On 23 November 2007, I represented the UK at the Budget Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN).

Finance Ministers agreed to adopt Preliminary Draft Amending Budget No. 7 to the 2007 EC Budget, amending the 2007 Budget to reflect latest implementation capacity and thus reducing the level of funding required from member states in 2007.

Finance Ministers agreed to adopt Amending Letter No. 2 to the Preliminary Draft Budget for 2008, which reflected the latest information on agricultural market prices and other developments.

During a conciliation meeting between Council and the European Parliament agreement was reached on the 2008 EC Budget and on the multi-annual financing for the Galileo project and the European Institute of Technology. The agreement establishes total payment levels of €120.3 billion (0.96 per cent. of EU GNI). The European Parliament is scheduled to vote on its own second reading on 13 December, after which the 2008 EC Budget will be formally adopted.

Four joint statements relating to the Budget were also agreed at Budget ECOFIN. These concerned: the financing of Galileo and the European Institute of Technology; Joint Undertakings; and the procedure to implement the budget agreement reached by the Council and European Parliament. The Government are supportive of these statements, which affirm the principle of fair and open competition and call for sound financial management and budget discipline in the areas they concern.

I have decided to appoint the new board members listed below.

Mark Lovell

Cllr Mark Kirk

All the new appointments will be for a period of three years.

The appointments will begin on 14 December 2007 and will expire on 13 December 2010.

I have placed further details of the appointments in the Libraries of both Houses. They were all made in accordance with the code of practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

Biographies

Councillor Mark Kirk: is the leader of North Lincolnshire Council. At a regional level Mark is the chair of the Yorkshire and Humber Assembly’s Regional Transport Board. In relation to the number sub-region he is a director of Urban Renaissance, director of Crosby Pathfinder, director of Humberside Airport and director of Humber Economic Partnership. At a local level he chairs the Local Ethnic Community Meetings; is a founder member of the Crosby Community Association; and was formerly vice chair of Lincolnshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust. No other ministerial appointments are held.

Mark Lovell: is the executive chairman of A4e Ltd and is a dynamic and successful entrepreneur/ business leader focused on high growth business in global public service markets. His company has grown from start-up to a £100 million turnover business over the last 15 years and has received a number of accolades.

The Prime Minister’s statement of 25 July 2007, Official Report, column 83WS, announced a machinery of Government change moving responsibility for defence trade promotion from the Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO) to UK Trade and Investment (UKTI). Today I am announcing the arrangements under which this transfer will take place.

This statement is made in close consultation with my colleagues the Secretary of State for Defence, and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

We fully recognise how important continued export success is to the health of this strategic sector of the economy. Defence equipment manufacture is highly important to the United Kingdom. The combination of expertise within both DESO and UKTI offers a major opportunity to enhance the way HM Government offer support to this successful industry. The ability to offer a complete package for prospective customer Governments, who often seek specialist assistance, will help the industry develop a compelling market proposition that positions the UK uniquely in the world.

The new organisation will build on the sector’s recent work which has produced a code setting out common standards of good business practice. We will work together to promote strong standards of business conduct and corporate governance in the sector.

The new organisation will be the UKTI Defence and Security Group. This is a working name. The group will be a UKTI business unit with expertise in defence services and products, operating under the UKTI brand and to UKTI strategic objectives. Ministerial responsibility will rest with the Minister of State for Trade and Investment. The group will be accountable to the UKTI board and its head will report to UKTI’s chief executive. Its head will be selected through open competition.

UKTI Defence and Security Group will have continued links to the MOD, in support of defence objectives. This will involve the active engagement of Defence Ministers, and the loan from the MOD to UKTI (via the Department of Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR)) of armed forces and relevant civilian personnel to the group. Certain other civilian personnel will transfer from the MOD to UKTI (via BERR), and staff employed locally at overseas missions will transfer from MOD employment to UKTI (via the Foreign and Commonwealth Office).

The current export licensing function within the Defence Export Services Organisation will be retained within the MOD and so be separate from export support activities. And within BERR the separation between BERR export licence functions and trade promotion in UKTI will continue.

In line with the Prime Minister’s statement, no changes are envisaged to existing and planned agreements between the MOD and other Governments.

