I have today set the following performance targets for OGCbuying.solutions for 2005–06.

Savings

The agency will facilitate at least £400 million value for money improvements for the public sector in 2005–06.

Customer Satisfaction

The agency will continue to achieve levels of customer satisfaction above 90 per cent. as a headline figure and will demonstrate continuing improvements in customer satisfaction through other measures.

ROCE

The agency will make a return on capital employed of 6.5 per cent.

Efficiency

The agency will reduce by 5 per cent. the ratio of internal costs over value for money improvements with the outturn for the same ratio in 2004–05 (excluding any new business e.g. Efficiency Review Initiatives).

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, 22 March 2005.

"I am announcing today the intention, when I bring forward proposals for new legislation giving effect to the government's proposed reform package for legal services following Sir David Clementi's report, to bring the claims management company sector within the new statutory regulatory net. I anticipate this would be with a front-line regulator subject to oversight by the proposed new oversight regulator the Legal Services Board.

The Government's response to the Better Regulation Task Force's report Better Routes to Redress made it clear that claims management companies, which often largely deal with acquiring personal injury claims, sector must be properly regulated. Claim management companies are well known for their high-pressure selling, sharp practices and targeting of vulnerable people and a major driver in fuelling the perceptions of a compensation culture.

Claims management companies are currently relatively lightly regulated. There has been an attempt to introduce further voluntary regulation by a non-profit making body called the Claims Standards Council (CSC). The CSC has worked hard to produce comprehensive rules, consumer and commercial codes of practice and to secure the engagement of the companies working in the unregulated sector. However, claims management companies have failed to demonstrate anything like the commitment that I would hoped to have seen by now to clean up

their act. I must therefore consider how best to safeguard consumer interests, for now and for the future. The CSC can still play an important role in helping to close the current regulatory gap. If it is able to make sufficient progress to preparing the sector to be regulated it could also be a candidate for the role of the new front line regulator, subject to being judged as fit for purpose by the LSB.

For now I believe that we have the best opportunity to ensure consumers get a better deal through a combination of more rigorous use of existing protections and the introduction of compulsory insurance regulation via the FSA and the CSC's voluntary regulation initiative. For the future we will work towards developing and delivering the watertight statutory regulatory mechanism for claims management companies that is self evidently needed".

Today the Government will publish their report "Establishing an Inspectorate for Justice and Community Safety". Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

The proposals for consultation outlined in the report aim to introduce root and branch reform, changing the structure of inspection in the criminal justice system and enhancing the capacity for leadership and decision making.

Independent inspection in the criminal justice system plays an important role in improving services and holding organisations to account for their performance. In recent years every criminal justice agency has undergone reform to deliver improvements to services; it is essential that the inspection regime is reformed to support these changes.

The five justice inspectorates have done an excellent job in driving up performance. Therefore the Government propose to build on the current base of expertise and create an inspectorate for justice and community safety that continues the rigorous independent inspection of criminal justice agencies, including the treatment and conditions of those in custody, whilst broadening this to inspect across organisational boundaries to deliver a more joined up inspection system; an inspection regime that inspects the criminal justice process from end to end, supports the frontline by reducing unnecessary burden and bureaucracy and examines how the system can better deliver for those who come into contact with it.

The Government welcome views on the precise design of the new inspectorate before 15 June 2005.

I have today published the report of the digital television project which sets out advice to Government on the process of digital switchover. The report is the culmination of nearly three years work by broadcasters, regulators and industry working with Government and other stakeholders. The report sets out a detailed strategy for achieving digital switchover and will help inform Government decisions about how and when to proceed with digital switchover.

There are still important questions that need to be resolved before we can announce the final timetable for switchover. We are currently working with the BBC to assess the scope of assistance schemes to help vulnerable consumers through switchover. We will only confirm the timetable once all remaining issues relating to digital switchover are resolved and we are satisfied that the interests of consumers, especially the most vulnerable, are well protected.

Copies of the report of the digital television project have been placed in the Library.

