I have today published "Delivering Diversity in Public Appointments 2004", which explains what each central Government Department is doing to increase diversity on the boards of their public bodies.

The report contains action plans for each department as well as details of progress to date. It also includes targets to increase the proportion of appointments held by women, people from minority ethnic backgrounds and disabled people to be achieved by 2007.

The Government are keen to ensure that its commitments to public appointments are met. The first is that selection should be made on merit, using fair and open procedures that ensure the best available candidate is appointed to each post.

The second is a commitment to improving diversity in public appointments. There is real value in boards broadly reflecting the community they serve and I firmly believe that more diverse boards lead to more effective decision making.

Overall progress has been made in the representation of people from minority ethnic backgrounds and disabled people, however the overall figures for women have dropped slightly, thus emphasising the need to continue to promote our diversity objectives and continue our outreach work.

The report can be found on the Internet at www.publicappointments.gov.uk. Copies of the report have also been placed in the Libraries of the House.

I am today announcing a review of the current arrangements for the provision of air travel for the Royal Family, Government Ministers and accompanying senior officials, taking into account safety, reliability, security and value for money, and to make recommendations for improvement. The review will be headed by sir Peter Gershon and is expected to report in the second half of 2005.

The Treasury has today published the Government's response to the consultation on the definition of home reversion type arrangements for inclusion in the scope of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which closed on 28 September 2004. Copies are available in the vote Office and the Library of the House, and are accessible on the Treasury website at: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk.

I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses a consultation paper on the disclosure of information in family proceedings cases involving children. The text is also available on the Department's website at: http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/confr.htm

The fiftieth report of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art for 2003–04 will be published later today. The reviewing committee provides independent advice to the Secretary of State on whether cultural objects that are the subject of applications for export licences are of outstanding national importance. During the period covered by the report, following recommendations from the reviewing committee, temporary bars were placed on the export of nine items, including paintings, drawings, furniture, silverware and archives. Of these, seven items, valued at £6.8 million, were purchased and remain in the UK. The report contains the reviewing committee's comments on policy matters relating to the operation of the export control and the protection of cultural objects, and details of each case considered during the period 1 July 2003 to 30 April 2004.

Copies of the report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The review will also be available on the DCMS website http://www.culture.gov.uk

The Government set out its programme for the reform of the planning system in England in "Sustainable Communities—Delivering Through Planning" (July 2002). The principal aims of the reform are to produce a faster, fairer system that allows for greater public involvement. The legislative changes required, including those for the reform of the development plan system, were enacted in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

This is against a background of a continued rise in planning applications submitted to local authorities as a result of economic growth. As the number of planning applications has increased, so has the number of planning appeals submitted to the Planning Inspectorate—indeed the percentage rise in the number of appeals received is greater than the corresponding percentage increase in applications (because refusal rates are also rising). The number of appeals received by the Planning Inspectorate has increased by over 50 per cent. in the past three years. This increase coupled with the doubling of the number of Inspectors required to carry out inquiries into local plans this year has resulted in a deterioration in the Planning Inspectorate's overall performance in the amount of time take to determine planning appeals.

To restore performance, I have made available an extra £1 million this year to fund taking on additional Inspectors and providing them with the support they need. I am looking carefully at resource needs next year and will provide extra resources if necessary. The Inspectorate has formed a taskforce dedicated to clearing the backlog of appeals and is looking to see significant progress by next spring.

I want sustained improvement. The Inspectorate is committed to boosting productivity and delivering a more effective service to its customers. In order to achieve this, the Inspectorate has set up an independently chaired Productivity Board. The Inspectorate is also restructuring itself to give greater focus to operational delivery and improved services to its customers. The restructuring of the Inspectorate is expected to be completed in March 2005.

