Official Report, columns 474–87, that I would not appeal against the judgment, because an appeal would result in an extensive period of uncertainty for people up and down the country. I therefore announced that I was keeping open the consultation, which had been due to end on 30 November, and that I would publish a further consultation paper including runway options at Gatwick.

I am today publishing the further consultation material. I have decided that it would be easier for consultees to publish it in the form of second editions of the full South East consultation paper, the summary South East paper and the questionnaires for both the South East and other areas of the UK. Consultees can easily see the text added as a result of including the Gatwick options.

The new documents include the original consultation material on options at Heathrow, Stansted, Luton and other South East airports, and the option for a new airport at Cliffe. In addition, in accordance with the High Court decision, the papers now include options for additional runways at Gatwick.

As for options on the other South East airports published last July, the papers now set out for Gatwick all the options which were appraised in detail in the later stages of the South East and East of England Regional Air Services (SER AS) study. Accordingly, there are two options for a single new runway at Gatwick and one option for two new runways there. The papers also set out alternative assumptions on the timing of these Gatwick options.

The consultation, for all parts of the UK, will now close on 30 June. We will consider carefully all responses received by that date, including proposals for options other than those which have been included in the Government's consultation documents. As I told the House on 28 November, this is an opportunity for anyone to express their views on all the options in the consultation, as well as to put forward any reasonable alternatives.

Copies of all the new documents are available in the Vote Office and in the Library. My officials are writing to everyone on the original consultation list, and to all those who have responded to the consultations so far, to alert them to the new documents and to the 30 June deadline, and explaining that people who have already submitted responses can choose either to let their response stand, or to add to, or amend, or withdraw their response in the light of the new material.

I am pleased to inform the House that the pilot for this new scheme begins today. Guidance Booklets which give full details of the scheme design, including the environmental management options that farmers will implement under the scheme, the application process and application forms are now available. Farmers in the four pilot areas will be able to apply for the new scheme from now until 30 May 2003.

All farmers with land in the four pilot areas have been invited to launch meetings in the week beginning 3 March, at which they will be able to collect copies of these booklets. Defra staff and representatives from our partner organisations will be on hand at the meetings to answer farmers' questions and provide further information. These meetings will be followed by workshops in the four pilot areas, which will provide further practical help for farmers.

The design of the pilot for the Entry Level Scheme, including the location of the four pilot areas, has been developed in close consultation with key partner organisations through regular meetings of an Entry Level Scheme Working Group.

The pilot areas were chosen carefully, according to a range of objective criteria, to be representative of a variety of English farm types and landscapes. There are approximately 200 farms in each of the pilot areas. The areas chosen to pilot the new scheme are:

Maps showing the precise boundaries of the pilot areas have been placed in the Defra library in Nobel House.

The basic features of the Entry Level Scheme Pilot will be as follows:

Farmers taking part in the Pilot Scheme will have to identify important environmental features and areas on their farm. They will also have to make a commitment to carry out simple, yet effective, environmental management activities, which they will select themselves from a wide-ranging list of options. Examples of options available include wildlife-friendly hedge management, buffer strips around key features on the farm, the maintenance of stone walls and managing low input grassland.

Each option will be worth a certain number of points, related to the cost to the farmer of implementing that option. If the farmer achieves a target number of points for their farm they will be guaranteed entry to the scheme and payment. The target number of points will be based on farm size. Farmers will have to get 30 points per hectare, except for LFA land in parcels of 15 ha or more where the threshold will be 15 points per hectare.

There will be a flat rate payment of £30 per hectare over the whole holding, paid annually. However, for LFA land in parcels of 15 ha or more, farmers will receive £15 per hectare. The lower rates reflect the fact that this land, which is normally extensively grazed, is generally managed less intensively, farmers could not be expected to implement such a wide range of measures, or at the same level of intensity, as in lowland farming situations.

The scheme will be open to all farmers who farm land within the pilot area boundaries.

Agreements will be for 5 years.

A key aim of the scheme is high take-up, as the environmental management activities available will be most effective if they are applied across a wide area. To facilitate high uptake, the scheme has been designed to be simple to administer for both the farmer and Government. We hope that farmers participating in the pilot will be able to understand and implement the entry level scheme themselves, without the need for specialist advice on a one-to-one basis.

The pilot will be closely monitored and evaluated for the next two years. The evaluation will assess the application of the environmental management measures at the farm level, including their potential to deliver the expected environmental benefits. The accessibility and popularity of the scheme, and an analysis of the factors affecting uptake, will also be considered.