The House will wish to be aware that, as part of an internal restructuring of the Defence Logistics Organisation, the decision has been taken to disestablish the Warship Support Agency with effect from 1 April this year and to subsume its work in the new defence logistics structure.

The DLO restructuring is aimed at establishing the most effective and efficient organisation to support modern operations. In particular, we are seeking to achieve a clear customer focus, clarity of outputs and objectives, strong performance management, visibility of targets and performance and a strong governance regime in a way that is common across the whole of logistics support to the front line.

I expect the agency's annual report and accounts for financial year 2004–05 to be ready to be laid in Parliament before the summer recess.

With effect from 1 April 2005 the Medical Supplies Agency (MSA) will cease to hold agency status. This has been decided as a result of Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO) restructuring proposals and the findings of the DLO/MSA integration review report.

Following the medical quinquennial review and the DLO/MSA integration review report, the ownership of the MSA transferred from the Surgeon General's Department (now the Defence Medical Services Department) to the DLO on 1 April 2002. The MSA is now integrated into the broad supply chain within the DLO. The MSA has ceased to be a storage and distribution organisation, has adopted DLO's business processes and has reduced in size. The MSA's role and business have undergone significant change and are no longer appropriate or large enough to justify agency status. I have therefore decided that agency status for the Medical Supplies Agency should cease and that the organisation should be retitled the Medical Supplies Integrated Project Team

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence previously announced to the House our intention to pay off the Northern Ireland Patrol Vessel (NIPV) Squadron by April 2007, 21 July 2004, Official Report, column 347. Further discussions have taken place with the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We have now decided that the vessels will be decommissioned in September 2005.

When the NIPV cease operations, the maritime security of Northern Ireland will be maintained under the same arrangements as the rest of the United Kingdom. While there will be no permanent assignments of Royal Navy vessels for Northern Ireland, the Chief Constable is satisfied that routine Royal Navy activities around the UK and specific intelligence led maritime operations will deliver an appropriate level of support to the police in countering terrorism.

I am pleased to be able to announce that new regulations governing the payment of financial assistance to reservists and their employers during mobilisation were laid before Parliament today and that subject to usual parliamentary scrutiny will then come into effect on 14 April 2005.

These changes represent a significant improvement in the assistance available to reservists and employers. They reaffirm our continuing commitment to the reserve forces, and reflect the value we place on them and their contribution to the United Kingdom's defence commitments.

These regulations have been prepared following a comprehensive consultation process, which I announced on 22 July 2004, Official Report, column 62WS. They replace the previous complex and intrusive scheme which only matched individuals' earnings up to a rank-related threshold or band, with a separate hardship award scheme for those whose earnings exceeded the band for their rank. Payments to employers under that scheme were limited and complex.

The full details of the scheme of both reservists and employers are available in the documents laid before the House.

I also propose that the financial limit shall be subject to annual review commencing in April 2006.

I am today announcing that we will be commencing the remainder of part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 in England on 1 June. From this date, local authorities will be able to deal with complaints about high hedges that are having an adverse effect on a neighbour's amenity.

Alongside the commencement order, we have laid regulations specifying the grounds on which appeals can be brought against local authority decisions under the legislation, and setting out how such appeals will be handled. The appeals procedure has been streamlined in the light of responses to the public consultation held last year.

Consultation comments have also led us to decide that we should not exercise our power to set a ceiling on what local authorities can charge for dealing with high hedges complaints. Section 68 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 specifies that any such fee must be paid by the complainant. As a result of our decision, local authorities in England will be free to decide whether, and at what level, it is appropriate to charge for this service, taking account of local circumstances and local taxpayers' wishes. Should they so wish, authorities may provide this service for free, or charge different amounts to different groups of people. This is in line with the Government's general policy of allowing such decisions to be made at the local level.

We have published a full Regulatory Impact Assessment on implementing the high hedges legislation. It includes an estimate of what it might cost a local authority, on average, to deal with a high hedge complaint. It also contains, as an Annex, a summary of the consultation responses.

