On 7 November, my colleague Lord Drayson, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and Minister for Defence Procurement, told the other place that he would report on the lessons learned following the "not guilty" verdict in the case of seven members and former members of the 3rd Battalion of the Parachute Regiment who were charged with murder and violent disorder.

It is worth reminding the House of the very difficult, demanding and hostile operational circumstances faced by the investigators of the Royal Military Police in Iraq in May 2003. It was in the immediate aftermath of the war fighting phase where there was an almost complete absence of civil governance, law and order and where there was widespread looting and civil disobedience. There were more than 2¾ million people in Basrah and Maysan Provinces who were very different in culture, language and religious background and the majority was also highly suspicious and often hostile. The RMP were required to support the deployed force, act as the local police for the Iraqi population and commence the huge undertaking of rebuilding the Iraqi police and prison services. The operational environment and situation facing the RMP cannot be equated to that faced by a civilian police force in the UK. In the first eight months of 2003, nine members of the RMP were killed on active service in Iraq.

Against that backdrop, the Adjutant General has conducted a comprehensive review of the case and the comments of the Judge Advocate General. He has concluded that many of the issues identified have already been addressed and action taken, but there remains room for improvement. The Adjutant General has identified: the need for a review of RMP resources to meet operational demands now and in the future; better and continuous liaison between RMP investigators and the Army Prosecuting Authority; and the need to drive down delays in the system in order to ensure the timely delivery of justice. These will also be taken forward, and further improvements will be delivered through the Armed Forces Bill. In the meantime, we continue to have full confidence in the professional ability of the Royal Military Police to conduct investigations of this complexity, seriousness, and in the context of a potentially hostile environment.

The Adjutant General has also confirmed that all seven defendants—both serving and former soldiers—were afforded very comprehensive support. Each had a Unit Defending Officer who could be contacted at any time, Legal Aid (including leading and junior Counsel) and time off for those still serving to prepare for their court martial. Personal issues and career consequences are always assessed fairly and kept under continuous review in such cases. The assertion by one of the defendants that he had been "hung out to dry" is unfounded.

Questions were raised about the payments made to Iraqi witnesses. This was done by the Military Court Service. The procedures and the level of expenses paid were in line with the standard practices applied in the civil process in the UK. Overall it is anticipated that the total cost of the trial will be around £4 million although final legal bills have to be submitted.

Further to my statement to the House on 10 October 2005 on a revised programme for implementing the provisions in the Housing Act 2004, I am now in a position to announce completion of most of the first phase of the programme which includes parts 1 to 4 and 7 of the 2004 Act.

Housing Health and Safety Rating System

On 28 November, the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (England) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No 3208) were laid before Parliament. The accompanying volumes of statutory guidance on the operation of the rating system, and on the use of the enforcement provisions in Part 1, were laid in draft at the same time, in accordance with section 9 of the Act. Part 1 applies to all residential premises and the laying of these Regulations and the draft guidance makes clear to those affected by the new provisions what is likely to be expected of them as from 6 April 2006.

Private Rented Sector Licensing

Today we have placed on ODPM's website http://www.odpm.gov.uk/housing/consult/, draft statutory instruments covering the licensing of HMOs and other private rented sector properties. These give effect to decisions announced on 10 October following extensive consultation with local authorities, managing agents, landlords and tenants.

We will take detailed comments into account before laying the final regulations at the end of January as indicated in the timetable published in October 2005. We want to make sure that the provisions are drafted in such a way that they are widely understood by those with responsibility to operate them.

The draft SIs include: The Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Prescribed Descriptions) (England) Order, The Licensing (HMOs and Other Houses) (Applications, Standards, Publication of Designation and Keeping of Registers) (England) Regulations 2005, The Selective Licensing (Specified Exemptions) (England) Order, The Housing (Interim Management Orders (Prescribed Circumstances) (England) Order and The Management of HMOs (England) Regulations.

The Government expect to lay these Orders in the week beginning 30 January 2006. They are expected to come into force on 6 April 2006.

