I have today published two consultation documents. The first of these covers our proposals for amending the building regulations energy efficiency provisions (part L) and implementing the energy performance of buildings directive (EPBD). The second describes our proposals for amending the guidance in approved document F that supports part F—ventilation of the building regulations. Both consultation documents contain draft regulatory impact assessments.Driving up the energy efficiency of our buildings is critical to our success in achieving the carbon emission reduction targets in the Energy White Paper and our energy efficiency action plan and will also contribute to our goals for developing more sustainable communities.Raising performance standards and introducing requirements for efficiency in the use of boilers and air conditioning systems will not only make a difference in the drive to tackle climate change, they will also help to create warmer, healthier homes and more comfortable and productive workplaces.The proposals for building energy performance certification requirements will enable prospective purchasers and tenants to be more aware of energy performance whenever buildings are constructed, sold or rented out.Energy used in buildings is responsible for roughly half the UK's carbon dioxide emissions. Wasting energy costs money whereas measures such as loft insulation, boiler replacements and more effective controls often pay for themselves within a few years.One of the cornerstones of saving energy is to make building structures more airtight to minimise heating or cooling energy losses due to air leaking through gaps in the structure. This is addressed in the amendments to part L. However, it is also essential to ensure there is sufficient controlled ventilation to maintain good indoor air quality to protect the health of the building occupants. This is one of the roles of part F, and is why approved document F has been revised in conjunction with part L.The guidance on ventilation systems has been expanded to cover more options, and also changed from a prescriptive to a performance-based approach that should encourage innovation.A new section in the proposed guidance deals with the design of smoking rooms in workplaces. The new edition of the approved document will also take into account the commitments made in the public health White Paper to be published later this year.

Together with representatives of local government and other Government Departments, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has reviewed the prospect for incorporating 2001 census data in the formula calculations used to distribute formula grant to local authorities. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has concluded that we should postpone the introduction of 2001 census data in the calculation of the local government finance settlement until the formula freeze is lifted, in 2006–07 at the earliest.The 2001 White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services", (CM5237), announced that the funding formula would be frozen for at least 2004–05 and 2005–06. Our aim is to provide local government with predictable and stable funding, so that they can plan their finances and their service provision from year to year.It is clear that using 2001 census data to calculate the local government finance settlement will require formula changes, and will cause some large changes to the distribution of formula spending shares.In deciding not to update the census data used in the funding formulae in 2005–06, we have balanced our aim of using the most up to date data to calculate local government grants against our commitment to the formula freeze and to stability and predictability in local government funding.The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will work with local government to produce options to include the 2001 census data in the funding formula once the present formula freeze is lifted.

This statement provides initial information about the impact of the business rates revaluation that will take effect from 1 April 2005, gives details of the proposed transitional relief scheme and sets out the Government's proposals for the small business rate relief scheme which also takes effect from 1 April 2005.Table 1 below shows the overall effect of revaluation as a percentage change in rateable values and on rate bills.

Table 1: Overall effect of Revaluation for England and by Region including Central List—2005
Economic Region	Average % change in RV from the 2000 rating lists to the 2005 rating lists	Average % change in liability as a result of revaluation before reliefs are applied
East	20.5	1.1
East Midlands	15.9	–2.8
London	17.1	–0.8
North East	15.0	–3.4
North West	14.9	–3.5
South East	20.2	0.7
South West	19.9	0.4
West Midlands	13.6	–4.5

Table 2: Movement in Rateable Values—By Region and Property Types

Table 2: Movement in Rateable Values—By Region and Property Types
			Main Property Types
	Offices		Shops		Warehouses		Factories
Region	RV Change	Liability Average	RV Change	Liability Average	RV Change	Liability Average	RV Change	Liability Average
East	16%	–2.6%	27%	7.3%	23%	3.3%	19%	0.4%
East Midlands	18%	–1.4%	23%	3.6%	15%	–3.2%	12%	–6.0%
London	11%	–5.4%	26%	7.1%	23%	2.8%	22%	3.0%
North East	24%	2.2%	24%	4.8%	13%	–4.8%	13%	–5.6%
North West	18%	–0.5%	22%	3.0%	11%	–6.4%	10%	–7.3%
South East	8%	–9.0%	29%	8.4%	29%	8.8%	23%	3.4%
South West	21%	1.6%	27%	6.3%	16%	–2.3%	14%	–4.8%
West Midlands	15%	–3.8%	20%	0.7%	11%	–6.6%	6%	–11%
Yorkshire and Humberside	14%	–3.9%	26%	6.0%	12%	–5.7%	9%	–8.3%
England	13%	–4.7%	25%	5.7%	18%	–0.5%	14%	–4.2%
Notes:
1. "RV change" reflect the average percentage increase in rateable value from the 2000 rating lists to the 2005 rating lists.
2. "Liability average" is the average change in liability as a result of revaluation before reliefs are applied.

