I am today publishing revised guidance for Departments on the handling of Members' and Peers' correspondence.

Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

The Office for National Statistics' annual report and accounts for 2004–05 is being laid before Parliament today. It contains an assessment of how the Office for National Statistics performed against its key targets in 2004–05. Copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses and electronic copies are freely accessible on the National Statistics website.

On 12 July I chaired the first meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) under the UK presidency. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), represented the UK.

I set out the UK presidency's work programme, copies of which are available in the Libraries of both Houses, and highlighted measures to combat terrorist financing. ECOFIN agreed to offer advice and technical assistance to other countries which need to build up anti-terrorist finance capacity.

The Council took note of progress on financing for development. This will be discussed further at the Informal ECOFIN ahead of the UN Millennium Development Goals Summit in New York on 14–16 September.

The Council discussed support for the economic regeneration in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and invited the Commission and the European Investment Bank to pursue their work on options for the economic regeneration of this area and to report back to the Informal ECOFIN meeting in September.

The Commission presented its Communication on a "Roadmap to an integrated internal control framework". Council conclusions were agreed on the process for taking this issue forward.

The Council adopted an opinion on an updated stability programme presented by Portugal for the period 2005–09.

The Council reached political agreement on a decision, under article 104(6) of the EC treaty, on the existence of an excessive deficit in Italy and on a Recommendation, under article 104(7), on action to be taken for its correction. The Council will adopt the Decision and Recommendation by written procedure at the end of July, once Council Regulation (EC) No. 1056/2005, which implements the new rules on the excessive deficit procedure, has entered into force.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury chaired a ministerial dialogue with the accession and candidate countries, approving joint conclusions on all four countries (Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia and Turkey), and joint opinions on Bulgaria's and Romania's 2004 pre-accession economic programmes.

7 June ECOFIN

I represented the UK the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) in Brussels.

The Council agreed Conclusions:

on statistical governance;

allowing for a change to the common side of euro coins to ensure that the map of Europe reflected the enlargement of the EU to 25; and

on guidelines for Member States in determining the national side of their euro coins and also on the handling of euro coins unfit for circulation.

The Council agreed to abrogate the existing excessive deficit procedure against the Netherlands.

The Council adopted the broad economic policy guidelines. The text was submitted to the European Council in June for approval.

The UK introduced a joint UK-Luxembourg Paper on "Financing for Development". The Council discussed the EU's strategy on financing for development. Member States confirmed their commitment to the ODA target of 0.7 per cent. GNI by 2015.

Political Agreement was reached by the Council on the Third Money Laundering Directive. The Council agreed a general approach on company law directives covering annual and consolidated accounts.

ECOFIN agreed that the Savings Tax Directive would apply from 1 July subject to final confirmations of bilateral agreements from European third countries and crown dependencies.

ECOFIN welcomed the progress achieved by the code of conduct group under the Luxembourg presidency.

The Treasury will publish a consultation paper on Monday 25 July seeking views on its proposals to strengthen and modernise the arrangements under which a limited number of commercial banks in Scotland and Northern Ireland are permitted to issue their own banknotes. Copies will be available in the Libraries of the House. Responses to the consultation will be requested by Friday 16 September.

This is to announce regulations under section 104 Finance Act 1986 to provide relief from double inheritance tax charges in situations caught by the pre-owned assets provisions at Schedule 15, Finance Act 2004.

Double inheritance tax (IHT) charges can arise in certain circumstances when taxpayers who have used IHT avoidance schemes re-arrange their affairs in response to the income tax charge on "pre-owned assets" introduced by Schedule 15, Finance Act 2004.

My statement of 8 March 2005 announced regulations to provide relief from double charges where taxpayers have made an election to disapply the pre-owned asset income tax charge under paragraph 21, Schedule 15.

Comparable double charges can arise where taxpayers do not make this election, but instead dismantle their previous arrangements so that the pre-owned asset income tax charge is no longer due. In particular, many taxpayers have used a "double trust" scheme; this involves selling a valuable asset to one trust in which the vendor retains an interest, in exchange for an IOU, and then giving the IOU to a second trust. The gift is a potentially exempt transfer for IHT purposes, and the value of the IOU will be chargeable if the scheme user dies within seven years of implementing the scheme. If in the meantime the scheme has been reversed, so that the full value of the asset originally sold is back in the scheme user's ownership at the time of their death, that value will also be subject to IHT.

I am satisfied that scheme users can have legitimate non-avoidance reasons for arranging their affairs in this way, and the regulations already made will therefore be extended to provide relief from double charges which arise from their doing so. They will cover cases where:

a deceased person has made a gift of a debt owed to them;

the gift was chargeable to IHT or becomes so chargeable (by virtue of the donor's death);

the donor dies within seven years of the gift and on or after 6 April 2005;

the debt was entered into as consideration for the purchase of an asset owned by the donor, or to provide funds for such a purchase;

the full value of that asset, or of property derived from it, is also chargeable to IHT as part of the donor's estate at death.

In those circumstances, relief will be given so that tax will be due only on the more valuable of the two chargeable assets mentioned.

The regulations will be made as soon as practicable and made available in HM Revenue and Customs' website (www.hmrc.gov.uk).

"Regional funding allocations: Guidance on preparing advice" is today being published by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Transport, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and myself. This is in response to the consultation launched at the time of the 2004 pre-Budget report, devolving decision making: A consultation on regional funding allocations. The publication includes indicative regional transport spending over the 2004 spending review period, and indicative longer-term funding assumptions for transport, economic development and housing. Regions are invited to provide advice on priorities within the three indicative funding allocations. Copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses. The report can also be obtained free on the HM Treasury website.

I am pleased to announce the publication of the Government's response to the Constitutional Affairs and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Select Committees' report on Electoral Registration.

As the Committees' report recognises, there is a challenge to be met in achieving the objectives of security, participation and full registration of all those who are entitled to the franchise. The Committees provide a thoughtful analysis of these issues, and a range of possible solutions.

Work in this area is ongoing and many of the Committees' suggestions are under active consideration. The Government will inform the Committees and the House when this work has concluded.

Copies of the Government response will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

The magistrates courts business returns annual report 2004–05 has been laid before Parliament today. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

In the statement I made to this House on 22 July 2004, I said that I would report further material developments in the move towards digital switchover. I am pleased to say that good progress continues to be made.

By the end of March 2005, digital television was being enjoyed by over 62 per cent. of the UK households.

A growing number of retailers and manufacturers, as well as other parts of the industry, are using the digital switchover logo and committing to give reliable information to consumers. Over 250 retail organisations (representing over 2,300 retail outlets, covering both nationwide chains and small independent stores), 20 manufacturers (covering most major brands) and seven manufacturers of aerials and/or coaxial cables had registered to use the logo by June 2005.

A not-for-profit company, Switchco, has been set up by the public service broadcasters and the digital terrestrial television multiplex operators, with the support of manufacturers, and retailers, to co-ordinate the technical roll out of digital terrestrial television across the UK, region by region, to a timetable agreed by Government.

While the Government will continue to inform the public of the benefits of digital switchover, Switchco will lead a major communication campaign to educate the public and ensure everyone knows what is happening, what they need to do, and when. They will also liaise with TV manufacturers, retailers, aerial installers, digital platform operators and consumer groups to ensure the switchover programme is properly implemented.

The new digital replacement licences for the commercial public service broadcasters (ITV, Channel 4, Five and Teletext) require the extension of the digital terrestrial network so that digital coverage can reach the same level as analogue. By this means we should be confident that the 98.5 per cent. of households who today are able to receive all the nationally available analogue public services will be able to receive the digital equivalents of these services. We are also considering with OFCOM how people who cannot receive analogue television could receive digital television through satellite, cable, ADSL or another emerging technology.

We are publishing today the report of the digital switchover technical trial in Ferryside and Llansteffan and the associated research on Vulnerable Households. This trial investigated the technical issues for broadcasters and consumers associated with the switch from analogue to digital terrestrial television transmission. It has received overwhelming support from the community involved which was the first one to undergo the switchover process.

We acknowledge that landlords who own or manage communal TV systems need to start taking steps to prepare for digital switchover. In association with the Chartered Institute of Housing, we are developing comprehensive new guidance for private and social sector landlords who have properties with analogue communal systems which need to be upgraded. The guidance will be published during the summer.

As stated in our Manifesto, we are committed to achieving digital switchover between 2008 and 2012 ensuring universal access to high-quality, free-to-view and subscription digital TV.

However, we need to ensure that the interests of elderly people and other vulnerable groups are protected. We know there will be some people who need assistance to understand, install and use digital television equipment.

We will be running a pilot in Bolton this autumn. This will help us to understand how best to provide this assistance whether it is by using leaflets, dedicated phone lines, support from social workers and charities or installation by professional engineers.

We are now close to the point where we will have the information which we require to confirm the region by region timetable for switchover. I expect to make a further announcement this autumn, and will report further progress to the House as appropriate.

Copies of the report have been placed in both Libraries of the House and are available at www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk

Key targets have been set for the chief executive of DSDA for financial year 2005–06 ¹ . The targets are as follows:

a. Key Target 1. To meet the customers' requirements as negotiated and agreed in business agreements (BAs). This key target is broken down into the following sub-targets (each sub-target is reported separately):

i. Key Target 1a. For explosive materiel; to supply 95 per cent. of available maintained munitions within demand timescales.

ii. Key Target 1b. For non-explosive materiel; to supply 95 per cent. of issues to consumers, as forecast and agreed in BAs, to meet that element of the supply chain pipeline time (SCPT) for which DSDA has responsibility.

iii. Key Target 1c. To process within limits, agreed with each individual customer, 98 per cent. of all receipts that conform to the specifications laid down in the contract and/or materiel regulations.

b. Key Target 2. KT2 is an efficiency measure for continuous performance improvement to achieve a 2.5 per cent. (net of 2.5 per cent. inflation factor) reduction in the unit cost of output (UCO) in FY05–06 (based on FY04–05) while maintaining an effective level of services to the customers in accordance with the BAs.

c. Key Target 3. The value of inventory written off as a result of DSDA's actions to be less than the levels agreed within each business agreement BA. This key target is broken down into two sub-targets:

i. Key Target 3a. The value of explosives materiel written off as a result of DSDA's action to be less than 0.02 per cent. of the explosives inventory. This includes associated weapons build components that are integral to the weapon system or munitions (including non-explosive components), tools, test equipment and materials that belong to the integrated project teams (IPTs), which are in the custody of DSDA.

ii. Key Target 3b. The value of non-explosive materiel written off as a result of DSDA's action to be less than levels agreed within each specific BA.

The chief executive of the Army Training and Recruiting Agency (ATRA) has been set the following key targets for 2005–06:

Key Target 1

To meet the Army's requirement from the ATRA for 666 trained mainstream officers available to take up their first appointment within a permissible variance of 3 per cent. (below only).

1 The key targets for the remainder of this year, and subsequent years may be revised to reflect the future defence supply chain initiative recommendations.

Key Target 2

To meet the Defence requirement from the ATRA for 1,807 Army recruits who have completed common initial training and are available to Defence Training Agencies for their specialist training with a permissible variance of +5 per cent. to -5 per cent.

Key Target 3

To meet the Defence requirement from the ATRA for 8,863 ratings, soldiers and airmen (7,649 from ATRA schools and 1,447 to the other services) trained as specialists and available to take up their first appointment within a permissible variance of+5 to -5 per cent. in any career employment group or capbadge.

Key Target 4

To achieve a 96 per cent. first time pass for all officers and other ranks made available to undergo career or professional development training and meeting entry standards.

I am pleased to announce our decision that the military afloat reach and sustainability (MARS) programme should now enter its assessment phase.

This is excellent news for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA), which will operate the ships, the Royal Navy and the armed forces. MARS will be a cornerstone of our future worldwide operations, replacing many of the RFA's existing ships. It will support our new aircraft carriers and the rest of the fleet, as well as deployed amphibious, land and air forces close to the shore.

The MARS programme is currently assuming three classes of ships, which will deliver fuel and other stores to the fleet, helicopter support and sea-based logistics for deployed forces. During the project's assessment phase, we will investigate a range of solutions to meet this capability.

The Ministry of Defence has been reviewing how best to organise elements of our supply chain in order to provide the armed forces with the necessary logistic support in a modern environment. I am today able to announce the outcome of a number of studies into logistic support arrangements.

The Future Defence Supply Chain initiative aims to deliver a modern and effective Defence Supply Chain focused on meeting the demands of today's armed forces both in peace-time and in support of operations. MOD has been evaluating four alternatives and has selected an in-House option worked-up in close consultation with the trades unions to provide the best possible combination of effectiveness and cost. By updating processes, improving training for staff, rationalising the distribution network and the closure of the storage depots at Stafford by the end of 2007, Llangennech by mid-2008, and Longtown by mid-2009 we expect to make savings of over £50 million per year by 2010 and over £400 million over the next 10 years.

The new organisation will require around 2,000 fewer civilian posts and around 50 fewer armed forces personnel. These reductions will contribute to the wider MOD manpower reductions announced in the 2004 White Paper.

A study into the future role of the Defence Munitions Centre at Crombie in Dumferline West is now complete and I have decided, subject to consultation with the national trades unions, to implement the recommendations.

The study determined that the explosives storage capacity available at DMC Crombie is not required to meet the known and projected storage liability of its customers. Crombie will, in future, concentrate on providing a loading/off-loading function to HM Ships and Royal Fleet Auxiliaries, together with berthing and other jetty operations.

DMC Crombie currently employs 168 staff. If the recommendations of the Study are implemented, there would be a reduction of 142 posts at the site. It is anticipated that 67 posts would go in the first year, with the balance of 75 posts being phased over years 2006–07 to 2009–10. Implementation of the study recommendations has the potential to deliver savings in the order of £18.1 million over a 10 year period.

I have also today approved, subject to conclusion of trade union consultation, ABRO's proposal, to begin phase one of a two part rationalisation programme. Phase one addresses the immediate impact of the downturn in ABRO's Defence revenue projections, but will not diminish the range of capabilities ABRO is currently able to deliver to the front line.

As a result, ABRO will reduce its headcount to approximately 2,150 posts by 31 March 2006, which includes the potential for up to 246 redundancies. The changes will realise annual manpower cost savings in the region of £2.1 million in 2005–06, and £8.3 million per year thereafter.

ABRO are still developing phase two of the programme but the aim is to address the process efficiencies, site re-structuring, and other change initiatives required to ensure ABRO has a sustainable competitive position from which it can grow in the medium term.

Finally, as a direct consequence of an announcement made today by Rolls-Royce Defence Aerospace on the outcome of an open competition for future overhaul and component repair on RB199 engine modules, up to 50 jobs will be lost at the Defence Aviation Repair Agency's (DARA) Engines Business Unit at Fleetlands in Gosport, Hampshire. I have agreed that DARA can now begin the formal 30-day consultation process with the trades unions.

We are doing everything possible to mitigate the impact on the people affected by these announcements. Our current plans envisage that the majority of civilian reductions will be achieved through a combination of natural wastage and voluntary early release but some compulsory redundancies may prove necessary. There will be no redundancies from the armed forces. Staff and the trade unions are being kept fully informed of developments through meetings, briefings and formal consultation.

