In a written ministerial statement of Thursday 10 February 2005, Official Report, col. 85WS, it was announced that the previous annual Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies" had been replaced by an on-line searchable database. I am pleased to announce that the 2005 update of the database has now been completed. Data on individual public bodies as at 31 March 2005 were made available on-line during the summer, and the package has now been completed with the provision of summary reports and a printable (.pdf) file of all the 2005 data. The database is accessible at: http://www.knowledgenetwork.gov.uk/ndpb/ndpb.nsf.

The database lists the public bodies sponsored by central Government, with contact details, information about their remit and about the membership of their boards. The figures are broken down between male and female members for individual bodies, and summaries are provided at departmental level for the proportions of board members who are women, have declared they have a disability or come from a minority ethnic background.

Comparisons with 2004 database returns show that diversity levels have remained broadly similar. There has been a small increase in the proportion of appointees who have declared they have a disability, but a slight decrease in the percentage of appointments held by women and by people from minority ethnic backgrounds. This reinforces the Government's commitment to continue to pursue its diversity objectives and to promote outreach activity and plans.

The database also includes information about the Government's Task Forces, Ad-hoc Advisory Groups and Reviews, giving a more complete picture of the bodies and groups working to deliver the Government's objectives.

Copies of a printed version of the .pdf file are available in the Library.

My noble and learned Friend, the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, has made the following statement in the other place today.

"On the 13 September 2005 judgment was given in the case of B and L v United Kingdom. This case concerned an application before the European Court of Human Rights in

Strasbourg, challenging the Marriage Act 1949 prohibition on the marriage of parents-in-law to children-in-law. It was held that the prohibition was in violation of Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Government have accepted this judgment and intend to implement it by amending the Marriage Act 1949 by way of a Remedial Order. Subject to Parliamentary approval, this amendment, when in force, will allow marriages between parents and children-in-law. The Government will lay a document containing a draft Remedial Order and the other information required by the Human Rights Act 1998 before Parliament shortly.

The parallel provisions in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Schedule 1, paragraphs 3 and 9; Schedule 27, paragraph 13 and 17 (in part)) will not be commenced so that same-sex couples that wish to form a civil partnership will have parity of treatment in this regard".

The European Union Agriculture and Fisheries Council will meet in Brussels from 22 to 24 November 2005.

I will chair the agriculture items with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ben Bradshaw, in the UK seat.

Ben Bradshaw will chair the fisheries items with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Jim Knight, in the UK seat.

The main item of agriculture business is to try to reach a general approach (in effect a political conclusion) on the proposal to reform the Common Agricultural Policy sugar regime.

The Council will also consider the proposal for EU Strategic Guidelines on Rural Development, where again, we hope to reach a general approach.

The fisheries items on the agenda include Baltic Sea technical conservation measures, where we hope to reach political agreement. There will also be political debates on Baltic Sea total allowable catches and the effort control measures associated with total allowable catches and quotas for 2006.

Under any other business, the Fisheries Commissioner will update the Council on EU/ Norway fisheries agreement.

There will be an update on avian influenza by the Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection.

Poland will inform the Council about a ban by Russia on the import of Polish meat and plants.

The Agriculture Commissioner will update the Council on developments in the WTO agricultural negotiations.

Estonia, Hungary, Latvia and Lithuania will draw the Council's attention to problems in their transition from the Single Area Payment Scheme (the temporary system of farm payments in place for the new Member States) to the Single Payment Scheme (the system which applies in the rest of the EU).

Cyprus will notify the Commission of a state aid scheme designed to compensate farmers for land lost after the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus.

Today the Government will publish a policy statement announcing its intention to create a single inspectorate for Justice, Community Safety and Custody. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

The Government are committed to creating an independent and robust inspection regime for the justice system. In March a consultation exercise was launched that sought views on the purpose, function and future structure of inspection in this sector. The consultation period ended in June and after careful consideration of views the Government believe the best way to realise that ambition is to create a single inspectorate for Justice, Community Safety and Custody.

The policy statement outlines proposals for the design of the new inspectorate. Building on the excellent work done by the five existing inspectorates for the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, court administration, prisons and probation, the new inspectorate will be a modern organisation that provides a strong, expert and independent public voice and gives authoritative assurance and constructive criticism on how the system is working for the people who rely on it: victims, witnesses, defendants, jurors, convicted offenders, professionals and the wider public as its ultimate funder and beneficiary.

The new inspectorate will have a general duty to inspect and report on the functioning of the justice system and the delivery by the bodies within it of their duties relating to wider community safety. Inspection of and reporting on the treatment and conditions of those in prison and other specified forms of custody will be a special duty of the inspectorate.

