I am announcing today that a new order has been made under section 54 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 so that reservists may continue to be called into service to support operations in Iraq. The new order is effective until 6 January 2006. This replaces the order which expired earlier this month.

During the course of last year some 2,350 reservists were called out and accepted into service to support operations in Iraq. Details of the next tranche of reservists to be called out were announced to the House on 14 December 2004, Official Report, column 121WS. Some 900 army reservists are involved and they will be deployed to theatre from April, where the majority will complete six month tours. We are very appreciative of the continuing support and commitment shown by both reservists, their employers and their families.

As the House will be aware, our policy is to keep the Brigade of Gurkhas' terms and conditions of service under review, to ensure that they are fair and that any differences from the wider Army are reasonable and justifiable. We are also aware of our historic relationship and understandings with the Governments of Nepal and India, which have enabled Gurkhas to serve in the British Army since 1947.

Gurkha soldiers have spent an increasing proportion of their time in UK since withdrawal from Hong Kong in 1997, and successive amendments to the conditions under which they serve have recognised their changing role, status and personal aspirations. The most recent of these was their inclusion in the new HM forces immigration rule, which took effect from 25 October 2004. This has potentially far-reaching effects on the way we recruit and manage the brigade and care for its serving members, families and veterans. In addition, some public criticism and unease continues about the remaining differences between Gurkhas' terms and conditions and those of the wider Army. We are, therefore, anxious to ensure that such differences are absolutely justifiable as well as fully understood and accepted by our Gurkha soldiers and want to ensure that the MOD's position, both legally and morally, is beyond reproach.

I have therefore directed that the MOD should carry out a wide-ranging review of all Gurkha terms and conditions of service. This will be an extensive piece of work and we will endeavour to take account of the views of all those with a legitimate interest. This new review will build on earlier findings, including work to date on the review of Gurkha married accompanied service (MAS), but its scope will be much wider and it is aiming to complete in late autumn 2005.

I am aware that the outcome of the Gurkha MAS review has been keenly anticipated by the Gurkhas themselves and by those concerned about Gurkha welfare. I regret that this work is not yet finally completed but I expect to receive an interim report on the new study, which will enable me to make an announcement on Gurkha MAS, in early summer 2005.

Today we are publishing "Delivering Race Equality in Mental Health Care: An Action Plan for Reform Inside and Outside Services" (DRE), combined in a single document with the Government's response to the independent inquiry into the death of David Bennett.

It draws on three key recent publications:

(a) "Inside Outside: Improving Mental Health Services for Black and Minority Ethnic Communities in England" (published on 10 March 2003);

(b) "Delivering Race Equality: A Framework for Action" (published for consultation on 17 October 2003); and

(c) the independent inquiry into the death of David Bennett (published on 12 February 2004).

David Bennett was a 38 year old African-Caribbean patient, who died in October 1998 in a medium secure psychiatric unit after being restrained by staff. The document published today contains the Government's formal response to all the recommendations made in the report of the inquiry into his death. The responses are overwhelmingly positive and, taken together with DRE, comprise a coherent programme of work for achieving equality of access, experience and outcomes for Black and minority ethnic mental health service users.

The programme is based on three "building blocks", first proposed in the consultation version of DRE: more appropriate and responsive services, including the development of a more culturally capable workforce; community engagement, supported by 500 new community development workers; and better information, including a new annual census of mental health patients.

DRE also needs to be set in the context of our wider programme of work tackling inequalities in health and social care. For example, in February 2004 the chief executive of the NHS, Sir Nigel Crisp, launched a ten-point race equality action plan that challenges all NHS leaders to address race equality and the needs of Black and minority ethnic communities in a systematic and professional way. In October 2004 we appointed the first equality and human rights director for the NHS, Surinder Sharma, and one of his priorities will be to promote Sir Nigel's plan.

Racism or discrimination in any form have no place in modern society, and no place in modern health or social care. David Bennett's death will remain a tragic reminder of what can happen if services fail to meet the needs of black and minority ethnic communities and individuals. With this document we offer a clear way forward to equity for all in mental health care.

The Government's response to the Health Committee's Sixth Report of Session 2003–04 on the provision of allergy services, Cm 6433, has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

I have today placed in the Library of the House copies of the Government's progress report on implementing the recommendations of Sir Michael Bichard's inquiry into issues surrounding the Soham murders. All 31 recommendations were accepted by the Government when the inquiry reported in June 2004 and we remain fully committed to delivering the necessary programme of change. In June, Sir Michael made clear his intention to reconvene his inquiry and review progress six months after publishing his findings, and in November he formally requested a report to assist him in doing so. This was sent to him on 22 December.

