I am pleased to announce that the Government have submitted their economic evidence on the national minimum wage to the Low Pay Commission. The Commission will take this and all the other evidence received into account when preparing its next report on the minimum wage, which will be submitted to the Government by the end of February 2009.

The economic evidence addresses recent trends in economic and labour market performance, as well as the impact of the national minimum wage on pay, employment and younger workers.

Copies of the Government’s economic evidence have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be posted on the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform website at: www.berr.qov.uk.

The Government submitted their evidence on non-economic issues to the Commission in October.

Today my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communication, Technology and Broadcasting made the following statement.

“Further to the written statement concerning the positions I intended to take at the Telecommunications Council, held on November 27^th 2008, I am pleased to be able to report back on the main conclusions and topics of discussion.

The Telecommunications Council took place on the 27^th November 2008 under the chair of the French Presidency. I represented the United Kingdom. As expected, the review of the EU regulatory framework from electronic communications networks and services was the focus of much of the discussion.

After introduction by the Presidency, Commissioner Reding gave a presentation of the Commission’s views. While praising the Presidency for their efforts she criticised the Council text as making very little progress from earlier drafts and therefore she noted that the Commission could not agree to it. Of particular concern, she felt that the proposals on spectrum and on Commissioner powers did not go far enough. Following this, there was a full round exchange of views. The majority of member states endorsed the text that had been put forward by the Presidency; although concerns on certain aspects were noted by Sweden, the Netherlands, Italy and Poland.

In my intervention I agreed with the compromise text for the Citizen’s Directive and the European Telecoms authority. However I opposed, in line with Sweden, the text that was being put forward on the Better Regulation Directive, expressing particular concern with the proposals for functional separation, NGA access and the inclusion of references to ITU Radio Regulations in the proposals on spectrum.

As a result of the Commission’s opposition, for this item to achieve political agreement member states had to give the proposal unanimous support. I was thus able, along with Sweden, to use this leverage to secure improvements to the text on functional separation and on access to networks. A break from the formal proceedings allowed detailed negotiations to take place, bilaterally between the attendees, to develop compromise text that everyone could live with. It was not though possible to reach agreement on the text associated with the ITU Radio Regulations.

In a second table round the UK, Sweden and the Netherlands abstained on the Better Regulation directive, and I—with Sweden—subsequently released a declaration explaining that on a number of issues—including the ITU Radio Regulations issue—we would be looking for further improvements to the package. As a result, even with the Commission having expressed a negative opinion, the framework review package did gain political agreement by the Council.

The lunch discussion concentrated on the digital dividend and on how member states were planning to allocate spectrum following the switchover to digital TV. During an interesting discussion, which both touched on member states experiences and the benefits of further coordination between countries, I took the opportunity of outlining our own plans, highlighting how we anticipated further opportunities for innovative wireless services to be introduced.

Following lunch, Council resumed with discussion on amending the regulations on roaming on public telephone networks. Commissioner Reding was pleased that previous Councils had given broad agreement to this item, though it was recognised that some states may wish to go further, especially in terms of data regulation, than the Commission had proposed. In the exchange of views that followed there was majority support for the proposal; though with a few member states expressing concern on the effect on investment and innovation it may have. I supported the amendment, saying that in essence the need for regulation represented a failure of responsible pricing by operators. However, I said that this measure should be a short term in nature and that there was no case for long term retail price controls.

The next item discussed was the second periodic review of the scope of universal services. This opened with the Commission presentation giving some statistics for broadband penetration and stressing the need for funding of universal services to be transparent and made within an appropriate framework.

Member States gave an overview of their own experiences on this issue. There was some concern expressed over possible market distortions being created and difficulties associated with trying to implement a unified approach in a diverse set of markets, however there was general support for the proposal that a debate on broadband as a universal service should take place. I stressed the importance of this topic and that as we move from narrow band to broadband we should get away from the stress on obligations and instead concentrate on universality. The major problem tends to be one of uptake of services rather than supply. I thus stressed the need to communicate the potential of broadband to the public. It will also, I stressed, be necessary for Europe to consider content provision and how content providers can utilise the Internet for profit.

The Commission concluded this item by summarising that the market alone will not be able to bring broadband to all consumers. Discussions on how this can be achieved will need to continue.

The final substantive item on the agenda concerned the Council Conclusions on future networks and the internet. This opened with an introduction delivered by the Presidency. Very few comments were made by member states and the conclusions were adopted unanimously with two small amendments, relating to IPV6 made by Poland.

No issues of substance were raised by attendees under ‘any other business’.”

Today HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is publishing the last in a series of decisions about its future office structure. These latest decisions affect HMRC staff in offices outside its urban centres in the east, north west, south west, Yorkshire and the Humber, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

HMRC’s regional review programme, which began in 2006, has been a massive and complex task. When HMRC was created in April 2005 from the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, it had 105,000 staff and two separate office networks with a total of 590 office buildings in well over 300 locations.

Throughout the review programme HMRC has consulted on its proposals with staff, trade unions and key external stakeholders including MPs to ensure that no relevant factors were overlooked during the decision-making process.

These have not been easy decisions. However, the overriding consideration has to be the Department’s need to address new and challenging customer demands by restructuring its business and estate in the most effective and efficient way possible.

