The House of Lords is shortly to purchase new accommodation. In lieu of completion, which is expected to take place shortly, the Treasury agreed a cash advance essential to the purchase from the Contingencies Fund on 16 March in the sum of £50,294,225. This advance was given prior to the Royal Assent to the Appropriation Act on 17 March which gives parliamentary authority for the expenditure.

The advance will be repaid from the spring supplementary estimate.

The Treasury is today publishing "The UK financial services sector: Rising to the challenges and opportunities of globalisation". Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. The document is also accessible on the Treasury website at www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/.

The paper sets out how the UK financial services sector will be integral to helping the rest of the UK economy and society respond to long-term global economic changes, and presents a series of associated challenges for the sector and for policy-makers.

The Treasury has conducted a review into the costing of oral and written parliamentary questions. The revised costs, which will apply from 1 April 2005, are:

Oral questions £369

Written questions £134

The disproportionate cost threshold (DCT) relating to answers to written parliamentary questions and the recently introduced cost limit for requests to central Government under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) are set at the same level—£600. The FOIA cost limit is due to be reviewed later this year. In order to maintain consistency between the two limits for the time being, the DCT will remain at £600.

It has been drawn to my attention that there was an inadvertent error in Budget resolution 28. This resolution should have read as follows:

"That provision may be made for the purposes of corporation tax about—

(a) amounts that are not to be allowed as deductions for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts; and

(b) contributions to the capital of any company that are to be treated as income arising to the company."

The corrected text appears in today's Order Paper.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has made the following written ministerial statement in the other place yesterday, 21 March 2005.

"On 15 December 2004, I informed the House that I had warmly welcomed Sir David Clementi's report on the regulation of legal services in England and Wales and broadly accepted his main recommendations. Since publication of the report, I have met key stakeholders, including consumer groups, a number of times. In the course of these meetings we have built a strong consensus in support of consumer-focused reform of legal services.

I will publish a White Paper later this year. I will set out detailed proposals for a Legal Services Board. Regulatory powers will be vested in the board, and delegated by it to the professional bodies, as long as they meet the standards the board sets. The professional bodies will be required to separate their regulatory and representative functions.

The White Paper will set out the arrangements for appointing members to the Legal Services Board, and will propose a lay chair and a lay majority with appointments being made on merit, by the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. The board will have a range of sanctions available. The White Paper will set these out but I expect them to include setting targets, imposing fines, issuing guidance, directing a professional body and removing one or more regulatory powers, with the board ultimately having the power to remove regulatory powers from any professional body which has failed. Taken together, these arrangements provide a robust framework that will promote consumer interests.

I accept Sir David's recommendation for an Office for Legal Complaints. This will be simpler for consumers to use and understand and will provide consistent, fair and professional handling of cases for all complainants. As with the Legal Services Board, the White Paper will set out the detailed arrangements, but I expect the office will also be led by a board with a lay chair and a lay majority.

I warmly welcome Sir David's proposals to facilitate the creation of new business structures. Non-lawyers will be able for the first time to become managers, owners or investors in legal practices. This will create an opportunity to bring in new capital and develop new ways of working that should benefit consumers. Robust safeguards will be established to protect the consumer and the profession's reputation. Many of the changes that will be outlined in the White Paper will require legislation and I intend to bring forward that legislation when parliamentary time allows. I am committed to legislating to bring the regulatory framework I have described into full effect.

I can announce today that I have set up a consumer panel to advise the Government as we take forward reforms. The panel will comprise representatives from Citizens Advice, the Federation of Small Businesses, the National Consumer Council, the Welsh Consumer Council and Which?.

Going forward, I will continue to work closely with all interested parties to ensure that we establish a new framework for the regulation of legal services that protects and promotes the needs of consumers and allows the legal profession to flourish and retain its reputation as the best in the world."

On 12 May 2003 my noble Friend Baroness Scotland of Asthal, the then Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, announced that John Halliday CB had submitted the report of his independent review of the Law Commission on 31 March 2003. She added that the Lord Chancellor had welcomed the thrust of the recommendations and asked the Ministerial Committee on the Law Commission, which is currently chaired by me, to oversee the action taken on the report.

The Ministerial Committee subsequently authorised the setting up of an interdepartmental project board to manage the implementation of the recommendations. This board has now completed its task and been dissolved.

In all, of the 42 recommendations made, 39 have now been dealt with; two are for the future; and one is being taken forward separately.

Major themes of the 39 recommendations included:

more effective communication between the Law Commission, Government Departments and other stakeholders. As a result a vision and guidance' document, that sets out how the Law Commission and Government Departments will work together, has been published.

ensuring that the Law Commission's programmes of law reform are based on the best possible assessment of needs, priorities and resources. Consequently, the Law Commission undertook a wide consultation when preparing its ninth programme, which has been published today, 22 March 2005.

the development of more effective programme and project management at the Law Commission. As a result, the Law Commission has established a new electronic programme management system that will come into operation at the start of the ninth programme on 1 April 2005.

improving the processes for deciding on and implementing Law Commission recommendations. As a result, time limits have been set by the Ministerial Committee on the Law Commission within which Government Departments are required to respond to commission reports.