The experience gained from the pilots will enable us to adapt and improve the scheme design before aiming to roll out the Entry Level Scheme across England in 2005.

Note: 1. Minimum payments ensure that schemes in the lower bands do not pay more overall than those the higher bands

• from £3,500 to £3,800 per annum for the top rate from £2,300 to £3,000 per annum
• for a new "higher" rate
• from £2,300 to £2,500 per annum for the middle rate
• from £1,000 to £1,100 per annum for the lower rate

An improved performance-related progression system for operational managers from 1 April 2003 and assimilation to a new pay spine retrospectively to 1 January 2003;

An increase of 2.8 per cent. to the Healthcare specialist allowance paid to prison officers from 1 April 2003. Other specialist allowances frozen at current rates; and

Other allowances increased by 2.8 per cent.

Ways should be sought of optimising the end-to-end CRB process efficiency, by reviewing and rationalising the management responsibilities and respective roles in the complete chain undertaken by Registered Bodies, the CRB Agency, Capita and local police forces.

The Government agree that the roles of the different parties involved in the CRB process should be strengthened and clarified. In particular, we intend to enhance the intelligent customer function within the Agency so that there is a stronger focus on setting standards across the whole operation and ensuring that these are met. There also needs to be better management co-ordination of the CRB end-to-end business processes. This may involve the more flexible deployment of Agency and private sector staff and to this end we will take powers in the Criminal Justice Bill to enable the Secretary of State's functions under Part V of the Police Act 1997 to be exercised by the private sector as well as Agency staff.

The critical role of Registered Bodies in the CRB process needs to be recognised and upgraded. Registered bodies should be unambiguously responsible for validating the identity of those for whom they seek Disclosures and for ensuring the quality and completeness of applications submitted to the CRB. The number of Registered Bodies should be optimised to establish sensible economies of scale and improve proficiency.

The Government accept this recommendation and will legislate this session to make it clear that Registered Bodies are responsible for verifying the identity of an

applicant. It would, as now, be open to a Registered Body to delegate the function of validating identity to the prospective employer or other agent while retaining overall responsibility, as long as we are satisfied in a particular case that delegation provides a reasonable safeguard. To ensure that Registered Bodies discharge their responsibilities effectively, we will take powers to attach conditions to a registration and to revoke a registration where such conditions are breached. We share the Review Team's view that optimum levels of efficiency within a Registered Body can best be achieved by handling a sufficient number of Disclosure applications. With the new responsibilities for Registered Bodies, a number of those currently countersigning relatively small numbers of applications may seek to de-register of their own volition. We will monitor the situation carefully. The Government will take reserve powers to set a threshold for the minimum number of applications to be processed by a Registered Body each year and to de-register those Registered Bodies which fall below the threshold. Registered Bodies and others across the sectors which use the CRB's Disclosure service will be fully consulted before these changes are implemented. We will take particular account of concerns that have been expressed about access to Registered Bodies and the level of fees charged by some umbrella bodies. As part of the consultation exercise, we will seek views oh placing a cap on the fees that may be levied by Registered Bodies.

There should be a progressive move to mandate electronic submission of applications by Registered Bodies.

The CRB will introduce an electronic application channel as soon as practicable; a pilot will be undertaken later this year. We believe that many Registered Bodies will want to adopt this channel as their preferred means of submitting Disclosure applications. In time, as more and more Registered Bodies migrate to the electronic channel there will be a diminishing case, on efficiency grounds, for maintaining the existing paper and telephone channels. At that point, consideration would need to be given whether to mandate—by means of a condition attached to registration—the electronic channel for registered bodies to submit applications to the CRB. This will not preclude individuals submitting their applications to registered bodies by paper or telephone channels where mutually agreed.

Given that the production of Enhanced Disclosures is significantly more costly and ties up local police force resources, new arrangements should be established for the Agency to set priorities, in accordance with Government Guidelines, on which applications should get Enhanced and which should get Standard Disclosures.

The Government agree with the spirit of this recommendation, but it is important that the criteria are set by ministers, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, on the basis of a risk assessment. Having established the criteria for Standard and Enhanced Disclosures it is important that there is some mechanism to ensure that they are properly observed. It is proposed, therefore, to amend the Police Act 1997 first to enable the type of Disclosure for any given occupational group to be determined by regulations and then to enable the CRB to give effect to such regulations. Where necessary, the CRB would be expected to seek additional information from the registered body in order that it

could make its assessment in any given case. We will take account of the views of Registered Bodies and others before implementing these changes.