Enquiry centre services, where customers can get face to face advice, will continue to be provided at or nearby their current locations.

HMRC plans to withdraw from locations between now and 2011-12 as circumstances allow and at a pace which enables it to maintain and improve customer services.

Details of the decisions, impact assessments and equality impact assessments will be published on the HMRC website today and MPs will receive email confirmation of decisions relevant to their constituencies along with copies of related assessments.

I am pleased to tell the House that today we are introducing the Corporation Tax Bill. This is the Tax Law Rewrite project’s fifth Bill and is the first of two which will rewrite substantially the whole of the legislation relating to corporation tax. This Bill maintains the Tax Law Rewrite project’s high standards in making tax legislation significantly easier to use. This would not have been possible without the expertise, time and commitment of all those involved in commenting on the provisions during consultation and I would like to thank them and the members of the Tax Law Rewrite project’s Steering and Consultative Committees for their invaluable help in making the project’s work such a success.

The Bill was published in draft on 22 February 2008 for consultation and a response document reporting on the outcome of that consultation was published on 22 August this year.

The Bill rewrites the charge to corporation tax and the main provisions used by companies in computing their income. Its scope was agreed with the project’s Steering and Consultative Committees which together include the main representative bodies and other users and I am pleased for the wide support it has among the tax community. Like all previous Bills prepared by the project, it rewrites the law without changing its general effect. All the provisions have benefited from detailed consultation and the drafting style and structure is in line with that of the previous rewrite Bills.

Today I have presented to Parliament the revised school admissions code and school admission appeals code. Subject to the parliamentary procedure, these codes will come into force in February 2009.

This statement follows on from previous statements I have made to the House on improvements I have made to strengthen the statutory school admissions framework and place children and families at the heart of the process.

Through the Education and Skills Act 2008 we have strengthened the statutory admissions framework to ensure that all schools adopt fair and lawful admissions practices. Local authorities have an important role to monitor compliance with the code and are now required to report annually to the schools adjudicator on the fairness and legality of the admission arrangements for all schools in their area. As the independent enforcer of fair access to schools, schools adjudicators now have a wider remit to consider any admission arrangements that come to their attention in addition to any complaints received through an objection. The schools adjudicator will report annually to the Secretary of State on how fair access is being achieved locally.

Following extensive consultation throughout the summer on a number of proposals to improve the application and allocation process for parents and further strengthen the admission system so that it works for all children, I have revised both codes to achieve a better, fairer system for all families. The revised codes:

place a duty on admission authorities to engage with parents and the wider community when setting their admission arrangements, in order to meet the needs of their local area;

improve the application and allocation process so that parents will only ever need to apply for a school place to the local authority in which they live;

prescribe national closing dates for primary and secondary applications; helping parents by creating a simpler more uniform system;

improve the information parents receive on the admissions process, so they are fully engaged and informed; and

make improvements to Admission Forums so they are representative of parents and the local area, and consider the fairness of admission policies for that area.

The new provisions in the Education and Skills Act 2008 and the revised codes I have laid before Parliament today will help ensure that every parent has a fair chance of getting their child a place at a school of their choice, and that no parent or child will be disadvantaged by unfair admission arrangements.

In addition to presenting the revised codes to the House, I am pleased to announce today the appointment of a new chief schools adjudicator, following the retirement of Sir Philip Hunter at the end of the year. Ian Craig will take up post from April 2009 with Dr. Elizabeth Passmore acting as interim chief schools adjudicator until this time. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Sir Philip Hunter for all his hard work in ensuring that schools and local authorities comply with the mandatory provisions set out in the school admissions code, to help achieve fair access for all families.

I have placed a copy of the revised school admissions code and the school admission appeals code in the Libraries of both Houses.

I wish to update the House on a revised funding package to prepare our Olympic and Paralympic athletes in preparation for London 2012.

In the 2006 Budget statement the Government announced a £600 million package for the remaining three years of the Beijing cycle and for the London cycle, comprising £200 million of Exchequer funding matched by £100 million of private sector investment, and supported by £300 million of lottery investment.

This represents a record level of investment for the UK’s Olympic and Paralympic athletes and helped secure the best British Olympic performance in a hundred years.

Today we are announcing an enhanced public sector commitment for the London cycle that will allow us to build on this momentum.

Public funding allocation for the London cycle

A total of £550 million of public funds—an additional £50 million—has been allocated to UK Sport to fund its elite programme. This consists of additional Exchequer funding of £29 million to UK Sport over the four years to 2012; plus a projected uplift in lottery income of £21 million.

This means that for the London cycle the elite sport system will receive the highest level of public funding ever made available over a four-year Olympic/Paralympic cycle—an increase over the Beijing cycle and an unprecedented package of support for elite athletes.

Private sector funding: Medal hopes scheme

Alongside the Exchequer and lottery investment, the 2006 Budget also set a challenge to British business to support our athletes. Funding for elite sport has moved from lottery money for Sydney and Athens, to Exchequer and lottery money for Beijing, and now Exchequer, lottery and private money for London. I believe this mixed economy funding for elite sport is the right long-term approach—and similar to the way excellence in arts is funded by my department. Alongside Exchequer and lottery funding, the Government wish to see the establishment of a third fundraising stream from the private sector as a permanent legacy of the London games, using the wave of interest that comes with our home games to establish this.

