My right honourable friend the Secretary of State Defence (Bob Ainsworth) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

UK forces in Afghanistan form part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and contribute to the efforts of the international community to assist the Government of Afghanistan to expand security and build the rule of law.

The Taliban insurgents are ruthless and indiscriminate in their attempts to kill and maim our troops and the Afghan people.

In his Statement on 26 February 2009 (Official Report, col. 394) on the detention and transfer of persons captured by UK forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Defence set out the value of detention operations to our campaign in Afghanistan. Detention operations by UK forces are conducted in accordance with, and the holding of detainees in UK facilities meets the standards required by, the relevant provisions of international law.

In the light of the evolving threat to our forces, we have continued to keep our approach to these operations under review. Under NATO guidelines individuals detained by ISAF are either transferred to the Afghan authorities within 96 hours for further action through the Afghan judicial process or released. And in the majority of cases, the UK forces will operate in this manner. However, in exceptional circumstances, detaining individuals beyond 96 hours can yield vital intelligence that would help protect our forces and the local population—potentially saving lives, particularly when detainees are suspected of holding information on the placement of improvised explosive devices.

Given the ongoing threat faced by our forces and the local Afghan population, this information is critical, and in some cases 96 hours will not be long enough to gain that information from the detainee. Indeed, many insurgents are aware of the 96 hours policy and simply say nothing for that entire period. In these circumstances, the Government have concluded that Ministers should be able to authorise detention beyond 96 hours, in British detention facilities to which the ICRC has access. Each case will be thoroughly scrutinised against the relevant legal and policy considerations; we will do this only where it is legal to do so and when it is necessary to support the operation and protect our troops.

Following a Ministerial decision to authorise extended detention, each case will be thoroughly and regularly monitored by in-theatre military commanders and civilian advisers. Individuals will not remain in UK detention if there is no further intelligence to be gained. We will then either release the detainee or transfer the detainee to the Afghan authorities. We have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Government of Afghanistan, requiring that individuals detained by UK forces and transferred to the Afghan authorities are treated properly. Following transfer, we continue to work with the Afghans in support of their judicial processes, maintaining close links and monitoring the application of the MoU, including through regular visits by Royal Military Police and British embassy staff to transferred detainees. The ICRC also has access to the Afghan system.

We ask our Armed Forces to operate in highly dangerous environments. In Afghanistan the capacity of the local agencies to enforce security and the rule of law is growing by the day, but it is vital that our forces have the authority and the capability to deal effectively with the serious threat to troops and those they are there to protect. I recognise the sensitivity of detention operations, but they are fundamental to the success of our military operations in Afghanistan, as has been proven in other operational areas.

UK forces in Afghanistan operate, and will continue to operate, in accordance with international law and with the highest standards of conduct that we rightly expect of them.

My honourable friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

A Treasury minute on the contingent liabilities arising from the extension of the asset purchase facility is being published today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing (David Hanson) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

On 27 April the Home Office published a consultation, Protecting the Public in a Changing Communications Environment, which set out the importance of communications data in helping to protect and safeguard the public; how the rapidly changing communications environment means the existing capability of the police, the security and intelligence agencies and other public authorities is declining and why change is necessary. Today I am publishing the summary of responses submitted as part of this consultation exercise.

Communications data are information about a communication but do not include the content of a communication.

Used in the right way, and subject to important safeguards to protect individuals’ right to privacy, communications data can play a critical role in keeping all of us safe. They enabless investigators to identify suspects and their associates; provide vital clues in solving life-threatening situations such as kidnaps, and evidence supporting alibis and prosecutions; support lawful interception of communications; and assist the emergency services to help or locate vulnerable people. They are also critical to safeguarding our national security, and in particular to countering the terrorist threat.

The consultation paper sought views on options for maintaining our vital communications data capabilities to protect the public against a background of rapid technological change. It rejected options for both a single database holding all communications data and a “do nothing” option. Instead it proposed a “middle way” approach involving two main elements for which new legislation would be required. These elements were:

provisions to impose obligations on CSPs relating to the collection and retention of specified communications data which cross their networks (including third party and other data which are not currently retained for business purposes or under existing legislation); and

provisions to impose obligations on CSPs to organise the communications data they retain in a specified way enabling specific lawful requests for data by public authorities to be processed efficiently and effectively.

The Home Office received 221 responses to the consultation exercise. As explained in the summary of responses, the Government’s rejection of a central database for all communications data was welcomed. There was also recognition of the importance of communications data and agreement that the capability of communications data to protect the public should be maintained.

