A key aim of the armed forces diversity policy is that they should become more representative of the society they serve. The intention is that by 2013 the proportion of ethnic minority personnel serving in the armed forces should broadly reflect UK society (i.e. around 8 per cent. of personnel should come from ethnic minority backgrounds).

To achieve this will require sustained effort, building on the achievements of recent years to ensure that the armed forces attract personnel from the rich UK ethnic minority talent pool. As an integral part of this strategy, the armed forces have set a further round of annual UK ethnic minority recruiting goals from financial year 2006–07 for the next five years at 0.5 per cent. above the previous year's achievement for each service, or rolling forward the previous year's target where this would provide a greater challenge. This means that in the financial year 2006–07 the goals will be for the Royal Navy to recruit approximately 3.5 per cent. of intake from ethnic minorities, the Army approximately 4.3 per cent. and the RAF approximately 3.6 per cent.

Hon. Members will wish to be aware that with effect from 1 April 2006, the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency (NRTA), the Army Training and Recruiting Agency (ATRA), and the Royal Air Force Training Group Defence Agency (TGDA) will cease to hold Agency status.

This change is being made to facilitate the individual services plans for restructuring their headquarters and to improve the cohesion of training between training individuals and training formed units. It also seeks to recognise the changes taking place as a result of the implementation of programmes such as the Defence Training Review which aim to rationalise the services specialist training to achieve improvements in its delivery and to meet the increasing requirement for joint operations. We take our duty of care responsibilities very seriously and the well being of our personnel remains fundamental to the core values and standards of the armed forces and the establishments responsible for training them. I am confident that these changes will both contribute towards a more joined-up approach to tri-service training and the achievement of broader efficiencies. These changes will have no impact on the current initiatives to improve the arrangements for the care and well being of recruits. They are part of a package of broader measures that seek to improve all aspects of individual training capability. I also wish to stress that the recent report by Nicholas Blake QC has no influence on this decision.

I will ensure that the key benefits of agency status, such as customer focus and a strong performance management, will be carried forward under the new arrangements. We will continue to publish information about the work of the successor organisations and be proactive in releasing information under the Freedom of Information Act.

I am today announcing a review of the institutional structures for delivery of housing and regeneration.

Achieving mixed, sustainable communities in the 21st century is a key Government priority. These are communities that meet the needs of existing and future residents, are sensitive to their environment and contribute to a high quality of life. The Government have a role not only in articulating their vision for the future but also putting in place the mechanisms which turn the vision in to a reality.

To date successful programmes led by English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation have made an important contribution in achieving the Government's ambitions. At the start of March we approved the Housing Corporation's latest programme which will see almost £4 billion of public resources being allocated and 84,000 new affordable rented and low cost home ownership homes delivered in the next two years. In the year to March English Partnerships exceeded the previous year's outturn in respect of housing starts on sites commissioned, housing completions, employment floorspace and private sector investment. English Partnerships have also been successful in the acquisition of former public sector sites including 98 former NHS hospitals and the Oakington barracks in South Cambridgeshire which will provide an additional 10,000 new homes.

However, housing and regeneration activities are changing and becoming more closely integrated. The Government's response to the Barker review of housing supply, the growth in non-registered social landlord investment, the strategic housing role of local authorities, developing mixed, sustainable communities and helping registered social landlords flourish as social businesses are demanding and fast-moving agendas. We need to ensure that our delivery agencies have the right tools, the critical mass they need to deliver and the right structures to respond to these challenges.

As we move towards creating genuinely mixed, sustainable communities throughout England, we know that we will require even greater focus and skill in the future.

That is why the Deputy Prime Minister and I have asked for this review. It will not only look at the existing activities of the Housing Corporation and English Partnerships, but will consider more widely how we can bring innovative solutions to the range of challenges we face.

The review will consider the best way of organising national delivery mechanisms to maximise the use of private investment, public subsidy and land holdings, and assets funded by past public investment, to support the delivery of new homes and mixed, sustainable communities.

The Deputy Prime Minister and I expect to be in a position to announce initial findings of the review in the summer.

On 29 March, the wild bird surveillance helpline was notified of a single dead swan in Cellardyke Harbour, Fife. It was collected and samples taken from it were sent to the Veterinary Laboratory Agency at Weybridge and arrived on 31 March. Confirmation of H5 high pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) became available late on the afternoon of 5 April.

Avian influenza contingency plans were immediately activated, and in line with EU legislation a 3 km radius protection zone and 10 km radius surveillance zone were put in place around the location of the finding. The main effect of these controls was a requirement for any poultry in the protection zone to be housed. They also imposed restrictions on movement of poultry and poultry products in the area and the wider 10 km surveillance zone. The state veterinary service have subsequently carried out clinical inspection and sampling of all flocks within the protection zone and all flocks in the surveillance zone have been clinically inspected.