The new funding announced is the limit of public investment in Olympic and Paralympic sport. Raising private funds is challenging in the current economic conditions, but British business has a great track record of investing in sport.

Since the summer we have worked with Fast Track Ltd and UK Sport to develop a dedicated sponsorship brand called “Medal Hopes”. This will be the only official way to sponsor athletes on the UK Sport’s World Class Performance Programme and directly influence the country’s chances of sporting success at World Championship Games and Commonwealth Games as well as the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The Medal Hopes brand will support a range of schemes giving national, regional and local companies and individuals the opportunity to be a highly visible part of supporting athletes on the international sporting stage.

This work is now moving to a new phase of delivery. We will be working intensively over the next few months with national governing bodies, athletes and sports partners in preparation for the launch of this major fundraising drive to help secure the remaining £50 million from the private sector. In doing so, we have put in place a new partnership with Government: UK Sport will lead on the development of Medal Hopes, utilising its strong relationships with national governing bodies and athletes working with Fast-Track and drawing on the expertise and advice from the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG). I will be seeking regular updates from all partners.

UK Sport allocations to national governing bodies

The decision on how this public and private funding is allocated to each of our Olympic and Paralympic sports, and the accompanying support systems, is a matter for UK Sport. Through their success in Beijing, UK Sport has demonstrated its expertise in delivering results through carefully targeted funding.

This record level of investment over the London cycle allows UK Sport to give national governing bodies the certainty they have requested across the full Olympic and Paralympic cycle. In return for this enhanced public funding package all governing bodies are being asked to participate fully in the Medal Hopes scheme.

UK Sport have confirmed that this funding package enables it to set a target to attain fourth place in the Olympic Games, and second place in the Paralympic Games in 2012—aiming to win more medals in more sports than in Beijing.

For those sports that have not yet been given funding allocations by UK Sport, we will be working with them and our partners to put in place plans to support their development until private funds come on stream. I will be meeting with the national governing bodies of these sports and our partners before their funding allocations are made in January 2009.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our ambition set out in Budget 2006—a £600 million public and private package to support elite athletes—remains in place and on track. In recognition of the changed economic circumstances we have increased the public funding commitment and reduced the amount of funding that needs to be raised from the private sector. The Government will be working with all partners to raise the funds needed and remain confident that it can be achieved, and in doing so will establish a three-strand funding model—Exchequer, lottery and private funds—that will be the rightful and lasting legacy for the future of British elite sport.

I am pleased to announce that I have appointed John Steele, Mary Carter and the Very Reverend Graham Forbes as members of the Armed Forces' Pay Review Body, each for a three-year term of office commencing on 1 March 2009. These appointments have been conducted in accordance with the guidance of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

Lord Hunt, Minister for Sustainable Development and Energy Innovation and I, will represent the UK at the Environment Council in Brussels on 4 December. Stewart Stevenson, Scottish Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change will also attend.

At the Environment Council the French presidency will report on progress on the EU climate-energy legislative package. They will also provide briefing on the proposed renewable energy directive. The main outstanding issues on the climate and energy package include the redistribution of a proportion of allowances to the new member states for the purposes of solidarity; how to identify those sectors at risk of carbon leakage and what measures would be appropriate to reduce this risk; and the use of revenues from the auctioning of allowances. The door is still open for agreement on a financing mechanism for the demonstration of carbon capture and storage technology.

The presidency will also report on progress on the proposal for a regulation setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars—C0₂ from cars—and on the proposal for a directive on industrial emissions—integrated pollution prevention and control, IPPC directive.

Furthermore, there will be a policy debate and adoption of Council conclusions on the sustainable consumption and production (SCP) and sustainable industrial policy (SIP) action plan. The policy debate is likely to focus on next steps for delivering the plan, ecolabelling, lifestyles and behaviour, and carbon content display for products.

Following policy debates, Ministers are due to adopt Council conclusions on addressing the challenges of deforestation and forest degradation to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and addressing the global mercury challenges in preparation for the 25th session of the UNEP Governing Council in Nairobi on 16 to 20 February 2009.

Under ‘any other business’, the European Commission will present communications on: the dismantling of ships; the EU strategy on invasive alien species, the EU and the Arctic region and the implementation of European Community environmental law. Additionally, the European Commission is likely to present a Green Paper on biowaste management in the European Union. Finally, the Irish delegation has asked for a discussion under ‘any other business’ on waste—the fall in demand for recycled materials.

The House will wish to know that we have today published the Government’s response to Sir Ian Magee’s independent review of criminality information.

As I have said previously, we are grateful for the work that Sir Ian has done on the review and our response accepts the rationale behind all of his recommendations. These and the actions highlighted in our response encourage the better use, sharing and management of criminality information so that we can continue to reduce the risk of harm to the public while ensuring that information is held securely and shared only where it is lawful and proportionate to do so.

My introduction to the response is also the Government’s statement of intent on the improved management of criminality information and its use to reduce the risk to the public. It sets out a number of examples of work we have already put in train to further protect the public, for example:

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has created a Central Criminal Records Office which is providing a focal point for several agencies involved in multi-agency public protection arrangements to protect the public against violent and sexual offenders;

The establishment of a UK central authority has enabled the exchange of criminal conviction information between EU member states and the UK;

The Criminal Records Bureau, the Independent Safeguarding Authority and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre are strengthening the information framework for protecting children and other vulnerable groups.

