My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton) has made the following ministerial statement:

"The location and the setting for the UK Supreme Court should be a reflection of its importance and its place at the apex of the justice system, and the heart of the constitution.

The Supreme Court Implementation Programme has taken a significant step towards delivering a world-class organisation in a location that properly meets the expectations of the public, the Law Lords, the legal profession and court users.

The refurbishment plans for Middlesex Guildhall, the preferred location for the Supreme Court, have been completed and will be formally presented to me on 7 March for statutory approval. The designs have been developed in close consultation with the Law Lords, in accordance with s148 of the Constitutional Reform Act, and meet the statement of requirement that was agreed with Lord Bingham of Cornhill in August 2003. The general opinion of the Law Lords is that the existing plans, very imaginatively, provide reasonable accommodation for the Supreme Court within the confines of the Middlesex Guildhall, although there are some members who remain unconvinced that the building can, even re-designed as proposed, provide a suitable modern setting for the Supreme Court of the UK. We are working within the financial parameters set out in my statement of 14 December 2004.

Middlesex Guildhall is a Grade II* listed building that requires consent from Westminster City Council before the designs can be finalised. Our aim is to submit an application for planning approval at the end of April.

We plan to open the Supreme Court for Business in October 2009. This is later than originally envisaged but reflects the time likely to be needed to deliver the current plans and enables us to open the court at the beginning of the legal year".

My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following written ministerial statement:

"I have today published a public consultation paper on the draft rules of procedure to accompany the Inquiries Act 2005. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The consultation is aimed at those people with an interest in and experience of inquiries.

The Inquiries Act received Royal Assent on 7 April 2005 and the provisions were commenced from 7 June. The Act provides a framework for inquiries within the United Kingdom, established by Ministers, into events that have caused or are capable of causing public concern. Section 41 of the Act contains provisions for the making of rules.

The rules are intended to build upon the best practice of recent inquiries. In particular they set out the procedures for applying for publicly funded legal representation, requiring rates and extent of work to be agreed in advance. This is intended to help the inquiry control costs and avoid disputes over the payment of bills. The rules also assist the chairman in controlling oral proceedings and seek to prevent extensive and costly cross-examination procedures.

Once laid, the rules would apply to all inquiries established by UK Ministers. Devolved Administrations have powers to make rules in respect of any inquiries for which they are responsible. Where an inquiry covers issues that cross administrations the commissioning Minister, or Ministers, in respect of joint inquiries, would specify which set of rules was to be applied, or whether a combination of rules was to be adopted".

A new callout order has been made under section 56 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 so that reservists may continue to be called out to support UN operations in Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The order takes effect from 1 March 2006. There are no plans to callout reservists compulsorily under this order as it is expected that the small numbers needed will be met through volunteers.

To meet the undertakings in its Race Equality Scheme, the Ministry of Defence has produced a third progress report against its Race Equality Scheme 2002–05. The report covers the period August 2004 to July 2005. A copy of the report is being placed in the Library of the House and on the Ministry of Defence's website. All the evidence shows that the Department continues to have a good record in managing and retaining the ethnic minority personnel. There is no evidence of discrimination in performance appraisal and promotion, and the level of race-related complaints continues to be low.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, on the application of Folkestone and Dover Water Services under the Water Industry (Prescribed Conditions) Regulations 1999, has today designated the company's area to be an area of water scarcity for 10 years with effect from 1 April 2006.

In many parts of the country water is a precious resource which we can no longer simply take for granted. Today's decision is a considered response to the specific long term challenges facing Folkestone and Dover water company; it is not a reaction to the short term problem of low rainfall in the south east of England.

This designation widens the company's powers to use water meters to charge customers in its area according to the quantity of water that they use. It sets aside in that area the right of customers to remain on an unmeasured basis of water charging in their current homes while using water only for normal household purposes.

The right to remain on an unmeasured charge was introduced by the Government in the Water Industry Act 1999 as a valuable reassurance to those households who preferred their existing unmeasured water charging. Since 1999 metering has increased to 26 per cent. of households in England and Wales as a result of the voluntary take up of meters and of water companies' use of the limited powers they have to impose metering, such as on change of occupier and in new housing. Metering has gained more familiarity and acceptance as a normal method of charging, indeed, the UK is now almost alone in western Europe in not charging for water on a mainly volumetric basis. I believe that metering is a fair charging system, under which people will not pay for what they do not use.

While there are no plans to change current policy on compulsory water meters, the Government recognised at the time of the 1999 Act that, especially where water resources were scarce, the right to remain on an unmeasured charge needed to be balanced against the desirability of conserving water. That is why the legislation makes provision for a company to make a local case for compulsory metering for water conservation reasons.

