I propose to deliver my Budget statement to the House on Wednesday 22 March.

The Ministry of Defence has today announced the award of a contract for the Through Life Customer Support (TLCS) of the Chinook helicopter fleet to The Boeing Company (Boeing). The key benefit offered by this through-life Partnering Arrangement is the delivery of a holistic, affordable and incentivised support solution, with clearly defined outputs that transfer substantial risk from the MOD to industry, where it can be better managed. The 34-year TLCS contract, which is worth £199 million over the first five years, will result in savings of 17 per cent. (approximately £170 million), over the 34-year life of the contract, compared to the value for money benchmark.

The contract is part of the wider Defence Logistics Transformation Programme and entirely consistent with the policy set out in the Defence Industrial Strategy. It follows the successful implementation of similar support contracts for the Sea King, Harrier and Tornado fleets, all of which seek to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of military logistics support to the front line.

As the major sub-contractor for this contract, DARA has worked in partnership with Boeing and the MOD to deliver an availability-based repair and maintenance capability. DARA's sub-contract is worth £69 million over the five-year period and provides work for its bases in Fareham, Perth & Sealand.

The 2006 Report of the Armed Forces' Pay Review Body has been published today. Copies of the Report are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. I wish to express my thanks to the Chairman and members of the Review Body for their Report.

The AFPRB has recommended an increase in basic military salary of 3 per cent. for the majority of personnel and 3.3 per cent. for Privates, Lance Corporals and equivalents on the lower pay range. The AFPRB has also recommended increases in the rates of Specialist Pay (e.g. Flying Pay, Submarine Pay, Diving Pay and Hydrographic Pay), and in accommodation charges.

The AFPRB's recommendations are to be accepted in full, with implementation effective from 1 April 2006.

In July 2005 I announced the indicative allocation of £525 million Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) resources for 2006–07 to 86 local authority districts. These allocations were subject to satisfactory progress by Local Strategic Partnerships. I can now confirm the final allocations for all 86 LSPs in receipt of NRF for the period 2006–07.

As I said when we announced the allocation of the NRF last July we are committed to improving the overall quality of life for people living in our most disadvantaged areas. We want them to share fully in a better society where we see respect for people of all ages, races and faiths and respect for the communities they live in. The funds are to support local authorities, other agencies and communities to work together to achieve these goals.

Ministers have made it clear that the initial allocations were conditional on satisfactory assessment of progress in the autumn. Those LSPs assessed as weak at that time were then required to put in place a robust improvement plan and demonstrate they had the capacity to deliver it by 13 January 2006.

Overall Local Strategic Partnerships in these areas have made good progress in achieving neighbourhood renewal objectives since they started in 2001. There is evidence that progress has been made in reducing crime and worklessness and improving health, education and housing. However a small number of these areas— three—need to improve their performance. The Government are to withhold 10 per cent. of the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund allocation for the financial year 2006–07 from these three LSPs. The three LSPs (local authorities and their partners) and the amounts withheld are:

Each of these LSPs will be required to complete plans to demonstrate how national floor targets are to be met and the gap narrowed between the poorest neighbourhoods and the city average. If these LSPs are able to demonstrate significant improvement by the end of April 2006, the funds withheld will be released during 2006–07.

Details of the final allocations are contained within annex A.

Annex A

Today, the Government have laid before Parliament their response to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee's fourth report of Session 2005–06, on pandemic influenza (Cm 6738). Copies have been placed in the Library.

On 12 January I announced that the Government had decided to introduce an Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) for the private security industry and that the detail of the scheme, including the fee structure, would be announced at a later date. The purpose of the scheme is to protect the public and to maintain and improve standards within the private security industry.

The detail of the ACS has now been decided. It will have the following key features:

The scheme will have three broad alternative routes to accreditation, relating to a combination of Options 3 and 4 set out in the draft Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) issued on 25 August 2005:

(a) Self assessment against an Security Industry Authority (SIA)-provided workbook followed by verification from an SIA-approved assessing body;

(b) Confirmation of ISO9001:2000 certification by a UKAS-accredited body combined with British Standards compliance, topped up with those elements of the SIA Self Assessment Workbook in (a) not already covered;

(c) Use of an existing SIA approved accreditation, based on existing standards, to meet the same requirement as (a).