As we develop the approach proposed in the consultation in the light of the responses received, we will continue to work closely with communications service providers in order to minimise as far as possible any impact on them. We will also ensure that any new proposals will include strong safeguards to minimise the potential for abuse and to ensure the security and integrity of the data.

A copy of the summary of responses will be placed in the House Library.

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

I am today publishing a consultation paper entitled Civil Monetary Penalties, Setting the Maximum Penalty. The paper explains the Government's proposal to set the maximum penalty for civil monetary penalties at £500,000. Civil monetary penalties, as set out under Sections 55A to 55E of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) would be imposed by the Information Commissioner for serious breaches of the data protection principles.

The Government are particularly seeking views from data controllers on the level of the proposed penalty, but responses to the consultation are welcome from anyone with an interest. The Government's proposal to introduce civil monetary penalties reflects the importance that Government place on safeguarding personal data effectively and processing them responsibly and lawfully. The proposals will potentially affect data controllers in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, so this consultation is UK wide.

Before imposing any civil monetary penalties the Information Commissioner has a statutory obligation to publish detailed guidance setting out the criteria it will use when imposing a civil monetary penalty and circumstances it will take into consideration.

The Information Commissioner's Office has published on its website the latest draft of its guidance on civil monetary penalties and would welcome comments on it.

The introduction of civil monetary penalties should contribute to increased compliance with the data protection principles and greater confidence for data subjects that their information is being handled correctly.

Copies of the consultation paper and associated impact assessment will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and on the department's website at www.justice.gov.uk.

My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

The Economic and Financial Affairs Council will be held in Brussels on 10 November 2009. The following items are on the agenda:

Follow-up to the October European Council

The presidency will provide a debrief following the meeting of the European Council in Brussels at the end of October. This should focus on work to be taken forward by ECOFIN on financial supervision, fiscal and financial exit strategies, crisis management and the successor to the Lisbon strategy.

Follow-up to the G20 meeting on 6 and 7 November

The presidency and the UK will provide a debrief on the meeting of G20 Finance Ministers and central bank governors in St Andrews.

Sustainability of public finances

Ministers will discuss next steps following the publication of the Commission’s sustainability report. The Government recognise the importance of sustainable public finances and are committed to the consolidation path set out in Budget 2009.

Better regulation—Reduction of administrative burdens

Ministers will discuss and agree conclusions on a Commission action programme, calling for more work to reduce administrative burdens by 25 per cent by 2012. The Government support progress in this area and have pledged their own commitment to meet the 25 per cent reduction target by 2010.

Taxation

Proposal for a Council Directive on administrative co-operation in the field of taxation

The council will be asked to agree a general approach on the directive, which improves exchange of information and brings the EU into line with OECD standards by removing the right to refuse information on grounds of bank secrecy. The UK supports the proposal and further work in this area, which links to the wider G20 agenda on good governance in taxation.

VAT treatment of postal services

ECOFIN will be asked to provide political guidelines on how to take further the issue of the VAT treatment of postal services.

Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directives 92/79/EEC, 92/80/EEC and 95/59/EC on the structure and rates of excise duty applied on manufactured tobacco

The council will be asked to reach a political agreement on the tobacco directive, which will set out the structure and rates of excise duties applied on manufactured tobacco products as well as implementation dates. The UK supports work in this area, which has the potential to reduce revenue lost from cross-border shopping and smuggling of tobacco products into the UK from low tax EU member states.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Edward Miliband) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and Andy Lebrecht, UKRep, represented the UK at the Environment Council on 21 October in Luxembourg.

Member states reached agreement on the council conclusions concerning the EU position for the forthcoming Copenhagen climate conference. Dinner discussions on 20 October saw early positioning of member states for the following day’s debate and the UK was among those arguing for ambitious conclusions to send a clear signal of intent prior to the international negotiations in December. The council agreed on a text containing three compromises relating to the long-term EU emissions-reduction target, bunker fuels and assigned amount units (AAUs). At lunch, the discussion centred on the need to engage with business and expertise as well as co-ordinating EU messaging and maintaining contact in the run-up to Copenhagen.

Ministers also adopted council conclusions relating to the role of a low-carbon, resource-efficient economy in the post-2010 Lisbon strategy. The UK welcomed the aims of the conclusions.

On the subject of ship dismantling, the council also approved conclusions calling for the early ratification and implementation of the Hong Kong international convention for the safe and environmentally sound recycling of ships and inviting the Commission to consider EU legislation in this area.

