May I ask the Leader of the House to give the House the business for the following week?

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 16 January—Remaining stages of the Equality Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 17 January—Opposition Day [11th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate relating to the Child Support Agency, followed by a debate relating to civil nuclear power. Both arise on an Opposition motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats.

Wednesday 18 January—Remaining stages of the Work and Families Bill.

Thursday 19 January—Remaining stages of the National Lottery Bill.

Friday 20 January—Private Members' Bills.

The provisional business for the following week will be:

Monday 23 January—Consideration in Committee of the Government of Wales Bill.

Tuesday 24 January—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the Government of Wales Bill.

Wednesday 25 January—Remaining Stages of the Childcare Bill.

Thursday 26 January—Remaining stages of the Criminal Defence Service Bill [Lords], followed by motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied. Details will be given in the Official Report.

Friday 27 January—The House will not be sitting.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 26 January will be:

Thursday 26 January—A debate on strengthening health services in developing countries.

[Following is the information: Motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee and the Government replies since last debated on 29 June 2004.]

May I take this opportunity to wish you, Mr. Speaker, and all Members and staff of the House a happy new year? Judging by the evidence of yesterday, it will be an entertaining new year, courtesy of the Liberal Democrat leadership contenders. [Hon. Members: "Where are they?"] I assume that they must all be out announcing their leadership candidacy. I heard that Liberal Democrat MPs were each signing more than one nomination for leadership candidates, which takes Lib Dem indecision to new heights.

I am sure that the Leader of the House was as concerned as I was to hear that Ministers have allowed people on the register of sex offenders to be employed to teach children in our schools. Was he as outraged as I was to hear that despite—

Order. A point of order was raised last night by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). Because of that point of order, I requested that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills make a statement, which will follow this statement, so I ask the right hon. Lady to leave that matter and move on to other subjects. That is not something for the Leader of the House; the appropriate Secretary of State will make a statement.

I am grateful for your guidance on this matter, Mr. Speaker. I would, however, wish to ask a number of questions about aspects of the issue that are not relevant to the Department for Education and Skills—

No, the right hon. Lady will not do that. An appropriate Minister will make a statement to the House, and I will not allow this now. We are talking about the business for next week.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In that case, I shall return to future business and suggest to the Leader of the House that as the Government have now dropped their Northern Ireland legislation from the business for two weeks' time, that gives them an opportunity to introduce legislation covering the results of Sir Michael Bichard's inquiry into the Soham murders. Will the Government change the business of the House to ensure that such legislation can be brought forward?

There are a number of issues relating to child protection, not least of which are some of the points raised during the passage of the Children Act 2004. Will the Leader of the House ensure that in due course we can have a wide-ranging debate on child protection as it relates to all Government Departments?

There are indications in the press that the Prime Minister intends to reshuffle his Cabinet. I cannot imagine why he might feel that some Secretaries of State are not appropriate for their jobs—although I understand that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has been given his full support. Will the Leader of the House confirm that if a reshuffle takes place, the Prime Minister will fill the post of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which has remained vacant for many months?

Given all that has happened with Government statistics, and the variability of the statistics produced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am sure that hon. Members were concerned to read yesterday that the Bank of England is apparently so concerned about the uncertainty of Government statistics produced by the Office for National Statistics that it has had to introduce a unit to provide its own figures, so that it can have some decent figures on which to operate, as opposed to those produced by the ONS. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore give the House a debate in Government time on the whole question of Government statistics, and the reliability of the figures on which Government decisions are based?

Finally, bearing in mind the fact that over the Christmas recess it was announced that the health authorities in Oxfordshire, under Thames Valley strategic health authority, had had not only to delay heart operations but to cancel operations that people had been expecting—including the very same operation of which the Prime Minister recently had the benefit— will the Leader of the House give us the opportunity for a full and proper debate on the impact of Government policy on the health service? As we heard yesterday from my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands), 300 health service jobs are to go in Hammersmith. Jobs are also to be lost in Shrewsbury. That is the real impact of Government policies, and it should be debated in Government time.

I thank the right hon. Lady for her good wishes, which are, of course, reciprocated.

I shall try as best I can to deal with the right hon. Lady's observations about questions arising from the register of sex offenders but am mindful, Mr. Speaker, of your observations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will deal specifically with the question of legislation, and I think it best that she be allowed to make that statement in due course. There will certainly be opportunities in future to debate, as we should, the question of the impact of those issues for all Departments, and I assure the right hon. Lady that the issue will be taken properly and seriously by all of them. Matters will obviously arise in the light of Michael Bichard's report.

As far as the position of the Duchy of Lancaster is concerned, I am disappointed that the right hon. Lady did not give full credit for the excellent work of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office, who has done a superb job in ensuring that the work of the Duchy is properly carried forward on behalf of the Government and of Parliament. Perhaps I might add to her observation an addendum saying what a magnificent job he has been doing. I am sure that he is keen to continue doing it.

As far as Government statistics are concerned, we have made clear the importance of having such statistics developed independently and with the confidence of the country. That is why we have made recent changes to the arrangements, and I am sure that all Members will acknowledge that and congratulate the Government on the efforts made.

The right hon. Lady's final observation about the health authority in Oxfordshire is one of a type of question that has arisen from the Opposition Benches over a number of weeks about deficits. I am sure that she would want me to make it clear that deficits are restricted to a very small number of national health service bodies. Around 4 per cent. of them are responsible for something like 50 per cent. of the deficit. More than 65 per cent. of NHS organisations are in surplus or achieving a balance. I would find it more interesting if Opposition Members came to the House to share my concern about why, when the great majority of health service bodies are able to balance their books or, indeed, to have a surplus, others are failing, despite the considerable extra public funding going into the health service, to achieve that balance. If Opposition Members said that they shared that concern, there would be something on which we could all agree.

I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1349 on mesothelioma as a specialism.

[That this House welcomes the expeditious processing, over the last three years, of asbestos-induced cancer cases by the introduction of a fast track system in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court; recognises that it has dramatically reduced litigation time for both live plaintiffs and surviving relations; is concerned that this progress has been put in jeopardy by the Department of Constitutional Affairs in its consultation paper Focussing Judicial Resources Appropriately—The Right Judge for the Right Case by proposing an end to some civil specialisms including mesothelioma; and calls on the Lord Chancellor to review the proposal and recognise mesothelioma as a specialism.]

There has been an arrangement in the Queen's bench division of the High Court for a fast-track system for mesothelioma cases, and live cases have been rushed through in a matter of four weeks. That is in jeopardy because the Department for Constitutional Affairs has put out consultation suggesting that certain civil specialisms, including mesothelioma, should be ditched. There is an important wider issue here about asbestos, with something like 4,000 people dying each year as a result of exposure and 2,000 diagnoses every year of mesothelioma cancer—

Order. I am very sympathetic to the case that the hon. Gentleman is making, and I know constituents who have such terrible difficulties. However, what he is putting forward is more like an Adjournment debate than a question on business. If he applies to me for an Adjournment debate, I will make no guarantees, but he stands a good chance.