To support local authorities as they prepare to take on this new responsibility, we will publish shortly detailed guidance on administering complaints and enforcing any action that hedge owners may be required to take to remedy the problems caused by the hedge. We also plan to hold, during May, regional workshops to provide training for local authority officers.

For the public, we are publishing two free explanatory leaflets. "Over the garden hedge" is a revision of the previous leaflet of this name and offers advice on how people can settle these disputes for themselves. Negotiation is a necessary precursor to submitting a formal complaint to a local authority. The authority can reject a complaint if they consider the complainant has not done everything they reasonably could to settle the matter themselves. The second leaflet "High hedges: complaining to the council" explains what complaints local authorities can consider and how they will deal with them.

Copies of the Regulatory Impact Assessment and both leaflets will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and have been published on the website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister at www.odpm.gov.uk. The guidance for local authorities "High hedges complaints: prevention and cure" will similarly be deposited in House Libraries and published on the web as soon as it is available.

The Regulatory Impact Assessment that was published alongside the Higher Education Act 2004 contained estimates of the fee income for the HE sector and the costs of student loans and grants. These estimates were based on two scenarios for the pattern of fee charging by higher education providers: 75 per cent. of students charged £3,000 and 25 per cent. charged £1,200; and 50 per cent. charging £3,000 and 50 per cent. charging £1,200. The figures below update that analysis on the basis of findings from the Office for Fair Access that 91 per cent. of higher education providers are likely to charge £3,000. The figures below also update the analysis to take account of the new £2,700 grant, replacing the previous £1,500 HE grant and £1,200 fee remission grant; they also update the analysis to put it all on a 2006–07 student number basis.

Fee Income and Student Support Forecasts

Table 2: Cost of Student Support

Notes:

1. All costs are in steady state 2006–07 terms.

2. Fee loan forecasts are based on the assumption that 9 per cent. of students are charged £2,000 and 91 per cent. charged £3,000, so the average fee for new students will be £2,910. We are also assuming 80 per cent. take-up of fee deferral.

3. The maintenance loan forecasts assume 82 per cent. take up.

4. The forecasts are based on a RAB charge for maintenance loans of 29 per cent. and for fee loans of 42 per cent., under 3.5 per cent. discount rate.

5. Fee income forecasts have been rounded to the nearest £50 million. All other figures have been rounded to the nearest £10 million.

6. Forecasts are based on setting a grant threshold so that 30 per cent. of students receive the full grant.

7. The combined grant costs represent an extra £440 million over and above expenditure on the £1,200 fee remission grant as it would have been.

8. Adopting the £2,700 grant has the effect of moving costs from maintenance loans to fee loans, because the £1,200 fee remission grant would have substituted for fee loans whereas some of the £2,700 grant substitutes for maintenance loan. The level of the substitution rate will be set to ensure overall cost neutrality.

Table 1: Fee income for higher education providers

With my colleagues in Scotland and Wales, I am delighted to announce that on 1 April 2005 the state veterinary service (SVS) will launch as an executive agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, retaining the title the state veterinary service.

The first chief executive will be Glenys Stacey who will take responsibility for a challenging programme of reforming the way that the services are delivered to its many stakeholders. The SVS has a long, commendable history of engagement with the farming and rural community. The agency will build on this as it enhances its operational and financial effectiveness and continuously improves on the vital role it plays in the fight against animal disease.

The agency will work in close partnership with its policy customers in the Department and the devolved administrations; other delivery agents; and its customers in the rural and livestock community, to deliver services that maximise the use of modern information technology and ensure the optimum utilisation of its staff.

At the forefront of protection against animal-borne diseases and their potential impact on public health, the economy and the rural community, the agency will also be in the front line to deal with any outbreak.

The chief executive has been set some demanding key targets for the first year.

Copies have been placed in both Libraries of the House.

Copies of the agency's framework document and any subsequent amendments will also be placed in both Libraries of the House. Further copies and other information about the agency can be obtained from the chief executive.

