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 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—Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill [Lords].

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.

The provisional business for the following week will be:

Monday 30 January—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Government of Wales Bill.

Tuesday 31 January—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, followed by a debate on pensions on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Wednesday 1 February—Opposition Day [12th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 2 February—A debate on defence procurement on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Friday 3 February—The House will not be sitting.

It may also assist the House if I inform Members that a revised calendar is now available in the Vote Office.

[The following is the information: 17th and the 20th to the 52nd Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 2003–04, the 1st to the 30th Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 2004–05, and the 1st to the 3rd, the 5th and the 6th Reports and the First Special Report of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 2005–06, and of the Treasury Minutes and the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel Memoranda on these Reports (Cm 6271, 6283, 6302, 6303, 6304, 6332, 6355, 6416, 6441, 6458, 6468, 6496, 6577, 6578, 6579, 6609, 6667, 6668, 6682, 6689 and 6712).]

Can the Leader of the House tell us why the Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill has taken precedence over the Childcare Bill, which was originally to be brought to the House next week? Will he ensure that the Defence Secretary makes an early statement to the House on UK troop deployments in Afghanistan, particularly given that the Dutch Government might not now send 1,200 troops there in the coming months?

I recognise that the Government never comment on leaked documents, but given that it now appears that the number of so-called rendition flights through the UK may have been greater than was previously reported to the House, will the Leader of the House ensure that the Foreign Secretary makes an early statement to the House to update Members on that matter?

Last week, the Leader of the House said that the number of NHS trusts with financial difficulties was small. Today, it is reported that no fewer than two thirds of hospitals are having to close wards as a result of financial problems. That is hardly a small number and, apparently, the Prime Minister's response will be to appoint a new Minister to take charge of NHS spin. Yet again, the Government are putting spin doctors ahead of real doctors. Will the Leader of the House make Government time available for a full debate on the state of the NHS? Will he also make time for a debate on education standards, given the concerns about league tables, the number of children being taught in failing schools and the Government's failure to tackle truancy? Will he confirm that the education reform Bill will be published before the House rises for its mid-term recess?

This month, the largest rise in unemployment for 13 years was recorded. The productivity gap between the UK and the US has been widening since this Government came to power. Will the Government make time for a debate on the state of the economy? In its third report of the 2003–04 Session, the Treasury Committee said:

"We can only repeat our view that as much notice as possible for the Budget date is desirable, and we urge Government to regard the 2002 practice—of at least 2 months' advance notice—to be at least a working target."

Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government will abide by that request, and give us the date of the Budget?

Finally, when will the Home Secretary make a statement to the House on the Government's final proposals on the reorganisation of police forces?

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on that long list of items, which I suspect will be a new record. I shall endeavour to make my way through each point, but I apologise in advance if I do not give as much detail as usual, as she is clearly challenging my powers of explaining the Government's excellent record on each matter that she raised.

I am pleased to report that the Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill came out of the Lords rather sooner than anticipated. Given that it is available and ready, it seemed sensible to get on with it.

On Afghanistan, the Government have always kept the House fully informed about the deployment of our forces, and in other theatres. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will take an early opportunity to inform the House about any relevant developments in Afghanistan.

The right hon. Lady asked about rendition. I am sure that she is not relying on leaked documents for her assertions, but I draw her attention to the fact that the statements by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary were made after the particular document that has been the subject of some rather excitable media speculation this morning. I encourage her to read my right hon. Friend's statements in detail, and she will find the facts contained therein.

As to NHS funding, the right hon. Lady is relying on a survey that is interesting and important but not especially scientific. It does not set out the full facts, which are clear; as I have told the House on previous occasions, only a small number of NHS bodies are operating in deficit, with some 65 per cent. operating at a surplus.

I have a question for Opposition Members. Are they seriously saying that the Government should not act to assist those NHS organisations that are operating at a loss, when the great majority operate at a surplus? I should have expected Opposition Members to come to the House and demand that the Government sort the problem out. We are sorting it out by providing help and assistance to ensure that all NHS organisations operate at a surplus, or certainly do not operate at a loss.

The right hon. Lady asked about the education reform Bill. It has never been Government practice to announce dates, but I assure her and the House that the Bill will brought to the Floor of the House at the earliest possible opportunity.

It is astonishing for the right hon. Lady to comment about unemployment, given the lamentable performance of the previous Government. In 1992, Norman Lamont—now Lord Lamont—said that unemployment was a price worth paying. I should be interested to know whether that comment was written by the current Leader of the Opposition, who of course was Norman Lamont's special adviser at the time. Many people in the country suspect that that remark is what the Conservatives believe. I would encourage the Conservatives to look carefully at the remarkable record of improvement in employment in this country, which is as good as any of the other G8 countries and out of sight of anything they achieved during their time in office.

I assure the House that the date of the Budget will be announced in due course, and we have debated police reorganisation already and will continue to debate it.

Tomorrow, the House will debate the private Member's Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke), the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will know that the Bill commands widespread support in the House and he may have seen the letter in The Guardian today from overseas development organisations and others that take an interest in the issue, commending the Bill. Is he in a position to tell the House what attitude the Government will take to the Bill?

The Bill is an excellent initiative that will contribute significantly to the transparency of overseas development initiatives of this and other Governments, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development strongly supports it, as do the Government.

Last week, I asked the Leader of the House for a statement by the Home Secretary on the implementation of the Bichard inquiry recommendations. A written statement is being made today, so I thank him for the expedition of this matter and ask him to draw it to the attention of the Prime Minister for his education.

On 8 December, I raised the issue of extraordinary rendition. Indeed, I have raised it several times. Was the Leader of the House then aware of the memorandum from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Prime Minister' Office the previous day, advising that

"We should try to avoid getting drawn on detail, and to try to move the debate on"?

Will the Foreign Secretary come to the House to explain that crude attempt to spin the issue away and to announce a full public inquiry into rendition?

Can the Leader of the House find time for a statement by the Paymaster General on the massive organised fraud in the tax credit system? Some 30,000 cases are being investigated, but that is only the tip of the iceberg, and millions of pounds have been lost to the Exchequer. The Paymaster General was made aware of the issue a year ago, so is it not time that the House had an opportunity to raise questions?

Finally, can the House now be told what new advice from the intercept commissioner requires the Prime Minister to consider the tapping of the phones of hon. Members? There is real concern on both sides of the House about that issue.

With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would like to keep the House fully informed about the hon. Gentleman's prospects in the current leadership contest in the Liberal Democratic party. The House has been eager to learn whether he will put his hat into the ring, and the odds are shortening each week as other runners and riders fall by the wayside. We now know, from an e-mail from the chief aide of the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, that the hon. Gentleman does not want to stay neutral and not declare for anyone. We are all delighted to see that Liberal Democrats are breaking the habit of a lifetime and getting off the fence. Time is running out for the hon. Gentleman to announce his candidature and we give him every opportunity today to do so.

On the issue of extraordinary rendition, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not listen carefully enough to the answer that I gave earlier. The document to which he refers predates the statements made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. He set out clearly the relevant facts and those facts have not changed. As a matter of simple timing, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that they can hardly have changed as a result of a document that predated the announcements that have been made.