Empty Dwelling Management Orders

The consultation exercise on Empty Dwelling Management Orders (EDMOs) closed on 14 October. In December we will publish our response to the consultation and set out our proposals for secondary legislation. We expect to lay the instruments in the week beginning 30 January 2006, and again expect these to come into force on 6 April 2006.

I am announcing today the school funding settlement for 2006–07 and 2007–08. The settlement will mean that, by 2007–08, total revenue funding per pupil will have increased nationally by over £1,400 in real terms since this Government came to power, an increase of some 50 per cent. The settlement demonstrates the continuing high priority the Government give to schools.

1. On 21 July this year I announced to the House details of the new school funding arrangements which will be introduced from April 2006: in particular a ring-fenced Dedicated Schools Grant (the DSG), multi-year budgets for schools and a rationalisation of standards-related grants. The purpose of those arrangements is 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, to ensure stability and to enable schools to focus on raising standards for all pupils.

2. I am announcing today the Government's decisions on the overall increase in the Dedicated Schools Grant in 2006–07, the allocation methodology to be used to distribute the DSG, and the level of the minimum funding guarantee for schools in each of those years. Details of allocations of both the DSG and specific grants to authorities and schools are being sent to local authorities today and I am placing copies in the Library of the House. 3. I announced in July that the minimum funding guarantee for schools in both 2006–07 and 2007–08 would again be set at a level which covered the average cost pressures on schools in those years, subject to a final assessment of those pressures. As in previous years, my officials have discussed the likely pressures on schools with representatives of local authorities and head teachers. These include in particular the differing pressures on primary and secondary schools respectively which result from the final stage of implementation of the National Agreement on Workforce Reform.

4. To reflect these pressures, the minimum funding guarantee for secondary and special schools will be set at 3.4 per cent. per pupil for 2006–07. The guarantee for nursery and primary schools in 2006–07 will be higher, at 4 per cent. per pupil, to reflect the higher cost of implementing workforce reform in those schools in academic year 2005–06. In 2007–08 the guarantee will be the same for all schools, at 3.7 per cent. per pupil. As in previous years, we expect the majority of schools to receive increases above the level of the minimum guarantee.

5. The Learning and Skills Council will match the minimum funding guarantee for secondary schools in its funding rates for school sixth forms in both years.

6. The overall level of the DSG will increase by 6.4 per cent. in cash terms in 2006–07, over the baseline of local authorities' budgeted expenditure on schools in 2005–06, and by a further 6 per cent. in 2007–08. This includes funding which will be transferred out of the DSG to meet additional costs of the expanding academies programme, as pupils in academies no longer need to be funded via local authorities.

7. The guaranteed unit of funding per pupil from the DSG will increase by 6.8 per cent. on average in 2006–07, and by 6.7 per cent. on average in 2007–08. Final allocations of the DSG will depend on actual pupil numbers as at January 2006 and will be determined by May 2006. However, authorities can plan ahead with confidence now in the knowledge that they will receive a fixed sum for each of their pupils.

8. In August, my Department issued a consultation document on the method of distribution of the DSG. This proposed a modified method of distribution for 2006–07 and 2007–08 which would take the existing level of authorities' spend on the Schools Budget as the baseline, give every authority at least a 5 per cent. per pupil increase over that amount each year, and distribute the remaining grant according to criteria which would be determined by Ministers in advance of each multi-year budget period. Distribution against each of these criteria would be through a formula based on objective criteria. The key benefits of the proposed approach were that it met the concerns of those authorities which currently spend significantly in excess of their Schools Formula Spending Share (SFSS), since their spend in excess of SFSS would be consolidated into their baseline. It would also enable increases in funding to be targeted more directly at Government priorities for schools.