Companies approved under the scheme will be permitted to deploy up to 15 per cent. of their security personnel who are not yet licensed but who have completed training and have an application pending. I have already announced that they will not be able to deploy unlicensed personnel on assignments that involve contact with children or vulnerable adults. This will ensure that those dealing with this particularly sensitive group have undergone, and satisfied any SIA requirements relating to, a Criminal Records Bureau check.

The fee structure has been set, following consultation on a partial Regulatory Impact Assessment, to enable full cost recovery for each type of firm, and is in two parts:

1. the Application Fee, to cover the pre-approval costs of considering applications for approval;

2. the Annual Registration Fee, to cover the post-approval costs of ensuring that standards are maintained by all employees covered by the scheme.

The application fees are slightly lower than those consulted upon in the Partial RIA.

The detail of the ACS will be subject to annual review.

Regulations will be made to bring the ACS into force from 20 March 2006. A Full Regulatory Impact Assessment will be published on the same date.

Full details of the scheme, including the workbook, are on the SIA website at www.the-sia.org.uk.

I am today placing in the Libraries of both Houses recently issued guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) to Chief Officers on the consideration of applications for the removal, in exceptional circumstances only, of DNA and fingerprints from the respective databases. There has been considerable recent interest in the policy and operation of the National DNA Database (NDNAD), particularly in relation to juveniles and those arrested but subsequently not proceeded against. This statement and accompanying guidance is intended to inform that debate.

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984, as amended, the police may take without consent a non-intimate DNA sample and fingerprints from all persons arrested for, informed they will be reported for, or charged with a Recordable offence and detained in a police station. Since May 2001, the police have been able to retain the DNA samples and fingerprints taken from persons who have not been convicted of such an offence. That change in legislation was itself challenged by judicial review and in July 2004 a judicial committee of the House of Lords found that the retention of DNA samples and fingerprints in these circumstances was proportionate and justified. The police may also take and retain DNA and fingerprints from persons convicted of a Recordable offence. The amendment to PACE to allow the police to take and retain DNA and fingerprints from arrested persons is contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which was considered carefully by Parliament.

Since the amendment to PACE in 2001, about 200,000 DNA samples have been retained that would previously have had to be destroyed and of these, over 8,000 have been matched with crime scene stains involving nearly 14,000 offences, including murder, rape and other sexual offences. Early research has also shown that sampling persons who have been arrested but not proceeded against has yielded a "match" with a crime scene stain in over 3,000 offences, again including murder, manslaughter and rape. These links may never have been made had the police not been given their current powers to take and retain DNA. In relation to the 24,168 under-18s who have been arrested but not charged, which include 23 arrests for murder and 288 for rape, 541 have been matched to crime scenes profiles for unsolved crimes.

I wish to draw Members' attention to two important points in relation to juveniles under 10. First, there are no under-10s on the NDNAD where the sample has been taken without the consent of a parent or legal guardian, and in fact there are no powers to do so without such consent. Secondly, it is possible for anyone to apply to their Chief Constable to have their or their child's DNA or fingerprints removed from the databases and the ACPO guidance sets out the process for doing that.

Tony Lake, Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police Force and Chairman of the National DNA Database Strategy Board has emphasised the value of DNA evidence and the importance of the database to the criminal justice service.

New Governance arrangements for the NDNAD were introduced in December 2005 following the transformation of the Forensic Science Service to a Government owned Company. A new Delivery Unit, which will initially be part of the Home Office, is responsible for the standard setting and oversight of the NDNAD, ensuring quality and integrity of the service. It will be overseen by the National DNA Database Strategic Board, a tripartite Board composed of representatives from the Home Office, ACPO and the Association of Police Authorities. Representation at meetings of the Board by the Human Genetics Commission is being increased from one to two persons in order to strengthen lay representation and the Government are additionally looking to establish a dedicated ethics group to provide independent oversight of Board decision making.