It is recommended that the Police National Computer (PNC) files are "flagged" to denote the existence of intelligence information on any individual held at local force level and not included in convictions recorded on the PNC.

The cost and feasibility of introducing a system of flags on the PNC to denote the existence of local intelligence will be tested in a pilot due to commence in three forces (Metropolitan Police, Staffordshire and West Midlands) in the spring. Decisions about the rollout of such a system will be taken in the light of the outcome of the pilot.

It is recommended that the launch of Basic Disclosures be postponed until the CRB systems have been developed to provide a substantially greater capacity. It would be inappropriate to launch Basic Disclosures until higher priority categories of applicant for higher level Disclosures are seeing their needs fully accommodated. It is also recommended that Basic Disclosure applications should be routed through Registered Bodies, with identity validation undertaken by these Bodies, rather than allow direct submission from applicants as currently envisaged by the legislation.

The Government concur that the priority for the CRB is to ensure that demand for higher level Disclosures is fully met and that applicants for such Disclosures receive a satisfactory service. Basic Disclosures will not be introduced until these objectives have been achieved. The Government note the case for routing applications for a Basic Disclosure through a Registered Body as in the case of Standard and Enhanced Disclosures, but will want to consult fully with employer organisations and others on the implications before coming to a final view. In the event that the Government decide to proceed, legislation would be needed to implement this recommendation.

The Information Technology system built and operated by Capita has been subject to a range of improvements and enhancements since original delivery, as a result of which performance has improved. A further programme of significant enhancement will be required. Additionally, almost all the recommendations set out here would lead to requirements for system change and therefore would have contractual consequences. It is therefore recommended to attempt to renegotiate the contract with Capita to implement necessary technology renewal and align the contract to the changed and evolving circumstances.

The Government accept this recommendation and will seek to renegotiate the contract with Capita so that it reflects the changed environment in which the CRB will be operating.

An investigation should be undertaken into the possibility of requiring fingerprints to be submitted by applicants for Disclosures where the sensitivity of the employment role to be undertaken makes this appropriate. This would enable a more rigorous linking of police records (which in turn are mostly linked to fingerprints) and the individuals submitting applications for Disclosures. This investigation will need to look at the balance to be struck between such increasing rigour of CRB identity processes and the cost and convenience of the service to the customer.

The Government will undertake a further study in consultation with Registered Bodies and others on the case for, and practicalities of, requiring applicants for Disclosures in particularly sensitive employment roles to submit their fingerprints with their application. Among the issues the study will need to address, is how

to avoid any unnecessary intrusion into the privacy of applicants. A decision whether to proceed will be taken in the light of the results of the consultation exercise. Legislation would be needed to implement this change.

While recognising the benefits derived from establishing the CRB under the wing of an existing Agency, it is now recommended that an independent Executive Agency is created within the Home Office to carry forward the CRB's changing and increasingly demanding functions. There will need to be a transitional period which will be overseen by a transitional Management Board operating within an appropriate governance framework.

The Government agree that the CRB, currently part of the Passport and Records Agency, should be reconstituted as a free-standing Agency. The new Agency will be established as soon as practicable. A Transitional Board has been established to ensure a smooth transition. John Holden has agreed to serve as the non-executive chairman of the Board and Patrick Carter and Ron Skelley as non-executive members. A stakeholder group will be established under John Holden's chairmanship to represent the interests of Government Departments and the police.

In order to implement a number of the recommendations, changes to the legislative framework under which the CRB operates (Part V of the Police Act 1997) will be required.

As indicated above, the Government will take forward in the Criminal Justice Bill the necessary legislative changes needed to implement recommendations 1, 2 and 4.

The Government now intend to issue regulations in two parts. The first set of regulations will set out the regime within which local standards committees will be able to consider reports on alleged councillor misconduct completed by ESOs and referred to the monitoring officer of the relevant authority under section 59 (4) (c) of the Local Government Act 2000. The intention is that these regulations will be laid before Parliament in early April. I understand that the Standards Board for England intend to publish guidance for local authorities on the operation of these regulations

The second set of regulations will provide for the conduct of investigations by monitoring officers, or their deputies, following a decision by an ESO to cease an investigation and refer the matters to the monitoring officer under section 60 (2) (b) of the Local Government Act 2000. Our intention is not to lay these regulations until a change has been made to the Local Government Act 2000 which would allow a monitoring officer to appoint another person to conduct an investigation, especially in circumstances where the monitoring officer might have a conflict of interest. The amendment which is being laid before Parliament today is designed to achieve this change. Subject to Parliament's enactment of the amendment, regulations dealing with investigations will be laid in the Autumn.