Although the tables show an overall national increase in rateable values, this does not mean an increase in the overall tax take, or that rate bills will necessarily rise by the same amount. The purpose of revaluations is to distribute tax in a more equitable way by updating the valuation of property, thereby making the tax base more current and relevant. The tables therefore also show the likely effect of revaluation on rates bills.This information provides important indicators of national trends. However, it is not necessarily a good predictor of changes in an individual's rates bill since these will be affected by more local differences and by factors that are specific to the individual property. Nevertheless, in England as a whole, nearly 60 per cent. of properties will see a fall in their rateable values and therefore a fall in their rate liability.The Valuation Office Agency is finalising the preparation of the draft rating lists that will be published on 1 October. These are being published three months earlier than usual and will contain more comprehensive information than ever before. This will enable ratepayers to plan ahead with much greater certainty and should also reduce the number of appeals.

Table 1: Overall effect of Revaluation for England and by Region including Central List—2005
Economic Region	Average % change in RV from the 2000 rating lists to the 2005 rating lists	Average % change in liability as a result of revaluation before reliefs are applied
Yorkshire and Humberside	13.1	–5.3
Central list	32.9	10.5
Total	17.9	—
Notes:
1. The regional figures are based on the data in local lists of properties for each relevant billing authority. The Central List includes various utilities and networks that are not specific to a billing authority area. Central List properties pay their rates direct to the Secretary of State and the revenue is added to the NNDR revenue pool.
2. The third column simply deals with the effect of revaluation. In addition to this the final liability will be uprated to take account of the annual inflation increase.

Table 2 shows the movement in rateable values as a result of the 2005 revaluation by economic region and key property types—offices, shops, warehouses and factories.The Local Government Act 2003 provides that the 2005 revaluation must be accompanied by a transition scheme to lessen the effects of sudden and significant rises in rates bills. The legislation provides that the scheme must be self-financing, so that the costs do not fall on other taxpayers. For revaluation 2005, we are proposing a four-year self-financing transitional scheme. The costs of phasing in increases will be met by phasing down the reductions in liability for others.The scheme seeks to provide an appropriate balance between protecting those who experience larger increases in rates bills and allowing those who enjoy a fall in bills to experience the full benefit as quickly as possible. As a result we propose the caps for properties experiencing increases will be 12.5 per cent., 17.5 per cent., 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. for the four years and for small properties 5 per cent., 7.5 per cent., 10 per cent. and 20 per cent.For large properties experiencing reductions in rate bills, these would be capped at the rates of 7 per cent., 10 per cent., 17.5 per cent. and 20 per cent. For small properties, the rates proposed are 17.5 per cent., 25 per cent, 45 per cent. and 50 per cent. These downward caps are significantly more generous than in any previous transitional scheme and mean that those liable to decreases in their rates bills will benefit more quickly than under earlier schemes. Also, the effect of the separate capping levels means that small businesses will only be required to make a very small contribution to the scheme.Further details of the transitional scheme will be included in a consultation paper to be published shortly. The consultation will continue until October, by which time businesses will know their proposed rateable value from the valuation office agency draft rating lists. This will enable ratepayers to consider the effect of the proposed scheme alongside their proposed new rateable values before responding to the consultation.I am also announcing our proposals for the new small business rate relief scheme. Government recognise that the current system of business rates places a disproportionate burden on small businesses. The small business rate relief scheme will address that.Plans for a small business rate relief scheme were first announced in 2001 in the White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services". The White Paper proposed that rate relief should be available at 50 per cent. for properties with a rateable value up to £3,000 with relief declining in percentage terms on a sliding scale until at £8,000 there would be no entitlement to relief. However, we undertook to review these thresholds before the scheme was implemented. The scheme that we will be consulting on next month is significantly more generous than the one originally envisaged, and proposes that the thresholds should be set at £5,000 and £10,000. We are also introducing a buffer zone so that business properties with rateable values between £10,000 and £15,000 will not have to contribute towards the relief.The scheme will be funded through a supplement on the rates bills of larger businesses, in line with the requirement in the Local Government Act 2003, although we have made a commitment that this should not add more than 2.5 per cent. to bills. The proposed scheme would increase the overall supplement to no more than 0.67p. This equates to a 1.6 per cent. increase in rates bills.We estimate that more than 400,000 small businesses stand to benefit from the proposed scheme.