My hon. Friend has demonstrated in the past few moments his undoubted expertise in, and extensive knowledge of, this important subject, which affects his constituents and many other people across the country. I am aware of the concerns that he has expressed, and I will certainly draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor.

I also wish the House a happy new year. This is an exciting time, especially for Conservative Members, who open their newspapers each morning to find out which of their cherished policies has been ditched, and whether it is a Labour or a Liberal Democrat policy that takes its place.

I take note of what you said earlier, Mr. Speaker, but will the Leader of the House say whether there is any possibility of the Home Secretary bringing forward his six-monthly statement to the House on the implementation of Sir Michael Bichard's report? Many people have serious questions about the lamentably slow progress being made in a number of areas, not least with the IMPACT computer system. It is now three years late, and a key part of the Government's response.

May I ask for an urgent debate on defence procurement, given today's Government announcement of the flotation of Qinetiq? There are very important questions to be asked about the original valuation, the sale of a substantial stake in the company to the US group Carlyle, and that group's tax arrangements in Guernsey. Other questions involve the availability of receipts to the Minister of Defence and national security. If we cannot have a debate or a statement in the House, can the issue be referred as a matter of course to the Public Accounts Committee?

Finally, may we have a debate on the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000? The Prime Minister was reported to have said over Christmas that that legislation was the worst thing that the Government have done. Does the Leader of the House agree with that assessment, or does he believe instead that it was a very important Act that should not be subverted, either by new charging systems or further restrictions on the application of information—or is that something that he cannot tell me?

I have already responded to the House's seasonal good wishes, and I should like to respond in kind to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps rather ungenerously, I suggested before the Christmas recess that his chances of becoming Liberal Democrat leader were in the order of 100:1. Recent events may have shortened those odds, and I am sure that we would all congratulate him if he were to succeed.

As I have said already, I agree that it is important to give people across the country confidence about the arrangements for dealing with people on the sex offenders register. All Government Departments take that seriously, and I have made it clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will make a statement in due course about the implications for education. However, it is important to raise these matters in connection with other Departments, including the Home Office. Home Office questions take place on Monday, and they will provide an opportunity to question Ministers. Ministers representing other Departments will be answering questions on subsequent occasions.

The hon. Gentleman asked for a debate on defence procurement, and I can tell him that the previous Secretary of State for Defence established the important tradition that such matters should be debated on a very regular basis. I assure him that there will be opportunities to debate defence procurement in the very near future but, in the meantime, a written ministerial statement today deals with the question of Qinetiq. He should read that statement, and I shall endeavour to answer any questions that he may want to raise with me in due course.

I am very pleased with reports of the success of the freedom of information legislation, which gives people opportunities to secure information in a way that was not possible previously. I am only slightly disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not congratulate the Government on their efforts in that respect.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Road Safety Bill's sanctions against those who cause death by careless driving were watered down by an amendment approved in another place? When the Bill returns to this House, will he ensure that arrangements are made for an amendment to be tabled that would restore the original penalties? That would enable hon. Members to put into effect the deeply held view that the offence is very serious, for which it should be possible to impose a prison sentence on summary conviction.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important issue, which is regarded with great seriousness, especially—as she has indicated—by Members of this House. Given her knowledge of and expertise in parliamentary procedures, I am sure that she will ensure that an appropriate amendment is tabled at an appropriate stage.

The whole House will welcome the indication that the Leader of the House gave to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on asbestos-linked diseases. We hope that the Lord Chancellor will solve the problem without the need for a debate.

The report published today by the Health Committee on the proposed reorganisation of primary care trusts is a devastating commentary on a change that will affect everyone in England. I hope that the Government will arrange for a debate, not so that we may be partisan—the issue is too serious for that—but to ensure that we do not lose 18 months on reorganisation and another 18 months on trying to get the benefits, when health needs need to be met now, next year and the year after. Linked to that, will the Leader of the House have a word with the Prime Minister and others who talk—as the Prime Minister did yesterday in columns 281 and 282—about how waiting times have reduced for nearly all the main indicators? They need to include audiology tests in hospital in the main indicators, because the waiting time for a 20-minute hearing test and to get a hearing aid is up to two or three years. It is disgraceful that those times have not been reduced. I do not accuse the Government of being at fault for that, but they have the power to ensure that people have a hearing test within a few months and a hearing aid shortly afterwards.

The hon. Gentleman achieved his ambition of not being partisan on the issues and I will try to respond in kind. What is important about the reorganisation that the Government propose in relation to primary care trusts is that it is bottom up. It reflects the concerns of health professionals in their different areas about the best way to deliver health care in their local communities. That is central to the changes that are being made, which—as I hope he will recognise—are the result of the Government investing significant amounts of extra money in health care. By 2007–08, we will have trebled the amount of money available to the national health service and for that money—as I hope my previous responses have made clear—this Government, like any Government, expect to see real improvement in the standard and quality of care. It is no good investing huge amounts of extra money if it does not produce real changes for the hon. Gentleman's constituents, my constituents and the constituents of every other hon. Member. However, I accept that we still need to make significant improvements in some areas.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the issue of hearing tests. It is important that all waiting lists are reduced and if there is a significant problem in the area that the hon. Gentleman mentions I know that my right hon. Friend will want to address it.

I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has had the chance to look at early-day motion 1344.

[That this House welcomes the Scottish Executive's initiative to attract the Commonwealth Games to Scotland in 2014; expresses its support for the bid; and wishes it every success.]

It is in my name and has been signed by more than 30 of my hon. Friends from all over the United Kingdom. It supports the Scottish Executive's initiative to bring the Commonwealth games to Scotland in 2014. That initiative was supported yesterday by the Prime Minister and I wonder if we can have time for a debate on the practicality of assisting that excellent initiative.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising that question. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that the Government would give strong support to that initiative and I am sure that there will be opportunities for my hon. Friend and others to raise the issue in due course. I am convinced that it would be of great benefit not only to Scotland, but to the United Kingdom as a whole.

I wonder whether the Leader of the House could arrange for an urgent debate on judges' sentencing decisions, especially in the light of a monster being sentenced to 12 years for raping a 10-week-old child.

The Government have devoted much time, not always—if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so—with the support of Opposition Members here or in the other place, to the question of affecting judicial sentences. The Government have had some real difficulty with Opposition Members when we have sought to consider the ways in which judges impose sentences. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it has been a strong tradition that sentencing is a matter peculiarly for judges to determine, and is not a matter for Members of Parliament or indeed Ministers. However, we believe, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman shares this view, that in some areas sentencing has not always reflected the views of the community. That is why we have taken steps to impose standards and ensure that sentencing reflects the views of the wider community. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will in future support the Government's initiatives in that respect.