We are building on these achievements and have begun a programme of work to take forward Sir Ian’s recommendations. This will often not involve doing new things, but instead means factoring in the principles of the review into existing or planned pieces of work that we are already committed to delivering. For example, work to support the deportation of EEA nationals in appropriate circumstances and the developing identity management strategy.

Everyone in the Public Protection Network needs to recognise how their jobs contribute to protecting the public and they need to be provided with the training and resources necessary so that they can properly make their vital risk-based decisions relevant to public protection.

This is not just about solving yesterday and today’s problems, it is also about trying to make sure that similar issues do not arise in the future. This will require long-term change to how Public Protection Network organisations operate and more work across organisational boundaries.

This will take time, but we have also set ourselves clear short-term milestones. We are already establishing robust ministerial governance structures and will appoint an independent adviser to ensure we maintain momentum. By the end of January 2009 we will agree a strategic direction for criminality information management and will provide new guidance on managing risks across the whole Public Protection Network by April. We aim to implement a number of steps to improve our business processes by the middle of next year and by September staff training on managing criminality information will be enhanced.

This will take us some considerable way to meeting our key objective which is to provide frontline Public Protection Network staff with the information they need, in the format that they need, at the time that they need it so that they can protect the public. Our response to Sir Ian’s review is an important aspect of meeting that challenge.

Copies of the documents have been placed in the Vote Office.

The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council was held in Brussels on 27 and 28 November 2008. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice attended on behalf of the United Kingdom. The following issues were discussed at the Council:

The Council endorsed a statement condemning the recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai.

Giles de Kerchove, the counter-terrorism co-ordinator, welcomed the Council’s recent focus on counter-terrorism. Radicalisation and recruitment were sensitive issues, but consensus has been reached on updating the action plan under the French presidency. It was important to encourage moderate Muslims to express their views. External work with the UN, Pakistan, the Sahel and the US was also critical. The Commission highlighted efforts on explosives, critical infrastructure protection, and CBRN—Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear—terrorism.

The UK welcomed the work of de Kerchove and the presidency on counter-radicalisation and stressed that this area had to be the focus for the long-term effort. Important elements were countering ideology, strengthening mainstream voices, tackling spaces where radicalisation can happen, such as prisons and schools, and communications. The UK had undertaken extensive work in this area, and was keen to do more at EU level.

On civil protection, Ministers were shown a film of a recent CBRN exercise and conclusions were agreed on improving the Union’s modular response, training and EU-UN co-ordination. Some additional measures needed to be taken, and this was the consideration behind the presidency’s roadmap.

The Council discussed a presidency paper on PNR. The incoming Czech presidency felt that the report was a good basis for future work and set out plans to work on the legal text at expert level, as well as to engage with other bodies such as the European Parliament and the Fundamental Rights Agency. The UK felt that the presidency’s report showed that significant progress had been made, but that there was now a need to maintain the momentum.

During the mixed Committee—including Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Iceland—the presidency and the Commission congratulated Switzerland on its readiness to join the Schengen area, with land borders to be lifted on 12 December 2008 and air borders on 29 March 2009.

The Commission provided an update on the schedule for implementation of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) programme. There had been some delays, but testing had resumed on 5 November and the results would be ready at the end of December. Every effort would be made to ensure that SIS II was fully operational before the end of 2009. The UK asked for the views of member states not presently linked into the SIS programme to be represented in the ‘Friends of SIS II’ group looking at the SIS II programme. This was agreed.

The presidency reported on the 2nd EU-Africa Conference on Migration and Development which took place in Paris on the 25 November. The Commission supported the practical measures set out in the declaration from the conference and undertook to work hard with member states to take them forward. The Council conclusions on the global approach to migration were agreed without discussion and will be formally adopted at the December General Affairs and External Relations Council.

The presidency reported on the EU Ministerial Conference on Integration which took place in Vichy on 3 to 4 November, and the Council agreed the declaration as Council conclusions.

The presidency congratulated the Council on the progress made in negotiations on the draft directive establishing a single application procedure, a single permit and a common set of rights for third country nationals legally residing in the member states and on reaching political agreement on the blue card directive. The presidency declared that the directives demonstrated the EU was already delivering on commitments made on legal migration in the migration pact.

The Council did not reach agreement on the draft directive extending long-term residence to beneficiaries of international protection—in which the UK does not participate. Reservations are still outstanding on whether to offer the same access to long-term residence rights to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection as to refugees.

During lunch, there was a discussion on Iraqi refugees and, on reconvening, the Council agreed conclusions underlining the importance of resettlement as a protection tool for particularly vulnerable refugees. The Council agreed to step up efforts to meet the target set by UNHCR of 10,000 Iraqi refugees to be offered protection in the EU over the next three years while taking into account member states’ individual reception capacities and efforts already taken in the field of resettlement.

The Council discussed and agreed conclusions on how to take forward work dealing with abuse of the free movement directive, in particular by addressing the expulsion of criminals who threatened serious harm and the threat of illegal immigration. The Commission will adopt their report on their evaluation of the implementation of the directive next week but will take forward further work on how member states should interpret the directive in respect of the issues raised in the discussion in early 2009.

