It is expected that the Finance Bill will be published on Friday 7 April. Explanatory Notes on the Bill's clauses will be available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office and in the Libraries of both Houses on that day. Members of the public will be able to obtain copies of the explanatory notes from the Treasury. These will also be available on the Treasury's website at: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk

Following the publication in November 2005 of "Transformational Government—enabled by technology" (Cm 6683) I am today giving notice of the publication of an implementation plan for that strategy.

Transformational Government set out a vision for 21st century Government, enabled by technology. The implementation plan sets out how the centre of government and public service delivery organisations acting collectively can create a whole greater than the sum of parts. The plan tackles obstacles to success, focuses on the customer, joins up work across Government, tackles duplication and empowers the technology workforce. It is part of a long term programme of change as set out in the transformational Government strategy, also referred to in the Budget.

Copies are available in the Libraries of the House and on the Chief Information Officers Council website at: www.cio.gov.uk

Charges to cover the costs of local enforcing authorities in regulating processes which are subject to Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (Local Air Pollution Control (LAPC)) were introduced in April 1991. Interim charges for installations which are subject to the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 (Local Air Pollution Prevention and Control (LAPPC) and Local Authority—Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (LA-IPPC)) were introduced in August 2000.

With the approval of the Treasury to the extent required, and following consultation with local authority associations and industry, I have made revised schemes in respect of the Environmental Protection Act and in respect of the Pollution Prevention and Control Act. The schemes specify the scale of fees and charges to take effect from 1 April 2006.

There will be a 2.5 per cent. increase to all LAPC, LAPPC and LA-IPPC fees and charges for 2006–07. For the first time a risk based charging system will be introduced this year in line with the existing risk based methodology which was first published in 2003 for LAPC and LAPPC and in 2005 for LA-IPPC. The basis of these increases and the risk based scheme is set out in the regulatory impact assessment which is available on the Defra website at the following website address:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/airquality/lapc/charges/default.htmtlapc.

Some minor amendments to the schemes have also been made in the light of consultation with local authorities and industry.

Copies of the schemes have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

On 4 April 2005, the then Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with responsibility for human rights, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell), announced to the House the beginning of a consultation exercise on the future of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD). The consultation exercise followed a review of the WFD by River Path Associates, commissioned jointly by the FCO and WFD, and conducted in accordance with Government guidelines on reviewing non-Departmental public bodies.

Many hon. Members from all sides of the House, through their own commitment to work with and on behalf of the WFD, were already aware of the contribution that the foundation has made since 1992 to promoting democracy and human rights—essential themes in promoting the UK's national interest in a safe, just and prosperous world. I am pleased to report that the overwhelming majority of responses received during the consultation, both from hon. Members of this House and specialists in democracy promotion in the UK and from overseas, confirmed our view that the WFD continues to fulfil a uniquely valuable role in promoting democracy through party-to-party links and through its non-political work in supporting institutional and parliamentary capacity building. The arms-length approach brings value-added benefit that could not be achieved by Government.

In light of these responses and our own analysis, I am pleased to announce that the Government have concluded that it should continue to support the WFD through a grant in aid by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and to retain its current structures unchanged.

At the same time, in light of some of the review's observations, the Government and WFD agreed last year to make some changes to the foundation's operating methods to enhance accountability and transparency. This has resulted in the introduction of stronger mechanisms for appraising, monitoring and evaluating projects, reflected in new, annual contractual arrangements between the foundation and the UK political parties.

The conclusion of agreement on these new measures brings to an end the process initiated by the review. Throughout this period, we have appreciated the constructive and co-operative approach of all the members of the board and staff of the WFD, under the chairmanship first of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) and now of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of York (Hugh Bayley). The Government welcome the conclusion of the review and look forward to continuing to work in partnership with the WFD in our joint endeavour to promote democracy around the world.

The approval of the Department's Spring Supplementary Estimate via the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No 2) Bill will not occur until the end of the month. Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £1,785,769,000 for services has been sought in the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Health. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £1,700,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

Today I am publishing a report on the review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act public consultation. The consultation ran from 16 August to 25 November 2005. A total of 535 responses were received from a wide range of stakeholders and individuals. The report was produced for the Department of Health by People, Science and Policy Ltd. and comprises an independent summary of the arguments raised. Copies of the report, and the consultation responses have been placed in the Library.