Recommendation 30, aimed at identifying special parliamentary procedures to facilitate scrutiny of Law Commission Bills, is being taken forward separately by the Department for Constitutional Affairs.

The vision and guidance and the paper setting out the quinquennial review recommendations and how the Government have responded to them have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will shortly be available on the website of the Department for Constitutional Affairs at: www.dca.gov.uk

The key targets have been set for the chief executive of the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency (AFPAA) for the financial year 2005–06. The targets build upon progress made by the agency since it formed on 1 April 1997 and reflect the importance of achieving joint personnel administration implementation whilst maintaining current outputs. Furthermore they provide customers with assurance that, in focusing on joint personnel administration and higher profile services such as pay and pensions, AFPAA will continue to give sufficient attention to the broad range of other outputs.

1. To Deliver Pay

To make 99.9 per cent. of all pay payments by the due date (excluding late payments caused by events determined to be outside the control of the agency).

To keep the monthly error rate of accuracy for the volume of payments within 0.1 per cent.

2. To Deliver Pension Services

To make 99 per cent. of all pension payments (including new awards) by the due date, (excluding late payments caused by events determined to be outside the control of the agency).

To keep the monthly error rate of accuracy for the volume of payments within 0.1 per cent.

3. To Support the Delivery of Joint Personnel Administration Programme

Achieve live service to the RAF by end March 2006. Live service to the RN and Army are to follow by end August 2006 and by end December 2006 respectively.

4. To transform the Agency to Deliver the Joint Personnel Administration services

To transform the agency to deliver joint personnel administration.

To deliver 100 per cent. of key critical path milestones in agency transformation plan.

5. To prepare for delivery of AFPAA services post 2009

Develop the AFPAA contribution to the project team, establish and meet 100 per cent. ofmilestones.

6. To confirm that the broad range of AFPAA's outputs are delivered to agreed service levels.

To achieve 90 per cent. of service levels selected by the customer.

7. To meet approved efficiency targets for the delivery of core services.

To reduce the unit cost by 2 per cent., which will contribute to a 12 per cent. reduction over a four-year period from 2002–03 for the delivery of core pay and personnel administration.

8. To deliver an efficient and effective MOD medal service.

To reduce the MOD medal office assessment backlog from 45,000 as at 1 April 2005 to21,000 by 31 March 2006.

In July 2002 my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced that he would be making an additional £350 million available to local authorities over the period 2003–06 to improve the delivery of planning services. Since then, we have announced that the Planning Delivery Grant (PDG) will continue, with a further £255 million being made available in the period to 2008. We have now decided the basis on which we will distribute the majority of the Planning Delivery Grant of £170 million in 2005–06 and will be informing recipients of their allocations.

The grant is performance related. Our aim is to enhance the resourcing of the planning system in a way that drives performance improvement and ensures effective delivery of our objectives for sustainable communities. It is specifically targeted towards meeting the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's public service agreements (PSA) 5 and 6. PSA 5 aims to achieve a better balance between housing availability and demand. PSA 6 requires all authorities to have local development frameworks in place (in accordance with agreed local development schemes) and to meet the best value development control targets by the end of 2006–07.

I can confirm today the amount of grant to be distributed to authorities in 2005–06 is £162.12 million. It will be paid to local planning authorities at a district and county level, national parks, regional planning bodies, the Broads Authority and the Greater London authority. A small amount of the grant, £4.73 million, will be top-sliced to support a number of national initiatives directly related to improving local authority planning performance. A smaller amount, £3 million, will be allocated to the Planning Inspectorate for their work on local development plan preparation.

Local authorities are rewarded for both improvement towards and achievement of best value development control targets in the period October 2003 to September 2004. Grant allocations are enhanced for local authorities within the high housing demand and growth areas as identified in the Communities Plan in proportion to their contribution towards delivering net additions to the housing stock. Pathfinder authorities receive an allocation of £160,000 in recognition of the low demand for housing in their sub-regions. Local authorities are also awarded £5,000 for each enterprise area within their boundary, up to a maximum of £100,000 for any single authority. Local authorities will be paid by determination under Section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003, copies of which will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses, along with a detailed spreadsheet showing the breakdown of the allocations for individual authorities.

For the first time, local planning authorities will receive payments in recognition of their online planning provision. The "e-planning" allocations will range from £20,658.68 to £100,000 to all authorities satisfying a minimum of 10 out of 21 e-planning criteria, with the highest awards going to those who achieve all 21. Also for the first time, specific allocations will be made for performance on "county matters" applications in relation to minerals and waste, enabling county councils and those other authorities who deal with such applications to receive PDG.