I am also interested in the hon. Gentleman's position on organised fraud. If he had looked a little more carefully at the issue, he would have seen that it concerns identity fraud. I am therefore slightly surprised by his party's position on identity cards, as part of the underlying purpose for introducing identity cards is to deal with identity fraud. If the hon. Gentleman were on the Government side of the House, he would have to supply some answers, instead of merely raising questions in the way that he does. I realise that supplying answers is something that the Liberal Democrats are not good at, but practice makes perfect. Perhaps if he would have a go at it, it might help.

As far as the issue of interception is concerned, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out clearly the Government's position yesterday and I have nothing to add to that.

rose—

Order. The House will understand that two statements are to follow. I urge Back Benchers to put no more than one supplementary question to the Leader of the House.

Has my right hon. Friend had time to read early-day motion 1421, which is in my name and has been signed by 65 of my hon. Friends and supported by many more?

[That this House believes that the Scottish Parliament should follow the lead of the Welsh Assembly and introduce guidelines for all political parties that ensure that candidates for election cannot stand for both the list and the constituency.]

Will my right hon. Friend find time in this Parliament to resolve the anomalous situation of elections to the Scottish Parliament, whereby candidates can stand in a constituency, lose and then be elected on the list?

I have read that early-day motion, not least because of my hon. Friend's assiduous efforts to draw the issue to the attention of members of the Government, and I congratulate him on his initiative. I am sure that it is something that members of the Scottish National party might consider very carefully.

Although the House will be grateful to the Secretary of State for Defence for the fact that he will come to make a statement if a large number of extra troops are to be deployed in Afghanistan, is it not absolutely essential to hold a full debate, as in the Dutch Parliament, because the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating, confusing and dangerous? I hope that the Leader of the House, as an ex-Secretary of State for Defence, would agree that such a debate was essential.

I have made it clear already that the Government, as always, attach enormous importance to informing the House about the deployment of British forces. There will be plenty of opportunities in the weeks ahead for the right hon. Gentleman to raise those issues, not least because Defence questions will take place on Monday. I have announced a debate entitled "Defence Procurement", but it has always been the tradition of the House that those debates can allow an extended discussion of all matters that affect defence. Furthermore, I have indicated that, at an early opportunity, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will come to the House to set out the position in relation specifically to Afghanistan. There will be significant opportunities for right hon. and hon. Members to consider those issues.

Prostitution is a serious issue that affects many constituencies, so I was disappointed last Tuesday that the Government decided to release their future strategy by written statement, without right hon. and hon. Members being given a chance to question Ministers. What opportunities will there be in future to debate that important subject?

I am sure that this issue will be brought to the Floor of the House by right hon. and hon. Members during questions. Indeed, there will be opportunities on the Adjournment to discuss these issues, and I certainly urge my hon. Friend to consider using Westminster Hall for that important debate.

Will the Leader of the House draw to the Home Secretary's attention the interesting proposal from Brian Moore, deputy chief constable of Surrey police, to place a new specific statutory duty on public authorities to require them to disclose the incidents of violence that come to their attention that are committed by readily identifiable individuals?

I certainly believe that such an initiative would be wholly consistent with the Government's efforts to ensure an emphasis not only on citizens' rights, but on their responsibilities. If we are to tackle not only more serious crimes but the kind of antisocial behaviour that affects far too many of our constituencies throughout the country, it is important that all citizens participate in ensuring that those responsible both for antisocial behaviour and for crime are brought to justice.

Will my right hon. Friend consider finding time to debate the carrying of bicycles on trains? My local rail operator—Southern—has just implemented a ban on doing so during peak travel times, which is particularly ironic given that Brighton and Hove has just been awarded £1.5 million of Government money as a Cycling England town.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is well known for his enthusiasm for bicycles. I will ensure that the important matter is drawn to his attention.

Will the Leader of the House set aside time for a statement or debate on paramilitary involvement in criminality in Northern Ireland so that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland can explain the confusion between the position of his security Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), who says that the IRA is no longer involved in criminality, and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, who indicates that it is still involved?

I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that there is no confusion between the two positions. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was referring to the huge and significant change in the position of the IRA as an organisation. Obviously, it is rightly the responsibility of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which does a superb job on behalf of the community, to ensure that any individuals involved in any kind of criminality are subject to investigation and brought to justice.

Will the Leader of the House consider early-day motion 1418, which was tabled in my name?

[That this House recognises that carbon monoxide is still a major killer in the United Kingdom, claiming more than 30 lives each year and that more than 50 per cent. of the general public are unaware of this fact; congratulates Hugh and Margaret Brennan, who lost their daughter Anne aged just 19 in 1995 to this silent killer which cut short her life when she was only in the second year of her English degree at Durham University, for their campaigning to end this continuing tragedy; and calls upon the Government further to examine the laws on landlords' responsibility for carbon monoxide poisoning and to renew efforts to warn the general public about such dangers.]

The early-day motion endorses a call of two of my constituents, Hugh and Margaret Brennan, who tragically lost their daughter Anne to carbon monoxide poisoning 11 years ago. They welcome many improvements that have been made, but call for a wider public awareness campaign to try to stop the needless deaths of 30 people a year in Britain due to carbon monoxide poisoning. Will the Leader of the House join me and them in endorsing the call for people to be made aware of the silent killer that is out there?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising something that is important because sadly people still lose their lives in such circumstances. He rightly acknowledged that significant improvements to safety measures to prevent such terrible tragedies have been made over the years, but I recognise that more must be done. I assure him that I will draw that to the attention of the Secretary of State.

Will the Leader of the House confirm that following the energy review, a Bill will be brought before Parliament so that all hon. Members can discuss and vote on the conclusions of the review?

The review is important. I am sure that hon. Members will want to discuss it and they will have the opportunity to do so in due course. As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises, a review is not the same as a specific proposal for taking immediate action. I am confident that there will be a number of options and that the Government will have to consider the best way forward on several matters. I look forward to his contribution to the debate.

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to an early-day motion that I am about to put down on the news today that the Department for Work and Pensions is to withdraw a £1 billion contract for the Post Office card account? Many hon. Members raised concerns on the Floor of the House during the reinvention programme for sub-post offices. The change is coming too soon on the back of the previous changes to the sub-post office network. The Department for Work and Pensions says that only one in four people uses the accounts, but I would say that as many as one in four uses them, and the number will be significantly higher in the poorest communities. The issue belongs on the Floor of the House, so I hope that the Leader of the House will take note of my early-day motion when I table it.

As I have indicated to the House before, I am always impressed by my range of responsibilities. I now discover that I am responsible for early-day motions that are still to be tabled. My hon. Friend raised this important issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry earlier at Question Time and I shall certainly ensure that it is also drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

May we have a debate on sentencing in child sex abuse cases? Phoenix Survivors, a national support group based in North Essex that has been set up for and by the victims of child sex abuse, has drawn my attention to the sentences handed down in the so-called baby rape case last week of two and a half years and six years, compared with a mandatory life sentence. It is left to the Attorney-General to appeal to the High Court so that more realistic sentences can be applied. I do not blame the judges, but the situation suggests that the law is somehow deficient, so we should discuss the matter.

This issue was quite properly raised last week. As I indicated, the Government have been concerned over many years to ensure that appropriate sentences are passed, not least sentences that reflect the concern of a community when a sentence is perceived to be too lenient. As the hon. Gentleman indicated, we have taken action to provide powers to allow appropriate appeals against sentences that are too lenient and to ensure that appropriate standards are set for the guidance of our judges on the way in which sentences are imposed. The hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to the issue and I assure him that the Government take these matters very seriously.