An implementation plan is in place. As a machinery of government change, the guiding principle is that business planning assumptions, and staffing and resources, will be taken on at their current levels from DESO by UKTI. This transfer to UKTI will take place on 1 April 2008.

I represented the UK at the Energy Council in Brussels on 3 December.

The Council was dominated by exchanges on progress on the internal market. There was a positive outcome from a UK perspective, with growing support for ownership unbundling. The rest of the meeting was taken up by a policy debate on the Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan and information from the presidency and Commission on international relations.

On the SET plan, Ministers debated the recently adopted Commission communication and an associated presidency ‘vision statement’. The presidency said it was important the EU took a lead internationally to meet climate goals—the cost of inaction was greater than action. Investment in the development of energy technologies would be critical but there was no single solution—a wide range of technologies was needed. The Commission outlined the content of their communication. To meet our long-term climate objectives the EU had to be ambitious both on its own and in promoting greater international cooperation.

While welcoming the communication, member states demonstrated a wide range of views on the appropriate prescription, particularly when it came to identifying the most important technologies; energy efficiency was the most mentioned sector. There was general agreement on the need for more effective investment in R&D and the importance of the private sector. For the UK, I emphasised the need to translate the plan into early action; referring to the recent UK tender for demonstration of carbon capture and storage I underlined the importance of addressing policy and regulatory barriers to developing and demonstrating new energy technologies. The Commission emphasised the need to prioritise action.

Presenting the Third Internal Market Package, the Commission noted that while liberalisation had brought benefits, competitive markets were not yet complete. To meet the spring European Council mandate, real change was necessary to ensure non-discriminatory access, open and transparent markets, incentives to invest, and to improve the powers and independence of regulators. On the key issue of unbundling, the Commission noted that unbundled markets had experienced lower price rises (6 per cent. as against 29 per cent.) and higher investment. Though the Commission was open to considering alternatives, these had to involve structural separation that ensured the independence of the Transmission System Operator. The Commission called for swift progress in Council.

All member states welcomed the presidency progress report as fair and balanced. The presidency noted the broad consensus on regulators’ powers, objectives and independence as well as the need for greater co-operation, though not yet on the proposed agency model itself, and called on those member states wanting a third option on unbundling to present it soon.

For the UK, I supported the Commission’s analysis that full ownership unbundling was the best way to deliver the necessary network investment and benefits of a competitive market to EU consumers and business as UK experience demonstrated. I emphasised the importance of rapid progress, noting that any third option would have to meet the spring European Council mandate on effective separation of networks from supply/generation activities to ensure independent decisions on investment. I also recognised the special circumstances faced by small or isolated markets.

A large majority of member states supported the UK position in whole or in part. Several others supported the agency while others emphasised the importance of the third country clause.

Two member states in particular, supported by four others, rejected functional separation of networks and supply as a solution to the problem, seeing networks as a natural monopoly. They believed it caused problems for safety, investment, quality and prices, as well as weakening EU operators’ positions against third country companies. They would suggest an ambitious alternative solution next year. The Commission concluded by emphasising that the purpose was to promote the interests of EU consumers, not the energy industry.

On International Relations, the presidency reported on a variety of initiatives, focusing on Brazil and Africa in particular. Energy was now an important component of most EU external relations, for example with China, India and the EuroMed. The Commission agreed and noted the good progress made across the board. On Russia, they would investigate the impact of the third package on Russian companies and they would soon propose modalities for the accession of Moldova, Ukraine, Norway and Turkey to the Energy Community Treaty. The proposed Energy Efficiency Platform, in lieu of an international agreement, was also important; the Commission was looking at ways of supporting its development.

Two member states raised their interest in pipeline developments. The Commission’s co-ordinator for the Nabucco pipeline reported on this project.

The Government are today publishing Simplification Plans for 19 Departments and Government agencies. The Health and Safety Executive published its plan on 3 December, taking the total number of plans published to 20.

The plans set out more than 700 initiatives which, when delivered, will result in reduced administrative burdens and policy costs for the UK economy as a whole.

They show how the Government are delivering the commitment they made 12 months ago to reduce administrative burdens on business and the third sector by 25 per cent. net by 2010, saving the economy £3.5 billion a year. They set out 288 simplification measures that Departments have delivered to date, saving business and the third sector more than £800 million net per year. And they show that work has begun on reducing the bureaucracy faced by frontline public sector workers.