A policy debate reviewing the restriction of hazardous substances (RoHS) and waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) directives highlighted different views among member states regarding the scope of the directives. The UK raised concerns about moving to an open scope for both directives without proper assessment of the impacts of such a move and this was supported by several other member states. The presidency concluded that most delegations were open to separate scopes for RoHS but that the scope of WEEE needs further reflection.

Ministers also discussed several AOB items: A number of member states highlighted the problem of forest fires. In response to concerns about the cocktail effect of mixtures of chemicals, the presidency confirmed that it would present conclusions to the December Environment Council. Several delegations shared their concern about plastic soup—plastic marine debris floating in the oceans—and this was shared by several other delegations.

Today I have appointed Lord Browne of Madingley to chair an independent review of higher education funding and student finance. In addition to Lord Browne, the review will have six other members chosen for the breadth and depth of their experience and expertise. These are Michael Barber, Diane Coyle, David Eastwood, Julia King, Rajay Naik and Peter Sands. I have discussed these appointments and the terms of reference for the review, set out below, with the honourable Member for Havant. We are both committed to ensuring the independent nature of this important piece of work. The review fulfils the commitment made by the Government during the Commons stages of the Higher Education Act 2004 to review the operation of variable tuition fees after these had been in force for three years.

Variable tuition fees have provided institutions with a secure income stream worth £1.3 billion per year, which has helped to sustain the long-term financial health and viability of this crucially important sector. Over this time, the number of students attending university has continued to rise, as has the number coming from lower-income backgrounds.

To continue to thrive in the coming decade, institutions will need to respond to the changing needs of students, businesses and the wider community as well as adapt to demographic changes and growing international competition.

The independent review will consider the balance of contributions from all those who benefit from the higher education system. It will consult all those with an interest in higher education in this country, including current and potential students. The review will also convene an advisory forum to draw on the views and expertise of a range of representatives with interests in higher education.

The review will report to Government with recommendations next year. Any changes implemented following the review would come into effect in the academic year 2011-12 at the earliest.

Terms of Reference

“The review will analyse the challenges and opportunities facing higher education and their implications for student financing and support. It will examine the balance of contributions to higher education funding by taxpayers, students, graduates and employers. Its primary task is to make recommendations to Government on the future of fees policy and financial support for full and part-time undergraduate and postgraduate students”.

Notes:

1. In assessing options the review will be expected to take into account:

The goal of widening participation to ensure that the benefits of higher education are open to all who have the talent and motivation to succeed; the avoidance of the creation of barriers to wider access; the impact of the system of bursary payments; promoting fair access to all institutions; facilitating choice and a diversity of access routes to higher education, including through links with further education colleges; and the scope for a greater diversity of models of learning, such as modular and part-time study and the availability of student support for such courses.

Affordability for students and their families during their studies and afterwards; impact on public finances including affordability, sustainability and value for money for the taxpayer.

The desirability of simplification of the system of support.

2. The review will take evidence from within higher education and among those with an interest in its success, including an advisory forum to be convened by the chair.

3. The review will work with the Office for Fair Access and HEFCE and collaborate with Professor Adrian Smith's review of postgraduate study. Its work will also take into account the conclusions of Professor Sir Martin Harris's review on promoting access to higher education.

4. The review is expected to report by the autumn of 2010.

My honourable friend the Minister of State for Pensions and the Ageing Society (Angela Eagle) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

As honourable Members are aware, some of the administrative resource costs of the Pensions Regulator (tPR), the Pension Protection Fund (PPF), the Pensions Advisory Service (TPAS) and the Pensions Ombudsman (PO) are recovered through levies raised on pension schemes. The rates for these levies are set in regulations.

The PPF administration levy recovers the administration costs of the board of the PPF only in relation to its PPF activities. Any administration costs in relation to PPF’s financial assistance scheme responsibilities are funded separately and there is no cross subsidy from the PPF levy.

The general levy provides for some of the administration costs of tPR and those of TPAS and the PO. Activities the regulator is undertaking in relation to the employer compliance regime are not met from the general levy and are funded separately. There is no cross subsidy between the two funding sources.

I am pleased to announce that for 2010-11 we will continue to freeze the rates for both the PPF administration levy and the general levy at the same levels set for 2008-09.

This will be the third year that we have kept rates stable and delivers on the Government’s intention to provide levy cost stability for pension schemes.

The Department for Transport is launching today the public consultation on a draft national policy statement for ports in England and Wales. I am laying the draft before the House and placing copies of the consultation in the House Library.