On 14 July 2004, in his statement to the House, Official Report, column 1431, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced to the House that the Government accepted the conclusions of Lord Butler's review. In my written statement of 15 November 2004, Official Report, column 54WS, I said that Sir David Omand, the Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator, would lead the work on implementation of those conclusions. Sir David Omand has now completed this work and I should like to report the outcome to the House.

A considerable amount has been done in a short time by Sir David, the Heads of the Security and Intelligence Agencies and senior officials in Government Departments to implement the conclusions. The detail is set out in a report (Cm 6492) that I am today laying before the House. Copies will also be placed in the Library of the House. A number of key actions have already been taken:

Secret Intelligence Service has developed new procedures, provided additional resources and revised line management arrangements to improve evaluation and to oversee the quality of intelligence reporting. Work has taken place to ensure that source descriptions in intelligence reports across the intelligence community use standardised terminology and are consistent;

Arrangements have been put in place across the community to ensure that the distribution of sensitive reporting can be extended when necessary;

Joint Intelligence Committee processes have been reviewed and tightened up. Arrangements have been made so that in future the annual process to set the requirements and priorities for the collection and analysis of intelligence will apply to the Defence Intelligence Staff as well as to the three

statutory agencies. A confidential guide for readers of intelligence, including information on the limitations of intelligence, has been produced and distributed; and

Access to the Agencies' Staff Counsellor has been agreed for members of the assessments staff and fully analogous arrangements have been put in place for members of the Defence Intelligence Staff.

Further work is in hand to improve the analytical support provided to the intelligence community following a study carried out by a senior Foreign Office official. That study has recommended and the Government have endorsed:

the establishment of a Professional Head of Intelligence Analysis to advise in the security, defence and foreign affairs fields on analytical capability and methodology; recruitment and career management of analysts; and the development and oversight of more substantial training of analysts; and the expansion of the assessments staff, by about one third. This will provide additional internal review and challenge functions for Joint Intelligence Committee assessments; resource work on countries at risk of instability; and allow increased production of regular warning papers highlighting significant threats or other issues likely to face the Government in the near to medium term in the fields of security, defence and foreign affairs. Other small increases to make the assessments staff more effective are also recommended.

Sir David Omand's successor as Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator has been asked to give high priority to implementing these measures.

In addition to the publication of the detailed report on implementation of the conclusions of the Butler review, the Cabinet Office is publishing today an updated National Intelligence Machinery booklet. Copies of this are also being placed in the Library of the House. It is also on the Cabinet Office website: www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk. This booklet sets out the roles, responsibility and organisation of the UK intelligence community and reflects the changes made as a result of the Butler review. It also includes an unclassified version of the guide for readers of intelligence that has been circulated within Government.

Lord Butler's review has contributed greatly to the process underway to fit the UK's intelligence community for the future. The Government recognise the need to move substantially to implement its conclusions and have done so.

Section 12 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 requires Monitor (the statutory name of which is the independent regulator of NHS foundation trusts) to make a prudential borrowing code for determining the limit on the total amount of borrowing by NHS foundation trusts.

In accordance with section 12(4) of the Act, the executive chairman of Monitor has today published the code. Copies are available in the Library.

Following my statement on 20 December 2004 about Ken Sutton's report on allegations about the handling of applications under the European Community Association Agreements (ECAA), work has continued on next steps. This work includes putting in place procedures and guidance for the agreement with Turkey, consistent with recommendation 15 of Mr. Sutton's report.

In line with Ken Sutton's second report recommendation 15, guidance for handling in-country applications was reviewed in order to take account of experience of procedures and revised guidance on handling in-country applications from Romania and Bulgaria. Turkish ECAA in-country applications were held during this time. The robust procedures we put in place on ECAA further leave to remain cases are reflected, as far as possible, in procedures for handling in-country Turkish cases. This guidance will be published on the Home Office website and consideration of these cases will re-commence shortly.

Guidance to manage Turkish applications made at port under this association agreement has already been published and we began consideration of applications for leave to enter at ports on 4 January 2005.

