon monoxide poisoning from gas boilers. Dr. Keith Judkins, a consultant anaesthetist from Wakefield, told me yesterday that a scald over more than one fifth of one's body has the metabolic impact of being hit by a bus. It causes huge changes in the body's chemistry, which can be life threatening. People can go into burns shock.

If the human consequences do not convince people, let us consider the economic and environmental costs. It costs £80—once—to buy a TMV. The lifetime cost to treat one scalding injury is £250,000. In one year, with TMVs, we could save £150 million for the NHS, and a lot of toddlers and pensioners a huge amount of suffering. In these days of rising gas prices, it simply does not make sense to superheat bath water and then mix it with cold water.

I am sure that all Members had a thermostat fitted to the showers that they used this morning. Nobody even thinks about thermostats on showers, but, for some reason, there is an incredible resistance to fitting them on bath taps. I doubt whether there is a person in the House who can say that they have not fallen asleep in the bath. Bath time should be about bubbles, ducks and fun—even at our age.

Baths should still be hot—baths will still be hot—but, most importantly, baths should be safe. Hot water burns like fire. Hot water burned Holly Devonport, to use her mother's words, "like acid". This year, 400 children will suffer what Holly endured. Are we really saying that that is the best that we can do for our children? We live in the 21st century. Thermostatic mixing valves were invented 80 years ago, so what are we waiting for? Let us act now to amend the building regulations and save lives so that we can all enjoy safe, hot baths.

I will be brief because the House has a busy day. I pay tribute to the sincerity with which the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) spoke to her Bill. I should say, for the record, that I have never to my knowledge fallen asleep in the bath. The shower that I had this morning did not have a thermostatic valve, and nor do any of the showers in either my flat in London, or my house in Worcestershire. While I respect the hon. Lady's sincerity, I simply ask her to reflect on whether the Bill might be a step too far. Ten-minute Bills are useful to raise awareness of important issues. I introduced such a Bill for that purpose some 10 years ago with great success. However, I hope that the hon. Lady might be persuaded to leave it there.

Let us get the matter in some perspective before deciding which of us is right. I am told that of some 100,000 burns injuries, scalding accounts in total for some 2,500, and about 2,000 of those cases are minor. I accept that it is a problem if there are 500 serious scalding injuries. We often talk in the House about the nanny state. Such phrases in the political lexicon are perhaps used too often and their overuse can lead to their devaluation. However, when the House considers such matters, it must reflect carefully on the point at which individuals must take personal responsibility for their actions and when politicians should tell people how to behave.

I accept that the hon. Lady has made a powerful case for vulnerable people using thermostatic valves for their baths. I would prefer a scheme to assist vulnerable people to access such valves so that risks were minimised. There are many wrongs and problems in the world, but they cannot all be answered by political intervention, and my suspicion remains that we are considering such a problem. An intervention made by the House must be proportionate to the problem that it is trying to address and must genuinely protect the freedom of others. The Bill, well meaning though it is, fails both tests.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I do not think that I am procedurally allowed to give way during a speech on a ten-minute Bill. I apologise to my hon. Friend.

I listened, as many hon. Members would have done, to this morning's "Today" programme and heard the gloriously flippant responses received from many listeners. I heard the voice of John Humphreys rising with incredulity as he presented the piece. However, there are serious issues to consider. After a long day out in the countryside in the winter, it is my preference to relax in a long bath. I let a bit of cold water out and put a lot more hot water in so that I can have a half-hour bath, rather than a five-minute bath. Baths are not just for cleansing, they are also for therapy, and I suspect that the Bill would get in the way of the liberty that I enjoy.

The issue is important, and I pay tribute to the way in which the hon. Lady has raised it. It is often said that the state should keep out of the bedroom, but it is my view that the state should keep out of the bathroom, too. Frankly, the idea deserves a cold bath, although I give a warm welcome to the spirit in which the hon. Lady raised it.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mary Creagh, Sandra Gidley, Mr. David Blunkett, Mrs. Siân C. James, Dr. Alasdair McDonnell, Dr. Ian Gibson, Alan Simpson, Mr. Stewart Jackson, Mr. Sadiq Khan, Mr. Robert Walter and John Bercow.

Prevention of Scalding Injuries (Bathing in the Home)

Mary Creagh accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about the installation in homes of thermostatic mixing valves to set bath tap water temperature to a maximum of 46 degrees centigrade; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 June, and to be printed [Bill 160].

