If he will make a statement on the Government's progress with developing regulatory impact assessments. [105841]

The Cabinet Office has a continuous programme of work with Departments to improve the quality of regulatory impact assessments. We published revised guidance in January this year and officials are promoting it with a series of seminars and workshops in Departments. RIAs provide a more open system of assessing the risks, costs and benefits of new legislative proposals.

I acknowledge the usefulness of those assessments in quantifying the costs of regulation, but does the Minister accept the criticism of the Better Regulation Task Force that too many of them are of very poor quality, as with the regulation of care homes; some of them have simply disappeared, as with the regulation of animal movements; and most of them are inconsistent and lacking in independence? How does he propose to improve the situation?

The Better Regulation Task Force firmly supports the regulatory impact assessments as a tool to endeavour to help Government improve the quality of the legislation that is passed. That is why the BRTF has drawn to the attention of the National Audit Office in its annual report, "Champions of Better Regulation", a number of RIAs that it believes need to be of higher quality. That work continues and I believe will be a useful contribution to our better regulation endeavours.

Is not my hon. Friend disappointed that the regulatory reform procedure is still not used by as many Departments as it could be, to remove unnecessary burdens?

My hon. Friend raises an important point in terms of the scale of work that we are endeavouring to take forward to improve better regulation across Government. There is little better that I can do than to quote the recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report, which said:

"The United Kingdom is at the forefront of regulatory reform in the OECD. It has already made major improvements and has planned more".

I welcome any steps to try to improve the quality and depth of regulatory impact assessments, some of which, I think we all recognise, have been lamentably superficial, but would the hon. Gentleman consider the case for a system of routine post-implementation audit of regulatory impact assessments and the costs actually imposed on business by legislation, so that we can generate a feedback to the process of pre-legislative regulatory impact assessments that might over time improve their quality?

I do not understand that.

I have sympathy with the comments of my hon. Friend from a sedentary position.

We need to be careful not to create a structure that is too bureaucratic in order to reduce bureaucracy and regulation. However, the work that the National Audit Office is taking forward is important. I believe that it will strengthen the quality of the RIA procedures, and that is why I believe that the OECD is correct in recognising the strength of commitment of the British Government to this important area of policy.

What discussions he has had with owners of communication systems of strategic and economic importance about the protection of the systems' integrity; and if he will make a statement. [105842]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible for the national infrastructure security coordination centre. That centre is charged with protecting the critical national infrastructure against electronic attack. Of course, our major communications networks are a key part of that infrastructure.

My officials have a continual dialogue with a wide range of communication system owners across both the public and private sectors. In addition I met with Andrew Pinder the e-Envoy only last week.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the work carried out by the emergency planning college, Hawkhills, run by Dr. Rooke, near Easingwold in the Vale of York, and I hope that he will join me in paying tribute to the excellent work that it does. What regard has the college had to the damage that could be done to strategic communications systems in the event of a terrorist strike? Has it liased with the owners of such systems about how to pre-empt such a terrorist strike?

I can assure the hon. Lady that a range of work has been done with various telecommunications and electronic network providers. That work is obviously ongoing. The college to which she refers is in her constituency, and I certainly join her in paying tribute to the work that it undertakes. The college has a key role in developing and promulgating the new United Kingdom resilience doctrine, including those aspects that will flow from the new legislation and developing cross-organisational communities throughout the UK to deliver it.

Is the Minister confident that the national air traffic control system—which was so disastrously part-privatised by our own Government and which has continually come back with the begging bowl to No. 11 Downing street ever since—is robust enough to resist any attempt by terrorists to infiltrate its systems?

As I said at the outset, the Home Secretary has responsibility for co-ordinating the Government's approach to all those issues and, in that capacity, he chairs a number of Cabinet Sub-Committees, one of which includes the Department for Transport, which obviously addresses the issue that my hon. Friend raises, but I shall be happy to pass on his comments directly to the Secretary of State for Transport.

Does the Minister recognise the fact that there are weaknesses in the law governing malicious attacks on communication networks at present? Would he therefore welcome an updating of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 better to reflect the growth of the internet, so that he could fulfil his role in protecting Government information technology systems all the better?

I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest and expertise in such issues, and I am certainly not complacent about the risks of cyber terrorism. That is why I am confident that our major communications providers are taking appropriate precautions now, but that is an ongoing process of work and we clearly keep those matters under review.

If he will make a statement on progress with the diversity strategy in the civil service. [105843]

We are making steady progress in increasing the diversity of the civil service: 52 per cent. of staff in post in the civil service are women and 7.9 per cent. of staff are from a minority ethnic background, compared with 6.5 per cent. in the economically active population of the United Kingdom. At 3.6 per cent., the proportion of disabled staff in the service suggests that we are making slower progress in that regard, but we are taking steps to address that.

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I agree that steady progress is being made, but will he tell us about the one Department where no progress at all is being made? It has only half the number of women and only a quarter the number of ethnical minority people in senior posts. I refer, of course, to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Why is it exempt from the diversity agenda?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Clearly, the responsibility in Departments for such issues is led by a permanent secretary and Ministers, but principally by individual Departments, working under guidance from the Cabinet Office. Given the issue that he raises, I will ensure that there is communication between the Cabinet Office and the Foreign Office on the specific point that he makes.

Things are not so good in the Minister's own Department. Its own 2001–02 report shows that more than 100 staff were engaged in that year, but fewer than 9 per cent. of them were from ethnic minority backgrounds and there was only one disabled person. That is not very good, is it?

I am certainly not complacent about the work that we need to continue to do on the diversity agenda in the civil service. To take just one example involving ethnic minorities, the pathways initiative—a specific initiative for the senior civil service—will make a constructive contribution to that work.

What steps are being taken to publicise decisions on public appointments. [105844]

The Government are committed to ensuring greater access to information about public appointments. The new public appointments vacancies website, which was launched by the Cabinet Office last week, demonstrates that commitment and supports the Government's wider objectives on diversity, putting citizens first and extending the range of services online.

I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Does he agree that, if we can more widely publicise public appointments, people will have greater confidence in the system, which will also enhance the sterling role of people throughout the country who volunteer for public service?

I certainly endorse my hon. Friend's sentiments. We are keen to ensure that we publicise as widely as possible the range of opportunities that there are to make a contribution to public service through serving on a public body. It might be of particular interest to my hon. Friend to learn that the Scottish Parliament passed the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc. (Scotland) Act 2003 in the past few days. It received its Royal Assent on 11 March. That will mean that, in addition to the work that is being carried out by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments at a United Kingdom level, separate initiatives will be taken forward through the devolved legislature in Scotland that are relevant to his constituency.