The company has established the case that, in its area over the next 10 years, it will face great difficulty in ensuring that limited supplies will cover increasing demands for water. No single measure will address this. The company needs to adopt a range of measures both on supply and demand, with due regard to cost and the effects on the environment. These measures must include exploring new sources, minimising leakage and encouraging water efficiency. The Government welcome the efforts made by the company in those directions and urges it to continue to do more.

The potential contribution that water metering can make to demand management cannot be ignored. The Government have long recognised that metering, with appropriate tariffs, has a role to play alongside other measures in managing demand. In the circumstances which have been shown to exist in the area of appointment of Folkestone and Dover Water Services, metering is needed alongside other measures available to the company, to manage demand. My right hon. Friend has concluded that waiting for the voluntary effect on demand of customers taking up the free meter option and on the company's existing metering powers is too long and uncertain. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the company needs to be empowered to adopt a programme of compulsory household metering to realise the full water savings from metering over the next 10 years.

My right hon. Friend has therefore agreed to the company's application.

I will be paying particular attention to the sensitive introduction of meters to households and to the effects on customer bills, especially of those least able to pay. The vulnerable groups scheme already in place will provide protection from high metered bills for customers with large families or certain medical conditions who are in receipt of certain benefits. I am encouraged by work done by the company which suggests that at least 70 per cent. of the customers to be metered will pay the same or less with a metered supply.

This decision and the 10-year programme of metering that the company will then follow, is a medium to long-term measure to deal with a long-term problem. It will not show its full water-saving benefits for some years. The view of the Environment Agency is that metering could provide about half of the margin of supply over demand that the company needs by 2015.

Today's decision is a further indication of the Government's determination to work with water companies, regulators and customer representatives to tackle the long-term challenge of water saving in the south-east. In October last year I gave effect to the Government's Rural Manifesto commitment to put in place a water saving body by setting up the Water Saving Group under my chairmanship to work together on a number of different but complementary workstreams. Compulsory metering is part of the toolkit for demand management, but it is not a blanket solution. It is for other companies with long term water supply concerns similar to those presented by Folkestone and Dover Water Services to consider making their own applications for water scarcity status under the provisions introduced by the 1999 Act. It is up to each company in the first instance to judge what is necessary and, if it is appropriate to do so, include the case for compulsory metering as part of a long-term plan.

ODPM is today publishing a consultation paper on the handling of certain planning applications and appeals relating to listed buildings in England. Copies of the consultation document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Any comments are requested by 24 May.

Listed building consent appeals

Most listed building consent and enforcement appeals are currently determined by Planning Inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State to determine appeals on his behalf. However, those relating to buildings listed as Grade 1 and Grade 2* are reserved for determination by the Secretary of State himself, following consideration of a report from a specialist Inspector.

While the buildings affected are of national importance, many of the appeals involve small scale proposals and it is rare for the Secretary of State to disagree with the recommendations of his specialist Inspector. We consider that transferring jurisdiction to determine these appeals to Inspectors will help to speed up one area of the planning system, giving greater certainty to local authorities, developers and owners of listed buildings, but without putting at risk buildings which are an important part of our national heritage.

However there will, on occasion, be appeals involving Grade 1 or Grade 2* listed buildings that the Secretary of State will wish to recover and determine himself. This will depend on the particular circumstances of the case.

Notification of heritage applications

Currently a Local Planning Authority, other than one in Greater London, may not grant listed building consent until the Secretary of State has decided whether to require referral of the application for his own determination. The Secretary of State may also direct that notification is not required in respect of certain categories of application.

Whilst remaining committed to the protection of listed buildings, the Government are keen that unnecessary delays, and the additional bureaucracy for local authorities and applicants, are removed from the system. We therefore now propose that listed building consent applications received by Local Planning Authorities outside Greater London, to which English Heritage have raised no written objections, will not require notification to the Secretary of State. Where English Heritage has expressed concerns, the Secretary of State would still require notification. Applications within Greater London will still be referred to English Heritage.

The proposal will not apply to applications made by either a local authority or English Heritage for listed building consent, which will continue to be determined by the Secretary of State.

On the 19 January 2006 I made an oral statement to the House about arrangements for vetting those working with children, and for barring those who are unsuitable. In the course of my statement I made a number of commitments and I would like to update the House on progress.