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have written a note to Mr. Deputy Speaker about the Bill as it stands and how it might be amended. It might be strange to raise this matter at such a late time, but it is in the nature of the exchanges between the Houses that it is possible that the amendments being applied could make the Bill a hybrid Bill. I say that with reference to the definition of the Speaker that a hybrid Bill is

"a public bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interest of other"—

Order. I have the reference from "Erskine May", so we can save a little time because the hon. Gentleman need not read out the whole passage.

I merely say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that however improbable it might seem at this late stage, differences could be created in the "same category or class" by virtue of the amendments that are being proposed and those that have been considered. On the general principle, it seems to me that hybridity could apply in this instance, but I would be grateful for a ruling.

As the hon. Gentleman says, the matter has been brought to the attention of the Chair at a late stage. I am thus seeking advice and guidance and we will return to that point of order later.

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 22J and 22K.

This is the fourth time that amendments to remove the automatic linkage between designated documents and identity cards have come back to us from the other place and I very much hope that it will be the last time. The amendments were tabled by Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, who sits on the Cross Benches. I have high regard for Lord Armstrong, his commitment to the constitution of this country and his knowledge of history relating to it. I know that he was trying to help to reach a constructive conclusion by tabling the amendments. However, as I have said before, the moment has passed for discussing the principle of linking designated documents and ID cards, and it simply would not be possible for the Government to accept a complete opt-out for people who apply for documents designated under the Bill from the requirement to be entered on the national identity register and issued with an identity card.

I understand the reasoning behind Lord Armstrong's amendments. As I have said before, I am grateful to him for trying to help to resolve the impasse that exists. However, while in theory an opt-out might well make more sense than an opt-in, the reality would be the same. We would still be introducing an unacceptably large degree of uncertainty into the plans for rolling out identity cards linked to passports.

When the Bill returned to the House on 21 March, the debate was essentially about the timing for implementing the requirement for people applying for a designated document, such as a passport, to register and obtain an identity card, rather than the principle of so doing. That was certainly the line taken by the Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), although I have to say that he was more coherent than Lord Phillips of Sudbury in yesterday's debate in the other place when he made a mistake about a name. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) for reminding me of a particular factor behind that, so I will not read the relevant part of Hansard, although I refer hon. Members to column 655.

The line taken by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam was very clear. He said that the amendments to be proposed by Lord Armstrong would

"blow a hole in the Bill"—[Official Report, 21 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 192.]

The position of the Liberal Democrats throughout has been to use any device, however constitutionally doubtful, to destroy the scheme decided by this elected Chamber. I have no intention of accepting any changes that would have the effect of blowing a hole in the Bill, or damaging the delivery of the identity cards scheme as a whole.

Will the Home Secretary confirm that people are right in thinking that this is all part of an EU requirement to prepare for a common system across Europe, and that that is why he is in such a hurry to get rid of our liberties in this respect?

I am happy to confirm that that is total nonsense. There is no proposal either for an EU identity card or for an EU-wide card of any sort. As far as I am aware, there is no proposal on the table. What has been discussed in the EU is biometrics for passports and biometrics for residents' documents. That has been discussed not only in the EU but in countries throughout the world—especially the United States—as a means of helping people to travel more effectively. There is no requirement, and the canard, if I might use a Frenchism, that this is all an EU plot—something that the right hon. Gentleman sometimes suggests—is not true in this instance.

I agree with my right hon. Friend about the lack of an EU conspiracy. However, will he comment on why the UK alone is going down the route of having a centralised data base and an audit trail, which is not in line with recommendations that are coming from Europe?

There are no recommendations coming from Europe on this matter so that the issue of being in line does not arise. The arguments for the Bill stand in their own terms. I remind my hon. Friend that they have been debated during the consideration of two Bills in this place and in the other place. They have also been considered on many occasions during debates on Lords amendments. However, the issue that my hon. Friend has raised is not the substance of the debate that is before us. My hon. Friend has been clear about her position throughout the debates and I have no criticism of that. I hope that she will now acknowledge, as an elected Member of Parliament, that it is time for the elected House to have its will and for unelected peers not to proceed as they are seeking to do.

I have no intention of accepting any changes that would have the effect of blowing a hole in the Bill or damage the delivery of the identity cards scheme. Of course, I have read carefully what was said yesterday in the other place. I recognise that some of their Lordships realise that they cannot continue to delay the passage of the Bill, and that there has to come a time when the unelected House should bow to the will of this House.