I also intend to extend the period for submitting planning appeals from three to six months, which will have the effect of reversing the change which was introduced in September last year. When these changes were introduced, it was anticipated that the reduction in the appeal period would give greater certainty to all parties as to whether or not an appeal was to be lodged. However, there has been widespread criticism that the period of three months is insufficient for negotiations between the prospective appellant and the LPA. There is a strong perception that the reduction in the appeal period has led to applicants submitting appeals without first making any attempt to negotiate an amended application with the LPA and that this may have contributed to the rise in appeal numbers. There is a strong lobby from the planning community and from developers alike that the period in which to appeal should be restored to 6 months in order to allow longer to negotiate following a refusal. I am persuaded by these arguments. The change will require an amendment to the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 to reverse the effect of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order 2003 (SI 2003 no. 2047). I propose to lay the necessary Order before the Christmas recess. It will come into effect from mid January.

This will restore the opportunity for local planning authorities and appellants to enter into post decision negotiations and thus avoid unnecessary appeals.

Given the current pressures on the Planning Inspectorate, I intend to delay the introduction of dual jurisdiction. The powers for this are contained in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act and will apply where an applicant appeals to the Secretary of State on the grounds that the LPA has not determined a planning application within the prescribed eight-week period. Under dual jurisdiction the LPA will have an additional period of time to issue its decision, even though an appeal has been lodged. While it is anticipated that this initiative will eventually lead to a reduction in the appeal workload, the time is not right to make this change with the present backlog of appeals.

I am also taking the opportunity to extend the statutory period for local authorities to determine major applications from eight to thirteen weeks. The present arrangements allow for parties to appeal after eight weeks where the LPA has not issued a decision. This conflicts with the period of thirteen weeks which is given under best value targets to determine major applications. This change will bring greater clarity to the appeal system and give LPA's significantly longer to determine major applications. This should also help to reduce the number of appeals against major applications.

This package of measures will assist in tackling the backlog of appeals in the Planning Inspectorate and demonstrates the Government's commitment to providing a speedier, more responsive planning system which will support the right development in the right place and contribute to sustainable communities.

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has today published a companion guide to PPS22 on renewable energy. The companion guide offers good practice advice on a range of issues, including how to frame policies for renewable energy in development plans.

Planning policy statement 22, published in August 2004, was an important step towards facilitating the delivery of more renewable energy developments and thereby meeting this Government's commitments in respect of global warming and climate changes. It sets out the Government's national planning policies for all types of renewable energy development. The companion guide offers practical advice as to how these polices can be implemented on the ground. It is intended to assist planners, regional and local decision-makers and other stakeholders in understanding the often complex issues associated with the different technologies and their application in different environments and is relevant to all local planning authorities in England.

The guide addresses the actions required at the local and regional level, with regard to both strategic/forward planning and development control and includes a chapter of each of these planning policy issues. It also sets out the factors that make a 'good' renewable energy application, how best to assess cumulative landscape and visual effect and how to deal with community involvement. Case studies are used to illustrate key points and to demonstrate how specific issues can be addressed. A technical annex to the guide includes specific advice on the range of renewable energy technologies covered by PPS22.

Copies of the companion guide will be made available in the Libraries of both Houses and it will also be available on the web site of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

In accordance with undertakings in its race equality scheme, the Ministry of Defence has produced a second progress report, a copy of which is being placed today in the Library of the House. The report builds on and relates back to the first report, issued in January 2004, and describes the progress made across the Department and by the armed forces. It emphasises our determination to maintain the standards we have achieved to date and to continue to review our policies and procedures.

Our record for managing and retaining ethnic minority personnel is good. The outcome of staff attitude surveys and the low level of race-related complaints indicate a continuing improvement in the race equality climate.

However, there is still much more work to do as the report acknowledges. The Ministry of Defence is omitted to meeting the aspirations set out in the race equality scheme.

Members will wish to be aware of the publication on 16 December of the second annual report by the Government of the United Kingdom's contribution to the against the spread of weapons and materials of mass destruction. The second report details the progress made in the past 12 months in destroying and securing the former Soviet Union's legacies of WMD and associated materials and infrastructure.

