On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many Members on both sides of the House have been worried by a challenge to what we think are fundamental rights of parliamentarians. I refer to the predicament of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). I have raised this as a point of order as it has seemed impossible to raise the matter in the House. I have spoken to your office and others have tried to raise the issue, as this is a matter that goes to the heart of parliamentarians' independence, representation and what we do in the House, yet it seems that it cannot be raised under the Orders and rules of the House. Surely there is something wrong when a matter that goes to the core of representation and the independence of parliamentarians cannot be raised in this manner?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Opposition will probably not believe me, but had this happened to one of my Labour colleagues, I would raise the matter at a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party and, if necessary, even though my own party was involved, with you. What concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and me, and surely many people, is that as a result of a speech made outside the House—so it is clearly not a matter of privilege—a Member of Parliament has been denied the opportunity of standing for his party in the general election—[Interruption.]

Order.

Although I must concede, I suppose, that, as Speaker of the House of Commons, you cannot do anything about it, it seems to me that this is a threat to Members of Parliament. If it can happen to one Member, it can happen to other Members of Parliament. Although Opposition Members were heckling, I accept that it could even happen on this side. It is a fundamental element of parliamentary democracy that a Member of Parliament should be able to speak his mind without such action being taken, which has deprived the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight)—with whose views, obviously, I totally disagree—of the opportunity of being in the House unless he stands as an independent, which, as a loyal Conservative, he does not wish to do. Can you make any comment that would help parliamentary democracy in this respect?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you have had an opportunity to consider the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which examined the whole issue of complaints of privilege. We understand that the precise circumstances in question might not come within the remit of the work done by that Committee, on which I served on the House's behalf, but anything that prevents a Member of Parliament from doing his duty to his constituents—which seems to be the case, setting aside the precise circumstances at the moment—reduces the validity of the position that the Member of Parliament holds. I wonder whether you have been able to take legal advice, or whether that might apply to this situation and the points already made?

Let me try to answer those points of order. May I say that I have the highest regard for the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight)? Ever since he came into the House, I have found him most courteous and a very good parliamentarian. May I say to the hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and for Walsall, North (David Winnick) that I well remember the black days when there was mandatory reselection, and at that time I was a member of the parliamentary Labour party. It was very cruel that Members of Parliament had to leave their constituency and cease to be candidates for no good reason other than vindictiveness. I am not saying that that is the case with the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, but that was the case in the 1980s.

What I can say, as Speaker of the House, is that there is no question of privilege, and that this is not a matter that can be raised in the House. It must be raised with the individual parliamentary parties involved—with the 1922 Committee, and with the Conservative or Labour party. It is not a matter for the Chair. I am sorry that I can say no more than that.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I really must ask you for clarification. I know that you have been taking legal advice on this. Why can we not talk about such a fundamental issue in Parliament? It seems to us to bring the House into ridicule when we cannot discuss an attack on the fundamental right of a parliamentarian to speak his mind—in this case, someone with a proven record of being a loyal member of a party, who has done nothing wrong as far as any of us can see, although we may disagree with his views. Yet, because of some obscure, ancient rule, we in this House with 659 Members cannot discuss this matter.

That is not the case. The hon. Gentleman raised the matter on a point of order, and what I told him was that it could not be discussed on a point of order. There are ways of raising the matter, however, and it can be debated in the House. The hon. Gentleman asked me to make a ruling. I am the custodian of the rules of the House, and there is nothing that I can do under the rules of the House; but to say that the matter cannot be discussed in Parliament is inaccurate.

The hon. Gentleman said that I had taken advice on the matter. Obviously I have taken advice, and it is good advice. The best advice that I myself can give now is that we should move on to the next business.

I must draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 5, 7, 8 and 57. If the House agrees to those amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 4 — Establishment of Serious Organised Crime Agency

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 12, 41, 42 and 48 to 56.

It may help our deliberations if I say immediately that I shall be advising the House to accept all the amendments made in the other place. In most cases I shall urge the House to accept the amendments with alacrity, given that they were Government amendments. In one instance, however—the provisions on incitement to religious hatred—I shall, with heavy heart, invite the House to agree with the Lords amendments. We shall come to that in a while; suffice it to say that we agreed to remove the incitement provisions only in the interest of securing the passage of the rest of this important legislation.

All the amendments in this group relate to part 1. Clause 10 would have given the Home Secretary a power to direct the Serious Organised Crime Agency to set itself targets to measure how well its performance fulfilled any strategic priorities determined by the Home Secretary under clause 9. That would have added to SOCA's accountability. Nevertheless, both here and in the other place the Conservative party expressed concern about the perceived political influence of the Home Secretary over SOCA. In the interests of securing consensus on the SOCA measures, we agreed that clause 10 need not stand part of the Bill. After all, the SOCA board would itself want to establish a robust performance management and assessment regime.

May I, in the spirit of the words of the Minister, say that the Opposition agree with these amendments and therefore we will not vote against any of them? I do not think that that will come as much of a surprise to her. She is aware from the words of the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), that we largely agree with the Bill. Our reservations were on the issue of religious hatred. As she says, we will come to that issue shortly.

We largely support the Bill. The Minister will confirm that it has been constructively debated in Committee and in both Houses. I believe that it has been improved. It has not had added to it the constructive approach that we took on intercept evidence. That has been debated in both Houses and there have been differences of view across the political parties. We regret the fact that that provision has not been included. We also regret that the provision for 24-hour fully manned surveillance and embarkation controls at our ports, which would have brought a big improvement to immigration and customs, has not been added to the Bill, although, as the Minister will be aware, that is a Conservative pledge in the forthcoming election. Had it been included in the Bill, it would have greatly improved it.

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for outlining what the amendments will achieve. In Committee, Opposition Members were keen that the agency should have operational independence and that the Home Secretary should not be able to set performance targets. We fully accepted that the Home Secretary should be able to set targets in respect of strategic performance, but not performance targets. These amendments accept our arguments.

Amendment No. 12 concerns an important issue that touches on the role of constables. The Under-Secretary knows that there was disagreement in Committee and on the Floor of the House and we remain concerned that the Bill could undermine the role of the constable. She will have heard the words of the Police Federation and we are disappointed that the words of the Conservative party and of the federation appear to have fallen on deaf ministerial ears.

The Under-Secretary has explained what the new clause is designed to do. I am grateful to her for that and, on that basis, we accept the amendments.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 12 agreed to.

Clause 58 — Offences to which this Chapter applies

Lords amendment: No. 13.

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we may consider Lords amendments Nos. 14 to 26, 46 and 57.

Again, these are mostly minor and technical amendments that relate to parts 3 and 4 of the Bill. However, I should like to bring the following amendments to the attention of the House. On powers of arrest, the amendments to schedule 7 and 18 simply make further consequential amendments and repeals in respect of existing powers of arrest made redundant by the new framework in clause 106. In relation to the identification of the British tsunami casualties, dealt with in amendments Nos. 27 and 44, the House will be aware—[Interruption.]

In terms of compulsory investigative powers, in clause 58, amendments Nos. 13 to 21 create a threshold of £5,000 for certain financial offences that must be met before disclosure notices may be used. These offences include those listed under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and the Theft Act 1968. This will ensure that the powers introduced by chapter 1 of part 2 of the Bill will be used proportionately to tackle only the most serious offences.

In relation to Queen's evidence, in clause 71, amendment No. 25 inserts a new clause that ensures that any hearing to vary a sentence following an agreement by the defendant to turn Queen's evidence can be held in camera, or subject to reporting restrictions, where the court considers it necessary to protect any person from harm and it is in the interests of justice. The issue was helpfully brought to our attention by the Lord Chief Justice.