I was particularly struck that Lord Armstrong said that he would have no objection to obtaining an identity card when his passport came up for renewal. He said also that he thought that his amendment might form the basis for an acceptable compromise, possibly with the insertion of a time limit after which any opt-out would no longer apply. He went on to ask directly whether the Government would consider such a compromise. The answer that I have to give is that the Government are not being intransigent. If a different compromise were to be proposed—one that was workable—I would consider it carefully, as I have carefully examined a series of changes that we have made when considering how best to introduce this legislation.

I realise that there are many in the other place who feel uncomfortable about the length of time during which they have defied the will of the elected House. They know that it is wrong that they are in that position. I realise also that some of their Lordships are trying to end the impasse. I will watch carefully what happens next.

As I have made clear previously, the Bill will affect not only holders of British passports once these documents are designated. By about 2008 or 2009 we intend to start issuing biometric residents' permits to those foreign nationals who are temporarily resident in the UK. Without the requirement for designation and registration on a national identity register, foreign nationals will be able to opt out of the scheme completely. I believe that it would be entirely unacceptable if foreign nationals with those documents could opt out of registration, which would be the effect of the amendment that is before the House.

Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

No, I will not.

There is little more that I can say other than to suggest that at this time the other place should listen and recognise that the elected House, again today, will insist on retaining the requirement in the Bill for anyone obtaining a designated document such as a passport to be entered on the national identity register. I believe that the scope for further compromise is small, but I and my right hon. Friend Baroness Scotland of Asthal will be prepared to listen constructively to what is said when the Bill returns to the other place today, in the hope that it can at last pass on to the statute book.

In the spirit of that compromise—the Home Secretary knows that I am always prone to compromise—I would like the right hon. Gentleman to elaborate on the problem that he sees with respect to foreign residents being cut out by the proposal made by Lord Armstrong. If we can resolve the issue, we might come to some conclusion on the matter.

As always, I am amazed, encouraged and even excited by the right hon. Gentleman's positive tone. The concern that I have, on the particular narrow point of foreign nationals, is that we are establishing the identity documents—in my opinion, rightly—and bringing them on to the national identity register. I understand the quasi constitutional objections of some in the other place to the idea that a British citizen should have an identity card whether they want it or not—that is the essence of their concern—but I do not believe that that concern should extend to foreign nationals under the schemes that operate. I am thinking about the protection of our borders. Occasionally, I see the comments of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden in the public media on such matters, to which he is deeply committed. That is one of the reasons why I think that the amendment from the other place is inappropriate. However, I hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say.

As I have said before, it would be inappropriate and a waste of parliamentary time, in my opinion, for the Opposition in the other place to force the Government into using the Parliament Act to enact the proposed legislation. I hope that we shall reach a conclusion today. I have made it clear that the Government will listen and reflect on what is said both here and in the other place. I have to repeat that the Government cannot accept amendments Nos. 22J and 22K.

I hope that I can begin on an uncontroversial note in a debate on what has been a controversial Bill, and that is that the House must surely wish Lord Phillips of Sudbury the most speedy recovery from what I hope is a temporary illness.

The arguments for the Bill, as the Home Secretary said, stand in their own terms. It seems that the arguments in favour of the Bill stand in an interesting substance, but I am not sure that its own terms recommend it.

The Home Secretary would like us to believe that there is a huge constitutional wrangle between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, over which House of this Parliament should have supremacy—us, the elected House, or the other House as the unelected and largely appointed House. I say in parenthesis that a large proportion of its Members have been appointed by the present Prime Minister.

I would describe the dispute that we have in other terms: that it is a dispute between the citizen and the state. It is a dispute between truth and freedom of the individual and the power of the Executive. I would describe it—

Will my hon. and learned Friend give way on that point?

Even in mid-sentence, I give way to my hon. Friend.

I do not want to cut my hon. and learned Friend short. Having said what he has just said, does he agree that it is not merely a question of battling with the Lords? The issue is fundamentally the constitutional point that he is making, which is the key to the answers to the questions that we are raising in these debates between the two Houses.

I agree. We are debating, both in this Chamber and in the other place, the fundamental relationship between the citizen and the state. If we upset that balance, which has evolved over centuries, we shall do ourselves and our electorates a disservice.