This national policy statement forms a key element of the Government's programme to deliver the reforms to the planning system included in last year's Planning Act. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has announced in another place, the Government are also today publishing for consultation a series of national policy statements for energy infrastructure.

The aim of the reforms to the planning system set out in the Planning Act is to make the planning system more responsive to challenges such as climate change, more streamlined, efficient and predictable, and more transparent and accountable with full and fair opportunities for public consultation and community engagement.

The draft national policy statement for ports sets out the broad need for ports capacity looking ahead to 2030 and beyond, taking account in particular of our forecasts of port freight demand and the regional and local economic benefits of port activity. It also restates the Government's long-standing policy that this need can be best be met by an efficient and competitive ports industry operating in a free-market environment. It further sets out, in the context of the Government’s overall objectives for sustainable development, including mitigating and adapting to climate change and the achievement of good design, how the various potential adverse impacts of port development should be addressed by applicants with a view to avoiding, mitigating and where necessary compensating for such impacts. It notes how ports can support the development of low carbon energy sources and a low carbon economy. And it provides guidance about how the Infrastructure Planning Commission must weight any residual impacts in considering applications for nationally significant port developments, including in setting requirements and agreeing obligations for consented developments.

The department is also publishing, in parallel, its appraisal of sustainability of the draft national policy statement, incorporating a strategic environmental assessment, as well as an impact assessment and an assessment of the NPS under the habitats and wild birds directives and regulations. Consultees will be able to comment on these if they wish. I am placing copies of the main appraisal of sustainability in the House Library.

The public consultation being launched today invites views on the extent to which this national policy statement provides a suitable framework for the Infrastructure Planning Commission in making decisions about consents for new port developments. Its decisions will be based primarily on national policy statements, so it is all the more important that people have a full opportunity to comment on the detailed drafting. The consultation closes on 15 February but I encourage people to respond earlier where possible in order to allow their comments to be taken into account in parliamentary scrutiny of the policy statement. Consultees are also invited to participate in consultation events to be organised by my department in London, Leeds and Cardiff. The consultation is at www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/portsnps.

Section 9(7) of the Planning Act requires the Secretary of State to stipulate the relevant period in which, if either House makes a resolution or a Committee of either House makes recommendations with regard to the proposal to designate an NPS, he will lay a Statement in response. I hereby stipulate the relevant period as that beginning today and ending on 6 May 2010.

The House may wish to be aware that the Department for Transport is continuing to work up for consultation a draft NPS for England’s strategic road and rail networks. The advice I have commissioned from High Speed 2 on high speed rail services is likely to be a significant factor in determining future policy, I have now concluded that it would be appropriate to publish this NPS early next year, having considered the HS2 report. In addition, I still expect to publish a draft NPS for airports by 2011.

My honourable friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Maria Eagle) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

I am making this Statement to update the House about the roll-out of body orifice security scanners (BOSS chairs).

In my Written Ministerial Statement of 13 July, I stated that we had equipped all prisons with a body orifice security scanner (BOSS chair) and that the roll-out was completed in May. It has now been brought to my attention that five out the 128 BOSS chairs were not delivered on time and I wish to update the House. All chairs have now been delivered; one in June, three in July and one in September. The relevant Prison Service Instruction (PSI) mandates that governors must ensure that use of the BOSS is incorporated into local security strategies in light of local operational priorities.

My right honourable friend the Financial Secretary (Stephen Timms) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

I am today announcing the Government’s intention to introduce in the next Finance Bill a further change to the rules on how groups of companies are taxed when they buy back their issued debt at a discount to the amount borrowed. The further change is in addition to the changes I previously announced in my Statement on 14 October.

In my Statement on 14 October, I announced that the Government proposed to deal with the circumstances in which companies could buy back their debt at a discount to the amount borrowed without being taxed. I announced changes that would tighten the rules dealing with debt buybacks to ensure that only those debt buybacks that are undertaken as part of genuine corporate rescues will benefit from discount not being subject to tax.

The Statement made clear that even if a company benefited from the discount not being taxed under the new proposals any subsequent cancellation of the debt by the new creditor will result in the debtor being taxed on the previously untaxed discount.

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) published more detail on these proposals on 22 October, available at www.hmrc.gov.uk/drafts/debt-buyback.htm, which clarified the circumstances in which the discount on the debt buyback would not be taxed and the mechanism by which a subsequent release of such a debt would result in the debtor being taxed on the discount.

It has since come to light that groups of companies may be able to avoid the discount that was not taxed at the time of the buyback being taxed on the subsequent release of the debt. Groups may be able to achieve this by means of the new creditor accepting ordinary shares in the debtor in order to release the debtor from its liability.