A key principle of the Government's approach to addressing the health concerns of veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf Conflict is that there should be appropriate research into veterans' illnesses and factors that may have a bearing on these.

The Ministry of Defence has funded a study by the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control into the particular interaction of anthrax and pertussis vaccines in mice. The study is part of a wider programme of research into vaccines interactions, which has been overseen by an independent panel of experts. A paper reporting the final results of the study was published in the online version of the journal Human Vaccines on 14 July 2005 in advance of hard-copy publication in the August/September edition of the journal. In brief, the researchers report that, in mice, pertussis vaccine, vaccine combinations, or aluminium salt caused illness; anthrax vaccine produced little effect; diluted vaccine combinations produced less serious side effects of shorter duration; and pertussis vaccines act as an adjuvant for anthrax vaccine. As the researchers point out, caution should be exercised in applying these results to humans because of the relatively high dosage used in the tests and the very different sensitivity to these vaccines in mice and humans.

This work represents a further step towards meeting the Department's commitment to investigate these issues. A full summary of the findings is freely available on the journal website and via a link on the MOD website at: www.mod.uk/issues/gulfwar/whats–new.htm

As was recognised in the 2003 defence White Paper, "Delivering Security in a Changing World" (Cm 6041–I), the international situation that we now face is radically different to that of the cold war. As a consequence, there have been a great many changes to the size and structure of our armed forces as they have adapted to meet this changed environment. I am today announcing two such changes.

The cold war radar station of RAF Saxa Vord on the Shetland island of Unst will be put on care and maintenance from April 2006, subject to consultation with the trade unions. This will mean that the station is effectively closed, but that the main operational part of the estate will continue to be maintained should it be required for future use. Further work will be undertaken to consider how much of the remainder of the station will be retained.

Radar cover at the level required can be provided by other RAF radars augmented by those of the National Air Traffic Services. Placing the station on care and maintenance means that we would be able to re-instate a radar capability should the threat assessment change. Some 70 service personnel, 30 MoD civilians and 10 contractor staff will be affected by this proposal.

I understand this will be disappointing news for our staff, the island of Unst and the Shetland islands community. Naturally, we will be happy to work with the Scottish Executive and the local authority to consider any measures within the defence remit that might assist the local community to adjust to the proposed change.

As announced on 21 July 2004, the role of providing ground based air defence (GBAD) is to be transferred to the Army and the four Royal Air Force GBAD squadrons disbanded.

I am now able to inform the House that 37 Squadron RAF Regiment based at RAF Wittering will disband by March 2006, that 16 Squadron, based at RAF Honington, will disband by March 2007, and that 15 Squadron and the RAF GBAD wing headquarters, also based at RAF Honington, and 26 Squadron, based at RAF Waddington, will disband by March 2008.

This phased programme will allow that Royal Regiment of Artillery to take over the pan-defence GBAD role in a progressive manner. The RAF Regiment will now focus on its role protecting other elements of the armed forces, particularly on deployment.

As part of these changes, both 3 Squadron RAF Regiment, based at RAF Aldergrove and the Queen's Colour Squadron, based at RAF Uxbridge, will be expanded by around 40 personnel each in order to enhance their operational capability to match that of the other four regular RAF Regiment field squadrons. This will improve the units' ability to deploy on operations and so enhance the operational flexibility of the RAF Regiment in its force protection role.

Around 340 posts will be lost as a result of these changes. These form part of the 7,500 RAF post reductions also announced last July. I do not expect any redundancies additional to those announced on 9 December 2004 (Official Report, column 102WS) to result from this announcement.

As a consequence of the decision taken last July, the RAF has conducted an overall review of the structure and basing of the RAF Regiment. As a result of this work, I have decided that 1 Squadron RAF Regiment will move from RAF St Mawgan to RAF Honington by March 2007.

In addition, I have decided that 2625 (County of Cornwall) Squadron Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment, based alongside 1 Squadron at RAF St Mawgan, should be disbanded with effect from November 2006. This decision has been taken as Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment squadrons need to be based alongside regular units in order to maximise training opportunities and give the auxiliary personnel access to equipment held by the regular unit. With 1 Squadron's relocation, this would not be possible at St Mawgan. Around 75 reservists will be affected. Members of 2625 Squadron will be offered the opportunity to continue their reservist activities with other parts of the armed forces reservist organisation or with an alternative RAF unit elsewhere.

We are doing everything possible to mitigate the impact on the people affected by these announcements. Our current plans envisage that the majority of reductions will be achieved through a combination of natural wastage and voluntary early release, but some compulsory redundancies may prove necessary. Staff and the trade unions are being kept fully informed of developments through meetings, briefings and formal consultation.

The Government are today publishing summary responses on the remaining issues raised in their consultation on the implementation of the licensing provisions in the Housing Act 2004. These cover the licensing of private sector Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs) in Part 2 of the Act and the discretionary powers for the Selective Licensing of privately rented properties in areas of low housing demand or significant anti-social behaviour in Part 3 of the Act. This follows on from a statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) on 6 April 2005 which covered the principal issues arising from the HMO licensing consultation exercise. Copies of these responses have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

We are also announcing the Government's intentions on a number of related issues which have been raised by consultees during the period following the end of the formal consultation exercise.

The two consultation papers Licensing in the Private Rented Sector: Consultation on the Implementation of HMO Licensing (published in July 2004) and Licensing in the Private Rented Sector: Consultation on the Implementation of Selective Licensing (published in July 2004) sought to explain the Government's proposals for licensing in the private rented sector. They invited interested parties to comment on how the powers should be implemented, and asked questions about the possible form that the necessary items of secondary legislation should take.

The consultation period for selective licensing ended in October 2004 and for HMO licensing in February 2005. There was a considerable amount of cross-over in these exercises which explains the delay in producing the summary of responses for the selective licensing work. We have now analysed all the responses and reached decisions on most of these issues: this has allowed us to start drafting the appropriate secondary legislation to allow these important measures to be commenced by the late autumn of this year. We also plan to phase the introduction of the enforcement provisions over a period of no more than three months from commencement to allow local authorities' licensing procedures to settle down and to allow landlords sufficient time to make their applications.

On most of the remaining issues covered by the consultation paper, the majority of respondents agreed with the Government's proposals.

The Government are introducing licensing as a measured response to the problems of the private rented sector. They are keen to strike the right balance between setting clear national benchmarks and giving local authorities the discretion to respond to local housing market conditions.

A paper detailing the responses to the consultations and the Governments intentions regarding them has been placed in the Libraries of both House Libraries.

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects to publish in August:

a new Planning Policy Statement on Biodiversity and Geological Conservation; and

an accompanying joint ODPM/DEFRA Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation—Statutory obligations and their impact within the Planning System.

The new Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9) sets out the Government's planning policies for biodiversity and geological conservation in England. A joint ODPM/DEFRA circular accompanies PPS9 and will provide administrative guidance on the law relating to planning and nature conservation as it applies in England. Together these two documents will replace existing Planning Policy Guidance note 9 on Nature Conservation (PPG9), published in October 1994.

Drafts of PPS9 and the accompanying Circular were issued for public consultation in September 2004. PPS9 has a new emphasis on the need to conserve, enhance and restore biodiversity and makes clear that geological conservation is an important part of protecting our natural heritage. Positive planning which facilitates conservation of biodiversity and geological conservation contributes to the Government's principles for sustainable development set out in the UK Strategy. The policies set out in PPS9, together with the guidance in the circular will enable planning authorities, regional planning bodies and planning inspectors to play their part taking forward the UK Strategy.

It is also our intention to publish, later in the year, good practice guidance to complement the PPS and the circular.

Copies of PPS9 and the accompanying Government circular will be placed in the Library of the House following publication of the documents. They will also be made available on the website of ODPM. A summary of the responses to the consultation drafts has been published on the ODPM web site and copies of the responses will be made available for inspection through the ODPM library.

I am pleased to announce the final details of the Local Authority Business Growth Incentives scheme (LABGI), which will make its first payment in February 2006. The scheme allows local authorities to retain a share of increased business rates revenue generated in their area. By creating a direct financial incentive for local authorities to encourage business growth in their locality, LABGI provides the opportunity for local government and business to work together to deliver economic success and prosperity to their local community.

In our consultations we have set out five principles for the scheme, which the Government remains committed to:

that the scheme should give all local authorities an incentive to maximise local economic growth;

that the scheme will give local authorities additional revenues to spend on their own priorities;

that the incentive should be consistent with Government aims for growth in all regions of the country and reductions in the persistent gap in performance between regions;

that the distribution of benefits must be fair, reflecting relative performance not relative circumstances; and

that the scheme should be as intelligible and transparent as possible.

Following the announcement of the scheme in the Chancellor's 2002 pre-Budget report, consultations have been held in 2003 and 2004 and volunteer local authorities also took part in a dry-run exercise to test out the administration of the scheme. All responses to the consultations and the experiences from the test exercise have been carefully considered and taken into account in the details of the scheme I am confirming today.

Business growth is measured in terms of the increase in a local authority's rateable value during a calendar year. A single payment will be made to each eligible local authority in the final quarter of the financial year. The scheme operates as an unringfenced grant under Section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003: authorities are free to spend the revenue on their own priorities in their own areas. Administering the scheme in this way was broadly welcomed in the recent consultation.

The starting point for each authority is their rateable value at 31 December 2004. An authority's rateable value figure will not be reduced by successful appeals. Empty and part-empty property reliefs will be netted off, using the most recent set of audited data from the authority's normal National Non Domestic Rates (NNDR) return.

Each authority has a target level of rateable value growth that must be reached to benefit from LABGI—known as the floor. The floor is defined as an authority's baseline growth rate minus a national adjustment factor. Baselines are calculated using a National Historic Growth Model—the preferred model from the first consultation. This has been modified by dividing all the authorities into eight baseline groups based on historical growth rate, rather than seven as previously announced. Feedback from the second consultation highlighted a fairer split was necessary and we have accepted this argument.

The other features of the scheme are the same as the Government set out in the final consultation paper and which received broad support.

There is a national adjustment factor for all baseline groups of 1.4 per cent. At the end of the first year a new list of rateable values will be produced by the Valuation Office Agency, as at 31 December 2005, not including appeals, but net of empty and part-empty property reliefs. This will be compared to the starting list from 31 December 2004 to calculate each local authority's growth rate. Growth above the floor is then multiplied by the business rate multiplier. A scaling factor of 70 per cent. is applied to all revenues above the floor to calculate the final amount eligible locally. Each authority has a ceiling—the maximum revenue that can be kept in any year—with money above the ceiling being passed back to the central business rates pool for distribution between all authorities. An authority's gains in one year in excess of the ceiling will be counted against the following year's target. The ceiling is based on a modified version of part of the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services (EPCS) element of the Formula Spending Share (FSS) from the local authority's Revenue Support Grant calculation.

The ceilings in the first three years of the scheme will be 3 per cent., 6 per cent. and 9 per cent. of modified EPCS FSS, respectively. In two-tier areas, LABGI revenues will be shared out according to each tier's contribution to the total ceiling amount. In London, revenues will remain with the boroughs.

To prevent authorities that fail to gain money in one year having an unrealistic growth target the next year, their floor will be re-based and a new lower floor will be calculated. This will maintain the incentive effect of the scheme for all authorities. Feedback from the recent consultation suggested that re-basing floors was a positive modification to the scheme.

The scheme puts in place the right incentives for local government to work with local business and promote economic growth in its area. This will encourage local government to build effective partnerships with local business, to help deliver increased prosperity and to build long-term economic sustainability for its locality. Local authorities stand to gain up to £1 billion in England and Wales over three years—this is genuinely additional and unringfenced.

The scheme will be reviewed following the first year to test both how it is delivering against the design principles the Government set out and which were agreed in consultation and the level of spend from the scheme.

In March my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) and then Minister for Housing and Planning announced the majority of the 2005–06 round of planning delivery grant, a performance-related grant paid to local authorities in recognition of their work in planning. It is with pleasure that today I announce the remaining final element of that grant to the House.

This final grant element, rewarded on the basis of local planning authority performance in making future plans for their local area, amounts to £21,545,275 across English local authorities and will see each of the 395 local authorities that delivered a satisfactory local development scheme to Government offices by 28 March 2005 receive £54,545.

The planning delivery grant (PDG) is not ring-fenced or hypothecated beyond the condition that 25 per cent. of the total received in the 2005–06 financial year must be used for capital expenditure. In this year as a whole, £170 million has been invested in planning through the PDG, in addition to other efforts at boosting the resources available to enhance good planning, such as the raising of planning fees in April.

The Government's 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.

Today we have also launched a consultation on the next round of planning delivery grant, 2006–07, which proposes a further £135 million in planning resource to be announced in November 2005.

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will shortly publish for public consultation Proposed Changes to Regional Planning Guidance for the South East. These proposed changes concern policies on minerals and waste. They follow the public examination in October 2004 and the report of the independent panel in January 2005.

The changes stem from a partial review of RPG9 which aims to expand and further amplify policy on these topics. On commencement of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act in 2004 RPG9 became the statutory Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS).

Proposed changes include new and revised policies to encourage recycling and recovery of waste materials, provision of new waste treatment and handling facilities and ensure the continue supply of primary aggregates and other minerals.

Overall the panel considered the drafts to be broadly compatible with RPG9 and national policy. The panel did, however, recommend some changes. Notably, on waste the panel recommended adjustments to targets for diversion of waste from landfill and the target for recycling construction and demolition waste and that policy on waste management capacity requirements should be strengthened. On minerals, the panel recommended that the supply of primary aggregates should be increased to accord with national guidelines and that a lower target should be assumed for the proportion of aggregates to come from alternative materials. Government are grateful for the recommendations of the panel. We propose accepting the recommendations of the independent panel who held the public examination into the proposed alterations, with some adjustment particularly in order to provide clearer guidance for waste planning authorities on waste management capacity requirements.

The process of comprehensively reviewing RPG9 has already begun. Further refinement of these policies will be continued through this process. As part of this work the South East of England Regional Assembly is working towards improving the monitoring of waste management and mineral extraction. I support this valuable work.

I will also be writing to the regional assembly with the proposed changes. There will be a public consultation period on the proposed changes, from date of publication for a period of 12 weeks.

Copies of the relevant documents will be available, once published in the Libraries of the House and will be provided for all of the region's MPs, MEPs and local authorities.

I am pleased to be able to announce further information on the Government's local enterprise growth initiative, launched by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget in March. The responses to the consultation exercise were overwhelmingly positive and included many thoughtful comments, which will help us refine the initiative. A summary of submissions to the consultation and the Government's response will be issued soon.

In the meantime I am pleased to today place copies of a document on next steps in the Library of the House. This document includes basic background information on the next steps involved for those interested in being involved in the Local Enterprise Growth Inititative.

