In September last year and following the House of Lords judgment in Purdy v DPP, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued his interim policy setting out the particular public interest factors he would take account of when deciding whether to give consent to the prosecution of a person for the offence of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring [assisting] another to commit or attempt to commit suicide. At the same time he announced the start of a consultation process on the issue.

Having considered over 4,500 responses to that consultation process, the director has today issued his final policy together with the summary of the responses. Copies of each have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

It should be emphasised that the policy does not change the law but responds to the House of Lords judgment in Purdy v DPP in which the House of Lords considered that in the special case of assisted suicide the director should issue such a policy. This policy should be read in conjunction with the Code for Crown Prosecutors which will continue to apply to all cases.

Additionally, following a similar public consultation process, the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland has today issued guidelines in respect of cases arising in Northern Ireland. Copies of these guidelines have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

My honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People (Jonathan Shaw) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

In October 2007, the European Court of Justice decided that disability living allowance (care component), attendance allowance and carer’s allowance (“disability benefits”) should be classified as sickness benefits under Regulation EC 1408/71. Consequently, the benefits are exportable in certain circumstances. Before this judgment, disability benefits were not exportable and as a result people who had been receiving these benefits lost entitlement when they moved abroad.

The Government accepted that the disability benefits referred to above are exportable to customers living in the European Economic Area (EEA) and Switzerland provided that certain conditions are met. This includes a requirement that customers making a new claim have been in the UK for 26 out of the past 52 weeks.

After careful consideration, we have decided to take a different approach on cases where people lost entitlement to a disability benefit when they moved to another EEA state or Switzerland before 18 October 2007 (the date of the judgment in case C-299/05, Commission v Parliament) but no earlier than 8 March 2001 (the date of the judgment in Case C-215/99, Jauch v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter).

We accept that these people will have been in the UK for 26 out of the previous 52 weeks when they left the UK. We will therefore no longer require that they should satisfy this condition at the date they seek reinstatement, provided that they continued to meet the other relevant domestic and EU law eligibility requirements throughout the period their claim was disallowed. Payment will be considered from 18 October 2007.

Once full details are available, the Pension, Disability and Carers Service will start to contact those people who have already applied for reinstatement to check if they are able to have their benefit reinstated.

The department will take action to publicise this different approach and has placed information on the Government’s official website, Directgov at http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/N11/Newsroom/DG_185646. The disability benefits pages on the site will be updated as more information becomes available.

My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Jack Straw) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

This Ministerial Statement sets out the Government’s decision on the question of compensation for pleural plaques, following their consultation on the issue. A full summary of the submissions we received during that consultation will be published shortly.

On 17 October 2007, the Law Lords upheld a Court of Appeal decision that the existence of pleural plaques—small localised areas of fibrosis caused by exposure to asbestos fibres, found within the pleura of the lung—does not constitute actionable or compensatable damage. Prior to that, people had been able to bring claims for compensation for pleural plaques since the 1980s.

In light of representations made by individuals and organisations who strongly disagreed with the Law Lords’ decision, and in recognition of the concerns that existed, the Government published a consultation paper on the issue which sought views on a number of options in response to the ruling, including whether to overturn the House of Lords judgment and legislate so that pleural plaques would again be compensatable under civil law.

In total, the Government received 224 responses to their consultation paper. In addition, reports were received from the chief medical officer (CMO) for England and Wales and the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) reviewing the medical evidence on pleural plaques. Very helpful further discussions have also taken place with key medical experts in relation to the medical evidence.

This has confirmed that the presence of pleural plaques is an indicator that a person has been exposed to asbestos. Given that exposure to asbestos increases the risk of developing a serious illness, a diagnosis of pleural plaques can give rise to an understandable sense of anxiety and unease. However, while the exposure to asbestos has resulted in an anatomical change, in the great majority of cases pleural plaques do not in themselves produce any significant physiological change or loss of lung function, and only very rarely give rise to physical symptoms. In such rare cases, it is still possible for individuals to bring a civil claim for damages.

There is no available medical evidence to show that pleural plaques become malignant or lead to mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases. Current evidence indicates that it is a person’s exposure to asbestos that produces any increased risk of developing a serious asbestos-related disease rather than the pleural plaques themselves.