An element of the grant that rewards authorities for submitting a Local Development Scheme (LDS) to Government offices will follow later this year but cannot be included with this allocation as the deadline for LDS submission, 28 March 2005, has not yet passed.

In the first year of the Planning Delivery Grant (2003–04) grant was paid without condition. In 2004–05 two conditions were imposed on PDG payments. This year, these conditions will remain, to ensure that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has the power to act appropriately to partly withhold payment or recover part or all of grant paid where there are concerns over the accuracy or proven inaccuracies in the information on which allocations were made. I may consider withholding up to 10 per cent. of the grant allocated to authorities whose Best Value Performance Indicator 109 (BVPI 109) has been qualified by the auditor until we have established to our satisfaction the reason for the qualification and the reliability of the data on which grant was allocated. Following this I may seek to recover some or all of the monies paid to those authorities.

The second condition relates to performance on appeals, and this year it has been strengthened. Where an authority's performance on appeal is 40 per cent. worse than the national average (33.81 per cent. of appeals upheld against the authority), 10 per cent. of their development control allocation will be abated. Where this performance is 50 per cent. worse than the average, this abatement will increase to 20 per cent. of the development control allocation. This condition underlines the continuing importance we place on quality in decision making.

Grant allocations are not ring-fenced and authorities have complete discretion in the way they spend this money, although this year, 25 per cent. of the total grant paid to any individual authority will be limited to capital spending. The remaining 75 per cent. can be spent by the local authority on resource or capital budgets.

Regional Planning Bodies receive grant to support their work preparing regional spatial strategies and in recognition of the additional work which the strengthened regional planning function involves. In 2005–06 this totals just under £7 million. The Greater London authority (GLA) receives grant in recognition of its plan making responsibilities. The award is based on the GLA's performance against its business plan, and is given in recognition of work in bringing forward alteration of the waste plan, the housing capacity study, and progress against the annual monitoring report.

Decisions have yet to be taken on the basis of the grant for 2006–07. However, the requirement to meet PSA 5 and 6 means that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will continue to link grant awards to improved planning performance so as to incentivise authorities to reach and exceed the development control handling targets while maintaining high decision quality, incentivise delivery of housing in areas of high housing demand and provide greater e-planning provision. Authorities should be aware that they will need to continue to secure improvement in these areas to receive grant in future years. We will monitor performance in all aspects of Planning Delivery

Grant in order to inform future decisions on this. We will consult on full proposals for allocations before any final decisions are taken. The announcement of the grant for 2006–07 will be brought forward to later in 2005, following the consultation process. This is in line with other announcements of grant, and will help to increase certainty in budget setting processes.

A table showing the amounts payable will be made available in the Libraries of both Houses. This sets out the details of each recipient's grant.

Planning Fees

Planning fees will be increased on 1 April 2005, to enable authorities to move closer to recovery of costs on planning applications. The increases were consulted on in a paper I published on 15 December 2004, Official Report, columns 135–37WS. They will average 39 per cent. and raise an estimated £68 million in additional revenue, will be spread proportionately to the types of applications. The fees for a householder extension will rise from £110 to £135, whilst the maximum fee for a major development will rise from £11,000 to £50,000.

Fee increases are part of the package of resources, along with Planning Delivery Grant, that are designed to improve the quality of planning services and support the changes which the government is introducing as part of its reform of the planning system. For some time, it has been the case that the costs of handling planning applications have been significantly higher than the fees associated with them. These increases address the imbalance and provide authorities with a level of resources which we expect to see leading to improvements in the quality of services.

I am announcing today the publication of a new minerals policy statement on "Controlling and Mitigating the Environmental Effects of Minerals Extraction in England". The new minerals policy statement 2 (MPS2), and its two annexes covering dust and noise, will replace and extend minerals policy guidance note 11 (MPG11), "The Control of Noise at Surface Mineral Workings", published in 1993.

A draft of MPS2 was issued for public consultation in February 2003. The key policy aim of MPS2 is to minimise any significant adverse environmental effects that may arise from minerals extraction.

Mineral planning authorities will need to have regard to the policies in MPS2 in preparing minerals and waste development schemes as part of local development frameworks. The policies will also be material to decisions on individual planning applications where environmental issues connected with minerals extraction arise or which concern minerals extraction. Planning authorities have an important role to play in facilitating an adequate supply of minerals to meet the need of society whilst ensuring that the environmental impacts caused by mineral operations and the transport of minerals are kept to an acceptable minimum.

Copies of MPS2 are being made available in the Libraries of both Houses following publication. It is also being placed on the website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

I have today published two consultation papers on proposed secondary legislation and guidance to implement some of the development control provisions in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The papers take forward provisions to simplify and speed up the planning system and to facilitate greater community involvement.