The House will understand what the Under-Secretary has just said, but can she give an assurance that any defendant will know that the scales may be turned against him? For example, if two people are accused and one turns Queen's evidence and has a session with the judge in private, will that be unnecessarily prejudicial to the other defendant, although clearly the evidence will be given properly in court?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the measure, requested by the Lord Chief Justice, was aimed at certain situations where it might be prejudicial to the person giving evidence if that were in open court. I hope to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are trying to make Queen's evidence more transparent than ever before so that, for prosecution and defence purposes, justice can be seen to be served. If he requires any detail on that point, I would be happy to write to him, but having a transparent system takes us a long way forward.

Clause 75 originally provided that the reports made by an offender under a financial reporting order must be at fixed intervals throughout the course of the order. The Lord Chief Justice was helpful in his suggestion and, as a consequence, amendment No. 26 would provide the sentencer with the flexibility to set different levels between reports. The change builds in a helpful degree of flexibility in the operation of these orders.

I apologise to the House for losing my place at the start of this section.

Is the Under-Secretary capable of understanding why the periods of punishment in clause 75(10) are different in different parts of the UK?

My understanding is that the amendment was aimed at giving some flexibility. For example, financial reporting orders can operate when someone is in prison and the time between reporting orders may be different depending on when someone is released from prison. I am happy to look at that particular issue for the hon. Gentleman and get back to him.

For the sake of clarity for those who may read our proceedings, which may not amount to a very large number, imprisonment on summary conviction is liable to a term of 51 weeks in England and Wales, 12 months in Scotland—a difference of a week—and six months in Northern Ireland. That is an odd consequence of devolution. I do not necessarily expect the Under-Secretary to be able to answer in detail now, but I think that the inconsistency will look rather peculiar.

As the hon. Gentleman says, devolution creates different systems. We discussed this in Committee at some length and we must recognise and live with it.

I have nothing more to add on this subject. As I said, at one point I lost my place, but apparently not many Members realised. [Laughter.]

Let me reassure the Under-Secretary that we on this side of the House were very much aware that she had lost her place and, indeed, were rather concerned that we might have been focusing on the wrong amendment ourselves, which is very easily done at this level of detail.

As the Under-Secretary said, these amendments follow the debates in another place yesterday. We very much agree that, in respect of qualifying offences, the relevant offence must be of a value of £5,000 or above. That is the right level before a disclosure notice can kick in and was argued for eloquently in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). We accept the amendments.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 14 to 26 agreed to.

Clause 113 — Fingerprints

Lords amendment: No. 27.

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this it will be convenient to deal with Lords amendments Nos. 29 to 35, 43, 44, 58 to 78 and 87 to 101.

I have already said that the amendments to schedules 7 and 18 simply make further consequential amendments and repeals in respect of existing powers of arrest made redundant by the new framework in clause 106. Amendments Nos. 27 and 44 are intended to deal with a particular problem that we faced in the aftermath of the Asian tsunami with the identification of British casualties. As hon. Members are aware, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on 22 March that we currently estimate that there were 169 British casualties of the tsunami who were either killed in the disaster or who remain unaccounted for. We believe that it may be possible to identify a small number of those victims by cross-checking DNA samples and fingerprints taken from the deceased against the national DNA and fingerprint databases. These amendments would enable such checks to take place.

I am sure that the House would agree that we should do all that we can to help the relatives and friends of the victims of this terrible natural disaster by speeding up the identification of those victims by whatever means possible. I make it clear to the House that the amendments are not specific to the tsunami and would enable samples from any unidentified body to be checked against the national DNA and fingerprint databases for identification purposes.

The amendments to schedule 8 are designed to ensure that chief officers have greater flexibility when conferring powers on community support officers. As the provisions of the Police Reform Act 2002 are currently constructed, where a chief officer confers a power on a CSO to require a person's name and address, he must also confer on that CSO a power to detain for up to 30 minutes pending the arrival of a constable. We believe that chief officers should be able to confer the power to require name and address without the power to detain. These amendments provide such flexibility so that CSO powers can be tailored to meet local needs under the direction of chief officers.

The other matter that I bring to the attention of the House relates to Parliament square. It was evident on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report that there was passionate feeling on the issue on both sides of the House. [Interruption] Yes, there was passion from you as well, Mr. Speaker. Whether hon. Members are for or against what we are proposing to do, they cannot deny that there has been a great deal of discussion about it.

We have tried to listen to concerns. We still believe that, for the reasons that we have outlined in numerous debates, we have to move forward to deal with the area appropriately. I reiterate what I have said on many occasions: we are not trying to prevent people from protesting, and we are certainly not trying to stop them doing it in Parliament square, but we think that there should be a framework of conditions. We are aware of the concerns about notification and those about Trafalgar square.

As Baroness Scotland assured those in the other place, in exercising the order-making power in clause 135 we will ensure that Trafalgar square is excluded. As a result, demonstrations could continue there without the need for prior notification of the Commissioner.

Why will this matter be left to ministerial discretion? Why cannot the Bill firmly state that the distance to Trafalgar square is specific, and the square will always be available for the sort of traditional demonstrations we have all experienced over the years? I am sure that the Minister has taken part in important demonstrations there, and certainly many of her colleagues have done so. Why cannot we make the provision specific, instead of leaving the question to the discretion of future Ministers? One day there may be a Minister from another party who is less open-minded on the issue than the hon. Lady and her colleagues.

There is an order-making power, so the matter will return to the House. The hon. Gentleman is right: I have taken part in numerous demonstrations over the years. However, I also remember only too well when I was not allowed to demonstrate in Parliament square but was stuck on the other side of Westminster bridge and not allowed to go any further. We should acknowledge that the opportunity to demonstrate in Parliament square is not particularly old, and that we are trying to ensure that that right still exists. The commissioner will not be able to refuse anyone the right to demonstrate in Parliament square, but conditions will be attached. That has been made clear both in correspondence and discussion, in Committee and in the other place.

Amendment No. 30 responds to the concerns expressed by hon. Members on Report in February about the requirement to give at least six days' notice of any demonstration. We recognise that there should be provision for a shorter notice period in exceptional circumstances. The amendment therefore provides that where it is impracticable to give six days' notice, notification may be given not less than 24 hours before the start time of the demonstration.

Amendment No. 35 allows the Metropolitan police to give authorisation for a demonstration by fax or e-mail if organisers agree. This is particularly relevant if an organiser is unable to give six days' notice for the demonstration.

The other amendments in this group are minor technical amendments. I hope that what I have said at least demonstrates that, on a hotly debated issue, we have listened and suggested amendments. The fact that the House of Lords, where there was also strong feeling about this issue, accepted them shows what progress we have made on this issue of concern.

This is a sensible group of amendments and I need not detain the House for long. I just want to pick up on two points that the Minister made. The first is about amendment No. 30, which deals with Parliament square. Although there are passionate views on both sides of the argument on both sides of the House, the debate was informed by a Select Committee report. There was a unanimous view in the Committee that something needed to be done about the situation—if I may describe it in that neutral way—outside the Carriage Gates in Parliament square.

We support the thrust of amendment No. 30 and accept that in normal circumstances six days' notice is not unreasonable, but where it is unreasonable, 24 hours is the right period. We are grateful to the Government for accepting that argument, which we put clearly in Committee.

I turn now to amendment No. 64. We have some doubts about the drafting, but we are inevitably concerned, as we said in Committee, about what I would call function creep for police community support officers. We want to emphasise that while we do not oppose the amendments, we think it essential that proper detailed independent analysis be done on the work that CSOs carry out; any form of function creep without that proper evaluation is unwise, and in that case the Government should think again. With that small reservation, we are happy to support the amendments.

I welcome the amendments, but in doing so I still find it dispiriting that on the last day of this parliamentary Session we are restricting our constituents' rights to demonstrate in Parliament square. I accept that the amendments will make demonstrating easier than the Government originally intended. We look forward to the details of the order that will ensure that Trafalgar square is not included in this legislation in a way that would allow future Governments, perhaps capriciously advised by the police, to restrict demonstrations there.