The UK pledged $750 million to the global partnership at the Kananaskis G8 summit in 2002. Since then the FCO, DTI, and MoD in close co-operation with the Russian Federation, other countries of the Former Soviet Union, Central and Eastern Europe and other funding partners, have developed a wide portfolio of programmes and made considerable progress on implementing projects on the ground which help to tackle these issues. In 2005 the UK in its capacity as G8 president intends to take forward the work of the global partnership under the theme of "Pledges to Progress", focussing on effective project implementation.

The international community faces immense challenges in tackling the legacy of cold war weapons of mass destruction left in the former Soviet Union. The cold war WMD programmes in the FSU have created a significant non-proliferation and environmental threat to us all. This work represents the UK's largest non-proliferation programme and, as the report indicates, we have made significant progress over the last 12 months in collaboration both with other donors nations and our partners in the FSU.

Copies of the report are available in the Library of the House. Further reports will be published annually setting out the progress achieved in the work being undertaken by the United Kingdom.

As part of spending review 2004, I agreed with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to undertake a review of the effectiveness of our public diplomacy work. Lord Carter of Coles has agreed to lead this review. He will be supported by a small team based within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and an advisory panel of experts. The review is due to start immediately and Lord Carter of Coles will report his findings by summer 2005. The terms of reference are as follows:

To examine the effectiveness of current Public Diplomacy activities in delivering outcomeswhich contribute to the achievement of HMG objectives

To take stock of progress in implementing the Wilton Review (2002) through the work of thePD Strategy Board

To consider the scope for improving PD activities, both in London and overseas, tomaximise their effectiveness and value for money

And to that end to consider the scope for increased joint PD activity and enhanced co-ordination taking account of experience with the PD Campaigns Fund and the PD ChallengeFund

To make recommendations as appropriate.

The review team will undertake a short consultation exercise. If hon. Members would like to feed in comments they should send them to Public Diplomacy Review team, Room WHS52, FCO, King Charles Street, London SW1A 2AH.

The annual accounts and accompanying comptroller and auditor general report of NHS Professionals for 2003–04 has today been laid before the House of Commons pursuant to section 98(1C) of the National Health Service Act 1977. Copies have been placed in the Library.

The annual report and accounts for Monitor (whose statutory name is Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts), HC 104, were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library.

The Government's response to the Health Committee's report of Session 2003–04 on obesity, Cm 6438, has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

Further to the commitment my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), gave to the House in July 2003 that we would be taking part in a major UK/US exercise in 2005 as part of the Home Office's national exercise programme, and as a result of close co-operation with the US on joint crisis management issues, I would now like to provide the House with an update on developments.

Exercise 'Atlantic Blue' is due to take place in April 2005 and is designed to test simultaneous responses to internationally linked terrorist incidents, focusing on how we communicate across international borders at a strategic level.

The Metropolitan Police Service is the host force for the UK working closely with the Home Office and other Government Departments and London agencies on planning and delivery. For obvious reasons we will not be discussing the scenario before the exercise takes place.

Exercise play in the US will be live while in the UK it will be a notional command post exercise (CPX) only. We have agreed this is the best way for us to focus entirely on strategic-level communication issues, rather than on the management of live play at an operational level, which is regularly rehearsed around the UK.

The UK programme of exercises is among the best in the world and a vital part of our work in resilience and contingency planning. This exercise provides us with an invaluable opportunity to enhance our domestic exercise programme by working with our US counterparts in order to test our capability to respond to the specific challenges of an international terrorist incident.

The exercise has been planned as a result of discussions between my predecessor and Cabinet colleagues, and the Department for Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and his colleagues, to promote a co-ordinated approach to counter-terrorism and homeland security issues.

In order to develop the work of Atlantic Blue we are keen to pursue our involvement in future exercises with the US, both in terms of tabletop and live exercises which enable us to further develop our preparedness and resilience.

I would like to reiterate that we are holding this exercise as part of sensible contingency planning with the aim of developing our joint preparedness and resilience in the event of a terrorist incident. It in no way reflects a change in the level of threat to the UK.