We are preparing to implement the development control provisions in Part 4 of the Act in stages. Where the provisions in the Act require secondary legislation we are proposing changes to the General Development Procedure Order (GDPO), the listed building regulations and the advertisement regulations. We are considering responses to our first consultation paper entitled "Changes to the development control system" published on 30 November 2004. A further consultation paper "Planning Control of Mezzanine and Other Internal Floorspace Additions" was published on 3 March 2005, Official Report, columns 93 and 94WS.

"Changes to the Development Control System Second Consultation Paper" covers local development orders (LDO's). Local authorities will be able to grant permission for the type of development specified in the order. There will be no need for a planning application. It is envisaged that there will be reduced costs and greater certainty for developers, whether they be householders or businesses. Local authorities may benefit by dealing with fewer routine applications thereby freeing resources for the consideration of more major applications. LDOs might potentially prove a useful tool for local authorities seeking to deliver high quality housing developments more quickly.

The paper covers the interrelated subjects of outline planning permission, reserved matters and design and access statements. I announced in a written statement on 23 March 2004, Official Report, columns 48–50WS during the passage of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill that applications for outline planning permission must provide a level of information to assess all the significant environmental impacts. The paper proposes that applications should include information on use, quantum of development, indicative layout, scale parameters and indicative access points. It also proposes some amendments to reserved matters requiring further detailed information. The amendments include information on layout and scale. The new Act contains a requirement for both design and access statements. The Government now propose—for simplicity and efficiency—that one statement would cover both design and access. The purpose of the statement is to explain and justify the design and access principles and concepts on which a development proposal is based. Most applications for planning permission and all applications for listed building consent will need to be accompanied by a design and access statement. The length of statements should be proportional to the complexity of the application.

The paper covers procedures for determining major applications. We plan to change an outdated provision in the GDPO that allows applicants to appeal major applications for non-determination after only eight weeks. This is an unreasonable turnaround time for local authorities, not to mention being out of kilter with Government targets of 13 weeks. Our proposals would alter the period that an applicant must wait before appealing a major application to 13 weeks, harmonising Government best value targets and Government guidance with the relevant secondary legislation.

The best practice guidance on the validity of planning applications published on 7 March was the first stage in clarifying planning practice in this area. The second stage, outlined in the consultation paper, is to clarify the idea of a valid application. We want to specify in secondary legislation that a planning application is valid only when it contains all the information required by local authorities and when accompanied by the correct fee. This measure would cut down on the number of applications that go to the planning inspectorate on appeal without ever having been accepted as valid by a local authority and would generally increase the accessibility and transparency of the planning application process.

We also want to use this opportunity to establish in secondary legislation the exact period of determination: from the first full day after a valid planning application has been received until the day on which a decision notice is dispatched.

We intend that, after a 14 week consultation period and consideration of the responses received, the provisions would come into effect in the autumn.

The other paper I am publishing today contains proposals for a standard application form for planning applications and related consent regimes. The paper refers to a prototype electronic application form called 1 APP which can be tested on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's web-site. The prototype allows for householder applications, demolition in a conservation area and listed building consent. Our intention is to develop the electronic form to cover all related consent regimes including outline and full planning permission, trees, advertisements, minerals and waste. In finalising the form we will take account of work under the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's householder development consents review. When the electronic form goes live, probably next year, people will be able to apply either on-line or on paper.

Copies of the documents will be made available in the Libraries of both Houses.

Today we are making a number of announcements relating to local government performance and the improvement of local services. We are publishing the fourth in a series of discussion documents taking forward the debate on the future of local government that we began last July with the publication of "The future of local government: Developing a 10 year vision".

"Securing better outcomes: Developing a new performance framework" is intended to stimulate debate around the key principles that the Government consider should make up a new performance framework to secure more effective and efficient delivery of local services. The document is jointly published with Treasury and, building on the devolving decision-making review last year, sets out a broad framework for developing a more devolved approach to delivery of local services, including increased personalisation of services. It emphasises:

opportunities for users and residents to influence local priorities and the design and delivery of services—including through more choice and personalisation,

a reduction in bureaucracy—through a more coherent approach to managing performance, with clear national priorities, but with local government having the freedom to take responsibility for securing outcomes that meet the needs of their citizens and for improving their own performance in the way that the best councils are doing

more flexibility to enable faster and better tailored responses to local circumstances—building on the experience of local area agreements

the potential for developing an increasingly area based approach between councils and their partners—with greater focus on accountability between local partners in achieving common outcomes for the area

the importance of strategic, integrated relationship management through Government Offices to tailor negotiations, co-ordinate engagement and support, and challenge and respond to significant under-performance

the need for better and more transparent information to underpin any effective performance system.