The Council agreed conclusions on child abduction alerts.

The presidency provided an update on work to amend the co-operation agreement between Eurojust and Europol.

Five legal instruments were adopted: the framework decision on racism and xenophobia; the framework decision on data protection; the framework decision on mutual recognition in probation matters; the framework decision on terrorism and the framework decision on mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters.

The Council reached a general approach on the proposed decision amending the existing arrangements for the European judicial network in civil and commercial matters. The European Parliament is due to vote on the final text on 17 December 2008.

The Council conclusions concerning the common frame of reference in contract law were formally adopted. The presidency recalled that member states wanted a non-binding common frame of reference which was voluntary, and confirmed that the Council was not in favour of harmonising contract law in member states.

The e-justice action plan was adopted. This provides a structure and plan to take forward and deliver the proposed e-Justice projects.

Portugal and Estonia provided a demonstration of a practical example of e-justice, showing how citizens in each of the two countries can now rapidly create a company in the other state on line.

Agreement was reached on the setting up of a network for legislative co-operation, which will facilitate information about legislation in the various member states passing among Ministries of Justice. The presidency said that the first meeting of the network would take place in the first half of 2009.

The Council agreed a general approach on the European supervision order. The UK welcomed the instrument, which would enhance public protection by enabling the supervision of suspects awaiting trial when they returned home, while also ensuring people were not held unnecessarily in detention.

The UK congratulated the presidency on the conclusion of the negotiations on the regulation on mutual recognition of family maintenance obligations. The UK did not opt into this measure when it was proposed; however, Lord Bach announced that the UK would notify the Commission of our wish to participate in this measure when it has been formally adopted.

The review of the experience of the United Kingdom under the optional protocol to the United Nations Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women announced on 25 June 2007 by my noble Friend Lord McKenzie of Luton (Official Report, c. 483) has been concluded.

The CEDAW optional protocol allows women in the UK to submit complaints directly to the United Nations Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women if they feel that their rights have been violated. The Government accepted the optional protocol to reaffirm our commitment to women’s rights and gender equality, and to gain greater empirical evidence on the value of individual petition to the UN generally.

The review of CEDAW was carried out by Professor Jim Murdoch of Glasgow university school of law. Professor Murdoch finds that: the CEDAW operational protocol has not yet provided women in the UK with real benefits; non-governmental organisations in the UK have not used the optional protocol in advancing the cause of women; and that the quality of the UN Committee’s adjudication on admissibility of complaints can appear inconsistent.

Government expenditure on cases involving the UK has been calculated at just over £4,000 per case.

Professor Murdoch’s findings suggest that the first three years have not provided sufficient empirical evidence to decide either way on the value of other individual complaint mechanisms. We will need further evidence, over a longer period, to establish what the practical benefits are. In the meantime, the Government will consider the merits of other individual complaints mechanisms on a case-by-case basis.

Copies of Professor Murdoch's report of the review have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office. A copy will also be placed on the Ministry of Justice website at http://www.justice.gov.uk/whatwedo/humanrights.htm

My noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lord Bach) has made the following written ministerial statement:

“Legal aid is one of the fundamental elements underpinning the justice system and an important way of helping poorer members of the community. It enables access to justice for those who cannot afford to pay for legal advice and representation. The Government aims to get the best value for money from the provision of these services, so that as many people as possible can be helped using the available resources.

The value of legal aid contracts that have been awarded to the Not for Profit sector by the Legal Services Commission has increased from almost £48 million in 2002-03 to £80 million last year. This has enabled the sector to provide legal aid to an increasing number of people and last year over 250,000 of the 800,000 acts of advice and assistance were delivered by Not for Profit agencies.

The need for legal advice in areas like housing and debt will inevitably increase in these difficult economic times and the Government wants to be sure that the best use of existing resources is being made.

We need to bring together the evidence about the issues facing the advice sector on the ground. I have asked my officials, therefore, to lead a short study which will gather evidence about the following:

The impact of the recession and the demand for civil legal advice.

The impact of civil legal advice fixed fees on local providers—financially and in terms of the type of work they are taking on.

The initial experience of Community Legal Advice Centres, including the impact on other providers in the area.

Trends in funding from sources other than the Community Legal Service, including local authority funding, national lottery funding, charities, central government departments, and others.

Our study will complement other work that is taking place—for example, the Legal Services Commission’s review of civil fixed fees, which is due to report early next year and the Legal Services Research Centre's ongoing research and evaluation of CLACs. The aim of our study will be to identify, bring together, and analyse the available evidence across England and Wales. This will improve our understanding of how legal advice is delivered and funded at the local level and establish what further information we may need to inform future decisions.

The study team will work closely with advice providers, local authorities and other funders of advice to establish the evidence. I intend to set up a steering group for the project, which will include representatives from outside Government, which I will chair.

The initial study will report in March and copies of the report will placed in the Libraries of both Houses.”