Inclusion on the NDNAD does not signify a criminal record and there is no personal cost or material disadvantage to the individual simply by being on it. Given this, and the clear evidence showing the substantial public benefit in relation to the detection of serious crime, it is the judgment of the Government that the existing policy is justified. However, we accept the need for on-going accountability to the public and the NDNAD Annual Report, which publishes details of its activities and will be laid before Parliament, is an important part of the aim to increase transparency and maintain and improve public confidence in the oversight, management and operations of the NDNAD.

Later today I will be introducing a Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which will, amongst other things, pave the way for future devolution of policing and justice in Northern Ireland. I am introducing this enabling legislation now because I want to send out a clear message: I believe that responsibility for policing and justice in Northern Ireland should properly lie with a Northern Ireland Assembly, directly accountable to the people of Northern Ireland.

Devolution of policing and justice cannot happen until the Assembly is restored and requests devolution of these functions, and until Parliament agrees it. But although this may be some way off, it is important that we start discussing now, with all the parties, how devolution of policing and justice can work most effectively for the people of Northern Ireland.

We need to ensure that we are agreed on the model for the new department or departments. We need to develop a shared understanding of exactly what will be devolved and how it will operate. And we need to make sure that a future Northern Ireland Assembly has the tools it needs to deliver policing and justice effectively, for example giving the Assembly the power to raise revenue for policing from a policing precept, as is the case in England, Scotland and Wales.

The discussion paper is intended to initiate and facilitate those discussions. It sets out what the Government believe is a sensible and pragmatic framework for policing and justice in Northern Ireland under an Assembly. It sets out which specific powers we think should be devolved and how these could operate. It also identifies particular areas where further thinking is needed.

The paper is not a blueprint but a discussion document. It is an opportunity for all those with an interest, but particularly the political parties in Northern Ireland, to engage with the Government and, together, work out how devolution of policing and justice should work.

The Bill contains a number of provisions in addition to those providing for future devolution of policing and justice, including provisions relating to elections in Northern Ireland, a power to create a wholesale electricity market for the island of Ireland and provision to facilitate the funding of sustainable energy development in Northern Ireland.

The various policies in the Bill have been equality screened to assess whether they impact adversely on any of the nine equality groups in Northern Ireland. The assessment is that no such adverse impact arises. Steps are being taken to draw the Bill and the discussion paper to the attention of representative groups.

I am placing in the Libraries copies of the Regulatory Impact Assessment prepared in relation to the single wholesale electricity provisions in the Bill, and of the Discussion paper.

I would like to update the House on how the UK has sought to deliver its position on the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) that are currently being negotiated between the EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and also to highlight our objectives in 2006, which is a critical year for the EPA process. The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and Department for International Development (DFID) published a position paper in March 2005 called "Making EPAs Deliver for Development", which was outlined in a ministerial statement made by Patricia Hewitt, then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, on 22 March 2005. That statement set out the Government's view that EPAs should be designed to deliver long-term development, economic growth and poverty reduction, and that in its work on EPAs, the EU should take a non-mercantilist approach and not pursue any offensive interests. Since then, we have made progress in taking forward some of these goals, particularly in reinforcing the underpinning principle that these trade agreements should be tools for development in the ACP.

The UK position paper has helped to give EPAs a much higher profile among EU Member States. During 2005, we used our presidency of the EU to ensure that there was more and better dialogue on EPAs both with other EU member states and with the European Commission about the shape these agreements should take. At ministerial and official levels where we aimed to ensure that the crucial role of EPAs in development was fully recognised, and that the trade and development aspects of EPAs are discussed coherently.

We established a technical "EPA Expert Group", involving trade and development officials which is chaired by the Commission. We have also established an informal EPA network of EU development officials which facilitates informal dialogue on the critical issues and helps us work more closely with other EU member states. EPAs were discussed at the first meeting of Director-Generals of Trade and Development in the EU, and at the informal meeting of EU development ministers. We have been pleased to see a more pro-development approach reflected, for example in the European Commission Staff Paper, "Trade and Development Aspects of the EPA Negotiations" published in November 2005, as well as in the EU-Africa Strategic Partnership agreed at the European Council in December 2005.