I am announcing today the publication of consultation drafts of four annexes to Minerals Policy Statement 1 (MPS1) "Planning and Minerals". These deal with "Aggregates provision in England", "Brick clay provision in England", "Natural building and roofing stone in England" and "Onshore oil and gas in England". These set out the planning policies that Government considers should be followed by local authorities, the minerals industry, and other stakeholders to ensure that the supply of these minerals is achieved at acceptable cost to society, including environmental costs, and to help protect the environment, in the interests of sustainable development. They should be read in conjunction with MPS1. That document, which contains the over-arching principles for minerals planning, will be finalised in the light of consultation carried out on it in winter 2004–05 and on these annexes.

When finally published, the annex "Aggregates provision in England" will, together with the guidelines for aggregates provision issued in June 2003 and parts of MPS1, complete the review and revision of Minerals Planning Guidance Note 6 "Guidelines for aggregates provision in England", published in 1994. When finalised, the annex "Onshore oil and gas in England" will replace DOE Circular 2/85 "Planning control over oil and gas operations".

The draft annexes to MPS1 take account of relevant legislative changes since earlier guidance was issued including the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004). They contribute to the Government's sustainable development objectives for planning and the creation of sustainable communities, by helping to secure the necessary supplies of minerals, particularly for construction, while seeking to minimise the effects of mineral working on local communities and the environment.

Consultation on the draft annexes to MPS1 will run until 31 October 2005. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

I am announcing today the allocation of a total of £1.3 billion new resources for the most deprived areas of England. These new resources for the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) and the Safer and Stronger Communities Fund (SSCF) demonstrate the Government's continued commitment to social justice and opportunity for all, to eradicate social exclusion and anti social behaviour.

The Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF)

People living in the most disadvantaged areas suffer most from antisocial behaviour and crime. We are determined to ensure, through the NRF, that respect within the community and between individuals is protected.

As part of the Spending Review 2004, the Government announced that they would be making available an additional £1.05 billion for the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) (£525 million for 2006–07 and a further £525 million for 2007–08).

These new resources are in addition to the £1.875 billion NRF the Government made available over the period 2001–06. The 88 Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) who have received NRF have made good progress in using it to help address some of the most serious problems in our most disadvantaged areas.

The gaps between these areas and the rest on crime, educational attainment and worklessness have narrowed. However, we must not be complacent and must continue to ensure that this progress is sustained and built upon. Reducing the health inequalities gap is a significant challenge and ODPM remains committed to working with the Department of Health and its Spearhead group of local authorities to tackle this issue.

The Government are determined to build momentum to ensure that improvements in quality of life and quality of public services reach the most disadvantaged citizens. Floor targets on employment, education, crime, health, housing and liveability are a public commitment to this work, and the success of some authorities in meeting them shows what is possible. We look forward to continuing our joint work to deliver change.

All the evidence shows that neighbourhood renewal is only successful when changes in the physical environment and improvement in public services are combined with a strong commitment to promote liveability and tackle antisocial behaviour. The determination of local authorities to use the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund to employ neighbourhood wardens and promote after-school provision for young people, side-by-side with active partnership with the police in the use of powers to tackle anti-social behaviour, is delivering real change on the ground. We will be working with local authorities, including through the Local Area Agreement process, to ensure that this approach is embedded in our regeneration activities, and that there is continued innovation to target the activity of the minority of citizens who can blight the lives of the majority.

This new NRF settlement, the largest since the neighbourhood renewal strategy was launched in 2001, recognises and will build upon progress so far, allowing LSPs more resources to help improve service delivery in their most disadvantaged neighbourhoods.

I am therefore announcing today the indicative allocations of £1.05 billion NRF resources for 2006–07 and 2007–08 to 86 local authority districts. Details of allocations to individual local authorities are set out in the attached table (Annex A). Final NRF allocations will be confirmed when the Revenue Support Grant (RSG) is paid to local authorities in November.

NRF will be allocated to any local authority area which falls within the 50 most deprived districts in England on any of the six district level measures of deprivation included in the Index of Deprivation 2004 (ID04). The size of the allocation to each eligible area has been determined by the number of people within the district living in the 10 per cent. most disadvantaged neighbourhoods in the country.

Six of the 88 authorities which are currently receiving NRF have improved sufficiently to come off the list of the most disadvantaged districts in the country. However, these authorities will continue to receive tapering NRF over the next two years. This funding will support these authorities over the transitional period and allow them to time to adapt and to sustain the progress they have made to date.

The Neighbourhood Element of the Safer and Stronger Communities Fund

As well as the new NRF allocations, I am also announcing the allocation of two elements of the new Safer and Stronger Communities Fund, the Neighbourhood Element and the Cleaner, Safer, Greener element.

The SSCF is one of the Local Area Agreement funding streams. The Neighbourhood Element of SSCF is also designed to address deprivation in our most disadvantaged neighbourhoods. It will provide funding for 100 of the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods in the country. Details of allocations of the neighbourhood element of SSCF to individual authorities are attached at Annex B. The new ID04 has allowed us to identify small pockets of deprivation in otherwise affluent areas for the first time. This element of the SSCF will target such neighbourhoods, including many beyond those areas that will receive NRF. Neighbourhood element funding is targeted at the 3 per cent. most disadvantaged neighbourhoods and is worth £41.3 million and £51.6 million in 2006–07 and 2007–08 respectively. Between the NRF and the neighbourhood element of SSCF, we will target a higher proportion of the people living in the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods in the country than has ever been possible before.

The Cleaner, Safer, Greener element of the Safer and Stronger Communities Fund

There is extensive evidence of a clear correlation between deprivation and poor local environmental quality. The cleaner safer greener element of SSCF, therefore, is being targeted at disadvantaged neighbourhoods in greatest need of improving their local public spaces. This element is worth £48.5 million and £56.5 million in 2006–07 and 2007–08 respectively. Details of individual allocations of the Cleaner, Safer, Greener element of SSCF are attached at Annex C.

Annexes A, B and C have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

On 12–13 July, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills chaired an informal meeting in London of Education Ministers from the EU, accession, candidate and EEA countries to look at how skills can contribute to raising productivity and therefore to the Lisbon goals for jobs and growth.

The meeting consisted of four sessions, which considered:

(1) Sector skills

My right hon. Friend outlined our presidency focus on highlighting how education and skills can contribute to the Lisbon agenda and the importance of skills responding to the needs of employers. Ministers discussed national experiences in developing sector-based approaches as a mechanism for employers to express skills requirements and to link education and training with labour market requirements in a knowledge economy.

There was consensus that employers should be involved in both designing and delivering vocational training courses, but only a few Member States involved employers in academic education. Ministers agreed that vocational training should be made more attractive to learners.

(2) European Qualifications Framework

This session was focused on a presentation by Commissioner Figel of the European Commission's consultation on a proposed European Qualifications Framework. This would provide a tool for improved understanding of qualifications from different countries. This should help mobility of learners and workers and thereby alleviate skills gaps. The Commission consultation is planned to last until the end of the year. The idea was welcomed by ministers, but they underlined that it should be user-friendly and must be implemented on a voluntary basis. Commissioner Figel explained that the Commission would propose a Council and Parliament Recommendation next spring.

(3) The Relationship of Skills to Productivity

The presidency tabled a paper, prepared by the four UK Government Skills Alliance Departments and agreed jointly with the European Commission. This sets out evidence for the contribution of skills to increasing productivity. It also raises questions for ministerial discussion.

Ministers discussed skills in a panel session with representatives from industry. John Monks, General Secretary ETUC, explained that unions could be ambassadors for learning. He pointed out that employees were often nervous about undertaking training, as they were worried about failing. Philippe de Buck, Secretary General of the EU-wide employers' organisation, UNICE, argued that governments needed to provide more support for training in companies particularly for SMEs. Bill Thomas, a member of the UK's ICT Sector Skills Council, underlined the importance of businesspeople understanding how ICT could be used to improve productivity.

Ministers agreed that economies would increasingly need highly skilled people, but also underlined the importance of having good basic skills as a foundation for achieving this.

(4) Possible Next Steps

The meeting concluded with Ministerial discussion groups. I chaired one group, with other groups chaired by Phil Hope MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Skills, and Allan Wilson MSP, Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning in Scotland.

During these groups, Ministers agreed that: skills needs should be addressed at a sectoral and regional level; better recognition of informal and non-formal learning was needed: and that businesses should be encouraged to invest more in training their employees. There was an interest in member states continuing to share experiences and learn from each other on sector-based approaches. There was also recognition that Education Ministers should explore ways of working across Government, with other Ministers with an interest in skills and productivity, and that Education Ministers should be closely involved drawing up Lisbon National Action Plans.

I have today placed in the Library of the House the Government's response to the third annual report of Independent Advisory Group on Teenage Pregnancy.

The Government welcome the recommendations made in the Independent Advisory Group's third annual report and acknowledges the valuable contribution the group makes to the strategy and its implementation. We have carefully considered and responded specifically to the recommendations put forward.

The responses are framed within the context of the wider "Change for Children" programme, focusing on the underpinning measures that are being put in place to ensure that work on reducing teenage conceptions, and on supporting teenage parents, remain a priority for all. These measures are designed to ensure that the delivery of the strategy is integrated with the joint needs assessment planning commissioning and funding decisions expected by all local authorities in the Children and Young People Plan.

This statement relates to schools' recurrent funding from 2006–07.

1. In February this year my Department launched a consultation on proposed new arrangements for school funding from 2006–07. The proposals were designed to deliver greater certainty and stability for schools, building on the package of measures that we put in place in 2004–05. In particular, they were designed to guarantee delivery of the Government's commitment to increase spending on schools in every local authority area, to provide schools with the tools to take a strategic approach to their financial planning, to reduce bureaucracy, and to give schools greater control over how they used the resources available to them for the benefit of their pupils.

2. I am today publishing a summary of the responses to the consultation and placing a copy of that summary in the Library of the House. I am grateful to all those who responded to the consultation, and in particular to our national partners with whom we have been discussing detailed implementation issues in parallel with the consultation.

3. For the most part, the Government's proposals were welcomed by respondents to the consultation, who recognised the significant benefits that they would bring for schools. However, it is clear from the responses we received and from our discussions with partners that some aspects of the proposals imply significant changes to the way in which local authorities manage the budget-setting process. The Government also recognises that it is critical that changes to the school funding system—and in particular those which affect the distribution of funds between local authorities or schools—are introduced gradually, in order to avoid a repeat of the financial difficulties which some schools experienced in 2003–04.

4. We therefore intend that the two years 2006–07 and 2007–08 should be a transitional period, and that the new arrangements should be introduced in full from 2008–09. During the first two years we will review a number of aspects of the system to ensure that when the new arrangements are fully implemented from 2008 they will be on a sound footing, and that funding is distributed in the most appropriate way possible.

5. The introduction of three year budgets for schools was widely welcomed by respondents to the consultation. From 2008–09, schools will receive three year budgets in line with the spending review cycle.

6. In the short term, the Government's decision to review its spending plans using a zero-based approach, to report in 2007, means that schools will receive a two year budget settlement in early 2006 to cover 2006–07 and 2007–08, but will not receive information for future years until after the spending review has reported. We intend to review the way in which the budget setting process has worked during 2006 and 2007, so that we can make any changes to the arrangements I am announcing today if necessary to ensure that the first full three year settlement in 2008–09 is implemented smoothly.

7. It remains the Government's aim to move school budgets onto an academic year basis in due course. However, although many respondents welcomed this proposal, some practical concerns were raised which we believe we should discuss further with our partners before making a final decision. It also makes sense to let the other changes we are introducing in 2006 bed down before making this further change. School budgets for 2006–07 and 2007–08 will therefore be set on a financial rather than an academic year basis, but we will review during that period whether to move to an academic year basis for setting budgets from 2008–09.

8. In deciding on how to implement multi-year budgets at school level, it has been necessary to strike a balance between certainty on the one hand and responsiveness to changed circumstances on the other. So we will require authorities to make key decisions before the start of each multi-year period, including the transitional two year period starting in 2006–07: for example how their local funding formula should work, and what the split should be between the amount of funding delegated to schools and the amount retained centrally by the local authority. But we will also allow flexibility for these decisions subsequently to be reconsidered in exceptional circumstances, and where the local Schools Forum agrees. This will be important to allow authorities to deal with significant and unexpected changes in circumstances.

9. We have also considered carefully how far we need to be prescriptive in terms of how multi-year budgets for individual schools are put together, and how far we can leave this to local discretion. We have concluded that it is essential that budgets are updated annually to reflect changes in pupil numbers; and we propose to require authorities to use a consistent approach to this. However, we believe that other decisions—in particular the extent to which annual changes should be made to reflect changes in other data—should be taken locally in discussion with the Schools Forum, to ensure that local circumstances can be fully taken into account.

10. The Learning and Skills Council will be carrying out its own consultation in the early autumn on its arrangements for providing school sixth forms with a two year settlement in 2006–07 and 2007–08.

11. Two key safeguards which were introduced into the system in 2004–05 will remain. The first is the minimum funding guarantee for schools, which will be the key guarantor of stability in schools' budgets during the transition to the new arrangements. There will continue to be a need for the detailed operation of the guarantee to be varied where it would otherwise produce an anomalous outcome due to local circumstances, and in future we intend that some variations of this kind should be agreed locally by the Schools Forum and only come to the Secretary of State where they can't be locally agreed.

12. The minimum funding guarantee will be set in advance for the whole of the period covered by schools' budgets. The Government's intention is to set the guarantee for 2006–07 and 2007–08 at a level which covers anticipated average cost pressures on schools in each of those years, including the full-year costs of implementing workforce reform, subject to a final assessment of those pressures. The precise level of the guarantee in each year will be announced in the autumn. We intend to review the way in which the guarantee should operate from 2008–09 onwards, including the link to cost pressures, with a view to ensuring that it leaves sufficient scope to redistribute funding in a way which responds to changing needs and priorities.

13. The Learning and Skills Council has confirmed that it will match the minimum funding guarantee for secondary schools in 2006–07 and 2007–08. The Learning and Skills Development Agency has however today published a report which identifies some technical anomalies between the school sixth form and further education funding systems: we intend to examine the scope for addressing these, and will announce our conclusions in the autumn.

14. The second key safeguard for schools in the current system is the limit on centrally retained expenditure within the schools budget: this ensures that the local authority's centrally retained budget cannot increase at a faster rate than funding delegated to the authority's schools, unless there are exceptional circumstances. This limit will continue to operate in essentially the same way as now; but in future any proposal by an authority to exceed the limit because of exceptional circumstances will need agreed locally by the Schools Forum and only come to the Secretary of State where it can't be locally agreed.

15. The introduction of a ring-fenced grant for schools, or Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) is an essential precursor to three year budgets for schools. Grant will be allocated to authorities to cover the same period for which we will require them to give their schools budget allocations, in line with the spending review cycle. That means we will allocate grant to cover 2006–07 and 2007–08 initially, and in late 2007 we will give authorities a three year settlement covering 2008–09 to 2010–11.

16. The baseline for the DSG at national level will be the total of authorities' budgeted expenditure on schools provision in 2005–06. I can confirm that, as set out in the Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners, the Dedicated Schools Grant for 2006–07 and 2007–08 will increase by 6 per cent. over that baseline in each year. Every authority will receive an increase of at least 5 per cent. per pupil in both 2006–07 and 2007–08. To protect schools in authorities with rapidly falling rolls, there will also be a minimum overall increase for authorities in cash terms: we will announce in the autumn the level at which that will be set.

