My honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Bill Rammell) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

On 12 September 2007 my predecessor announced (Official Report, cols. 122-24 WS) a programme of moves that would see three major military formations currently based in Germany relocated to existing defence sites in the UK, together with other unit moves within Germany that would lead to the eventual closure of Rhine Garrison and Münster Station with a consequential release of significant financial savings to the defence budget. The first formation to move as part of this programme is the HQ Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, which will take place this summer, to refurbished accommodation at Innsworth in Gloucestershire as announced on 15 May 2008 (Official Report, col. 49 WS).

Today, I am announcing that I have given approval for the next phase of the programme which will enable the rebasing of units within Germany. This approval commences the implementation of 26 minor build projects within Gütersloh Garrison that will allow those units that remain in Germany in support of 1 (UK) Armoured Division to vacate Rhine Garrison. As a separate but related part of this work we will also develop and rationalise the provision of service and infrastructure support currently provided in Germany by HQ United Kingdom Support Command, the Army’s administrative headquarters. Taken together these initiatives will allow the department to close large parts of Rhine Garrison in 2014, with full closure achieved when 1 Signal Brigade (7 and 16 Signal Regiments) moves back to the UK from its barracks in Elmpt.

The final two elements of the programme see 1 Signal Brigade move to Stafford and 102 Logistic Brigade move from Gütersloh to Cosford. Whilst these locations remain the planned sites for these formations it has been necessary to delay their moves by two years beyond previously announced timelines in order to accommodate other defence resource priorities. The revised plan will now see 1 Signal Brigade move in 2015 and 102 Logistic Brigade move in 2018.

We will continue to work with all interested parties in the UK, including the local county and borough councils, health and education providers and the trades unions. In Germany we will continue to engage with the relevant authorities and employee representatives at national, regional and local levels. The German Government, as host nation, have been notified of these decisions.

As stated in all of our previous announcements, the moves that we are planning do not signal a change in either our commitment to the NATO Alliance or in our overall defence policy, nor do they devalue the continued close bilateral defence relationship between the UK and Germany. Although we may make further modest adjustments to our force levels in Germany, our plan, with the continued agreement of the German Government, remains to base UK forces in Germany for the foreseeable future in the form of HQ 1 (UK) Armoured Division and the majority of its formations and supporting units, some 15,000 service personnel.

My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning (John Healey) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

I have today laid before the House regulations that make amendments to Parts L, F and J of the building regulations (conservation of fuel and power, means of ventilation and combustion appliances and fuel storage systems respectively). These amendments are scheduled to come into force on 1 October 2010, thereby allowing industry six months to prepare.

These amendments follow last year’s formal consultations on our proposals and statutory consultation with the Building Regulations Advisory Committee.

Part L of the building regulations set building standards that are important in delivering our zero carbon policies and will help to further reduce national energy demand, to meet our emission reduction targets in line with the Climate Change Act and to lower people’s fuel bills. We want energy efficient buildings, but we also want them to be healthy places to live and work in, which is why we are changing Parts F and J of the building regulations at the same time.

The Part L changes I am confirming today maintain the momentum towards zero carbon, delivering a 25 per cent improvement relative to current standards for every new home and 25 per cent improvement overall for new non-domestic buildings. These Part L changes also set out improved standards of energy efficiency when people elect to carry out work on existing homes and other properties such as replacing their windows or boilers with more efficient ones.

The changes to ventilation provisions in Part F are necessary to maintain good indoor air quality in new homes that will tend to become more air-tight because of the strengthened Part L standards. The Part F changes also introduce new requirements and guidance for installation and commissioning of ventilation systems. Similarly, changes to Part J are required to ensure that combustion appliances can continue to function safely in more air-tight homes. In addition, the Part J changes also remove technical disincentives to the wider use of biomass heating systems and introduce a provision for carbon monoxide alarms to be installed with all solid fuel appliances.

The impact assessments supporting these amendments will be published on 16 March. We are making these changes based on sound evidence and where we have judged them to be necessary in order to minimise disruption and additional regulatory burden.

Revisions to the relevant supporting technical guidance (approved documents and compliance guides) will be made available later this month, together with a summary of responses of the recent consultations on Parts L, F and J.

This statutory instrument also makes changes to the Building Regulations Competent Persons Schemes and minor technical amendments to Part G of the building regulations. The Part G and Competent Person Scheme amendments will take effect on 6 April 2010 and Approved Document G will be published later today and copies placed in the Library of the House.

My honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Bill Rammell) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

The UK's chemical protection programme is designed to protect against the use of chemical weapons. Such a programme is permitted by the Chemical Weapons Convention, with which the United Kingdom is fully compliant. Under the terms of the convention, we are required to provide information annually to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). In accordance with the Government's commitment to openness, I am placing in the Library of the House a copy of the summary that has been provided to the organisation outlining the UK's chemical protection programme in 2009.

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

The following list of key performance indicators has been set for Her Majesty’s Courts Service for 2010 to 2011:

to commence at least 78 per cent of cases within the following timescales in the Crown Court:

cases that are sent for trial within 26 weeks of sending;

cases that are committed for trial within 16 weeks of committal;

appeals within 14 weeks of the appeal being lodged; and

cases that are committed for sentence within 10 weeks of committal.

to speed up criminal cases in the magistrates’ courts so that, for charged cases, the average time from charge to disposal is less than six weeks;

time taken to produce and send court results to the police:

95 per cent of court registers produced and despatched within three working days; and

100 per cent of court registers produced and despatched within six working days.

to achieve an 85 per cent payment rate for financial penalties in the magistrates’ courts;

for 60 per cent of all breached community penalties to be resolved within 25 working days of the relevant failure to comply;

to increase the proportion of defended small claims that are completed otherwise than by court hearing to 65 per cent;

to increase the proportion of defended small claims that are completed (from receipt to final hearing) within 30 weeks to at least 70 per cent;

percentage of care and supervision cases that achieve a final outcome for the child within 30, 50 and 80 weeks:

at least 26 per cent dealt with within 30 weeks;

at least 66 per cent dealt with within 50 weeks; and

at least 92 per cent dealt with within 80 weeks;

to maintain the “very satisfied” element of the HMCS court user satisfaction survey at or above the 2007-08 baseline of 41 per cent.

More information on these and other key supporting targets are published in the HM Courts Service business plan for 2010-11. Copies of the business plan for 2010-11 have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

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

I have published today Francis Plowden’s independent review of court fees in care and supervision proceedings. In May 2009, in response to a recommendation made by Lord Laming in The Protection of Children in England: a Progress Report, I asked Mr Plowden to undertake a review to determine whether or not there was incontrovertible evidence that fees were a deterrent to a local authority when they decided whether or not to commence care proceedings. As part of the review, Mr Plowden considered how budgets were allocated and managed within any local authority area, including how and by whom decisions regarding issuing care proceedings were made. Francis Plowden has presented me with a comprehensive and considered report and I am grateful to him for his work. He believes that, at the margins, resource issues, including fees, can play a part in determining when care proceedings are initiated, but concludes that it is unlikely that children have been knowingly left at unavoidable risk by local authorities. He therefore recommends that these fees should be abolished.

The fees for care and supervision proceedings by local authorities were increased in May 2008 from £150 to up to £4,825. To facilitate this, approximately £40 million was transferred from my department’s budget to the Department for Communities and Local Government, and to the Welsh Assembly Government, for onward apportionment to local authorities in England and Wales so that the fee increase would be cost-neutral for local authorities.

Francis Plowden commented that there was a sharp fall in the number of applications during spring and autumn 2008, which caused speculation that the increased fees might have been the cause. However, he believes that the introduction of the public law outline in April 2008 is more likely to have been responsible for the temporary reduction in application volumes as local authorities familiarised themselves with the new court procedures and carried out the work required. In any event, application levels have since risen and the latest data shows that this has been sustained with no indications of a return to pre-November 2008 average volumes.

At the outset of the current Comprehensive Spending Review period, the Government responded to requests from local authorities by making an unequivocal commitment to ensuring that local authorities had a stable financial settlement for the duration of that period and that there would be no amendments made to their settlement other than in exceptional circumstances. Lord Laming acknowledged this in his report, commenting that in the event that an independent review recommended abolition of these fees, the appropriate transfers would need to be made back to my department to enable implementation of such a recommendation.

In such circumstances, and following further consideration of Francis Plowden’s report with particular regard to the safety of children, I have agreed that the circumstances surrounding the recommendation to abolish court fees are not of sufficient exception to justify breaking the Government’s commitment to giving local authorities financial stability. I have also considered the fact that funding to cover the cost of the fees has been transferred to local authorities up to and including March 2011.

I therefore intend to abolish court fees for care and supervision cases with effect from the next spending review period beginning April 2011. Appropriate adjustments to local authorities’ funding will be made at that stage.