In most of the debates, people have detailed their experiences of demonstrating in Parliament square and Trafalgar square, but I have not yet done so. We all have a bit of form on these matters. I have been arrested on demonstrations in both Trafalgar square and Parliament square, and on both occasions I was not prosecuted. In fact, on one occasion I was represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), and I received compensation from the Metropolitan police for wrongful arrest. I just wanted to get my form on the record as well. [Interruption.] I heard from the Whips some form of expression of regret that I was not detained for longer, and I can appreciate that.

In interpreting this legislation we must be clear that the proposals may in some way limit the right to demonstrate in Parliament square. As the Minister said—it needs reiterating—no police officer or Metropolitan Police Commissioner can refuse authority to demonstrate in Parliament square.

Secondly, there is nothing in the Bill that provides that there is to be a restriction on the number of applications from an individual, or a group of individuals, to demonstrate in Parliament square. The amendments make it reasonably practicable, therefore, for an individual to submit applications on a regular basis, even by fax or e-mail, to demonstrate in Parliament square, so I hope that Brian Haw has obtained a fax machine and has access to e-mail. The amendments enable him or others to submit a series of applications, almost on a daily basis, to enable them to return to Parliament square to demonstrate in a way set out in the proposed legislation, which takes into account the issue of noise.

I welcome the amendments. I think that they assist the process in which we can say that Brian Haw and others are not going away, and will not be deterred from enabling themselves to demonstrate in Parliament square in future on issues of critical importance, such as Iraq and other matters.

I start where the Minister started, which was with DNA and fingerprint identification of those who may have died. It is worth making the point that under other legislation we should make provision for people voluntarily to provide samples for DNA testing or fingerprints for later identification, for those who are not on the national register. It seems that we are restricting the usefulness to those whose fingerprints or DNA may be held on the national register—but that register will not contain everyone in the country. I am not saying that that should be compulsory, but we should make provision so that for whatever purpose may be useful in future, people can say, "I would like my samples and my fingerprints to be available where necessary." It is a point for the future. I welcome the provision made so far. The House will note that the Minister said that this is not only for the tsunami disaster but for other occasions—we cannot anticipate what they would be.

The ability to demonstrate is important. Indeed, it is vital, but I am a traditionalist in that I was brought up with the idea that there could not be placards too close to the Houses of Parliament, and that demonstrations would break off when they came past Parliament. It would be better if we returned to that situation. There is the question of transition. The noisy encampment that we have had outside Parliament has not been a blessing. The fact is that it has happened. The sooner we can ensure that people can protest in a way that does not cause health and safety problems for those who service this place, and the general public, the better. If it is goodbye Mr. Haw, then goodbye.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 124 — Hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds

Lords amendment: No. 28.

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this it will be convenient to deal with Lords amendment No. 79.

Clause 124 and schedule 10 are fundamentally about protecting vulnerable communities and closing an inequality in law that is exploited by those who seek to cause damage to those communities. By introducing incitement to religious hatred, we sought to deliver justice and fairness to members of all faiths, and I am sorely disappointed that the Opposition parties in the other place have chosen not to support the provision.

There is no ulterior motive for introducing the proposed offence. We have been committed to doing so for some time. In fact, it was considered as early as 1986, when it was rejected because there was not felt to be a problem to address at the time. We introduced an almost identical offence in 2001, shortly after 11 September and the disturbances in Bradford and Burnley. That was rejected because it was felt that the provision should not be included in an anti-terrorism Bill.

We have, however, remained committed to providing the protection needed since 2001. We listened carefully to the consideration of evidence by the House of Lords Select Committee, when the police informed the Committee that the offence could have helped to prevent the disturbances in Bradford and Burnley. We listened carefully when a wide range of faith communities twice asked us to extend the protection now available only to Jews and Sikhs, to ensure equity of protection in law. We tried to respond to that call. Other support has come from the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Commission for Racial Equality, Justice, the Law Society and many other organisations.

For reasons that I stated at the time, I supported the clause to which my hon. Friend is referring. Does she agree that in practice it would not have meant that one could not criticise a religion or criticise religious practices? Like a number of Members, I have no faith, but I have recalled on a number of occasions the fact that we can affirm, because of Charles Bradlaugh, who was four times refused the right to take his seat because he had no religion. As what has been proposed would in no way ban criticism of religion—which I do not want to engage in, but which I would not challenge the right of others to express—it is difficult to understand why there should be such criticism of trying to protect people who do not have the protection that Jews and Sikhs have now.

My hon. Friend puts the case eloquently. The clause in no way attacks the right of free speech. In no way does it attack the rights of comedians, academics, politicians or anyone else to criticise individual religions. We are trying to protect individuals against whom hatred is incited because of their religious faith. As I have said, we lifted the wording from that in the current law on incitement to racial hatred. That raises the question of how Members of this place, and those in the other place, can support the law on incitement to racial hatred yet not support clause 124. As with incitement to racial hatred, a high threshold is set. There is also the Attorney-General's involvement. That would have applied in this instance, too.

It is with acute disappointment that we are having to ask the House to agree to remove the provision from the Bill. The unelected House has chosen not to rise to the challenge of what I believe is a fundamental aspect of creating a decent society. The parliamentary timetable means that it will not be possible to insist on the inclusion of the clause without jeopardising the creation of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, and other important provisions to tackle crime. I do not believe that that is in anyone's interest.

The Minister is doing what other Ministers do when they are not desperately happy, and chooses to talk about the unelected other place. Will she remind the House of the proportion of the Members of the other place who have been appointed by the Prime Minister?

Discussion about the other place and how it should be constituted is not for this afternoon. I say again that Opposition parties in the House and the other place have contributed to the removal of the clause from the Bill. They will to answer for that. However, I reassure my hon. Friends that it remains the Government's firm and clear intention to give people of all faiths the same protection against incitement to hatred on the basis of their religion. We will make sure that that is part of our manifesto in the forthcoming general election.

We come to one of the most hotly contested aspects of the Bill, but it is not a central aspect, which is why the Minister has moved that we agree with the amendment to remove the clause and schedule dealing with religious hatred. The debate has gone on in the other place and in Committee, and I shall not rehash the arguments that divide us across the House. I shall make just three or four points.

Let there be no doubt in the mind of the Minister or anyone else that there is agreement in all parts of the House that we need to prevent religious hatred. The issue that divides us is how best to achieve that. My party has consistently supported the anti-discrimination legislation to protect people from being discriminated against in respect of their religion. Our fear is that the Government have not thought through the effect of the measure that they are putting before the House. We made it clear on Second Reading that although we largely supported the Bill, this was one aspect that we could not support.

The measure would curb free speech. It is outside the fine British traditions of religious tolerance and fierce religious debate, which have characterised the history of our country. We believe that the existing law deals with incitement to violence and words designed to cause alarm, distress or harassment. We remain convinced that the Government are wrong in their contention, and right in the amendments withdrawing the provisions. The best way to deal with evil and intolerant ideas is to confront and defeat them in open debate, not as the Government originally envisaged in the Bill. We support the amendments to remove the misguided provisions from the Bill.

I am delighted to have the opportunity at this late stage in the proceedings on the Bill to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) and his colleagues in our home affairs team on having secured a victory for freedom of expression. I am disappointed to hear the Minister say that if returned to office on 5 May, the Labour party would introduce similar legislation in the next Parliament. That seems an extremely good reason to vote Conservative on 5 May, in addition to all the other reasons.

I did not have a chance to participate in earlier debates on this matter and I shall not rehearse the arguments, but let me say at the outset that it is important that all of us should recognise the sensitivities of others, and that we should not go out of our way to be gratuitously offensive to others. I frequently take offence at things that are said, but I have to bite my lip and move on. The price that one must pay in a free society is that people will occasionally take offence. I am no exception to that.

I have had quite a few letters from constituents. My mailbag on the issue has been atypical. I have had more letters on this subject than on other issues, from constituents who have been extremely concerned about the implications of the Government's proposal. They will undoubtedly welcome the fact that their lordships were prepared to take a stand and strike the right balance between protecting individual faiths and individual views, and the need to preserve freedom of expression.