Listed below are those Bills which the Government intend to bring forward in the current session. Details of each of these Bills are available from the Leader of the House of Commons website—www.CommonsLeader.gov.uk/Legislation:

1) Business Rate Supplements

2) Borders, Immigration and Citizenship

3) Child Poverty

4) Coroners and Justice

5) Children, Skills and Learning

6) Equality

7) Health

8) Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction

9) Marine and Coastal Access

12) Policing and Crime

13) Saving Gateway Accounts

14) Welfare Reform

Draft Bills

1) Antarctica

2) Bribery

3) Civil Law Reform

4) Communications Data

5) Community Empowerment

6) Floods and Water

7) Immigration Simplification

Carry Over Bills

1) Banking

2) Political Parties and Elections

The summary of the consultation on the Government’s draft legislative programme was laid before the House yesterday and is available from the Vote Office and the Leader of the House of Commons website: www.Commons Leader.gov.uk.

The Fourth Session UK legislative programme unveiled in the Queen’s Speech on 3 December contains measures of relevance to the people of Northern Ireland.

The following is a summary of the legislation announced in the Queen’s Speech and its impact in Northern Ireland. It includes both new Bills that will be introduced in the next Session and Bills carried over from the last Session. It does not include draft Bills.

The list also identifies the lead Government Department.

The following Bills extend to Northern Ireland, in whole or in part, and deal mainly with excepted or reserved matters. Discussions will continue between the Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that where provisions that deal with devolved matters are included in any of these Bills, the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly will be sought for them:

Banking (HM Treasury) (Introduced in the 3rd Session)

Political Parties and Elections (MOJ) (Introduced in the 3rd Session)

Savings Gateway (HM Treasury)

Borders, Immigration and Citizenship (HO)

Coroners and Justice (MOJ)

Child Poverty (Child Poverty Unit)

Policing and Crime (HO)

It is intended that the following Bills will extend to Northern Ireland to varying degrees. They will require the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly in relation to those provisions in the devolved field:

Marine (DEFRA)

Health (DoH)

Children, Skills and Learning (DCSF)

Discussions will continue between the Government and the Northern Ireland Executive on Bills that might include provisions that require the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The following Bills will have limited or no impact in Northern Ireland:

Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction (DCLG)

Equality (GEO)

Welfare Reform (DWP)

In accordance with Section 10 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, I have appointed the right hon. Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell CBE QC) as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee in place of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). The appointment follows appropriate consultation and reflects the recommendation of the House.

On behalf of the Government I welcome the publication on 2 December of the first report from the Commission on Scottish Devolution.

The Commission was set up by the Scottish Parliament and is fully supported by the UK Government. The Commission’s mandate is—

“to review the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 in the light of experience and to recommend any changes to the present constitutional arrangements that would enable the Scottish Parliament to serve the people of Scotland better, improve the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament, and continue to secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom.”

Publication of this first report demonstrates the wide-ranging engagement the Commission has undertaken across Scotland and elsewhere in the UK.

The Government will consider this first report in detail. We look forward to providing additional evidence to the Commission and to receipt of the final recommendations of the Commission in due course.

I have arranged for copies of the first report to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

The legislative programme for the Fourth Session was unveiled in the Queen’s Speech on 3 December. All of the Bills announced in the Queen’s Speech contain provisions that apply to Scotland, this is a programme that will significantly benefit Scots from all walks of life.

In this Session the Government will take forward measures to ensure fair rules, fair chances and fair futures for people across Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

This statement includes a summary of the legislation announced in the Queen’s Speech and its application to Scotland. This statement includes both new Bills that will be introduced in the coming weeks and months and those Bills that are carrying-over from the last Session. It does not include draft Bills. The Bills listed in section 1 are not likely to contain provisions requiring the consent of the Scottish Parliament. Section 2 details Bills that are likely to contain provisions that require the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament (LCM) in line with the Sewel convention. A brief description is provided of the provisions likely to require consent.

The list also identifies the lead Government Department:

UK Legislation unlikely to contain provisions requiring the consent of the Scottish Parliament at introduction:

The Bills in this section deal largely with reserved matters. Discussions will continue between the Government and the Scottish Ministers to ensure that if provisions relating to matters which trigger the Sewel convention are included in any of these Bills during their passage at Westminster, the consent of the Scottish Parliament will be sought for them:

Banking (HMT) (introduced in 3rd Session)

Borders, Immigration and Citizenship (HO)

Child Poverty (Child Poverty Unit)

Health (DoH)¹

Political Parties and Elections (MOJ) (introduced in 3rd Session)

Savings Gateway (HMT)

¹While health care is predominately a devolved matter, the provisions in this Bill extending to Scotland do not require an LCM

Legislation likely to contain provisions requiring the consent of the Scottish Parliament at introduction:

Discussions will continue between the Government and the Scottish Ministers on Bills that might include provisions that trigger the Sewel convention. The Bills identified within the Queen’s Speech in this section are as follows:

Children, Skills and Learning (DCFS)—The Bill allows for arrangements between UK and Scottish Ministers to be made in relation to the provision of education and training services that will require an LCM. The Bill will also include reserved measures on the right to request time off to train.

Coroners and Justice (MOJ)—The Bill will include devolved measures, that require an LCM, on criminal memoirs and the transposition of the services directive.

Equality Bill (GEO)—Equal opportunities is a reserved matter. This Bill will require an LCM as it will amend the Scottish Ministers functions by allowing them to impose specific public sector duties on Scottish public bodies for the three new strands.