The safety and welfare of children is and always must be our priority. My decision today means that local authorities can now be certain that they have the £40 million funding for the next financial year to pay for the court proceedings necessary to keep children from harm.

I have placed copies of Francis Plowden’s report in the Libraries of both Houses, the Vote Office and the Printed Papers Office.

My honourable friend the Solicitor General (Vera Baird QC) has made the following Statement.

Following discussion with my honourable friend Alan Campbell MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Crime Reduction, I am pleased to make the following Statement to the House.

In September last year, the Minister for Women and Equality and the Home Secretary jointly wrote to the chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, updating him on progress in relation to the Government’s consultation on violence against women and girls, and to inform him of our intention to jointly commission a review of the handling of rape complaints.

This review was commissioned within the context of the cross-government strategy Together We Can End Violence Against Women and Girls, which was published on 25 November 2009. Copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses. The consultation for the strategy had found that women lack confidence in the criminal justice system (CJS), and that this was particularly evidence in relation to rape.

There have been improvements in how the CJS responds to complaints of rape, evidenced by the increase in victims reporting rape and more cases taken to court resulting in convictions than before. In addition, this Government have implemented a series of legislative and policy improvements to the way in which rape complaints are handled, and to ensure that there is a greater focus on victims’ needs.

And as part of the cross-government VAWG strategy, we made a commitment to exploring the feasibility of setting up and/or extending scrutiny panels, similar to those currently operated by the CPS in relation to hate crime and domestic violence.

However, high-profile cases in the Metropolitan Police Service had exposed how reluctant many rape victims were to report their experiences to the police, and that further improvements could be made in the handling of those complaints where victims did disclose.

In response to these cases, a series of measures to improve the investigation and prosecution of rape to ensure victims received a consistent, high-quality service were announced by the Home Office in April 2009, including an inspection of police forces later this year by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. In addition, and as part of the work for the cross-government violence against women and girls strategy, the Home Secretary asked Sara Payne to make recommendations on how the criminal justice system’s response to rape victims could be improved. The report of Sara Payne’s review was published alongside Together We Can End Violence Against Women and Girls.

However, we took the view that a closer look at the barriers preventing full implementation of current policy was required so we could consider further what more could be done to ensure the effective handing of rape by authorities and to deliver a better service to rape victims.

On 22 September 2009, we announced that the noble Baroness, Baroness Stern had agreed to carry out an independent review into the handling of rape complaints, reporting jointly to the Government Equalities Office and the Home Office. Today (15 March 2010), Baroness Stern publishes the findings of her review and recommendations for change.

The Government are grateful to Baroness Stern for conducting this probing review and to the many organisations and individuals who contributed their views. The Government welcome her report and insightful analysis, identifying where further work or reforms are needed and setting out the case for embedding lasting change.

Baroness Stern’s review of services shows that strong progress has been made. Rapists now face more than a one in two chance of being convicted. And the measures which have been put in place to improve the response to rape complaints are having an impact, with much good practice evident across the country. However there is much more to be done, both to support victims and to help them have the confidence to pursue complaints, and to improve intelligence-led policing. We will be considering Baroness Stern’s recommendations carefully on all these points.

In the Government’s interim response to the Stern review, published today, we accept the direction set out in Baroness Stern’s report and agree that existing good practice needs to be spread throughout England and Wales to ensure that people have the correct advice and treatment, regardless of where they live. Her report poses a number of challenges, as well as 23 recommendations, which we need to consider before responding more fully later this year. In doing so, the Government will focus on eight key areas:

tackling misconceptions about rape;

forensic examinations;

joining up services;

confidence in the response to rape;

special measures;

support and advocacy;

prevention and support for particularly vulnerable groups; and

dealing with misunderstandings about compensation.

Copies of Baroness Stern’s report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and are available at www.equalities.gov.uk. Copies of the interim response have been placed in the Library and are available at www.equalities.gov.uk. The Government will make a further report to Parliament later this year, with an action plan detailing our full response to the Stern review.

My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (David Kidney) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

The issue has been raised of whether, if an election should fall before the due parliamentary process envisaged by the Planning Act can be completed, Parliament’s scrutiny of the six energy national policy statements and the Ports National Policy Statement would be curtailed. We have no desire to short-circuit the process that has been laid down. It is a crucial part of the validation of the national policy statements. If the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee recommends a debate in the House of Commons, or any noble Lord tables a resolution on one or more of the national policy statements, and the debate cannot be held before the election, we intend to facilitate an early debate or debates as appropriate once the new Parliament resumes. It is not the intention of the relevant Secretaries of State to proceed with the designation process until such debate or debates have taken place.