I would not want to go over the arguments that we have had about the terms of the Labour party's manifesto at the last election. Those arguments are well known and they are clear. As I have said during previous debates, repetition never made a good point better. The point is there and it is one that the House can consider.

I gently remind the Government that their earlier reliance on the need to have biometric passports was irrelevant to the earlier debates on the Bill and the setting up of the national identity register, and is even more irrelevant today, especially in the context of Lord Armstrong's amendments.

Today, the Government can do two things. They can either stubbornly turn their face to the wall and ignore the helping hand that is proffered by Lord Armstrong or they can be sensible and realistic and accept it. I had an inkling from the Home Secretary—I was slightly put off by his over-excitement at the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), which I found a disturbing prospect—but I cast that aside. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary says from a sedentary position that he was dreaming about having a bath with my right hon. Friend. I will leave them to have those private discussions elsewhere.

A door may have opened in the Home Secretary's mind, because he uttered the word "compromise". That is a helpful step forward, because I did not think that that word could be extracted from his mouth. However, I would like more details—I am happy to accept an intervention from him—about the terms of any compromise that he would find acceptable. In the past, he has set his face against proposals from the other place and the Opposition. If he is in the mood to mention the word "compromise", perhaps he could tell us more about the nature of an acceptable compromise. In the meantime, as he queues with his towel outside the bathroom of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden—

Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

That queue appears to be growing.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, while compromise may be a good thing, there can be no compromise over the principle of compulsion? We cannot accept a compulsory identity card in this Parliament, given the Government's position at the election and the strong sense among our constituents that we want freedom in this country.

I entirely agree, but I am trying to extract from the Government precisely how close to us they are prepared to move. The closer they move, the more likely they are to have their Bill not just before Easter but even tonight. We look forward to hearing their response either in the House or in the other place.

My hon. and learned Friend said that he did not want to rehearse previous arguments but, further to the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), may I put it to him that each of these debates must be self-contained and intelligible to the widest possible audience? In seeking negotiation, it is highly pertinent to draw attention to the difference between what the Government have said today and what they said last May.

I accept that but, as my hon. Friend will know, Dickens wrote some of his greatest novels as part works. They were serialised before being brought together to form a whole. I hope that his interventions in our debates will form part of a great encyclopaedia of parliamentary occasions, so that at the flick of an internet switch anyone will be able to search his great works.

I want to move on from our earlier debates, because last week, Mr. Deputy Speaker chided me for rehearsing that argument. Everyone knows my views on the Labour manifesto, and everyone knows what that manifesto says, so we can reach our own conclusions about the meaning of those English words. Lord Armstrong has sensibly endeavoured to find a way through that does not wreck the Bill and preserves a decent and proper balance between the citizen's rights and freedoms and the Government's necessary demands to realise their policy. His amendments are clearly not all that my party and I would want, but that is the nature of compromise. If the Government are prepared to accept our good will in supporting his amendments and if they are prepared to accept our genuine concerns about the rights of the individual as against the power of the state, I hope that they will conclude that Lord Armstrong's attempt to broker a deal between the two warring sides is certainly worth supporting this evening.

Lord Armstrong's amendments provide a clear and simple solution that achieves fairness and justice, and which ought to commend itself to hon. Members on both sides of the House, whether or not we support the general principle behind the Bill and the establishment of the national identity register. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) is in the Chamber, and he will know Government policy often appears to be made up on the hoof from day to day. Different announcements appear in the newspapers as the Bill is manoeuvred through the highways and byways of Government policy making. However, if the Government are confident that their policy is right, they should allow the public to prove their case by giving them the choice to opt out of registration on the back of designated documents.

Both the Home Secretary and Baroness Scotland have accepted the thrust of Lord Armstrong's amendments by arguing that people can avoid compulsion by stealth if they renew their passports before the Bill in its unamended form becomes law. If they are prepared to advise the public to "cheat" to avoid the Bill's requirements, it is not logical for them to resist Lord Armstrong's attempt to bring light to this overheated debate. I urge the House to be adult about the matter so that at least we can put a Bill that is clear on the statute book. If we accede to Lord Armstrong's amendments we will, I accept, dissatisfy both sides of the argument but, presumably, we will achieve consensus, which gives the Government time to think and digest the quality of the arguments for and against opting out. Lord Armstrong's intervention in this affair is timely and constructive and it is certainly worth queuing outside the bathroom of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden for it. I look forward to the Home Secretary moving quietly towards that upstairs room with his bath towel in hand.

