New Relationship with Schools proposals

The DfES is currently developing detailed proposals for a new relationship with schools, which cover a group of interlocking changes that will affect school inspection, schools' relations with local and central Government, schools' self-evaluation and planning, data collection from schools and communications with schools. They aim to reduce bureaucracy, strip out clutter, and release greater energy in schools.

Future of Inspection Proposals

The new inspection system will mean shorter and more frequent inspections at shorter notice than at present. The proposed framework would allow two to five working days' notice before an inspection instead of the current six to 10 weeks. There will be a greater emphasis on school self-evaluation and a simplified approach to schools causing concern. The current approach to schools that need special measures will be retained and a new improvement notice for other schools where there are weaknesses will be introduced.

In the trials of the new inspection process, the outcome has been a stronger link between school improvement and the reports produced by inspectors. Schools have welcomed the new system.

HMI will play a role in all inspections and inspection reports will be published within three weeks of an inspection, compared to four to five months at present. The proposals will reduce burdens on schools whilst ensuring that parents benefit from more frequent information about the quality and standard of education provided by schools. Overall the weight of inspection—with much sharper inspections, a smaller team, but at a greater frequency—will be roughly half the current weight.

Key target 1

To achieve an increase in value for the Numerical Weather Prediction Index (measuring forecasting skill) of at least 1.4 by 31 March 2005, from the level achieved at 31 March 2004.

Key target 2

To deliver an operating profit before strategic investments of at least £15.5 million in FY 2004–05, whilst making strategic investments of between £5.8 million and £6.8 million.

Key target 3

To achieve a return on capital employed of at least 3.5 per cent. in the FY 2004–05.

Key target 4

To achieve direct services growth in both Government and non-Government revenue of at least 4.1 per cent. in FY 2004–05 from the 2003–04 baseline. whilst maintaining direct services operating profit

Key target 5

To have in place, by 31 December 2004, basic procedures to answer requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and to review by 31 March 2005 the initial operation of the procedures to ensure that they are fit for purpose.

Key target 6

To develop, by March 2005, an efficiency measure which demonstrates the continuous improvement in value for money of the National Met Service (including the Public Met Service and relevant parts of the National Met Programme).

The report contains details of each partnership's audited costs and receipts from fixed fines for 2002–03. I have also placed in the Library copies of the English and Welsh partnerships' responses to my Department earlier this year, confirming that they are operating in accordance with the rules and guidance for the programme.

The sole objective of safety cameras is to save lives and reduce injuries—as it has always been, since the previous Government provided for the use of cameras in the 1991 Road Traffic Act.

Road safety is a Government priority. Despite the UK having one of the best safety records among major countries, some 3,500 people are still killed and another 35,000 seriously injured each year on the roads. This level of deaths and injury is not acceptable, and excessive and inappropriate speed is a significant element in the problem. People who drive 25 per cent. faster than the average for a road have six times higher risk of collision. Excessive speed is a contributory factor in over a quarter of fatal collisions. Moreover, speed makes any collision worse, whatever its cause. Pedestrians hit by cars travelling at 20 mph have a 21.2 per cent. risk of being killed; a 20 per cent. risk at 30 mph; and a 90 per cent. risk of being killed at 40 mph.

Safety cameras have a key role in tackling the problem. They cannot be the only way of helping to reduce speed, but they do make a major contribution. The key findings of the UCL—PA report are that:

there was a 40 per cent. reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites ( "KSI casualties"), over and above the UK's general downward trend in killed or seriously injured casualties.

the percentage reduction equated to 870 fewer people per year being killed or seriously injured at the 24 camera sites—including 105 fewer deaths per year;

within the overall reduction in killed or seriously injured casualties, there was a 35 per cent. reduction in pedestrians being killed or seriously injured;

there was a 33 per cent. reduction in overall collisions involving personal injury at camera sites—fatal, serious or slight—("Personal Injury Collisions"—PICs), again over and above the general downward trend in PICs. This equated to 4,030 fewer PICs per year for the 24 Partnership areas;

the benefit to society of the avoided deaths and injuries in 2002–03 was £221 million, based on the standard Government values for road injuries—over four times the £54 million resource cost of the programme in 2002–03;

there was a 32 per cent. reduction in the number of vehicles breaking the speed limit at camera sites. Average vehicle speed across all new sites fell by 7 per cent. overall;

there was a larger, 43 per cent. reduction in excessive speeding—vehicles doing 15 mph or more above the limit;

there was a clear correlation between the level of speed reduction at sites, and the level of reduction in collisions and casualties;

independent research showed a high level of public support for the use of cameras. 79 per cent. of people agreed with the statement "The use of safety cameras should be supported as a method of reducing casualties".

This evidence of the road safety benefits of safety cameras shows why local residents and pedestrians value them strongly, as hon. Members know from contact with constituents. The report also shows that the majority of motorists also support cameras. They

too are threatened by thoughtless drivers who are prepared to ignore speed limits and go through red lights.

