Earlier today my right hon. and noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Baroness Ashton of Upholland), made a statement in the other place reporting that on 7 March the Lord Chancellor made the following statutory instrument:

The Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (Commencement No. 5 and Transitional Provisions) Order.

The order is made in accordance with section 48(3)(a), (4), (5) and (6) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, hereafter referred to as the 2004 Act. This order commences section 26 (unification of appeal system) of, and Schedules 1 and 2 to, the 2004 Act on 4 April 2005. This order also contains transitional provisions in relation to pending appeals which were made to an adjudicator before 4 April 2005, and in relation to further appeals and applications in such cases. Copies of the order have been made available to Members and Peers in votes and printed pages office.

The statement also reported that, on 10 March, the Lord Chancellor laid before Parliament the following statutory instruments;

The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Fast Track Procedure) Rules 2005, and

The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Fast Track Time Limits) Order 2005

The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Fast Track Procedure) Rules 2005 are made in accordance with sections 106(l)-(3) and 112(3) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and section 40A(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981, after consulting with the Council on Tribunals in accordance with section 8 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992. These rules prescribe a fast track procedure for appeals and applications to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, where the appellant is in detention under the Immigration Acts at the locations listed in schedule 2 to the rules. The rules come into force on 4 April 2005.

The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Fast Track Time Limits) Order 2005 is made in accordance with sections 26(8) and (9) of the 2004 Act, after consulting with the Lord Chief Justice in accordance with section 26(10) of the 2004 Act. This order shortens the time limits for review applications made by parties to fast track appeals to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. These are referred to as section 103A applications.

For a transitional period, section 103A applications will initially be considered by a member of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. If the tribunal member does not make an order for reconsideration or grant permission for the application to be made out of time, the applicant may notify the appropriate court, under paragraph 30(5)(a) of schedule 2 to the 2004 Act, that he wishes the court to consider the application.

This order reduces to two days the time limits for making the section 103A application and for giving notice under paragraph 30(5)(a), in cases where the fast track procedure rules apply, so long as the appellant remains in detention when the application is made or notification is given. It comes into force on 4 April 2005.

I am pleased to announce that the Government's new homelessness strategy "Sustainable Communities: Settled Homes; Changing Lives" has been launched today.

"Settled Homes; Changing Lives" follows on from our five year plans, "Homes for All" and "People, Places and Prosperity". It builds on our achievements to date in tackling the worst forms of homelessness. This has resulted in meeting challenging targets to significantly reduce rough sleeping since 1998 and put an end to the scandal of homeless families having to raise their children for long periods in cramped bed and breakfast hotels. It also sets out our plans for reducing homelessness further and halving the use of temporary accommodation by 2010.

I have placed copies of our strategy for tackling homelessness in both Libraries of the House. The Government response to the ODPM Select Committee report on Homelessness will be laid before Parliament today. Both documents are also available on the ODPM's website:

www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm–control/documents/contentservertemplate/odpm–index.hcst?n=865&1=2

): I am announcing today the publication of a consultation document on draft regulations to amend the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999.

The amendments implement the requirements of Article 3 of European Directive 2003/35/EC. This amends environmental impact assessment (EIA) requirements to bring them into line with the pubic participation provisions of the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (also known as the Aarhus Convention), which was ratified by the UK on 23 February.

The EIA provisions are largely compliant with the Convention, and only a few changes to the current requirements are proposed. They include a requirement that supplementary information provided voluntarily by the applicant after the submission of an environmental statement should be subject to the same full public consultation process as the statement itself, and that, when applications are determined, information about the public's participation and the right to challenge the validity of the decision should be made publicly available.

The consultation will run until 6 June 2005 and will apply to England only. Copies of the consultation document will be made available in the Libraries of both Houses and from The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website www.odpm.gov.uk.

I should inform the House of inadvertent errors in the answers to two written parliamentary questions tabled by the hon. Members for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) in November 2004.

The hon. Member for Cotswold asked:

"How many written questions for his Department were unanswered when Parliament prorogued; and how many of the unanswered questions were tabled in each of the previous months of the 2003–04 Session". (201551)

I replied:

"Seven. Of the seven, two were tabled in October 2004. Five were tabled in November 2004".

I regret that two further written parliamentary questions that received no answer in the 2003–04 Session have been identified. In addition, the original answer counted six questions that did receive a "prorogation answer" as not having been answered, and one of the six questions, tabled in September 2004, was wrongly attributed to October. I understand that Departments have dealt with this question in different ways and to be consistent with answers that the hon. Member has received to similar questions from other departments, we should exclude these "prorogation answers".

My revised answer to the hon. Member for Cotswold is therefore that three written parliamentary questions were unanswered when Parliament prorogued, of which one was tabled in December 2003, one in October 2004 and one in November 2004.