The chief medical officer has invited the British Lung Foundation and the British Thoracic Society to develop information materials for healthcare professionals, and an information leaflet for people diagnosed with pleural plaques, to ensure that consistent and accurate information is provided about the condition to help allay concerns as far as possible.

On the basis of medical evidence received during the course of this review, including authoritative reports from the CMO and the IIAC, we are unable to conclude that the Law Lords’ decision should be overturned at this time or that an open-ended no-fault compensation scheme should be set up. While the current medical evidence is clear that pleural plaques are a marker of exposure to asbestos, and that exposure to asbestos significantly increases the risk of asbestos-related disease, any increased risk of a person with pleural plaques developing an asbestos-related disease arises because of that person’s exposure to asbestos rather than because of the plaques themselves. However, if new medical or other significant evidence were to emerge, the Government would obviously reassess the situation.

While we cannot, for the reasons outlined above, restore the previous position, we do acknowledge the unique position of those individuals who had already begun, but not resolved, a legal claim for compensation for pleural plaques at the time of the Law Lords’ ruling in October 2007. Such people would have had an understandable expectation that their claim would result in compensation and many had made plans accordingly.

The Government have decided to make payments of £5,000 to individuals in this limited category under an extra-statutory scheme. The payment broadly reflects the level of compensation likely to have been received if pleural plaques had continued to be compensatable. Detailed arrangements relating to the operation of this extra-statutory scheme will be announced shortly. The scheme will apply to England and Wales, where the Ministry of Justice has responsibility for civil law. An information telephone line will be available by the end of the week and the number will be published at www.justice.gov.uk/about/pleural-plaques.htm. The Government regard this as a unique situation and as not setting any precedent for any other circumstances where litigants may be disappointed.

A significant consequence of the House of Lords decision has been that people diagnosed with plaques can no longer bring proceedings to establish liability for negligent exposure to asbestos. This was useful for some individuals later diagnosed with mesothelioma, as prior establishment of liability expedited their new compensation claim. This is of particular importance where conditions like mesothelioma are concerned, as patients frequently die very soon after diagnosis, leaving little time to trace records and obtain compensation. The Government believe it is imperative that steps are taken to improve the speed of payment for compensation claims for mesothelioma and other serious asbestos-related diseases.

We will therefore establish a working group composed of claimant solicitors, trade unions, insurers, the judiciary, and civil servants to examine litigation practices and procedures for compensation claims relating to mesothelioma, and identify options for streamlining them in order to reduce the time taken to conclude cases. In particular, the working group will consider:

the operation of the practice direction for court proceedings introduced in April 2008 to ensure that it is working effectively;

possible solutions to difficulties arising from delays in obtaining medical reports because of the shortage of medical experts in this area; and

why more claims do not settle, and whether any provisions in relation to pre-action behaviour would be helpful in reducing the time taken to establish liability without the need for court proceedings.

We also intend to consider changes to the substantive law to:

resolve difficulties experienced by mesothelioma sufferers as a result of differences in the value of claims which are settled before or after the death of the person concerned and to clarify the limitation period for bringing a claim; and

clarify that the limitation period for bringing a claim runs from the date that the claimant becomes aware that he or she has mesothelioma rather than from the date they became aware of the original exposure to asbestos.

In addition, in November 2009 we introduced the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Bill into Parliament under a new procedure for Law Commission Bills. The Bill will enable claims against insolvent employers to be brought directly against the employer’s insurer. This will simplify court procedures and remove the need for dissolved companies to be restored to the register of companies. The Bill is expected to become law in this Parliament.

Further to these initiatives, we are also taking action to deal with the problem of people who develop a serious asbestos-related disease but are unable to obtain full compensation because they cannot trace the employer's insurer.

This problem has been recognised for some time, and since 1999 the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and the Lloyds Market Association have committed to a voluntary code of practice for tracing EL insurance policies. However, while the Tracing Service has led to some improvements, there are still many individuals who are left without help—3,210 of them in 2008.

That situation is clearly unsatisfactory and the Government are therefore consulting on two proposals to improve matters.