The Government look forward to working with those concerned with the future of the justice system to implement a unified and strongly led inspectorate that is forward-looking and focused on improving services so as to reduce crime and re-offending and promote confidence in the system as a whole.

I am pleased to inform the House that I have today placed in the Library the annual report of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate for the year 2004. This is the first annual report published by the Inspectorate.

Publication of the report honours a commitment given by the Government in response to a recommendation of the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures in July 2002 that more information should be made available about the work of Inspectorate.

In the Government's response, published in January 2003, we welcomed the Select Committee's endorsement of the integrity of the Inspectorate and of the important contribution that it has made to the welfare of animals in designated establishments. We also recognised that public awareness of the valuable job done by the Inspectorate needed to be improved and concluded that this could be remedied, at least in part, by the publication of an annual report on its work.

The Inspectorate's first annual report published today explains what the inspectors do and how they do it, and provides details of the Inspectorate's staffing and structure, ways of working, professional background and skills, and training and development. There are currently 30 inspectors and our long term target is to have 33.

The report explains the Inspectorate's role in assessing and advising Home Office Ministers and officials on applications for personal and project licences and certificates of designation under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. It also provides details of the inspection system, through which compliance with licence authorities granted under the 1986 Act is monitored and provides information about visiting patterns and practice and the number of visits carried out during the year.

The report also explains the important role of inspectors in gathering and transmitting information on good practice and provides examples of the many events and initiatives to which the Inspectorate made significant contributions during the year.

I commend the report to the attention of Members.

I have today published the Compensation Agency's combined Corporate Plan (2005–08) and Business Plan (2005–06). The Corporate Plan sets out the long term strategic goals for the Agency over the three-year period, and the Business Plan sets out the Agency's key objectives and performance targets for the coming year.

Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Forth Ports plc has submitted a revised and amplified oil spill contingency plan to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA).

The revision and amplification of the plan has been prompted by proposals that ship-to-ship transfer of oil carried as cargo should take place within Forth Ports' harbour authority area. Ship-to-ship transfer is a lawful activity. Ship-to-ship transfers within harbour authority areas already take place in the UK at Scapa Flow, Sullom Voe Oil Terminal and Nigg Oil Terminal, in some cases for as long as twenty-five years.

The MCA's role is limited to approving harbour authorities' oil spill contingency plans to ensure that they address the potential risks of activities carried out in those areas, including ship-to-ship transfers. There is no provision for the MCA to reject an oil spill contingency plan submitted to it. It must either approve the plan or, if the plan is not compatible with the National Contingency Plan or is not appropriate for dealing with oil pollution incidents which may occur in the area in which the harbour authority or operator has jurisdiction or exercises responsibility, it may direct that the plan be altered. It is the duty of the harbour authority to alter the plan if so directed by the MCA. Failure to maintain the plan (with any directed alterations) or failure to implement the approved plan in the event of an oil pollution incident is a criminal offence.

The MCA will co-ordinate a public consultation to assess the implications for relevant nature conservation sites of Forth Ports' revised and amplified oil spill contingency plan. The consultation is designed to establish whether the revised and amplified plan will adversely affect the integrity of those nature conservation sites.

The Government have reached no view on the applicability of the ECJ judgment of 20 October 2005 on the Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, commonly known as the Habitats Directive, outside the context in which the case was brought.

However, the substantive provisions of that Directive demonstrate the need for an additional activity—an appropriate assessment of the impact of the plan on the conservation objectives of designated protected sites in the Firth of Forth—which has not hitherto been explicitly addressed during the approval process but which, in my opinion, ought to be carried out as a matter of good policy.

Given the very strong interest which this subject has generated on local economic, environmental and public health grounds, I consider it entirely appropriate that such an assessment is conducted and taken into account when analysing the adequacy of the oil spill contingency plan to deal with incidents in the harbour authority's area of responsibility as the MCA is required to do under the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation Convention) Regulations 1998.

The consultation will include the submitted oil spill contingency plan material and supporting information from Forth Ports and Scottish Natural Heritage. The consultation will assess the implications of the plan for the protected sites (in view of their conservation objectives) with a view to ascertaining whether the plan will adversely affect the integrity of the sites concerned.

The planned duration of the consultation exercise is 12 weeks. Time will also be required, after the consultation period is over, for the analysis and presentation of the results of the consultation. At the end of this process, in the light of the consultation responses and taking into account the advice of Scottish Natural Heritage, the statutory nature conservation authority, the MCA will finalise its appropriate assessment and consider whether any amendments to the plan are needed.

