My right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Bob Ainsworth) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

My right honourable friend the Minister for Defence Equipment and Support (Baroness Taylor) 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, Shomcliffe, 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. The 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 the plan is more sophisticated in selecting how material flows are routed. The 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 the 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 counterproposal was received. However, this was not operationally or financially viable. On this basis, I have decided fully to endorse the closures of the RDCs.

My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Derek Twigg) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

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

I have made a statement under Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998 that, in my view, the provisions of the Consolidated Fund Bill are compatible with the convention rights. A copy of the statement has been deposited in the Library of the House.

The Prime Minister's Statement of 25 July 2007 (Official Report, Commons, col. 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 to 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.

The 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 for 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.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport (Ruth Kelly) has made the following Ministerial Statement.

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.

My honourable friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Kitty Ussher) has made the following Written Statement.

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.

My honourable friend the Minister of State for Energy (Malcolm Wicks) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

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 its communication. To meet our long-term climate objectives the EU had to be ambitious both on its own and in promoting greater international co-operation.

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, it would investigate the impact of the third package on Russian companies and it 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.

My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Bridget Prentice) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

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; and

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 general commissioners in all the divisions with the aim of improving the organisational efficiency of 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.

My honourable friend the Minister of State (Michael Wills) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

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

My honourable friend the Minister of State for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs (Pat McFadden) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

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 front-line public sector workers.

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

A report Delivering Simplification Plans: A Summary has been deposited in both Houses and summarises this cross-government effort.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (David Miliband) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

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

The troika correctly set itself 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 its mandate, the troika undertook an intense schedule of meetings with the parties. Over 10 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 has therefore reported that the parties have been unable to reach an agreement on Kosovo's status.

I pay tribute to the troika's work. It has worked tirelessly and imaginatively. Although it did not secure an agreement between the parties, its work generated sustained and intensive high-level dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina. The troika has 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 its 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 learnt 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 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 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 further 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.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (David Miliband) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

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 in discussions focused on governance and trade.

The UK had made clear its position 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. During her intervention, Baroness Amos raised Zimbabwe and the appalling human rights situation caused by President Mugabe. 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.

My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Competitiveness (Stephen Timms) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

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

Mark Lovell and Councillor 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 Library 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 Humber 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 past 15 years and has received a number of accolades.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills (John Denham) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

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 House Library.

The overall research and science budget 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 the 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 the Government are 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 (the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the Natural Environment Research Council and the 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 that 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, while encouraging further international collaboration.

Link to report: www.dius.gov.uk/publications/URN07114.pdf.