I am pleased to announce the publication today of the Government's draft legislation on corporate manslaughter. In summary, this is intended to remedy a particular defect in the present law which can lead to companies escaping liability for manslaughter because no senior single individual can be shown to be personally liable. It builds on earlier work by the Law Commission in 1996 and consultation by the Government in 2000 on the law on involuntary manslaughter. No new standards or regulations will be created with the proposed new offence.

Current laws for prosecuting companies for gross negligence manslaughter fail to operate in a sufficiently flexible way to reflect the reality of decision making in large organisations and therefore fail to provide proper accountability or justice for victims. It is too restrictive to say that a company cannot be prosecuted for manslaughter unless a person who effectively embodies the company is also guilty of the offence. The Government are committed to reforming this area of the law and today's draft Bill marks an important step in delivering that commitment.

Our proposals would introduce a clearer, more effective offence that would see organisations held properly to account for gross failings by their senior management that have had fatal consequences. This would continue to be an extremely serious offence, reserved for the very worst cases of corporate mismanagement leading to death, and the threshold for committing it would therefore remain at the same level of gross misconduct currently required. But the new test of senior management failure would allow courts to consider a wider picture of failure at the senior levels of an organisation, making it easier to bring prosecutions.

The new offence would complement, not replace, other forms of accountability such as prosecutions under health and safety legislation. And it would be clearly linked to the standards required under those laws. This is not about introducing new regulatory burdens, stifling entrepreneurial activity or creating a risk averse culture and organisations taking a conscientious approach to their current obligations have nothing to fear. Nor is it about the individual liability of directors or others, which is not affected by the proposals. It is about ensuring that the law is effective in bringing to account, for a specific serious offence and corporately, organisations that have shown a clear disregard for the law with fatal consequences for members of their workforce or others.

The proposals would apply to Crown bodies, such as Government Departments, as well as the wider public sector and industry. They create a broad level playing field between public and private sectors, applying when both are carrying our similar activities, for example, in respect of ensuring the safety of their workforce and premises and when supplying goods or services or operating commercially. But the Crown and other bodies performing public functions are not in an identical position to private industry and certain core Government activities will be outside the scope of the Bill. These include key public functions such as setting and inspecting regulatory standards, issuing guidance and standards to public services or providing central procurement for public bodies. A narrow band of activities requiring specific lawful authority, such as the detention of prisoners (whether in a publicly or privately managed prison), and public policy decisions involving the allocation of public funds or competing social or political factors will also be exempt. The organisation and management of these functions involve wider questions of public policy where Parliament, public inquiries or the broader democratic process provides accountability.

I welcome the process of scrutiny and consultation that will follow publication of this draft Bill. Consultation will run until 17 June and I welcome comments from across the board: industry, unions and other stakeholders. The draft Bill is also being published for parliamentary pre-legislative scrutiny and I look forward to receiving the report that will follow that process.

Copies of the draft Bill have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The draft legislation is also available on the Home Office website at: www.homeoffice.gov.uk./.

I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses a copy of a new DFID report, "The UK and the World Bank 2004".

This report describes the UK's work with the World Bank over the bank's financial year 2004 (known as FY04: July 2003–June 2004). In line with my commitment to greater transparency on our relations with the bank, it sets out the broad positions the UK took in a number of discussions at the bank—on the bank's support to poor countries' development, its role in responding to debates on global issues such as debt and trade, and its institutional effectiveness. The report also records the UK's position on resolutions adopted by the Board of Governors. It will be an annual publication; the next report will cover the period July 2004–June 2005.

The UK believes that the World Bank is an effective development organisation, but its performance can still be improved. In FY04, the UK pressed the bank to improve performance in a number of areas, for example: ensuring that country assistance strategies focus on poverty reduction; using more poverty and social impact analysis (PSIA), and making more bank information available to the public. Since the end of FY04, we have also successfully pressed the bank to review its use of conditionality. We will report on this initiative in our next report on the UK and the World Bank.

My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General has made the following ministerial statement:

"The trial judge in the case of R v. Rayment and Others at the central criminal court has today, 22 March 2005, discharged the jury, ending the proceedings.