In addition, over the same time period as the public consultation, the Department of Health funded the Progress Educational Trust to host an online discussion forum with the aim of facilitating open public discussion on issues raised in the context of the review. A summary of the postings made has been produced and copies have been placed in the Library.

In my written ministerial statements dated 1 December 2005 and 14 December 2005, I explained that I had agreed that proposals for the reconfiguration of strategic health authorities (SHAs), the reconfiguration of primary care trusts (PCTs) and the reconfiguration of NHS ambulance trusts were fit to go forward for consultation in the cause of improving services to patients. The objective has been to ensure that the consultation on PCTs covers the broadest and most appropriate range of options. This statement provides an update on progress.

The proposals for the reconfiguration of SHAs and PCTs have been subject to a 14-week local consultation, which ended on 22 March 2006. Similarly, the proposals for the reconfiguration of NHS ambulance trusts have been subject to a 14-week consultation, which ended on 22 March, led by SHAs on my behalf.

No decisions will be taken regarding the reconfiguration of SHAs, PCTs and NHS ambulance trusts before the results of the consultations have been considered and any recommendations reviewed. SHAs will submit reports on the consultations on SHA and NHS ambulance trust reconfiguration proposals to the Department of Health by 5 April 2006 and on PCT reconfiguration proposals to the Department by 10 April.

In previous statements, I explained that an external panel had been established to advise Ministers on whether SHAs had adequately engaged local stakeholders as part of the consultations on SHA and PCT reconfiguration proposals and whether any recommendations for reconfiguration submitted by SHAs meet the criteria set out in Commissioning a Patient-Led NHS, published on 28 July 2005.

I will announce decisions as soon as possible, which may be on different timetables for the different forms and levels of organisations. Our aim is for new SHAs and new NHS ambulance trusts to be established from 1 July 2006 and for new PCTs to be established from 1 October 2006.

During the debate on the Forensic Science Service Trading Fund (Revocation) Order 2005, which took place on Wednesday 14 December, I undertook to clarify the criteria we intend to apply when considering whether the Forensic Science Service (FSS) should continue as a 100 per cent. Government-owned company (GovCo), or whether there would be advantages in changing the status of the organisation to a Public-Private Partnership (PPP).

The context of this statement is the policy decision following the McFarland Review (2003) to promote greater competition in the forensic science market and to convert the FSS into a fully commercial business, allowing it to compete effectively in an increasingly dynamic forensic science market. The McFarland Review originally recommended that the FSS become a GovCo for an interim period (12–18 months) before a change of status to PPP. Whilst accepting that a move to a more commercial status was the right approach for FSS, I, and my predecessor in this post, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), have been clear that there is no inevitability about a move to a PPP. It remains the Government's position that FSS Ltd must be allowed to establish its viability as a GovCo. We shall only agree to a further change of status to PPP if there are convincing reasons to do so.

The decision as to whether to change status is complicated by the fact that the Home Office is responsible for how forensics benefit the UK criminal justice system overall and is also owner of the leading provider of UK forensic science services. There are, thus, a wide range of sometimes conflicting criteria, which need to be considered and balanced. Moreover, not all criteria will be able to be judged clearly at any one time. Any decision, therefore, needs to be taken in the round. In general, there are four sets of criteria: the needs of the UK Criminal Justice System; the state of the UK forensic science services market; the needs of the FSS; and the requirements of Home Office as shareholder.

The needs of the UK Criminal Justice System

This is the most important set of criteria. Any proposed change in status for the FSS needs to demonstrate that it would deliver clear benefits to the UK Criminal Justice System. Whilst there are many factors which could be taken into account, the Home Office believes that (i) quality and reliability, (ii) service levels, (for example in satisfying customer turnaround time requirements) (iii) value-for-money and (iv) level of innovation, are the key criteria.

The Home Office will consult the principal UK Criminal Justice System forensic science service stakeholders (principally, the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service) to seek their views as to whether a change of status would be beneficial to the overall UK Criminal Justice System.

The state of the UK forensic science services marketplace

In keeping with the recommendations of McFarland, Home Office will need to be assured that a fully competitive marketplace is likely to develop, whatever the merits of GovCo and PPP status in other regards. This assessment will need to take account both of the demonstrated state of the marketplace at that time and the likely future development.