I am today announcing the launch of the prisons' alcohol strategy for prisoners.

In line with the national alcohol harm reduction strategy for England published in March, this year, The Prison Service has developed a comprehensive alcohol strategy for prisoners based on extensive consultation with key stakeholders and a range of experts including Alcohol Concern.

The strategy complements both the existing prisons drug strategy and the wider programme of resettlement activity. It will provide a framework for addressing prisoners' alcohol problems. The strategy balances treatment and support with supply reduction measures and provides prisons with a benchmark to formulate their own response to alcohol misuse at a local level. The focus is to improve consistency and build on good practice in the delivery of treatment from within existing resources and in establishing a robust framework to test prisoners for alcohol.

The strategy will be supported by a treatment good practice guide, which will include a model treatment framework, developed in line with the National Treatment Agency's models of care.

Alcohol is a problem for a significant number of those entering prison. Prisons already have in place a range of initiatives to target those with an alcohol problem. The management of the symptoms of withdrawal from alcohol forms an important element of the revised standard for clinical services for substance misusers. Detoxification is available on reception in all local and remand prisons. Some prisons run alcohol awareness courses and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) run groups in around 50 per cent. of prisons. Additionally, general offending behaviour programmes address the underlying criminogenic factors which occur in alcohol-related crime. For those prisoners whose alcohol misuse is part of poly-drug use, counselling, assessment, referral, advice and throughcare services are available—a low level intervention that creates a care plan based on the specific needs of individual prisoners and offers support through group work and one-to-one counselling. The alcohol strategy will enable prisons to build on their good work.

I am pleased to announce that I am today laying before Parliament the Government's response to the Audit Commission report, "Youth justice 2004: a review of the reformed youth justice system".

Reform of the youth justice system has been a key priority for the Government. The Audit Commission's report takes stock of the difference our reforms have made. We warmly welcome their conclusion that the new system is a considerable improvement on the old one.

The Audit Commission also identified some key areas for improvement. The Government response outlines what we are doing to:

focus courts on more serious and persistent offenders;

improve what happens in court;

make sentencing more cost-effective;

meet the wider needs of offenders; and prevent children offending in the first place.

At the same time as the Audit Commission report, the National Audit Office published its own report into youth justice, "Youth offending: the delivery of community and custodial sentences". This area was subsequently examined by the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts and the Government's response to the Committee's report is also being published today by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

The House of Lords has today handed down the judgment in this difficult and complex case. A committee of nine Law Lords has spent the last 11 weeks considering the issues and, within the short time available since the judgment was handed down, it is not possible to give a detailed response to all the points raised by the judgment. However, given its importance I believe it necessary to make this statement to the House as soon as possible.

This appeal is about the compatibility of our domestic law with the ECHR. The Law Lords have upheld the appeal by those detained under the Anti Terrorism Crime and Security Act and we need to study the judgment carefully, not least because the Court of Appeal had unanimously endorsed our view that these provisions were compatible with our obligations under the ECHR. It is ultimately for Parliament to decide whether and how we should amend the law. The Part 4 provisions will remain in force until Parliament agrees the future of the law. Accordingly I will not be revoking the certificates or releasing the detainees, whom I have reason to believe are a significant threat to our security, a judgment upheld by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, chaired by a High Court judge.

My primary role as Home Secretary is to protect national security and to ensure the safety and security of this country. In doing so, I need to consider how we balance the rights of individuals against those of society; how we ensure safety and security within a democracy without undermining the values that are at the very heart of it.

Derogation is not something that any Government enters into lightly and the powers have been used sparingly as promised Parliament during the passage of the Act. To date 16 individuals have been certified and detained under the part 4 powers and another individual has been certified but is currently detained under other powers. Of these 12 remain in detention. Two have chosen to leave the country as those detained under the part 4 powers are free to do at anytime. Those certified have a right of appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAQ) which is a superior court of record, chaired by a High Court Judge.