The discussion paper also expands on the Chancellor's Budget announcement about a rationalised inspection landscape, including the creation of a single local services inspectorate by 2008. This inspectorate will bring together the functions of the Audit Commission and the benefit fraud inspectorate in relation to inspection of English local authorities. It will also have an important role as a gatekeeper and co-ordinator for all inspection of local authorities. The paper also looks at how inspection could be refocused in the longer term.

Copies of the document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and are available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website at: www.odpm.gov.uk/localvision. I would urge those with an interest in local government to let us know their views on the issues discussed in this and the other discussion documents we have published.

The Government's aim is to give people the powers and resources to have a greater influence over the key decisions which affect their community. The new local area agreements, which were the subject of the first local vision discussion document, are one example of how we are enabling local authorities to work in partnership with other organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors to target resources on local priorities.

The first 20 local area agreements (LAAs) will be signed today marking the successful completion of the negotiations on these pilots. The full, long-term agreements will be in place from 1 April 2005, enabling some £500 million of central government funding to be pooled or aligned locally to achieve better outcomes. The signing of these first LAAs means they can now be translated into better delivery of local public services, LAAs will simplify funding streams and help to join up public services. They will also enable local areas to have more freedom to work in innovative ways to benefit their communities.

As well as celebrating the success of those involved in the first round of LAAs today we are also laying out future developments for LAAs. This includes publishing the application criteria for a further 40 LAAs to be in place by April 2006. As with the first phase of pilot LAAs, the aim will be to ensure that there is a good regional spread of areas, a mix of single tier authorities and counties and linkages with other pilot initiatives in the next phase. Areas wishing to be in the next phase will have until mid-May to express an interest and areas selected will be announced in June.

It will also be confirmed later today that responsibility for local public service agreement (LPSA) negotiations will be transferred from departmental teams to the Government Offices, also responsible for overseeing the negotiations for LAAs. LPSAs cover additional service targets agreed between central and local government, with the incentive of additional grant rewards if these targets are met. The second generation of LPSAs are increasingly focused on local priorities and are more rigorously outcome-based. Aligning LAAs and LPSAs will help make these initiatives mutually reinforcing, and maximise the potential benefits they offer.

Today's signing ceremony will also highlight the new LAA fourth block, which will focus on economic development. Where LAAs are in place the new Local Enterprise Growth Initiative (LEGI) will be channelled through this fourth block, as proposed in last week's budget. LAAs will allow local authorities to pool this fund and other economic and enterprise funding streams in one place and to use them in a flexible way.

I am also pleased to announce that as a result of the first round of the LPSA scheme fifteen local authorities will receive reward grants totalling £93 million over the next two years. The councils, from across the country, have earned the reward grants for improving performance across a range of services to levels above those previously agreed.

We have also launched a leaflet today bringing local government up to date with the joint Local Government Association Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Capacity Building Programme. The Capacity Building Programme aims to support improvement in local government, by enhancing and developing councils' confidence, leadership, and skills to drive forward improvement as well as developing their capacity to learn, innovate and share knowledge and expertise about what works and how. The leaflet provides details of who is eligible to participate and how the programme can be accessed as well as encouraging local authorities to form improvement partnerships.

Improvement partnerships are voluntary partnerships formed when a group of authorities and or fire and rescue authorities come together to improve their internal capacity either at regional or sub-regional level. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will make £57 million available from the capacity building programme over the next three years to support these improvement partnerships.

Several regions have work underway to develop improvement partnerships, the furthest advanced of which is the North West Improvement Network (NWIN). We will provide NTWTN with £7.9 million over the next three years to support it in its work of creating a network of local authorities and other partners in the region committed to mutual improvement.

These announcements show the Government's continuing commitment to working with local government to improve the outcomes for all our citizens, by allowing local authorities and their local partners more flexibility to be able to make the decisions about the issues that affect their areas.

Today I am announcing that we are awarding £16 million from the Housing Market Renewal Fund to the Hull and East Riding (Gateway) market renewal pathfinder to help revitalise areas in Hull blighted by abandoned homes and low demand housing. This investment will enable the pathfinder to start projects to improve poor quality housing and weak housing markets, working in partnership with the private sector.

Over the next year, Gateway will begin delivering:

The redevelopment of poor standard housing on the Ings estate in Hull;

The assembly of sites of land for housing redevelopment in west Hull, to replace abandoned homes.

The restructuring of existing plans to redevelop the Kingswood area in the north of the city so that it reconnects with north Bransholme estate in Hull, enabling the serious abandonment problems to be tackled more effectively.

The pathfinder will bring forward a scheme update in 2006 enabling further grant, of up to £35 million, to be awarded then.

The intended impact of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill in regard to stray dogs is to achieve clarity and consistency in the way stray dog services are delivered. This statement is intended to explain how that will be achieved and address concerns raised with me by animal welfare charities.