We believe that an essential first step is the creation of a UK-wide Employers’ Liability Tracing Office (ELTO) to manage an electronic database of EL policies and to operate the existing tracing service. The Association of British Insurers (ABI) has agreed to drive forward this work to help claimants and their representatives, informed by the outcome of the consultation. The new office will initially be launched on a voluntary basis but we would ultimately like it to be a requirement on all insurers to publish relevant policy details on the ELTO.

The ELTO will initially be populated with existing trace data but new and renewed policies will be included shortly afterwards. One of the issues explored in the consultation is the extent to which historic insurance records can be added to the database.

We have every expectation that the ELTO will deliver significant results, creating a database of records that will help many thousands of people trace policies and receive compensation in the future.

However, even with an ELTO there will be some people, especially those who suffer from long-tail diseases like mesothelioma, who are unable to trace their insurance records and thus are denied full compensation. The Government therefore propose to establish an Employers’ Liability Insurance Bureau (ELIB) providing a compensation fund of last resort for individuals across the UK who are unable to trace EL insurance records.

The consultation, published on 10 February, examines what an ELIB should cover, the impact of an ELIB on insurers and employers, how much should be paid by way of compensation, limitations on claiming from the ELIB, and what more can be done to ensure that employers who are legally obliged to obtain ELCI do so. The Government will consider fully the responses to the consultation before determining next steps towards the introduction of an ELIB.

A mandatory ELTO and an ELIB should, in time, provide a comprehensive framework for supporting people who develop a serious asbestos-related disease. However, in recognition of the need for action now, the Government are taking a series of steps to increase the upfront payments that are currently made to mesothelioma sufferers and their dependants.

The Government will increase payments made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 by 1.5 per cent, even though the retail price index showed negative growth. In addition, we will increase payments made due to mesothelioma under the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 so that they equal payments made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is also amending regulations to increase payments to all dependants under the 1979 Act and the 2008 Act by up to £5,000, so that their awards are closer to those paid to sufferers. All of these increases will come into effect on 1 April 2010.

The fact that the UK has one of the highest rates of death from mesothelioma in the world is a legacy of our industrial heritage and the part that asbestos played in it. Just as the UK was a global leader in the asbestos industry, we must now become a global leader in research into asbestos-related disease.

We have received strong representations from clinicians, asbestos support groups and trade unions—as well as from Members on all sides of this House—for the creation of a national centre for asbestos-related disease, a collaborative network of funded researchers whose core purpose would be to advance medical research into the prevention, cure and alleviation of asbestos-related disease—primarily mesothelioma.

There is now widespread recognition, including within the medical research community, that while there has been considerable investment into cancer research generally, not enough has been focused on the study of cancers of the lung, including mesothelioma. Yet mesothelioma is now the twelfth most common cancer killer in men and the cancer of most rapidly increasing incidence in women.

We are determined to expand research in this area. The Secretary of State for Health has therefore asked Department of Health officials to consider and advise on how best to create a world-leading network of medical research practitioners for asbestos-related disease. The department will involve Michael Clapham MP, Dr John Edwards and others with a special interest in this review.

Based on their recommendations and on advice from National Cancer Research Institute about research priorities, we will set out how Government will support an increase in research investment in this area. In addition, we are very pleased to announce that the insurance industry will be contributing £3 million towards research into asbestos-related disease.

The Government believe that these measures will be of real and significant benefit to people diagnosed with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Yvette Cooper) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

The right to control aims to provide disabled adults with more choice and control over the support they need to live their lives, and how they receive that support. It allows them to select whether they receive funding direct, support from a service provider, or a mixture of both.

To understand how the right to control can be best implemented, we plan to test this approach within a small number of trailblazer sites. On 8 December 2009, we published a prospectus inviting interested authorities to be at the forefront of this innovative approach and apply to become a trailblazer site.

We have selected eight sites that have provided us with quality proposals. These sites will also provide a good geographical balance between rural and urban communities as well as a mixture of different types of authorities.

The trailblazing authorities are:

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council and Sheffield City Council (joint);

Essex County Council;

Greater Manchester—incorporating Manchester City Council, Oldham Council, Bury Council, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council and Trafford Council;

Leicester City Council;

London Borough of Barnet;

London Borough of Newham;

Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council, and

Surrey County Council (two Districts: Epsom and Ewell Borough Council, and Reigate and Banstead Borough Council)

To ensure that the greater independence requested by disabled people is being met, Jobcentre Plus will also be working closely with each of these authorities to provide a more streamlined service, and support for disabled people to achieve the outcomes that suit them best.