These plans continue the Government’s commitment to transparent reporting of its simplification programme. Departments will continue to update plans annually in order to ensure on-going year-on-year reductions in the burdens they impose.

A report “Delivering simplification plans: A summary” has been deposited in both Houses which summarises this cross-Government effort.

My noble Friend the Minister for Defence Equipment and Support has now approved, effective from 11 December 2007, the early closure of the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency (DSDA) Regional Distribution Centres (RDCs) at Longmoor, Shorncliffe, Llangennech, Bulford, Catterick, Chilwell, Colchester and Stirling.

Under the Future Defence Supply Chain Initiative (FDSCi), the MOD assessed a range of options for managing and operating the defence supply chain, to reduce the cost of ownership, while maintaining or improving service levels, and enhancing operational capability. DSDA’s new plan makes greater use of Donnington and Bicester, cutting out the need for a number of RDCs. Much material will be delivered direct rather than through a regional hub and is more sophisticated in selecting how material flows are routed; DSDA has also opened a warehouse for fast-moving items at Donnington and more than 50 per cent. of all DSDA deliveries will be from this new facility. This will provide the opportunity for material to be delivered direct rather than through an RDC, and for flexible decisions to be taken as to whether an item is posted, handled by a parcel or pallet carrier, delivered direct, or delivered as part of a multiple delivery route.

I recognise that this will not be a welcome prospect for those staff who stand to be affected. It is not possible to give an absolute assurance that compulsory redundancies can be avoided, although every effort will be made to do so. The MOD Outplacement Service (MODOPS) will be available to support staff affected by the closure, offering support with relocation and financial advice. Training will be available to assist staff with the transition to life in the private sector and services of the MOD Welfare organisation will also be available to help staff with personal circumstances.

Consultation with the trade unions has been completed, during which time a counter-proposal was received. However this was not operationally or financially viable. On this basis, I have decided to fully endorse the closures of the RDCs.

The new rates of war pensions and allowances proposed from April 2008 are set out in the tables below. The annual uprating of war pensions and allowances for 2008 will take place from the week beginning 7 April.

The National Contingency Plan for Exotic Animal Diseases was laid before Parliament on Monday 10 December.

This Plan sets out the operational arrangements Defra will put in place to deal with any occurrence of foot and mouth disease, avian influenza or Newcastle disease. The plan is also applicable to other exotic animal diseases. It is composed of two elements: Defra’s Framework Response Plan for Exotic Animal Diseases, outlining systems, structures, roles and responsibilities during an outbreak of disease, and Defra’s Overview of Emergency Preparedness which provides details of our preparedness and operational response.

It replaces Defra’s Exotic Animal Disease Generic Contingency Plan which was laid before Parliament on 13 December 2006.

Defra’s Contingency Plan is very much a “living document”. It will be subject to ongoing revision taking on the latest developments in science, research, and epidemiological modelling together with lessons identified from outbreaks.

To meet the provisions of the Animal Health Act, the Plan will also be subject to formal annual review.

I am today announcing publication of a document inviting views on the next steps on sharing responsibility and costs for animal health and welfare.

Better animal health and welfare is important for our livestock, their owners, public health, society, and the rural economy. As recent events have shown animal disease outbreaks can be costly to farmers and the livestock industry, to the wider economy and to the taxpayer. The costs are not just financial but also the disruption and uncertainty caused while we have worked together to bring outbreaks under control.

The Animal Health and Welfare Strategy for Great Britain (2004) set out our vision for the future. Partnership working and a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities are key elements in achieving that vision.

The Responsibility and Cost Sharing Programme is central to delivering this. The aim is to make joint working between industry and government a reality: with joint decisions on how to prevent, control and eradicate animal diseases using our joint resources and skills. The close partnerships involved in tackling the recent foot and mouth and bluetongue disease outbreaks, are excellent demonstrations of how industry is able and ready to take on greater responsibility and play a more active role in managing disease risks.

The Government wish to develop and strengthen this partnership approach. This consultation is an important part of the process for developing the right structures and mechanisms for doing so and seeks views on a range of options. First, it discusses ways to share responsibility between Government and industry. The questions here are what decisions livestock keepers and industry as a whole are best placed to deal with; and how best to organise joint decision making with Government where this is needed.