The Government have decided to amend the Civil Aviation Bill to clarify the responsibilities of airport managers and police in relation to the protection and policing of airports that have been designated by the Secretary of State under section 25 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 ("the Act"). There are currently nine airports designated for policing purposes—Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Birmingham, Manchester, Prestwick, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen. The primary responsibility for policing activity at these airports lies with the Chief Constable and the airport manager must make such payments in respect of policing the airport as the manager and the relevant authority may agree. If they cannot agree, the Secretary of State may be required to determine the amount to be paid to the police by the airport manager (section 26(3)).

Recently it has become clear that the relationship between the responsibilities of airport managers, aircraft operators and others carrying out security activities directed by the Secretary of State under Part 2 of the Act (sections 10 to 24) and of the Chief Constable whose officers police a designated airport under Part 3 (sections 25 to 31) is uncertain and also that the scope of the Secretary of State's power under section 26(3) of the Act is unclear.

Given the importance of this issue to the UK's aviation security programme the Government have therefore decided to use the Civil Aviation Bill to seek to amend the Act, to clarify the relationship between the activities of the airport manager and other directed parties at an airport, and policing activities in order to prevent disputes on this point and to provide a more independent method for settling any disputes that may arise in future. The aim of the amendment is to acknowledge that designated airports require both directed parties and police to perform activities, but that in making policing decisions the Chief Constable should be aware of the role of the directed parties and deploy his resources so that they complement those of the directed parties.

In addition to seeking this amendment, the Government have also decided to commission an independent, wide-ranging review of policing at airports. The review will aim to identify a sustainable approach to the policing of airports which takes account of the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders in protecting an airport and in particular addresses the need for funding arrangements that are objective and transparent. The review will be asked to compare the present method of policing airports with that of other modes of transport to establish any differences or similarities in policing approaches, roles, responsibilities and accountabilities that may apply. The review will also consider whether the principle of designation can be made to work. If it cannot, the review is asked to propose alternative options. I expect the review team to report back with recommendations by spring next year.

As far as the amendment is concerned, it will be helpful to the House and to those affected by it if I set out in detail its effects:

Where an aerodrome has been designated under section 25 of the Act the respective responsibilities of directed parties and the police will be defined. In addition, the manager of the aerodrome, the police authority and the chief officer of police (the three parties) shall be required to enter into a police services agreement (the Agreement). The Agreement must:

(1) Set out the level of police services and resources required in the year(s) ahead. The Agreement must acknowledge that the police resources will be under the direction and control of the chief officer of police. Since other agencies' and directed parties' activities may affect the police services required those agencies and parties must be consulted before the Agreement is concluded;

(2) provide for the payments in respect of policing to be made and the facilities to be provided by the aerodrome manager;

(3) make provision for modifications to the services to be provided by the police or to the payments to be made by the aerodrome manager as a result of changes of circumstances during the currency of the Agreement.

Where the three parties (i) cannot reach an Agreement because they disagree on a particular aspect such as the level of policing to be provided, or (ii) having reached an Agreement are in dispute as to its terms, construction or operation, the matter will be referred to determination by an expert. The expert must be independent of both parties and have had no prior involvement in the dispute to be determined. The expert's decision will be final and binding, save that a party may appeal to the High Court on a point of law. An expert's decision may, with the permission of the High Court, be enforced as if it were a judgment of the High Court (and may, in particular, be enforced by the use of powers in relation to contempt of court).

Any of the three parties is entitled to ask the Secretary of State to set up the determination. The expert should be a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the particular dispute, and agreed by the aerodrome manager on one side and the police parties for the other side. If the parties cannot agree, the Secretary of State will require each side to appoint an expert and those two experts to appoint a further panel member to act as chairman.

The expert will determine the procedure to be followed in determining a dispute, but any procedure must give each party to the dispute an opportunity to make representations. The Secretary of State will also have an opportunity to make representations before the expert.

Where the case is referred because the parties cannot reach an Agreement, the expert will rule on the dispute and if necessary set out what the provision should be.

Where the dispute concerns a police services agreement which has already been signed, the expert may:

(a) Give a declaration about how a provision of an Agreement is to be construed or operated;

(b) vary the terms of an Agreement;

(c) determine that one party is obliged in accordance with an agreement to pay a specified sum, or a sum to be assessed in a specified manner, to the other party; and/or

(d) make an order about costs.

The definition of the parties' respective roles in protecting an airport and provision for expert determination of any disputes will have effect from today's date and appropriate transitional provision will be made. The provisions regarding the police services agreement will take effect on Royal Assent.