These eight sites will commence delivery of the right to control by the end of 2010, and will continue for a period of two years. Their findings will help inform the decision as to whether the right to control can be rolled out further.

Today we are also publishing our consultation document on our statutory regulations that will support the delivery of the right to control by the trailblazers. This can be viewed and downloaded from the Office for Disability Issues website at www.odi.gov.uk/right-to-control. Copies of the document will be placed in the House Library.

My honourable friend the Minister for Business and Regulatory Reform (Ian Lucas) has today made the following Statement.

The EU Competitiveness Council will take place in Brussels on 1 and 2 March and this Statement covers the business to be taken at the council. I shall represent the UK on internal market and industry issues on 1 March and Andy Lebrecht, the UK’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU, will represent the UK on research issues on 2 March.

The main industry and internal market items on the agenda are council conclusions on future EU industrial policy; discussion of the Commission’s Europe 2020 strategy for growth and jobs; a council resolution on EU intellectual property rights policy; and a ministerial lunchtime discussion with Mario Monti to discuss his preliminary report on the re-launch of the EU single market.

The main research items on the agenda are a joint Baltic Sea research and development programme; a regulation on the European earth observation programme (GMES) and its initial operations (2011-13); a council resolution on the governance of the European research area, including a new mandate for the Scientific and Technical Research Committee (CREST); council conclusions on the European Research Council and on researcher mobility and careers issues; and discussion of the Commission’s Europe 2020 strategy for growth and jobs.

The any other business (AOB) items are set out below:

AOB items

Information from the Commission on the results of the Copenhagen conference. Implications for European industry.

Information from the presidency on the results of the informal Competitiveness Council on 8 and 9 February (San Sebastián).

Information from the presidency and the Commission on standardisation activities, within and outside the EU, relating to electric vehicles.

Possible information from the Commission on internal market scoreboard No 20.

Presentation by the Commission on functioning of the internal market: implementation of the “internal market information system”.

Information from the Commission—Services Directive—state of play of transposition information from the Commission –ITER.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: “Mobilising private and public investment for recovery and long term structural change: developing public private partnerships”—information from the Commission 16586/09 COMPET 496 ECOFIN 836 IND 173 MI 447 RECH 434 TRANS 469 ENER 411 ENV 836.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: “A public-private partnership on the Future Internet”—Information from the Commission 15279/09 TELECOM 227 RECH 372 IND 144 ENER 359 ENV 747 SAN 291 TRANS 432.

Communication from the Commission—European Institute of Innovation and Technology: update on progress.

Information from the presidency—high level event on information and communication technologies for energy efficiency (ICT4EE) towards a sustainable society (Brussels 23 and 24 February 2010).

The Government’s main aims will be:

to outline UK priorities for a new EU industrial policy, particularly the importance of open and competitive markets;

to support the council resolution on enhancing the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the EU internal market;

in discussions on the Europe 2020 strategy for growth and jobs, to emphasise the UK priorities set out in the Prime Minister’s EU compact for jobs and growth;

to agree a decision on the participation by the Community in a joint Baltic Sea research and development programme being undertaken by several member states and a regulation on the European earth observation programme (GMES) and its initial operations (2011-13);

to adopt a council resolution on the governance of the European research area, including a new mandate for the Scientific and Technical Research Committee (CREST) which will strengthen that body's strategic role in the definition of European research policy; and

to adopt council conclusions in response to the recent evaluation of the mechanisms and structures of the European Research Council and council conclusions on researcher mobility and careers issues.

I represented the UK at the Education Council, on behalf of DCSF and BIS.

Summary

The council had only two substantive agenda items—adopting the joint progress report on the education and training work programme, and a debate on the role of education in the upcoming EU2020 strategy. Also, Androulla Vassiliou, the new Commissioner for Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth, presented her priorities for forthcoming work in the area of education.

The presidency introduced the joint report on the implementation of the education and training 2010 work programme. While advancements have been made across the key competencies and agreed benchmarks, low literacy levels and drop-out rates remain a concern. The council adopted the report without further comments.