The progress report is made on behalf of the Government and the range of stakeholders who have contributed to implementation. It indicates that significant progress has been made in taking forward the recommendations, which fall into four main areas: the development of a national IT infrastructure to support the handling of police intelligence and other information; the introduction of a statutory code of practice on police information management; improved measures to protect children and vulnerable adults, including a registration scheme for those wishing to work with these groups; and a range of enhancements to existing vetting processes.

The report sets out what has been achieved in each of these areas, together with plans and milestones for future action. Key areas of delivery are:

The introduction of a national IT system for police information sharing. The IMPACT programme (information management, prioritisation, analysis, co-ordination and tasking) has been established to provide a national information-sharing system and to modernise the central information services available through the police national computer. New information sharing tools will start becoming available to police forces and the Criminal Records Bureau through the police local cross-check system (PLX) from early 2005, and there will be a progressive strengthening of capabilities until completion of the IMPACT programme in 2007;

The production of a statutory code of practice on information management, for the police service. A draft code has already been produced and issued for consultation. It is annexed to the progress report and is due to come into force by May 2005. It will be supported by detailed operational

guidance to forces and will help to ensure that decisions about reviewing, retaining, deleting and sharing information are taken on a consistent basis;

The development of a registration scheme covering persons considered unsuitable to work with children and vulnerable adults. This is underway and will build on the existing barring lists in providing a comprehensive, centralised, integrated system to prevent unsuitable people from gaining access to vulnerable groups through paid or voluntary work. Final decisions on the detail of the scheme will follow a feasibility study which will report early in 2005;

The enhancement of staff recruitment procedures in education to reflect best practice in safeguarding children. New guidance for schools is under development and an initial on-line training programme will be introduced by spring 2005;

Advice to all social services authorities emphasising the importance of effective information sharing with the police in relation to actual or alleged offences against children has already been issued. In addition, comprehensive new guidance will be developed by December 2005 as part of the wider guidance on local safeguarding children boards;

Significant development and improvements to existing vetting procedures. A quality assurance framework to assist forces in carrying out their roles in the vetting process has been successfully trialled and will be rolled out to all police forces by October 2005.

All these strands of work are being taken forward within a programme structure based on effective joined-up working across the Government Departments and delivery agencies involved. Training arrangements are being put in place to support implementation, together with targeted inspection and performance measurement regimes to ensure compliance with new and improved systems.

It is vital to ensure the same level of protection for all children and other vulnerable people, wherever they are in the United Kingdom. The Scottish Executive, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Office have therefore been closely involved in this programme of work. For some of the recommendations, the route to implementation will differ between jurisdictions, but the objective of effective, integrated systems is the same. The arrangements in different jurisdictions are set out in more detail in the report.

The Government remain totally committed to full implementation of Sir Michael Bichard's recommendations and to ensuring that the necessary resources are available to support the process.

On 17 July 2003, the then Home Secretary announced that the Government have accepted the recommendation of the independent review of the Forensic Science Service (FSS) that it should be transformed from a trading fund into a Government-owned company (GovCo) prior to development as a Public Private Partnership (PPP).

Since then, officials have worked closely with the FSS, the police, as the organisation's main customers, and treasury officials to ensure that we are clear about how the transformation of the FSS can best be managed.

We now have a clearer and more detailed analysis of the business and its prospects, together with its strengths and weaknesses. This confirms the conclusion of the independent review that the trading fund model would not allow the FSS to deliver to its full potential, or indeed to remain at the leading edge of forensic science in the UK and internationally, thus wasting an important asset in our drive to improve detections and reduce the fear of crime.

In particular, the analysis has confirmed that the market for forensic science is changing rapidly in the face of increased competition. The pace of change is accelerating as technology develops and in response to action by police forces and police authorities to achieve strategic market management in line with public procurement best practices.

To ensure that the FSS has the commercial agility and the appropriate governance structure needed to respond to this increasingly dynamic market, the Government have decided to transform the FSS into a wholly owned Government company.

This will be a transitional structure. In the light of FSS performance as a GovCo the Government will consider what next steps are necessary to facilitate the growth of the business, ensure the future of the FSS, maintain its position at the forefront of forensic science, and maximise its contribution to reducing crime and the fear of crime.