The coalition of people against the measure was pretty wide. The Minister referred to some of them. Rowan Atkinson the comedian, who enjoys enormous support throughout the country, was famously in the forefront of the campaign against it. Academics, journalists, authors, human rights campaigners and many on the Labour Benches expressed concern about the implications of the proposal and the threat that it posed to freedom of expression. It is important to bear in mind that those fears were shared by more than just a narrow group of people.

Christian groups were certainly concerned. Talking to people, I have found a general view—this is anecdotal evidence and I would not claim that it is backed up by some weighty study—that one can insult Christians with complete impunity, but if one insults those of the Muslim faith in particular, the whole world comes down around one. Let me give the Minister an example—the case of the Sikh play, to which the Sikhs understandably took great exception. There was a fracas in Birmingham when the play was put on, and the play was taken off.

By contrast, 60,000 people—I was one of them—complained to the BBC about the Jerry Springer programme, and what happened? Absolutely nothing. They were effectively dismissed. I am writing to Michael Grade to say that if the BBC has taken the view that its commitment to taste and decency was not infringed by the Jerry Springer programme, what is the point of the BBC having a taste and decency requirement in its charter? People feel that there is one rule for one group and another rule for others.

I am sorry that the Minister has accepted the verdict of the country and of the other place slightly less than graciously.

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I do not want to discuss the issues raised by the play in Birmingham or the Jerry Springer programme, but I wish to correct the hon. Gentleman. The clause deals not with satire or with taking a view against a religion, but with incitement to hatred against someone on the basis of their religious belief. That would include those of the Christian faith. That is the point. Following the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument, does he believe we should repeal the legislation on incitement to racial hatred?

The hon. Lady makes a fair point. It has been the Government's position that those who make genuine criticisms of different faiths have nothing to fear from the measure. Unfortunately, the assurances given by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) are assurances that he is in no position to deliver. Ministers are in no position to deliver them, either. Once we have enacted the provision, we are in the hands of the authorities.

The Minister says that there is a defence, in so far as the fiat of the Attorney-General is required. We know that the Attorney-General is a political appointee—I am not making a partisan point—and he is subject to the political climate of the day. There are genuine fears, which I share, that freedom of expression could be challenged. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield was right to point to the fact that there is already legislation that could cover the kind of incitement that none of us would support, and against which we all want action to be taken.

Many people have written to the newspapers and expressed the view that some of the statements from some of the mosques took an awfully long time for the authorities to get to grips with, whereas there was plenty of legislation that could have been invoked to deal with the matter.

Following the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument, I ask him again whether he believes that a future Conservative Government should repeal the legislation on incitement to racial hatred? The same issue applies to that. The wording of this clause is exactly the same as the wording of that legislation. Can he give me one example of the legislation on incitement to racial hatred leading to a clampdown on free speech and discussion about race, or having an adverse effect on comedy or television viewing? My question stands: following the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument, does he believe that the Conservative party should be committed to repealing the legislation on incitement to racial hatred?

Of course we have no intention of repealing the legislation on incitement to racial hatred. The Minister has missed the point. The opposition to her proposals stems from the belief that the Government are using flawed logic. Religion is significantly different from race. The Barnabas Fund, which has written to me—and, I am sure, many other Members—on this point, notes that religion is a choice that affects attitude and behaviour, while race is not and does not. On that note, I rest my case.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will not, because other Members wish to make a contribution. I am happy to support the Government in supporting the amendments that were successfully moved in another place.

This one and a half hour debate is not the time to rehearse the various arguments on the issue. Those arguments have been made many times. I simply make a few remarks on this controversial issue, which has got passions running on all sides.

I have a great deal of sympathy with what the Government have been trying to achieve in these parts of the Bill. Our objections have not been about the end game—what they are trying to achieve—we simply believe that there are better ways to achieve that. We recognise the seriousness of the issue and we recognise that, for many groups, there is a real sensitivity about what are clear attempts to make racial remarks under the cover of religious remarks. There is a gap that needs to be resolved urgently because it is creating tensions in the community. It is an important issue that needs to be addressed, and we welcome the fact that the Government have sought to do so.

Our disagreement with the Government has been that this important set of principles and piece of legislation has been tagged on to a big Bill that considers the way in which we organise police forces in this country. We felt that that was an inappropriate way in which to tackle the issue. Our proposal has always been for an equalities Bill, which would tackle many of these issues with a well thought through piece of legislation that dealt with discrimination, harassment and victimisation.

I hope that in the next three or four weeks we do not have any nonsense from the Government suggesting in certain parts of the country that the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives have been trying to wreck the Bill and do not want to do anything to tackle the problem of religious hatred. That is not the case. We believe that it is a serious issue that needs addressing. However, it should be done properly and robustly via an equalities Bill, which is a way of addressing the issue more effectively. That is what we will argue in the next four weeks.

Legitimate concerns have been put forward by a number of Members from all parts of the House, and not just by the Rowan Atkinsons of this world, but by organisations such as Liberty and PEN, the writer's organisation. They have raised concerns about the difficult balance between legitimate criticism of a religion and freedom of speech. The issue needs to be addressed, but the way to deal with it, and all the other issues, is not to tag it on to the back of a police Bill but to have a proper, well thought out equalities Bill. That is what we will argue in the next four weeks. The communities that want protection in this area should support an equalities Bill. It would give them the protections that they seek.

I will also upset the Minister by supporting the Government's invitation to us to support the amendment that takes out the clause. She has made some serious points. The Leader of the House and others on the Labour Front Bench ought not to give the impression that they intend to exploit the issue for party political reasons during the next four weeks. Given the list of serious organisations that have doubts about the Bill, whoever is in Government after 5 May should hold an open forum with those groups, and with religious groups, to reach agreement on what is useful and acceptable. I would support what the Minister might have said, which is that the clause does not refer to "Muslims" but treats all religions in the same way. I praise her for that, because it is sensible.

I end my remarks by saying that I welcome the opposition of the community in Worthing to the recent arson attack on the local Islamic centre. I will not say any more because people may be charged. I support the Islamic centre's open evenings that bring people together about once a month. To those Christians who go there to say that they do not agree with us, I say that it is one of the things about having different religions and even different denominations. It is only a few hundred years since we burnt people at the stake for different interpretations of the same book.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 29 to 35 agreed to.

Clause 142 — Interference with Contractual Relationships so as to harm animal research organisation

Lords amendment: No. 36.

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this it will be convenient to deal with Lords amendments Nos. 37 to 40, 45, 47 and 80 to 86.

The amendments cover three matters. The first is protection of the activities of animal research organisations. Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 relate to the economic damage clauses that we inserted in the Bill on Report in this House.

Amendment No. 36 responds to comments made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The amendment narrows the scope of clause 142 by stating specifically that peaceful advocacy of economic actions against companies that are connected to animal research organisations will not trigger an offence. The amendment ensures that an offence can be triggered only by methods of persuasion that are themselves unlawful. That has always been our intention.

Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 extend the list of persons connected to animal research organisations contained in clause 143 to include funders of research. Funding bodies have been targeted for unlawful actions by animal rights extremists, just as have employees, suppliers and customers of animal research organisations. It is right that funders should have the same protection as other persons connected to animal research organisations.

I now come to the amendments concerned with road traffic offences. The new clauses inserted by amendments Nos. 39 and 40 are imports from the Road Safety Bill, which will sadly not now be enacted in this Session. The new clauses deal with two matters. The new clause inserted by amendment No. 39 enables the police to have access to insurance industry data relating to vehicles whose use is no longer insured. The second new clause permits police to carry out an evidential breath test not only at a police station but at a hospital or at or near a place such as the roadside where a preliminary breath test has been administered. I think that we can all agree that both measures will contribute to road safety. They were welcomed by all parts of the other place.