Ministers discussed the role of education and training for the Europe of 2020, based on a presidency discussion paper which argued that education must play a central role in ensuring that Europe is a leading, competitive, knowledge-based economy. All countries supported the key messages in the text, notably the need to upgrade skills, promote mobility, foster innovation at all levels of education, and increase the links between the education system and employers.

A number of member states underlined the importance of focusing on current and future skills needs. I also spoke on the importance of an outcome-based approach to the EU’s open method of co-ordination and noted the need for an individualised approach to learning.

The Commissioner concluded by calling for increased, targeted investment in education, a more innovative higher education area, and greater flexibility between the world of education, employment and wider society. She also revealed President Barroso’s plans for EU2020, including his proposal that the benchmark on 40 per cent tertiary level education attainment should be one of five priority benchmarks for the upcoming EU2020 strategy.

The council was followed by a lunch debate on social inclusion and social responsibility through education and training. This focused on the balance between promoting equity and excellence, and will lead to council conclusions to be agreed by Ministers later this year.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Alan Johnson) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

We successfully launched the National Identity Service in Manchester on 30 November. So far, over 5,000 people have been issued with identity cards and the number is continually growing. These people are already starting to see the advantages of having an identity card—using it to prove and protect their identity and for travel to Europe.

The Identity Commissioner provides independent oversight of the National Identity Service and has already begun to look closely at the way the service is delivered. I am pleased to lay before Parliament the first annual report of the Identity Commissioner. His early impression, that the Identity and Passport Service are “doing a pretty good job”, is welcome. But the Identity Commissioner is not complacent, neither am I. I endorse his priorities for scrutiny in the coming year: data sharing; exploiting the benefit of identity cards; and the security and integrity of the technology of the National Identity Service. I look forward to seeing the result of his work in the coming months.

Since the beginning of the year, roll-out of identity cards has continued to grow. On 4 January we extended eligibility to people across the North West and since 8 February, young people aged 16 to 24 living in London have also been able to apply for an identity card. Furthermore, over 21,000 people throughout the UK have registered an interest in applying for an identity card and I have made a commitment that anyone who registers their interest through the Directgov website before 30 June will be able to apply for an identity card. Identity cards are a convenient and universal proof of age as well as a credit-card-sized alternative to the passport when travelling in Europe.

Copies of the Identity Commissioner’s report will be available in the Vote Office.

My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Transport (Sadiq Khan) has made the following Ministerial Statement.

The Local Transport Act 2008 enables the Secretary of State to confer additional functions, through secondary legislation, on the Rail Passengers’ Council, the statutory rail passenger watchdog known as Passenger Focus, in relation to buses, coaches and trams.

The Government are announcing that the Passengers' Council (Non-Railways Functions) Order 2010 comes into force today. The Order extends the council's remit so as to give bus, coach and tram passengers in England outside London statutory representation for the first time. It also changes the statutory name of the Rail Passengers’ Council to the Passengers’ Council, although it will continue to be known as Passenger Focus.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Yvette Cooper) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

I am pleased to inform the House that, from April 2010, a series of increases will be made to lump sum payments paid to individuals suffering from mesothelioma and certain other qualifying diseases under the Pneumoconiosis etc (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 and the 2008 Mesothelioma Scheme. Together these schemes mean that all people suffering from mesothelioma can receive lump-sum awards from the Government quickly after diagnosis, in addition to weekly state benefits.

There is no requirement on Government to uprate payments under the schemes but we have previously committed to increasing payments in line with those to state benefits. We have laid regulations to increase payments under the 1979 Act by 1.5 per cent from 1 April this year despite the negative growth in the retail price index. This will increase the value of such payouts to these very vulnerable people.

I can also announce that we are increasing the level of payments made through the 2008 mesothelioma scheme to bring them up to those under the 1979 Act.

The 2008 scheme was introduced to provide up-front financial support to those people who previously were not eligible for help from the Government’s other compensation schemes. The scheme is funded by compensation recovery—compensation recovered from individuals who are successful in a civil damages claim but who have already received a payment under the 1979 Act or 2008 scheme. When we started the scheme in 2008 we set awards at a level consistent with the amount of recoveries we expected to make; a lower rate than the 1979 Act. We made it clear, however, that we intended to bring 2008 scheme payments to the same level as those under the 1979 Act at the earliest opportunity. Our expectation was that we would be able to do this in the scheme’s third year of operation.