Secondly, the document looks at the principles for deciding how costs can be shared equitably. The Anderson inquiry into the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak highlighted the need for sharing disease control costs with those involved: those who benefit should contribute. There is undoubtedly a need to redress the current imbalance. But jointly owned and funded animal health disease controls can also deliver wider economic benefits, public health and other public goals. Therefore, it is right that the public, as taxpayers, should also pay an appropriate share of the costs.

Thirdly, it considers what funding mechanisms would encourage and incentivise public and private sector interests to work together to manage risks better and deliver outcomes more efficiently. We wish to encourage behaviour that leads to better biosecurity, and compliance with cost effective risk reduction measures, making more use of non-legislative alternatives to regulation, and with a greater focus on incentives rather than penalties and enforcement.

Lastly, some specific proposals are put forward for the withdrawal or reduction of public subsidies for certain measures that concern BSE in cattle and scrapie in sheep. These would not affect the controls that protect public health, which will remain firmly in place.

The content of this consultation has been shared with the UK Consultative Forum on Responsibility and Cost Sharing and the England Implementation Group for Animal Health and Welfare. In the light of this consultation and further work by the forum the Government will be developing detailed proposals for further consultation next year.

These changes should lead to better risk management, improved decisions, more efficient delivery; and a fairer, transparent distribution of costs between industry and government, and between businesses within the industry.

This consultation concerns England. I am also discussing these issues closely with ministerial colleagues in other parts of the UK, with the aim of developing common policies that recognise the challenges posed by animals and their diseases and movements across administrative borders from livestock enterprises spread across the UK, especially as Great Britain is recognised as a single epidemiological unit for animal disease.

My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and I will attend the 13th meeting of the Parties (COP13) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bali, Indonesia this week. Our aim for the meeting is the launch of negotiations leading—by the end of 2009—to a comprehensive global agreement to tackle climate change. This is an ambitious objective, and success is not guaranteed.

The recent fourth assessment report from the panel on climate change (IPCC) has made clear the role of humans in climate change and the impact on food production, sea level rise, human health, biodiversity and on our economies if we do not take urgent and sustained action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is very important that we achieve an international agreement which can build on existing commitments and is agreed in time to follow the first commitment phase of the Kyoto protocol, which ends in 2012.

I welcome the recent call by the Corporate Leaders’ Group, representing over 90 companies, for a launch of negotiations and for an enhanced and extended carbon market. At Bali we need to agree that all parties will take part in a comprehensive, twin-tracked negotiation to be completed at the Copenhagen climate change conference at the end of 2009. This will require a detailed work programme and interim milestones to review progress.

The two tracks relate to the Framework Convention and the Kyoto protocol. Under the convention, parties have already been discussing in a non-negotiating forum how to improve its implementation. The focus has been on technology, market instruments, adaptation and sustainable development and we need to build on these discussions in formal negotiations.

The second track relates to the ongoing negotiations under the Kyoto protocol, where developed countries which have ratified have been considering new targets for the second commitment phase which is due to start in 2013. This needs to continue in tandem with the planned 2008 review of the protocol.

We believe that the negotiations we will seek to launch in Bali will need to be guided by four main principles: recognition of the scale of the challenge, effectiveness, fairness and a comprehensive scope.

The first principle on recognising the scale of the challenge is the need for the negotiations to be guided by the aim of limiting the global average temperature increase to not more than 2⁰C above pre-industrial levels, and agreeing a goal of reducing global emissions to at least 50 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2050.

The second principle is that the agreement must be effective. This means it must involve all countries with significant emissions; and the commitments made must be measurable. An effective agreement also requires development of a truly global carbon market. We know that putting a price on carbon is essential to provide the incentive for the private sector to invest in energy efficiency and clean energy sources. We need to expand and evolve market mechanisms such as the Clean Development Mechanism to move us toward a global carbon market. At Bali we will be pressing for improvements to implementation of the current mechanisms.