Finally, amendments Nos. 80 to 86 would allow Scottish Ministers to exercise certain delegated powers in the Private Security Industry Act 2001, following its extension to Scotland. In particular, Scottish Ministers will, after consultation with the Home Secretary, have the power to commence the provisions as they apply to Scotland. Additionally, Scottish Ministers will have the power to designate by order which specific sectors of the private security industry in Scotland are to be licensed and when.

As this is the last group of amendments, I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends and the Front-Bench Conservative spokesmen for their constructive working relationships with us on the Bill. It is an important piece of legislation. It has covered a huge area—serious organised crimes, community support officers, custody officers, money laundering and, importantly, tackling animal rights extremists, an area for which I have had personal responsibility in the Home Office.

As I said, I am disappointed that the measures on incitement to religious hatred are not going forward. I say to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), who represents the Liberal Democrats, that it is a cop-out to say that we need another piece of legislation to deal with something that, as I said before, uses exactly the same wording and has the same intent as did the legislation on incitement to racial hatred. That said, I commend the amendments to the House and hope that the Bill will be enacted as soon as possible.

We have reached the final group of amendments, and I am grateful to the Minister for outlining what the amendments seek to do.

We agree that two key clauses have fallen away from the Road Safety Bill, which will not be enacted in this Parliament. The measures to allow the police to secure relevant information from insurance companies and, in particular, to conduct roadside breath tests are important, and they command support on both sides of the House. We are grateful for the assurances in the other place that the police will be properly trained and supported in administering the evidential burdens test.

The provisions on animal rights campaigners were tweaked in Committee, where the Government listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), who has led for the Conservative party on that issue. Again, we are grateful that the sensible change outlined by the Minister has been made.

Finally, the Minister referred to the extension of the provisions of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 into Scottish legislation, which is an unexceptional measure. I thought that she and I had had our last outing together on the 2001 Act in Westminster Hall on Tuesday, when we debated bouncers and doorkeepers, but we have returned to it right at the end of this Bill.

I agree with the Minister that the provisions setting up SOCA are important. As I said earlier, although the Bill was a bit of a Christmas tree Bill, it has been improved significantly, and its central thrust certainly commands my party's support. SOCA will undoubtedly help to tackle the soaring levels of crime in Britain. However, we need far more than SOCA: we need 40,000 extra policemen and women to police our streets; we need less micro-management from the centre; and we need more local accountability. The Bill does not address those issues, but they will no doubt inform the debate over the next four weeks. I believe that those issues are a compelling argument to vote Conservative on 5 May.

I shall confine my remarks to amendments Nos. 39 and 40, and I am pleased that Viscount Simon took the opportunity to add two welcome measures to the Bill giving powers to the police.

Amendment No. 39 concerns the disclosure of information about the insurance status of vehicles and, by implication, whether a driver is insured to use a particular vehicle. It is a technical change to remove an inhibition, and it is welcome.

There is a problem with insurance companies that we must face and, again, an open discussion is required. The loadings on insurance premiums for young drivers are now so great that I suspect that a number of parents do not add their children to their insurance policies. Both the additional risk, as calculated by the underwriters, and the fact that it is a good idea for young drivers to be nominated to policies are important, but some insurance companies make it so difficult that some young people and some people who have had trouble with the law—I admit to having experienced such trouble—find themselves making the wrong choice of not being covered. People should be covered, but the level of cover is a matter for debate, and we should return to that issue.

Amendment No. 40 concerns the power to require specimens of breath at the roadside or in hospital. It is not vital to know whether this point is covered by this clause or some other provision, or whether the Government are minded to introduce a relevant provision. When I was a junior Minister in the Department for Transport, if a blood sample was taken in hospital from someone who had been injured in a crash for blood matching, and if there were grounds for suspecting that that person had been driving while above the legal limit for alcohol, it was not possible to analyse the blood without the patient's consent—I am not sure whether it was possible to analyse it with the patient's consent—to see whether there was prima facie evidence of an offence having been committed. I hope that the Home Office, the Department for Transport and the Department of Health will examine that issue. Failing to give consent in those circumstances should become an automatic offence, like failing to give a blood sample. Clearly, unconscious patients cannot be asked to give their consent.

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

I am delighted to open this afternoon's Third Reading debate on this fourth Session Education Bill. I apologise that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State cannot be with us today. On Second Reading, she set out that improving outcomes for children and learners should be at the heart of everything that our Department does, and that is also at the heart of this Bill. I am pleased that the Bill has met with widespread cross-party support and that it appears likely that it will make it on to the statute book in its entirety.

It was clear from the rate of progress in Committee that the Bill has created a lot of consensus. I thank those Members of this House and the other place who have contributed to the debates on the Bill and parliamentary counsel for the hard work that has gone into bringing the Bill to fruition. I also thank the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for his excellent chairmanship of the Committee and extend my thanks to the other members of the Committee.

We can look back with pride on the impressive progress by learners, teachers and others working in education in every community. The Bill establishes the framework that we need to take education forward and to continue to improve standards and extend opportunities for every child.

I am grateful to the Minister for generously giving way so soon. The Bill misses the point. The real problems with standards generally in education include the bizarre ways of teaching reading that have crept into our schools over the decades and the fact that 60 per cent. of lessons in our comprehensive schools, including core subjects, involve mixed-ability teaching. Politicians from all parties must start to address those kinds of issues if we are to tackle standards in our state schools in this country.

The hon. Gentleman makes the reasonable point that legislation is only one of the ways in which we can raise standards. The role of legislation is important in providing the framework, and Parliament and Government clearly have an important role in providing the resources for schools, but what really makes the difference, as he rightly reminds us, is what actually happens in the classroom. He raised today, as he has on other occasions, the importance of setting. He has also raised the importance of high quality teaching in respect of English in general and reading in particular.

I am pleased to put on the record in the House what I have said elsewhere today—that we welcome today's report by the Select Committee on Education and Skills. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) has played an active role in that Committee, particularly in respect of that report, which sets out some challenges for our national literacy strategy. I take those challenges very seriously. If I am in this position in a month's time, I will be very pleased to take them forward, but I am sure that any Minister would try to do the same because they are so important.

The Minister may have noticed that the national media has given a lot of publicity to the Clackmannanshire experiment. Is he aware that the lady who presents the television clip is my sister-in-law, Ann Doran? She is very enthusiastic about the technique, which is not just a one-off—it has been around for some time and merits investigation by the Department.

I apologise to my hon. Friend because I was not aware that the lady is his sister-in-law. I have looked at some of the work that has been done in respect of Clackmannanshire. The commitment that I gave today is that in responding to the Select Committee report we shall do exactly what my hon. Friend suggests by fully investigating the lessons from Clackmannanshire, particularly to assess any differences between what is happening there and our own literacy strategy, and whether any appropriate revisions and improvements might be required as a consequence.

The Bill is the cornerstone of the new relationship with schools and furthers the ambitions that we set out last year in our five-year strategy for education. Through its provisions, we want to ensure that inspection is not a burden but a positive exercise in raising standards and identifying best practice; that there is greater emphasis on quality and accountability, both of schools to their parents and communities and of the chief inspector of schools to all those involved in education; that a skilled and valued professional work force are given the development and support that they need to achieve improved outcomes for all pupils; that schools should have stability and certainty about the resources available to them through three-year budgets that help them to plan strategically and give them the scope to make better and more flexible use of the record levels of investment in education; that schools are freed from unnecessary burdens, for example through the removal of the statutory annual parents' meeting and governors' annual report, alongside the streamlining of data collection on the school work force; that we promote a more mature relationship between schools, parents and communities; and for Wales, that the National Assembly can take forward its programme for high quality education and learning as set out in its 10-year strategy, "The Learning Country".

While I am very sympathetic to what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve, can he assure me that the increased autonomy of schools will not cut across the necessary co-ordination that we have highlighted in previous legislation such as the Children Act 2004, whereby local authorities, schools and other authorities all have to work together?