May I take this opportunity to introduce my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 1417, which has been tabled in my name?

[That this House acknowledges the role played by the Bevin Boys, who served this nation during the period 1943 to 1948; notes that many paid the ultimate price in their endeavour to rid Europe of Nazi tyrants; and calls upon the Government officially to recognise by the way of an award similar to that available to the military veterans the importance of the Bevin Boys to victory in the Second World War.]

The Bevin boys were 48,000 conscripted miners who served this country well with their toil, sweat and lives between 1943 and 1948. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices and speak to relevant members of the Cabinet to investigate the possibility of officially recognising the service that those people provided to this country during the war years and properly and relevantly commending their efforts?

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. My distinguished predecessor, Frank Haynes, was a Bevin boy. He came from London to Ashfield as a miner and served that community extraordinarily well, both in the war years and, of course, as a long-standing Member of the House. The issue is not something that I need reminding about, and I share my hon. Friend's ambition of finding an appropriate way of recognising the Bevin boys' contribution.

May we have a debate on early-day motion 1339, which was tabled in my name and has the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House?

[That this House is concerned that the Home Office has paid £12.5 million in compensation to GSL Ltd because the accommodation centre for asylum seekers at Bicester did not go ahead; is concerned given that GSL was not obliged to purchase land and did nothing whatsoever on the site, that compensation was paid and by the amount of taxpayers' money thrown away on this project, this £12.5 million being in addition to the £18 million the Government has already admitted has been spent on this project; and calls on the National Audit Office to carry out a full investigation.]

We need a debate on Government procurement and on how the Government actually contract. The Government have wasted £25 million on the accommodation centre in Oxfordshire at a time when the NHS in Oxfordshire has a deficit of £15 million. The Leader of the House will realise that local people, whether taxpayers or users of services, are understandably aggrieved about the situation.

I certainly understand those people's concern because it is vital that Government procurement is efficient and effective. Again, the Government have taken significant steps to ensure not only that the process of procurement in individual Departments is efficient and effective, but that there is a joined-up approach across Government. Different Government Departments often procure identical items, so it certainly makes sense to do that collectively. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the efforts that the Government are making to ensure that health authorities that are suffering deficits are given the right assistance so that they can emulate the example of more successful authorities that are in surplus.

Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on the special steel industry, especially in the light of the decision by Outokumpu, a major firm in my constituency, to declare 800 redundancies and to close the coal division due to competition with China? I would then have the opportunity to seek an assurance that officials from the Department of Trade and Industry and from Yorkshire Forward will work with the remaining parts of the special steel industry to try to get them to work more co-operatively so that they can better resist competition from China and other countries.

My hon. Friend raises a matter that is important to his constituency and his constituents and has wider implications for special steel production and for the country as a whole. I take note of his observations and am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will take them very seriously indeed.

Yesterday saw the publication of a report by a senior aviation expert that lists between 40 and 50 alleged intelligence flights that landed at Scottish airports, including one dubbed the Guantanamo bay express and another that has been the subject of a diplomatic enquiry by Norway and debate in the Canadian Parliament. I know that the Government are keen to avoid getting drawn on detail, but may we have a debate on those details because it will otherwise be hard to conclude that the Government do not have something to hide?

The Government do not have anything to hide. It has been the practice of Governments over time not to comment on such issues, and I am not going to change that practice. It would not be appropriate to comment. If the hon. Gentleman gave half a second's thought to the matter, I am sure he would recognise that it would not be appropriate to have that kind of debate.

Will my right hon. Friend make time available to discuss Britishness and multiculturalism? A great debate is going on outside the House, but we have never discussed the subject on the Floor of the House. It is important and we should debate it, but in all the years that I have been in the House the subject has not been raised here.

My hon. Friend makes an extremely valuable suggestion. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has set out some interesting and, I think, well received views on how we should more effectively celebrate Britishness. I would want that to include the tremendous contribution made to ethnic diversity in this country by those who have come from, or at least whose antecedents have come from, other countries. That has added to the richness of our nation's heritage.

In March 2005, the Education Minister in Northern Ireland was to announce a school building programme for Northern Ireland, but the election intervened. Since then, no new school building programme has been announced and our schools are crumbling. Can we have time for an urgent debate on a matter of relevance to our children?

The hon. Gentleman may be factually correct about the position as far as schools are concerned, but he will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has announced a significant programme of funding for improvements in the public services in Northern Ireland. I am confident that in due course that will deliver the results that he and members of the Government desire.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that we have a debate on the future of the joint strike fighter and, in particular, the STOVL version of it? If that is not going ahead, it raises not only a question mark over the future of that aircraft, but a bigger question mark over the carriers and the sheer size of them that will be required for other variants that may have to operate.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Scarcely did Defence questions go by without him raising an aspect of aviation, and he has given me the opportunity to remind myself of those important subjects. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, it is crucial that the STOVL variant of the joint strike fighter goes ahead. I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has that at the centre of his attention.

I am grateful for this opportunity to make a further statement on arrangements for vetting those working with children and barring those who are unsuitable. In addition, I am placing in the Library copies of the review of List 99 that I announced last week, which gives further background on this statement. Given the seriousness of the issues, the statement is, as I have discussed with you, Mr. Speaker, longer than usual.

Nothing matters to parents more than the safety of their children, so I deeply regret the worry and concern that has been caused to parents over the past few days. I am determined to do everything that I can to ease their concerns. This is a complex area. There are no easy answers. Child protection has been a top priority of successive Governments. Ministers in this and previous Administrations have made difficult decisions, particularly in maintaining the safety of children while protecting those working in schools from malicious allegations.

The operation of the list is set out in legislation going back to 1926, but attitudes have changed significantly in recent decades. That has led to a greater concentration on the terrible effects of child abuse. Consequently, law and practice has been continually tightened. I pay tribute to the Conservative party for paving the way for the sex offenders register and for beginning the process of automatically barring teachers convicted of sex offences.

This Government have gone further still. From 2000, those included on List 99 on the grounds of unsuitability to work with children have received a full bar. All sex offenders, if deemed unsuitable to work with children, are placed on List 99 and banned from schools indefinitely. In 2003, we passed the most comprehensive overhaul of sex offences legislation since the 1950s. We introduced the Criminal Records Bureau in 2002 to ensure that all schools have full access to the convictions and cautions of the school work force. Sir Michael Bichard's report following the events in Soham made 31 further recommendations, 13 of which are already in place, with the remainder being implemented, but there is more to be done.

Our vetting and barring system, which is a shared responsibility between Government, local agencies and employers, has developed piecemeal over the past 80 years. In addition—rightly—the public mood on the issues has hardened. It is time, therefore, to overhaul the system. We need a system in which child protection comes first, above all other considerations. It must be a rigorous system, drawing on the best expert advice. There must be absolute clarity about who does what. The system must command public confidence and it must be accountable. It must also be fair to individuals, giving rights of appeal. There must be no witch hunts against hard-working teachers and there must be protection against false or malicious allegations. Today, I am setting out how we will achieve that.