Order. May I remind hon. Members that we have a little over 40 minutes left for this debate? Several Members wish to contribute, so I urge them to be concise.

May I say straight away that I am in favour of the Lords amendment, which is a sensible proposal? I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will accept it, as Lord Armstrong has tried his best to find a solution. However, I must be frank and express some disquiet, as I am one of the few Members who is in a genuine dilemma about the issue. The Opposition parties have made it clear that they would be willing to accept the Lords amendments at the end of the day, and some of my hon. Friends take the same view. The large majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends support the Government regardless.

While I accept the need for the Lords amendment, I reiterate what I have said on many occasions as a Member of Parliament: it is the elected Chamber that should decide. It would therefore be wrong, irresponsible and contradictory to say that, just because I share the view of the majority in the House of Lords, their view should prevail. Like the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), I am encouraged by the Home Secretary's suggestion that there is room for compromise. The last thing that I want to do is use the Parliament Acts, but if the Lords absolutely refuse to agree, it is likely that they will be used. I accept that it is right to use them for certain issues, but it would be inappropriate to do so on this occasion. I very much hope that, even at this late stage, the Home Secretary is willing to enter negotiations—if that is the right description—to achieve a satisfactory outcome and to ensure that the view of the House of Commons prevails, whatever amendment or compromise is agreed. I do not think that we should be worried about compromise, as it is part of political life.

rose—

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way, as I wish to heed Madam Deputy Speaker's advice about brevity. I shall cross my fingers and hope that compromise can be reached to prevent ping-pong throughout the day and night. Most of all, I do not want the Parliament Acts to be used. If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary used the word, and if he means what he said, I can only hope, like everyone else with doubts and reservations, that compromise will be reached today.

Last week I suggested to the Home Secretary that, if he rejected the amendments that were before us then, he would, as turned out to be the case, be facing the amendments before us today, which are arguably just as problematic from his point of view, because they would, as he explained, allow a wholesale opt-out from the need to register for an ID card. It remains my view that he would have been well advised to settle for the amendments that were before us last week. Even so, I hope that, even at this late stage, the Home Secretary will put himself and us out of our misery and accept the amendments from Lord Armstrong of Ilminster.

As the noble Lord said in the debate in the other place yesterday:

"My amendments would restore an element of voluntariness—of personal freedom—which is absent from the Government's proposals",

but that voluntarism, or voluntariness, as he put it, was entirely in keeping with the Government's oft-quoted election manifesto, where there was a clear emphasis on voluntarism in the introduction of identity cards, an emphasis which the Government have been so quick and keen to forget. As the noble Lord rightly said:

"There are a good many people out there who genuinely thought that the Government were proposing a voluntary scheme, and they were prepared to go along with it on that understanding".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 March 2006; Vol. 680, c. 651.]

The Government have already conceded the principle—it was a welcome concession—that compulsion will occur only on the back of separate primary legislation, which makes it all the more inexplicable that they seek to reject amendments that would allow them to do precisely that and take a voluntarist approach in the early stages of the introduction of identity cards, to be replaced by legislation enforcing compulsion at a later stage. That is the Government's intention. That is what they have explained to us. The amendments do not disturb that plan at all; indeed, they are perfectly consistent with it.

The other compelling reason why the Government would be well advised to support the amendments is that they would allow time to deal with the accumulating list of uncertainties about how the draconian ID database would work in practice. We still do not know how much it would cost, who would run it or how they would run it. We have heard conflicting messages about chip and pin features and biometric features, but we do not know what would be on the card.

On Monday, we heard that yet another uncertainty had come to light. In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) explained that some British citizens would have two identity cards—one listing their nationality, which could be confiscated if the Government wished to prevent them from travelling, and another not listing their nationality, which they would retain while the other one was confiscated, to access domestic services.

The written answer stated:

"However, to ensure that anyone subject to restrictions for an extended period of time can demonstrate their identity for domestic purposes, they will be able to obtain an identity card which will be issued to the same standards as other cards but which will not be valid for travel. This will be achieved by not specifying the nationality of the card holder on the face of the card.—[Official Report, 27 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 758W.]