I thank my right hon. Friend, who refers to an issue that was very much part of the debate in the other place and in Committee. We want to ensure that while we promote the autonomy of schools we also encourage them not only to work with each other but, as she rightly says, to work with other agencies that are concerned with the needs of children and young people. It is vital that we as a Department, local government, schools themselves and Ofsted—about which the Bill talks a great deal—ensure that there is coherence between the emphasis on autonomy and the emphasis on high standards, collaboration and real accountability.

The Bill builds on the improvements across our schools system since 1997. It sets the stage for a mature new relationship between the Government and schools whereby schools have the freedom to drive their own improvement, and looks forward to a new era in which we can realise our shared ambition to secure high quality learning and opportunity for all learners. I am very pleased to commend it to the House.

We did not oppose the Bill on Second Reading and we do not propose to do so today. In fact, it is difficult to oppose a Bill that re-enacts so much of the legislation on school inspections that the last Conservative Government introduced in the first place. We support the move to a lighter-touch inspection regime that the Minister outlined; he is right to reduce the burden of inspection visits on schools as well as to increase their frequency where required. Several head teachers to whom I have spoken have welcomed those changes, as well the move to a shorter notice period heralding the start of an inspection.

As I said, we will not oppose the Bill. I suspect, however, that the Liberal Democrats will do so, as they have expressed only recently their commitment to abolishing Ofsted and being soft on school standards—a retrograde step that would let down many of the parents who want to see standards raised.

We support the move to three-year budgeting, which gives welcome stability to schools. Many head teachers are looking forward to the consistency that it will provide. We also support measures to improve the training of school staff. The fact that more and more schools are using teaching assistants to provide support in classrooms means that the role of the Teacher Training Agency should be reviewed and widened to include that.

I commend the work that my noble Friends Lord Hanningfield and Baroness Morris did in the other place to strengthen protection for rural schools faced with the threat of closure and to enhance the consultation process surrounding the closure of special schools, too many of which have been closed, putting at risk, in the eyes of parents, the choice that they have for their children with special educational needs. Conservative Members are committed to introducing a moratorium on the closure of special schools after the general election to give parents of children with special educational needs a real choice when it comes to the education of their children.

There are gaps in the Bill. We would have liked more action to increase parental choice of schools, and more action to restore school discipline—an important issue for teachers, pupils and parents alike. There is nothing in the Bill to tackle the problems identified in today's highly critical Select Committee report on the teaching of reading. That was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), who has consistently championed the use of phonics; indeed, he has raised it in the House twice this week. When the Government respond to the report it will be interesting to see how they embrace that. Having looked at the research from the Clackmannanshire study, I understand that phonics can make a huge contribution to the teaching of reading in our schools. It is not right to say that the national literacy strategy places as much emphasis on phonics as the Clackmannanshire approach, and we need to ensure that the strategy reflects best practice so that all children can benefit from methods such as synthetics phonics. We must tackle the fact that one in five children leaves primary school without being able to read to the required level of ability. That impairs and hinders their progress in secondary school and throughout the rest of their lives.

As I said, there are big gaps in the Bill. The Secretary of State for Education and Skills, who is now in her place, leaves a full in-tray, and there will be much for her successor to tackle on 6 May.

I apologise to the House for arriving a little late and missing the first couple of minutes of the debate. I am unfamiliar with the hectic pace of legislation at this stage of parliamentary proceedings, being more used to the sedentary pace that we normally have.

Having said that, speed has characterised the passage of the Bill. I was appointed to the Standing Committee expecting to take over after its first sitting, but when I arrived at the end to get my orders for the second day I found that the Bill had gone through in a single day. That reflects the fact that if legislation is sometimes revolutionary, this Bill certainly could not be so characterised—indeed, it is rather more evolutionary.

We shall decline the invitation of the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) to vote against the Bill, on the ground that he explained: it creates a lighter-touch inspection regime for Ofsted. It would be illogical for a party that is genuinely concerned about bureaucratic burdens on schools and the potential intrusiveness of the inspection system to vote against a measure that makes it slightly less burdensome. We therefore do not intend to vote against the Bill.

I want to put down a marker about schools' organisation, with which the Bill deals. We do not know how it will work in practice but, at this time of year, when allocations to individual schools begin to arrive on parents' doormats, I am sure that all hon. Members receive letters expressing concerns. There is a fundamental problem with the rhetoric that all the parties have been using in recent years, whereby they promote the notion of parental choice while regimes to remove surplus places continue to exist. There is a fundamental inconsistency in those positions because choice requires the availability of a certain amount of capacity to satisfy it. In the Bill, the Government take on centrally more of the burden of determining some of those difficult issues. They will remain difficult, and the regulations and subsequent detail that are relevant to the problem that I outlined will be important in the forthcoming Parliament and to Ministers, from whichever party they come.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

I beg to move,

That further proceedings on the Crossrail Bill shall be suspended until the next Session of Parliament.

That if a Bill is presented in the next Session in the same terms as the Crossrail Bill when it was presented in this Session—

(a) the Bill shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first time; and

(b) the Standing Orders of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in this Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next Session;

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

I believe that people realise that Crossrail is a project of national, not only regional, significance. The strategic transport improvements that it brings will be experienced across the country and the scheme will be a catalyst for safeguarding a national economy that is strongly related to the performance of our capital city.

Today, I simply wish to dwell on the parliamentary procedures of the carry-over motion rather than the detail and substance of the Bill. However, I shall say a few more introductory words. In transport benefits, Crossrail will enable better access to the capital for the hundreds of thousands of workers who commute into London every day. It will provide strategic interchanges for local, national and international business and leisure travellers. In economic benefits, London plays a major role in supporting regional economies and jobs, through commuting, product and service purchases, fiscal transfer and economic activity.

The Bill was introduced on 22 February, and has subsequently been through several essentially procedural steps. When the Bill was deposited, it was supported by a regulatory impact assessment, a race equality impact assessment, a book of reference, an estimate of costs, an environmental statement and a non-technical summary of that statement, parliamentary plans and sections, a European Court of Human Rights statement, a housing statement and explanatory notes. Some 4,600 landowners notices were served and approximately 400 street and footpath notices were put up. The environmental statement comprises some 3,700 pages and nine volumes and is supported by a further 14,000 pages of specialist technical reports. The book of reference contains more than 5,000 entries, which would need to be re-checked if the Bill had to be deposited again because the book of reference must be no more than 28 days old at the time of deposit.

The scheme as defined by the Bill, including the parliamentary plans and sections, a schedule of works and so on, represents the culmination of the best part of four years of work by Cross London Rail Links, which employs around 100 staff and 90 consultants. For those who are interested in such data, around 14 tonnes of material were distributed to 140 different locations to meet the requirements of Standing Orders, which include ensuring that documents are available for public inspection locally. Notices were also published to advertise the introduction of the Bill twice in the weeks of 21 February and 28 February in The Times, Evening Standard and 18 local newspapers along the route.

The Bill was deposited and secured its First Reading, during which the whole route was safeguarded. Subsequently, because it had already been consulted on but was not part of the final declared route, the Abbeywood to Ebbsfleet route was also safeguarded. On 10 March, examiners—Clerks of the House who check compliance with Standing Orders—looked at the Bill, took evidence that notices had been served, documents deposited and advertisements made. They received no objections but they reported that the Bill had failed to meet Standing Orders relating to the time of deposit and notices.

On 17 March, the Commons Standing Orders Committee met to consider the examiners' report and hear from the Government's agent why it was desirable, especially to minimise the period of uncertainty for those affected by the works, for the Bill to proceed as soon as possible despite the fact that it had not fulfilled the Standing Orders. The Committee decided to dispense with Standing Orders on timing, thus allowing the Bill to proceed. A similar procedure was undertaken in the other place by its Standing Orders Committee on 22 March.