Local Democracy, Economic Regeneration and Construction (DCLG)—The Bill requires an LCM for devolved measures that relate to the construction industry supply chain.

Specifically these will improve clarity on cash flow and encourage parties to resolve disputes by adjudication rather than by litigation. Additionally the Bill will repeal uncommenced provisions in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act that apply to Scotland which relate to the Boundary Committee.

Marine and Coastal Access (DEFRA)—This Bill will greatly improve the way the UK uses its vast natural marine resources and maximises the benefits it gets from them, balancing competing, economic, ecological and social interests. The Bill will enable a single UK-wide marine policy statement to be drawn up by UK Ministers in conjunction with the devolved Administrations. An LCM will be required to make Scottish Ministers the marine planning authority and to give them powers to designate marine conservation zones for the Scottish offshore region. They will also have responsibility for marine licensing in relation to many activities in the Scottish offshore region.

Policing and Crime (HO)—This Bill will include a significant range of reserved provisions that will extend to Scotland. The Bill will also include measures that provide for the recognition and enforcement of English and Welsh Football Banning Orders in Scotland which will require an LCM.

Welfare Reform and Birth Registration (DWP)—Social Security is a reserved matter and the Bill will include wider-ranging reserved provisions that will extend to Scotland. An LCM will be required to confer a regulation making power upon the Scottish Ministers so that they may include devolved funding streams within the “right to control”.

On 26 November 2007, my predecessor issued a written ministerial statement (Official Report, 4-5WS) announcing that the heads of terms for Crossrail had been agreed between the Department for Transport and Transport for London.

The heads of terms outlined the financial and governance arrangements to be put in place to secure the effective completion of the Crossrail project. Copies of the heads of terms were deposited in the Library of the House on 26 November 2007. They have now been developed into a comprehensive suite of agreements which will ensure a robust governance structure to enable the project to be delivered on time and on budget.

The principal agreements of these are the Crossrail sponsors’ agreement, which sets out arrangements between my Department and Transport for London for the funding and governance of the Crossrail project and the Project Development Agreement, which sets out the relationship between the Department for Transport and Transport for London as joint sponsors and Cross London Rail Links, the project delivery body. I am today placing a copy of both agreements in the Library of the House.

With the signing of these agreements, the project can proceed to its next phase of development and the next milestone will be in late 2009. I intend to return to Parliament to offer an update on progress as appropriate, in particular after the conclusion of my Department and Transport for London’s joint review of services which are to transfer from existing franchises to Transport for London’s control.

On 4 November, I laid before Parliament a minute which set out the contingent liabilities that I, as the Secretary of State for Transport, will be entering into on the signature of these agreements.

The completion of these agreements marks the passing of another key milestone in the project with main construction beginning in 2010 and the first services running in 2017.

The 2003 White Paper “The Future of Air Transport” made clear that, given the economic benefits to the United Kingdom, the Government support the further development of Heathrow by adding a third runway and exploring the scope for making greater use of the existing runways, subject to meeting strict local conditions on air quality, noise and improving public transport access.

The then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Ruth Kelly), made a statement to the House on 8 July 2008 (Official Report, Col. 75WS) which explained progress following the “Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport” consultation, which closed on 27 February 2008. She announced a further consultative exercise as part of delivering a full equalities impact assessment and the intention to inform the House of the decision on the future development of Heathrow before the end of the year. The further consultative exercise closed on 9 November 2008.

Since being appointed Secretary of State for Transport in October, I have had the opportunity to hear views from across the House in debate on 5 November and to begin considering the evidence, including the 70,000 responses to the consultation.

I share the desire on all sides of the House, and among the wider public, for this issue to be resolved. I am equally aware of the importance of reaching the right conclusion.

I know that there are strong views across a range of interests. I will ensure that I give proper consideration to the evidence before me and will therefore take more time before making an announcement to the House in January 2009.

I am pleased to inform the House that the Government’s fourth session legislative programme will contain 14 Bills. Almost every one will affect Wales in some way.

The programme builds on the pre-Budget report with a focus on helping people meet the economic challenges they are facing particularly in this current climate. The Government will take forward measures to ensure fairness in our society, with fair rules, a fair say and a fair chance for all.

There will be two Bills with framework provisions:

Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill

Marine and Coastal Access Bill

Further information on these provisions will be made available after the Bills’ introductions.

A further six Bills at least will contain specific provisions for Wales, which will generally be provisions to confer the same powers on Welsh Ministers, in devolved areas of responsibility, as are being conferred on UK Ministers in those areas in relation to England. These are:

Business Rates Supplements

Children, Skills and Learning

Coroners and Justice

Equality

Policing and Crime

Welfare Reform

Further Welsh provisions may be included as Bills continue to be developed.

The Government continue to remain committed to delivering devolution through provisions in Westminster Bills and by using the Legislative Competence Order process.

On Tuesday 2 December, I received Professor Paul Gregg’s report on the effectiveness of the conditionality requirements that are currently applied to working age benefit claimants. This report “Realising Potential: A Vision for Personalised Conditionality and Support”, was commissioned by my Department earlier this year.

The report is wide-ranging and ambitious and looks at the effectiveness of welfare reform and how more unemployed people, lone parents and people with a health condition or disability can access personalised help and be supported back to work. While the economic backdrop to the review is challenging it remains crucial to consider, debate and put in place further reforms to the welfare state to ensure we help as many disadvantaged people as possible to find work.