The trial dealt with an alleged fraud over contracts for the construction of London's Jubilee line extension project. The prosecution arose from allegations that the defendants conspired to defraud London Underground by gaining access to confidential insider information, which was used against London Underground Limited's interests during the course of its dealings with tenderers and contractors on the Jubilee line extension project. The information was relevant to the award of contracts worth tens of millions of pounds and also two substantial claims for additional monies under contracts awarded in connection with the Jubilee line extension project. The allegations also concerned corrupting public officials entrusted with safeguarding London Underground Limited's interests.

Experienced lawyers considered the evidence in detail and a decision to prosecute was taken. Charges were brought in February 2000. Lord Williams, when he was Attorney General, granted consent in February 2000 to prosecute the corruption case on the basis that there was sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and it was in the public interest to prosecute.

The CPS were ready for trial in 2001 but the case was split into two trials. The first trial started with a jury on 26 June 2003. The case has been affected by delays and breaks. Time has been lost due to illness, scheduled holidays, periods of paternity leave, an operation and sickness of defendants. Legal argument has also involved substantial periods where the jury were not required to hear evidence. For example, in the last seven months the jury has heard evidence on only 13 days of the 140 available.

The judge's ruling followed submissions by all parties in response to a request from the judge.

Prosecuting counsel have advised that it is their clear view that there have been such delays and interruptions to this case that a fair trial is now impossible. Counsel formed a judgement that the case ought to be stopped. The DPP and I agree with that view and, therefore, approved prosecution counsel's statement to the trial judge informing her of this view.

I agreed with the DPP last year the need for more control and robust management of large cases. The DPP has responded by developing a system, which will see a case management panel, chaired by the DPP, to consider the management of very large cases. The panel will consider issues such as the selection of charges, the number of defendants, likely number and length of trials and selection of trial advocates. It will also monitor progress of the case and key case management decisions during its life. It will be coupled with a similar process across the 42 CPS areas where chief Crown prosecutors will review the most serious and lengthy cases in their areas. This will be implemented from 4 April 2005 and I believe, offers real potential for getting a better grip on cases such as the current matter.

In addition, the DPP has recently announced a new structure to deal with the most serious and complex cases in CPS headquarters. This will involve the DPP in more direct and substantial control over such cases. I welcome this restructuring.

On 22 March the Lord Chief Justice issued a protocol for dealing with lengthy trials, which I welcomed. The protocol emphasises the need for robust and well-informed case management to identify and allow the court to focus on the real issues in the case. The new protocol fits clearly with the criminal case management framework that I issued last July together with Lord Falconer, Baroness Scotland and the Lord Chief Justice. The protocol and framework will continue the culture change in the way in which all criminal justice practitioners operate. The public are entitled to an efficient and effective criminal justice system and cases such as the present one must never be allowed to happen again.

This decision will cause great public disquiet as it causes me considerable disquiet. Most serious allegations have not in the end been brought to a final conclusion. It is important and in the interest of the defendants, to underline that these allegations have not been proved and that they have maintained they are not guilty.

Very considerable public money has been expended. Much time for a jury and for judge and defendants has been expended. It is important to learn what lessons we can. I have therefore asked Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of CPS, Stephen Wooler, to report to me on this case under section 2(1)(b) of the CPS Inspectorate Act 2000. The terms of reference of this review will be drawn up shortly. The DPP has confirmed that the prosecution will provide full cooperation in this inquiry."

I am pleased to announce that light dues rates and the tonnage threshold will remain the same for 2005–06. The Government remain committed to a cost recovery system yet rates have been reduced significantly in the last 12 years. They were last reduced in 2004.

Despite the General Lighthouse Authorities having undertaken a programme of major capital investment—the redevelopment of the Trinity House Lighthouse Service depot at Harwich and the replacement of GLA ships, costs to the industry have remained static. These projects will be funded out of the General Lighthouse Fund. We shall continue to work closely with the General Lighthouse Authorities to maximise efficiency where we can and to ensure that the benefits that have been achieved are returned to light dues payers.