This statement is being made on a joint basis, together with my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Minister for Women and Equality.I am pleased to report that consultation document "Parental Separation: Children's Needs and Parents' Responsibilities" (Cm 6273) is today being presented to Parliament.Parental separation affects many children and their families. When handled well the adverse impact on their children can be minimised. When things go badly the effects can be very damaging for children, both in the short and longer terms. These risks can be reduced if parents can resolve parenting issues in an amicable fashion. Because of social changes, more children experience parental relationship breakdown than a generation ago: 150,000 to 200,000 parental couples separate each year. In addition, fathers are, in general, more actively involved in caring for and helping to raise their children.Currently, only 10 per cent. of separating couples with children have had their contact arrangements ordered by the courts, though the number of court applications for contact is rising each year, with the courts in England and Wales making 67,000 contact orders last year. The majority of applications are made by fathers, reflecting the fact that most children live with their mothers following separation.I am clear that there is scope for considerable improvement in the way in which the family justice system, together with its associated services, deal with contact disputes. This view is widely shared among judges, legal practitioners and voluntary organisations. Some fathers' groups assert that the courts and the law are biased against them. I do not accept this view. However, what I do accept is that major changes are needed, in order to ensure that court and other interventions into family life become much more effective in helping to secure effective resolutions which are in the interests of the child. I strongly believe that in most cases it is very much in the interests of the child to have an on-going relationship with both parents. By improving the system, the Government can make their proper contribution to enabling more non-resident parents to enjoy meaningful ongoing relationships with their children.Following the most careful consideration across Government, we have determined that it would not be helpful, in any practical sense, to revise the principles that currently underpin the central piece of legislation—the Children Act 1989, in particular, the paramountcy principle, which makes the child's welfare the court's first consideration. This primary legislation, as interpreted and defined by the case law, already makes clear that both parents are equal and that both should continue to have a meaningful relationship with their children after parental separation, so long as it is safe. We fully accept that we need to make changes to the current system, and to support parents in settling their disputes, by providing more effective help for them to do so.This consultation document puts forward proposals which are intended to help those undergoing parental separation to resolve their disputes more effectively so that children's needs are better met. They are based on the recognition that the primary responsibility for caring for children rests with parents rather than with the state. Their aims are threefold. Firstly, they aim to minimise conflict and support good outcomes, both for children and their parents, preferably without recourse to the courts. Secondly, they aim to improve parental access to those services which can enable them to reach agreements. Thirdly, they aim to improve legal processes and service delivery for those who do go to court. While most of our proposals are focused on the 10 per cent. of parents who turn to the courts, a number of them are intended to be relevant to all parents who separate.In developing these proposals, we have listened carefully to what parents and children have said. The consumer Strategy work of the Department for Constitutional Affairs involved drawing together evidence from research and conducting workshops and focus groups with parents. The key message from the parents was that they wanted help and support to navigate the emotional and practical issues they faced during the breakdown of their relationship.We have also consulted widely with the key stakeholders, including parents' groups, academics, voluntary organisations and service providers, including the judiciary, legal professionals and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS). It is this approach that will ensure rapid improvements at local level. Alongside the publication of this consultation document, the president of the Family Division and the chief executives of the court service and of CAFCASS are today writing to all judges, court service staff and CAFCASS officers to begin the process of change.The consultation period, which begins today, will run until 1 November 2004. Comments and discussions about the proposals will be welcome. The Government plan to implement many of these proposals quickly and robustly and to pursue the legislation that is needed as soon as possible.

:The Speaker has raised with me his concern, and that of other Members, about the number of "I will write" replies to parliamentary questions, and the inaccessibility of the subsequent responses. The matter was also raised by the Public Administration Committee in its report on "Ministerial Accountability and Parliamentary Questions" [Third Report, HC355, paragraph 29].Following discussion with ministerial colleagues, and in consultation with Mr. Speaker and the House authorities, I have agreed the following arrangements, which will take effect from September.

:During the final stages of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill in May, a procedural difficulty arose in the House of Lords. Contrary to the intention of this House, it appeared to the House of Lords that a message from the Commons amounted to a "double insistence" in respect of one Lords amendment. In such circumstances, a Bill is normally lost. However, as this was clearly not the wish of either House, the House of Lords agreed to vary the normal practice in that House, to allow the Bill to continue in play. The Leader of the House of Lords invited the Clerks of both Houses and parliamentary counsel to consider jointly the lessons learnt from this episode and how best to avoid such a situation in the future. In particular, they were asked to look at the practice of considering amendments in the other House in groups or packages and the procedural consequences which can follow.Following consideration by a working group of Clerks and parliamentary counsel, the Clerks of both Houses have agreed the following statement of position:

:The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has signed a written agreement with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to allow them to perform the functions of an approved prosecutor under Section 1 (3) (e) of the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 2000. This Act supplements the Protection of Animals Act 1911, by allowing a magistrates court to make an order relating to the temporary care or for the disposal, sale or slaughter of animals kept for commercial purposes that are the subject of a prosecution brought under the 1911 Act by a prosecutor. The agreement with the RSPCA will take effect from 1 September 2004 and will apply to England only. Copies of the model agreement have been deposited in the Libraries. The model agreement and associated guidance notes can also be found on Defra's website at: www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/farmed/on-farm/.htm.