The third principle is fairness. The commitments made by different countries must be based on the UN principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”. Developed countries must continue to take the lead by adopting deeper targets. The larger developing countries will also need to adopt new and flexible types of commitments which do not have the effect of putting a brake on their development. These commitments will need to vary between countries depending on their different stages of economic development and they will change over time as countries grow. We do not foresee any developing country taking on absolute emissions reductions in the next commitment period but action by developing countries should nevertheless be measurable and verifiable. Negotiations on these commitments should form the basis of the discussions under the convention talks.

Fairness also demands that the rich countries support developing countries in making this transition. We need to facilitate the transfer of technology and in Bali we will be aiming to launch a new body to progress a long-term and enhanced technology transfer framework feeding into a post-2012 agreement. Through the Clean Development Mechanism, the carbon market already provides significant flows of finance to developing countries; they could be much larger in the future. And we are also prepared to do more to offer support. The Clean Energy Investment Framework of the World Bank and regional development banks is intended to catalyse private sector investment in low carbon energy, energy efficiency and adaptation to climate change.

The Government have already pledged £800 million through our Environmental Transformation Fund over the next three years for these aims, and we now want other donor countries to join us in making this a major fund that can assist developing countries in tackling the challenges of climate change.

Fourth, a post-2012 agreement must be comprehensive. As well as emissions from energy it must address those from land use, especially from deforestation. Major progress in reducing deforestation rates has already been made, in Brazil, Indonesia and elsewhere. If we are to help reduce emissions from deforestation, the international community must make it economically worthwhile for local people to benefit from sustainable forest management rather than through logging and forest clearance. In Bali we are aiming to agree a framework for voluntary participation by developing countries in a scheme to provide positive incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation, including a set of indicative national baselines with long-term responsibility for stocks.

We also want to see positive support for pilot schemes, to help build links to activities by other organisations and stakeholders, including the World Bank proposal for a Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. We need to link the deforestation negotiations into the broader negotiations on a post-2012 agreement. For any agreement to be comprehensive, it should also cover the growing emissions from aviation and shipping.

And last, but very importantly, we need to accept that climate change is already happening and some future impacts are inevitable. All countries need to put in place measures now that will increase resilience to the effects of climate change. It is the poorest countries that are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. At Bali we will be seeking to agree governance arrangements for a planned Adaptation Fund so that it can start work, as well as to agree to develop a new Framework for Action on Adaptation which provides a structure for stakeholder engagement and funding.

While the UNFCCC is the primary body for international consensus on a new agreement, we need to recognise the valuable work taking place in informal discussions and negotiations such as the G8, Gleneagles Dialogue and US Major Economies Meeting. The results from these informal processes should be fed into the convention negotiations.

Success in achieving these aims at Bali is indeed an ambitious goal. But it is one that all those attending from the UK will do their best to achieve.

Leaders from the European Union and Africa met in Lisbon on 8 and 9 December at the second EU Africa summit to agree new co-operation and a framework for a closer partnership between the two continents. The agenda was wide covering peace and security, governance and human rights, trade, infrastructure and development, energy and climate change and migration. The main themes to emerge discussions focused on governance and trade.

The UK had made its position clear that the Prime Minister would not participate if President Mugabe attended. Baroness Amos ably represented the UK and promoted key aims.

The UK commitment to the relationship between African and the European Union is clear. We supported the summit and have been working hard with partners in the course of this year to prepare for successful discussions and agreements. We welcome the fact that leaders were able to discuss and reach agreement on urgent global challenges including the need to accelerate progress towards reaching the Millennium Development Goals in Africa, tackling conflict and climate change, and promoting good governance.

European leaders at the summit rightly highlighted the links between governance and development and focused particularly on the human rights situations in Zimbabwe and Darfur, and the serious challenge to Africa’s development that they represent. Baroness Amos raised Zimbabwe and the appalling human rights situation caused by President Mugabe during her intervention. African leaders too spoke up on the need to tackle poor governance and safeguard human rights and the links to growth promotion and development.

The trading relationship between the European Union and African countries and regions formed an important part of discussions, with some African countries expressing concerns about the new Economic Partnership Agreements. Many African countries have now signed or initialled interim agreements with the Commission. The Commission underscored the importance of concluding such agreements, particularly for non-least developed countries, in order to safeguard trade flows. It agreed to schedule further discussions with the leaders from the five African regions in the new year to take stock of the situation and discuss the way forward. The UK continues to encourage those countries which have yet to sign an interim agreement to do so to avoid damaging trade disruption. We also consider it vital that no country should be worse off and that when full economic partnership agreements are negotiated, they promote development objectives.