17. The baseline for each individual authority will also start from its existing level of spend: there will be no need for authorities to add to the schools budget from their own resources in order to maintain spending at the current level. It nevertheless remains true that if we use the existing Schools Formula Spending Share (SFSS) distribution methodology to distribute the DSG as proposed in our consultation document, schools in authorities which currently spend above their SFSS allocation will, over time, see their funding level reduced in relative terms. A number of authorities have raised concerns about this. We have also been considering further whether the current approach, using a single formula, remains the most appropriate method for the distribution of DSG, under a system in which it determines far more closely the overall level of funding received by schools.

18. These two considerations have caused us to consider a modified method of distribution which takes the existing level of spend as the baseline, and gives every authority a minimum increase in its per pupil budget each year: as I have explained, this will be 5 per cent. in 2006–07 and 2007–08. The remaining grant would be distributed according to criteria which would be determined by Ministers in advance of each multi-year budget period. Distribution against these criteria would be through a formula based on objective data.

19. It would be possible for the existing SFSS formula to be used to determine the distribution of some or all of the increase above the minimum per pupil increase. We propose to keep the formula running in its current form, subject to some minor technical changes.

20. We believe it is important to seek the views of local authorities and others on this proposal before deciding whether to go ahead. We therefore intend to publish a consultation document shortly which will set out the proposals in more detail. We expect to announce final decisions, along with provisional allocations for individual authorities, in the autumn.

21. Because the modified method of distribution which we are proposing is in part a response to the problems of transition to the new system, we would propose to review its operation, to consider what lessons can be learned from the first two years of operation of the DSG, and also to work up proposals for the longer term. Equity of funding will be a key consideration in that review. We intend to complete that review by the summer of 2007, in time for the first three year allocations of DSG later that year.

22. The purpose of the ring-fenced grant is, of course, that money intended for schools reaches schools. The Dedicated Schools Grant will therefore be paid to authorities on condition that it is allocated in its entirety to the authority's schools budget. However, an issue raised in the consultation was whether local authorities should be able to include money from the schools budget along with money from other local authority services and other agencies in combined budgets in support of "Every Child Matters" work. We have concluded that they should be able to do so, where they can demonstrate that there are clear benefits for schools and pupils, and so long as the educational benefit is broadly proportionate to the contribution made and the Schools Forum agrees.

23. The consultation document also proposed a rationalisation of standards-related grants, to reduce complexity and bureaucracy and give schools greater freedom over how they spend their budgets. These proposals were broadly welcomed by respondents.

24. We therefore propose to combine a number of existing grants into a single School Development Grant from April 2006, as set out in the consultation document. To ensure stability for schools as we move to the new arrangements, the distribution of that grant in 2006–07 and 2007–08 will reflect the current distribution of its constituent grants. The grant will be increased each year in line with the minimum funding guarantee, and this will be funded through a transfer from the DSG: that amount, and the allocations available to individual authorities, will be announced in the autumn. We intend to end matched funding for school grants through a transfer from the Dedicated Schools Grant to specific grants.

25. Respondents to the consultation also agreed that it was necessary to retain some separate grants. Some will remain separate because they are targeted at particular schools, or time-limited. We have an existing commitment to keep the Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant separate and ring-fenced until at least 2008. And some grants are spent at local authority level and are not devolved to schools: grants in this last category are being considered as part of a separate exercise to rationalise local authority grants.

26. The School Standards Grant will remain separate from the consolidated grant in 2006–07 and 2007–08. We will replace the existing distribution methodology with a fairer formula based on a flat rate per school plus a per pupil amount, with transitional arrangements to ensure that no school loses out. Details will be announced in the autumn. Additional resources were allocated to the School Standards Grant in the Budget to help schools meet the challenges of developing extended services. As a result, from 2006–07 schools will be able to spend their School Standards Grant to support extended services.

27. From 2008–09, we will consider bringing the School Development Grant and the School Standards Grant together into a single standards grant. We will consult fully on how that grant should be distributed in due course.

28. The consultation document proposed that it should be possible, with Schools Forum agreement, for authorities to increase the amount they held back from the single grant from 2008–09 onwards. On reflection, we have decided not to go ahead with this proposal: we believe we should be working towards a position where schools decide for themselves whether to buy into additional central support from their authority.

29. Schools Forums will have a key role to play both during the transitional period and in the longer term. They currently have an important role as an advisory body, and this will continue. But from 2006–07 we will also be giving them a number of decision-making responsibilities. These powers will relate to areas where we are providing some flexibility for authorities to move away from the requirements of the school funding regulations in order to take account of specific local circumstances: in the past it has only been possible to exercise such flexibilities with the approval of the Secretary of State. The Government believes it is right that it should be possible to agree to the exercise of these flexibilities locally if a consensus can be reached. Where that is not the case, the authority will retain the right to apply to the Secretary of State for a decision.

30. The evidence is that many Schools Forums are already working effectively. However, as their role changes from a purely advisory one to one in which they will also be asked to make a range of important decisions on behalf of schools, it is clearly essential that schools can have confidence in those decisions. That means ensuring that Forums' constitutions and proceedings are appropriate to their new role, and that they have access to appropriate support and guidance.

31. We therefore intend to make a number of changes to the existing regulations governing Forums' constitution and proceedings, and draft regulations are being issued for consultation today. In addition we will publish, early in the autumn term, a good practice guide for Schools Forums and a range of other guidance to support them in exercising their new responsibilities.

32. In advance of the first three year budget settlement in 2008–09, we propose a wider review of the role of Schools Forums, and the way in which they are working. We will want to look in particular at the question of whether Forums are properly representative of the schools in their areas, and ensure that they have access to appropriate advice and support to ensure that they exercise their responsibilities effectively. We will also want to consider whether the remit of Forums remains right given changes in the school system since they were established: we might for example want to consider whether they should have a role in considering capital as well as recurrent funding issues.

33. Once they are fully implemented, the new arrangements I have outlined today will give schools greater certainty over their future budgets than ever before. And in doing so, they will provide schools with the tools they need to plan ahead with confidence, to improve their financial management, and to link their financial planning to the outcomes they are aiming to achieve. Taken together with other measures under the New Relationship with Schools which will provide a sharper focus on priorities for improvement specific to individual schools, these measures will ensure that each pound spent on school funding will have a greater impact in terms of delivering better education for our children.

34. My Department is issuing detailed guidance on the new arrangements to local authorities and others today. A copy of that guidance will be placed in the Library. The statement relates to schools' recurrent funding from 2006–07.

35. In February this year my Department launched a consultation on proposed new arrangements for school funding from 2006–07. The proposals were designed to deliver greater certainty and stability for schools, building on the package of measures that we put in place in 2004–05. In particular, they were designed to guarantee delivery of the Government's commitment to increase spending on schools in every local authority area, to provide schools with the tools to take a strategic approach to their financial planning, to reduce bureaucracy, and to give schools greater control over how they used the resources available to them for the benefit of their pupils.

36. I am today publishing a summary of the responses to the consultation and placing a copy of that summary in the Library of the House. I am grateful to all those who responded to the consultation, and in particular to our national partners with whom we have been discussing detailed implementation issues in parallel with the consultation.

37. For the most part, the Government's proposals were welcomed by respondents to the consultation, who recognised the significant benefits that they would bring for schools. However, it is clear from the responses we received and from our discussions with partners that some aspects of the proposals imply significant changes to the way in which local authorities manage the budget-setting process. The Government also recognises that it is critical that changes to the school funding system—and in particular those which affect the distribution of funds between local authorities or schools—are introduced gradually, in order to avoid a repeat of the financial difficulties which some schools experienced in 2003–04.

38. We therefore intend that the two years 2006–07 and 2007–08 should be a transitional period, and that the new arrangements should be introduced in full from 2008–09. During the first two years we will review a number of aspects of the system to ensure that when the new arrangements are fully implemented from 2008 they will be on a sound footing, and that funding is distributed in the most appropriate way possible.

39. The introduction of three year budgets for schools was widely welcomed by respondents to the consultation. From 2008–09, schools will receive three year budgets in line with the spending review cycle.

40. In the short term, the Government's decision to review its spending plans using a zero-based approach, to report in 2007, means that schools will receive a two year budget settlement in early 2006 to cover 2006–07 and 2007–08, but will not receive information for future years until after the Spending Review has reported. We intend to review the way in which the budget setting process has worked during 2006 and 2007, so that we can make any changes to the arrangements I am announcing today if necessary to ensure that the first full three year settlement in 2008–09 is implemented smoothly.

41. It remains the Government's aim to move school budgets onto an academic year basis in due course. However, although many respondents welcomed this proposal, some practical concerns were raised which we believe we should discuss further with our partners before making a final decision. It also makes sense to let the other changes we are introducing in 2006 bed down before making this further change. School budgets for 2006–7 and 2007–08 will therefore be set on a financial rather than an academic year basis, but we will review during that period whether to move to an academic year basis for setting budgets from 2008–09.

42. In deciding on how to implement multi-year budgets at school level, it has been necessary to strike a balance between certainty on the one hand and responsiveness to changed circumstances on the other. So we will require authorities to make key decisions before the start of each multi-year period, including the transitional two year period starting in 2006–07: for example how their local funding formula should work, and what the split should be between the amount of funding delegated to schools and the amount retained centrally by the local authority. But we will also allow flexibility for these decisions subsequently to be reconsidered in exceptional circumstances, and where the local Schools Forum agrees. This will be important to allow authorities to deal with significant and unexpected changes in circumstances.

43. We have also considered carefully how far we need to be prescriptive in terms of how multi-year budgets for individual schools are put together, and how far we can leave this to local discretion. We have concluded that it is essential that budgets are updated annually to reflect changes in pupil numbers; and we propose to require authorities to use a consistent approach to this. However, we believe that other decisions—in particular the extent to which annual changes should be made to reflect changes in other data—should be taken locally in discussion with the Schools Forum, to ensure that local circumstances can be fully taken into account.

44. The Learning and Skills Council will be carrying out its own consultation in the early autumn on its arrangements for providing school sixth forms with a two year settlement in 2006–07 and 2007–08.

45. Two key safeguards which were introduced into the system in 2004–05 will remain. The first is the minimum funding guarantee for schools, which will be the key guarantor of stability in schools' budgets during the transition to the new arrangements. There will continue to be a need for the detailed operation of the guarantee to be varied where it would otherwise produce an anomalous outcome due to local circumstances, and in future we intend that some variations of this kind should be agreed locally by the Schools Forum and only come to the Secretary of State where they can't be locally agreed.

46. The minimum funding guarantee will be set in advance for the whole of the period covered by schools' budgets. The Government's intention is to set the guarantee for 2006–07 and 2007–08 at a level which covers anticipated average cost pressures on schools in each of those years, including the full-year costs of implementing workforce reform, subject to a final assessment of those pressures. The precise level of the guarantee in each year will be announced in the autumn. We intend to review the way in which the guarantee should operate from 2008–09 onwards, including the link to cost pressures, with a view to ensuring that it leaves sufficient scope to redistribute funding in a way which responds to changing needs and priorities.

47. The Learning and Skills Council has confirmed that it will match the minimum funding guarantee for secondary schools in 2006–07 and 2007–08. The Learning and Skills Development Agency has however today published a report which identifies some technical anomalies between the school sixth form and further education funding systems: we intend to examine the scope for addressing these, and will announce our conclusions in the autumn.

48. The second key safeguard for schools in the current system is the limit on centrally retained expenditure within the schools budget: this ensures that the local authority's centrally retained budget cannot increase at a faster rate than funding delegated to the authority's schools, unless there are exceptional circumstances. This limit will continue to operate in essentially the same way as now; but in future any proposal by an authority to exceed the limit because of exceptional circumstances will need agreed locally by the Schools Forum and only come to the Secretary of State where it can't be locally agreed.

49. The introduction of a ring-fenced grant for schools, or Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) is an essential precursor to three year budgets for schools. Grant will be allocated to authorities to cover the same period for which we will require them to give their schools budget allocations, in line with the Spending Review cycle. That means we will allocate grant to cover 2006–07 and 2007–08 initially, and in late 2007 we will give authorities a three year settlement covering 2008–09 to 2010–11.

50. The baseline for the DSG at national level will be the total of authorities' budgeted expenditure on schools provision in 2005–06. I can confirm that, as set out in the Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners, the Dedicated Schools Grant for 2006–07 and 2007–08 will increase by 6 per cent. over that baseline in each year. Every authority will receive an increase of at least 5 per cent. per pupil in both 2006–07 and 2007–08. To protect schools in authorities with rapidly falling rolls, there will also be a minimum overall increase for authorities in cash terms: we will announce in the autumn the level at which that will be set.

51. The baseline for each individual authority will also start from its existing level of spend: there will be no need for authorities to add to the schools budget from their own resources in order to maintain spending at the current level. It nevertheless remains true that if we use the existing Schools Formula Spending Share (SFSS) distribution methodology to distribute the DSG as proposed in our consultation document, schools in authorities which currently spend above their SFSS allocation will, over time, see their funding level reduced in relative terms. A number of authorities have raised concerns about this. We have also been considering further whether the current approach, using a single formula, remains the most appropriate method for the distribution of DSG, under a system in which it determines far more closely the overall level of funding received by schools.

52. These two considerations have caused us to consider a modified method of distribution which takes the existing level of spend as the baseline, and gives every authority a minimum increase in its per pupil budget each year: as I have explained, this will be 5 per cent. in 2006–07 and 2007–08. The remaining grant would be distributed according to criteria which would be determined by Ministers in advance of each multi-year budget period. Distribution against these criteria would be through a formula based on objective data.

53. It would be possible for the existing SFSS formula to be used to determine the distribution of some or all of the increase above the minimum per pupil increase. We propose to keep the formula running in its current form, subject to some minor technical changes.

54. We believe it is important to seek the views of local authorities and others on this proposal before deciding whether to go ahead. We therefore intend to publish a consultation document shortly which will set out the proposals in more detail. We expect to announce final decisions, along with provisional allocations for individual authorities, in the autumn.

55. Because the modified method of distribution which we are proposing is in part a response to the problems of transition to the new system, we would propose to review its operation, to consider what lessons can be learned from the first two years of operation of the DSG, and also to work up proposals for the longer term. Equity of funding will be a key consideration in that review. We intend to complete that review by the summer of 2007, in time for the first three year allocations of DSG later that year.

56. The purpose of the ring-fenced grant is, of course, that money intended for schools reaches schools. The Dedicated Schools Grant will therefore be paid to authorities on condition that it is allocated in its entirety to the authority's Schools Budget. However, an issue raised in the consultation was whether local authorities should be able to include money from the schools budget along with money from other local authority services and other agencies in combined budgets in support of Every Child Matters work. We have concluded that they should be able to do so, where they can demonstrate that there are clear benefits for schools and pupils, and so long as the educational benefit is broadly proportionate to the contribution made and the Schools Forum agrees.