9. Following that consultation, we have now decided to go ahead with this approach for 2006–07 and 2007–08. A majority of respondents to the consultation supported the proposals. However, schools in a number of authorities which currently underspend against their Schools Formula Spending Share were concerned about the proposals. We have responded to their concerns by allocating in our distribution methodology additional funding specifically for schools in these authorities. As announced in July, we propose to review the operation of this methodology, consider what lessons can be learnt and work up proposals for the distribution of the DSG in the longer term, in time for the announcement of the first 3-year allocations of DSG in late 2007 following the Comprehensive Spending Review. We will announce in the new year how we propose to involve local authorities and other stakeholders in that review.

10. Overall, the minimum increase in any authority's per pupil DSG will be 6.4 per cent. in 2006–07 and 6.1 per cent. in 2007–08, and the maximum will be 9 per cent. in 2006–07 and 8.4 per cent. in 2007–08. In addition, to protect authorities with rapidly falling rolls, we will ensure that every authority receives a cash increase in its DSG of at least 4 per cent. in each year.

11. Within this overall increase we will, as announced in July, give every authority an initial basic increase of 5 per cent. per pupil in both 2006–07 and 2007–08: for authorities in London this will be increased to 5.1 per cent. per pupil in both years in response to the STRB's recommendation that there should be a higher increase in the London pay scales for teachers, amounting to a pressure on school budgets of 0.1 per cent.

12. Beyond this basic increase, we intend to distribute the available increase in funding in 2006–07 and 2007–08 to reflect the priority which the Government attach to meeting the costs of greater personalisation of learning, more practical learning options for 14–16 pupils, workforce reform and the increased entitlement to early years provision from 33 to 38 weeks. In relation to each of these priorities, the sums allocated in 2006–07 will be consolidated into the authority's baseline for 2007–08, and any further sums identified for 2007–08 will be on top of that amount.

13. First, as set out in the recent White Paper "Higher Standards, Better Schools For All" and announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the House on 17 October, we will earmark £335 million over the 2 years to support personalised learning, including extended opportunities outside the school day, at Key Stage 3. £120 million of the increase in the DSG will be earmarked for this purpose in 2006–07, and a further £215 million will be earmarked in 2007–08. In addition, £100 million will be earmarked for personalised learning, including extended opportunities, in primary schools in 2006–07, with a further £130 million in 2007–08. Every authority will receive an element of this funding, but it will be targeted particularly at authorities with the highest levels of deprivation and low prior attainment.

14. Secondly, we will distribute £40 million in 2006–07 and a further £70 million in 2007–08 to support the provision of more practical learning options for pupils aged 14–16 to maintain their engagement in learning. This funding will be distributed to all local authorities on the basis of pupil numbers aged 11–15.

15. Thirdly, we will distribute £70 million of the 2006–07 increase to reflect the full year cost of implementing guaranteed planning, preparation and assessment time in primary schools from September 2005. This will be distributed on the basis of primary aged pupil numbers in each authority.

16. Fourthly, we will distribute £82 million of the 2006–07 increase to meet the cost of the increased entitlement to free early years provision from 33 to 38 weeks which was announced in the 10-Year Childcare Strategy. This will be distributed on the basis of numbers of 3 and 4-year-old pupils in private, voluntary and independent settings.

17. In each of these cases we will apply the Area Cost Adjustment as used in the Local Government Finance Settlement, announced on 5 December, to the distribution of funds to reflect the higher costs of employing staff in certain areas.

18. Finally, we will distribute £30 million in 2006–07 and a further £30 million in 2007–08 to authorities whose spending on schools was below the level of their Schools Formula Spending Share (SFSS) in 2005–06. In 2006–07 each of these authorities will receive a sum equal to around a quarter of the difference between its Schools Budget for 2005–06 and its SFSS for that year. In 2007–08 we will give them a further quarter of the difference so that half the gap between spending and SFSS has been closed by then.