Public concern has focused on the operation of List 99. I understand that concern, but ensuring that List 99 works properly is only one key part of the current vetting system. The most important check against a school unknowingly employing someone with a sex offence is the check that employers do through the Criminal Records Bureau. Those checks show the full record of potential employees, including convictions and cautions, and whether the applicant is on List 99 or other centrally held databases. Criminal records checks allow schools and others to make informed decisions about whether to appoint. List 99 provides a further check, including in the most serious cases—for someone who is on the list because they are unsuitable to work with children, it is a criminal offence for them even to apply to work in a school.

List 99 contains 4,045 names. The vast majority are barred indefinitely from working in schools. A much smaller subset—210—are subject to restrictions short of a full ban. List 99 goes wider than just sexual offenders and covers those convicted of crimes, such as deception, as well as those who are unsuitable on health grounds. But because List 99 has only ever automatically covered those individuals who are already working in the education sector when they commit the offence, the Criminal Records Bureau, which covers everyone, is the main safety net.

For convictions for 40 of the most serious offences, inclusion on the list is automatic. For other cases, the decisions have been at Ministers' discretion, and the vast majority have always been taken by officials on Ministers' behalf. In those cases, advice may be sought from a wide variety of relevant sources before a decision is taken—for example, from the police, experts in sexual offences, forensic psychiatrists and others.

In 2005, 2,554 cases were referred to the Department, of which 513 resulted in a full bar. In many cases in which an individual is not barred, the evidence considered will have been based on suspicions and allegations rather than firm criminal cautions or convictions, or the individuals referred to the Department will not have previously worked in the education sector.

A preliminary comparison of these numbers with historic data from 1985 and 1995 suggests that the number of decisions reached each year has increased substantially, yet in all three years both Ministers and officials have made a wide variety of decisions on individuals with convictions or cautions or who are subject to allegations that have been referred for a wide variety of reasons, including sexual offences. As I said, these issues are complex, and always have been. Successive Ministers have been required to make the most difficult decisions.

Understandably, recent concerns have focused on discretionary decisions by Ministers not to include an individual on List 99, despite that individual being on the sex offenders register. The review that I set in place has identified 10 cases since 1997. In each case, the recommendations after expert evidence were that those individuals posed no threat to children. As a result, those individuals were issued with a grave warning with the requirement for disclosure if they applied for a job in a school. I can, however, tell the House that officials and the police have examined each case. Current inquiries suggest that none of the individuals concerned is working in a school. I have asked police to visit each of those individuals to check whether there is any cause for concern. None is judged by the police to pose a current risk.

Over the past 10 days, however, I have been determined to go further to provide a more complete analysis. I have asked officials to look at similar decisions made by officials, and decisions by Ministers and officials on cases since 1997 where the relevant offence was committed prior to the introduction of the sex offenders register. That has identified a further 46 cases. As many of those cases deal with very old offences, and are not monitored under sex offender monitoring arrangements, our information on them is much more limited. Officials and, where relevant, the police, have found the following. For 32 of the 46, there is no evidence that the individuals are working with children. In one case, an individual is working in education, but has been assessed by the police as of no cause for concern. In 13 cases, preliminary checks have shown no reason for concern, but our information is as yet not complete. In two of those cases, inconsistent data need to be reconciled. Further action on all 13 cases will be considered in conjunction with the police on a case-by-case basis.

I am sure that the House will want me to thank the police for their work in following up individuals as part of this exercise. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] In addition, the police have carried out an initial review to see whether there were any further individuals being monitored on the sex offenders register who might be eligible for List 99. Initial investigations suggest that there may be 32 such cases in England and Wales. As a precaution, the police have assessed all those cases. In one case, investigations are continuing. I fully accept that this review of individual cases has identified wider issues about how the vetting system currently operates. Building on Sir Michael Bichard's inquiry, I have identified three key issues that we now need to address including, first, the lack of coherence between List 99 and the other lists held nationally. That is made worse by problems in sharing information and by the fact that, historically, cautions have been treated differently from convictions, despite both being a legal statement of guilt.

Secondly, there is a lack of clarity about who is responsible for doing what, locally and nationally and, thirdly, we need to address ministerial involvement in decisions. I have concluded that further reform is necessary. Some of it can be done immediately, and some through the primary legislation that we have already planned. Over the past 10 days, I have considered whether it would be possible more closely to align the sex offenders register and List 99. I have decided that we need to go further than that. After extensive consideration, I have decided the most effective approach is to bar from working with children all those who are now convicted or cautioned for any sexual offence against a child, whether the individual is on the sex offenders register or not. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] First, therefore, I will shortly introduce regulations automatically to enter on List 99 anyone who is convicted or cautioned for a sexual offence against a child. I will also automatically bar individuals for a range of other serious sexual offences against adults. By including cautions as well as convictions the anomaly between offenders who are convicted and those who admit their guilt and accept a caution will end. Individuals will have the right to make representations, but they will need to prove that they are not a threat to children before they can work in a school or other educational establishment. I shall consult widely on the detailed implementation of that measure.

Secondly, I will require mandatory Criminal Records Bureau checks for all newly appointed school employees, thus replacing the current strong guidance. That will also require that teaching agencies ensure that their teachers have a Criminal Record Bureau check. That should ensure that all employers make judgments about appointments in full knowledge of the facts, whether or not a potential employee has previously worked in the education sector. Thirdly, Ofsted will carry out an urgent survey of existing vetting practice in a sample of schools, and it will report to me in the spring. Fourthly, I will write today to all schools, setting out how the checking system will work and informing them of the change to mandatory CRB checks. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will write today to all chief constables, chief probation officers and the Youth Justice Board to restate how the current system works, how it is changing and the priority attached to this area.

Fifthly, I will ensure that all Department for Education and Skills staff who are part of the vetting process receive appropriate training, support and advice in child protection issues. Finally, in advance of legislating to remove Ministers from the process entirely, I will establish a panel of independent experts chaired by Sir Roger Singleton, the former head of Barnado's, to oversee the whole List 99 process. His role will be to ensure the quality of the process and advise me on any further List 99 cases that need to be decided. The panel will draw on expertise from the police and child protection specialists. While I will not fetter my discretion on individual cases, I cannot at present envisage the circumstances in which I would not follow its expert advice.

The expert panel will also review cases determined before 1997. It will examine cases that, had the sex offenders register existed, would have resulted in the individual's inclusion on the register, and all cases involving a sexual offence or allegation that resulted in a decision not to include an individual on List 99 or in a restriction or partial bar. The aim of the review will be to establish whether any individual poses a risk of harm to children and if any action should be taken. The permanent secretary at the Department for Education and Skills will ensure that the relevant former Minister is consulted in any such case. Those reforms will make the current List 99 system work better immediately, but the whole Government are determined to replace List 99 entirely with a new, better system as quickly as possible. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said in his statement today, "good progress" is being made in implementing the recommendations of the Bichard inquiry. The necessary legislation that was promised in the Queen's speech will be introduced in February. In particular, that legislation will bring together List 99 and the Protection of Children Act list in a single register of those barred from working with children. I will also use that legislation to make further reforms.

I will legislate to give independent experts the final decision on who should be barred. This will have the effect of removing from Ministers the responsibility for taking barring decisions. Decision making will be transferred to a statutory body that will be the holder of the new combined register and will take all decisions about who should be barred. Individuals will retain the right of appeal. While I will consult about the exact role of the body, I will ensure that police advice will inform every decision.