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

The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council was held on 8 March 2010 in Brussels. I represented the United Kingdom.

The main item on the agenda was a policy debate about the Commission Communication on EU2020 strategy. Member states agreed that EPSCO has an important role to play in defining the strategy, and welcomed the greater emphasis on youth employment, equality and green jobs. They also supported the employment rate goal but are cautious about the Commission’s proposed poverty reduction target. For the UK, I intervened to advocate the link between economic and social goals but cautioned against simplistic, overarching quantitative targets alone and stressed that targets should be meaningful and driven from the national level.

Council conclusions on the eradication of violence against women were adopted, after which the presidency opened a policy debate on the topic. Many delegations supported further EU work in this area whilst others noted that any actions should be carefully considered and analysed first. For the UK, I intervened to stress the importance of combating negative stereotypes that perpetuate the problem of violence against women. I also outlined recent action the UK had taken in this area, including the Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act, the 2009 strategy to end violence against women and girls, the creation of special courts, and further investment for the national helpline for victims of domestic violence.

A delegation of Ministers for Research presented conclusions on European researchers' mobility and careers adopted by the Competitiveness Council on 2 March 2010. EPSCO Ministers expressed concern that the EU did not attract sufficient numbers of researchers and risked losing talent. The Commission will consider this issue and present concrete proposals offering pragmatic solutions.

The council reached political agreement, without debate, on a proposal for a council directive to implement a social partners’ framework agreement aimed at protecting hospital and healthcare workers at risk of injury and infection from medical ‘sharps’ (including needlesticks, scalpels and suture equipment).

The council adopted the Joint Employment Report 2009-10, and also the Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2010. There were presentations from the Commission on the latest report on equality between women and men and also information from the presidency on preparation of the tripartite social summit due to take place before the spring European Council.

Under any other business, the chairs of the Employment Committee and the Social Protection Committee gave an oral presentation on their 2010 work programmes, and the council noted reports from the presidency of conferences it had hosted.

At the Ministers’ lunch, there was a discussion on youth employment. The Commission expressed concern at the impact of the recession, which had had a particularly serious effect on youth employment. Member states agreed unanimously that this issue must take priority and many highlighted measures they were already taking in response to the problem. This included incentives for businesses to recruit young people, vocational training and work experience opportunities.

My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mike Foster) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

I have today placed in the Library of the House the Department for International Development’s new strategy, entitled The Neglected Crisis of Undernutrition: DfID’s Strategy. An electronic version of the strategy is also available on the DfID website at www.dfid.gov.uk/nutritionstrategy.

The Neglected Crisis of Undernutrition: DFID’s Strategy sets out DfID’s strategy to tackle undernutrition. It presents a brief overview of the situation and its implications for DfID’s role and priorities in nutrition over the coming years.

Find out more about how UKaid is helping people lift themselves out of poverty at www.dfid.gov.uk/lift. Be part of the LIFT and comment on real life stories of individuals, communities and countries whose lives have been changed for the better.

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

I wish to announce to the House that I intend for contracting-out for defined contribution pension schemes to be abolished from 6 April 2012.

The Pensions Commission recommended abolition of contracting out on a defined contribution (personal or occupational) basis, as part of a programme of pension reforms.

Abolition is a simplification measure: contracting-out for defined contribution schemes is a complex issue and it has become increasingly difficult to determine that a scheme member would be better off by contracting-out of the additional state pension.

Section 15 of the Pensions Act 2007 provides for the abolition of contracting out from defined contribution pension schemes and, during its passage through Parliament, our stated objective was to abolish to this timescale.

It is important to give pension schemes due notice and the pensions industry will welcome this certainty over the abolition date.

My officials will continue to work to implement the changes in line with the above announcement in liaison with HM Revenue and Customs, the pensions industry and relevant public bodies such as the Financial Services Authority and the Pensions Advisory Service.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (Ed Balls) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

Over the past 12 years, our education system has been rebuilt on foundations of inspirational teaching, great school leadership and sustained record investment.

We now have almost 3,500 Sure Start children’s centres compared to none in 1997, nearly 4,000 schools have been rebuilt or refurbished, per pupil funding has more than doubled and over 42,000 more teachers and 212,000 more support staff have been recruited.