The current situation is unsatisfactory because under under section 149 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and section 3 of the Dogs Act 1906, responsibility for stray dogs is shared between local authorities and the police. As neither is fully responsible for providing a service, the position has been patchy at best and has often been inadequate outside normal office hours. As a result of discussions involving the police and local authorities as well as relevant Government Departments, it has been decided to simplify the law and the allocation of responsibilities. For that reason clause 68 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill and part 6 of schedule 5 to the Bill provide for the responsibility of the police in respect of stray dogs to be repealed. When this provision comes into force local authorities will be solely responsible for dealing with stray dogs in their area. This clarity is in the public interest and in the interest of animal welfare. This additional demand on local authorities will be funded through an agreed and appropriate transfer from the Home Office to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and will not be brought into effect until the transfer has been made. The Local Government Association and the police have indicated support to this approval.

This change will place the onus on local authorities to have arrangements in place for dealing with stray dogs on a twenty-four hour basis, seven days a week. Concern had been expressed by animal welfare charities on this very point but the impact of the proposed legislation is very clear.

In addition guidance will be issued explaining what local authorities will need to do to comply with this requirement. The issues the guidance is expected to cover include:

how local authorities can ensure that facilities of a suitable standard are in place to take stray dogs at any time. These could be provided by local authorities themselves or local authorities may prefer to contract the service out to local dog boarding kennels, animal welfare organisations, the police or veterinary practices;

the arrangements they will need to set in place to inform anyone who finds a stray dog where to take it. As with other local authority responsibilities such as social welfare or child care. We would expect good arrangements with the local police to assist the public in making contact with the right person when a problem is reported;

the need to ensure that any sick or injured stray dog is promptly treated to an appropriate standard; this will need to be covered in contracts with those providing a service in respect of stray dogs;

best practice in finding homes for stray dogs and limiting the number of healthy stray dogs that are put down.

The RSPCA, the Dogs Trust and the Kennel Club have been consulted on the issues that will be covered in the guidance, and are satisfied; these organisations will be fully involved in the preparation of the guidance itself.

I am pleased to announce today a series of initiatives that will strengthen the partnership between Government and the voluntary and community sector and support the sector to continue to develop capacity. The Government recognise the invaluable role that the voluntary and community sector plays in delivering services, building strong communities and empowering citizens to tailor services to local needs.

I am publishing a consultation document today called "Strengthening Partnerships: Next Steps for Compact". The compact is a guidance document that was first developed seven years ago and has made a significant positive impact on the relationship between voluntary and community organisations and the public bodies that fund them. The consultation document invites comments on how we move forward with the compact, building on the valuable experience we have gained so far. Proposals include compact plus, a short set of commitments which public sector bodies and voluntary and community sector organisations can opt into, and a compact champion who would support organisations in realising those commitments and adjudicate on disagreements.

We are also publishing the compact code of good practice on funding and procurement today. This revised funding code includes principles such as full cost recovery and the local dimension. The aim is to get the funding relationships right and keep it right by covering the full funding cycle, from programme design and bidding, monitoring and reporting, through to the conclusion of the financial relationship.

Last year we published a 10-year vision for developing the infrastructure and building the capacity of the voluntary and community sector, within a programme called ChangeUp. This was supported by an investment of £80 million over three years. Today we will be announcing continuation funding of £70 million for a further two years, until 2008. We will also announce the establishment of Capacity Builders, a sector-led agency to run ChangeUp and ensure it benefits front-line organisations

Futurebuilders is a £125 million investment fund to assist voluntary and community organisations and social enterprises in their public service work, announced in September 2003. The fund provides finance to acquire capital assets through grants and loans. Today we announce continuation funding of £90 million for Futurebuilders for a further two years of operation, until 2008.

A capital programme, which acts as a community enterprise incubator fond, was launched in 2001 as the capital modernisation programme in order to invest in the development of frontline voluntary and community organisations (for example, investing in premises and ICT). Today we are announcing an investment of £4 million through this programme to support the development of established community anchor organisations, to provide accommodation and intensive support for embryonic community-based organisations and enterprises.

On 15 September 2004, the then Home Secretary announced that he had authorised chief officers throughout England and Wales to deploy the M26 Taser for use in strictly limited circumstances. This allows chief officers to make the M26 Taser available to authorised firearms officers in their force as a less lethal alternative for use in situations where a firearms authority has been granted in accordance with criteria laid down in the ACPO Manual of Guidance on Police Use of Firearms. Since then, a new Taser model, the X26 Taser has been developed and placed on the market.

The Defence Scientific Advisory Council (DSAC) sub-committee on the medical implications of less lethal weapons (DOMILL) was invited to provide a statement on the medical implications of the use of the X26 Taser. The DOMILL statement confirms that the risk of a life-threatening event arising from the direct interaction of the currents of the X26 Taser with the heart, is less than the already low risk of such an event from the M26 Taser. I have placed a copy of the statement in the Library of the House.