The Study into the Economic Effects of Light Dues carried out by consultants, MDS Transmodal and DTZ Pieda, was commissioned in 2003. The study examined the direct economic impact of light dues charges on shipping lines, ports and owners of fishing vessels and pleasure craft and on the wider UK economy and the economic implications of alternative charging options. The study concluded that the requirement to pay light dues did not distort trading by commercial shipping to and from the UK. The charge had negligible effects on the economy. Removal of most of the existing exemptions would also have little impact on overall economic activity, as would an annual charge of around £100 on pleasure craft. This level of charge being an assumption, and chosen because it is the equivalent approximately to the annual cost of other Government levies, such as an annual television licence and the road fund licence for a small car.

I have considered the case for restructuring the current light dues system and in particular, extending the scope of the charge to all pleasure craft. A number of charging approaches have been discussed—for example registration of vessels, a charge based on moorings, or a charge based on vessel movements. All of these systems would be expensive and time consuming to establish, relative to the levels of charge to be levied. I have decided, therefore, that a cost effective, enforceable, collection mechanism for pleasure craft cannot be introduced at the present time.

I do not propose to change the structure of the current charging system for the foreseeable future.

Today we are breaking new ground by publishing, for the first time, a comprehensive strategy for an ageing society, entitled "Opportunity Age—Meeting the challenges of ageing in the 21st century".

British people are living much longer and on the whole healthier lives. The evidence points to a continuation of that trend. The strategy plans ahead for the changes this will bring and gives a lead to the broad partnership we need to bring change about.

The strategy complements the Government's pension principles and the work of the Pensions Commission, by focusing on other aspects of economic and social life affected by demographic change: employment, healthier and more active ageing, and the services—health, care and housing—which an ageing society demands.

The Government see population ageing as an opportunity to be seized to raise our already impressive level of employment, engage older people in contributing to society actively, and to transform public services for older people to extend choice and support independence.

Our people, firms and partners in local authorities and the voluntary sector will need to adapt. The task of Government through this strategy is to identify the issues and the outcomes we want, give a lead, invest sustainably in support, where needed, and co-ordinate action effectively.

It reports progress to date—on higher employment levels among the over-50s, on reducing pensioner poverty, on better access to more effective healthcare delivered by our investment in the National Health Service. And it plans ahead by setting out a programme of Government action to promote wider change in society.

We are striving for change in employment, by setting a world-leading aspiration of an 80 per cent employment rate, so that we provide opportunities for people to sustain and extend their working lives by choice. We will legislate to consign age discrimination in the workplace to history; we will support inactive and unemployed older people so that they find jobs; we will enable working people to improve their skills and plan their later careers, retirement and pension options; we will extend opportunities for people to combine work and caring responsibilities.

We are promoting change, to support active ageing in communities which respect age and diversity: we will remove barriers which can prevent older people from taking up opportunities to learn, enjoy leisure activity or to contribute through volunteering. We will extend free local public transport. We will encourage local authorities to engage with older people so that their needs are built into the priorities of local communities.

We are delivering change, to extend independence and choice in the way we deliver the support services older people need: we will offer an individual budget which older people will be able to use to buy in their care package, exercising real control like any customer. We believe that independence can be sustained even when infirmity sets in. We will pilot this new approach and also include Supporting People funding in nine of these pilots up to a maximum of 1 per cent. of each authority's annual allocation for that programme.

And through our link-age programme, we will build over time, an integrated home visiting service which can offer older people a personal care, benefit, heating and housing check up, so they receive their full entitlement to support for independent living at home.

Part of this strategy will be consultative. We are seeking views on the outcomes, and indicators assess progress towards improved quality of life. We will involve a wide range of central and local government partners and voluntary bodies in regular assessments. Consultation will finish on 17 July 2005.

We look forward with optimism to a future without ageism and in which older people are respected members of our communities contributing even more than they do now to society. Our strategy sets a sustainable path.