The summit aimed to forge a stronger partnership between Africa and Europe. Leaders agreed a joint strategy, and a series of action plans that set out specific commitments over the next three years. These new agreements build on many of the commitments made: at Gleneagles and at the December 2005 European Council held under the UK presidency. “EU Africa Partnerships” setting out co-operation and targets have been agreed under eight headings; the millennium development goals; good governance and human rights; peace and security; climate change; energy; trade and integration; migration; and science.

The UK will continue to work closely with EU and African partners to ensure that commitments made in Lisbon are honoured and concrete progress is made.

On 7 December, representatives of the Contact Group submitted to the UN Secretary-General the report by the EU-Russia-US troika on their work aimed at achieving a negotiated settlement for Kosovo’s future status.

The troika correctly set themselves the objective of “leaving no stone unturned” in the search for an outcome mutually acceptable to both Belgrade and Pristina. During the four months of their mandate, the troika undertook an intense schedule of meetings with the parties. Over ten rounds of negotiations—including six sets of direct talks, one of them in extended conference format—the parties considered options covering the spectrum from independence, autonomy, confederation, partition and a status-neutral approach. One or other of the parties rejected all these options.

The troika have therefore reported that the parties have been unable to reach an agreement on Kosovo’s status.

I pay tribute to the troika’s work. They have worked tirelessly and imaginatively. Although they did not secure an agreement between the parties, their work generated sustained and intensive high-level dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina. The troika have also been able to extract important commitments from the parties, including pledges to refrain from actions that might jeopardise the security situation in Kosovo or elsewhere and not to use violence, threats or intimidation. These are important commitments to which we shall expect both sides to adhere strictly in the period ahead.

The troika’s efforts followed those of UN Special Envoy Ahtisaari who laboured heroically for 14 months to reach agreement between the parties before concluding that this was out of reach. He therefore drew up his own proposal for how to move forward based around the concept of supervised independence. That recommendation was supported by the EU, US and UN Secretary-General. It was rejected by Serbia and Russia.

It is hard to argue now that there is any value in further negotiations or that serious options have yet to be fully explored. The failure to reach agreement is not because of lack of time, energy or imagination on the part of the international community. It is because the positions of the parties are irreconcilable. Kosovo insists on independence. Serbia insists on a settlement that locks the door on any prospect of independence. The UK shares the firm view of the EU representative on the troika, Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger, that the parties would not be capable of reaching agreement on this issue if negotiations were to be continued, whether in the troika format, or in some other form.

The Kosovo status process has now reached a decisive moment, presenting the international community with difficult but important decisions.

One point on which almost all in the international community are agreed is that the status quo is unsustainable. This was stated in clear terms by the UN Secretary-General when he addressed the Contact Group Ministerial meeting in September in New York. The Contact Group, including Russia, subsequently expressed their agreement in a joint Ministerial statement.

The international community cannot therefore allow the status process to grind to a halt or to be shuffled off into a siding by convening further fruitless negotiations. We learned to our cost in the 1990s the heavy human and political price attached to an indecisive international response to looming problems in the Western Balkans. The stability and security of part of Europe is at stake. It is essential that we respond in a decisive and far-sighted manner.

The UK’s preference would be for a settlement to be supported by the passage of a resolution of the UN Security Council. We believe there should be further rapid consultations in New York to this end before the end of 2007. However in the absence of agreement between the parties, we need to be realistic about the slim prospects of securing the necessary level of consensus in the Security Council.

Against this background it is important that the EU demonstrates its readiness to meet its responsibilities and objectives in respect of stability and security in Europe. Securing a viable and sustainable future for Kosovo is a major responsibility for the EU. The effectiveness and cohesiveness of the EU’s common foreign and security policy will be judged against our ability to deliver on this responsibility. The EU must demonstrate firm resolve to bring the status process through to completion and play a leading role subsequently in implementing a settlement. I welcome the fact that the EU is already intensively engaged in the necessary preparations to meet these responsibilities.