The report assesses the effectiveness of the current requirements that apply to the unemployed and to other groups. Evidence suggests that the requirements that apply to the unemployed on jobseeker’s allowance have been highly effective over the past decade. The work-focused interview regime that applies to other claimants has also had some success, but primarily for those closest to the labour market.

However, the report recognises that the numbers of people getting support are still low compared to the numbers who do actually want to get back to work. This means that many of the most vulnerable people are not accessing help that evidence tells us is effective. This denies the wider financial, health and well-being gains that comes from working.

The report makes a number of important recommendations around how to address the weaknesses that remain within the current benefit system to ensure more people can access support and get back to work. The report suggests that almost everyone claiming benefit and not in work should:

be required to engage in activity that will help them to move towards, and then into employment;

have an empowered personal adviser with whom they will be able to agree a route back to work;

be obliged to agree an action plan on the steps they agree with their adviser will help them;

have a clear understanding of the expectations placed upon them (and why) and what the consequences for failing to meet these are; and

be able to access a wide range of personal support on the basis of need not benefit label.

The report makes clear that the Department should not seek to realise this vision by expecting lone parents with younger children and people with a health condition or disability to be treated as though they were unemployed and be made to look for suitable jobs. This would be counter-productive, unreasonable and punitive. Rather the report recommends the creation of an entirely new sort of conditionality regime for people who have a good opportunity to secure employment with time, encouragement and support. People in this “Progression to Work” group should face requirements which:

reflect the claimants co-ownership of the return to work process;

are tailored to their capability and built around their circumstances;

are based on activity that supports their own route back to work; and

are linked up with effective support.

The report also identifies some groups of people who should face no conditionality requirements whatsoever. These groups are lone parents and partners with very young children, carers with the most significant caring responsibilities and people with the most severe health conditions.

To realise this vision the report suggests that the right support needs to be made available, based on need rather than what benefit people are on. We also need to make sure those who deliver employment support, whether in Jobcentre Plus or the private and voluntary sector, have the right incentives to deliver the right support at the right time.

The Department warmly welcomes the report and will consider Professor Gregg’s findings very carefully and will respond shortly.

Copies of “Realising Potential: A Vision for Personalised Conditionality and Support” have been placed in the Library of the House.

Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the Department for Work and Pensions departmental expenditure limit will increase by £3,752,000 from £7,834,033,000 to £7,837,785,000 and the administration budget will increase by £1,292,000 from £5,692,537,000 to £5,693,829,000.

Within the departmental expenditure limit change, the impact on resource and capital is as set out in the following table:

Resource Departmental Expenditure Limit

The change in the resource element of the departmental expenditure limit arises from:

Request for Resources 2

i) A budget transfer of £569,000 to the Ministry of Justice to fund training relating to the introduction of employment support allowance.

ii) A budget transfer of £3,500,000 to the Ministry of Justice to fund expected increases in consent orders through the courts for child maintenance, following repeal of section 6 of the Child Support Act 1991.

Request for Resources 5

iii) A machinery of government transfer of £1,030,000 from Cabinet Office in respect of the electronic delivery team. the electronic delivery team is responsible for the Government Gateway.

iv) A budget transfer of £45,000 to HM Treasury to support the work of the Centre of Expertise in Sustainable Procurement.

v) A budget transfer of £40,000 to Cabinet Office to support the work of the Government secure zone.

vi) A budget transfer of £376,000 from Cabinet Office to enable the Department to meet additional costs arising from the expansion of services provided by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.

vii) A budget transfer of £4,000,000 from the Department for Children, Schools and Families in respect of the costs of Caxton House, for which this Department has taken over management responsibility and agreed the transfer of the property to Land Securities Trillium.

Capital Departmental Expenditure Limit

The change in the capital element of the departmental expenditure limit arises from:

Request for Resources 2

viii) A machinery of government transfer of £210,000 from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Health and Safety Executive in respect of the Pesticides Safety Directorate. This transfer occurs as a result of the Hampton Review on regulatory inspections and enforcement.

Request for Resources 5

ix) Budget transfers of £2,000,000 from the Department for Children, Schools and Families and £1,000,000 from the Department for Communities and Local Government relating to the work of Government Connect. Government Connect is a strategic partnership between national and local government that provides a secure IT infrastructure between central government departments and local authorities.

Administration Costs

The movement in the administration cost limit arises from the changes to the resource departmental expenditure limit as noted in items i) to iv), vi) and vii).

Movements in Non-Voted Expenditure

The reduction in non-voted resource expenditure is due to a reduction in the cost of administering national insurance fund benefit payments. This reduction is offset by an increase in voted resource due to an equivalent reduction in income from HM Revenue and Customs to meet the cost of administering national insurance fund benefit payments:

Request for Resources 2

x) A reduction in non-voted resource expenditure of £32,415,000 offset by an increase in voted resource expenditure of £32,415,000.

Request for Resources 3

xi) A reduction in non-voted resource expenditure of £25,448,000 offset by an increase in voted resource expenditure of £25,448,000.

Request for Resources 5

xii) A reduction in non-voted resource expenditure of £19,444,000 offset by an increase in voted resource expenditure of £19,444,000.