Further laboratory results obtained on 6 April confirmed high pathogenic avian influenza H5N1. As a precautionary measure the decision was taken to require the housing of birds in a wider area, known as the wild bird risk area, covering Fife, parts of Kincardineshire, Angus and Perthshire. The decision was based on veterinary, scientific and ornithological expert advice, and the proximity of important waters where there are swans and other wild birds. In additional to the housing requirement a ban on bird gatherings within the 2,500 sq km approximate area was also introduced, and wild bird surveillance has been intensified.

On 11 April DNA sequencing completed by the Central Science Laboratory in York confirmed that the bird was a whooper swan. In a joint statement the UK CVOs confirmed their current hypothesis that the swan originated from outside of Great Britain. The movement of swans associated with cold weather and on migration has been a feature of the recent avian influenza cases in wild birds across Europe. Based on this finding a further veterinary risk assessment has been carried out which concluded that the current measures put in place in relation to the discovery of H5N1 in the swan are adequate and proportionate. I have placed copies of the risk assessment in the House Libraries. The date for the lifting of the wild bird risk area is being kept under review and is subject to any further findings of H5N1 avian influenza in the area.

Animal health in Scotland is a devolved matter. Scottish Ministers are leading on the current bird flu situation in Scotland. However, Great Britain is seen as a single epidemiological unit, and both Defra officials and those in the devolved administrations are working very closely together, as they always do in this area.

Efforts were made to reassure the public that there is no reason for public health concern. avian influenza is a disease of birds and whilst it can pass very rarely and with difficulty to humans evidence suggests that this requires extremely close contact with infected birds.

We continue to monitor the situation, working closely with stakeholders to minimise the impact on the poultry industry and the wider rural economy and society. I will continue to keep the House informed as more information becomes available on the current incident, and the studies on epidemiological, surveillance and laboratory tests that are now in progress worldwide.

I am pleased to announce this joint response from the Government, the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly of Wales to the report of the independent review of avian quarantine, or the "Dimmock Report".

On 26 October of last year I commissioned an independent review of the UK's avian quarantine system. On 15 December I was pleased to announce to this House the publication of that review's report, the Dimmock Report. The report is very thorough and makes 32 recommendations to the Government, the majority of which we accept, or accept in principle.

The key elements of the response are:

Closer veterinary supervision and audit of quarantine by the state veterinary service (SVS).

Creation of a central SVS database.

Revised guidance for structure and equipment of quarantine facilities.

Introduction of management plans for quarantine operators.

Bird welfare code for importers and quarantine operators.

Enhanced laboratory testing of quarantined birds.

The full response is available at:

www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/control/ avianquarantine/gov-strategy/index.htm.

I attended the Environment Council in Brussels on 9 March 2006.

The Council unanimously adopted conclusions on the Thematic Strategy on Air Quality, which set out the Commission's vision for EU policy on air pollution up to 2020. Discussion largely focused on a call for the conclusions to take account of their concerns for a stricter approach in the proposed air quality directive on the control of fine particles and more time to meet existing standards. A presidency compromise to examining possible flexibilities was accepted by Council.

Council conclusions were adopted on the Eighth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity and on Biosafety. These conclusions seek to secure better protection of biodiversity in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction and the COP will consider, amongst other things, access to genetic resources and sharing of benefits from their use. Council conclusions on the Third Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, seeking in particular detailed documentary requirements for the identification of GMOs in bulk agricultural shipments, and the associated Council decision were agreed without debate.

Discussed over lunch, Council adopted conclusions following-up the 11th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, in conjunction with the first session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (in Montreal in December 2005). Ministers agreed to restate commitments on future pathways from the 2005 Spring European Council, with the UK and others resisting efforts to weaken the EU position. The restatement on emissions reduction pathways for 2020 was important for forthcoming discussion of the future action of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.

Conclusions were adopted by Council on the Preparations for the Spring European Council. Here, the UK, most other member states and the Commission argued successfully for a more forward-looking text on climate change to reflect the agreed conclusions reached at lunch, highlighting the EU's future role, the determination to follow up actions from the climate change conference during the UK Presidency of the EU and further work on the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. As well as climate change there was also a discussion on energy where the UK, with support, successfully secured a reference to future energy policy ahead of energy efficiency targets. A reference was also included to considering renewable energy targets.

Council conclusions on the Second Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants were adopted without discussion. The Conclusions cover the intention to include new substances within the Convention, and set out the EU position on compliance mechanisms, technical issues relating to, amongst other things, sound waste management, and enhancing co-operation with other UNEP programmes.