In moving towards a Kosovo settlement, it will be necessary for the EU and others to take a strategic approach answering to a series of key challenges. There will be a need to ensure Kosovo’s security. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is already deployed in strength in Kosovo to maintain a safe and secure environment. The EU has indicated a readiness to provide a European Security and Defence Policy policing/rule of law mission. The EU should deliver on this commitment.

There will be a need to ensure good governance in Kosovo. The proposal of the UN Special Envoy provides a good basis for this. The provisions it set out for the internal governance of Kosovo, and the allocation of responsibilities it contains, must be the foundation for how we deliver security and help Kosovo improve its ability to meet European standards. The EU should be ready to play a major part in settlement implementation including through the appointment of an EU Special Representative and through contributing to an International Civilian Office in Kosovo.

There will be a need to achieve certainty and permanence in respect of Kosovo’s future status. Again, the UK believes that the proposal of the UN Special Envoy for supervised independence provides a good basis.

There will be a need to look beyond the immediate challenge of resolving Kosovo’s future status. Following a settlement, Kosovo will face formidable economic and state-building challenges. The international community—with the EU to the fore—will need to be ready to meet this challenge, including through the swift convening of a donors’ conference.

Finally, there will be a need to address the regional dimension. The UK recognises that moving through this phase will be difficult for Serbia, as well as for other countries in the region. The EU must be clear and far-sighted in its commitment to helping them meet European standards and so move farther towards eventual accession. There is a compelling strategic case for enlargement to the Western Balkans so that this troubled region can share in the security, stability and prosperity that the EU offers. The EU needs to take forward this agenda vigorously in the months ahead.

Today I am publishing “The Research and Science Budget Allocations 2008-09 to 2010-11”. The publication outlines the allocations of the Research And Science Budget for this comprehensive spending review period, and provides further details on what this money will deliver. I have placed copies in the Library of the House.

The overall settlement was announced by the Chancellor in the comprehensive spending review. As a result the Department will spend almost £6 billion in total on the research base by 2010-11. This is made up of the Research and Science Budget and nearly £2 billion of funding to reach English universities through the Higher Education Funding Council’s (HEFCE) quality-related funding stream (the second leg of the dual support system).

The Research and Science Budget specifically will increase from £3.4 billion per year in 2007-08 to almost £4 billion per year by 2010-11—taking the Government’s support for the UK’s research base to its highest level ever.

Specifically the allocations will:

fund new commitments to the Office for the Strategic Co-ordination of Health Research (OSCHR)

support £120 million of collaborative work between the Technology Strategy Board and the Research Councils over the CSR period

enable relevant recommendations of the Sainsbury Review to be implemented

enable the Research Councils to fund research at 90 per cent. of its full economic cost

increase funding for the Higher Education Innovation Fund, and

provide capital funding to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Research Base and allow UK researchers to benefit from a range of new world-class facilities

Key Highlights of the Allocations

The UK continues to perform exceptionally well in research and, increasingly, its exploitation. We remain second only to the US in global scientific excellence (as measured by citations), while collaboration between the research base and business continues to grow ever stronger.

The allocations provide significant support for medical research. The Medical Research Council will receive almost £2 billion over the three years to help keep the UK at the forefront of medical advances. Joint investment with the Department of Health, joined up by OSCHR, will ensure that more fundamental research is translated into clinical practice. The funding will also enable the development of the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) on the British Library site, and the rebuilding of the Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge (subject to approval of individual business plans by Government).

In response to the “Grand Challenges” outlined by the Chancellor at the announcement of the comprehensive spending review, the Research Councils are embarking on an exciting range of thematic research programmes. These programmes bring together partners from inside and outside the research community in an unprecedented effort to tackle these issues. Programmes include: “Living with Environmental Change”, “Ageing”, “Global Threats to Security” and “Energy”.

This allocation makes resources available to drive forward the economic impact agenda in the face of global challenges. The Research Councils have each set out explicit strategies for delivering a step change in their economic impact. The strategies form a solid foundation from which Research Councils can further raise their emphasis on economic impact during this CSR spending period.

In addition, the Higher Education Innovation Fund will rise to £150 million per annum by 2010-11, providing more resources than ever before to support knowledge transfer between universities and business. The Public Sector Research Exploitation Fund will in future attract co-funding from other sources so that even more support can be made available to public sector laboratories as they commercialise their research.