My key commitment was to bring forward the legislation necessary to implement the Government's response to Recommendation 19 of the Bichard Inquiry. Hon. Members will wish to be aware that the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill was introduced in the other place on 28 February 2006 and was published in full this morning. The Government are committed to ensuring we fundamentally reform and rebalance vetting procedures so that children's and other vulnerable people's safety is unequivocally the first priority—to achieve this we are introducing a new Vetting and Barring Scheme for individuals working with children and vulnerable adults.

The objective of the scheme is to minimise the risk of children and vulnerable adults suffering harm at the hands of those employed to work with them by:

giving employers access to a thorough central vetting service when they are recruiting people who will come into contact with children/vulnerable adults through their work;

ensuring that where evidence reveals an individual presents a risk of harm, he/she is barred from working with children/vulnerable adults at the earliest opportunity.

As I promised in my statement to the House on 19 January, the Bill will also legislate to remove the responsibility for barring decisions from Ministers entirely, transferring this to a new and independent statutory board which will take all decisions to place someone on the barred list.

Delivering this key commitment to bring forward legislation was essential. But we recognised more needed to be done and done quickly. This is why we have also acted to deliver other, more immediate operational improvements to the existing system.

Establishing an Expert Panel

In advance of legislating to remove Ministers entirely from the decision making process, I committed to establishing a panel of independent experts, chaired by Sir Roger Singleton, the former Head of Barnardo's, to oversee the List 99 process. Sir Roger Singleton has already started work and is considering current cases.

As promised, I have consulted stakeholders on the composition of the panel as it is crucial that the panel commands confidence and has the right balance of expertise. Alongside the appropriate legal advice, the following disciplines, professional groups and perspectives are to be represented on the panel:

Child Protection;

Police;

Education including Further Education;

Prison and probation;

Parents;

Child and adult psychiatry; and

Children's Social Care.

Panel members need to have an understanding of how to identify and respond to abusive behaviour, so that informed decisions are made about whether an individual poses a risk to children. The public need to be satisfied that child protection will be the panel's number one priority. I can announce today that the membership of the expert panel will include:

Terry Grange, Chief Constable of Dyfed-Powys Police and child protection lead for Association of Chief Police Officers;

Arnon Bentovim, Child Psychiatrist, and expert on child sexual abuse;

Tim Bryan, National Offender Management Service (NOMS);

David Butler, Chief Executive, National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations;

John Caperon, Head Teacher, Association of School and College Leaders;

Wes Cuell, Director of Services for Children and Young People, NSPCC;

Meredydd David, Principal of Reaseheath College, Association of Colleges;

Hannah Miller, Director of Social Services, Croydon and ADSS lead for London Child Protection Committee;

Paul Fallon, Director of Children's Services, Barnet and co-Chair of the ADSS Children and Families Committee;

Donald Findlater, Lucy Faithful Foundation;

Don Grubin, Forensic Psychiatrist, Newcastle Sexual Behaviour Unit;

Moira Murray, Children's Society; and

Eileen Shearer, COPCVA—Catholic Office for Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults.

Review of individual cases

On 19 January I referred to a review of cases where decisions had been taken since the introduction of the Sex Offenders Register in September 1997.

I referred to 10 cases where a decision was taken by a Minister not to include an individual on List 99, where that individual was on the sex offenders register. Officials and police had examined each case and concluded that none of these individuals was working in a school or poses a current risk to children.

However the review went further in two ways, looking at:

Cases where officials had taken similar decisions not to include an individual on List 99 who was on the Sex Offenders Register;

Decisions taken since 1997 by both Ministers and officials, where the relevant offences were committed prior to the Sex Offenders Register (and hence the individual concerned had not been placed on the Register).

This part of the review identified a further 46 cases. These cases were reviewed before my statement on 19 January, including visits to individuals by the police where necessary and 33 of the 46 individuals were considered not to pose a current risk to children. Checks on the remaining 13 cases were still ongoing on 19 January. Each of these 13 cases has now been considered further.

Throughout this process we have involved the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). At Sir Roger's request, the police, via Terry Grange Chief Constable of Dyfed-Powys Police, have been involved in undertaking inquiries into whether specific individuals appear to pose a risk of harm to children and the nature of any current contact that they may have with children.

In 10 of the 13 cases the individuals concerned have been assessed and, where necessary, additional information has been sought from the police. It is considered that all 10 individuals pose no current risk to children and no further action is now being taken.

In the remaining three cases Sir Roger Singleton has advised me to consider the possible barring of the individuals concerned. I have accepted this advice and am acting on it, working with ACPO, and through them with the relevant local police forces.