As well as the national results, the UCL—PA report also includes estimates for the percentage reduction in KSI casualties and PIC collisions for the individual partnership areas. As is to be expected, partnerships' figures vary—partly reflecting their different mix of urban and rural sites and different camera types. Also, collisions are by nature random events and their incidence varies from year to year. So the report should not be regarded as providing a "league table".

We already expect partnerships to keep their camera sites under review and up to date with changing local circumstances. My Department will give guidance to partnerships on particular issues to consider in preparing and submitting their operational cases for the period ahead—in particular looking at camera sites where a good safety record has been achieved, to assess whether they need to be retained for maintaining effective compliance, or whether the site can now be safely stood down—and also at sites where there appears to be a continuing problem of high numbers of collisions notwithstanding the use of cameras, and assessing whether further or different action should be taken, including for example road improvements or engineering measure, traffic calming measures, road safety education of information programmes. In making these assess] vents, we will of course expect partnerships to take account of the views of both local communities, and those of road users.

The UCL—PA report shows the high level of public support for safety cameras. An essential element in this is the availability of full information on camera sites. Partnerships provide a wide range of information, presented in a range of ways.

But hon. Members and others with an interest in the safety camera programme are also interested in being able to access core information, set out on a common basis, covering all partnerships' sites nationwide.

Earlier this year I asked my Department to review the operation of cameras at each site across each partnership area. Drawing on information provided by the partnerships, my Department has prepared tables covering each of the 35 partnerships in England and Wales now participating in the programme. Copies will be placed in the Library, and will be available on the Department's website. The tables provide information on the location of sites, the reason for their establishment, and summary "before and after" data on the numbers of people killed or seriously injured in collisions since the partnership joined the programme and up to 2002–03, including part-year data for sites which were established in the course of 2002–03. The tables will be updated each year.

In total for England and Wales, at the end of March 2004, there were 5,215 safety cameras, comprising:

2,364 fixed speed camera sites, at which cameras operate continuously or from time to time;

2,153 locations at which mobile speed cameras are deployed from time to time;

698 red light camera sites at which cameras operate continuously or from time to time.

These tables provide a full picture of the safety camera sites currently in operation. Hon. Members with questions about any camera in their constituency should contact the partnership concerned.

Around half of the camera sites listed in the tables had been established prior to partnerships joining the national programme, under the guidance issued in 1992, in Department of Transport Circular 1/92 "Use of Technology for Traffic Enforcement: Guidance on Deployment". This guidance did not set any quantified collision criteria, asking only that partnerships should

"have evidence that all additional cameras have been deployed in areas where historically there have been a high incidence of speed related collisions."

The Government did not regard this generalised guidance which we inherited as adequate, and we have progressively developed detailed rules, guidance and criteria for the setting up and operation of cameras under the national programme, as currently contained in the handbook of rules and guidance for the operation of the national road safety programme for England and Wales, 31 October 2003, a copy of which is in the Library.

Alongside setting the quantified criteria for site locations, the handbook of rules and guidance for the programme recognises the independent operational discretion which police forces must have to enforce the law, and provides also for "exception sites"—mainly "community concern" sites where there is evidence of speeding causing road safety concerns to local residents. The operation of exception sites is now subject to a maximum of 15 per cent. of a partnership's total "camera time". Exception sites do not require Government approval. But for information, the tables include fixed exception camera sites. Exception mobile sites are often temporary, and are not included in the tables. Information on exceptional sites is available from partnerships.

The rules on camera sites' visibility and conspicuity that the Government introduced in 2001 apply to all speed cameras, including exception sites. The police however need the discretion in exceptional circumstances to mount "covert" operations to deal with exceptional problems. The police advice that the use of this discretion is rare—fewer than 10 instances a year.

We encourage lower speed limits where these are appropriate in urban areas and in the vicinity of schools, including 20 mph zones, which have proved very successful in reducing collisions and injuries. For rural areas, the Government recommend that 30 mph should be the norm in villages. The current guidance to local authorities on local speed limits is being revised and updated, covering both urban and rural roads. We will consult road users and other stakeholders shortly on a revised circular advising on the setting of local speed limits.

Penalties need to fit the crime. There is a significant problem with people prepared to exceed limits seriously and recklessly. Following the review of road traffic penalties, we made a commitment to create an aggravated offence to deal with these people, with a new higher fixed penalty when the legislative opportunity arises. This reflects serious public concern.

At the same time, many drivers feel that the present fixed three point minimum penalty, laid down in primary legislation is not necessarily the most appropriate or effective way to deal with less severe speeding. We therefore propose that, when the opportunity arises, legislation will reduce the minimum penalty to two points, with the detailed provisions for the offences to which two point and higher penalties would apply to be set in statutory orders. These would be subject to both formal public consultation, and to affirmative resolution in Parliament, to ensure full discussion with motoring organisations, road safety groups and others with an interest.

Meantime, a number of police forces have been developing and offering drivers the option of speed awareness courses as an alternative to the formal legal processes, where this looks to be a more effective remedy. And at the national level, the Association of Chief Police Officers has announced that it is putting in place arrangements for a national programme for the use of speed awareness courses, which will ensure consistent and rigorous standards of courses. The Government welcome the police's wide thinking on the best way to achieve the result which everyone wants to see—that of drivers and riders with changed, safer and more considerate attitudes.