The purpose of the motion is simply to ensure that the Bill can be carried over for consideration in the next Parliament and that all the work that I have described and that has been done thus far is not wasted. Carrying a Bill over an election is feasible and, indeed, precedented for a hybrid Bill. There will be no curtailing of appropriate scrutiny. There will be the usual opportunities for hon. Members to debate the principle of the Bill on Second Reading, and for their constituents to be heard in front of a Select Committee composed of hon. Members of this House, and subsequently in a Select Committee of the other place. The Select Committee will sit in a quasi-judicial capacity and have the opportunity to hear a range of submissions in considering petitions against the Bill.

If the Bill is not carried over, despite the cross-party support and that of the overwhelming majority of the business community in London, which has been vocal and forthcoming in its backing for the project, we would have to redo all that I described—for example, serving approximately 5,000 landowners with notices, advertising in the press and updating all the documents required at the time of deposit, thus doing again all the referencing to check everything that is entailed. Whatever people feel about the merits of the project, I do not believe that anyone is especially wedded to the notion that, purely because of the interruption—for want of a better word—of an election, the Bill should not be carried over and presented for Second Reading at the earliest opportunity. Several people are directly affected by the Bill and it would not be good public policy to make them undergo all those processes again and suffer the subsequent uncertainty.

The Minister knows that I support the Bill and the carry-over motion. Can he offer us some hope that the Bill will be introduced quickly in the new Parliament?

That point is central to carrying over a Bill. It will be reintroduced at the earliest opportunity after the interruption of an election. I hope that I can say that with confidence, given the support throughout the House for the measure. I shall be candid and say that, of course, there is the little matter of the £10 billion price tag that comes with it, and a good deal of continuing work needs to be done to ascertain how the costs will be apportioned, but I assure my hon. Friend that we fully intend to present the Bill for its Second Reading and subsequent stages at the earliest opportunity. Given all the momentum and the widespread support that the project commands in London and beyond, in both Houses and the business community, and, not least, the impact on those who could be affected by the process, the sooner we move, post election, to Second Reading, the better.

My hon. Friend mentioned those who will be affected. Three stations and the loop will be affected in my constituency. Clearly, I have many constituents who will be subjected to some uncertainties if there are undue delays. I therefore urge my hon. Friend not only to press for Second Reading as soon as possible, but to expedite the whole process so that there is no undue delay and uncertainty for my constituents.

I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) the same assurance that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn): we fully intend to bring the Bill back as early as possible, should the interruption to which I referred have the outcome that we anticipate. Even if it does not, however, I am confident that whichever party forms the next Government will seek to bring these measures forward, because everyone has said that they understand the importance of the project for the capital and for the capital's contribution to the wider national economy. So, for the reasons that I have outlined, I commend the order to the House.

I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the motion in the way he has. He used rose-tinted language designed to give the impression that the Government were engaged in frenetic activity on the Crossrail project. He even used the expression "secure the First Reading", as though that were a really burdensome hurdle to overcome, when we all know that it is the most formal part of parliamentary procedure.

The reality of the Bill and the carry-over motion before us is best encapsulated in a short piece in today's Evening Standard under the by-line of Ross Lydall, its local government correspondent. It says:

"One of the scheme's main backers has revealed growing frustration with the lack of progress and Government cash. Bob Kiley, London's transport commissioner, said: 'We are where we have always been from the beginning, which is nowhere.' Crossrail dates from 1989 and would involve digging a twin-bore tunnel between Paddington and Whitechapel, with new stations along Oxford Street. It remains a project that everybody wants but no government will pay for. Mr. Kiley said Crossrail was costed at £10.2 billion in 2002"—

which the Minister mentioned again today—

"but since then construction costs had risen two-and-a-half times faster than inflation."

It is salutary to remind ourselves that the last time the House carried over a hybrid Bill from one Parliament to another was when we were dealing with the Channel Tunnel Bill, another project that was not exactly renowned for its sound financial footing.

I think that the Member has been misled. The last Bill to be carried over was the obnoxious City of London (Ward Elections) Bill, which we did so much to try to defeat. Will he give us some idea of his proposals for Crossrail? If we do not carry over the Bill, we shall have no project. The Bill is the basis of the project. I was hoping that he was going to say that he supported the carry-over and the expenditure on the development of Crossrail. Perhaps he could get to the point.

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, he is right to say that the last Bill to be carried over was the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill, but that was a private Bill, not a hybrid Bill. The point that I was making was that this would the first hybrid Bill to be carried over since the Channel Tunnel Bill. The hon. Gentleman also asked me to make a commitment to the Crossrail project, but no serious prospective Government—such as we are—would be prepared to write a blank cheque for any project, however desirable people might think it is. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking a blank cheque from me today for the Crossrail project, I am afraid that he is going to be disappointed, just as he will have been disappointed by the failure of his own Government to provide one. The Minister talked about this being a £10 billion project, but we know that it is already projected to be much more expensive.

We are not against the principle of a carry-over, because the whole essence of Conservative party policy is to ensure that we get good value for money. After all the work that has been done on the technical documentation, there would be no point in having to get it all replicated just for the sake of it. However, we must face up to the reality that the Bill has not yet been debated in the House. It was brought in at the tail end of this Government's term of office, and what the Minister has said cannot be regarded as a substitute for activity. There has been a notorious lack of activity by the Government in relation to this issue.

I was a candidate for parliamentary election in 1996. As a resident of Reading, I was angry and upset when a Bill dealing with the previous version of Crossrail failed. It fell for procedural reasons that we all understand. As a candidate, however, I was quite joyful at the opportunity that that presented. I would suggest to hon. Members who will be seeking re-election in the coming weeks—not including myself—that matters that cause them grief could also cause them joy as a candidate.

Since my election in 1997, I have spoken up for Crossrail, and for Reading to be its western terminus, at every opportunity. So the publication and First Reading of the Crossrail Bill in February were very welcome, and I strongly support this motion, which would allow it to be carried over into the next Parliament. Of course I am sorry that I will not be here to carry on the fight for Crossrail, and for it to come to Reading, but I hope that the people of Reading and Woodley, in my constituency, will keep up the pressure to make sure that whichever man replaces me continues to work for Crossrail, and that it comes to Reading.

I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) for her persistence in fighting for Crossrail, and for her work towards making the scheme happen, and to other hon. Members who represent constituencies on the fringe of London and just beyond.

While I am happy to support this motion to allow the scheme to go forward, I remain unhappy that Maidenhead is Crossrail's proposed western terminus. Since that decision was announced, I have talked to numerous people, organisations and industry bodies, and no one can understand it. One argument is that it would cost £300 million to electrify the stretch of track between Maidenhead and Reading, but that would be negligible given the estimated cost of £10 billion for the scheme. It has also been said that Cross London Rail Links Ltd was worried that it would be left with the cost of re-signalling Reading station, yet talks with representatives of Network Rail reveal that the scheme is in the budget for before the date of completion of Crossrail. The money is there, and the only money that Crossrail would be expected to pay would be for anything extra needed solely for Crossrail.

It has also been said that Crossrail is not coming to Reading because the company is worried about being left with the cost of upgrading Reading station. Yet a recent answer from the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), stated:

"The Strategic Rail Authority has considered possible upgrade options for Reading station, but is not in a position to undertake further development of this scheme within its currently funded investment programme."—[Official Report, 12 January 2005; Vol. 429, c. 575W.]

So there is nothing for Crossrail to worry about on that score.

I am bewildered as to the real reason for Crossrail not going to Reading. I fail to understand why it is not in the interest of the scheme to gain access to the interchange at Reading, feeding into services to the midlands, Wales and the south-west. Why does Crossrail not want to gain all the revenue from commuters travelling from Reading to the City of London, for whom this would still be a better service than going into Paddington and changing, either to the underground or to Crossrail itself? It is well known in transport circles that the fewer changes people have to make, the more likely they are to use public transport. Why make the journey more difficult for people than is necessary?

I recognise that people who have travelled long distances from areas significantly to the west of London are more likely to carry on into Paddington and transfer there, as they do now. I am sure, however, that there are many more in between who would come to Reading and transfer to Crossrail for the direct route into London and across to the Eurostar services that we shall soon have at Stratford. That will not happen if Maidenhead is Crossrail's western terminus.