Over the years procedures have been strengthened. It is time, however, to strengthen them further. Nobody who is convicted or cautioned for child sex offences should be allowed to teach in schools. We need an independent panel to take decisions. And we must do all this with proper safeguards to ensure that no teacher, subject to claims or allegations that may be strongly contested, should be unfairly condemned. Our task as a Government, my task as Secretary of State and the task of all of us as legislators is to get this framework right. That is what the reforms that I have announced today will do.

Parents and teachers will be relieved that at last the Secretary of State has made her statement today. After nearly a fortnight in which teachers and parents have become increasingly worried and confused about sex offenders at schools, at last we have some basic information, and we welcome that. We also welcome the right hon. Lady's regret at the uncertainty that we have seen over the past fortnight. We welcome her final statement that no one convicted or cautioned for child sex offences should be allowed to teach in schools. But it is a great pity that even after Soham, even after the Bichard report, it looks as if the Secretary of State and her predecessors were taking decisions that broke that principle. Does she now regret taking decisions that breached the principle that she enunciated today?

Why has it taken so long to get from the right hon. Lady elementary information about what has been going on in our schools? Ministers were personally deciding whether sex offenders should work in schools. She rightly stressed today the delicacy and the difficulty of those decisions. We understand that, but surely, then, the Department would have been keeping track of the sex offenders that it was releasing into our schools. Instead, for a fortnight the Department has been incapable of answering basic questions about those offenders.

Even if the Secretary of State did not decide on individual cases, surely it was her responsibility to make sure that they were properly monitored. Instead, parents have been shocked that Ministers have been so ignorant of decisions that they themselves have taken. As parents' concern has mounted, the Secretary of State has remained largely invisible and largely silent. It is this complete absence of reliable information or strong leadership from the Department over the past fortnight that has contributed to the lack of confidence that we see today. Does she accept how much damage the uncertainty and anxiety of the past fortnight has done to the confidence of parents and teachers in the regime that is supposed to maintain the integrity of people in our schools?

There are other key questions that I put to the Department 10 days ago. Although the Secretary of State has given us much useful information today, she has not answered all the questions. For example, why is it still possible to work in a school without even completing a basic criminal records check? Why did a previous Secretary of State specifically recommend schools to continue recruiting people before those checks had been completed? Were head teachers and governing bodies informed if Ministers did decide that a sex offender should be permitted to work in their school?

Why did the Secretary of State tell the House last week that offenders were "automatically" put on List 99, which "bars them for life" from teaching, when we now know that that has not been the case? Indeed, in her statement today she said: "From the year 2000 those included on List 99 on the grounds of unsuitability to work with children have received a full bar." How can we reconcile that statement with the apparent evidence that in 2001 a previous Secretary of State did place someone on List 99 without a full bar on their working with children in schools? Did the Secretary of State receive advice last year that the system was not working properly? What steps did she take in the light of that advice?

The Secretary of State set out a range of proposals today. We welcome the independent review that she announced. We called for precisely such a review last week by an independent person so as once more to restore confidence in the system. The right hon. Lady says that she will finally implement the Bichard report, but may I take her back six years to the Protection of Children Act 1999? The purpose of that Act was to achieve

"a 'one-stop shop' to compel or allow employers to access a single point for checking the names of people they propose to employ in a post involving the care of children."

That was the purpose of legislation passed by the House six years ago. We want to know not just why the Secretary of State and her predecessors have failed to implement a proposal in a report 18 months ago, but why they have failed to implement legislation passed by the House six years ago.

We will, of course, work with the Government and aim to implement constructively the legislation that the Secretary of State proposes—legislation that Ministers described as urgent 18 months ago. Of course we will work with them on that. Our priority will be to restore the confidence of parents and teachers, after a fortnight during which their confidence in the Secretary of State and the system that she administers has ebbed away.I believe that she is an honourable person, but it must be for her and her conscience whether she is capable of regaining the confidence of parents and teachers who have suffered such anxiety, concern and uncertainty over the past 10 days.

I had hoped to welcome the constructive way in which the Opposition had decided to deal with these issues. I of course welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who speaks for the Opposition on these matters, is prepared to work with us in taking forward the Bichard legislation. I wish he had said that 10 days ago, but at last, having reflected on these issues, he has decided that it is right to take forward the proposals that were set out in the Queen's Speech and which we have decided to bring forward in February.

I have been at pains to give credit to the Opposition for the work that they did on child protection, including paving the way for the sex offenders register to be introduced in 1997. Not only have I provided the figures which the hon. Gentleman asked for—I have gone further. I have looked not just at the cases determined by Ministers and decisions made not to bar individuals who were on the sex offenders register, but I have also considered decisions made by officials not to bar in respect of people who were on the sex offenders register, and I have gone further than that. I have looked at all the decisions where the cautions and convictions were made before the introduction of the sex offenders register in 1997, and examined all those cases as well, because I think it is important to put the fullest possible information into the public domain, so that we can restore confidence in the system and reassure parents about the robustness of our vetting arrangements.

Ten days is not a long time in which to carry out such a comprehensive review of thousands of files. Each case has been considered, and each individual has been assessed by the police, with visits to ascertain whether such individuals are currently working with children or pose a risk to children. I have told this House that none of those 10 cases is currently working in a school and that the police have no cause for concern about them in relation to children. The public expect the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to provide public confidence in the system and to conduct the review properly and robustly and in a calm and rational way.

Over the past 10 days, I have carried out a root and branch review of our child protection processes to make sure that we can make some changes immediately to tighten up the system—for example, introducing an independent panel to review the entire process, to consider all future individual cases and to make recommendations on how to incorporate more fully the advice of the police and the child protection agencies into that process. The panel will also review every single case in which Ministers, who followed the legal framework at the time and who worked under the best expert advice, in this Administration or previous Administrations made decisions to see whether any new information has come to light to warrant revisiting those decisions. Again, I think that the public expect me to do that before reporting to this House.

I have considered how we can broaden the range of offences that lead to someone being barred from working in schools. I have explained to this House how we will be able to lay regulations to extend the range of offences that will automatically bar an individual from working in a school, subject, of course, to the appeal process.

To meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Havant about the Criminal Records Bureau, I have explained how we will review our current strong guidance to schools to undertake CRB checks and replace it with a mandatory system, so that all employers who work with children—in particular, the schools work force—will have a responsibility in law to conduct a CRB check, which will reveal not only the cautions and convictions of people who have previously worked in the education sector, but the cautions and convictions of those who have not previously worked in the education sector.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Bichard review and the length of time that it has taken to implement the report. Sir Michael Bichard himself, who thoroughly reviewed the process, said just a few days ago how impressed he is with the Department's work to date in implementing the reforms that he has set out, and we have now committed to a date for their introduction.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the parliamentary questions and other questions that he tabled in the past 10 days. I intend to answer all those questions today, and I have supplemented my oral statement with a full report and review of List 99, which is available to all hon. Members.

The hon. Gentleman asked how a decision to make a partial bar could have been made in 2001, but he should examine the legal framework more closely. If a caution or conviction was committed before the introduction of the regulations, it cannot be considered under the new legal framework, but all cautions and convictions considered after that date include the imposition of a full bar. Again, the report attached to my statement covers that issue.

The hon. Gentleman has called for an independent review. We have conducted a review in the fastest possible time, providing full public confidence to all employers and parents in particular that child protection is our first priority, and I hope that public confidence can now be restored.