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley asked:

"To how many written questions tabled in the last parliamentary session his Department had been unable to provide a substantive answer before the end of the Session". (199644)

I replied:

"Seven. Of the seven, five were tabled shortly before the end of the parliamentary session".

As noted above, two further written parliamentary questions that received no answer have been identified. My revised answer to the hon. Member is therefore that nine questions did not receive a substantive answer before the end of the last parliamentary session. Of the nine, one was tabled in December 2003, one in September 2004, one in October 2004 and six in November 2004.

We are publishing today a new concordat and moratorium on genetics and insurance, which has been agreed between the Government and the Association of British Insurers (ABI). Copies have been placed in the Library. An electronic version has been placed on the Department of Health website at: www.dh.gov.uk/publications

The new framework, which comes into force today, provides that the use of genetic information by insurance companies will be transparent, fair, and subject to independent oversight. It will help to reassure patients who may be deterred from taking predictive genetic tests for fear of the insurance consequences, and is flexible enough to respond to fast-moving technological and clinical developments in genetic testing.

The concordat balances the interest of patients and insurers. Those seeking insurance should not withhold information relevant to underwriting, and insurers should not treat people who have an adverse predictive genetic test result less favourably than others, except as provided for in the concordat.

The moratorium on the use by insurers of predictive genetic test results is extended for an extra five years until 1 November 2011. No one will be required to disclose the results of a predictive genetic test unless it has been approved by the Genetics and Insurance Committee (GAIC) and is for insurance of more than £500,000 for life insurance or £300,000 for other health insurance. This means that for the vast majority of insurance policies genetic tests results will not be used at all.

The concordat clarifies the broad types of insurance for which predictive genetic test results may be relevant. They are life, critical illness, and income protection insurance policies. Insurers will not use the results from predictive genetic tests for travel insurance, private medical insurance, or any other one-off or annual policy, or for long-term care insurance.

The concordat also clarifies the circumstances when patients need not disclose genetic information, and how information will be handled by insurers.

For example, genetic tests taken as part of a research study will not need to be disclosed to insurers. This is good news for United Kingdom clinical researchers, as it specifically rules out the use by insurers of the results of genetic tests taken during participation in clinical trials, removing a potential obstacle to patient recruitment in the development of diagnostic tests, treatments, and medicines.

These commitments are backed up by independent oversight of the use of predictive genetic tests by GAIC together with the ABI's code of practice and an impartial complaint and arbitration process.

The Government would like to thank the Human Genetics Commission, GAIC, patient groups including Breakthrough Breast Cancer, CancerBACUP and the Alzheimer's Society, and other research groups and individuals who have provided valuable contributions that have helped shape this new concordat and moratorium on genetics and insurance.

The new framework means that insurance will continue to be available for people who take predictive genetic tests. They will only need to disclose the adverse results of predictive genetic tests for a limited range of unusually high value insurance polices—and then only if the predictive genetic test has been approved by GAIC. It is the Government's view that this approach is good news for individuals and insurance companies as it will ensure that the rights, safety and well-being of those taking predictive genetic tests are protected whilst also ensuring a viable and fair insurance market.

I am today publishing proposals for consultation on the principles on which the Government will base its assessment of the success of the self-regulation of voluntary sector fundraising.

Self-regulation of fundraising was a recommendation of the Prime Minister's strategy unit review of the charitable and wider not-for-profit sector, "Private Action, Public Benefit". The Government accept the strategy unit recommendation for self-regulation of fundraising, and have made provision in the Charities Bill for statutory regulation should self-regulation fail.

The draft Charities Bill was subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. The report of the Joint Committee on the draft Charities Bill endorsed the self-regulation of fundraising initiative, and recommended that the Government publish for consultation the criteria in accordance with which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will judge whether self-regulation is working effectively.

Proposals for a regulation of fundraising scheme have recently been published by the Institute of Fundraising. The main aim of the scheme is to maintain and build on the high levels of public trust and confidence in the voluntary sector's fundraising activities. The scheme will help the sector guard against future threats to the high levels of public confidence, and to provide the sector with a platform to defend itself against criticism.

The principles in accordance with which the Government propose that the success of the regulation of fundraising scheme should be assessed include measures of participation, comprising the number of participating organisations, the proportion of fundraised income covered by scheme membership, and the range of organisations in the scheme's membership; and other measures such as the effectiveness of complaints handling, public awareness of the scheme, the promotion of best practice, the scheme's independence, effective sanctions for non-compliance, the impact of the scheme on non-members and effective liaison with other regulators.

In the scheme's initial years the focus would be on measuring the take-up of the scheme within the sector as it develops its membership. It is envisaged that a formal assessment of the success of self-regulation would take place as part of the review of the impact of the Charities Bill which is due to take place within five years of enactment, and would report to Parliament.