We have increased the budget for the successful “Science Bridges” scheme to £12 million to foster stronger links with international researchers, alongside supporting international fellowships run by the National Academies. This will help forge stronger links with the US, China, and India in particular.

A new Capital Investment Fund is being created for universities carrying out Research Council-funded projects. This permanent funding stream replaces the temporary Science Research Investment Fund (SRIF) programme, which has helped make good the backlog in investment in research infrastructure. The new fund will help universities to sustain this research infrastructure in the future.

Health of Disciplines

The Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-14 sets out the Government’s commitment to nurturing key disciplines. The Research Councils, Funding Councils, and National Academies have made significant progress. It is important that all key disciplines remain strong and vibrant. Research priorities will change over time but it is important that Government is confident that the combined decisions of the research councils properly underpin the health of key disciplines. This is important both for the future of research and, more widely, to ensure a flow of talented individuals into STEM subjects at University.

As a next step, I have asked Ian Diamond, as Chair of RCUK, to organise a series of reviews on the health of key research disciplines in the UK. The first of these reviews will be on physics, and will span at least three Research Councils (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Natural Environment Research Council and Science and Technology Facilities Council). It will be led by Professor Bill Wakeham, Vice-Chancellor, University of Southampton.

Large Experimental Facilities

Investment in advanced experimental facilities is of critical importance to the long-term success of the research base. STFC invests significantly in national facilities (such as Diamond and Isis) and international subscriptions (for example the European research centre at CERN). The allocation to STFC supports the Government’s vision for Harwell and Daresbury to be developed as Science and Innovation Campuses.

The Daresbury campus will be developed as a partnership between the STFC, the NWDA, the private sector and universities. I have asked Sir Tom McKillop to look specifically at the development of the Daresbury site as part of his wider independent review into the future of the Manchester City region and wider north-west economy.

Similarly, the Harwell Science and Innovation Campus is being developed as a scientific and high technology cluster in Oxfordshire.

Conclusion

World-class research in the UK is crucial to maintaining economic prosperity and responding to the challenges and opportunities of globalisation. Research plays a vital part in addressing key global and domestic challenges, such as climate change, energy, ageing, technological change and security. The research base also delivers improvements in public service delivery and contributes to improvements in education, health and culture.

The allocation of the science budget will continue to support the full spectrum of academic endeavour. It will ensure all benefits from the excellent research base are maximised by encouraging the full exploitation of fundamental research. It will support the long-term sustainability of research in the UK, whilst encouraging further international collaboration.

This report can be viewed at: http://www.dius.gov.uk/publications/URN07114.pdf

I have made an order under Section 2(6) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 amalgamating a number of divisions in Leicestershire, Devon, Dorset, North Yorkshire, West Midlands, Warwickshire and London as follows:

With effect from 1 January 2008:

The Hinckley Division, the Loughborough Division and the Rutland Division are merged into one division called the North Leicestershire and Rutland Division

The Plym Division and the Stanborough and Coleridge Division are merged into one division called the Plymouth and Stanborough Division

The Coventry Division and the Nuneaton Division are merged into one division and called the Coventry and Nuneaton Division

The Willesden Division and the North West London Division are merged into one division called the North West London Division

The North Dorset, West Dorset and Weymouth Division is renamed the West Dorset Division

The New Forest West Division is abolished

The New Forest East and Wessex Division is renamed the Wessex Division

And with effect from 8 February 2008:

The Harrogate Division and the Ripon Division are merged into one division called the Harrogate and Ripon Division

All the amalgamations were made at the request of the divisions with the aim of improving the organisational efficiency of the General Commissioners in all the divisions concerned. Copies of the Amalgamation of Divisions of General Commissioners have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.

In the “Governance of Britain” Green Paper released in July this year the Government reiterated their commitment to review the experience of the new voting systems introduced in the United Kingdom since 1997, by the end of this year. The Government have completed this review and will make it ready for publication in January 2008 when Parliament reconvenes.

I have today published my Department’s Autumn Performance Report for 2007 (CM 7266). Copies have been laid before Parliament and placed in the House Libraries.

The Autumn Performance Report provides Parliament with a progress report on performance against the Department’s Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets using data available up to November 2007.