19. Although some of the increases in each year will be earmarked for particular purposes, it will be for individual local authorities in consultation with their Schools Forums to decide on the distribution of the whole of the grant locally, subject to meeting the minimum funding guarantee, and taking into account local circumstances as well as the Government's priorities. Local authorities and their forums are best placed to take decisions on the balance of priorities locally. As I announced in July we will be enhancing local decision-making under the new arrangements by giving Schools Forums new powers to approve certain proposals from their local authority. We are also strengthening the arrangements for Schools Forums' constitutions and proceedings to ensure that all partners within the school and wider educational community have confidence in the decisions that forums will be taking on their behalf. Regulations for this purpose will be laid before the House tomorrow.

20. At the same time, it is important to ensure a consistency of approach across authorities on key issues which will affect the stability and predictability of schools' budgets. I have therefore decided, following consultation, to go ahead with the proposal I announced in July to require authorities to use a single pupil count to determine their schools' budgets from 2006–07. The majority of those consulted welcomed this proposal, which will mean an end to in-year re-determinations of schools' budgets, and the consequent uncertainty about those budgets. This requirement will be incorporated into regulations which will be brought before the House soon.

21. I believe that this settlement provides the financial foundation for key Government priorities for schools and 14–19 learners. The distribution reflects an appropriate balance between delivering explicit resources to where they are needed to meet key Government commitments, and providing all authorities with headroom, once the cost of the minimum funding guarantee has been met, to target on local priorities. This will ensure that all authorities have scope to begin to respond to the conclusions of the review of deprivation funding—published today alongside the settlement—ensuring that schools in our most deprived communities and areas benefit from sufficient resource to meet the pressures and challenges they face.

22. The settlement also recognises the position of schools in authorities which in the past have chosen to spend above the level of their funding allocation—by taking their actual spending rather than their funding as the starting point for the DSG—but goes some way towards closing the gap by prioritising schools in authorities which have traditionally spent less than their funding allocation. The Government will consider whether and how to move further towards convergence around a national formula for authorities as part of the more fundamental review of the DSG in advance of 2008–09.

23. I am also publishing today details of specific grants for 2006–07 and 2007–08. As I promised in July, the funding for the School Development Grant will be increased by 3.4 per cent. per pupil in 2006–07 and by 3.7 per cent. per pupil in 2007–08, in line with the minimum funding guarantee for secondary schools. We will also bring a number of currently separate grants into the School Development Grant to reduce the number of different funding streams going to schools, and enable them to use these resources more flexibly. I am announcing details of a new fairer formula for the Schools Standards Grant, which from 2006–07 schools can use to support the development of extended services.

24. Finally, I can confirm that, as previously announced, the Leadership Incentive Grant (LIG) will come to an end in March 2006. However, the Government believe it is important to continue to provide specific support to our most deprived schools, and I am there announcing today arrangements for doing so within the School Development Grant, together with transitional arrangements for other schools which currently receive LIG.

25. The announcement I am making today creates a framework which combines clarity about the Government's priorities for school funding with flexibility for local authorities and Schools Forums over how they respond to those priorities. But most importantly it means that, for the first time, schools will know what their budgets will be for more than one year ahead, giving them increased stability and predictability and allowing them to plan ahead with confidence and make the best use of their resources for the benefit of all their pupils.

The 1999 Protocol to abate acidification, eutrophication and ground-level ozone—known as the Gothenburg Protocol—was adopted under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution. The UK signed the Protocol in 1999. The Protocol came into effect in May 2005 and has now been ratified by 18 Parties.

The Government placed an Explanatory Memorandum on the Protocol before both Houses of Parliament in September 2002. At that time it was thought that additional legislation would be required to allow the UK to ratify the Protocol.

However, further analysis of the provisions of the Protocol has allowed us to establish that further legislation will not be required. I have tabled a revised Explanatory Memorandum indicating that we propose to ratify the Protocol forthwith. I intend that the instrument of ratification will be deposited with the United Nations in the course of December 2005.

The UK will ratify the Protocol subject to a reservation. The new Explanatory Memorandum sets out the reservation that the UK will make. It relates to a provision on a type of gas engine where the UK considers that it is not technically feasible to meet the limit values required by the Protocol.