I have therefore authorised chief officers to make the X26 Taser available to authorised firearms officers in their force for use as a less lethal alternative for use in situations where a firearms authority has been granted in accordance with criteria laid down in the ACPO Manual of Guidance on Police Use of Firearms. The authorisation for the M26 Taser remains in force.

I am announcing today the first competition of a cluster of prisons under the National Offender Management Service (NOMS). This will consist of the three prisons situated on the Isle of Sheppey: HMPs Elmley, Standford Hill and Swaleside. The purpose of the process is to invite bids from all sectors for the management of all three prisons and it will be an opportunity for bidders to demonstrate innovation in developing imaginative approaches to offender management in custody and in the links with interventions in the community.

NOMS will shortly call for expressions of interest and we are confident that this competition will attract high quality bids from a range of existing and potential new providers. We expect to select a preferred supplier by spring 2006.

We are not doing this as a means of reducing costs. We do not expect to run the three prisons for less money as a result of the competition but we do expect increased quality and value for money. Nor is it privatisation through the back door. I have no preconception about the outcome. The winning bid, from whatever sector, will deliver higher quality services and better outcomes in terms of resettlement, with the ultimate aim of reducing re-offending.

Indeed, the roll-out of the two tier work force code of practice, announced last week by the Prime Minister, will produce a level playing field for the contest as all bidders will face the same market conditions and will need to focus on quality rather than cost.

On 17 March 2005 the Department for International Development hosted a high level conference on the extractive industries transparency initiative (EITI). The EITI was launched by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in September 2002. It seeks to increase the transparency of payments by oil, gas, and mining companies to governments, as well as the transparency of the revenues received by governments. The aim is to ensure that revenues from the extractive industries fulfil their potential as an important engine for economic growth and social development in developing countries, instead of leading to conflict, corruption, and poverty.

The conference follows on from an earlier EITI conference held at Lancaster House in June 2003. Since then implementation has begun in nine countries—Azerbaijan, Congo, Ghana, Kyrgyz Republic, Nigeria, Peru, Sao Tome e Principe, Timor Leste and Trinidad and Tobago. There has been considerable progress towards increased transparency across all nine countries, and two Azerbaijan and the Kyrgyz Republic have now published numbers under EITI.

The conference on 17 March provided an opportunity to take stock of progress in implementation so far, agree a set of criteria and guidelines for implementing countries and companies and encourage practical steps to internationalise EITI. The UK launched the EITI Source book as guidance for countries and companies interested in supporting the initiative. The UK also announced the formation of an international advisory group which will agree an approach to the future management of international EITI support, incentives for implementation and a suitable process for validating implementation. A number of countries including Niger, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo and Equatorial Guinea used the conference as an opportunity to announce their plans to implement EITI; and several countries and international organisations including the United Kingdom, France, Norway, the United States of America, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development agreed to increase financial and technical support for EITI.

The EU is currently negotiating Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, which have been the source of some concern for Members of the House. I warmly welcome the recent commitment made by Peter Mandelson, the European Trade Commissioner, to introduce a much stronger development focus into EPAs. I agree with him that these agreements should promote development by combining aid with wider opportunities for all ACP countries to trade, with each other on an integrated regional basis, and with the EU. In this statement, I would like to set out how the UK believes a stronger development focus could be delivered.

EPAs must be designed to deliver long-term development, economic growth and poverty reduction in ACP countries. To do so, we believe that in its work on EPAs with ACP regional groups, the EU should take a non-mercantilist approach and not pursue any offensive interests.

Developing countries can benefit from liberalisation in the long run, provided they have the economic capacity and infrastructure they need to trade competitively. However, without the capacity or the right conditions, trade liberalisation can be harmful.

Each ACP regional group should make its own decisions on the timing, pace, sequencing, and product coverage of market opening in line with individual countries' national development plans and poverty reduction strategies. Regional groups should have the flexibility to move towards more open markets along a non-linear path if necessary. We will not force trade liberalisation on developing countries either through trade negotiations or aid conditionally.

EPAs must ensure that ACP regional groups have maximum flexibility over their own market opening. The EU should therefore offer all ACP regional groups a period of 20 years or more for market opening, on an unconditional basis. Each regional group should be offered this full period.

Within EPAs, the EU should make an upfront offer of complete duty and quota-free market access to each ACP regional group, with no strings attached. In addition, the EU should further simplify and liberalise rules of origin under EPAs. There should be an effective safeguard mechanism for ACP countries to use if faced with a surge of subsidised EU imports.

EPAs should be accompanied by additional resources to enable the ACP countries to benefit from trade reforms and build their export competitiveness. The EU, in coordination with international financial institutions and other donors, must provide additional financial assistance to support the ACP countries. This assistance must support them in building the infrastructure and economic capacity they need to benefit from trade with the EU and the rest of the world, and put in place the institutions to help manage change and protect vulnerable people, supporting poorer countries with the cost of transition.