57. The consultation document also proposed a rationalisation of standards-related grants, to reduce complexity and bureaucracy and give schools greater freedom over how they spend their budgets. These proposals were broadly welcomed by respondents.

58. We therefore propose to combine a number of existing grants into a single School Development Grant from April 2006, as set out in the consultation document. To ensure stability for schools as we move to the new arrangements, the distribution of that grant in 2006–07 and 2007–08 will reflect the current distribution of its constituent grants. The grant will be increased each year in line with the minimum funding guarantee, and this will be funded through a transfer from the DSG: that amount, and the allocations available to individual authorities, will be announced in the autumn. We intend to end matched funding for school grants through a transfer from the Dedicated Schools Grant to specific grants.

59. Respondents to the consultation also agreed that it was necessary to retain some separate grants. Some will remain separate because they are targeted at particular schools, or time-limited. We have an existing commitment to keep the Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant separate and ring-fenced until at least 2008. And some grants are spent at local authority level and are not devolved to schools: grants in this last category are being considered as part of a separate exercise to rationalise local authority grants.

60. The School Standards Grant will remain separate from the consolidated grant in 2006–07 and 2007–08. We will replace the existing distribution methodology with a fairer formula based on a flat rate per school plus a per pupil amount, with transitional arrangements to ensure that no school loses out. Details will be announced in the autumn. Additional resources were allocated to the School Standards Grant in the Budget to help schools meet the challenges of developing extended services. As a result, from 2006–07 schools will be able to spend their School Standards Grant to support extended services.

61. From 2008–09, we will consider bringing the School Development Grant and the School Standards Grant together into a single standards grant. We will consult fully on how that grant should be distributed in due course.

62. The consultation document proposed that it should be possible, with Schools Forum agreement, for authorities to increase the amount they held back from the single grant from 2008–09 onwards. On reflection, we have decided not to go ahead with this proposal: we believe we should be working towards a position where schools decide for themselves whether to buy into additional central support from their authority.

63. Schools Forums will have a key role to play both during the transitional period and in the longer term. They currently have an important role as an advisory body, and this will continue. But from 2006–07 we will also be giving them a number of decision-making responsibilities. These powers will relate to areas where we are providing some flexibility for authorities to move away from the requirements of the school funding regulations in order to take account of specific local circumstances: in the past it has only been possible to exercise such flexibilities with the approval of the Secretary of State. The Government believes it is right that it should be possible to agree to the exercise of these flexibilities locally if a consensus can be reached. Where that is not the case, the authority will retain the right to apply to the Secretary of State for a decision.

64. The evidence is that many Schools Forums are already working effectively. However, as their role changes from a purely advisory one to one in which they will also be asked to make a range of important decisions on behalf of schools, it is clearly essential that schools can have confidence in those decisions. That means ensuring that Forums' constitutions and proceedings are appropriate to their new role, and that they have access to appropriate support and guidance.

65. We therefore intend to make a number of changes to the existing regulations governing Forums' constitution and proceedings, and draft regulations are being issued for consultation today. In addition we will publish, early in the autumn term, a good practice guide for Schools Forums and a range of other guidance to support them in exercising their new responsibilities.

66. In advance of the first three year budget settlement in 2008–09, we propose a wider review of the role of Schools Forums, and the way in which they are working. We will want to look in particular at the question of whether Forums are properly representative of the schools in their areas, and ensure that they have access to appropriate advice and support to ensure that they exercise their responsibilities effectively. We will also want to consider whether the remit of Forums remains right given changes in the school system since they were established: we might for example want to consider whether they should have a role in considering capital as well as recurrent funding issues.

67. Once they are fully implemented, the new arrangements I have outlined today will give schools greater certainty over their future budgets than ever before. And in doing so, they will provide schools with the tools they need to plan ahead with confidence, to improve their financial management, and to link their financial planning to the outcomes they are aiming to achieve. Taken together with other measures under the new relationship with schools which will provide a sharper focus on priorities for improvement specific to individual schools, these measures will ensure that each pound spent on school funding will have a greater impact in terms of delivering better education for our children.

68. My Department is issuing detailed guidance on the new arrangements to local authorities and others today. A copy of that guidance will be placed in the Library.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, announced on 25 January 2005, Official Report, column WS165, that the Government were intending to set up a Government Decontamination Service (GDS), as an executive agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). The decision was part of cross-government work to ensure that the UK is prepared for a range of emergencies and has been developed as part of the CBRN Resilience Programme led by the Home Office.

The new service will be launched on 1 October 2005. Robert Bettley-Smith, a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, has been appointed as its chief executive.

The service will have four principal functions to ensure the UK has a highly effective decontamination capability.

Firstly, the service will provide high quality advice and guidance to responsible authorities during their contingency planning for CBRN, significant HAZMAT incidents and during actual incidents, and regularly help validate and test the arrangements that are in place.

Secondly, the service will work hand in hand with specialist suppliers and advisers to rigorously assess the ability of companies in the private sector to carry out decontamination operations, and ensure that responsible authorities have ready access to those services if the need arises. If required, the GDS will also help co-ordinate decontamination operations.

Thirdly, the service will work with Government Departments, responsible authorities, specialist suppliers, research organisations and other nations to improve decontamination technologies and capabilities.

Finally, the service will be the Government's eyes and ears on the national capability for the decontamination of buildings, infrastructure, mobile transport assets and the open environment, will be a repository of information, and a source of expertise in the event of CBRN incident or major release of HAZMAT materials. The GDS will regularly review the United Kingdom's capability gaps.

The GDS will provide a service in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as in England. In Scotland CBRN resilience is devolved. Scottish Ministers decided that the GDS should be invited to provide a service in Scotland and the Scottish Executive has been actively involved in its establishment. A similar statement will therefore be made in the Scottish Parliament. The Welsh Assembly Government is not responsible for CBRN resilience under the terms of the devolved settlement in Wales but has been fully consulted and supports the development of the GDS.

The following key performance targets to deliver these functions have now been agreed for the Service's first six months of operation:

The GDS will put in place the first framework of contracts with specialist suppliers who have CBRN decontamination expertise, and as far as possible ensure the framework is scientifically robust, by the end of October 2005.

The GDS will have defined its operational structure, role and response arrangements, agreed them with our stakeholders and secured the approval of the Ownership Board, by the end of March 2006. The GDS will have put in place a comprehensive training programme for its staff, by the end of December 2005, who will be fully engaged in CBRN response preparation and planning with stakeholders through participation in Regional Resilience Forum CBRN working groups and their equivalents in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by the same date.

The GDS will have established effective working relationships with centres of excellence for scientific advice on CBRN hazards and their decontamination through mechanisms such as memoranda of understanding or the establishment of regular exchanges of information, by the end of October 2005. The GDS will have created a database of information on contaminants, their effects and relevant decontamination techniques for use within the GDS, and introduced a programme to ensure that it is reviewed and updated regularly, by the end of December 2005. The GDS will be working with other Government Departments by July 2005, particularly through the Home Office Science and Technology Programme, to improve understanding through research projects with academia and industry.

The GDS will focus on developing a successful GDS team by developing (by July 2005) and implementing (by December 2005) a succession and recruitment plan that values diversity and talent, and by setting a clear training plan and starting the process of becoming accredited to the Investors in People standard by the end of March 2006. By the end of March 2006 the GDS will have established a baseline for staff satisfaction so that it can address areas where improvement is necessary in future years.

The GDS will engage with its potential customers to deliver a new user-friendly and effective GDS. The GDS will carry out a customer satisfaction exercise to establish a baseline against which to set standards and objectives for the future. The GDS will endeavour to meet (within the constraints of the resources available) the needs of stakeholders for advice and guidance. To do this the GDS will draw up a communications plan, incorporating a strategy for stakeholder engagement, and secured the approval of the Ownership Board, by the end of November 2005. The plan will include the GDS's strategic objectives in communications, the resources it will commit to the task, and the range of opportunities that it will seek to make use of to deliver the plan.

By the end of October 2005, the GDS will have established an Audit and Risk Committee (as set out in the Framework Document), established its terms of reference, and completed a comprehensive review of risks to the Service's core business and an action plan to address them.

The GDS will work towards improving its efficiency by modelling, with the relevant specialist suppliers, the costs of two decontamination scenarios, so that it can set a baseline and show efficiency gains in future years. The GDS will also establish a baseline for the GDS's running costs and meet the Defra year on year 2.5 per cent. efficiency savings objective.

The GDS will balance the GDS's books for the financial year 2005–06 within Government guidelines.

I have today laid before Parliament DEFRA's Exotic Animal Disease Generic Contingency Plan, in accordance with Section 18 of the Animal Health Act 2002 which came into force on 24 March 2003.

This plan sets out the operational arrangements DEFRA will put in place to deal with any occurrence of Foot and Mouth Disease, Avian Influenza, Newcastle Disease or Classical Swine Fever. It replaces DEFRA's Foot and Mouth Disease Contingency Plan and the Avian Influenza and Newcastle Disease Contingency Plan which were both laid before Parliament on 31 March 2004.

DEFRA's Contingency Plan is very much a "living document". It will be subject to ongoing revision taking on the latest scientific advice, developments in policy and comments from operational partners and stakeholders. To meet the provisions of the Animal Health Act, the plan will also be subject to formal annual review.

Data reported by energy conservation authorities in England under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 in the period 1 April 1996 to 31 March 2004 have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The data have also been published on the Department for Food and Rural Affairs website, at address http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/energy/heca95/index.htm. Authorities have reported an overall improvement in domestic energy efficiency of approximately 14.7 per cent. as measured against a 1996 baseline.

My colleague, the Minister for Housing and Planning, and I are today announcing our intention to publish shortly the final versions of three policy documents on waste strategies and planning on which we consulted earlier this year. These are:

(i) Planning Policy Statement 10: "Planning for Sustainable Waste Management" (PPS10);

(ii) Guidance on the Preparation of Municipal Waste Management Strategies;

(iii) Changes to Decision-making Principles in Waste Strategy 2000.

Together these provide for a more integrated and effective framework in England for delivering the significant expansion in new waste management facilities needed to meet EU obligations and national policy. We have considered very carefully the responses to the consultation documents. While a number of detailed points were made, which have been addressed in finalising the documents, the approach set out received broad support. This includes:

greater clarity on what is required at regional and local levels: to ensure decisions are made at the most appropriate level in a timely fashion, and effective integration of spatial planning and municipal waste management strategies;

increased integration of waste management alongside other spatial planning concerns (e.g. housing and economic development);

more emphasis on regular monitoring and review to ensure that plans and strategies are up-to-date.

The planning system is pivotal to the adequate and timely provision of the new facilities needed for all types of waste. The new PPS10 underlines the importance of planning for, and consenting, the necessary number and range of facilities to support sustainable waste management. Government expect development plans to be up-to-date and fit for purpose.

Government also expect all local authorities to have in place a fit for purpose and up-to-date Municipal Waste Management Strategy. In some areas this is a statutory requirement. The new guidance provides greater clarity on the role of strategies and the key requirements for developing and reviewing them.

Both this new guidance and the new PPS10 emphasise the need for effective community engagement and full appraisal of options. They will be accompanied by practice guidance which will provide further support and advice. Both sets of practice guidance are currently being finalised and we expect to publish them later in the summer.

The policy review, which informed the preparation of these documents, included, in response to concerns expressed by a number of stakeholders, the underpinning decision-making principles set out in Waste Strategy 2000 1 .

1 Primarily in Chapter 3 and Part 2.

The key aim of waste policy of moving waste management "up the waste hierarchy" 2 has not changed. However, the principles of "proximity" of waste disposal and "self sufficiency" (as set out in the EU Waste Framework Directive) have been re-formulated and are now set out as objectives to be delivered through the framework provided by development plans and strategies. The objectives are that communities should take more responsibility for their own waste (self-sufficiency), and that waste should disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations (proximity).

The role of the Best Practicable Environmental Option process in decision-making has also been reviewed. In future, the tenets that underlie BPEO will be delivered in spatial planning through plan-led strategies that drive waste management up the waste hierarchy. These strategies, at both the regional and local level, will be subject to Sustainability Appraisal and set within the community engagement that is central to the reformed planning system. Similarly, local authorities developing municipal waste management strategies should undertake Strategic Environmental Assessment, combined with a thorough assessment of social and economic factors 3 .

PPS10 also includes a requirement for regional spatial strategies to take account of any Government advice on waste arisings and recycling potential and any nationally identified need for waste management facilities. The Government consulted on both what this advice should be, and who should be responsible for both drawing up and disseminating it. The consultation was again broadly supportive of the proposed approach. Our intention is to provide more information centrally to help inform waste planning and publish this periodically. We expect to publish the first such advice before the end of this year.

The three documents that we intend to publish shortly will help deliver the Government's vision for sustainable waste management, as set out in the UK's strategy for sustainable development. This is to protect human health and the environment by producing less waste and by using it as a resource wherever possible. Through more sustainable waste management, moving the management of waste up the "waste hierarchy" of reduction, re-use, recycling and composting, using waste as a source of energy, and only disposing as a last resort the Government aim to break the link between economic growth and the environmental impact of waste.

Government recognise the size of the task and everyone has a role to play in managing waste more sustainably: manufacturers, waste managers, local communities and the authorities which serve them. The policy set out in these documents provides the clear, consistent, and integrated policy framework necessary to deliver a significant step-change in the delivery of new waste management facilities.

2 Chapter 3 part 2.

3 Where an authority is under a duty to produce a municipal waste management strategy the authority must carry out a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in line with the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004. Where an authority is not required to produce such a strategy under any legislative provision, authorities are not under a duty to carry out

an SEA, but we would encourage them to do so. Full details on the application of SEA can be found under the Environmental Assessment section at www.odpm.gov.uk/planning.

On 11 July 2005, suspicions were raised about the possibility of Newcastle Disease being present in pheasants on an estate in Surrey. We acted immediately on suspicion of disease following the control measures set out in Defra's exotic animal disease generic contingency plan. The suspect premises were immediately placed under restriction while the state veterinary service started their investigation.

Initial investigations identified two possible sources of the infection. Among the 12,000 pheasants on the suspect premises were a number of birds imported from France during the previous month and so it was possible that they had first become infected there. The second possibility was that the pheasants had been infected once they had arrived in England from contact with wild birds. It is known that wild birds can carry the virus responsible for Newcastle Disease.

The UK contacted the French authorities who immediately began a thorough investigation. There has been excellent co-operation between authorities in the two countries. There was a rapid exchange of information concerning the movement of birds between France and the infected premise in England. The French authorities identified a number of farms that had supplied birds to the infected farm. They undertook active surveillance and sampling which has now allowed them to conclude by blood sampling that birds on one farm have been exposed to the Newcastle Disease virus in the Loire Atlantique. Although virus isolation results are not yet available, culling of 20,000 pheasants and 35,000 partridges will commence on that farm today, ahead of final confirmation. The farm has been placed under restrictions and all movements off have been stopped.