The Government are therefore proposing to introduce additional legislation to prevent this. The new legislation will ensure that where the discount on a buyback is not taxed, any subsequent release of the debt where the consideration for the release is ordinary shares in the debtor or the entitlement to any such shares then the debtor will be taxed on the previously untaxed discount arising on the debt buyback.

The further legislation announced today will have effect in relation to releases of debt that occur on or after today in relation to any debt that was the subject of a debt buyback occurring on or after 14 October and to which the proposed legislation announced on 14 October will apply.

Draft legislation will today be published on HMRC’s website covering both the 14 October announcement and today’s announcement.

I am also today announcing the Government’s intention to present to Parliament in the next Finance Bill amendments to the debt cap provisions set out in Schedule 15 to the Finance Act 2009.

The debt cap forms part of the important reforms to the taxation of the foreign profits of UK companies, which the Government introduced in Finance Bill 2009. The cornerstone of the foreign profits package was the wide-ranging dividend exemption, effective from July this year, which was strongly welcomed by business. This allows UK companies to bring profits back to the UK free of UK tax. To make the dividend exemption affordable, the Government worked closely with business to introduce a debt cap guarding against excessive debt funding of UK companies, which will be effective from 1 January 2010.

The amendments announced today will ensure that the debt cap functions as intended providing Exchequer revenue protection while at the same time keeping the compliance burden as small as possible. Specifically, there will be the following amendments made:

legislation will be introduced to remove accountancy mismatches in the application of the gateway test to ensure that a consistent way of measuring liabilities is used in arriving both at the worldwide group’s gross debt and the net debt of UK companies;

legislation will be introduced to put beyond doubt that preference shares are excluded from the relevant liabilities both of the worldwide group and of UK companies when applying the gateway test;

legislation will be introduced to extend the definition of financial instrument to include all derivatives, such as options, swaps, futures, forwards and contracts for differences. This is because the current definition, which relies on the FSA handbook, may exclude certain derivatives which are routinely traded by many banks and other financial institutions. The change will ensure that groups are not disqualified from the qualifying financial services groups exemption because they undertake such dealings;

legislation will be introduced allowing companies to elect that no debt cap disallowance is allocated to them. This will benefit companies, such as those involved in whole business securitisations, that need certainty of tax treatment in order to protect their credit ratings. This legislation will also mandatorily restrict the allocation of disallowances to dual resident investment companies;

legislation will be introduced to extend the definition of financing income, so that guarantee fees are included as financing income. This provides consistency of treatment where guarantee fees are paid within a group, or are deemed to be paid under transfer pricing legislation, since a guarantee fee is already treated as a financing expense of the payer;

legislation will be introduced to refine the definition of a group treasury company for the purposes of the debt cap rules so as to exclude trading companies performing a peripheral group treasury company function;

legislation will allow interest paid by UK subsidiaries of tax-exempt non-departmental public bodies to disregard interest they pay to that body for debt cap purposes;

legislation will be introduced to clarify what is meant by ancillary costs relating to amounts borrowed, for the purpose of computing the available amount;

legislation will be introduced to deal with the case where external borrowing is undertaken by a partnership in which a UK company is a partner. This will ensure that the available amount reflects the economic cost to the group of borrowing by partnerships in which it has an interest, and is computed in a way consistent with the UK tax treatment of partnership debts;

legislation will be introduced to ensure that certain partnerships, formed under the laws of an overseas territory, qualify for the collective investment scheme exclusion for the purposes of identifying an ultimate parent company under the debt cap rules. Where an overseas corporate fund vehicle has a majority stake in a number of commercially unrelated groups of companies, this will minimise the possibility of all of its controlled holdings being treated as a single group for debt cap purposes;

legislation will be introduced to ensure that securitisation companies, which come within the special tax regimes we introduced in 2005, are excluded from the debt cap rules. This will ensure that the tax-neutral status of these companies is not jeopardised and will avoid any adverse effect on their credit ratings; and

a new power will be introduced to allow the definitions of the available amount and the tested expense amount to be changed or added to through secondary legislation. Regulations made under this power will be capable of having effect from 1 January of the calendar year in which they are made. This will ensure that difficulties arising where the accounting treatment for external borrowing in the consolidated accounts differs from that in a UK company’s individual accounts can be addressed through regulations.

A technical paper providing further details of all of these changes is being issued on HMRC’s website today. Draft legislative amendments will be published alongside the 2009 Pre-Budget Report for comment.