" … whilst it may be feasible to resettle the islands in the short-term, the costs of maintaining long-term inhabitation are likely to be prohibitive. Even in the short-term, natural events such as periodic flooding from storms and seismic activity are likely to make life difficult for a resettled population … Human interference within the atolls, however well managed, is likely to exacerbate stress on the marine and terrestrial environment and will accelerate the effects of global warming. Thus resettlement is likely to become less feasible over time."

Specifically with reference to climate change, the report advised that

" … the main issue facing a resettled population on the low-lying islands will be flooding events, which are likely to increase in periodicity and intensity and will not only threaten infrastructure, but also the freshwater aquifers and agricultural production. Severe events may even threaten life."

The report also highlighted the implications for resettlement on such low-lying islands of the predicted increase in global sea levels as a result of climate change.

In effect, therefore, anything other than short-term resettlement on a purely subsistence basis would be highly precarious and would involve expensive underwriting by the UK Government for an open-ended period—probably permanently. Accordingly, the Government consider that there would be no purpose in commissioning any further study into the feasibility of resettlement; and that it would be impossible for the Government to promote or even permit resettlement to take place. After long and careful consideration, we have therefore decided to legislate to prevent it.

Equally, restoration of full immigration control over the entire territory is necessary to ensure and maintain the availability and effective use of the territory for defence purposes, for which it was in fact constituted and set aside in accordance with the UK's treaty obligations entered into almost 40 years ago. Especially in the light of recent developments in the international security climate since the November 2000 judgment, this is a factor to which due weight has had to be given.

It was for these reasons that on 10 June 2004 Her Majesty made two Orders in Council, the combined effect of which is to restore full immigration control over all the islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory. These controls extend to all persons, including members of the Chagossian community.

The first of these two orders replaces the existing constitution of the territory and makes clear, as a principle of the constitution, that no person has the right of abode in the territory or has unrestricted access to any part of it. The second order replaces the existing immigration ordinance of the territory and contains the detailed provisions giving effect to that principle and setting out the necessary immigration controls. These two orders restore the legal position to what it had been understood to be before the High Court decision of 3 November 2000. I am arranging for copies of the orders to be placed in the Library of the House.

The verdict is returned by the military members of the court martial and the sentence is decided by the military members and the Judge Advocate together.

Appeal against sentence or conviction is to the court martial appeal court comprised of judges of the Court of Appeal sitting in the royal courts of justice.

Courts martial sit in public and are subject to the same rules on reporting as civilian criminal courts. Thus the Contempt of Court Act 1981 applies whether the court martial is sitting outside the UK or not. The common law contempt of court also applies to courts martial.

In his recent statement, 8 June 2004, Official Report, House of Commons, columns WS 4–5, my right hon. Friend, the Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Ingram) referred to 75 cases being investigated into civilian deaths, injuries or alleged ill treatment of Iraqi civilians. Of those four cases have been referred to the APA which involve Iraqi victims.

I have more details about one case, involving four defendants, referred to the APA which is detailed below. In relation to the remaining three cases with the APA, they are actively being considered at the moment.

The APA is aware of at least four other cases which are likely to be referred to them in the very near future. This will make a total of eight cases out of the 75 which have been referred to them.

As I have previously announced, there is in addition a further case which was brought to my attention by the APA but which had not been formally referred to the APA. It concerns an alleged unlawful killing of an Iraqi in the course of an arrest. This case was brought to my attention after charges were dismissed by the soldier's commanding officer. This means the case cannot be tried by court martial, but I have referred it to the CPS who have asked the Metropolitan police for assistance in collecting further evidence. Any decision in relation to this prosecution will be taken by the CPS in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors.

The APA directed trial on 11 June 2004 against four soldiers from the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers on charges relating to alleged abuses of Iraqi civilians. The charges against the four include assault, indecent assault which apparently involves making the victims engage in sexual activity between themselves, and a military charge of prejudicing good order and military discipline. This case has previously been referred to in the press. The case concerns conduct alleged to have occurred whilst the civilians were being temporarily detained, but not in a prison or detention facility. It involves photographic evidence developed in this country and referred to the UK police. A date for the trial has yet to be set by the military court service. Any trial will be held in public.

As and when any further charges are laid against soldiers arising from incidents in Iraq I will inform the House of these charges by way of written statement and give all the information it is appropriate to give in advance of any hearing.

To assist the House further I have made arrangements for three papers to be placed in the House Library. These deal with (a) procedures in relation to courts martial, (b) the contempt rules and how they apply to courts martial and (c) my Ministerial superintendence of the Army Prosecuting Authority."

Three of the four soldiers accused were informed of the charges against them on 14 June. I can therefore confirm that their names are: Corporal Daniel Kenyon; Fusilier Gary Paul Bartlam; and Lance Corporal Mark Paul Cooley and that the charges relate to incidents which allegedly took place on or about 15 May 2003 in a camp just to the west of Basra.

The Attorney-General will give the name of the fourth soldier by written answer once they have been informed of the charges against them.