Disease on the premises in Surrey was confirmed on 15 July and an order was given for the pheasants on the infected premises to be killed. The first birds on the infected premise were humanely culled on Monday morning and by 5 pm on Monday, 2,700 birds had been killed. Depopulation is continuing and we will ensure that as many of the birds as possible are killed. The culled birds are incinerated in a commercial animal incinerator. None of the affected birds will enter the human food chain.

Also on 15 July, a Declaratory Order was signed, putting in place a Protection Zone around the Infected Premise and a Surveillance Zone. A census of all poultry premises has been undertaken and patrol visits started in the Protection and Surveillance Zone. Samples have been taken from premises adjacent to the Infected Premise which could be epidemiologically linked. Clinical examinations of the larger poultry premises have started in the Surveillance Zone with no clinical evidence of Newcastle Disease being apparent.

The EU Commission were informed immediately disease was confirmed and we continue to keep in close touch about the control measures we have put in place. The EU Commission is satisfied with the measures we have taken so far.

We immediately put in place measures to ensure exports, both to EU member states and non EU countries of birds and hatching eggs do not originate from within the Infected Area. Intra-Community trade in birds and hatching eggs takes place on the basis of EU export health certificates which give area freedom from Newcastle Disease. Trade in birds and other susceptible commodities which originate from outside the restricted area can continue. Export health certificates to non EU destinations are required for most commodities relating to birds, including hatching eggs, poultrymeat, poultry products, table eggs, ready meals etc. The conditions for export depends on that country's import requirements. Exports to non-EU countries can take place provided the importing country has not imposed a total ban on imports of poultry and poultry meat or requires the UK to be free of the disease.

Our advice to poultry keepers is to put in place strong biosecurity arrangements, keep an eye open for disease and to consider, in consultation with their veterinarians, whether vaccination would be appropriate. Some large-scale poultry producers already routinely vaccinate their flocks against Newcastle Disease. The Secretary of State may order vaccination of poultry if she thinks it is an appropriate and proportionate response to the disease outbreak.

The Health Protection Agency has confirmed that Newcastle Disease virus does not pose a significant threat to human health even when people handle birds known to be infected. Close contact is required for transmission to man. The virus is spread via aerosols from infected birds which can occasionally cause conjunctivitis, fever and flu like symptoms. The symptoms only last a few days and there are no long term effects on health. There is no risk of human infection from consuming poultry meat.

Industry and other stakeholders, including game shooting bodies, have been kept informed of the suspicion and confirmation of disease and their views have been sought. Industry supports the action taken as they wish the outbreak to be eradicated as quickly as possible.

I chaired the Council for the agriculture items on the agenda. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) represented the United Kingdom and chaired the Council for the fisheries item. Also in attendance was my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Knight).

Before the Council I met a delegation from the EU federation of farm unions and farm co-operatives (COPA-COGECA) including representatives of the sugar beet growers organisation (CIBE).

I began the Council by presenting the UK presidency work programme for the next six months. It includes amongst other things, sugar reform, the EU's Rural Development Strategic Guidelines, Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT), Avian Influenza, Welfare of Broiler Chickens and a range of proposals to progress the sustainability of the fisheries industry.

The Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection took the opportunity to announce adoption of a TSE Roadmap setting out the Community's BSE Strategy for the short, medium and long term, and signalled his intention to publish an Action Plan on Animal Welfare towards the end of the year.

He also presented a proposed directive establishing minimum rules for the welfare of chickens kept for meat production. I said the presidency would take forward technical discussions on the proposal.

At the request of France, Council discussed the measures introduced by the Commission on 1 July to protect the Bay of Biscay anchovy stock. The Commission was not prepared to relax its ban on fishing at this stage but said it would keep the situation under constant review.

The Agriculture Commissioner presented her proposal for EU Strategic Guidelines for Rural Development, hoping for political agreement on this proposal in October. The guidelines aimed to ensure that rural development programmes contributed to the Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives of jobs, growth and sustainability. Once the EU Guidelines had been agreed, they would be the basis for drawing up national strategies through a process of dialogue between Member States and the Commission.

Over lunch the Agriculture Commissioner provided the Council with an update from last week's WTO mini-ministerial meeting under the Doha Development Agenda negotiations. There had been no major developments but she noted that its existing mandate had allowed the Commission to engage constructively in the discussion and to maintain pressure on other trading partners.

The Council held its first discussion on Commission proposals to reform the EU sugar regime. There was broad support for a restructuring scheme instead of production quota cuts, and for a 10-year time horizon, but some member states argued that the proposed price cuts went too far and too fast, that compensation should be higher, and that the "Everything But Arms" import arrangements should be reviewed.

Under Any Other Business, Italy called for the Commission to open crisis distillation measures before the end of July to deal with the critical situation on its wine market. The Commission replied that they needed time to analyse the situation, but would do so as quickly as possible.

The Netherlands expressed concern about the clarity of Community marketing standards for poultry meat. In particular, they were concerned that poultry meat that had been frozen should not be labelled as fresh. They also called for the introduction of a label for poultry meat originating from EU. The Commission agreed that marketing defrosted poultry meat as fresh was not in conformity with EU standards. The Commission would reflect thoroughly on both questions.

In light of an intervention by the Danish Minister, a proposal for a Council Decision providing for derogations from the Restrictions on Hazardous Substances Regulation for lead and for the flame retardant, Deca BDE, in electrical and electronic equipment, which had come forward for formal adoption from the Environment Council, was referred back to the Committee of Permanent Representatives for further discussion.

In closing the Council I noted that the informal Agriculture Council would be a joint event with the Environment Council taking place in London from 10–12 September. The next Agriculture and Fisheries Council would be on 19 and 20 September.

The Government's strategy on waste is set out in "Waste Strategy 2000", published in May 2000. The strategy is currently under review, and this statement updates Parliament on progress.

We have made considerable advances since the original waste strategy was conceived, for example with work on delivering our 2010 Landfill Directive targets following the Strategy Unit report "Waste Not, Want Not" of 2002; the introduction of the local authority landfill allowance trading scheme and increases in landfill tax; substantially improved levels of household recycling; and the implementation of a range of European waste legislation. I am separately announcing with my colleague the Minister for Housing and Planning a package of documents that together comprise a more integrated and effective planning framework in England for delivering the significant expansion in new waste management facilities needed to meet EU obligations and national policy. This includes changes to the decision-making principles in WS2000.

It is now time to review progress and refresh our waste strategy. Our focus is on the protection of human health and the environment by producing less waste and using it as a resource wherever possible. We began consulting with the interested parties at the beginning of this year on the composition and scope of the strategy review. We have had a very positive response.

In the light of these discussions and continuing development of waste and resource use policies here and in Europe, the Government intend to publish a substantial progress report on the waste strategy review this autumn. This will draw together stakeholder opinion so far and the major policy developments since WS2000 and "Waste Not, Want Not", and give the Government's view of likely policy directions. We shall in the progress report seek comments on the way forward, and the scope and content of an updated waste strategy.

Subject to the outcome of this consultation, the Government intend to publish an authoritative revised waste strategy for England next summer. In the meantime, we shall continue to develop waste policies in line with the Government's objectives and our European and international obligations.

The General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) was held on 18 and 19 July in Brussels. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) chaired the Council, given our presidency. I represented the UK.

The Foreign Secretary made a short intervention at the start of the GAERC on the London bombings. He thanked partners for their expressions of sympathy and recalled the declaration agreed by the JHA Council on 13 July. The Council adopted short conclusions reaffirming the declaration, focusing on external action.

The agenda items were covered as follows:

Presidency Work Programme

The Foreign Secretary gave a brief presentation on the GAERC work programme for the next six months, highlighting in particular future financing and the future of Europe. On future financing, the Foreign Secretary highlighted the presidency's commitment to work towards a deal during the presidency. On the future of Europe, the Foreign Secretary welcomed Luxembourg's referendum result, and said that the next step should be on the basis of the declaration agreed at the June 2005 European Council. We are committed to having a broad, inclusive debate during the period of reflection. The informal Heads of Government meeting this autumn was a key next step.

Enlargement

The Foreign Secretary briefed partners on the 11 July meeting of the Croatia task force, where there was further consideration of Croatian co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). There was no change in its assessment that Croatia was not yet co-operating fully with the tribunal. The Foreign Secretary invited the task force to review the situation in September.

Commissioner Rehn presented the Commission's draft negotiating mandate for Turkey. He highlighted that Turkey's progress would be long and difficult. The Council's reasons for opening talks and its previous commitments remained unchanged. The opening of negotiations on 3 October was conditional on six pieces of legislation entering into force—they all had on 1 June—and on Turkey signing the Ankara agreement protocol. The Foreign Secretary confirmed that the presidency would be working towards the signing of the protocol in consultation with the Council legal service.

World Trade Organisation (WTO)

Commissioner Mandelson updated the Council on the mini-ministerial in Dalian (12 to 13 July) and gave an assessment of how preparations are going in the run-up to the end-July WTO general council in Geneva. The Foreign Secretary noted that the main trade discussion would take place during the informal trade ministers' dinner on 18 July. The Council agreed conclusions, which recalled that Council conclusions from October 1999 and 28 June 2003, in particular, remain valid and set the Community approach to the Doha development agenda (DDA) negotiations.

Preparation of the EU-China Summit

The Foreign Secretary updated partners on the progress of preparation for the 5 September summit. A progress report on summit preparations covering the draft agenda, elements for a joint statement and declaration on climate change and energy was agreed. Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner highlighted that the Commission would also be signing the financing agreement for two environmental projects totalling €55 million. The Commission also raised China market economy status (MES), noting that they would keep this under active review and wanted to see some progress at the summit. The Foreign Secretary concluded that the Commission and presidency would take forward summit negotiations with the Chinese and keep partners fully informed.

Uzbekistan

The Foreign Secretary highlighted the importance of the EU's response to the situation in Uzbekistan. The EU would not solve the problem in one stroke, and should bear in mind its long-term policy towards Uzbekistan and the region as a whole. The Council welcomed the appointment of Jan Kubis as EU special representative for central Asia and noted his intention to travel to the region as soon as possible. The Council agreed to review the EU-Uzbekistan partnership and co-operation agreement in the light of his visit. The Council agreed conclusions expressing profound concern about the situation in Uzbekistan. The presidency will continue to monitor the situation during August.

Zimbabwe

High Representative Solana gave an account of the unacceptable situation in Zimbabwe and stressed the need to work with the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and other African partners. He also welcomed the UN's forthcoming assessment and the African Union's decision to send an envoy to Zimbabwe. Commissioner Michel also condemned the recent actions and noted that the EU position was clearly stated in the declaration on 7 June and the demarches in SADC capitals. The Foreign Secretary concluded that if the UN special envoy's report was critical, the Council should consider further restrictive measures. The Council agreed conclusions condemning Operation Murambatsvina; expressing profound concern about the demolitions and evictions; and agreeing to keep EU policy, including on sanctions, under review.

UN Millennium Review Summit

Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner outlined the key elements of the Commission's communication on UN reform to the Council. Irish Foreign Minister Ahern, in his capacity as one of the UN Secretary-General's special envoys for the summit, updated the Council on summit preparations. Conclusions were agreed reiterating the EU's strong support for a successful UN millennium review summit outcome.

Syria/Lebanon

Terje Roed-Larsen, the UN Secretary-General's special envoy on the implementation of UN Security Council resolution (UNSCR) 1559 briefed Ministers over lunch. Larsen highlighted that the withdrawal of Syrian military forces was now complete. Larsen informed the Council that the recent Lebanese elections, which had been broadly free and fair, had been an important step towards creating an independent and sovereign Lebanon. The EU should now encourage the Lebanese to form a new Government quickly and play a role in tackling corruption and strengthening good governance and security. The Foreign Secretary summed up and expressed strong support for Larsen's work. Council conclusions were agreed, which call on Syria to take action to promote stability in Iraq, Lebanon and on the middle east peace process.

Middle East Peace Process (MEPP)

High Representative Solana briefed the Council on his recent (10 to 14 July) visit to the region. He commented that the situation on the ground was now calm, but developments at the end of last week and over the weekend had not been positive. The Council discussed Gaza disengagement and reiterated its full support for Quartet Special Envoy James Wolfensohn. Ministers emphasised the urgent need for Israel and the Palestinian Authority to co-operate effectively with each other and with Mr. Wolfensohn to support Palestinian institutional and economic development. The Council urged the Palestinian Authority to accelerate reforms and Israel to put in place the conditions essential to viable Palestinian economic growth. The Council noted the ongoing role played by the Commission in leading donor activity on Palestinian governance issues. Conclusions were agreed which reflected these points.

Iran

The Foreign Secretary, together with the French and German Ministers and High Representative Solana, briefed partners on the work towards a comprehensive package on the three issues covered by the 15 November 2004 Paris agreement: nuclear issues; political and security issues; and economic and technological co-operation. Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner briefed on the outcome of the 12 to 13 July negotiations on the EU-Iran trade and co-operation agreement. Ministers also discussed the outcome of the recent Iranian presidential elections.

Indonesia/Aceh

Over lunch, Ministers were briefed by High Representative Solana on developments in Aceh. The Council noted the report of the EU assessment mission to Indonesia/Aceh. It welcomed the successful conclusion of the Helsinki negotiations and agreed that the EU should be prepared, in principle, to provide observers to monitor the implementation of the peace agreement.

AOB—Estonia/Russia Border Treaty

Estonian Foreign Minister Paet outlined to partners why the ratification of this treaty has stalled and how they hope to take matters forward with the Russian Federation. The presidency said this was a matter of acute concern for the Estonian people. We hoped for a satisfactory outcome of the ratification process, based on what had already been agreed between Estonia and Russia, as soon as possible.

AOB—Malta/Illegal Immigration

The Council heard an intervention from Maltese Foreign Minister Frendo on the increasingly acute problem of illegal immigration in Malta and noted his request for solidarity and for this issue to be kept on the Council's agenda.

EU-Macedonia Association Council

In the margins of the GAERC, the annual EU-Macedonia Stabilisation and Association Council meeting took place on 18 July. Macedonian Foreign Minister Mitreva chaired. I led the EU, supported by Commission Rehn, the Council secretariat and the Austrian Minister for Europe, Dr. Winkler. Mitreva was accompanied by experts on the Ohrid framework agreement, policing, judiciary, minorities and the economy, who made technical presentations in these areas. Mitreva expressed disappointment at the EU's cautious stance on visa liberalisation. The Association Council underlined the June 2005 European Council's commitment, which emphasised that the future of the western Balkans lay within the EU, provided each country met the established conditions. The Association Council welcomed Macedonia's adoption of the final legislation linked to the framework agreement and looked forward to its full implementation. The Association Council also stressed the need for further reform of the police and judiciary, fighting corruption, structural economic reform and meeting the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) criticisms of this year's municipal elections.

EU-Kazakhstan Cooperation Council

In the margins of the GAERC, the EU and the Republic of Kazakhstan held its seventh meeting on 19 July 2005. I chaired the meeting and was supported by the Austrian Minister for Europe, Dr. Winkler, and the Commissioner for Energy, Mr. Andris Piebalgs. Kazakhstan was led by Deputy Prime Minister Akhmetzhan Smagulovich Yessimov.