Tomorrow I shall meet officers from Lancashire county council in an attempt to secure funding for Carnforth Connect, which is an award-winning rural public transport scheme. It is a bus service that links Carnforth station with villages in my constituency, such as Silverdale and other villages to the north, and is very popular with local residents. However, when I ask Lancashire why it is cutting the service, it says that it is not getting enough Government funding and, of course, when I ask the Transport Minister, I am told that Lancashire has received adequate funding. May we have an early debate on rural transport and how we may obtain more funding?

The Government have put a significant amount of extra money into rural transport services— [Interruption.] I hear the usual comments from the Opposition, but I would be happy to answer any questions on the issue from Opposition Members, whose party cut transport support, not least in rural areas. Lancashire and other local authorities must manage the extra funds that they have received. Overall, local authorities have received a 39 per cent. increase in funding since 1997 in real terms. It is a question of local authorities using that money in a way that they judge to be appropriate. I do not accept my hon. Friend's observation that insufficient funding has been provided, but I will ensure that the issue is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Before the Christmas recess, I asked the Leader of the House to use his influence to secure for Labour Members a free vote on smoking. I am grateful to him for his success. Can he tell us when the debate will take place? Can he think of other items in the Government's legislative programme that have caused equal distress and can he think of any reason why the convenient solution of a free vote on a manifesto commitment could not usefully be extended?

One of the joys of this job since the privilege of my appointment has been listening to right hon. Members who had distinguished careers in previous Governments advocating courses of action that they would never have advocated when they were Ministers. At least, if they had advocated them they would have been quickly told to think again by their Chief Whip. If they advocated them twice, no doubt their Prime Minister would have given them a reason for not pursuing the matter. It is an intriguing suggestion, but I do not recall the previous Conservative Government ever making such an offer.

It is important for environmental reasons to get more people to use public transport, and that means keeping fares low. However, in many areas there is a virtual monopoly, despite the introduction of competition, with just one company providing almost all the local bus services. Would it be possible to have a debate about local bus services and whether it would be right to give local authorities greater powers to regulate fares?

As I indicated in an answer a few moments ago, the issue of local rural bus services is of crucial importance to people. There has been a significant increase in the number of such services, largely as a result of Government assistance. My hon. Friend is right to recognise that the question of fares is important, and I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Last week, we heard that another prosecution against a member of the armed forces serving in Iraq—a trooper in the 22nd Special Air Service—had been dropped. On all previous occasions, either the Minister for the armed forces or the Solicitor-General came to the House to give us details about why the case had been dropped. Will the Leader of the House press on his colleagues the need to come to the House to answer questions about this case and to give more detail about why such cases are constantly brought, at great expense to the taxpayer, and why they seldom, if ever, result in a prosecution?

I recognise the hon. Gentleman's genuine concern about the armed forces and possible prosecutions, but if he considers carefully he will realise that it is vital that not elected politicians and Ministers but independent prosecutors judge whether it is appropriate to bring proceedings and, if proceedings are brought, the extent to which they should be continued. I hope that he agrees that it is in the interests of the armed forces that such matters should be decided independently and not be the subject of political comment.

May we have a debate or a statement next week on the conclusions of the report by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality about the claim that people are being granted indefinite leave by the immigration and nationality directorate on the basis of their good looks? According to the civil servant concerned, a pretty young Brazilian girl would get a two-year extension but an ugly man would not have an extension. Speaking for the second category, and bearing in mind the backlog of 221,000 cases at IND, is that a change of Government policy and, if not, may we have clarification as soon as possible?

I have had cause to congratulate my hon. Friend on his expertise in this matter on previous occasions. He draws to my attention something with which I was not familiar, but I am sure that the Home Secretary will be interested in his observations and I shall certainly ensure that the question is put before my right hon. Friend.

May we soon have a debate in Government time about pension reform, following the publication of the Turner report? We know that a heated debate is going on within the Government, but it would be useful to have a debate in the House on provision for tomorrow's and today's pensioners, not least so that we can highlight the iniquity of the Government's growing dependence on means-testing to deal with the situation, which is a problem for many pensioners.

I have previously indicated in answer to such questions the importance that the Government attach to pension reform, the Turner report and the need for debate both on the Floor of the House and in the country. I accept the force of the hon. Gentleman's argument and am sure that in due course there will be opportunities to debate those important questions.

Members on both sides of the House will welcome the stated aims of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, which was published yesterday. Will my right hon. Friend give the date for Second Reading? From press comment, I take it that it will be in February, but will it be the earlier or latter part of the month?

I was about to congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent work on behalf of the House in chairing the Regulatory Reform Committee, but in the light of his question perhaps I should invite him to recognise the need to reduce the level of detail with regard to some aspects of our legislation. Perhaps he could wait a few short weeks for the detail he requests.

The Leader of the House will have read with sadness and alarm, as I did, the National Audit Office report on school standards, which reveals that 1,557 schools are performing badly, that many of them have performed badly for a considerable time and that some local authorities do not act on that. Indeed, as you will remember, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said yesterday that 1 million children are being failed by our school system. The whole House will share my sadness and alarm. I have no doubt that Members on both sides of the Chamber want to do the best for our children, but the Government must do better. We need an early statement so that we can debate the matter, for we must not fail the next generation.

I have read the relevant report. I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman picked out only those aspects of it that make the Opposition case and failed to read the full report as thoroughly as he should when making such representations. Contrary to what he said, the report reveals that there has been a significant improvement—since 1997, I might add—in reducing the number of failing schools. When the hon. Gentleman makes such observations, I hope that he will give the House the full picture rather than simply select the highlights that make the Opposition's political case.

I am grateful for this opportunity to make a statement about the arrangements for vetting and barring those who work with children. As the House knows, I laid a written ministerial statement at 9.30 yesterday morning and I now want to update Members of the House and answer questions.

Child protection has been a top priority for the Government, as it was for previous Administrations. Over the past 10 years, the child protection system has improved fundamentally as a result of action first taken by the Conservatives, on which we have built, with cross-party support, in reforming our sex offences laws and setting up the Criminal Records Bureau. Given the scale of change over the last decade, it is helpful to set out briefly the systems currently in place before examining how the issues have arisen and what I propose to do about them.

List 99 covers those barred for life from working in schools and has been in place for decades. The decision-making process has remained substantially the same, with Ministers in successive Governments required under law to make sensitive child protection judgments on individuals who have come to the attention of the police. Members on both sides of the House will have experience of making such difficult judgments.

We have significantly tightened List 99 in recent years, with more individuals automatically barred from working with children, and the criteria for inclusion on List 99 being broadened. However, the list does not act in isolation. The previous Government paved the way for the introduction of the sex offenders register, which came into force in 1997. We established the Criminal Records Bureau, which reveals all cautions and convictions to employers where relevant. We have now committed to strengthen the system further through the implementation of a new vetting and barring scheme, as recommended by Sir Michael Bichard. All those measures significantly tightened the protection available to children and ensured that we have some of the toughest sex offender laws in Europe.