The UK Government have continued to work closely with the ACP countries in order to understand their views and help support their development interests in the EU policy debate. For example, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for International Development, met with the chief ACP negotiators in October 2005, where he listened to their concerns on the slow disbursements of development assistance for EPAs. Since then, the Government have agreed with several other EU member states and the European Commission that we will jointly work to co-ordinate our bilateral and multilateral development assistance for EPAs. DFID has been continually developing their EPA research programme to provide new evidence to inform the policy dialogue. This research is practical and policy-oriented and includes exploring how ACP countries can ensure that any liberalisation that they undergo is paced and designed in a way that works for them. DFID has also expanded its technical assistance programme to support the ACP and promote a more level playing field in the negotiations. For example, DFID is helping the Caribbean region to decide how to structure their offer to the EU on market access in goods. This support has been well-received by the ACP and we have received very positive feedback from the ACP negotiators.

During 2006, we will build on the progress achieved so far, and continually press for agreements that are in the interests of ACP countries' development, economic growth and poverty reduction. We will also push to ensure that the review of the negotiations provided for in the Cotonou Agreement is both comprehensive and fully involves the participation of the ACP. From a UK perspective, we believe that the review should firstly aim to take stock of progress across all the ACP regions on specific priority issues and confirm that each ACP regional group can make its own decisions on the timing, pace, sequencing, and product coverage of market opening. The review should also help steer the EPA process during 2007 towards the conclusion of the negotiations. We continue to develop our specific priorities based on the principles above, in response to discussions with the ACP.

We will also work to ensure there is more systematic assessment of whether development aspects are properly incorporated into EPAs, as well as to check that the impact of implementing the agreements does not cause harm to ACP countries in the longer term. To this end, we will support the establishment of an improved monitoring mechanism that will check progress against development objectives.

We will continue to work closely with the Commission, other EU member states and the ACP as the negotiations continue. Obviously the Commission is charged with representing the balance of EU opinion, but we will prioritise our objectives and advance clearly on our pro-development approach, ensuring that the UK voice carries the maximum weight.

On 13 December 2005 in response to a question from the hon. Member for Burnley (Ms Kitty Ussher), Official Report, column 1907W, I informed the House that the DTI's Small Business Service (SBS) would shortly be publishing the overall Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI) performance figures for 2003–04 and 2004–05. I have today published these figures. A copy has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

The overall SBRI target is that Government Departments will procure at least 2.5 per cent. of their extramural R&D from small firms, very good progress is being made. In 2004–05 of a proposed SBRI baseline of £2,532.9 million, £269.1 million (10.6 per cent.) went to small firms in the form of contracts.

Also on 12 December 2005, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Burnley, Official Report, column 1675W, as to whether the guidelines issued to all Government Departments in implementing the mandatory SBRI would be placed in the Library, I said the guidelines were being revised and would be placed in the Library shortly, the updated guidelines have, today, been placed in the Libraries.

I announced on 21 November that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency would co-ordinate a public consultation to assess the implications for relevant nature conservation sites in the Firth of Forth, of Forth Ports' revised and amplified oil spill contingency plan.

The consultation has been launched today, and will last for a period of 12 weeks. The consultation package comprises the submitted oil spill contingency plan material and supporting information from Forth Ports and Scottish Natural Heritage. The consultation is limited to assessing 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.

Details on how to take part in the consultation are available on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency's website www.mcga.gov.uk.

Today the Department for Transport has published the first of its series of Regional Planning Assessments for the Railway (RPAs). This is the Eastern RPA, covering North and East London and the East of England Region.

Regional Planning Assessments are designed to inform the development of the government's strategy for the railway. They look at the challenges and options for development of the railway in each region over the next 20 years, in the wider context of forecast change in population, the economy and travel behaviour. An RPA does not commit the Government to specific proposals. Instead it sets out the Government's current thinking on how the railway might best be developed to allow wider planning objectives for a region to be met, and identifies the priorities for further development work.