Those who have been certified and detained under the Part 4 powers are detained because they have been certified as a threat to our security. This considered assessment is supported by the Security Service and has been tested through a superior court of record with full access to all the relevant security and intelligence information.

The need for the Part 4 powers and the derogation are kept under frequent review. In addition to regular threat assessments the Home Secretary regularly meets the Director General of the Security Service, and it is their advice that informs the Home Secretary's decision on the continuing public emergency threatening the life of the nation.

I will be asking Parliament to renew this legislation in the new year but in the meantime we will be studying the judgment carefully to see whether it is possible to modify our legislation to address the concerns raised by the House of Lords.

I have today laid copies of the Metropolitan Police Fund Account for 2000–01 in the Libraries of both Houses.

In July this year I told Parliament that because of excessive cost increases I would have to withdraw funding for the phase III extensions to Manchester Metrolink.

Looking at the proposals, it has become increasingly clear there are real and persistent problems with the costs of the extensions. The public sector funding requirement has almost tripled since we first approved the project. Nevertheless, I have decided to commit over half a billion pounds, the sum previously agreed to fund phase III, to Manchester's transport network. Manchester will also be able to bid for additional funds from the new transport innovation fund. It is now up to the transport authority to come forward with proposals for how this funding is used.

Looking at the history of the Metrolink proposals shows the problems it has had with huge increases in public funding requirements:

In July 2000 public sector funding was approved with an up front budget of £282 million, for three lines: to Oldham and Rochdale, Ashton and the airport; plus some upgrading of the existing system.

In December 2002, this budget had to be increased to £520 million (including £60 million local contribution). We made clear that there would be no more money from the Department. The Manchester authorities accepted they would meet the costs of any further increases.

In December 2003, GMPTE returned to ask us for still more money, but for a reduced project. The three new lines were reduced to two and a half, with the line to the airport replaced with a shorter spur to East Didsbury.

The public sector funding requirement was going up and up—partly because of private sector, pessimism about light rail, and partly because of failings in the original cost estimates. There was no guarantee that costs would not continue to rise. This led to my decision last July to withdraw funding for this project, and to ask GMPTE to work with us to look at alternatives that would benefit Manchester, but at a better price.

Following this decision, a working group was set up with GMPTE and chaired by Tony McNulty. Its purpose was to see whether light rail could be made affordable in Manchester and to consider alternatives. I also appointed my own financial and technical consultants.

The potential cost to taxpayers of the proposed extensions is now clearer:

GMPTE confirm that at least £600 million public sector up front funding would be needed to build just two lines—Oldham-Rochdale and Ashton. Our judgement is that there is a strong chance that costs would be even higher.

GMPTE told Tony McNulty on 7 December that about £900 million of up front funding would be needed for delivery of the original three lines over the next 10 years—a tripling since the original approval. There is no guarantee this would not increase further.

In the light of this, I have considered the options for the way forward. GMPTE want me to agree to their continuing with their current procurement for the three lines. That would mean committing to upfront public sector funding of £900 million, when only four years ago we capped the figure at £282 million. I cannot do that. No Government could ignore these huge increases—a three-fold increase in just four years. And accepting this price would consume too much of the money that will be available for transport including in the north-west in future years. In addition, a scheme for substantially less than three lines would need a new procurement or risk legal challenge. I have therefore told GMPTE that the current procurement should not be revived.

Nor can I agree to GMPTE's alternative of starting a new procurement to enable construction of the three lines to be phased over a longer period. This would not address the fundamental problem of cost escalation.

I am however confirming that the £520 million budget is still available for Manchester, subject to GMPTE developing a satisfactory plan for these areas. This represents a major investment in Manchester, enabling a package of measures to address the transport problems in these parts of the city, which may include light rail improvements.

We have already provided some £170 million of the £520 million. Around £80 million was for GMPTE to buy the concession for the operation of Metrolink. This has continuing value to generate revenue for GMPTE and give them greater control over the tram network. The rest has been for advance works and buying land, some of which may still be required for the package that GMPTE now develop.