:In my statement of 16 July 2003, I announced that Government was looking at the best way of making Nirex "independent of industry and under greater Government control". I would now like to make a further statement, concerning the means of moving forward with this, that I have agreed with my Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.The Government, through DEFRA and DTI, intend to establish a new company limited by guarantee (CLG) to hold the shares in Nirex, and oversee its business operations. The transfer of Nirex shares to the new CLG will be covered by an appropriate commercial transaction with existing Nirex shareholders. The CLG will, effectively, provide a means of placing Nirex assets and intellectual property into trust, whilst enabling it to continue with its important work that includes setting standards for the conditioning and packaging of radioactive waste, until the Government can take their decision on policy for the long-term management of the UK's higher activity radioactive waste, and the means of its delivery, in light of recommendations from the independent Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM). The funding will be by contract, primarily through the NDA. Nirex will be separate from, and independent of, the NDA.The new arrangements will achieve both the objectives stated in my previous announcement, to make Nirex independent of industry and bring the company under greater Government control. The aim is to agree the detail of them by about October/November of this year for them to come fully into operation from 1 April 2005.Successful implementation is subject to a significant amount of more detailed work currently being undertaken by DEFRA and the DTI in conjunction with Nirex and its present shareholders, including an ongoing programme of due diligence work. All parties are committed to achieving a successful outcome to this process.

:Data reported by energy conservation authorities in England under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 in the period 1 April 1996 to 31 March 2003 have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. These data have also been published on the Department for Food and Rural Affairs' website, at address http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/energy/heca95/index.htm.Authorities have reported an overall improvement in domestic energy efficiency of approximately 12 per cent. as measured against a 1996 baseline.

:I wish to advise the House that on 14 August 2004, I will announce a public consultation exercise in respect of a proposed gender equality strategy, the government's high level policy for tackling gender inequalities in Northern Ireland.This consultation follows our fulfilment of a commitment given bu the rpevious Northern Ireland executive, in its programme for Government (2001–04) to bringing forward and implementing a cross-departmental strategy to tackle gender inequalities.Copies of the Consultation Paper "Gender Matters—Towards a Cross Departmental Strategic Framework to Promote Gender Equality For Women and Men 2005–15" have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

:In accordance with Articles 372 and 358(4) of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 copies of the Insolvency Service Annual Report and Account for year ending 31 March 2003 have been placed in both Libraries of the House today.

:The annual report and accounts of Invest Northern Ireland for the financial year ending 31 March 2003 were deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

:The 2001–02 accounts of the Youth Council for Northern Ireland were deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 21 July 2004.

:I have today arranged for the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland corporate plan 2004–07 and business plan 2004–05 document to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. This document will also be made available on the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland website at: www.osni.gov.uk.

:I have today placed in the Library papers relating to decisions that have been taken during the period 1 October 2003 to 5 July 2004 which relate to the North/South Implementation Bodies and Tourism Ireland Ltd under the terms of the exchange of notes of 19 November 2002 (Cmnd 5708).

:The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (the 1999 Act) contained, among other provisions, eight special measures for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses. They are essentially different ways of giving evidence in criminal trials that were designed either to improve the quality of evidence given by witnesses through reducing their levels of stress or to make it possible for witnesses who find difficulty in giving their evidence to have access to justice.This Government have already implemented, or is piloting, seven of the eight measures. The eighth measure—visually recorded pre-trial cross-examination—was always going to be the most complicated of the measures to implement. It was also always likely to be applied to the smallest number of cases.A number of stakeholders have expressed their concerns to us about the detail of its implementation. We therefore commissioned Professor Diane Birch, a leading academic in the field, to review and provide advice on the workability of visually recorded pre-trial cross-examination. A copy of Professor Birch's report has been laid in the Library today.

:In my written statement on 15 July announcing publication of the Prison Service and national probation service annual reports for 2003–04, I stated that a full breakdown of the performance of both public and contracted prison establishments in relation to the applicable key performance indicators (KPIs) would be provided at a later date.The information on all applicable KPIs is presented in the table that has been placed in the Library. No category A prisoners escaped from any prison and so performance on this KPI is not included in the table. Information is not available at establishment level on the resettlement KPI (which is calculated on the basis of a national resettlement survey), and on the two KPIs on contracted escorts (escapes and timely arrival at court) which are not managed at establishment level. The contracted prisons do not have targets on staff sickness levels or minority ethnic representation. Due to data collection problems there are no figures available for doubling in contracted prisons.

:I have today laid before Parliament copies of the Forensic Science Service's (FSS) annual report and accounts for 2003—04.Performance against agency targets 2003–04:

:On the evening of 19 July there was a serious disturbance at Harmondsworth immigration removal centre.At about 8 pm staff found a detainee hanging in a shower-room at the centre. At about 11 pm a number of detainees became disruptive and started to set a number of fires in the communal areas. These fires were put out by the newly installed fire protection system. The police and fire services were called to the scene.The disturbance continued and became more serious. Staff from UKDS, the company managing the centre under contract from the Home Office, withdrew from the association areas. Standing arrangements in the Prison Service for dealing with serious incidents were activated, and by midnight the Gold Command Suite at Prison Service headquarters was in operation. By 4 am on 20 July the Prison Service Operation Tornado teams went into the centre. By 8 am three of the four house blocks were under Prison Service control. The fourth came under control a little later in the morning, and by 2 pm all parts of the centre were calm.The Centre is, for the time being, unsuitable for use. The 441 detainees who were there at the time of the disturbance are being removed to other accommodation, and we are in the final stages of dispersing them across a range of sites, including the IND removal estate and prison establishments while a small number have been taken into police custody. No detainees have been released. An assessment of the damage is being made with UKDS, and the centre will be reopened as quickly as possible. In the meantime, alternative arrangements are being made for the handling in particular of those detainees whose asylum claims were being dealt with under the fast track.This was a serious disturbance, and I pay tribute to all those who responded quickly and succeeded in restoring order. It is important to note that the disturbance did not lead to loss of life or serious injury. No detainees escaped, and the measures which had been taken to prevent a recurrence of the fire at Yarl's Wood Centre proved successful. We are determined that the centre be restored to full use as soon as possible.The tragic death of the detainee earlier in the evening of 19 July will be the subject of a full investigation by the Prison and Probation Ombudsman. The police are conducting a criminal investigation into the events themselves. There are also likely to be managerial lessons to be learned and I have instigated an immediate investigation, the terms of reference of which will be: to establish the facts of the events at Harmondsworth on the evening of 19 July and the morning of 20 July; to consider the factors which may have given rise to the disturbance and the effectiveness of the measures which were taken to deal with it; and to make recommendations.

The MCSI inspection of courts services annual report for 2003—04 has been laid before Parliament today. This document gives full details of the MCSI's performance for that year. Copies of the report have been place in the Libraries of both Houses.

On 4 February 2004 I informed the House of Commons that Ministry of Defence owned coastal sites were being considered for their suitability to store radioactive material from nuclear-powered submarines under Project ISOLUS. That exercise is now complete and one site, the royal armaments depot (RNAD) at Coulport in Dumbartonshire, has been found suitable in principle. One of the industry bidders, Serco Assurance, in partnership with Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd. and RWE Nukem Ltd., is seeking to use a MOD site in their proposal and they will now be asked if they wish to incorporate Coulport into their bid, as will the other bidders.I want to make it clear that this does not mean that Coulport has been selected as the storage location—there is still much work to be done before a final decision is made. Nor does it mean that industry has to incorporate the site in any bid. It does, however, mean that those other coastal sites included in the review, some of which have been the subject of considerable speculation, have been assessed as unsuitable and are not storage options.Coulport has, of course, previously been named in an industry bid, and is one of the sites on which we consulted the public last year. I do not envisage setting in train further consultation at this stage. If, however, any of the proposals from industry change in substance as a result of the inclusion of Coulport we will instigate a further public consultation exercise. As at all stages of the ISOLUS process, safety, in terms of the general public, the workforce and the environment, will be a key factor in all of our decisions. The concerns expressed by the public during the events at the various sites named in each of the industry bids have been captured by the 50 recommendations contained in the Lancaster University report on the consultation exercise. These recommendations are currently being considered and, following consultation with other government departments and devolved administrations, a Government response will be published later this year.The exercise to identify potential MOD sites has concentrated on those by the coast in view of the current preferred option of land storage of cut out intact reactor compartments. The 118 sites were assessed against the following criteria: sufficient spare capacity to accommodate a storage facility; long term security of tenure; development of a storage facility that is feasible and cost effective, would not breach existing agreements with MOD, NATO or other countries, and would not inhibit the site's current principal operational function; access from the sea, capable of accepting heavy loads; and no safety hazard, such as flooding, coastal erosion and whether the site is used for handling and storing explosives, or where unexploded ordnance has been identified, for which there is no cost effective engineering solution. In parallel with the detailed consideration of the outcome of the public consultation, and informed by the recommendations flowing from it, evaluation of the various industry outline proposals will be completed. We expect to be able to announce early next year how the project will be taken forward. Moreover, the Government remains committed to a further round of public consultation before any final decisions are taken.

The amount of low flying training carried out in the UK low flying system (UKLFS) during the training year April 2003 to March 2004 was the minimum required for aircrew to reach and maintain their ability to fly at low level. The number of low flying training hours booked in the UKLFS (excluding the rotary wing dedicated user areas, where different booking arrangements apply) decreased by 1,996 hours, in comparison with the previous training year.We are committed to ensuring that low flying training across the UK is spread as widely as is practically possible across the UK so that no single area is too burdened. However, due to a variety of reasons, population distribution and geographical and climate restrictions, it is unavoidable that some areas of the country may experience more activity than others.I have today placed in the Library of the House a report giving a detailed account of the low flying training that has taken place in the UK low flying system for the training year April 2003 to March 2004.The report is also available on the MOD web site:

On 23 April 2004, Official Report, columns 30–31WS, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced that Typhoon aircraft would be based at RAF Coningsby, RAF Leeming and RAF Leuchars. I have now decided that RAF Leuchars will be the second Typhoon base after RAF Coningsby. This is in order to meet the requirement for quick reaction alert (interceptor) aircraft cover for the UK. RAF Coningsby and RAF Leuchars are already established as bases for this purpose, which will continue after Typhoon is introduced.