The key criteria to be assessed are: (i) evidence of real competitive behaviour in the UK forensic science services marketplace (e.g. price movements for forensic services; movement of market share on competitive tenders; new entrants to the marketplace; (ii) a level "playing field" for all forensic science service suppliers; (iii) development of appropriate procurement practices within the police authorities (e.g. contractualisation); and (iv) a regulatory framework which is clear and fit-for-purpose.

The needs of the Forensic Science Service

The FSS has many exciting plans for enhancing its services to its UK Criminal Justice System and other customers. These include continuing research to develop the next generation of forensic techniques, upgrading its accommodation to modern, state-of-the-art facilities, being more flexible in its delivery of services to customers, and broadening the base of its science-related businesses. Delivery of this vision will require substantial investment, both in physical and human capital, development of new and existing capabilities and exercising strong implementation skills.

In coming to a decision on status change, the Home Office will consult the FSS Board as to the respective merits of GovCo and PPP status in implementing the company's strategy and agreed business plan. Key criteria in this regard are: (i) access to finance; (ii) access to capability; and (iii) freedoms required to implement the agreed Business Plan.

The needs of Home Office as Shareholder

As a Government-owned business, the FSS has to compete with other calls on public funds and consequently Home Office's investment in it needs to demonstrate an appropriate risk/return profile.

In coming to a decision on the relative merits of GovCo vs PPP, the Home Office will need to consider: (i) assessment of the financial value of the FSS; (ii) the financial risks to Home Office associated with ownership of the FSS; and (iii) Home Office's funding priorities.

Summary

As outlined above, no decision has been made as to whether FSS should remain a GovCo or change status to PPP. The Home Office's principal requirement in coming to a decision is whether a change of status represents the best long-term outcome for the UK Criminal Justice system forensic science marketplace and its stakeholders, bearing in mind the needs of the FSS and Home Office's requirements as a shareholder.

In the debate I set out my intention not to make a firm decision until summer 2007, with the proviso that, if the FSS Board, or Home Office exercising its shareholder responsibilities, outlined a pressing need for an earlier decision, I reserved the ability to consider this request and share it with Parliament.

The Department for International Development (DFID) will launch its disaster risk reduction policy on 30 March 2006. This policy provides a framework for DFID to integrate disaster risk reduction measures more effectively into its own work, as well as strengthening the international system's capacity to manage disaster risks, thus helping to reduce the threat that disasters pose to sustainable development and the millennium development goals (MDGs).

DFID made a public commitment to reducing disaster risk in its 1997 White Paper "Eliminating World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century" and has a good track record of providing prompt and appropriate humanitarian assistance in developing countries. DFID has also supported a number of international organisations in tackling disaster risk reduction, including UN agencies and the International Federation of the Red Cross/Red Crescent. However, in the wake of a series of large-scale disasters, including the 2004 Asian Tsunami, the 2005 Niger humanitarian crisis and the Pakistan earthquake, it is clear that both DFID and the international community must do more.

In my speech on humanitarian reform in December 2004, I committed DFID to giving a higher priority to disaster risk reduction. DFID's new disaster risk reduction policy sets out how this commitment will be put into practice. The goal of the policy is to contribute to sustainable development by reducing the burden of disasters on the poor and most vulnerable. This is in line with DFID's efforts to meet the millennium development goals, all of which are affected by the impact of disasters. The policy will also support the international commitments agreed at the 2005 World Conference on "Disaster Reduction in Kobe", as articulated in the Hyogo Framework for Action. DFID's policy has three objectives. First, it aims to promote the more effective integration of disaster risk reduction into development and humanitarian policy and planning. This includes working with the governments of developing countries and the World Bank to consider how disaster risk reduction can be incorporated more effectively into national-level planning, including through integrating disaster risk reduction into a country's nationally-owned Poverty Reduction Strategy. DFID will also ensure that disaster risk concerns are incorporated into our own planning in disaster-prone countries.

Secondly, DFID will aim to strengthen institutions, at both national and regional level, aimed at reducing risk in developing countries. DFID will work to ensure that governments have the right systems in place to manage disaster risk reduction. At the international level, DFID will work with other donors, the EU and UN to improve the international system and ensure that international commitments are put into action. DFID will work with the international financial institutions and other donors to increase the quantity of financing for disaster risk reduction and will increase our own funding, through the international system and bilaterally.

Thirdly, DFID will help to reduce the vulnerability of the poor by building their resilience to disaster risk. This will include support to the community-level disaster reduction work of civil society organisations, such as the International Federation of the Red Cross/Red Crescent and non-governmental organisations, as well as supporting a better understanding of the private sector's role in risk reduction.