I also referred to 32 cases which had come to light when the police had carried out an initial review of individuals being monitored on the Sex Offenders Register who may also have been eligible for inclusion on List 99. Each individual has been assessed by the police and is subject to the ongoing monitoring that follows from being on the Sex Offenders Register. There is no identified cause for concern.

However, I have treated each of these cases as a new referral to List 99. Each case is being taken forward accordingly, and the Expert Panel will be advising me on whether to bar any of these individuals from working with children. I have already barred two individuals in this group where their offences make them subject to automatic inclusion on List 99.

I remain grateful both to the police and to Sir Roger for their speed and diligence in carrying out these further checks.

On top of introducing the Bill to ensure fundamental reforms of the vetting and barring system, I announced immediate reforms to the system which will come into place before the Bill is implemented.

Ofsted Survey

I announced that, with HMCI's agreement that, in order to inform policy development, Ofsted would investigate staff appointment procedures in schools to find out how robust current processes are. The survey is already under way and will investigate whether schools:

Complete mandatory List 99 checks on all staff;

Carry out CRB checks on new staff in line with existing government guidance;

Carry out appropriate checks on overseas staff;

Can provide evidence of effective procedures to protect children, especially when CRB checks are in train but not complete.

The results of the survey will help us identify and share examples of good practice in vetting procedures.

The survey will also consider whether or not supply agencies have robust procedures in place to vet staff they recommend to schools, including CRB checks.

The survey will also consider evidence of practice in FE institutions and independent schools. The FE aspect of the survey will be conducted in the course of inspections that are already planned and additional information will be drawn from recently concluded inspections.

Because of the importance of public confidence in the system, Ofsted will make public the findings of the survey in the spring.

Consultation on other Policy Changes

As promised in my statement I am revising current regulations to require mandatory Criminal Records Bureau checks for all newly appointed school employees. This will also mean that supply agencies ensure that their teaching staff have a CRB check. These new legally binding regulations will replace the existing strong guidance.

Good progress is being made and I will publish draft regulations shortly. We have already discussed the changes with the CRB and will consult with other key stakeholders on the proposed associated changes to the guidance.

Current guidance also applies to Further Education institutions and work is under way to ensure that colleges are covered by equivalent regulations. I also propose to establish, as a matter of principle, that any revised guidance that applies to schools should also apply to further education institutions.

New regulations to be introduced shortly will ensure that any individuals working with children who are convicted or cautioned for sex offences against children will be automatically entered on List 99 and barred from working in schools and other education settings.

I am also reviewing current arrangements for overseas teachers, and the options for strengthening the vetting and recruitment checks that are made on overseas staff. I will build on initial discussions with the Recruitment and Employment Confederation and will consult more widely with stakeholders and other government departments to ensure that any changes to guidance or regulations are properly considered in line with other sectors of the children's workforce.

Making Safeguarding Children Everyone's Business

This package of measures, both in the short and long term, will significantly strengthen our vetting and barring procedures. Continual updating of our processes both locally and nationally is needed to ensure children can be as safe as possible. The tasks of Government are to set in place the right framework to make this happen, and to close any loopholes where they exist.

These changes represent the first stage in a programme of work which has begun to deliver in practice on the commitments I made on 19 January. These measures together will bring about fundamental reform and will significantly strengthen the current system. However, while Government have a responsibility to set the right framework, employers, parents and the police have a responsibility to use the powers and checks we are putting in place to make sure the system works to protect children.

Safeguarding is everyone's business and we must all play our part. By working together we can ensure children are better protected.

Following the recent ruling by the High Court on a decision by Swindon Primary Care Trust concerning the drug Herceptin, I can confirm to the House that the policy on the prescription and provision of Herceptin for HER2 positive early stage breast cancer, ahead of a decision on licensing or National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) appraisal, remains as set out in the NHS Chief Executive's Bulletin: Issue 294, 4–10 November 2005. This is that:

It is down to individual clinicians to decide whether to prescribe Herceptin for a woman who has tested HER2 positive after discussions with the woman about potential risks and taking into account her medical history.

Primary care trusts (PCTs) should not refuse to fund Herceptin solely on the grounds of its cost.

PCTs should not rule out treatments on principle but consider individual circumstances.

This policy does not, in any way, replace either the licensing process or the NICE appraisal process. It is possible for a clinician to prescribe a drug outside its licensed indications ("off-licence" or "off-label" use).