A review has been undertaken of the defence requirement for the retention of Woolwich station. The review took account of our future ground based air defence requirements, of the strategy for the rationalisation of the Defence Estate and of the recommendations of the Lyons review. It has concluded that the Ministry of Defence should re-locate units currently based in Woolwich to sites yet to be decided. This will allow the Woolwich site to be made available for non-defence use. Further work is now needed on implementing this decision. All personnel affected have today been advised of our intention and they and their union representatives will be consulted fully as our plans develop.

Last year, the Ministry of Defence carried out a business process review of the management and delivery of defence housing. The review recommended merger between Defence Estates and the Defence Housing Executive, the agency responsible for the management and delivery of defence family housing in Great Britain but not in Northern Ireland or abroad. As Phase 2 of the study, following the above merger, a further review is being undertaken of the management and delivery of family housing for UK forces overseas and in Northern Ireland.The aim of the review is to examine the function, role, operation, funding and organisation of defence housing in Northern Ireland and overseas. It will seek to identify the most efficient and effective process to support the management and delivery of defence housing in those areas. The review team will consult with a range of stakeholders during the course of the review including single-service customers, trade unions, other Government Departments and other relevant bodies. The Ministry of Defence is interested also to hear the views of other organisations or individuals who would like to make a contribution to the review. Those wishing to do so should send their contribution by 31 August 2004 to:Review team for the management and delivery of defence housing overseas:Ministry of DefenceDirectorate of Management and Consultancy ServicesMain buildingWhitehallSW1A 2HBOr by email:

The following Key Targets have been set for the Duke of York's Royal Military School for Financial Year 2004–05:

To achieve an average GCSE points score per 15 year old pupil of 61.

To achieve 90 per cent. of 15 year old pupils gaining five or more passes graded A^* to C at GCSE.

To achieve 30 per cent. of GCSE passes at grades A^* or A.

To achieve an average GCE points score per candidate of 268.

To achieve 35 per cent. of GCE passes at grades A or B.

To achieve a pupil per capita cost of no more than £13,545.

To generate income of at least £800,000.

To achieve at least 310 applications for September 2004 intake.

I am pleased to announce that I have reappointed Dr Anne Wright as a member of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body for a second three-year term, commencing March 2005. This appointment has been conducted in accordance with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments guidance on appointments to public bodies.

:We have received the annual report and accounts of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency for 2003–04 which has been laid before Parliament today in accordance with the requirements of sections 5(2) and 5(3) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

The 2003–04 annual report and accounts for the Meat Hygiene Service was laid before Parliament today.Copies will be placed in the Library, but formal printing and publication will not take place for another six to nine weeks, pending preparation of a version in the Welsh language, as required by the Welsh Language Act 1993.

I am publishing today "National Standards, Local Action: Health and Social Care Standards and Planning Framework 2005–06—2007–08", incorporating "Standards for Better Health". This will support the national health service and social care in taking forward the agenda set out in the NHS improvement plan, setting out a framework for continuing quality improvement.Much progress has already been made across the NHS. Waiting times are falling, mortality rates for the major diseases are down and there are more NHS staff treating NHS patients. The development of clinical governance, the establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the publication of National Service Frameworks and the establishment of independent inspectorates for health and for social care have set a framework for safe, high quality care. This is underpinned by "The NHS Improvement Plan" that sets out a programme for further progress and clear improvements in health outcomes and patient care."Standards for Better Health" and "National Standards, Local Action" together set out a new approach that will deliver this agenda, with reduced national targets underpinned by robust standards to drive up quality and safety. NHS patients are entitled to care that is safe and effective and "Standards for Better Health" sets out the standards all providers and commissioners of NHS care are expected to meet to deliver safe and effective care.

For the health service bodies listed as follows, their annual accounts and any accompanying Comptroller and Auditor General reports have today been laid before the House of Commons pursuant to section 98(1 C) of the National Health Service Act 1977. Copies have been placed in the Library:

• Dental Practice Board
• Dental Vocational Training Authority
• Family Health Services Appeal Authority
• Health Development Agency
• Health Protection Agency
• National Blood Authority
• National Clinical Assessment Authority
• National Institute for Clinical Excellence
• National Patient Safety Agency
• National Treatment Agency
• NHS Appointments Commission
• NHS Information Authority
• NHS Litigation Authority
• NHS Logistics Authority
• NHSU
• Prescription Pricing Authority
• Retained Organs Commission
• UK Transplant

:I have approved the national health service pensions agency annual report and accounts for 2003–04, which have today been laid before the House of Commons in accordance with the requirements of Section 7 of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000.Copies have been placed in the Library.

:We have received the annual report of the Medicines Commission and Medicines Act advisory bodies for 2003, which has been laid before Parliament today in accordance with the requirements of section 5(2) of the Medicines Act 1968.Bound volumes have been placed in the Library containing the 2003 reports of the Medicines Commission, the committee on Safety of Medicines, the advisory board on the registration of homoeopathic products, the British Pharmacopoeia Commission, the independent review panel on advertising, the independent panel for borderline products and the veterinary products committee.