The system currently works in the following way. Where a teacher is convicted of one of a number of specified offences they will automatically be included on List 99, which bars them for life from working in schools. The vast majority of sex offenders are therefore automatically barred from working in schools. For other offences, or where the individual has received a caution, the law currently requires each case to be considered individually and a decision taken by Ministers, based on evidence and advice, even though the individual may have been placed by the police on the sex offenders register.

In my statement yesterday I said that initial inquiries indicate a small number of such difficult cases. I fully understand the concern that that has caused and I am determined to do something about it. I have, therefore, commissioned as a matter of urgency an exhaustive review of all such cases since the introduction of the sex offenders register in 1997, to confirm the precise number of those individuals, their whereabouts and whether their behaviour has been of concern to the authorities.

I am sure, however, that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that those cases raise questions about whether the long-standing arrangements need to be changed. I will therefore also review urgently the decision-making process surrounding such cases and the policy implications—in particular, how the closest possible alignment can be secured between List 99, the sex offenders register and other data sources; whether Ministers can be removed from the decision-making process; and how police advice can be more fully considered prior to decisions being made. That review will take place with the greatest possible speed, and I will report to the House as soon as the facts have been established and I have reached my conclusion.

I reiterate the Government's commitment to implement Sir Michael Bichard's recommendations to tighten the system for vetting and barring those who wish to work with children and vulnerable adults and to introduce legislation in this Session of Parliament. The Bichard system will also entail the vetting in advance of entry into the children's work force, the continuous updating of police information and the ability for parents to check whether tutors, nannies and other individuals whom they employ are barred. It will ensure that cautions and convictions are treated exactly the same.

The House will remember that legislation to implement the Bichard report was in the Queen's Speech. I can announce today that the Government will be able to introduce that legislation at the end of February. Assuming the full co-operation of the other parties, I am confident that parliamentary time can be found for the Bill in this Session.

It is vital that public confidence in our child protection system is maintained. That is why I made a written statement to the House at 9.30 yesterday morning and why I am grateful to the House for this opportunity to discuss the matter on the Floor of the House. As Secretary of State, I am accountable for all decisions taken in my Department, and I am determined to keep the House and the public informed. I will make a further statement as soon as the full facts have been established.

I am pleased that the Secretary of State has come to the House to give the statement this morning, but it is extremely disappointing that all she can offer us today is another review and legislation that, in the Government's own words, was "urgent" 18 months ago. Why did she fail to begin by setting out the basic principle that sex offenders should not be able to work in schools? The case of Mr. Reeve has seriously undermined public confidence in her Department's ability to meet that basic principle.

The Secretary of State can restore people's confidence in the system only by answering the following questions, which she failed yet again to answer this morning. First, how many people on the sex offenders register are being allowed to work in schools? I tabled that question on Monday, but I have still not had an answer. That is not an obscure point that requires research in ancient files. We are talking about her Department consciously taking a decision that someone on the sex offenders register should be allowed to work in a school. That is a very sensitive decision indeed. Why can the Government not tell us, even now four days later, in respect of how many people they took that decision?

Secondly, who took the decision that Mr. Reeve should be allowed to work at Hewett school? The Secretary of State hinted during the week that her junior Minister took the decision. He has replied that he is innocent. How can the Department be in such disarray that it does not even know who takes these decisions?

Thirdly, one of the main proposals from the Bichard inquiry after the Soham murders was that there should be a single list of sex offenders. The then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said:

"We will therefore urgently consider his recommendation that a register be created to bring together all the relevant information held on individuals in a way that is easily accessible."—[Official Report, 22 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 1186.]

He said that 18 months ago. The Secretary of State now comes to the House to say that she will legislate, but she has not said that she will legislate to introduce that single list. In fact, last night, Sir Michael Bichard said that there were "real dangers" while different lists continue to have different decision-making processes. However, instead of plugging that loophole, which is at the heart of the scandal that we are debating today, the Secretary of State says that she will review how the closest possible alignment can be secured between List 99, the sex offenders register and other data sources. That is what the Bichard report is all about. That is the loophole that she needs to close.

Yesterday, in the statement that the Secretary of State gave, she said that, in future, such decisions would be taken by her personally. What are these decisions that she is going to take? The only decision that she could possibly envisage in that statement is that people who are on the sex offenders register should still be allowed to work in schools. So why does she not just say that people on the sex offenders register should not be allowed to teach in schools? Why can she not make it as simple and straightforward as that?

Today, a year and a half after the publication of the Bichard report, the Secretary of State has announced a review and legislation with no substance or explanation. We hope that her review comes up with useful proposals, but any system ultimately depends on the judgment of the people who run it. No review, no legislation can change that.

The Secretary of State was no doubt relieved that she got at least tepid support from 10 Downing street yesterday, but the question is not whether she has the confidence of the Prime Minister. The question is whether she has the confidence of millions of parents who will be deeply concerned that she has failed to ensure basic standards for people who work with children in schools. Does the Secretary of State recognise that the confidence of millions of parents in her judgment and in the Department that she runs is fast ebbing away? Nothing that she has said today has restored that confidence.

I am delighted to be able to answer some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but let me make the point that he fundamentally misunderstood the nature of List 99, the current legislation and, indeed, Bichard's recommendations.

First, List 99 does not give approval for individuals to be employed in schools. Schools must take that decision not just on the basis of checking List 99; they also have a responsibility to check an individual's criminal records if the individual has been out of work. The criminal records check, which we have introduced, will reveal whether an individual has a caution or a conviction. Other data sources are also relevant to those decisions. List 99 does not give automatic approval. What it does, under the framework of the law, is bar certain individuals with specified offences from working with children for ever.

I have made it absolutely clear to the House and the wider public that there should be a much closer alignment of all those individuals on the sex offenders register and on List 99. That is not how the current law operates, and it is not how the current law has operated for decades, with Ministers under successive Administrations deciding whether to include an individual on List 99.

I know that people are concerned about how it is possible for an individual on the sex offenders register not to be barred automatically for life from working in schools. That is a complex legal issue. The legislation as it stands and has existed for decades does not allow the Government or Ministers automatically to bar someone who has accepted a caution for an offence, even if they would have been automatically barred if they had been convicted for that offence. If they accept a caution, the law means that we must consider whether to include the person on the list and, indeed, to let that person make representations. In rare cases, despite the individual accepting a caution, the evidence may not be sufficient to show that they present a risk to children. I do not think that that should be the position, which is why I am tightening the legislation to ensure that cautions and convictions are treated identically and why I am seeking to secure the closest possible alignment between the sex offenders register and the new vetting and barring schemes.

The hon. Gentleman referred to Sir Michael Bichard's recommendations about bringing the lists together, but those recommendations were about bringing the existing lists—List 99, the protection of children list and the protection of vulnerable adults list, which is overseen by the Department of Health—into a list that determines whether an individual should be barred from working with children or with vulnerable adults. Sir Michael was not discussing the sex offenders register. Indeed, there are seven potentially relevant data sources. I think that we as a Government and I as Secretary of State have a responsibility to see whether we can further align those lists, given the importance of complete public confidence in our system. That goes beyond the Bichard recommendations.