The Council held a policy debate on Euro V, the proposed regulation calling for harmonised vehicle emissions reductions, a longer-term perspective and include a second stage of stricter NOx emissions limits in Euro VI in particular. Most member states spoke, the majority calling for the inclusion of a tighter second stage of NOx limits. We intervened to strongly support this measure, and stated that a limited extension until the introduction of Euro VI to the derogation for certain heavy passenger cars was necessary to allow industry to catch up. Some member states had concerns with the additional costs involved and that it was too early to be calling for the early inclusion of a second stage. The Commission stressed that the available technology was not well developed and that there should be a further review of emissions limits with a substantial impact assessment in keeping with the better regulation agenda.

The public debate on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) discussed a Presidency paper on the role of the European Food Safety Authority and the EU's decision-making process. During a full roundtable the UK acknowledged public sensitivity over GMOs and expressed its support for the work of EFSA, noting that its work was still improving and that more could be done on risk communication and transparency. We also voiced our support for the current collectively agreed comitology procedures to regulate the release of GMOs, again calling for greater transparency. A few member states raised their concerns over the long-term effects of GMOs, and several member states expressed serious reservations over the EU process, and also questioned the credibility of the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA). A majority of member states pressed for more publicly funded research.

There was a policy debate on the review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (EU SDS) focusing on the ambition and scope of the strategy. The UK supported the Presidency's ambition for a single, coherent strategy that focuses on the delivery of existing commitments rather than introducing new initiatives. We pressed for balanced impact assessments and a shared responsibility for ensuring coherence in the economic, environmental and social aspects of Community policies. There was a call for the revised Strategy to open up trade to assist developing countries and should address agricultural, fisheries, biomass and biofuels policies. The Presidency noted that the Lisbon and Sustainable Development Strategies were separate but mutually supportive.

The Council also held a first debate on the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste, and the proposed Directive on Waste. Member states welcomed the proposals but had misgivings. Most member states shared concerns over the hierarchy of waste priorities, the life-cycle of waste and the Commission proposal to repeal the Waste Oils Directive. A few called for simplification of the waste process. The UK, supported by several member states, raised concerns that the proposed EU-wide minimum standards for waste disposal and waste recovery operations could jeopardise plans to increase recycling levels throughout the EU, and that barriers to using recycling material should be removed. Following a member state's concern over the import of illegal waste transport, the Commission noted that individual member states should take action to avoid such imports.

The Presidency presented a progress report on the proposal for a Directive on the Assessment and Management of Floods, and stated its intention to try to secure political agreement at the June Environment Council. The Commission explained its view that member states' existing flood management systems could be built on, to form the basis of an integrated Community-wide system, whose scope should not differentiate between transboundary and national waters. The UK, supported by several member states, argued that the Directive should focus on the problem area of transboundary waters; this was where the added value of Community action lay. Coverage of all river basins and coastal zones was a disproportionate response in relation to the geography of some member states such as the UK, and did not sufficiently respect the principle of subsidiarity. Others also stressed the primary importance of co-operation on transboundary waters, and spoke of the need to fully recognise action already taken at national level, avoid expensive duplication, and avoid undue administrative burdens.

There were seven AOB items, where Spain with some support, asked the Commission to analyse and consider EU-level standards to combat water scarcity and droughts. Belgium found some support for their concern that the Financial Perspectives deal agreed at last December's European Council might have a detrimental impact on funding for Natura 2000, and the Presidency updated Ministers on the Biomass Action Plan and Communication on the EU Strategy for Biofuels; EU conferences on "Greening Events" and "Environmentally-Friendly Travelling in Europe"; and the outcome of the First International Conference on Chemicals Management held in Dubai in February.

I announced in my written statement of 16 March 2006, Official Report, col. 104WS, that in light of the unacceptable progress in implementing the Single Payment Scheme, steps were being taken to strengthen the leadership of the Rural Payments Agency. The House has subsequently been kept informed,—27 March 2006, Official Report, col. 543, and 29 March 2006, Official Report, col. 305WH,— of the measures introduced by the new acting chief executive to speed up payments without losing sight of the need to manage properly the disbursement of a large sum of public money.

The measures already in place have begun to bear fruit with 47,033 claims representing 39 per cent. of the customer population having being paid a total of £362.23 million as at 18 April. Given, in particular, the unavailability of the SPS system over the Easter period for a planned essential upgrade for the 2006 scheme, this represents useful progress. The upgraded system is now fully operational and further payment runs are planned over the rest of the week.

The acting chief executive has, however, now told me he does not feel confident that he can say with complete assurance that the RPA will be able to make all of the full payments by the end of June. Given that advice, I have authorised that work on a system to make substantial partial payments to the remaining claimants should now be given priority and I further decided that the system should be deployed as soon as it is operationally possible to do so. The RPA will in the meantime continue to make full payments when claims have been fully validated, with historic claimants having priority.