Investment, competition and Government procurement should be removed from the negotiations, unless specifically requested by an ACP regional negotiating group. It is for ACP regional groups to judge the development benefits of any agreements on these issues and the EU should not push for them to be discussed. If included, any negotiations on Government procurement should be limited to transparency.

A review mechanism for EPAs—with full ACP regional group ownership and participation—should be introduced to ensure they are delivering the intended developmental benefits. The Commission should be ready to provide an alternative to an EPA at the request of any ACP country. Any alternative offered should provide no worse market access to the EU than is currently enjoyed under Cotonou preferences.

In addition, the EU should propose within the WTO that Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, should be reviewed as suggested by the Commission for Africa, in order to reduce the requirements for reciprocity and increase the focus on development priorities.

Implemented along these lines, Economic Partnership Agreements should provide real development benefits to the ACP countries.

I have tasked the Patent Office with managing and shaping an intellectual property system which encourages innovation and creativity, balances the needs of consumers and users, promotes strong and competitive markets and provides a firm foundation for the knowledge-based economy. During the coming year, the Patent Office will develop these new activities and form partnerships through which new services will be delivered.

I have also set the Patent Office the following targets for 2005–06:

Patents

1. Issue 90 per cent. patent search reports within five months of request.

2. Grant 90 per cent. of patents within two and a half years of request.

3. Give good customer service in patent search and examination in 95 per cent. of quality assured cases.

Designs

4. Register 95 per cent. of correctly filed design applications, to which no substantiveobjections have been raised, within three months of the date of application.

Trade Marks

5. Register 90 per cent. of processed trade mark class applications, to which no substantive objections are raised or oppositions filed within eight months of application.

6. Achieve an average of 23 weeks to issue a decision in trade marks inter partes cases once the case is ready.

7. Make the correct decision on registrability for at least 98.5 per cent. of trade mark applications.

I am pleased to announce that today, with Edwina Hart AM, the Welsh Assembly Government Minister for Social Justice and Regeneration, I have launched a joint consultation on "Improving Payment Practices in the Construction Industry".

The consultation proposes a number of amendments to part 2 of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998.

The proposals are aimed at improving the ability of parties to a construction contract to:

reach agreement on what should be paid and when given the work done under the contract or, where they cannot agree, to make an informed referral to, or response at, adjudication;

manage cash flow and enable completion of work on the project in the event of problems such as defaulted payments, disputes or insolvencies elsewhere in the supply chain; and,

refer disputes to adjudication without disincentives such as avoidance, frustration or unnecessary challenge.

Fair payment practice is something everyone agrees with and a fair payment culture underpins any progressive and modern industry.

This consultation considers a number of issues around the key principles of improving the ability of people in the construction industry manage cash flow on construction projects and to bring about effective delivery, on time and to budget. It provides the opportunity for the whole industry and its clients to come together around a shared set of proposals.

The consultation considers issues and proposals identified during Sir Michael Latham's initial review of the Construction Act, published in September 2004. Following the announcement of the review in the Budget in March 2004, I appointed Sir Michael to produce his report with input from the construction industry representative bodies and other stakeholders. Sir Michael's report raised some key issues. While the continued support of the construction industry representative bodies is vital to the effectiveness of this consultation process, we also hope to build a wider and deeper consensus on how to improve the construction contracts legislation and payment practices in the construction industry.

We have come a long way since the announcement of the review in the 2004 Budget and I hope this consultation process can take the dialogue within the industry further forward over the coming months.

The consultation considers 14 key proposals for amending part 2 of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998. These are:

Payment framework

Defining the content of an adequate payment mechanism in Section 110(1) of the Construction Act

Removing the requirement to serve a Section 110(2) notice in the Construction Act

Providing an application for payment in the legislation

Redefining the content of withholding notices under Section 111

Restricting the use of pay-when-certified clauses

Other payment proposals

Introducing a right to reimbursement for the costs of suspension and remobilisation and providing additional time for remobilisation under Section 112 of the Construction Act

Making contractual provisions on cross contract set-off ineffective

Making "pay-when-paid" clauses ineffective in cases of "upstream" insolvency proceedings

Allowing stage payments under the scheme for construction contracts to be made for materials in advance of their arrival on site

Adjudication proposals

Preventing the use of trustee stakeholder accounts to suspend an adjudicator's award pending litigation other than when the recipient is involved in insolvency proceedings.

Providing the adjudicator with the power to rule on certain aspects of his own jurisdiction and providing a right to payment in cases where the adjudicator stands down due to lack of jurisdiction.

Providing the adjudicator with the right to overturn "final and conclusive" decisions where these are of substance to interim payments only

Extending the adjudicator's immunity under the Construction Act to claims by third parties

Applying provisions on adjudicator independence from the scheme for construction contracts to all adjudications in section 108 of the Construction Act

The consultation period will close on 21 June 2005.