:The annual report for 2003 is being published today and copies have been placed in the Library. The report covers research and development work carried out by or on behalf of any Government Department in relation to equipment that might increase the range of activities and independence or well being of disabled people.The current report places such research in the context of the national health service improvement plan, and outlines the role of assistive technology in making independent living easier for older people and people with disabilities. The report describes the wide range of Government funded projects supporting the development, introduction and evaluation of assistive technology.

:The NHS purchasing and supply agency's annual report and accounts has been published today and copies have been placed in the Library.

:On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) inspection report on Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.Following the housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All", published in April 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The "Performance Standards for housing benefits" allow local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are the standards that the Department for Work and Pensions expects local authorities to aspire to and achieve in time. In 2002–03, Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council administered some £70.8 million in housing benefits, about 19.3 per cent. of its gross revenue expenditure.BFI inspected Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council against the performance standards for housing benefits, and concludes that the council's benefits service had not reached standard in any of the seven functional areas—strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, working with landlords, internal security, counter-fraud and overpayments.The report finds that since 2000 the council had been implementing an ambitious programme of activity that included: implementation of the Verification Framework; implementing new IT systems; a reorganisation of its Revenues and Benefits division; and the establishment of one stop shops and a customer contact centre. Many of the earlier changes were responsible for a considerable backlog of housing benefit claims, attributed to poor management and pointing to a lack of effective planning and organisation.The council's benefits service had improved from a "poor" classification in December 2002 to a "fair" classification in December 2003 as part of the comprehensive performance assessment programme. The benefits service had a committed workforce and the report acknowledges the considerable efforts made by Members, senior officers and staff over a sustained period of time.The report finds that the council had not documented its approach to benefits administration, had not put in place essential strategic policies, and had insufficient procedural staff guidance which resulted in staff making inconsistent decisions when processing claims. The report notes serious concerns about the lack of management assurance and public accountability provided by the benefits service.The council had received "Beacon Council" recognition for its accessible services, providing public access at several one stop shops and handling all incoming telephone calls at its customer contact centre. It had not however reviewed its service against the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and was also not complying with the Race Relations Amendment Act 1976. Physical access issues for customers with disabilities had been considered but their access to services including information needs had not been assessed neither had the needs of customers whose first language was not English. The council's benefit claim form was clear and simple.The council had made an impressive effort to clear a backlog of new claims resulting in the council's average number of days to process new claims to housing benefits as being approximately 44 days, compared with the standard of 36 days. However, the council was not consistently applying the standards required for gathering and confirming supporting evidence. Claims processing had taken priority over other work, resulting in a backlog of over 20,000 items of post that was not being managed, contributing to high levels of avoidable overpayments. Sampling showed the average time taken to process changes of circumstances was 58.2 days, compared with the standard of nine days.The council was making positive efforts to raise the profile of counter-fraud activity but it needs to improve publicity of its prosecution policy both internally and externally to demonstrate that it takes fraud seriously. The report notes extreme concerns that the prosecution process used by Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council allowed customers to remain under caution for excessive periods of time. Also that the council's prosecution referral process and scoring system that determined appropriate action to be taken and sanction to be applied, undermined the prosecution policy.The council's benefit overpayment policies and procedures were of a good standard and fraud overpayments were pursued rigorously and promptly recovered. However, sampling showed that 70 per cent. of benefit overpayments were as a result of the council not promptly processing notified changes of circumstances.The on-site phase of the inspection took place in October and November 2003, and the report was cleared on 16 April 2004. The 17-week timeline was not met due to key officers in the council not being available for the clearance of the report.The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and further to improve the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the BFI's findings and recommendations.

On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) inspection report on Bristol City Council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.Following the housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All", published in April 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The "Performance Standards for Housing Benefits" allow local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are the standards that the Department for Work and Pensions expects local authorities to aspire to and achieve in time.In 2002–03, Bristol City Council administered some £78.7 million in housing benefits, about 9.7 per cent. of its gross revenue expenditure. BFI inspected Bristol City Council against the performance standards for housing benefits, and concludes that the council's benefits service had not reached standard in any of the seven functional areas—strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, working with landlords, internal security, counter-fraud and overpayments.The report finds a high level of commitment by the council to improve its benefit service. During the inspection, the council implemented a number of changes to address issues that were highlighted by BFI.In April 2001, having acknowledged that there were problems with the speed and quality of the service it was providing, the council began a programme of fundamental changes in the way it administered housing benefits. Changes included the centralisation and reorganisation of its benefits processing work, and an upgrade to the benefits IT system.Despite the changes, delays in processing benefit claims and a significant backlog of work were still evident at the time of the inspection. Customers had to wait an average 74 days to have their new benefit claims processed compared to the standard of 36 days. Verification of supporting evidence for benefit claims was generally conducted to a good standard. However, insufficient and ineffective management checking meant that the council did not have sufficient assurance that the benefits system was secure or that benefit was being paid correctly. Accuracy rates in 2002–03 were reported as 86 per cent., placing the council in the bottom three of all councils.Customers experienced problems with the council's benefits service, with almost a third of all calls being abandoned unanswered, and customers being asked to supply evidence to support a claim more than once.The report finds that the quality of the council's counter-fraud investigation work was very effective and it was applying the full range of sanctions in line with its policies. All benefit fraud investigations staff were trained to professional standards.The council was committed to the recovery of benefit overpayments and had a recovery team within the benefits service. However, many overpayments were caused by the council not processing reported changes of circumstances promptly, and delays in the adjudication of fraud overpayments. The lack of procedural guidance and management checking meant the council had no assurance to the accuracy of overpayments and recovery work.The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to further improve the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the BFF's findings and recommendations.