I am very grateful to all those who have contributed to the development of the proposals for the self-regulation of fundraising. I would particularly like to thank the

Institute of Fundraising for taking the lead in developing the scheme, Rodney Buse for considering and consulting on an appropriate model for self-regulation to adopt, and the members of the Steering Committee for their work in taking the proposals forward.

Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Library and will also be available on the Home Office website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ comerace/active/charitylaw/index.html.

Details of the proposed self-regulation scheme are available on the Institute of Fundraising website at www.institute-of-fundraising.org.uk.

Comments are requested by 3 June 2005 and a further statement will be made in due course.

On 19 April 2004, Official Report, column 1WS, I announced in a written statement that the Government would be undertaking feasibility and other investigatory work to determine how best to ensure access for St. Helena when St. Helena's passenger and supply ship, the RMS St. Helena, is withdrawn from scheduled service in or around 2010.

That work is now completed. We have looked not only at issues relating directly to access, but also at the potential of various access options to encourage the development of a vibrant island economy. This reflects our aim, shared with St. Helena, to achieve economic growth for the island.

We have decided that, subject to satisfactory contract bids and a rigorous environmental impact assessment, we will establish air access for St. Helena. This will entail providing an airport, with a 2,250m runway, near the eastern coast at Prosperous Bay plain. It will be capable of supporting the safe operation of long-haul jet aircraft, such as the Airbus A320 and Boeing 737–800. We will also provide advice to help establish regular air services; and we will support the St. Helena Government in taking advantage of the economic benefits that the new investment should bring to the island. All private sector investment interest will be considered on an equal footing.

For its part, amongst other supporting work, the St. Helena Government will review local legislation on inward investment, immigration and taxation. Our shared aim with St. Helena will be the creation of a policy environment, against a transformed background of good access, that will encourage sustainable economic development and progress for St. Helena and its community.

The Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005 were laid before Parliament today and will come into force on 4 April 2005. These new regulations implement Council Directive 2002/15/EC concerning the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities.

To accompany the new regulations, we have also published

formal guidance on the new arrangements, and,

a regulatory impact assessment.

Copies of these documents have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

The regulations, formal guidance and regulatory impact assessment follow public consultation—we have also placed copies of a summary of the consultation responses and the Government's subsequent conclusions in the Libraries of both Houses.

The new regulations will provide extra protection for drivers and crew of heavy goods and public service vehicles who carry out road transport activities covered by the EU drivers' hours rules—Regulation (EEC) 3820/85. The main provisions of the Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005 are:

weekly working time is limited to an average of 48 hours (normally calculated over a four month reference period),

a maximum of 60 hours' work can be performed in a single week, so long as the average 48-hour limit is maintained,

night workers are restricted to 10 hours' working time in any 24-hour period,

there are break requirements tied to hours worked to supplement the break requirements linked to driving time in the driver's hours rules.

In addition, under the new regulations:

where there is either a collective agreement or a workforce agreement at company level between the employer and employees, companies will be able to use the derogations available under the directive:-

the four-month reference period for calculating the average 48-hour week can be extended to six months

the 10 hour limit (over a 24-hour period) for night workers can be exceeded, although the 60-hour weekly limit will still apply, and drivers will still have to respect the EU drivers hours rules

the definition of "night time" is a period between 00.00–04.00 for drivers and crew of goods vehicles and 01.00–05.00 for drivers and crew of passenger vehicles,

VOSA (DVTA—NI) will enforce the new regulations, primarily in response to complaints they receive,

workers who occasionally perform road transport activities will be subject to the Working Time Regulations 1998 (as amended) rather than these new regulations.

Self-employed drivers will not be covered by the regulations until March 2009, as provided for in the directive.

The Government will review the new regulations and associated formal guidance in the light of practical experience.

We have today laid regulations before Parliament to make the stakeholder pension suitable for inclusion in the new suite of stakeholder products. We are also publishing the Government's response to the consultation on the regulations and a copy has been placed in the Library.

There are two key changes to the stakeholder regulations. The first requires pension scheme providers to introduce lifestyling. The second amends the charge cap applicable to consumers.

"Lifestyling" is an established financial mechanism and means that a pension scheme member's savings will be moved gradually into less volatile investments at least five years before retirement, thus helping to reduce the risk of an unexpected drop in value in the period before retirement. Lifestyling will be a requirement where a person makes no choice about how his or her pension savings are to be invested. However, members will be able to opt out of lifestyling if they so choose.

The regulations also provide for an increase in the stakeholder pension charge cap. For new members of schemes from 6 April 2005, the annual management charge will be capped at 1.5 per cent. for the first 10 years of membership, decreasing to 1 per cent. thereafter. However charges for existing members will continue to be capped at 1 per cent. per annum.

The regulations come into effect on 6 April 2005.