I shall also consider whether it is possible to incorporate police advice more fully. At present when a decision is made, according to the law evidence should be taken from all relevant parties. The police are automatically consulted if they have considered the individual's history, as are scientific experts, medical experts and forensic experts where relevant, and psychological reports are taken. I am considering whether it is possible to give the police an even bigger role in determining the final outcome so that a full risk assessment from the police is incorporated into the decision-making process. I am also considering whether it is possible to remove Ministers entirely from these sensitive child protection cases—something about which many groups that are interested in these sensitive issues are concerned.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the number of cases and where the individuals in question are working. Initial inquiries in my Department have produced provisional figures suggesting that since 1997 there has been a small number of cases in which individuals on the sex offenders register have not also been included in List 99. The reverse also applies: there are individuals on List 99 who are not on the sex offenders register. However, I think that it would be wrong to give those provisional facts to the House without establishing with absolute certainty the number of cases, where those individuals are working and how we will proceed. I shall come to the House and give a full explanation of the facts and of the whereabouts of those individuals if they are still employed working with children as soon as possible.

I thank the Secretary of State for that statement. I also thank you, Mr. Speaker, for protecting the right of this House to hear such an important statement.

The Secretary of State is right to say that protection of children matters are complex, but was it not the present Government who produced the mess that she now has to review? When did she become aware that the system was so muddled? In how many decisions has she been personally involved? Does she know that number? Did she at any time prior to this week ask for the matter to be looked into? Did any of her Ministers raise the matter with her?

The right hon. Lady has not answered the questions put by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). Will she explain why more than one list is needed? Even if she is right to say that all people on the sex offenders register should not be automatically put on List 99, surely there should be published guidelines and criteria for making such sensitive and difficult decisions.

Is not there a history of shambolic government in this respect? First, we were promised that the Criminal Records Bureau would provide a one-stop shop, but that failed to deliver when teachers were not checked in time for the start of term. The then Secretary of State bypassed the CRB to deal with the crisis, but never restored to the guidelines for schools the advice to ensure that enhanced checks are carried out on people who apply to work in schools. Then we had the Bichard recommendations, which have still not been fully implemented, as the Secretary of State acknowledges, but a key computer program behind those recommendations is three years behind schedule. We now know that Ministers and officials failed to read across from the Bichard recommendations to the interrelationship between the sex offenders register and List 99. Why has no one in the Department for Education and Skills raised that question during or since the Bichard inquiry?

For which of the mistakes does the Secretary of State take responsibility? Hon. Members on both sides of the House understand that the rules and guidelines have to be proportionate and that they must protect the rights of individuals—for example, when the offence is not only unproven but unrelated to any risk attached to the work that the individual seeks to do—but surely this episode suggests that the present system and lists are not fit for purpose. The right hon. Lady's review must be broad enough and tough enough to sort that out.

The review will be broad enough and tough enough to sort it out. If further action is needed, I will not hesitate to take it. Child protection is the Government's first priority. It is also important to ensure that there is full public confidence in the system. The recent case raises issues relating to whether that confidence exists. That is why I have set out the steps that I am taking, with immediate effect.

I agree that the existence of so many independent data sources and lists is not satisfactory. I have identified seven relevant sources: some are held by my Department, some by other Government Departments and some by other agencies. Sir Michael Bichard considered some of those lists and made recommendations that we have accepted, and we are determined to legislate at the earliest opportunity to make a reality of his proposals. I believe that last night Sir Michael was saying how impressed he was by departmental officials' work in preparing the Bill and dealing with the complex issues that he set out. We have secured legislative time in this Session and the Bill will be introduced in February. I think that that is what people expect in view of the seriousness of the issues.

The hon. Gentleman asks in which cases I have been involved. I can tell him that that is not what parents are worried about; they are worried about the issues. I take full responsibility for every decision that has been made in my Department and, as I have said, if any further action is needed, I will not hesitate to take it.

I ask my right hon. Friend to continue to deal with the matter in a calm and measured way. There is nothing worse than making decisions on such issues in panic and hysteria driven by the media, ably assisted by the both main Opposition parties.

The issue is serious, but we must be careful about starting witch hunts and creating a system that bars not only those who have received a caution or conviction, but those who have been the subject of an allegation. As a constituency MP, I have seen too many lives ruined by false allegations. The balance must be kept right. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ignore the hysteria and carry on the measured manner in which she has started.

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. It is extremely important to ensure that we get the facts right. We must base our decisions on the best possible information on the individual cases and base our improved policy on the facts. The protection of children is our paramount consideration. I took the decision to commission a review so that we could look at the facts in an objective, impartial fashion. I shall return to the House as soon as possible to update hon. Members on my conclusions.

Why did Ministers give the benefit of the doubt to actual or potential offenders rather than to children? Which Ministers made the decisions to which the Secretary of State has referred, and in which decisions was she specifically involved? She has just said that parents are not asking that question. I am asking that question, and I want to know the answer now. Finally, will she immediately drop her disgraceful suggestion that Ministers should no longer be responsible, but that responsibility should be shuffled off on to officials, who cannot defend themselves?

I do not think that, with respect, the right hon. Gentleman has quite understood the point that I made. As Secretary of State, I take full responsibility for all the decisions that have been made in my Department, and I am here to answer questions on that basis. The fact of the matter is that the system for deciding those cases has been the same for decades, with Ministers taking sensitive decisions—[Interruption.]—including, as the right hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, decisions for which he would once have been responsible. List 99 has been tightened, and the sex offenders register has been introduced. The criteria have been broadened, and we now intend to legislate to bring together the lists that we control. I shall see whether it is possible to align more closely new and existing lists with the sex offenders register and other data sources.

I appreciate the great amount that the Government have done on child protection and sexual offences, as I have been working with the internet adviser to children's charities on the specific question of downloading child pornographic images, which, I understand, was the issue in this case. Before I learned that a statement would be made in the House today, I tabled a question asking the Secretary of State to ensure that people who are on the child protection register because they have been convicted of the crime of downloading images or have accepted a caution and have therefore admitted that they are guilty of downloading images, are automatically excluded from working as teachers. I hope that the review will exclude that category. I understand that this individual was caught in Operation Ore, which netted thousands of UK citizens who downloaded images that are only on the internet because children have been abused by tracking their credit card use. I hope that in the review on which the Secretary of State is embarking that category will definitely be excluded from working as teachers.

I thank my hon. Friend for her sustained interest in these issues, which are, indeed, very serious. Her point about treating cautions and convictions in the same way so that an individual who accepts a caution, thereby admitting guilt, is treated in the same way as someone with a conviction is one on which we intend to legislate under the new system. A conviction for a specified offence leads to an automatic barring from working with children, and in future a caution, too, will lead to automatic barring.