The Co-operation Council reaffirmed the desire to see EU-Kazakhstan relations continue to strengthen politically, economically and commercially, especially in the context of the partnership and co-operation agreement. It emphasised the need for increased efforts by the Kazakh authorities to comply fully with international norms and standards, including those of OSCE, in the fields of rule of law, democracy and human rights. The Co-operation Council expressed its expectation that the forthcoming presidential elections would be fair and in line with international standards. The Co-operation Council also agreed to promote bilateral dialogue focusing on market access issues and to work for early accession of Kazakhstan to the WTO. It welcomed the signature of the agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Kazakhstan on trade in certain steel products. The Co-operation Council underlined the importance of regional co-operation in central Asia as an effective means of conflict prevention and economic development in the region and welcomed the increasingly active role Kazakhstan is playing in different regional initiatives.

For the NHS Appointments Commission and the NHS Litigation Authority, their annual accounts and any accompanying Comptroller and Auditor General report have today been laid before Parliament pursuant to section 98(1C) of the National Health Service Act 1977. Copies have been placed in the Library.

The Government's response to the Second Report of the House of Commons Health Committee on the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitalised Patients, Cm 6635, has been published today.

Copies have been placed in the Library.

Patient safety is a priority for this Government. Whilst a great deal of progress has been made towards improving patient safety, we recognise that much more needs to be done to prevent deaths from venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalised patients. The Committee's estimation of 25,000 deaths a year due to VTE is a serious issue which requires rapid and comprehensive action and we welcome the advice and information the Committee has provided to help the Government tackle this issue.

As an immediate step the chief medical officer has written to all doctors to remind them of the clinical guidance which exists.

Overall, the challenge is to make sure that good practice is spread within the whole National Health Service. We will therefore set up an independent expert working group which will make recommendations on developing a national strategy on the prevention and treatment of VTE.

The Government's response to the Health Select Committee's report on NHS continuing care is published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

I have today placed in the Library of the House the action plan in respect of the report into the fire and disturbance at Yarl's Wood immigration removal centre. Mr. Stephen Shaw was asked to conduct a report into this incident and the findings of the investigation was completed and published on 16 November 2004. The report contained a number of recommendations designed to minimise the risk of future disturbances.

My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for the Home Department also announced in a written statement that he accepted Stephen Shaw's recommendation (number 60) that a forum comprising officials, contractors and relevant interest groups be set up to consider the provision of purposeful activity in removal centres. The purpose of the forum is to examine the seven relevant recommendations contained in the report and identify how they can be taken forward in order to enhance removal centre regimes. A number of meetings have already taken place and have involved consultation with both the chief inspector of prisons and the prison and probation ombudsman.

The action plan identifies the recommendations have already been acted on and what considerations and progress has been made on the others. A completion date for implementation has been set for the end of 2005.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has today laid before Parliament the third annual report produced under section 19E of the Race Relations Act 1976 by Mary Coussey, the Independent Race Monitor, and placed copies of the report and his response in the Libraries of both Houses. The Race Monitor has a statutory duty to report to Parliament via the Home Secretary on ministerial authorisations made under section 19D of the Race Relations Act enabling immigration staff to discriminate on the basis of nationality or ethnic or national origin in the exercise of their functions.

I am pleased to announce Suzanne McCarthy's appointment as Immigration Services Commissioner. This is a five-year appointment and she will take up the post on 5 September 2005. Mrs McCarthy is a qualified solicitor with a background in the Senior Civil Service. She was Chief Executive of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme from 2000–2004 and Chief Executive of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority from 1996–2000. She will be taking unpaid leave from the Civil Service for the duration of this appointment.

I am pleased to announce that the final annual report and accounts of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) will be laid before Parliament today. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) replaced the PCA on 1 April 2004.

When published, copies of the report will be available in the Libraries of both Houses.

I have today laid before Parliament copies of the Forensic Science Service's (FSS) Annual Report and Accounts for 2004–05.

Performance against Agency Targets 2004–05

The FSS met 18 of its 20 targets and put in a strong financial performance. Of the two targets not achieved, one was related to timeliness, the other to the Investors in People (IiP) Standard. Although the FSS made further improvements in service delivery times against the previous year, performance fell short of target. A better performance is expected this year. The Service was very disappointed to lose its IiP status but has been encouraged by the assessor's view that strong foundations are in place to begin the work to regain the standard.

The Forensic Science Service Agency Targets for 2005–06 are as follows. These targets might be subject to review in the light of the proposed change of status for the FSS:

Finance:

Target: A minimum of 15 per cent. return on capital employed—three-year rolling average (2003–04 to 2005–06).

Target: A real reduction in charges by limiting price increases to 75 per cent. of the Average Earnings Index.

Target: An investment in development work of 10 per cent. of turnover.

Target: Generate £500k external funding for research and development.

Non-Finance:

Target: Some 100 per cent. of cases with an assigned case officer.

Target: To develop and extend current training to police and CPS.

Target: Percentage of fast track processing of DNA, (subject to demand), 20 per cent.

Target: Average time to analyse and inform customers of DNA crime scene stain results of five days.

Target: Some 95 per cent. of DNA crime scene stain results to have a turnaround time of less than 10 days.

Target: Average time to analyse and inform customers of DNA suspect sample results of five days.

Target: Some 95 per cent. of DNA suspect sample results to have a turnaround time of less than eight days.

Target: Some 95 per cent. of jobs to achieve a turnaround time of less than 33 days.

Target: Maintain ISO Accreditation.

Target: Establish processes and behaviours to regain IiP in 2006–07.

Target: Maintain the diversity programme.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has today placed in the Libraries of both Houses the 1st annual report of the Independent Monitor of Certification of Claims as Clearly Unfounded under Section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration And Asylum (NIA) Act 2002, and the Government response to the report and its recommendations.

The Certification Monitor has a statutory duty to report to Parliament via the Home Secretary under Section 111 of the NIA Act 2002. Sarah Woodhouse was appointed as Monitor in January 2004 for two years. Her role is to monitor the operation of the use of the power to certify an asylum claim or human right claim (or both) as unfounded under Section 94 of the NIA Act 2002, and in particular the quality and effectiveness of decisions made under this procedure.

On 28 October 2004, my predecessor—now the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett)—announced a review of murder. There has been a long-standing debate over many years about the need to review the laws on murder. The Law Commission has produced a report on partial defences to murder and this review will build on the analysis of the law set out in that work.

The terms of reference for the review, to be led by the Home Office have today been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. There will be a full public consultation as part of the review and hon. Members will have the opportunity to comment at any stage.

I am pleased to announce that the Law Commission has agreed to join the Home Office in this work. The review will be in two stages. The Law Commission will first conduct an analysis of the laws relating to murder, taking into account its earlier work on the partial defences but looking at them in this wider context. Following consultation, it will provide the Home Office with its conclusions, which the Home Office will take into account in conducting a review of the wider public policy issues and producing recommendations, as appropriate, for new legislation.

The review is expected to take between 18 months and two years.

The Commission for Racial Equality's Annual Report 2004 is published today.

Copies will be available in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies will also be sent to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.

As part of the five-year asylum and immigration strategy announced in February, the government announced its intention to apply targeted screening for TB overseas and at the entry clearance stage, rather than the current practice of screening at UK ports of entry.

While some screening is already carried out routinely in certain countries, our approach will be to prioritise screening of entry clearance applicants wishing to come to the UK for more than six months and coming from countries which combine the highest levels of incidence of TB, as measured by the World Health Organisation, with the highest numbers of potentially infectious travellers to the UK.

We will begin an initial phase by the end of the summer in posts in four overseas countries, to test the screening system. The initial countries are Bangladesh, Thailand (which also processes entry clearance applications from Cambodia and Laos), Tanzania and Sudan. These all have high rates of TB, represent the various kinds of entry clearance operation the UK runs globally (outsourced, personal applications and postal/remote applications), and includes those where the medical infrastructure allows the testing phase to be set up quickly. A further announcement will be made early next year regarding the countries to be included in the next phase of the rollout.

Screening overseas at the entry clearance stage will bring many benefits. It will identify infectious travellers who will be asked to complete treatment before applying for entry clearance. It will generate data on infection among travellers to the UK which will enable us to understand better the role of migration on TB infections rates in the UK, and respond with effective health policies. Entry clearance applicants themselves will benefit from health screening which will be conducted to high standards that are quality assured. Host countries will benefit from the earlier identification of individuals with infectious TB. We also aim to share data on infection rates with host countries so as to inform their own public health programmes. We are however mindful that pre-entry screening is only part of dealing effectively with TB globally. We will continue to work with the World Health Organisation to help developing countries diagnose and treat patients. We will evaluate the effect of this policy on our wider development objectives and messages.

We believe the impact on migration will be minimal. But we will examine the experience of other countries already implementing such schemes, such as the US, Australia and Canada. And we will carefully monitor any impact on entry clearance application rates.

The Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts were laid on the 19 July. Today, the Office for Contracted Prisons has published its Statement of Performance and Financial Information indicating its performance during 2004–05. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

DFID has completed a review of its support programme in Nepal. The review was prompted by political events in the early part of the year.

DFID plans to continue a substantial programme in the country and the overall purpose of our country assistance plan (CAP) remains unchanged: to reduce poverty and social exclusion, establishing a basis for lasting peace.

However, the conflict and political context have made it more difficult to deliver development assistance effectively, and DFID has scaled back the plans in the CAP to increase significantly our levels of assistance. Instead, we plan to keep these at about £32 million—close to the amount spent in the previous UK financial year.

The published CAP had five objectives covering peace-building, improving rural livelihoods, expanding basic services, supporting the social inclusion of women and excluded caste and ethnic groups, and improving governance. We have not radically changed those objectives, but we have adjusted priorities to give more attention to the possible humanitarian operations and the protection of vulnerable groups, such as internally displaced people, and working with pro-democracy groups, including the political parties, to help ensure that an eventual return to democracy is sustained.

DFID will strengthen further its risk management systems to ensure that we continue to protect staff and respond in a timely way to further changes in the context in which we are working. We will also build further our skills to manage the programme within a conflict setting.

We will continue to work closely with other Whitehall Departments, helping to ensure that best use is made of the global conflict prevention pool (GCPP) and that DFID's activities make a positive contribution to the wider UK objective of a sustainable peace based on democratic government.

Following my written statement to the House on 16 September 2004, and together with the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence, I wish to inform Parliament of the establishment and current capabilities of the post-conflict reconstruction unit (PCRU). The PCRU is an interdepartmental unit, which has been set up by our three Departments to improve the United Kingdom's capacity to contribute to the creation of a stable environment in countries emerging from conflict. The unit's work is overseen by the Defence and Overseas Policy (Conflict Prevention and Reconstruction) Committee, chaired by the Foreign Secretary.

The PCRU has been established to carry out two main tasks: first, to develop Government strategy for post-conflict stabilisation, which includes linking military and civilian planning, as well as working with the wider international community for the spread of best practice, capacity building and burden sharing; and, secondly, to plan and direct activities designed to create stability in post-conflict environments in the period immediately following the cessation of hostilities.

The PCRU is nearly fully staffed and has reached an initial capacity to plan for, and support, stabilisation activities. The unit is building up a database of civilian experts who can be deployed. It is also developing methods to help the Government reach an understanding of, and plan responses to, individual conflicts. In addition, the unit is writing a series of guidance papers on a range of specific issues that may need to be tackled in post-conflict situations, such as security sector reform and governance. The PCRU is also developing links with international organisations and other Governments to ensure that the UK's efforts are part of a co-ordinated contribution to the international response to conflict. I expect the PCRU to be able, if necessary, to plan and organise a large-scale deployment of up to several hundred civilians, including police, as part of a post-conflict stabilisation operation by mid-2006.

Copies of the Food Safety Promotion Board annual report 2003, incorporating financial statements for 2002 and 2003 and a review of activities for 2001, has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Expenditure on Ministerial overseas visits for the last three financial years and for the year 1996–97 is estimated as follows:

1 The figure for 2004–05 reflects payments made so far for travel undertaken in the period; a few bills have yet to be submitted to departments for payment.

A list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during the period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005 has been placed in both Libraries of the House. The list provides details of the date, destination and purpose of all such visits and the cost of Ministers' travel and accommodation where appropriate.

I have today published a list of gifts received by Ministers. The list provides details of gifts received by Ministers valued at more than £140 for the period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005. Copies of the list have been placed in the Libraries of the both Houses.

Listed below are the names of special advisers in post at 21 July 2005, the special advisers' pay ranges for 2005–06, the number of special advisers in each pay band by department and the total pay bill cost of special advisers for 2004–05.

All special advisers are appointed under terms and conditions set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers providing assistance on the full range of their appointing Minister's departmental responsibilities. Where a special adviser has a specific expertise or works mainly in a particular area of the department's work this is indicated.

Advisers in post:

1 Plus Lord Birt who is the Prime Minister's unpaid strategy adviser.

2 David Bennett is an expert adviser, appointed in accordance with para 2.11 of the Ministerial Code.

3 In addition, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has appointed Paul Gregg, Shriti Vadera, Michael Jacobs, Stewart Wood and Matt Cavanagh to the Council of Economic Advisers on special adviser terms.

4 Plus Sue Nye appointed as an unpaid adviser.

Pay bands for 2005–06

The pay bands and pay ranges for special advisers for 2005–06 are as follows:

Advisers by Pay Band

At 21 July 2005, the number of special advisers in each pay band by department is as follows:

Paybill costs

The cost of special advisers in 2004–05 was £5.5 million 5 .

1 Plus three special advisers who are paid beyond Pay Band 4 but within the scheme ceiling.

2 Includes provisional salaries yet to be agreed. 3 Plus one adviser who is unpaid. 4 Plus the five members of the Council of Economic Advisers who are employed on special adviser terms (one in Band 4, three in Band 3, and one in Band 1). One of the members of the Council works part time. 5 This figure includes salary, severance pay and estimate of pension costs.

I have today placed in the Libraries of the both Houses copies of the revised code of conduct for special advisers and the revised model contract for special advisers. These reflect commitments given by the Government to the Public Administration Committee and the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

The civil service Order in Council governing the appointment of special advisers has also been amended to the effect that special advisers are appointed to assist Ministers.

I have today placed in the Libraries of the both Houses copies of a revised ministerial code. The code provides guidance on how Ministers should conduct themselves in carrying out their official duties. The foreword to the code reiterates how I expect all Ministers to operate within both the letter and the spirit of the code. The revised code takes account of recommendations made by the Public Administration Committee, the Committee on Standards and Privileges and the Committee on Standards in Public Life. In particular, the code is split for the first time into two parts: a ministerial code of ethics and procedural guidance for Ministers.

I have today published the seventh report of the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. The report provides an account of the work of the committee in advising former Ministers and Crown servants on the acceptance of appointments after leaving government. The report covers the period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of the both Houses.

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

"In a written statement of 19 July 2005, Official Report, Column 99WS, I informed the House that four British servicemen had been charged with manslaughter, following the alleged unlawful killing of Ahmed Jabar Kareem in Basra on 8 May 2003.