May I thank the Minister for her statement and pay tribute to her work and that of her officials and the police in the past 10 days to conclude this vital review? Despite the comments from some Conservative Members, the Secretary of State has gone a long way today towards ensuring the outcome that everybody wants—the restoration of parents' confidence in the child protection system. However, I hope that she acknowledges that it will take more than one statement to complete that process, and we are prepared to work with her to do just that.

I particularly welcome the proposal to introduce a single list for people working with children, which will end confusion for employers and the dangers, inconsistencies and loopholes caused by the multitude of lists. I also welcome the removal from Ministers of the responsibility of conducting individual case reviews and the new guidance to schools on appointment procedures and mandatory CRB checks.

Will the Secretary of State explain why the latest guidance issued by her Department in June last year did not require schools to receive an enhanced CRB disclosure before appointing a teacher, as set out in previous guidance? What can she say to reassure parents and schools that the CRB can perform the increased number of mandatory checks quickly?

I support the proposal to appoint a panel of experts to review individual cases. Can the Secretary of State confirm that its criteria and guidelines will be published? Can she confirm that her plans will ensure that certain categories of work with children that are currently exempt from CRB checks will now all be covered? Why were child carers minding children over eight years old ever exempt from CRB checks? Can she confirm that all schools—state schools, independent schools, community schools and city academies—will be subject to the same vetting requirements?

Will the Secretary of State accept that parts of the package that she has introduced today urgently require more work? Does she share my concern that some agencies supplying staff to schools appear to be particularly poor at checking references and records, and if so, what is she doing about it? When people from overseas apply to teach in our schools, is she convinced that her plans provide for sufficient checks? Will guidance for police on issuing cautions be changed in light of today's announcement?

Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that in this vital drive to protect children, we will also remember to protect teachers when false allegations are made? Will she ensure that new guidance and training remind schools of the need for safeguards for teachers who may have been wrongly accused? Will she legislate to stop teachers being named before they are charged with offences?

Will the Secretary of State accept that the situation has arisen largely because of delays in implementing the recommendations of the Bichard inquiry? How many of the 18 Bichard recommendations that remain unimplemented are her responsibility, and why have they not been implemented? How many of the unimplemented Bichard recommendations are the responsibility of the Home Office? Given the Home Office delays with computer projects for Bichard, will she reassure the House on the time scale for the IT projects that lie behind today's proposal? When will those IT projects be implemented and what safeguards exist for the interim?

It is in the interests of children, teachers, schools and the wider public that confidence is restored rapidly and the hysteria is ended. The Secretary of State has made a real start today—if she delivers on her promises and answers our reasonable questions, Liberal Democrats will work with her to complete the task.

I welcome the way in which the hon. Gentleman has treated these serious issues. It is important that we restore confidence in the system and take sensible, immediate, practical action to make it more robust. We will tighten up our vetting procedures through legislation and introduce a positive vetting procedure, which will reassure parents and employers, too. He has welcomed a number of our measures, and I thank him for his support.

The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned the categories covered by the new mandatory CRB checks. We are in the process of reviewing that, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children and Families will have more to say shortly.

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we need to tackle the issue of supply agencies, which I mentioned in my statement. CRB checks will be made mandatory for supply agencies.

The hon. Gentleman is right to mention overseas teachers and workers in schools; we will review the process for vetting them.

The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that cautions and convictions are currently treated in different ways. We will in future bring those together for certain specified offences against children. The police may need to rethink how cautions are issued in light of that, although the most important point is that there is a quick appeals system with a right of representation for the individual.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest, however, that there has been a delay in implementing Sir Michael Bichard's report. The Department has been working on this with considerable vigour and urgency over the past 18 months. Sir Michael Bichard himself reviewed the implementation timetable and endorsed it. Moreover, he recently said that he was "very impressed" with the work undertaken by officials. Nobody in the wider public who realises that four different computer systems need to be replaced with one computer system that continually updates records will think that 18 months is an excessive length of time to pave the way for that legislation. It is of course important that we keep child protection right at the top of our list of priorities, and that is my commitment to the House.

May I criticise my right hon. Friend in one respect? Some of us with a bit of interest in history will be quite sad to see a piece of legislation that has lasted 79 years at last being dragged out of the cupboard, shaken up and renewed, although only a slight amount of nostalgia is involved. No other Government have done that.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend, who, in all the frenzy over the past two weeks, has kept a clear, cool head, has not listened to the trumped-up charges from the Opposition, and has come through, after hard work, with proposals that have taken the game away from them. Does she agree that one educational lesson to come out of the past 10 days is: "You might have two enormous brains but you do not have much common sense"?

I thank my hon. Friend for his support. I can assure him that I take my responsibility as Secretary of State very seriously indeed. The Education Secretary is responsible for ensuring that the systems and processes that employers use to check the suitability of a candidate for working with children are as robust as possible. I have explained how we intend to tighten the system further, while accepting that it has been tightened progressively over decades, particularly in the past eight years or so. The legislation that we are implementing to introduce the Bichard proposals will bring in a completely new vetting and barring system and give the public yet another tool to assess the suitability of those applying to work with children.

Is the Secretary of State aware that although anybody who has worked with List 99 will welcome improvements to it, she will not regain parents' confidence until she can explain the delay more fully? What part of her proposals or her review could not have been announced immediately after the Bichard report 18 months ago?

Clearly, I had a responsibility as Secretary of State to carry out the review thoroughly. That meant that I had to be precise about the numbers that I presented to the House. I had to put them into context and make sure that I was not inadvertently misleading the House by not looking at similar cases where there may be cause for concern. In addition, I have asked the police to review each case individually and to visit the people involved. I do not think that 10 days is such a long time to go through that process.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the clarity and completeness of the review that she has carried out, which was reflected in her statement. Does she accept that most fair-minded people will be reassured that she now has a clear grasp of the scope of the problem and a clear strategy for dealing with it?

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He always approaches these issues in the most sensible way. The key issue is that we have a robust system for child protection in which parents can have confidence. I have set out the steps that we need to take in the short term and the medium term to ensure that that is the case.

Sadly, we would not be here to listen to the Secretary of State's welcome statement had there not been the press coverage relating to my constituent, Mr. Paul Reeve. Can she explain to me and my constituents why a letter from the Norfolk constabulary dated 15 December, explaining their concern, never got a proper reply; why there was no proper reply to an email from Norfolk county council on 21 December; and why it was only when that case hit the press that we got any action?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that correspondence was taken very seriously. I had asked for advice on the issue and advice was being prepared for a decision when the story broke. In each and every case that emerges, issues are raised about how the system operates. In future, cases such as the one that emerged would automatically be placed on List 99.

I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the thoroughness of the review. I also welcome the huge amount of work that the Government have already done on these issues, including keeping up with the ever-changing technology to do with the exchange of child pornographic images, each of which represents abuse of a child for profit in front of a camera. Can she again confirm that in future those cautioned for, or convicted of, downloading pornographic images will be automatically barred?

On appeals, will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that they will be dealt with by people who are expert in offences of this nature? Can she confirm that there will be no suggestion of relying on testimonials from colleagues and other parents? As I know from the case of a GP in a surgery in my constituency, it is all too easy for the devious people involved in these offences to go into denial and convince their colleagues. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that testimonials will not be used—

Order. The question is far too long.

I can give my hon. Friend those assurances. In future, offences committed under schedule 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 will receive a full bar, subject to the right of representation. Cautions and convictions will be brought into line, and appeals will be based on the best possible evidence.