As a result, outcomes for children and young people have improved dramatically, we have many more outstanding schools and many fewer underperforming schools and our education system has gone from below average in the world to well above average.

But our ambition is to have a world-class schools system in which there is excellence not just for some but for all and where every pupil gets the support they need to overcome the additional barriers they face.

We set out the next stage of our reforms to achieve this ambition in our White Paper Your child, your schools, our future: building a 21st century schools system.

But we also know that we will have to do so in tougher times.

In the Pre-Budget Report, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he will protect front-line spending on the police, the health service and in our schools.

In the case of schools, we also know that we will have to make tough choices and identify savings across the Department of Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) budget.

And today I am setting out details of the savings that I have identified so far; providing more information about the real terms rises in school funding to help schools and local authorities plan for the next three years in advance of further details in the autumn; and launching a further consultation following our review of the dedicated schools grant.

The Pre-Budget Report confirmed that from 2011-13 funding for Sure Start will continue to rise in line with inflation; funding for 16-19 learning will rise by 0.9 per cent year on year with an extra £202 million this year to meet our September guarantee; and funding for schools will increase by 0.7 per cent in real terms, which at current inflation levels will mean a cash increase of 2.7 per cent. This comes on top of real terms increases of 2.4 per cent, or cash increases per pupil of 4.3 per cent, in 2010-11.

This means that 75 per cent of the DCSF budget has been protected and we can:

deliver our pupil and parent guarantees including one-to-one tuition for all children in primary school and year 7 who fall behind;

ensure there is strong discipline and good behaviour in every school;

meet our September guarantee to all school-leavers of a place in college or training;

maintain our additional teachers and support staff; and

and in addition, take forward our Building Schools for the Future pledge to rebuild or refurbish all secondary schools. We have announced a further tranche of BSF projects: £418.3 million will be invested across Buckinghamshire, Cornwall, Gateshead, Lincolnshire, Oxfordshire and Sutton.

By 2013, the Chancellor also said that I will need to find £500 million in savings from my non-protected spending which, leaving aside the teachers’ pension scheme, accounts for 8 per cent of the DCSF’s £63 billion resource budget.

This is equivalent to a 7 per cent cut and requires tough choices.

I have so far identified savings of over £300 million, including: £135 million from our NDPBs with significant reductions in funding for Becta and the TDA; £100 million by ending start-up funding for extended services now that 95 per cent of schools already offer access to them; £50 million by scaling back bursaries for initial teacher training now that we have a steady flow of new teachers; and £5 million in savings from communications budgets including by moving Teachers’ TV online. At the same time the department will save a further £8 million per year from the costs of its back-office functions, by sharing services with other government departments.

We still have further work to identify savings without cutting into programmes such as short breaks for disabled children, music, sport or support for looked-after children because I am determined to do whatever it takes to protect the front line.

Real terms increases in schools funding of 0.7 per cent, or 2.7 per cent cash at current levels of inflation, mean we can resource increasing pupil numbers—a projected further 80,000 pupils—and still increase per pupil funding by 2.1 per cent in cash. This means we can resource our priorities:

ensure one-to-one tuition can be maintained in KS2 and year 7 and expanded to KS1, delivering our “3Rs” guarantee;

maintain the subsidy for extended services, supporting a richer and broader school experience for all pupils but particularly those from more deprived backgrounds;

resource new or improved areas of provision, such as ensuring parents are able to secure a school place from the September following their child’s fourth birthday, as recommended by Sir Jim Rose; and

ensure continued protection of core frontline provision for children in schools and thus delivery of our pupil and parent guarantees.

For the same period, we expect average cost pressures of 1.6 per cent cash per pupil. This means that schools on average will be able to meet their cost pressures from within their overall increase.

The actual level of increase in funding for each individual school will vary. It will depend on each school’s own particular needs; local decisions about how best to meet needs; and the conclusion of the consultation I am beginning today on the distribution of the dedicated schools grant.

However, as in the past, we will protect schools by setting a minimum funding guarantee (MFG): a guaranteed per pupil increase in their like-for-like budget. We will, as usual, set the exact level of the MFG in the autumn, but it will certainly guarantee all schools increasing per pupil budgets in cash terms. Of course, the majority of schools will receive higher funding increases than the MFG—as is the case with three quarters of schools this year.

Every school faces different challenges and some schools face greater challenges than others.

We know that results have been rising fastest of all in schools in the areas with the greatest deprivation and the gap has been narrowing.