The statement named three servicemen. I can now inform the House that the fourth serviceman, Lance Corporal James Stephen Cooke (21) with the Irish Guards, has now been told of the charge against him."

The Annual Report and Accounts 2003–04 have today been published and laid before Parliament. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

I am making today a statement to the House on the interaction of existing Government policy and planning procedures, with regard to the need for new energy infrastructure, arising from the targets, goals and aspirations for renewable generation set out in the 2003 energy White Paper, "Our Energy Future—creating a low carbon economy".

The 2003 energy White Paper set out four key goals of energy policy:

To put the UK on a path to cut carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions by some 60 per cent. by about 2050.

To maintain the reliability of energy supplies.

To promote competitive markets in the UK and beyond.

To ensure that every home is adequately and affordably heated.

The energy White Paper makes clear that UK energy systems will undergo a significant change over the next 20 years to allow these goals to be met. Therefore, it will be necessary to update much of the UK's energy infrastructure during that period 1 . There will be a requirement for:

An expansion in infrastructure (e.g. overhead power lines and underground cables, and pipelines).

New forms of infrastructure (e.g. smaller scale distributed generation, gas storage sites).

Infrastructure development in areas that have not previously seen such developments.

The energy White Paper also makes clear that UK energy policy is delivered through a market framework, governed by an independent regulator. Government policy puts in place broad objectives, which are supported by regulation, fiscal regimes and, where necessary, financial support. As with the sector in general, the private sector is best placed to develop the systems that can deliver the demanding new renewables generation targets and objectives in the most economic, efficient and effective way possible 2 .

This principle applies to decisions about the exact provision and location or route of energy transmission and distribution infrastructure which must be taken within the planning system which ensures that development and changes in land use occur in suitable locations.

Beyond broad targets for renewable electricity and combined heat and power (see the energy White Paper) the UK Government do not believe that energy policy should set out a specific fuel mix for electricity generation; nor have they attempted to determine the best specific location for new facilities to generate electricity power or other kinds of energy infrastructure.

Instead the UK Government believe that the private sector is best placed to decide exactly what energy infrastructure is needed and how, subject to planning and environmental requirements, to deliver policy objectives most effectively. It therefore falls to the developer to demonstrate the desirability of a particular scheme in a particular location. For the monopoly transmission and distribution networks that is to be achieved within the price controls set by the regulator.

A slightly different approach has been taken in Wales, where the Assembly Government have set out in their revised technical advice note (TAN) 8 that 800 MW of additional capacity will be required to be provided by large-scale onshore wind by 2010. TAN8 has identified specific areas considered suitable for large-scale onshore wind farm development. The capacity of the electricity distribution system to accommodate sufficient wind energy developments is a key influence on the shape and distribution of proposals in Wales.

1 e.g. Energy White Paper 2003, paras 1.16–1.17, page 10.

2 e.g. EWP, para 1.21.

The provision of energy infrastructure is part of a delivery system that provides an essential national service. Business and homes in the UK require a reliable supply of energy free from disruption and interruption. New energy infrastructure projects may not appear to convey any particular local benefit and may indeed have adverse local effects, but they provide crucial national benefits, which all localities share. In particular, projects will usually add to the reliability of national energy supply, from which every user of the system benefits.

Failure to put in place energy infrastructure will, immediately or over time—and individually, incrementally or cumulatively—reduce the reliability of energy systems, with potentially disastrous consequences for the local, regional and national community and economy. Energy infrastructure projects often have long lead times and/or cater for longer-term needs, based on careful forward planning by energy companies. Therefore, even where new projects may not appear to have immediate benefits, failure to put them in place may reduce future reliability.

In remoter areas, where new renewable generation is to take place, new distribution and transmission networks will be required as a consequence of the need to achieve—through new energy sources, as part of a package of measures—the Government's energy policy objectives. Electricity generation is itself a key source of emissions of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), the main greenhouse gas. How electricity is generated will play a crucial part in whether the Government will be able to deliver their international commitments and their domestic goal for a 20 per cent. reduction in CO 2 emissions in 2010 (set out in the UK climate change strategy) and, ultimately, reductions of 60 per cent. by 2050.

The Government have therefore set targets for the expansion of renewable forms of electricity generation, which produce low CO 2 emissions or no CO 2 emissions at all.

Renewable Energy

The UK Government have set a target that generation from renewable sources (wind power, wave power, biomass, hydropower, solar power etc.) should supply 10 per cent. of the UK electricity in 2010. The Government's aspiration is by 2020 to double renewable energy's share of electricity to 20 per cent. The Scottish Executive have set a target that 18 per cent. of their electricity will come from renewables by 2010, and recently consulted about raising this to 40 per cent. by 2020. In Wales, the Welsh Assembly Government have set benchmark targets of 4 TWh per annum of renewable energy production by 2010 and 7 TWh by 2020.

The expansion of renewable energy is essential as a part of a package of measures to meet the Government's CO 2 reduction targets and mitigate future global climate change, which could have significant impacts on all areas of the UK.

Renewable energy will also provide economic benefits for the UK economy. Often, individual renewables developments can offer economic benefits to local areas in terms of jobs, investment and revitalisation of the rural economy.

As with all energy infrastructure, however, there will be occasions when such developments may appear to offer few local benefits, but will still add to the essential resilience of national energy systems.

Renewable generation infrastructure needs to be developed where sufficient renewable energy resources exist for it to be economic and effective. For example:

Wind turbines generally require average wind speeds of more than 4 to 5 metres per second.

Biomass installations need access to sufficient sources of biomass fuel within the local area. The recommended radius for energy crops is 25 miles/40 kms under DEFRA's energy crops planting scheme.

However, developers will be best placed to make a judgment about the technical feasibility and economic viability of individual projects.

Renewable energy resources are distributed widely throughout the UK. Therefore, for UK renewables targets to be met, a significant amount of new renewable generation infrastructure will need to be built in every region of the UK, often in local areas that have not previously housed generation infrastructure.

I am today placing in the Libraries of both Houses a fuller note setting out Government policy that is intended to provide assistance by being a material consideration of significant weight in planning decisions on energy infrastructure.

I have today laid before Parliament the annual reports and accounts for 2004–05 for the eight regional development agencies (RDAs) outside London. Copies have been placed in the Library.

The annual report and accounts for the London Development Agency are presented to the Mayor of London rather than Parliament. I shall provide a copy to the House of Commons Library when copies are available.

The Government welcome the contribution that the RDAs have made during this year to driving forward economic development in their respective regions.

Also published today are the RDAs' reported tier 3 outputs for 2004–05. These results are evidence that the RDAs continue to play a valuable role in improving the economic performance of the English regions and, through working with their partners, the RDAs are making a real difference to the individual regional economies concerned. The figures cover the creation and safeguarding of jobs, the amount of brownfield land brought back into use, the number of businesses added to the regional economies, the number of learning opportunities created and the amount of private sector investment attracted benefiting deprived areas, all as a result of RDA activity.

Press releases on the tier 3 outputs have been issued in each region. Copies of the output results have been placed in the Library, and are also available on the DTI website at www.dti.gov.uk/rda/info.

The Informal Competitiveness Council hosted by the UK presidency took place in Cardiff on 11 to 12 July 2005. Lord Sainsbury of Turville chaired the first day, covering research issues, and I chaired the second day, which considered EU better regulation and the development of the internal market. Over dinner on 11 July, both Research and Economics/Industry Ministers discussed innovation policy.

On the first day, Research Ministers heard presentations from a number of speakers, including Research Commissioner Potocnik and representatives from industry and science.

The Commission stressed the need for the EU to help fulfil Lisbon goals for growth and jobs by committing more money for EU research, both nationally and for the EU's next research framework programme (FP7). Speakers from academia and business gave presentations on how the framework programme could be made simpler and more accessible for business and how the Scientific Council for the proposed European Research Council (ERC) had been chosen.

Ministers then broke up into five small groups for detailed discussions on the structure of the European Research Council (ERC); increasing industry and SME participation in the framework programme; and how to develop the potential of the less research intensive regions. In addition, Ministers were asked to consider the cross-cutting issue of simplification as it related to their areas.

Group rapporteurs reported vigorous and useful discussions. Lord Sainsbury concluded that, while there were still difficult issues to tackle, there was consensus on the need for the ERC to be independent; on the need for effective, practical help for SMEs; that collaborative research should be more user-driven; that help for less research intensive regions had to be focussed; and on the continued importance and need for simplification.

On the second day, the session on EU better regulation opened with presentations from Vice-President of the European Commission and Commissioner for Enterprise and Industry Gunter Verheugen, Alain Perroy, the director general of CEFIC (the European Confederation for the Chemicals Industry) and leading member of the Alliance for a Competitive European Industry, and Jacek Piechota, the Polish Economics Minister.

The Commission's commitment to progressing the better regulation agenda in the EU and the importance of regulatory reform in achieving Lisbon objectives on growth and jobs were stressed. The Commission also outlined recent initiatives that would contribute to the delivery of regulatory reform, including strengthened impact assessment guidelines that would ensure that the effects of proposed legislation on competitiveness were taken into account. A new push to simplify existing EU regulation and screening of proposals that were already on the table for their effects on competitiveness. Alain Perroy gave a business perspective on the need for regulatory reform and Jacek Piechota outlined steps that Poland had taken at a national level to improve policy-making processes.

Ministers then split into four groups to discuss using impact assessments in Council deliberations; maximising the involvement of business in policy-making; simplification; and what member states can do to improve the regulatory framework at a national level. Ministers reported productive and positive discussions, with a strong consensus on the need to deliver regulatory reform for growth and jobs. In my summary, I welcomed the Commission's clear commitment to change and recent initiatives, and emphasised the need for the Commission and member states to work together to achieve results.

Debate on the internal market began with presentations from Czech Deputy Prime Minister for economic affairs Martin Jahn, who explained how membership of the internal market has benefited the Czech economy, and Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy, who called for greater efforts to ensure effective implementation of the existing acquis and for progress on opening up the market in services.

Subsequent breakout group discussions concluded that the internal market was often taken for granted and should be more vigorously promoted. The perception of enlargement (focused on immigration and social dumping) was at odds with the actual impact (a strengthened global position for the EU, a more varied and flexible EU economy). Ministers also emphasised the need for progress on the services directive as key to the future development of the internal market. In addition, implementation, enforcement and the provision of advice and assistance to businesses and citizens were seen as crucial.

The presidency summary of debate has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and can also be found at www.dti.gov.uk/ewt/compet.htm.

Following news reports in recent weeks, I made a statement about the coal health compensation schemes to the House on 30 June, outlining a number of immediate steps I was taking to respond to these issues.

I now wish to inform the House that the Secretary of State and I have also decided to initiate an external review of the Department's administration of the former British Coal health schemes so that the Government can be advised whether any further action is necessary in the way in which we are internally managing the schemes.

The draft terms of reference are:

"To review the integrity of the administration of the scheme for dealing with coal health claims; and to identify any specific measures needed to improve the administration of the scheme; to consider whether there are adequate safeguards in place to prevent, detect and pursue fraud whilst ensuring the fair and timely settlement of claims; and to make recommendations accordingly to Ministers and/or the Accounting Officer."

Candidates to lead the review are currently being approached and we hope that the lead of the review will be announced shortly. The precise timing and conduct of the review would be a matter for further discussion with the head of the review, but we would expect that conclusions should be available by the end of September.

The review will not encroach on the ongoing investigations being carried out by the South Yorkshire police into potential fraud under the compensation schemes.

I am today announcing the final implementation timetable for the main duties in the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and the outcome of consultations on the use of certain regulation-making powers in the Act.

The 2005 Act introduces a wide range of major reforms to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA 1995) and, when taken together with other changes we have made since 1997, represents the most significant package of improvements to disabled people's civil rights ever seen.

Subject to parliamentary approval of implementing secondary legislation, the duties will be commenced as follows:

The 2005 Act also covers general qualifications bodies awarding general qualifications, such as A-levels and GCSEs. This new duty was introduced following a recommendation made by the pre-legislative Scrutiny Committee in May 2004. During passage of the Bill, we made clear that we would need to consult with all interested parties before finalising the detail of the duty. That consultation is ongoing and we will announce the commencement date of the duty later this year.

I am also placing in the Library the outcome of the consultation exercise the Department completed earlier this year on our proposals for using regulation making powers under the 2005 Act's provisions on private clubs, premises, the definition of disability and the Part 3 Questions Procedure. In general, respondents agreed with our proposed approach and we will be bringing forward draft Regulations accordingly.

However, in the light of consultation, and following a review of evidence of the extent of discrimination faced by people with more minor forms of cancer, we have decided not to exercise the 2005 Act's regulation-making power which would allow us to exclude certain types of cancer from automatic coverage by the DDA 1995.

We have concluded that it is not possible to distinguish effectively between those people whose cancers are likely to go on to require substantial treatment and those whose cancers are not and that, if we were to attempt to do so, we would introduce uncertainty and complexity into the definition of disability. This would lead to unfair and unequal outcomes for disabled people, and make it difficult for employers and others with responsibilities under the Act to understand and comply with their duties. Treating all people who have cancer as disabled people ensures a straightforward approach, which will provide equity of outcome, while having minimal consequences for employers and service providers by reducing red tape.

Finally, our 2004 consultation document, "Delivering equality for disabled people" (CM 6255) covered the bodies that would be subject to 'specific duties' to assist them in complying with the new general public sector duty to promote equality for disabled people. As a result of that consultation, we have decided that the following additional bodies will be subject to the specific duties:

Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service

Anglesey Local Health Board

Arts and Humanities Research Council

The Big Lottery Fund

Biotechnology & Biological Sciences Research Council

Blaenau Gwent Local Health Board

Bridgend Local Health Board

Caerphilly Local Health Board

Cardiff Local Health Board

Carmarthenshire Local Health Board

Ceredigion Local Health Board

Children's Commissioner for Wales

Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils

Countryside Agency

Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority

Denbighshire Local Health Board

Economic & Social Research Council

Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council

English Heritage

Estyn

Financial Services Authority

Flintshire Local Health Board

General Dental Council

General Medical Council

General Social Care Council

Gwynedd Local Health Board

Heritage Lottery Fund

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

Independent Police Complaints Commission

Independent Regulator on NHS Foundation Trusts

Independent Review Service

The Information Commissioner

Law Society of England and Wales

Medical Research Council

Merthyr Tydfil Local Health Board

Monmouthshire Local Health Board

Museums, Libraries and Archives Council

National Consumer Council

National Lottery Commission

Newport Local Health Board

Neath Port Talbot Local Health Board

Nursing and Midwifery Council

National Forest Company

Natural Environment Research Council

Ofcom

Particle Physics & Astronomy Research Council

Pembrokeshire Local Health Board

Powys Local Health Board

Remploy Limited

Rhondda Cynon Taff Local Health Board

Royal Mail Group

Standards Board for England

Student Loans Company Ltd.

Swansea Local Health Board

Torfaen Local Health Board

UK Film Council

UK Sport

Vale of Glamorgan Local Health Board

Wrexham Local Health Board

The former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend for Kingston upon Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) confirmed on 23 March that schools would also be subject to specific duties. I will make a further statement in due course.