Can the Secretary of State clarify the situation regarding William Gibson and explain how he could be thrown out of three schools in the north of England only to end up in Portchester school in my constituency? This man has spent time in jail, has committed forgery, fraud, deception and indecent assault, and is not the suitable role model that we expect to find in our schools. As a married man in his 30s with two children, he pursued a relationship with a 15-year-old girl while teaching at that school. For the sake of parents and pupils and for the sake of restoring faith in our system, it would be a disgrace if this man were ever to teach again.

Were that caution or conviction to be obtained under the proposals that I have set out today and dealt with under the new regulations that I propose to introduce, that individual would be barred for life from working with children, subject to the right of representation. In any particular case, however, it is for the employer to check with the Criminal Records Bureau and ensure that they have the fullest possible knowledge of all previous cautions and convictions, including whether a person is on List 99, or indeed on other lists, and to make an informed decision on that basis.

Has my right hon. Friend considered the additional pressure that the measures will put on the CRB? Has she received an assurance from the CRB that it has adequate resources? If it does not, will she ensure that they are put in place? A great deal of concern will remain until her measures are firmly in place.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Both the CRB and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have considered the matter and given me the full assurance that the CRB has the capacity to deal with the measures.

I thank the Secretary of State for a master-class in bolting the stable door. As a mother, I am angry to find that, since 1997, my three children have been at risk—[Interruption.]

Order. Let the hon. Lady be heard.

What assurances can the Secretary of State give me that my children are safe in school today?

No Education Secretary in this Government or any previous Administration could ever give an absolute guarantee that no one who poses a risk to children could work with children. However, we can give the public an absolute assurance that the process is as robust as possible to ensure that the risk to children is minimised.

The hon. Lady suggests that there was a key moment in 1997. There was: we introduced the sex offenders register, which provided another safeguard for individuals and employers. Further to that, we introduced the CRB, which means that all employers have access to all relevant cautions and convictions. The process has therefore been tightened considerably in the past eight years.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially her comment that there should be no witch hunt. As a former teacher, I have had colleagues whose careers, reputations and family life were damaged. Is it not the case that we need a balance between protection for children and confidence for our teachers?

We do, and my hon. Friend makes the important point that we must have a fair as well as robust system. Today, I have set out the way in which I intend to rebalance the system so that the protection of children is always our first priority.

I welcome the steps that the Secretary of State has announced. Will she confirm that the reforms will be implemented throughout the United Kingdom—in Northern Ireland at the same time as the rest of the UK? Will she also confirm that, when primary legislation is necessary, Northern Ireland will be plugged into it rather than having to rely on separate legislation thus dragging months, if not years, behind?

List 99 currently covers England and Wales although, of course, we are in contact with the devolved Administrations when appropriate about how to take forward the reforms.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of proposals for further action. However, it is possible that loopholes exist whereby people who are elected as councillors could be on the sex offenders register and could not be barred from access to schools. Will she hold talks with the Standards Board for England, the Home Office and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to ascertain how we ensure that her further action can provide the safeguards that people seek?

My hon. Friend makes a serious and well considered point. I will investigate that issue.

Earlier, the Secretary of State admitted that she had not answered all the written questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) tabled 10 days ago and went on to say that she would do so later today. Does she not realise that many parents and teachers outside the House will wonder why she did not do that in the statement and will fear the worst? May I give her the opportunity to set the record straight and answer those questions now on the Floor of the House?

I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that I have placed a full report in the Library. It answers practically all the questions that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) put to me as Secretary of State. Any further answers that need to be given will be tabled during the course of the day.

Child protection always has, is and always will be work in progress because of its complexity and difficulty. I welcome the extent of the measures that my right hon. Friend announced. Will she undertake to make regular statements to the House, not only because hon. Members will appreciate the progress that will be made but because that will add to the wider public's confidence?

I certainly will. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary makes regular written statements on the implementation of the Bichard report and has issued a further such statement today. It is a good example, which I intend to follow.

Would the Secretary of State think it appropriate to ask directors of education authorities, including West Sussex, where we have a case that I will not mention in detail, and chief constables to communicate to the Department any helpful suggestions, and reactions to her statement and the current position?

Will she check with the CRB about delays in processing requests for information, given that one of her colleagues in the Department of Health said that they did not know how long it takes to clear doctors, and it would be useful to ensure that teachers' applications are cleared fairly fast? Will she ensure that teacher supply agencies are not left out of the loop because they often find themselves unable to provide necessary information?

As a final, brief point, will she try to ensure that relevant information is available to children who experience inappropriate or criminal behaviour by an adult—

Order. We are looking for only one supplementary from hon. Members.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I assure hon. Members that I have written to all local education authorities and that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has written to all chief constables as well as several other relevant organisations. We shall consult on the detailed implementation of the proposals. The CRB has given assurances about its capacity to deal with the issues, and I covered in my statement and in questions our consideration of supply agencies.

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the key issues is communication? How will today's statement affect current communication between the police, head teachers and social workers? How will the Government's "Every Child Matters" agenda impact on the issue?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to good communication and to a genuine understanding of the different responsibilities of central Government and local government and individual employers. I have therefore written today to all head teachers, local education authorities and further education colleges to set out their responsibilities. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has used a similar approach to the police.

Can the Secretary of State confirm the date on which the mandatory CRB checks will begin? Can she confirm that they will be enhanced checks? Why has she announced only now that training is necessary for those who make the vetting decisions? Surely training should have been in place for a long time.

Training was a recommendation in the Bichard review. We have already made proposals on it—if the hon. Gentleman looks at the Department's website, he will see that they are set out in some detail. Sir Michael Bichard was impressed by our approach to that. We will table regulations to make the CRB process mandatory and introduce it as soon as that is reasonably practicable for head teachers.

My right hon. Friend has given an outstandingly informative statement. Because information is so important to the reassurance of parents, would she consider disclosing a little more? She said earlier that, of the 4,045 individuals on List 99, a subset of 210 were subject not to a full ban but to certain restrictions. Without going into the details of individual cases, would it be useful and helpful if she could say, now or in the near future, exactly which offences would justify certain restrictions and what those restrictions would be?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the 210 cases that received a partial bar. Many of those will not have involved a sexual offence at all. If, for example, a teacher commits fraud, it may be considered that that person should not work in a capacity in which they had financial dealings in relation to a school or other educational institution. In such cases, it is perfectly reasonable to impose a partial ban.

However, in 2000, we introduced the concept of "unsuitable to work with children". Historic cases were considered on a piecemeal basis. For example, if an offence had been committed against a young boy, the offender could have been given a partial bar against working in boys' or mixed schools. Today, that would not be considered an appropriate response. That is why I have asked the independent panel of experts to review all past cases involving partial bars, to see whether new evidence has emerged about those individuals who had a partial bar based on a sexual offence, and to see whether we need to reconsider those cases.

How will the independent panel that the Secretary of State is setting up be accountable to the House?

It will be accountable via the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in the first instance, and after legislation has been put through the House, it will be incorporated into a statutory body that will be accountable through Ministers to the House.

With permission, I would like to make a statement on the regulation of cannabis. The House will know that last March I asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to examine new evidence on the harmfulness of cannabis and to evaluate whether it altered their assessment of the drug's classification. In so doing, I was particularly concerned by studies, published since the council's 2002 report, which seemed to indicate strong links between cannabis and serious mental illness. I am very grateful to the council for the work that it has done in responding to my request and I am today placing a copy of its report and conclusions in the Library of the House.