But we have much more to do and we are determined to tighten the link between deprivation and school budgets so that schools with the greatest proportion of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds get the additional resources they need.

We have been reviewing the dedicated schools grant to ensure that funding is distributed fairly, transparently and responds to the needs of children and young people, and today have published the consultation on the future distribution of school funding.

Currently, around £3 billion is allocated to local authorities as additional deprivation funding through the dedicated schools grant, rising to nearly £4 billion including other grants.

In the past, local authorities have not always passed on all of this funding to schools on the basis of deprivation and we have already made it clear to local authorities that we expect them to do so in the future.

But to ensure that all schools who take on pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds get the additional resources they need and still have the flexibility to decide how they use deprivation funding, it is also our intention to require local authorities to use a local pupil premium to distribute deprivation funding, based on their own local decisions of how best to measure deprivation and to increase it gradually before 100 per cent of deprivation funding is passed on appropriately by 2014-15.

During our review, we received some representations that a nationally-set pupil premium should be implemented.

However, a nationally-set pupil premium would not take account of local need, would prescribe a single amount of funding to overcome deprivation across the whole country and would, according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies, require severe and immediate cuts to school budgets or other public services to pay for it.

So it is also our intention that the definition and therefore the level of the pupil premium is agreed locally so that it can properly reflect local need, circumstances and challenges.

It is however vital that all schools make savings to enable schools collectively to meet all cost pressures, ensure investment in our key priority areas, allow progress to be made on delivering a fairer funding system without creating damaging instability for schools funded at the MFG, and use their resources to best effect to maximise investment in improving outcomes for their pupils. So alongside a real terms rise in school funding of 0.7 per cent, (a cash increase of 2.7 per cent), we have also set schools challenging but achievable efficiency targets of 0.9 per cent or £650 million across the school system as a whole which will enable them to meet cost pressures and continue to deliver improved outcomes for pupils.

It should be possible for schools, across the piece, to save in excess of this. We believe schools could go further and potentially make efficiency savings of up to £950 million, providing up to £300 million extra savings which could be recycled by schools to spend themselves on their priorities to support every child.

We published a discussion document on efficiencies—Securing our future: using our resources well—in November last year setting out the areas where we believed schools would be most able to achieve efficiency savings.

I know that school leaders around the country have recognised the progress that needs to be made and are responding vigorously to the challenge of identifying efficiency savings in order to switch resources to the front line. Around 1,800 schools have already taken up the offer of free financial consultancy support that we have made available to all maintained schools and we expect many more schools to attend one of the conferences that we have arranged with the National College, the LGA and other organisations.

We also announced last week that we will fund 1,000 more primary school bursars.

There is no doubt that this is a tougher settlement than in the past and tough choices have to be made by schools, by local authorities and by government.

I have chosen to protect frontline budgets, pass on real terms increases to schools, make tough choices to find savings in the DCSF unprotected budget and support schools to make efficiencies.

I have also chosen not to create excess places that would deprive existing schools of funds they need and not to introduce a national pupil premium that would require severe and immediate cuts to school budgets.

And I believe those are the right choices for our schools and for the future of our country.

I have placed copies of both Investing for the future: school funding 2010-13 and Consultation on the future distribution of school funding in the House Libraries.

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

Today I am publishing the Government’s consultation document (Green Paper) on Social Fund reform. This consultation (Green Paper) sets out the package of reforms designed to create a scheme which:

is simpler for customers to understand and use and simpler for our staff to deliver to ensure better value for money;

plays a more active and sustainable role in helping people resolve their longer-term financial needs and supports them to become more financially independent as well as dealing with short term crises; and

is set within the wider context of financial inclusion and education, and is aligned with the range of products and services that the Government deliver for people with complex and enduring needs.

It aims to align the Social Fund with the government agenda of financial inclusion and capability, in order to help support the most vulnerable in society towards greater financial independence. It also presents our objectives to ensure that the system is fair, affordable and sustainable for the future. We believe that these proposals will make a very substantial difference to the financial environment experienced by many people.

Copies of the document entitled Social Fund reform: debt, credit and low income households are available in the Vote Office and will be made available later today on the DWP website.

My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made the following Statement.

In accordance with Section 63 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, I have agreed to reappoint as Assistant Surveillance Commissioners his honour Lord Colville of Culross QC and his honour Dr Colin Kolbert from 1 May 2010 to 30 April 2013, and his honour Norman Jones QC from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2013.