We now know that we might have not one, but two identity cards, on top of all the other uncertainties that I have enumerated. This is a model of bad Government policy and bad legislation. It raises the question why the country is expected to accept the imposition of a scheme that we know is illiberal in principle and flawed and open-ended in practice. For that reason and many others, I hope that the House will support the amendments tabled by Lord Armstrong.

I feel that we are making very slow progress, but progress none the less, and I welcome that. I was delighted when the Home Secretary said this afternoon that he welcomed the positive tone being adopted.

The Lords amendments are a huge compromise. Some of us have had enormous reservations and have battled on the issue for weeks and weeks. It is almost difficult to accept but, in the interests of compromise, we must accept the Lords amendments, which are well intentioned and seem to be the only way forward that has a chance of reaching compromise with the Government. The Home Secretary said this afternoon that he will listen. That, too, is a welcome development, but only if he listens to the debate and is prepared to accept some compromise, whether the one now on offer or, later in the day, some other. Otherwise, listening and adopting a positive tone will mean nothing.

Order. The hon. Gentleman should relate his comments not to the Budget, but to the amendments on the Order Paper.

I do not think that the Government are as confident about the view of either the public or the Chancellor as they have suggested. If they are not confident, and if the arguments that I have suggested carry any weight or merit, I beg the Home Secretary to find a compromise. Several compromises are possible, but the compromise that has come from the Lords today is very reasonable and represents a big step towards the Government. It certainly commends itself to me, so I shall support it, and I hope that it commends itself to the Government.

Order. Earlier, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) raised a point of order, and I said that I would have the matter investigated, which I have done. I am satisfied that private interests, as defined for the purposes of hybridity, are not affected in a differential way.

If reasoned argument were to prevail, the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher) would see us through this day.

As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has said from the Front Bench, this Bill is profoundly important. It challenges the very assumptions that many of us had about what being a British citizen is, namely the freedom to move around one's country not at the behest or let of the Government. The Government want to introduce a central data register, which seeks to look into the very depth and nature of the privacy of the citizen. That is territory that Britain has never faced before, not even through the wartime identity cards of the first world war or the second world war.

The Government are seeking profoundly to change the nature of our relationship with our state. Who is the servant and who is the master? The Government assert that the state must be the master, and they are therefore challenging our very understanding of what is personal liberty and freedom. I have always argued that the essential character of the British constitution and of how we have developed through the long march of everyman is about freedom. This scheme contradicts that central, basic principle and understanding of who we are.

The Government have called the ID card a voluntary card, and they have propelled that proposition on the basis that when one applies for a passport, it is, of course, a voluntary act. This is a trading nation, and the wealth and creativity of our people has been developed by engagement in the wider world—we have sought markets, and we have seen prosperity arise from that. The Government are now saying that one cannot engage in the very basis of the livelihood of this nation without applying for a passport and having an identity card linked to a central register. I do not suppose that many of us have the luxury of being able to say that we will desist from international trade or engagement with the outside world, so the compulsion lies in the necessity of having a passport.

The last time that we debated this matter, many of my hon. Friends asserted that we have a right to a passport, but we have no such thing. There is no common law that grants us the right to a passport, and there is no statute that defines the nature of citizenship. An article of the Canadian constitution firmly states the freedom of Canadian citizens to leave and enter Canada, but we have no such right, because it is a matter of the royal prerogative. That is what disturbs me, because it is almost a dictum of our modern constitution that we are all equal before the law.

I shall pose this question, because I want to see the Government explore the nature of our state: is the Queen to have an identity card? She is, after all, a citizen of Europe, so why should she not? Must she now have a passport—it is her prerogative, after all? Will the Prince of Wales be required to produce an identity card? I think that the Home Secretary should tell us straight whether we are all equal before the law. And why is the identity card linked to prerogative power?

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think carefully. It is inappropriate for members of the royal family to be brought into this debate.

Of course, I accept your view, Madam Deputy Speaker, but this is an enormously important constitutional debate, and we are talking about the relationships between the citizen and the state.

Order. We are actually discussing Lords amendments rather than the wider context of this Bill.

I do not mean to argue, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the whole point of the debate and the Lords amendments is whether to introduce compulsion or discretion, and I was inquiring as to the extent of the compulsion or the extent of the discretion. I see that the Clerk looks agitated, so I shall leave the matter there. Nevertheless, I would be grateful if the Home Secretary were to address that narrow point. The wider point still remains—the issue is effectively about compulsion. I do not find the Lords amendments especially attractive, but I shall vote for them. These two equal Chambers of Parliament—[Interruption.] The two Chambers are indeed equal in our constitutional terms.