As the Government take these urgent steps to ratify, we are conscious that Parliament will have less time than convention normally allows to consider the revised Memorandum. However, we believe this to be a special case on the ground that the earlier Memorandum on the Protocol has been available to both Houses since 2002. In these circumstances, the Government consider that a shortening of the normal scrutiny period is reasonable.

The next meeting of the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council will be on 8–9 December. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will chair the meeting and I will attend for the United Kingdom. Items on the agenda relating to health will be covered on 9 December. Items for discussion are: Human health aspects of pandemic flu; proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on medicinal products for paediatric use; and the European Commission's Green Paper: "Improving the mental health of the population, Towards a strategy on mental health for the European Union".

Health Ministers will have a policy debate on human health aspects of pandemic flu and Ministers will be asked to adopt Council Conclusions on this topic. The Presidency then hopes to reach political agreement on the regulation on medicinal products for paediatric use.

There will then be an exchange of views on the green paper on mental health. The discussion will be structured around the European Commission's consultation questions.

Under any other business, the Presidency and the Commission will provide information on: Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Programme of Community action in the field of public health and consumer protection; health inequalities and patient safety; a co-ordinated approach to the fight against HIV/AIDS in the European Union and the neighbouring countries; Council Public Health Working Party meeting at senior level; Commission High Level Group on Health Services and Medical Care; Framework Convention on Tobacco Control; and International Health Regulations.

In addition, Ministers will have an informal discussion on promoting healthy diets and physical activity.

Today I announce the publication of the Department of Health's 2005 Autumn Performance Report (Cm 6704). A copy of this has been placed in the Library. It shows the progress my Department has made towards achieving its public service agreement targets.

Further details of the performance of the National Health Service can be found in the latest copy of the Chief Executive's Report to the NHS; this has also been placed in the Library.

The Autumn Performance Report shows that there have been further improvements in access to services. The number of NHS patients waiting longer than three months for an outpatient appointment has fallen from 77,500 to 39,800 over the past year. In addition, the number of people waiting more than six months for an inpatient appointment fell from 69,900 to 24,800. We are on course to meet our maximum three month wait for outpatients and six month wait for inpatients by December 2005.

In addition to improving access we are also introducing choice. By the end of the year all eligible patients will be offered the choice of at least four providers at the point of general practitioner referral to consultant-led first outpatient appointments. Some patients are already benefiting from choice of hospital; since January 2005, cataract patients have been offered the choice of two or more providers at the point of referral. From April 2005, patients needing cardiac surgery have been given the choice of two or more providers at the point of referral by the cardiologist.

We are also improving health. Death rates from heart disease among people under 75 have fallen by 31 per cent., since the baseline of 1995–97; deaths from cancer have fallen by 14 per cent., over the same period. We have also seen a 6.6 per cent., fall in suicides against the 1995–97 baseline.

These are just some of the achievements of the NHS over the past year. These improvements have been made in a demanding year through the hard work, skills and passion of hundreds of thousands of staff, the increased funding the government is investing in heath and social care, and new and better ways of engaging services.

Finally, the Department has today published a report, "Accounting for Quality Change", which discusses the way the output of the NHS is measured. The Department considers it important to make the new figures public and encourage discussions, and ideas for further development.

I am laying before the House today a command paper on services for victims of crime: "Rebuilding Lives: supporting victims of crime" (Cm 6705). It is part of the Government's ongoing reforms which have improved services for victims of crime and their families.

In it we make proposals for reform of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme which will enable us to increase awards to the most seriously injured victims of crime, and to offer more immediate practical help to the vast majority. We are consulting on a range of options to deliver better support to victims through our manifesto commitment to introduce Victim Care Units. We will consult widely and the consultation period runs until 27 February 2006. A summary of the consultation responses will be published and placed in the House Library. Copies of the consultation paper will be placed in the House Library.

Today I will be laying before Parliament the Royal Patriotic Fund (Transfer of Property, Rights and Liabilities) Order 2005.