I am pleased to inform the House that we are able to honour our promise sooner than expected and will be increasing payments to 1979 Act levels from April 2010, only 18 months after the 2008 scheme started. This means that those receiving a lump sum payment for mesothelioma will receive the same amount whether they were exposed to asbestos at work or exposed elsewhere, such as through washing their partner’s clothes or by living close to an asbestos factory.

Finally, I am announcing an increase in the level of payments made to most dependants under both the 1979 Act and the 2008 scheme.

We recognise that the terrible effects of mesothelioma are not limited to the sufferer and that their families also have to cope with the effect of the disease on their loved-one, witnessing their pain, suffering and ultimately their death. While we do acknowledge this by making payments to the family of someone who dies of mesothelioma and other dust-related diseases—such as pneumoconiosis, byssinosis and silicosis—these payments have been paid at a much lower rate than those to sufferers during life. We listened to the arguments put forward by stakeholders and honourable Members, who feel that this situation is unfair to dependants and can put added stress on sufferers and families at already extremely difficult times. We made a commitment to look at reducing the difference in payment to sufferers and dependants as funds became available.

We are now able to do this and from April the majority of dependants receiving awards under the 1979 Act and 2008 scheme will receive a £5,000 increase. Those who already receive close to the amount paid to the sufferer will receive a proportionate amount, bringing their award up to the level of that paid to the sufferer in life.

These changes all take effect from April 2010.

My honourable friend the Minister of State, Department of Health (Phil Hope) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

I am publishing the independent Nutrition Action Plan Delivery Board’s (NAPDB) end-of-year report on progress by health and social care organisations in implementing the Nutrition Action Plan to improve the nutritional care of older people in hospital and those living in care homes. I have placed copies of the report and our response to the NAPDB’s findings in the Library and copies are available to honourable Members from the Vote Office. I am grateful to the chair and members of the NAPDB for their work in overseeing the first year implementation of the Nutrition Action Plan.

In completing their task, I congratulate the board on its work to raise awareness of the links between nutrition and good health, and the risks to vulnerable groups within the populations, such as older people living alone. The NAPDB report adds to the evidence base to help us address the complex factors that determine malnutrition—for example, loss of appetite associated with age and/or illness, including absorption problems or the need for assistance in eating and drinking. Many of the report’s conclusions and recommendations align with our policy on nutrition and programmes under way to improve health and social care services.

My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Jack Straw) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

With the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, I have today published the annual report of the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC). The OJC provides support to the Lord Chief Justice and myself in our joint responsibility for the system of judicial complaints and discipline.

I welcome the publication of this report, the third produced by the OJC, which details the work undertaken by the OJC in the past year, and the complaints with which it has dealt.

The OJC’s 2006-07 report marked the first occasion on which comprehensive details of complaints received about judicial office holders had been made available to the public. I am pleased to note that the OJC continues to build on this foundation and believe that this report highlights the continued progress made by the OJC in delivering a high quality, effective and transparent service to all of its complainants.

The Lord Chief Justice and I are keen to ensure that the disciplinary process for judicial office holders is both transparent and accountable. As we announced in April 2009, we have agreed that, where a judicial office holder has been removed from office following disciplinary procedures, there should now be a presumption that both the identity of that judicial office holder, and the reason for their removal, should be made public. While mindful of this presumption, we will none the less continue to make decisions about disclosure on a case-by-case basis.

Where a judicial office holder has been subject to a lesser sanction than removal, this presumption does not apply, however, we will continue to give consideration to the disclosure of relevant information in cases that have attracted a high degree of interest from the public and media.

Copies of the report are available in the Libraries of both Houses, the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office. Copies of the report are also available on the internet at http://www.judicialcomplaints.gov.uk/publications/publications.htm.

My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Jack Straw) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

I have reappointed Sir David Latham as chairman of the Parole Board from 25 February 2010 for a period of 12 months or until the future status of the Parole Board has been resolved following the consultation, The Future of the Parole Board.