The Secretary of State has just said that child protection is her first priority. If that is true, why does she appear reluctant to condemn the employment of sex offenders as teachers? Does she agree that it is extremely disturbing that anyone on the sex offenders registers could gain employment as a teacher?

I have just explained to the House why there is a difference between List 99 and the sex offenders register, although I do not think that that is acceptable. I would like to bring the two lists together as closely as possible. List 99, however, does not give approval for an individual to be employed by a school. The head teacher or employer then has the responsibility to check with the Criminal Records Bureau to see whether there are any cautions and convictions. That is an additional safeguard, which was introduced in legislation under this Administration, and it has the purpose of protecting children.

Can I urge the Secretary of State to continue to remain calm, and not be pressurised into releasing any figures until she knows exactly what is involved? I urge her not to listen to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), and in her review to look at the question whether it is appropriate for Ministers to continue to be involved in those decisions, particularly when they are the result of police investigations or court or police action, and should not be left to those agencies?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that issue. I would like to consider whether it is possible for Ministers to be removed from decision making on those sensitive cases in future, as that would help to restore public confidence in the system. I shall therefore return to the House as soon as possible to see whether we can make that improvement.

The Secretary of State said that a Bill will be introduced in February, but it will take some time for it to complete all its stages in both Houses and to implement it thereafter. Has she given any consideration to the proposals made by the NSPCC that we need interim arrangements, such as ensuring that all individuals on the sex offenders register are on both the protection of vulnerable adults list and List 99, at least until there is a review of barring restrictions? Will the Government consider that, as it will give a great deal of assurance to many people?

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Even though we are progressing the legislation as speedily as possible and will introduce it in February—I hope that it will be passed with the full co-operation of all parties this Session—we cannot implement it before 2007 because it demands a new IT system, with full implementation in 2008. That is why I set out both in my written ministerial statement yesterday and in my statement today the interim steps that I would like to consider. That review includes the question of whether Ministers should be involved, or whether they could be removed from the decision-making process. It will also consider the way in which police advice can be incorporated more fully into the decision and, indeed, whether it is possible to bring all the lists together more closely in the interim period.

This unfortunate case has highlighted the fact that we have a piecemeal legislative framework to deal with an issue that is complex and difficult to administer. I welcome the Minister's comments, but may I remind her that this is a serious and complex issue that should not be dealt with using the knee-jerk reactions advocated by some Opposition Members? In the review, will she not only ensure that we have simpler legislation that is fit for purpose, but back that up with recruitment processes that will enable schools to recruit people without being strangled in a web of bureaucratic interventions and research?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the seriousness of the issues and their implications for child protection, particularly public confidence in the system. It is my responsibility to put the full facts in the public domain as soon as possible and ensure their accuracy, as well as to establish the whereabouts of the individuals involved and ascertain whether they are considered to pose a risk to children. In the review, I shall look at whether it is possible to tighten the process further and align the registers more closely. I would point out to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that all employers have a responsibility not just to check List 99 if they are a school but to make a CRB check if the individual concerned has not just moved from a previous employer, whose references they have a responsibility to take up. The CRB check will reveal whether there is a relevant caution or conviction that needs to be taken into account by the head teacher, and I very much hope that individuals would not be employed if such a conviction or caution were revealed.

Some of these matters are devolved in Northern Ireland, as the Secretary of State knows, although the relevant Minister is responsible to the House. Has she consulted with her counterpart in the Northern Ireland Office and, if not, will she do so urgently so that my constituents and others in Northern Ireland can be assured that these matters have been taken seriously and addressed in that part of the country, too?

I certainly will, and in the review I shall consult not just Ministers, but the relevant officials in the devolved Administrations.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is hypocritical of the Opposition, who had 18 years to deal with these matters, and it is this Government who introduced the most comprehensive range of child protection measures ever seen? Is she aware that the Protection of Children Bill proposed to amalgamate List 99 and a new register established by the Bill? Will she give an assurance that that will now happen? As there have been delays in the amalgamation of computer databases, will she give assurances that if there are any further delays due to the technology, interim arrangements will be made to safeguard our children?

I can give my hon. Friend those assurances. It is important that we take all the steps that are necessary to tighten the system as appropriate, to bring the lists as closely into line as it is possible for them to be brought into line within the current legal framework, and for all decisions to be looked at from the point of view of the risk to children and whether we can protect children better by making decisions on a more precautionary basis. I shall certainly consider all those facts. My hon. Friend is right to point out that not only has List 99 been tightened and the criteria for automatic inclusion on that list been broadened under this Government, but the sex offenders register—I acknowledged in my statement that the work was done under the previous Administration before that Bill was introduced—has provided an additional safeguard for employers to check before they employ an individual.

As a new Member, having been shocked at the Minister's ability to avoid responsibility, I seek a straight answer. When did she realise that the current arrangements were anomalous, and when did she decide to tighten the law?

It was this Government who asked Sir Michael Bichard to carry out his review of our child protection procedures, and we committed in the Queen's Speech to legislate on the new vetting and barring scheme during this Session. We have secured a slot, which means that if there is cross-party support for the proposals, we will able to get the Bill into law this Session. The question for the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues is whether they will give us that necessary cross-party support.

It is a matter of profound regret that today clearly marks the end of political consensus on the matter. May I urge my right hon. Friend to reject the synthetic tabloid anger that she has heard from the Opposition Benches and continue in her categorical and robust response to the situation? The last thing we want is a drip, drip, drip of information and, even worse, speculation, which may be destabilising not only in this place, but in our schools and classrooms.

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right that we should put the facts into the public domain at the earliest opportunity, but that that ought to be done in a considered and ordered fashion—first, to make sure that we have the precise numbers, and also to ensure that at the same time as those numbers are put into the public domain, we know precisely where those individuals are employed and the action that we intend to take.

The Secretary of State had to be dragged to the Chamber to make a statement, yet she is incapable of answering even the most basic questions. Are there any cases in which she personally has been involved—yes or no?

I take responsibility for every single case that has been determined under my stewardship as Secretary of State for Education and Skills.

This is one of the occasions when it is difficult to separate the role of politician from that of parent, grandparent, godparent or uncle. I urge on my right hon. Friend the need to take the matter forward with urgency, but also with due consideration. Can she give us some idea of the scale of the review that she has ordered and how long it might take? There is an issue of urgency, but will she please not respond to the pitchfork and blazing firebrand mentality, which would be the worst possible way to deal with the situation?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right that these are urgent matters, but we need to give all the issues our due consideration. When I say I intend to update the House as soon as it is possible for me to update the House, I mean in the next week or two. I do not mean in the next month or two. As soon as it is possible to ascertain the facts, I will come and update the House on those facts.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today, during questions to the Solicitor-General, the Solicitor-General said that the Prime Minister had indeed been consulted over the decision to drop the charges in relation to the Stormont spy ring, yet yesterday in the House the Prime Minister told us that

"as far as I am aware, I certainly was not consulted on whether this prosecution should be dropped"—[Official Report, 11 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 283.],

and on 14 December the Prime Minister said:

"Obviously, we were not consulted about the matter"—[Official Report, 14 December 2005; Vol. 440, c. 1296.]