I shall highlight two conclusions from the council's report. The first is that cannabis is harmful and its use can lead to a wide range of physical and psychological harms and hazards; that the mental health effects of cannabis are real and significant; that cannabis is potentially harmful, with short-term risks to physical health; that a substantial research programme into the relationship between cannabis and mental health should be instituted; that the Government ought to seek to reduce the use of cannabis; and that the cultivation, supply and possession of cannabis should remain illegal.

The second conclusion is that the level of classification is only one among the issues to be addressed and that, in the council's view, priority needs to be given to proper enforcement of the law, to education and to campaigning against the use of cannabis. The council recommends a substantial Government education campaign, strengthened medical services for those dependent on cannabis and greater protection for those with pre-existing mental conditions that place them at particular risk from cannabis use. The council also proposes further research to improve our understanding of the mental health implications of cannabis use.

I have discussed those recommendations with my colleagues, the Secretaries of State for Education and Skills and for Health, and we have agreed to accept and implement them energetically. In so doing, we accept that the use of cannabis significantly increases the chances of developing chronic bronchitis and poses a potential lung cancer risk. We accept the growing body of research that suggests that cannabis may exacerbate or even trigger a range of serious mental health problems, including schizophrenia. In the words of the ACMD report,

"the mental health effects of cannabis are real and significant".

In summary, cannabis is anything but harmless. That is why possession of cannabis remains punishable by up to two years in prison. It is why the Government strongly oppose proposals to legalise the drug, and will continue to do so. This month, we have introduced new powers under the Drugs Act 2005 to strengthen the hand of the police in dealing with those caught supplying the drug.

However, as the advisory council's report indicates, the illegal status of the drug is not enough. We need a massive programme of public education to convey the danger of cannabis use. Our aim is to provide effective education in schools about the risks posed by cannabis, to send the right messages about the harms the drug does and, very importantly, to equip young people with the knowledge and courage to make the right decisions. We will use the "Frank" media campaign and other channels to raise understanding about the dangerous and illegal impact of cannabis consumption. The campaign, delivered in partnership with the police, will publicise the penalties for cannabis dealing, production and use.

Growing and selling cannabis is neither harmless nor, as some argue, idealistic. It is a multi-million pound business, often organised by sophisticated and violent criminals. I remind the House that those who deal in large quantities of cannabis face maximum penalties of up to 14 years for this offence. That is why I have discussed with the Association of Chief Police Officers the need to focus police effort and to take strong action to reduce the supply of cannabis. The police and I agree that, in recent years, the production and dealing of cannabis have not always been targeted sufficiently vigorously, and we have agreed that this needs to change. ACPO will now draw up a consolidated campaign of action to attack the production and trafficking of cannabis, which provide obscene profits out of the misery of users. ACPO will aim to put cannabis farms out of business and dealers behind bars. At the same time, it will revise and strengthen its guidelines for dealing with cannabis-related crime.

As hon. Members will be aware, the Home Office recently published a consultation exercise to look at the threshold levels of cannabis in a person's possession at which that person would be deemed to be a supplier. I would like to inform the House that my final decision will involve a considerably lower level than the 500g suggested in the current consultation.

I believe that those education, health and police measures give clear and comprehensive messages about the dangers of cannabis and a warning that those who produce or are dealers in cannabis will be brought to justice. They are focused on reducing the use of cannabis, and I believe that reduction of use should be the goal of all our drugs policies, whether the drug is legal or illegal. Also, it is the case that clarity is the best weapon we have in the fight to reduce the use of cannabis. That is the basis on which I approach the issue of classification.

The more that I have considered these matters, the more concerned I have become about the limitations of our current system. Decisions on classification often address different or conflicting purposes, and too often send strong but confusing signals to users and others about the harms and consequences of using a particular drug. Furthermore, there is often disagreement over the meaning of different classifications. For example, many people wrongly interpreted the reclassification of cannabis to mean that cannabis was not harmful and that its use was acceptable and even legal. For these reasons, I will in the next few weeks publish a consultation paper with suggestions for a review of the drug classification system, on the basis of which I will make proposals in due course.

In regard to the particular issues in front of us now, as previously announced I have accepted the advice to keep methyl amphetamine as a class B drug, although this is subject to a review reporting later this year. Similarly, I have accepted the council's advice not to classify khat as a controlled drug. I can today announce that I have also asked the advisory council to report on the classification of so called date rape drugs, including GHB and Rohypnol.

On cannabis, I have considered very carefully the advice that I have received from many sources. I am influenced by data on levels of use of the drug and evidence that cannabis use had fallen among 16 to 24-year-olds from 28 per cent. in 1998 to 24 per cent. last year. The preliminary assessment is that, contrary to my personal expectation, reclassification has not led to an increase in use. Moreover, I accept the view of the advisory council that further research on the mental health implications is needed before any decision to reclassify is made.

While I shall keep this matter under close review in the light of the factors that I have mentioned, I have decided to accept the advisory council's recommendation, which is supported by the police and by most drug and mental health charities, to keep the current classification of cannabis. Everyone needs to understand that cannabis is harmful and illegal. Our education and health campaigns will clearly transmit that message. Police operations will target the producers and dealers so that the consumption of cannabis will be significantly reduced. I hope that the Government will have the support of the whole House in seeking that outcome.

I thank the Home Secretary for the courtesy of allowing me advance notice of his statement. It would have been helpful, however, if he had given the House some hours to read the report before this brief discussion. Despite that, in the past year or so there have been plenty of authoritative judgments and many new facts on which to base our judgment today.

Before I deal with the substantive case, may I welcome the Home Secretary's proposed education and other campaigns designed to cut down the consumption of cannabis? I would be interested in talking to him at some length about his proposals for the new classification scheme, which is extremely important, as will become apparent later.

The action that the Home Secretary has taken today, or talked about taking, will not by itself be enough. I am disappointed that, in the light of all the new evidence available, he has not decided to grasp the nettle and reclassify cannabis back to class B. The ongoing confused message will lead some, as it has done already, to continue thinking that cannabis is a soft, safe drug and that it is legal. It will mean that many more young lives will be damaged by the pernicious trade, as he described it, in this dangerous drug.

It was a brave decision by the Home Secretary to initiate a review of this policy. It is always tough to admit that a mistake might have been made. In the past, his views on the matter have been clear. He said that the relaxation of the laws on cannabis—I think that he alluded to this in his statement—would be

"bad for the people concerned and bad for society".

He is correct. In March 2000, he said that

"the most likely impact of a relaxation in the law in any of these areas would be to increase consumption of those drugs".

He denies that today, but I think that he was right first time round. I will explain why shortly. He also said:

"If we send any signal whatsoever which suggests that taking drugs is an acceptable way of proceeding I think we'll see consumption go up"—[Interruption.]

We will return to that matter. He also said that weakening controls on cannabis would send a signal that taking drugs is okay.

The Home Secretary might say, "So what? If the evidence changes, you change your mind", and I agree with that principle in general. The thrust of the evidence and leading opinion, however, is in the other direction. It shows that reclassification to class C was a mistake. From the Royal College of Psychiatrists, to the British Medical Association, to specialists in drug rehabilitation, to working police officers, we hear that the policy was a failure.