The future form and direction of the FSS will stem from a balance between the realisable value to Government, the benefits to the business of private sector participation, changes in the forensic science market and the potential future need to access private capital.

The timing of the next stage will depend upon reaching agreement with key stakeholders that conditions are favourable and the move would be advantageous to the business. We will also use the interim period to fully test the merits of the FSS as a Government owned company in its own right.

We recognise the uncertainty for FSS employees, suppliers and customers that a process of this kind entails. The Home Office and the FSS management are working together to ensure that all staff and stakeholders are kept fully informed of the process.

I am aware that many Members whose constituents work for the FSS have made representations about the transformation, but we must ensure that the FSS is able to respond to the changing face of the market and the demands of its customers, and to seize the opportunities presented by emerging technologies, while retaining its public sector mission.

In following this process through we will continue to keep all stakeholders informed.

The board of the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) has begun considering the organisational structure of the office when, subject to parliamentary approval of the Railways Bill, ORR becomes both safety and economic regulator for the national rail network and those staff working on rail safety issues at the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) transfer to ORR. The board have set out their initial thoughts in a letter of 1 December 2004 to the Secretary of State. I have placed a copy of that letter in the House Library and sent copies direct to Members of the Standing Committee A which is considering the Railways Bill.

1. On 1 September, I published a discussion note inviting comments on a possible structure of graduated fixed penalties for speeding offences, in place of the present flat rate fixed penalty of three penalty points and a £60 fine, regardless of the degree of speeding. This statement reports on the responses which my Department has received.

2. The Road Safety Bill currently before Parliament includes enabling powers under which the Government, following consultation with representative organisations, may introduce graduated fixed penalties through statutory orders, and subject also to affirmative resolution and debate in the House as regards the proposed penalty points.

3. The Bill will thus enable the Government—subject to parliamentary approval for the necessary statutory order—to discharge the commitments we have given, both to create an aggravated offence to deal with excessive speeding, and to provide for graduated penalties to include a lower fixed penalty of two points for lesser breaches of speed limits. And in this way we will help ensure that the punishments for speeding will better reflect the severity of the crime and be seen to do so.

4. There will be no change in the present automatic disqualification for 12 or more points for speeding or other offences, as provided for in Section 35 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended.

5. The 1 September discussion note expressly did not anticipate or prejudge future statutory consultation on proposals. The objective of the invitation to comment was to give me an early and informal indication of public views on how more graduated penalties might be structured.

6. There were 380 responses to the discussion note, as follows:

A list of respondees has been placed in the Library of the House.

7. 85 of the individual responses were from people who wrote endorsing the submission made by "Safe Speed", an organisation which campaigns on speed and road safety matters. The AA Foundation noted that its submission took account of a sample of 516 of its members.

8. The discussion note invited comment on five questions in particular.

Question 1—Do you support the principle of more graduated penalties?

9. 197 respondents supported the principle of a more graduated structure, including the RAC Foundation and AA Foundation, which supported both higher and lower graduation. The Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of British Insurers and some road safety organisations, including PACTS (The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety) and RoSPA (The Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents) also supported the principle of graduation, but on the basis that there should be only higher penalties than the present three points.

10. 173 respondents did not support the principle, including "Safe Speed" and the 85 individual respondents who endorsed its response.

Question 2—If you do not agree with a graduated system, do you favour another alternative to the present system ?

11. 218 respondents expressed no view. Some 98 respondents agreed with the present system. The main alternative proposal was that from "Safe Speed" and the individuals who endorsed it—essentially that speed enforcement should be carried out on a case by case basis and not on the basis of a tariff of penalties.

Question 3—Invited views on a possible structure of graduated penalties

12. The discussion note invited comment on this possible structure of penalties:

13. The key points from responses were that:

78 respondents expressed no view on the possible structure.

25 respondents supported the structure—including the AA Foundation, in whose survey of 516 motorists 76 per cent. supported lower two point penalties, and 71 per cent. supported six points for high speeding. The RAC Foundation also supported the possible structure in general, but suggested further consideration of a lower figure than the suggested 40 mph for the start of the three point penalty on 30 mph roads, but also a slightly higher threshold for the start of the three point penalty for 70 mph roads.

"Safe Speed" and the respondents who endorsed their submission were opposed in principle to graduated penalties, because they did not agree that the degree of danger was related to the degree of excess speed. But if there were to be

a graduated system, "Safe Speed" argued that the thresholds for higher penalties should be generally higher than the in the suggested possible structure;

178 respondents were not in favour of the suggested two point penalty, including the road safety organisations, on the basis of the risks of injury from speeding, and the risk that a lower penalty communicated a "mixed message" about speeding.