The Order provides for the transfer of the property, rights and liabilities of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation (a body corporate established under the Patriotic Fund Reorganisation Act 1903) to the RPFC, a company registered under the Charities Act 1993, and for the dissolution of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. The RPFC has been established for the benefit of the persons specified in section 6 of the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act 2004. Schedule 2 to that Act makes further provision in relation to the transfer of employees to the RPFC.

The object of the new body will remain the same as that of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, namely to provide (by way of grants and allowances) assistance to the widows and other dependants of members of the Armed Forces. But the new constitution will enable it to carry out its functions more efficiently. The transfer will take effect from 1 January 2006.

I am placing in the Libraries of both Houses a copy of a new DFID policy paper, "Growth and poverty reduction; the role of agriculture".

The paper analyses the importance of agriculture for poverty reducing growth and shows why agriculture should be placed at the heart of efforts to reduce poverty. Increasing agricultural productivity can bring benefits to both producers and consumers. But of equal importance are agriculture's strong links with the wider economy.

The paper argues that reversing recent disappointing trends in agriculture's performance is critical if poor countries are to escape the trap of slow growth and poverty. This is particularly true in sub-Saharan Africa, where growth in agricultural output has barely kept pace with population. A major improvement in agriculture's performance in the world's poorest countries is possible and must be achieved if millions of people are to escape poverty.

The paper reaffirms the rationale for DFID support to agriculture and lays out the principles and priorities that should direct DFID's approach. Seven priority areas for action are identified. They are to: create policies and procedures that support agriculture; target public spending more effectively; tackle market failure; fill the agricultural finance gap; spread the benefits of new technology; improve access to land and secure property rights; and reduce distortions in international agricultural markets.

I have published a statement setting out the overall reform programme for post-primary education in Northern Ireland. This provides the context for the reforms and explains how the various elements fit together, including new admissions arrangements. Alongside this, I have published a summary of the responses to an earlier consultation on the new admission arrangements.

I have also launched a consultation on a proposal for a draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order which will give effect to key elements of the reforms. The consultation will run until 7 March 2006.

I have arranged for copies of these documents to be placed in the Library.

I have received applications from two hauliers each wishing to trial a longer and heavier goods vehicle than is currently permitted. I have decided to refuse these applications.

Both vehicles exceed the current maximum length and weight limits of 18.75 m and 44 tonnes respectively. One applicant proposed to trial a vehicle 25.25 m in length weighing 60 tonnes, in common with moves elsewhere in Europe, while the other was expected to be 30.8 m and 84 tonnes.

While recognising that there are arguments both for and against, I have not been convinced that these vehicles are well suited to the UK at the present time, for a number of reasons. I have not seen clear evidence that longer and heavier vehicles (LHVs) would deliver economic benefit to the industry and in particular whether the benefits would come from increased mass, increased volume or both.

I believe that more work needs to be done to look at axle loadings for various designs of LHVs and the consequent impact on pavements, bridges and other infrastructure; and to estimate the costs of any reinforcement or remedial works.

The Department for Transport has examined video material showing prototype lorries turning and carrying out other manoeuvres and feels that more needs to be done to test their likely impact on traffic and to assess any constraints that might have to be placed on their usage. In particular I have noted that the previous increase in HGV weights to 44 tonnes had assumed that vehicles would be permitted to use the whole of the road network. If operation of LHVs in the UK were to depend on the designation of some form of "sub-network", as might be implied by access constraints, then the Department needs to study this premise and if correct assess the implications of creating such a sub-network.

The freight and logistics industry is constantly changing so I have instructed officials at my Department to continue to monitor developments, and to carry out their studies in close liaison with the industry.

The proposed rates of benefit for 2006 are set out in the table below. The annual uprating of benefits will take place for State Pension and most other benefits in the first full week of the tax year. In 2006, this will be the week beginning 10 April. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland proposes to introduce similar changes for Northern Ireland.