We are debating the amendments, because they have been sent here from another place. The Government are threatening that if they do not get their way, they will invoke, if necessary, the Parliament Act. I will stand by the Lords amendments for the purpose of asserting the freedom of the individual.

I rise to speak as an unashamed supporter of compulsion in ID cards. I was the first to suggest the idea of an entitlement card and it was always conceived not as a compulsory to carry scheme, but a compulsory to have scheme. I regret the fact that the Government have resiled from that position. However, I now hear the words "voluntary" and "compulsory" used in slightly different ways and there may be room for, if not a compromise, at least a meeting of minds.

Lord Phillips, in the other place, and some hon. Members have described the Swedish ID card as voluntary. Indeed, the LSE document, which has been used as background by many hon. Members, also describes it as voluntary. Indeed, it is voluntary in an important sense, but it is not voluntary whether someone is on the identity register. People are placed on that at birth, and their national identity numbers include date of birth. However, if people have passports or driving licences, they do not also need to have an identity card, for the simple reason that the passport or driving licence can be used for exactly the same purposes as they might need a national identity card. It is voluntary in that sense—

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I am sorry, but we must all heed Madam Deputy Speaker's words of warning and we need to make our points in the short time that is available.

Lord Armstrong of Ilminster is moving towards that sort of voluntary scheme, and I could happily live with that. Even Lord Phillips said that his amendment

"would have meant that the citizen had an option—effectively, for five years—on whether he or she wished to have an ID card."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 March 2006; Vol. 680, c. 645.]

If he means by that that one would be on the ID register but could choose whether to have an ID card, he should support the solution that is beginning to emerge. It is the ID register that is important, not the actual possession of a card.

When my passport runs out and I have to renew it, I cannot see that it will make much difference if an ID card is thrown in as well. I shall be happy because it provides an additional form of identity. The point was made in the last debate—it is central to the issue of voluntary and compulsory—that the information one gives to the Passport and Records Agency to renew one's passport is exactly the same as that required to go on the ID register. It consists of name, address, date and place of birth and nationality or immigration status—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I am sorry but we are all under a time pressure—[Interruption.] If hon. Members look at the relevant schedule, they will see that it is those four pieces of information that are required—

You do not understand.

With respect, it is other hon. Members who have failed to understand the basic point that the information is the same, and it is the registers that are different. Indeed, the No to ID website requests people's forename, last name, house number, road, town, postcode and e-mail address. Even the organisation campaigning against ID cards requests very similar information from the people who log on to its website as that required for a passport or driving licence or by the ID register.

My central point—I think that Lord Armstrong is moving towards it—is that no compulsion should be attached to having the ID card, but people who renew their passports should have the same basic information duplicated on the ID register. I see no reason why we should therefore prolong the argument—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I am sorry, but this is a one-hour debate. I consider myself lucky to have caught your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I want to make my points.

The argument put by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the passport is not really compulsory has been widely mocked by people on the other side of the argument, but they must address the argument that if passports are compulsory, they are surely just as objectionable as ID cards. The ID card is no more than a passport to public services. It is a different form of passport, to be used in a different context. When someone wishes to obtain a benefit or open a bank account, they will not need to take their passport, which is a bulky document, because they will be able to use their ID card. It will work exactly the same as a passport does when crossing international borders. It will be a domestic passport and I do not understand why people object to one, but not the other.

At the heart of this debate lies deep confusion about the words voluntary and compulsory. If people are prepared to go along with Lord Armstrong's approach and accept that the important aspect is not the card but the register, we can all find common ground on which to agree.

I continue to be deeply concerned about the question of compulsion. It is still inherent in the principle of the Bill and I will not change my position on that. It concerns the relationship between the individual and the state, as the Information Commissioner said. The information that will be accumulated will not be changed by a compromise along the lines that are being discussed, although I understand the motivation for the compromise.

Is my hon. Friend also concerned that the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton), who made the last speech that we endured, failed completely to understand the difference between the requirement for a biometric passport, so that the biometrics can be read by a passport officer at the port of entry, and an ID card, which provides the gateway into the national identity register?

I could not agree more. The gateway is also the entry point for a form of compulsion that one would normally associate with countries that do not enjoy the freedoms of democracies such as the one in which we live—

Common law countries.