Question 4—Should penalties be higher for repeat offenders?

14. 189 respondents supported higher penalties of repeat offenders, including the road safety groups. 56 were against—including the AA Foundation and the RAC Foundation. Some 103 respondents expressed no view. Some 27 offered a number of suggestions such as increasing fines by £10 for each 1 mph over the speed limit.

Question 5— Should other factors such as location at a school be taken into account in a penalty regime?

15. 206 respondents felt that other factors should be taken into account, though many noted the practical difficulties of building "other factors" into a structure of fixed penalties. Some 68 did not favour allowing for special factors. Some 101 expressed no view.

16. I am grateful for these responses, which I have considered carefully.

17. A majority of responses supported the principle of a more graduated structure of speeding penalties, which the Road Safety Bill will enable.

18. The responses also showed general agreement that the enabling powers should allow for a structure of penalties to include higher fixed penalties for repeat offences, or for offences involving special factors such as those outside a school. The Bill provides that graduated fixed penalties can include provisions on either point.

19. As to the detailed form that a new structure of penalties should take, the responses to the discussion note showed that there is a range of views, with support both for and against a lower as well as a higher penalty.

20. But bearing in mind the role which the House will play in considering and determining future penalties, I believe that the Bill should provide for the possibility of a lower penalty in the appropriate circumstances.

21. If the Bill is passed, the Government will at the earliest opportunity develop and consult with representative organisations on specific proposals for a graduated structure of fixed penalties, which will then be for consideration by the House. In preparing these proposals, I will carefully consider the views which responses to the discussion note have in the meantime provided.

22. And I shall of course consider also all comments that hon. Members may have on graduated fixed speeding penalties, in discussions on the Bill.

During the first sitting of the Pensions Bill in Standing Committee B on Tuesday, 9 March 2004, Official Report, column 10, I announced that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) would undertake a review of the funding of the Pensions Advisory Service (commonly known as OPAS). I am now able to announce the outcome of that review.

Whereas OPAS previously received grant in aid through the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (Opra), in future it will receive grant directly from the Department for Work and Pensions. This arrangement will take effect for the financial year 2005–06. Though the pensions regulator (the body that succeeds Opra) will have no delegated accounting officer responsibility for OPAS, OPAS funding will continue to be recouped from the pensions industry through the levy administered by the pensions regulator.

To inform this prospective change, the Department reviewed the customer services OPAS provides. Its conclusion is that OPAS is an excellent example of the value for money and quality of service that can be provided at remarkably low cost by the voluntary sector. Through its telephone helpline, its team of mainly voluntary pension professionals and the media appearances of senior staff on financial advice programmes, OPAS provides, free of charge, a unique source of expert advice on pension matters to the general public. OPAS also performs an important filtering service by resolving large numbers of complaints cases that might otherwise go to the pensions ombudsman. Furthermore, it is uniquely positioned to provide the Department with insights into developing issues in the pensions market that can be of potential policy relevance.

I take this opportunity to thank the Board of OPAS, the permanent staff and the OPAS volunteers for providing these very valuable services.

Under the new arrangements, the Department's intention is to provide OPAS with continuing budgetary security whilst maintaining its integrity as a free and independent source of impartial advice for the general public. Wherever we can, we will assist OPAS to improve upon existing standards of customer service. We will do this through revised stewardship arrangements; by taking a stronger strategic interest in OPAS's strategic objectives and by agreeing a revised management statement and financial memorandum. OPAS and the Department will also draw up a partnership accord setting out our respective expectations of one another.

At the same time, the OPAS board is taking this opportunity to review its own constitution; its strategic objectives and the management style of the office. It is also considering, in conjunction with the Department, whether, by acquiring new information technology and better data collection, it can make an improved contribution to evidence-based pensions policy making.

Opportunities may also exist for further improvements to the value for money and the quality of advice that OPAS gives the general public through the provision by the Department of greater access for OPAS to expert knowledge and help (including basic training) on state pensions and contributory conditions. To further improve advice giving, OPAS is also producing revised staff competency frameworks and drawing on the experience of other organisations that provide helpline advice. Opportunities to strengthen customer service may also be possible through OPAS reaching out to other organisations providing similar services and making partnership arrangements with them.

More information on OPAS can be found at www.opas.org.uk. OPAS operates its national helpline during business hours on 0845 6012923. Calls are charged at the local call rate.