The manufacturers of Herceptin have now applied to the European Medicines Agency for a licence for the use of Herceptin in the treatment of early stage breast cancer and a decision is expected in summer 2006. I referred Herceptin for early stage breast cancer to NICE in July 2005, and in November 2005 I announced that we had agreed with NICE that their evaluation of Herceptin would begin immediately after a licence had been applied for. I can confirm that NICE has now started work on its appraisal. We expect the NICE evaluation to be completed shortly after any licence is granted. NICE technology appraisals are covered by a three-month funding direction. This means that PCTs must provide funding for the uses recommended by NICE within three months of publication to allow clinicians to follow the guidance.

In addition, Professor Mike Richards, the National Cancer Director, is working with cancer networks to ensure that testing arrangements are put in place to enable women who require it to be tested for HER2 status. This work is ongoing.

The Government are firmly committed to maintaining effective immigration controls while at the same time ensuring that genuine passengers are able to pass through our ports with the least possible inconvenience.

Nationals of Malawi have generated an increasing number of asylum applications; 45 in 2001, 95 in 2002, 150 in 2003, 170 in 2004 and 110 in the first three quarters of 2005. But asylum is only part of the problem and the level of other immigration abuse by Malawi nationals is also significant, with large numbers being refused entry or presenting forged documents on arrival, overstaying or working in breach. Furthermore, there is a risk that the visa free access to the UK being enjoyed by Malawi nationals may be exploited by other nationals fraudulently obtaining Malawi passports and travelling to the UK. It is of course difficult to quantify this problem as many asylum seekers are without documents when they make their application and it is difficult to identify how they reached the UK. But in view of the serious problem posed by nationals of neighbouring countries, and the immigration threat posed by Malawi nationals themselves, I have decided to impose a visa regime on all Malawi nationals wishing to visit the UK. I have also decided to introduce a transit visa requirement for nationals of Malawi to deal with the increased number of passengers that are arriving in the UK without documents and submitting an asylum application.

The new arrangements will take effect on 2 March. To avoid undue hardship for those who had already made their travel plans, we have agreed to operate a grace period. This means that those who purchased tickets before 23:59 hours on 1 March and arrive in the UK on a direct journey from Malawi by 23:59 on 8 March, will not be refused entry or permission to transit the UK solely on the basis of not holding a valid visa or transit visa. Furthermore, a transit passenger who is a national or citizen of Malawi and who is transiting the United Kingdom as part of his journey back to his point of origin, will be allowed to do so without a visa until 23:59 hours on 29 March 2006, providing he can demonstrate that he bought his ticket on or before 1 March and transited the United Kingdom on the outward leg of his journey on or before 8 March 2006.

I would want to provide reassurance that the presence of a visa regime should not be a bar to those Malawi nationals who genuinely wish to visit the UK. The rules under which decisions are made are the same whether that decision is made on arrival or before. This visa regime simply allows officials to consider the application before the passenger embarks for the UK. Providing greater certainty that a person has satisfied the Immigration Rules will also smooth the passage of genuine visitors through the immigration controls, giving advantage to all concerned.

I recognise that visa regimes do represent an inconvenience for some passengers and we will therefore only maintain them where the immigration threat is such as to justify doing so. At present Croatia nationals require a visa in order to visit the UK. However, I judge that there is no longer any significant threat to our immigration controls from Croatia nationals. I have therefore decided that the visa regime should be lifted and standard on-entry immigration controls will apply. Changes to the Immigration Rules will have been made today and the visa regime will be lifted from on 22 March.

I announced on 14 February 2006 that my Department had been independently approached by a third party, with an interest in the potential acquisition of the shareholders' interests in London and Continental Railways (LCR). LCR is the company responsible for the development of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, including the railway itself, the associated development sites and the operation of the UK interest in the Eurostar train company.

LCR is a heavily indebted company, owned by private sector shareholders, but funded by approximately £6 billion of Government-backed debt. In recognition of this Government support, the contracts governing the development of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link give the Government certain rights, including the right to consent, refuse or force a sale.

The Government believe that, in the current circumstances, the best way of delivering continuing value for money for the taxpayer is for there to be an open, transparent, competitive process. Accordingly, as a first step, potentially interested parties should put their propositions to my Department as well as to the LCR shareholders, so that we can establish how overall best value for the taxpayer can be achieved.

My Department is continuing to discuss this approach with LCR's shareholders so as to ensure value and transparency, with a level playing field for all participants, including the incumbents.

The Government's objective will be to ensure continuing value for taxpayers' money, including the successful delivery of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and the continuing safe and efficient operation of Eurostar, as, for instance, under the existing arrangements whereby the Government is entitled to 50 per cent. share of any future profits on the development of the sites around the CTRL.