It is even more disappointing because Reading people will lose out if the scheme does not come to Reading. Slots currently available to trains from Reading to the stations between Reading and Paddington will be lost, so as to provide services for Crossrail. Even more worrying are the recent reports in Rail Freight Group News—a well respected publication—that the Bill will allow Crossrail exclusive use of the two slow lines from Maidenhead to Paddington, leaving the InterCity 125, Virgin Rail, other slower passenger services and freight to operate on the fast lines—

Order. What is worrying me is that the hon. Lady is now going a little too deeply into the contents of the Bill. We are debating a carry-over motion. I acknowledge that there can be some reference to the Bill in connection with the arguments for carry over or otherwise, but we cannot have a pseudo-Second Reading speech.

I stand corrected, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall conclude my remarks. I support the carry-over motion and I hope that whoever succeeds me in this Chamber in the next Parliament works as hard as I have tried to do, and as my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have done, for Crossrail.

This is my last contribution in the House and I would like to thank Members on both sides of the Chamber for their friendship and support.

May I confirm the support for the motion of those on the Liberal Democrat Benches? The Minister mentioned the widespread support throughout London for the Crossrail project, particularly in the business community and elsewhere. This is an important scheme for the economic development of London, but it has already suffered from too many delays, not least under the last Government. Its progress should not be impeded at this stage; it is important that it should be carried forward.

In the House and elsewhere, particularly in the Greater London assembly, the Liberal Democrats have supported the principle for Crossrail. We are committed to it and we are pleased, therefore, that the Government intend to go ahead in the next Parliament. I hope they do so expeditiously.

Notwithstanding our support, there are areas of concern, although today is not the day for that debate, as you have rightly said, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should highlight one or two key issues, such as the funding package, getting an early start to the core section, whether Crossrail should be a discrete railway and the need for serious consideration of links between Stansted and Heathrow, as well as links further west, which the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) mentioned. We should also examine the problem of trains coming up from the west country sharing the railway.

I strongly support the procedure of carry over. As the Minister will know, there was all-party support in the Modernisation Committee for it, in precisely the circumstances that are before the House this afternoon.

Can my hon. Friend give any indication, or has the Minister given him any indication, as to whether the capacity problem at Paddington will be addressed? One advantage of the carry over is that we will have more time to consider the issue. As things stand, there is already a capacity problem for lines and platforms, and, as my hon. Friend has already said, this could dramatically affect the mainline services from Cornwall and the far west.

My hon. Friend raises one of the problems that I hope will be discussed in detail during the passage of the Bill. I am sure the Minister has noted those concerns, which I share. All those issues need to be dealt with during consideration of the Bill, but today it is important that the carry-over motion be passed. I shall certainly support it.

I support the carry-over motion, very straightforwardly, because if it is not passed a number of companies in my constituency will face further prolongation of the blight on the development of their operations. To name just two, Leemark Engineering and HG Timber have been told that Crossrail will be taking some of their land, which will prevent them from implementing their expansion plans, and therefore prevent them from increasing employment among my constituents. Any further delay will not only prevent the future planning of their businesses, but have an overall impact on the confidence in my constituency in relation to future investment by businesses.

The carry-over motion is important and I support it, but it is more important that we bring the Bill forward very quickly after the election. In addition, we must bring it forward with guaranteed security of funding. We cannot allow this to remain as speculation. In that case, many of us will campaign during the general election to secure that commitment from the Government. After getting on for 20 years of discussion of Crossrail, we cannot again allow the issue to continue to blight the lives of many of our constituents.

May I first say a few words about the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths)? She said that this is her swansong in the House. I am a Reading boy, and I narrowly missed the Conservative nomination for Reading, East in 1997. I would have ended up being the losing candidate against her, so it is probably just as well that things worked out as they did. She has been a fine servant to the House.

May I also say a few words about the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham), who may or may not return to the House? That may apply to me; I am taking nothing for granted in this election. She has played a tremendous role in the all-party group on Crossrail, but I want to pay a personal tribute to her. I am a London Member of Parliament and we have worked and spoken together on a number of issues. We are in the middle of an election campaign, but I know that her Conservative opponent, Lee Scott, is an extremely strong admirer of all the work she does. The people of Ilford, North have been well served over the last eight years, and I hope they continue to be well served—perhaps under different colours—in the years ahead.

Like other Members, I support the carry-over motion, and I support Crossrail very firmly. There is little doubt that it is essential to London's future competitiveness and growth. In many ways, the biggest threat to the competitiveness of the capital is our transport system. All business regards this as the single most important issue that faces London and it is important that we have proper investment of the £10 billion, and rising, across London's transport system over the next few years. Obviously, Crossrail should be part and parcel of that.

I endorse the words of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is absolutely right that we need to get the funding together, but we must ask, "Where is the money?" On one level, one might say that it is the height of political cynicism for the Government to have talked the project up in the way that they have in the last year or so. They have talked about the green light being given to Crossrail when little more than a flickering amber light has been given.

I accept that my party pulled the plug on the project over a decade ago when we were in government, but equally, here we are just before a general election, desperately in need of this investment. It is of national, and indeed international, importance that London and the London region have that investment. The Government must lead the way with their financing, because we cannot carry on taking London's continued economic success for granted.

If I may, I shall finish with a few words on some local concerns over the route. In Mayfair, for example, there is a grave concern that, although three routes were proposed, the Government seem to be running with a consortium with a single route only. I would like to know why other routes were not considered in more detail. I hope that we will have an opportunity on Second Reading, after the election, to explore this a great deal further. There is little doubt, particularly without the finance being in place, that there is a blight on many tens of thousands of my constituents in Westminster, and I suspect on hundreds of thousands of constituents in London and beyond. The same applies to parts of Bayswater and the City of London.

I support the carry-over motion, not least, as the Minister rightly pointed out, owing to the fact that the cost of petitions and all the preliminary work would be wasted if we had to revisit all this. I hope that on Second Reading we shall have a robust debate about the management of the issue and of the route, because the uncertainty is the worst thing for the ongoing blight that affects not only the residential population, but the businesses on which we rely in this country.

Today's carry-over motion is vital, because it will allow the Crossrail Bill to be suspended until the new Parliament commences. I cannot overemphasise the importance of ensuring that this momentum is maintained and that Second Reading take place as soon as possible in the new Session.

I commend the support that the Crossrail project has throughout the country and throughout the House, as well as in the business community, which is also anxious that the project go ahead and that the motion allow us not to lose any time with the project going forward.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) for her support for the project and her kind words. I also thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) for his kind words about my role as chair of the all-party Crossrail group. We have worked hard to support the project, and all the group's members support the carry-over motion.

Everyone knows about Crossrail's benefits for London—they have been well rehearsed. It is essential that the project go forward because of the contribution it will make to the economy, adding £19 billion to the UK's GDP and creating 120,000 jobs in London alone. In addition, the 13 construction contracts are worth about £300 million each. The benefits to east London are also well known. Those of us who represent that part of London believe that the area needs more investment and regeneration.

Hon. Members have asked about funding and the Minister mentioned the £10 billion price tag. Finance and funding are matters that carrying over the Bill will allow us to address in the new Parliament, and I am sure that those issues will be discussed and ironed out come the summer. However, questions about funding should not take priority over passing the carry-over motion.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) said, we hope that Second Reading will be scheduled to take place as soon as possible after in the new Parliament. I am sure that the Minister supports our aim of getting the usual channels to allow that to happen.

It will not have escaped your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am the only Member seeking to catch your eye who does not represent a London or south-east constituency. I have a confession to make: I woke up to Crossrail a bit too late, although I have always supported the project in principle. I remind the House that there is nothing new about Crossrail: the first such services operated in about 1860, when trains on the Great Western main line went through to Farringdon on what are now the Metropolitan and Circle lines. Sadly we lost the service at some point in the late 19th century—

Liberal cuts.