The Disability Rights Commission's annual report and accounts 2003–04 have been published today and laid before Parliament. The DRC's annual report of its activities in 2003–04 details considerable success in its work to eliminate discrimination against disabled people; promote equal opportunities; encourage good practice and keep the working of the Disability Discrimination Act and the DRC Act under review.

Remploy's achievement against its targets set by Government for 2003–04 is in the table.

	Target	Achievement
Gross margin—the Company will achieve gross margin of £55 million.	£55million	£54.4 million
Progressions from Remploy factories and interwork to open employment	1,650	1,408
Average cost of a supported employee	£10,400	£11,095
Employee development time	5 per cent.	7.8 per cent.

I am pleased to announce that the Department for Work and Pensions has today published the 2003–04 annual reports and accounts for three of its executive agencies: Jobcentre Plus (HC 909), The Pension Service (HC 722) and Appeals Service (HC785). Copies have been placed in the Library.

:Following my announcement on the setting up of the Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems, Official Report, 9 February 2004, Column 1150–51, I can now announce the members of the commission. These are as follows:

Professor Sir John Arbuthnott	Chairman of the Greater Glasgow NHS Board and Former Principal and Vice Chancellor of the University of Strathclyde
Mr. Adam Bruce	Director, McGrigors Public Policy, Edinburgh
Professor Mike Donnelly	Professor of Management, University of Paisley
Mr. Donal Dowds	Divisional Managing Director, BAA Scotland and USA
Mr. John Keggie	Self-employed businessman. Former Deputy General Secretary, CWU Postal
Mr. John Lawrie, OBE	Former investment manager. Former Chairman, Scottish Liberal Party
Councillor Alison Magee	Convenor, Highland Council
Mr. John Mc Cormick	Former Controller, BBC Scotland
Dr. Nicola Mc Ewen	Lecturer in politics, University of Edinburgh
Ms Mary Pitcaithly	Chief Executive and Returning Officer, Falkirk Council
Mr. Mike Russell	Freelance journalist and broadcaster. Former MSP for South Scotland

The Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments was fully involved in the process of appointment.The commission will start its work very shortly and is expected to report to me and the First Minister in about 18 months.

I announced on 15 January 2004, Official Report, columns 44–46WS that, following consultation last year, we had decided to continue the present night restrictions regime at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted until the end of the summer season 2005 (30 October 2005). This was to allow us time to consider comments received in response to the question about the appropriate review cycle in the consultation paper "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East", and the wider policy context, before we consult on a new night restrictions regime for those airports, to take effect from 30 October 2005.We intend to carry out the consultation on the new regime in two stages: we are publishing the consultation paper on stage one today. The consultation paper is rather different from previous consultations on night restrictions for Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. The paper sets out the general background to the whole of the consultation and our intention that the next regime should apply for six years, to the end of the summer season 2011. By that time the 5th Terminal at Heathrow will have been in operation for about three years and the opening date for a 2nd runway at Stansted (if planning permission is granted) should be known.The consultation paper also includes:

The National Statistics annual report has been published today. A number of copies of the report have been placed in both Libraries of the House. The report can also be obtained free of charge on the National Statistics website at: www.statistics.gov.uk/about/national_statistics/documentation.asp.

The Office for National Statistics annual report and accounts for 2003–04 are being laid before Parliament today. They contain an assessment of how the Office for National Statistics performed against its key targets in 2003–04. Electronic copies are freely available on the National Statistics website and a number of copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

"2004 Spending Review: Meeting Regional Priorities", is being published today and copies are available in the Libraries of the House.This document meets the Treasury's commitment to set out how the 2004 Spending Review, announced to Parliament on 12 July 2004, responds to the issues and priorities identified in the regional emphasis documents jointly prepared by the Government office, regional development agency and regional chamber in each English region.The document reaffirms the Government's commitment to improving regional economic performance. It summarises the next steps the Government is taking to ensure that the evidence base supports the Government's regional policy agenda, and sets out the SR04 response to input from the regions as well as plans for devolving further resources and responsibilities in every region.