Can you ensure that the matter is cleared up, and that the Prime Minister properly accounts for it to Members and clarifies the extent of his involvement?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter, but I do not want to do his job as well as my own. What he should do is put down parliamentary questions to clear the matter up.

We now come to the main business. Motions 1, 2 and 3 will be debated together.

I beg to move,

That it be a further Instruction to the Select Committee to which the Crossrail Bill is committed—

(1) that it have power to consider—

(a) the extension of permitted development under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 in relation to development which is the subject of environmental assessment in connection with the Bill;

(b) additional power to carry out works for the purpose of reinstating facilities whose operation or use is discontinued because of the exercise of powers conferred by the Bill;

(c) provision relating to the abstraction of water;

(d) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding planning permission for development authorised by the Bill which consists of a work other than a scheduled work;

(e) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding the application of provisions of the Bill to things authorised by an order under section 1 of the Transport and Works Act 1992;

(f) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding any of the following—

(i) a crossover at Farringdon;

(ii) sidings at Westbourne Park;

(iii) diversion of the Moorgate Station Sewer;

(iv) a jetty and conveyor at West India Docks South;

(v) use of the River Lea for barge loading and holding areas;

(vi) realignment of the Docklands Light Railway at Custom House;

(vii) facilities for handling excavated materials at Manor Wharf;

(viii) a shaft at Eleanor Street;

(ix) diversion of the Hackney to Abbey Mills Sewer and the Wick Lane Sewer;

(x) a bridge over Hollow Hill Lane, Langley;

(g) realignment of the proposed running tunnel beneath Shorts Gardens, Camden;

(h) alterations to a ticket hall at the proposed Whitechapel Station;

(i) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding approval in relation to highway accesses;

(j) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding the acquisition of land at Basin Approach, Lowell Street and land at Billingsgate Market;

(k) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding the creation and acquisition of easements or other rights over land;

(l) alterations to the table in paragraph 1 of Schedule 8 to the Bill (disapplication and modification of heritage controls), so far as relating to the City of Westminster, the City of London and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets;

(m) the inclusion of additional land within the limits of land to be acquired or used;

and, if it thinks fit, to make amendments to the Bill with respect to any of the matters mentioned above, and for connected purposes;

(2) that any Petition against Amendments to the Bill which the Select Committee to which the Crossrail Bill is committed is empowered to make shall be referred to that Select Committee if—

(a) it is presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which the first newspaper notice of the Amendments was published or, if that period includes any time during which the House is adjourned for more than four days, not later than five weeks beginning with that day, and

(b) it is one in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents.

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Before I deal with the merits of the motions, let me put them in context, which may help hon. Members who were not present on 19 July last year or who have put the whole business behind them. The House will recall that on that day last year, it agreed, after a vote, to give the Crossrail Bill a Second Reading. The Bill will enable Crossrail to be constructed and puts in place the necessary powers to acquire land and also allow the Crossrail services to run.

The Second Reading agreed the principle of the Bill, which is to construct Crossrail—a railway that will run between the termini at Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east and Maidenhead in the west. The main new intermediate stations will be at Paddington, Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road, Farringdon, Liverpool Street, Whitechapel, the Isle of Dogs and Custom House.

I remind the House that this is a hybrid Bill. These are Bills used for projects usually of national importance, where the Government take the lead in terms of strategic development. But crucially, because it affects specific private interests, it is dealt with differently in both Houses of Parliament. Such Bills are rare. The last one, I believe, was about 10 years ago. The procedures in relation to them are complex. Although I shall endeavour to give the House my best understanding of what the Select Committee can and cannot do, clearly the Select Committee will be advised by the Clerks of the House, and much lies in their hands.

It might be helpful if I set out what I understand the procedure will be. We are talking about building a new railway line through London, through a densely populated area. Many private interests are affected and many people may be in favour of the Bill in principle but may have understandable concerns about their own interests, which need to be dealt with.

The Bill has aspects of both a public and a private Bill. It is brought forward by the Government and, like any other public Bill, it contains provisions that affect everyone or affect particular classes of people. However, the Bill also contains provisions that have an impact on particular individuals, notably in relation to the powers to acquire particular land. That is why the House requires such a Bill to comply with elements of the procedures for private Bills, as well as complying with the usual procedures for public Bills. The main difference is an extra Select Committee stage in each House. Hon. Members know that the Select Committee has been set up under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), and it will consider the petitions from those whose individual rights will be affected.

In addition to agreeing to give the Bill a Second Reading, the House also agreed to give instructions to the Select Committee, which we are discussing today. Hon. Members who were here in July know that the instructions, rather than the merits of Crossrail, took up most of the debate. The House agreed two sets of instructions in the vote in July: the first set allows the Select Committee to report to the House on the environmental impact of the railway; the second instructs the Select Committee to treat the principle of the Bill as including the termini of the railway transport system for which the Bill provides and the provision of intermediate stations at the locations that I have set out.

rose—

I know about the hon. Gentleman's specific concern, and he can rest assured that I will give way to him later and deal with his points—although this debate is limited to two hours, I shall endeavour to let in all concerned hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman and I have had a discussion behind the Speaker's Chair, so I know what he is going to say and will address his specific concern.

As I said on 19 July, Official Report, column 1125, the principle of the Bill is established on Second Reading, but the Select Committee must be given instructions to enable it to deal with the matter in a manageable way. As I have said, we have accepted instructions on environmental matters and that the principle of the Bill establishes the termini and principal stations.

We are considering three motions today. The first permits the Committee to consider a number of late petitions that were outside the deadline, and I can deal with that matter quickly. One petitioner was apparently involved in an accident and taken to casualty, which prevented him from lodging his petition, and five others sent their petitions to the Department for Transport rather than to the House of Commons. I think that most hon. Members would agree that it is fair to let those petitions go forward.

The second motion allows the Committee to consider petitions in relation to Reading and Ebbsfleet, which took up a lot of time in July, and I shall return to that matter in a moment.

The third motion allows the Committee to consider petitions on the additional provisions that the Government intend to introduce—the additional provisions change the detail of the project and have been identified in discussions with interested parties since the Bill's introduction early last year. I have placed in the Vote Office copies of the instructions on the extensions to Reading and Ebbsfleet, the instructions on additional provisions and the motion on petitions lodged after the deadline, as well as an explanatory memorandum on each motion.