The Chairman of the Robert Hamill Inquiry, Sir Edwin Jowitt wrote to the Permanent Secretary of the Northern Ireland Office on the 9 December to request formally that I convert the statutory basis of the Robert Hamill Inquiry to the Inquiries Act 2005, under section 15 of that Act.

I have very carefully considered the representations made by Sir Edwin Jowitt and the other representations I have received, and have sought to take all the relevant factors into account. My concern throughout has been to ensure that the Robert Hamill Inquiry should be able to carry out its work both as fully and as effectively as possible. In light of this, and taking into account the case made for conversion by Sir Edwin Jowitt and all the representations I have received, I have decided to grant the request of the Robert Hamill Inquiry to be converted to the Inquiries Act 2005.

Through this statement I am formally giving notice under section 15 of the Inquiries Act to Sir Edwin Jowitt and the panel members that the Robert Hamill Inquiry will become an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. The date of conversion will be the date of this statement, 29 March 2006, and from this date the Robert Hamill Inquiry will be held under the Inquiries Act 2005. Sir Edwin Jowitt will remain the Chair of this Inquiry and there will be no change to its terms of reference as announced on 16 November 2004.

It remains the strong wish of both the Government and the Hamill Inquiry that the full facts in relation to the death of Robert Hamill should be established and I am confident that the Inquiries Act will provide an effective framework for achieving this. I can assure the House that the Government will continue to co-operate fully with this independent Inquiry.

Today the Government are issuing a consultation paper—"Convicting Rapists and Protecting Victims—Justice for Victims of Rape", following a review of the law concerning rape.

This paper sets out a range of proposals which aim to improve the outcome of rape cases through further strengthening the existing legal framework and improving our care for victims and witnesses.

We want to ensure that stronger cases are presented to the courts, witnesses are given greater assistance in providing their evidence and courts hear evidence from experts that will better inform juries about the realities of rape and the psychological impact of sexual offences upon victims. Such evidence will address myths and stereotypes concerning how a victim might be expected to behave.

We believe these proposals have the potential to make a positive difference and welcome views on them. Copies of the consultation paper will be available in the Libraries of both Houses and can be downloaded from www.homeoffice.gov.uk and www.cjsonline.org.

My Department is announcing today that it is approving a proposal for ports development in the south-east—following a public inquiry in 2004—for the new Bathside Bay Container Terminal at Harwich. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is today issuing a parallel letter in respect of the planning applications which, together with the consents I have been asked to give, would allow the development to proceed. We believe that this scheme will provide much needed container capacity in the coming years.

Ports play a vital role in supporting the national economy. The Government are committed to maintaining and enhancing that role through our broad approach to ports policy and to the decisions we take on individual ports applications.

We are committed to sustainable distribution and this new project would play a large part in securing that aim. We understand at the same time that the new terminal will have a significant impact on the environment. This is why we have imposed controls on the development to provide new road and rail infrastructure so that congestion does not increase, to provide compensatory habitats for wildlife displaced by the scheme, and to reduce other environmental impacts such as noise, pollution and the visual impact.

I have today published a consultation paper which seeks views on proposed changes to the regulations governing on-road and off-road motor events, the Motor Vehicles (Competitions and Trials) Regulations 1969 (as amended) and the Motor Vehicles (Off Road Events) Regulations 1995.

We propose making a single new set of regulations, which would replace the existing 1969 on-road and 1995 off-road regulations and their subsequent amendments. Most provisions of the existing regulations would not be changed, including the conditions that apply to the authorisation and conduct of events. However, we are proposing to make some changes to the procedures for authorising events. The proposed changes will be in respect of England only. Existing regulations would continue to apply in Wales and Scotland until the devolved administrations make their own new regulations. Northern Ireland already has separate legislation for on-road and off-road motor events, which are the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland.

It is also proposed the fees charged to authorise on road events should be raised to reflect current administration costs of providing the authorisation service. The fees were last changed in 1993 by the Motor Vehicles (Competition and Trials) (Amendment) regulations 1993 (S.I. 1993/2233).

The details of these proposals are mentioned in the consultation paper. A partial regulatory impact assessment with costs and benefits is attached to the consultation paper.

Copies of the consultation paper and the annexes have been placed in the House Libraries.