GMPTE are able to supplement this budget, both from their own resources and by bidding for funding from government through the transport innovation fund. The TIP is available for authorities which propose innovative and coherent schemes to tackle congestion and encourage modal shift which could act as exemplars for others facing similar challenges. This provides a real opportunity for Manchester to look at its transport policy across the piece and develop a bold integrated package.

The budget I am committing today provides the opportunity for a major transport investment package for these areas of Manchester. It is now up to the Manchester authorities to make the most of this opportunity, and to come forward with proposals that will deliver the transport improvements that these areas need.

On 2 December, the Chancellor announced in his pre-Budget report that we will be looking at a number of ways of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the jobseeker's allowance regime.

Today I am announcing details of pilot measures and the locations selected to undertake pilot activity from January through to July 2005.

These measures are intended to speed up entry into employment by improving our understanding of conditionally, increasing commitment to personal job search activity and enabling more effective review of progression.

Our pilots include:

a revised jobseeker's agreement, which we will test in all pilot districts, for completion by the claimant, focussed upon job search steps and including a record of personal job search activity for ongoing review;

a revised work focused interview, focusing upon an explanation of conditionality and job matching, based upon the self-completed jobseeker's agreement;

a virtual segmentation tool to test whether we can reliably predict the likely speed of individuals gaining employment; and

three innovative approaches to the fortnightly job search review; fortnightly telephone contact with random call-in (random call-in means that individuals can be called into the jobcentre for a face to face review of their job search), random call-in for the first three signing events, and random call-in for the first six signing events.

Pilot activity will be accompanied by a thorough evaluation programme. To test the effectiveness of the new signing regimes we will be applying a random assignment approach which means that about half of all claimants will experience the standard regime.

Pilot areas are:

Telephone Signing with Random Call-in

Highlands, Islands and Clyde Coast (except Clydebank)

The Marches

South East London

Random Call-in for 13 Weeks

Forth Valley and Fife

Birmingham and Solihull

Highlands, Islands and Clyde Coast (just Clydebank)

Random Call-in for First 3 Signing Events

Bucks/Berks/Oxon

Gateshead and South Tyneside

Cornwall and Devon (just Cornwall)

Screening Tool

Cardiff and Vale

London North

East Glasgow

We have published today a consultation document Disability Discrimination Bill: Consultation on private clubs; premises; the definition of disability and the questions procedure (Cm 6402). Copies have been placed in the Library.

This document sets out our detailed proposals for using regulation-making powers in the Disability Discrimination Bill, which had its Second Reading in the House of Lords on 6 December, in respect of the Bill's duties on: private clubs; landlords and managers of rented premises; the extension of the definition of disability; and the extension of the questions procedure. The proposals do not vary the main duties, but clarify and define the detail of key concepts which will ensure the main duties can be properly met.

The main duties in the Bill would:

i. bring within scope of Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act (which deals with access to goods, services, facilities and premises) private clubs with 25 or more members;

ii. extend the duty of reasonable adjustment, apart from in respect of physical features, to those who let or manage rented premises;

iii. extend the definition of disability to people with cancer, HIV and multiple sclerosis effectively from the point of diagnosis; and

iv. extend to Part 3 of the DDA a procedure for asking and answering questions about alleged discrimination which is similar to that in Part 2 (which covers employment and occupation) of the Act.

The consultation document, which is also available in a range of accessible formats, seeks views form interested parties by 18 March 2005. The results will be used in the development of draft regulations and, where appropriate, of Disability Rights Commission statutory codes of practice.

We committed to consult on measures concerning private clubs when the draft Disability Discrimination Bill was published in December 2003, and on private clubs and the other measures listed above during pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill.

The consultation document will help to ensure there is full and open debate during the Bill's progress on our plans for using regulation-making powers in the Bill. We have already consulted on using the Bill's regulation-making powers in respect of its duties on public bodies in the consultation document "Delivering Equality for Disabled People". Copies of that document are available in the Library.