RPAs are the key link between regional spatial planning (including preparation of regional transport strategies) and planning for the railway by both Government and the rail industry. There will be 11 RPAs covering England and Wales.

The RPA clarifies the role of the railway in the region, its contribution to the economy and its place in the overall transport system, setting out where greater rail capability and capacity will be needed over the next 20 years, and the options route-by-route for responding to that need. In the shorter term (five years), the Government are committed to making the best use of existing capacity on the network by matching resources to demand.

Copies of the Eastern RPA have been placed in the House Library today.

I am today launching a full public consultation on the release of data from the DVLA and DVLNI vehicle registers. I have placed copies in the House Library and it is also available on the DfT website at www.dft.gov.uk.

The Government take very seriously their responsibilities for protecting individuals' legitimate expectations of privacy and confidentiality. Information collected from citizens is therefore held securely and will only be released to third parties where there is a lawful basis for doing so. There is a broad consensus that some groups—such as the police—should have full access to details from the vehicle register. Over the past 40 years, a wide range of other groups have been granted access to details held on the register for what is judged to be "reasonable cause". However, the activities of a small number of groups who have been granted access has raised significant concern. And so we are today setting out how the current system operates, and the main options for the future. Consultation will last six weeks and we look forward to receiving responses by 31 March.

Specifically, the consultation seeks views on the groups that should have information from the vehicle register and the reasons for their having it; how we manage access to the register; and the audit regime for those who are granted access.

Following the consultation we will announce any changes that are to be made and if necessary, amend legislation accordingly. We intend to ensure that this current review produces a system that protects vehicle keepers from misuse of their information; ensures that those who do have a good case can get the data they need; balances the right to privacy of individuals whose data are held on the register with the rights of others to gain proper redress; is cost effective—in that the costs to all are proportionate to the benefits that the scheme delivers; and is right in principle and works in practice.

It has been brought to my attention that the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, David Ruffley, on 30 January 2006, Official Report, column 248W, did not contain an adequate explanation of shortcomings in the data provided. I apologise for this oversight.

The figures in the last two columns of the table provided are not comparable over the time series given.

Due to an operational decision at the time of transfer, between 1993 and 1995, many existing Invalidity Benefit cases had their start-dates reset at the time of transfer to the Incapacity Benefit system, resulting in an underestimate of long-term IB cases prior to May 2000.

The information is in the tables.

Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance claimants by duration of claim each May 1997–99

Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance claimants by duration of claim each May since 2000

Source:

DWP Information Directorate, 5 per cent. Samples from 1997 to 1999 and Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study 100 per cent. data thereafter.

Notes:

1. Figures for the years 1997 to 1999 have been produced using 5 per cent. data and have been rated up in accordance with the Great Britain WPLS 100 per cent. IB/SDA totals.

2. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

3. "Claimant" figures include all Incapacity Benefit (IB) and Severe Disability Allowance claimants, including IB credits only cases.

The general notification period for the Financial Assistance Scheme ends on the 28 February. The notification period began on 1 September and is the period during which the scheme manager must be supplied with some basic details of potentially eligible pension schemes in order for them to be considered for qualification. The scheme manager may, at his discretion, accept notification of those details for any particular scheme after the 28 February.

Although FAS offers help to those pension schemes which began winding-up between 1 January 1997 and 5 April 2005 where the principal employer became insolvent on or before 28 February, extending the notification period for any particular scheme also extends the period in which an insolvency event can occur. This means it may be possible for some pension schemes which would not otherwise qualify for FAS or for compensation offered under the Pension Protection Fund to become qualifying schemes for FAS. I wish to make it clear that we may be able to extend help to some individual pension scheme members who have lost part or all of their occupational pensions but who may not have appeared eligible for help from either FAS or the PPF.

The Government will set a definitive cut-off date for insolvency events before the end of the calendar year. Until then the scheme manager will consider requests for an extension to the notification period from those pension schemes that undergo a qualifying insolvency event after the 28 February.