I shall now deal with the two main instructions before the House today, which concern the extensions to Reading and Ebbsfleet and the additional provisions. On the extensions to Reading and Ebbsfleet, the Government want to see Crossrail built and therefore came to the House of Commons with a specific proposition, which involves an economic case that stacks up, which will be operationally effective and which can be delivered. As I said to the House in July, if we were not to nail down the proposition, this Crossrail Bill would meet exactly the same fate as the previous Crossrail Bill, which collapsed under its own weight in the early 1990s.

First, on the western terminus, we decided that Crossrail will end at Maidenhead. On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) argued with some force that Crossrail should not stop in Maidenhead, and, possibly for different reasons, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) argued that it should continue to Reading. Much was made of the question whether the Select Committee would be competent to examine the matter, and my best advice at the time was that it would. On my instruction, however, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), said at the close of the debate that if that is not the case, we would introduce an amendment after further discussion with the Clerks to make sure that it is possible to discuss such things.

If the House agrees the motion today, the Committee will be able to hear petitions in relation to an extension to Reading and make recommendations to this House. If the Government were to accept such representations, the matter would be taken forward by a Transport and Works Act 1992 order, which, as those who are familiar with such matters know, is a well-established way of building projects such as railway lines.

Because the matter concerns the end of the line—the same point applies to Ebbsfleet—we are not discussing a lot of property acquisition and interference with individuals' rights. The key issues are signalling and the capacity of Reading station.

rose—

Perhaps my hon. Friend wants to say how pleased he is that the Government have made that decision—I expect that he is composing an intervention to say just that. If we pass the motion, it will allow the Select Committee to hear petitions in relation to the extension. The procedure will be different from the Crossrail Bill. I repeat that the Government are not persuaded that we should extend Crossrail at this stage for reasons that I do not think it necessary to set out again, although I will happily do so. The motion allows the debate that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West are anxious to hold.

Assuming that the House passes the motion, I welcome the fact that the Select Committee will be given an instruction to examine the extension from Maidenhead to Reading. One issue is the cost of the necessary works, some of which relate to existing capacity problems at Reading station. Changes to that capacity have been on Network Rail's list of works to do for some time, but sadly there is little prospect of their being undertaken immediately. I want to clarify that the Select Committee will not get hung up on that aspect of the extension and will be able to examine the benefits to Crossrail of an extension from Maidenhead to Reading, rather than rejecting the extension simply because Network Rail is not doing the work that it should to increase capacity at Reading station.

That is the precise area in which I cannot be hard and fast. I cannot tell members of the Select Committee exactly what they should or should not consider, subject to the general parameters that we are setting out. I hope that the Select Committee will address itself to the merits or otherwise of extending Crossrail to Reading at some stage. I would like to think that some of the capacity problems at Reading station will have been resolved when Crossrail is constructed. What the right hon. Lady said is right, and it is a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West will undoubtedly make in his intervention. There are problems at Reading, and I have had many discussions with Network Rail about trying to sort them out. If Crossrail were extended, new considerations would arise, but it would be wrong to say that the Select Committee could not consider them. The Select Committee might say, "Until those things have been sorted out, it would be daft to extend the line." All and sundry have advised me that today's motion will allow the discussion that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West want, which is as good an assurance as I can give.

The Secretary of State will be relieved to know that I support the motion and welcome its tabling, but some key points need to be teased out. If the 1992 Act were used to authorise the extension of Crossrail to Reading, who would be the applicant? Does the Secretary of State envisage that Crossrail would be the applicant if the 1992 Act were triggered, or would it be the petitioners themselves?

That matter would have to be decided. Under the 1992 Act, the applicant would be the operators of the railway, which could be Cross London Rail Links or Network Rail. Whatever Government are around at that time would have to be involved, because I do not suppose that the operation would be cost-free. All I am promising the House is that if the motion is passed, the Select Committee will have an opportunity to hear the petitions. We are nowhere near saying, "This is the next project, and this is what we might do." Crossrail would be by far the biggest single engineering project anywhere in Europe, and I am anxious to get something manageable. I have told the House many times, and especially in July, that we must ensure that the project is manageable. I hope, in that context, that I will satisfy hon. Members that we can discuss the possibility of an extension to Reading and apply the same consideration to Ebbsfleet.

We decided not to go to Ebbsfleet largely for operational reasons because of the complexity of the lines in north Kent. However, representations are being made about that.

The people of Hackney are glad that the Government are making progress on the Crossrail project. There is no objection in principle to the Select Committee taking petitions about the extension from Maidenhead to Reading. However, the people of Hackney and the east end would be concerned if the project became so unmanageable that it ran into the sand. Will the Secretary of State assure the people of Hackney that the Government will give it good speed, that we will guard against its becoming unmanageable, that the finance will be available for the railway, for which my constituents have waited so long, and that, when we have built Crossrail, we can move on to Crossrail 2—the Chelsea to Hackney line?

If my hon. Friend and I live to see Crossrail 1, we shall be happy. We can then turn our attention to Crossrail 2. Of course the Government are committed to the project. That is why we introduced an extensive Bill to make it possible. However, my hon. Friend's main point is important. Unless the project is kept to a manageable size—even then, it is very large—the same fate awaits it as befell the previous Crossrail project.

I cannot tell our colleagues on the Select Committee what to do—and would not try to do so— but I state no more than the obvious when I say that the more complex the project becomes and the more that is added to it, the greater the risk that it will not get going. There is almost unanimity in the House that the project should go ahead, although hon. Members have their individual concerns. The Government are committed to doing everything that we can to make it happen. However, we must try to keep it to a manageable size so that we can finance and deliver it.

Does the Secretary of State accept that it is also the Government's role, in trying to push the project forward, to take some control of its manageability? I accept that we have a hybrid Bill and it is ultimately for a Select Committee to determine the matter, but as the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) rightly pointed out, in London we want some progress on the basics of Crossrail. It must now be up to the Government to make their voice heard to ensure that the funding comes together, even if it is for a limited part of the Crossrail plan. We should not allow the Ebbsfleet to Reading aspect to delay progress. That must be the Government's role; it cannot be only the Select Committee's role. All hon. Members look to the Secretary of State for some guidance to ensure genuine progress.

Absolutely. That is why we introduced a Bill that established the principle of what the railway would comprise. It will run from Maidenhead through Shenfield to Abbey Wood. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the preceding two or three years, prospective other parts of the line were removed from the proposals simply to get something that would stack up and could be delivered. We are inviting the House to give instructions to the Committee to ensure, as far as possible, that that happens.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, hon. Members are entitled to put their views and make suggestions. A hybrid Bill means that the Select Committee will have the difficult task of hearing petitions from many people, some of whom may be against the whole Bill and others who have specific concerns about, for example, stations or waste disposal when the work is being done. When we get the Select Committee's report, the Government will have to take a view about how much we can accommodate. For example, if the Select Committee suggested that there should be a station every 100 yd, the Government would say no because the project would collapse.

We made a specific proposition, which the House endorsed, albeit after a vote, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I want it to get through as expeditiously as possible while taking account of people's legitimate concerns. However, we are bound to cause some difficulty in establishing the principle.

rose—