On 16 March I informed the House of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency's (MHRA) suspension on 14 March 2006 of the phase 1 clinical trial for a drug in development known as TGN1412. As well as suspending the trial and alerting international regulatory authorities, the MHRA initiated an immediate investigation into the incident. On 5 April the MHRA announced its interim findings. This, and associated documents, are available on the MHRA website.

To date, the MHRA has found no evidence to suggest that there was any problem with the manufacture of the product. It does not appear to have been contaminated, or to have contained anything other than the correct ingredients. Neither did the MHRA find any problems with the administration of the clinical trial which is likely to have contributed to the incident. It was run according to the agreed protocol and the correct dose of the product was given to the patients.

There are still further tests which the MHRA is carrying out to confirm these findings. However, if those findings are confirmed, it would indicate that there was something particular about this product and its mode of operation in humans which led to the adverse reactions in this case, and which was not predicted in the pre-clinical research carried out on the drug, including animal tests.

The product in question is a very specific kind of human monoclonal antibody, and it is essential now to understand what this incident reveals about the underlying science, and how clinical trials involving these types of products should be managed and authorised in the future. The Secretary of State has therefore agreed to the establishment of an expert working group to address these questions. The Secretary of State has appointed Professor Gordon Duff to chair the expert group. It will start work as soon as possible and provide advice to Ministers. We have asked for an interim report in three months.

It is important to stress that clinical trials in general have an extremely high safety record. It is the unprecedented nature of this incident that makes it all the more important to learn the lessons from this incident and prevent a recurrence. At the same time, the progress of clinical trials for other types of product which are vital to patient care must not be impeded.

This clinical trial was conducted by a contract research organisation and not by, or within, the NHS. I would, however, like to pay special tribute to the staff of the Northwick Park Hospital, and particularly those in the Intensive Care Unit, for their exceptional work in dealing with the aftermath of the trial and saving all the participants lives.

I will provide a further report to the House when the expert group provides its interim report. In the meantime, until the expert group provides advice, the MHRA is adopting a precautionary approach to the authorisation of trials involving products of this kind, and will not authorise trials without having received expert advice on whether the effects seen in the TGN1412 case may be repeated in relation to those substances.

I have decided reform is needed to the arrangements under which state compensation is paid for miscarriages of justice.

The purpose of the reforms which include some important changes being made by the assessor, with my full support, is to modernise and simplify the system, and to bring about a better balance with the treatment of victims of crime. In summary with, immediate effect:

I will not consider any new applications under the discretionary scheme for compensation;

I will introduce time limits for all applications;

the assessor will assess compensation in respect of applicants' legal costs by reference to the level of fees paid for Legal Help pursuant to the Community Legal Service (Funding) Order 2000;

the assessor will take greater account of applicants' convictions when deciding the level of awards for non-pecuniary loss;

the assessor will take greater account of conduct by applicants which contributed to the circumstances leading to the miscarriage of justice.

I shall when suitable legislative opportunity arises, bring forward legislation to:

enable the assessor to make deductions from the pecuniary element of the award because of criminal convictions of the applicant;

provide for an upper limit on the overall amount of compensation and as regards compensation for loss of earnings;

enable the assessor to reduce an award of compensation to zero, in exceptional cases, on account of criminal convictions and/or contributory conduct of the applicant.

A Single Scheme

Currently I pay compensation under two schemes: a statutory scheme under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and a discretionary scheme which operates on the basis of the statement made by the then Home Secretary to the House of Commons on 29 November 1985.

The existence of the second, discretionary scheme is confusing and anomalous. The scheme predates the introduction of international standards and agreements in this area and addresses cases beyond the UK's international obligations. The scheme currently costs over £2 million a year to operate but benefits only between five and ten applicants. I do not believe that the discretionary scheme can continue to be justified.

Applications for compensation already received by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform will continue to be considered both under section 133 and the discretionary scheme. However, with immediate effect I will entertain new applications for compensation only under the statutory scheme.

Other Immediate Changes

Claims for compensation have increased in complexity in recent years and may drag on for several years. This reflects the absence of time limits on the process, as would be expected if the case had come to court, lack of clarity about the maximum amounts payable, and the absence of limits on legal fees, which are reimbursed at private work rates. Currently, applicants are invited simply to submit their claims for compensation and to detail their financial loss. Compensation payments for miscarriages of justice have increased sharply over the last few years and are now running at an average of well over £250,000, with more than 10 per cent. of that amount also paid in legal fees. In contrast, no legal costs are payable under the scheme for victims of crime, and the average amount received by each victim is less than one fiftieth of what is paid to those eligible under the miscarriages of justice scheme.

The level of compensation to be awarded to those eligible for compensation is determined by an independent assessor.

The assessor already takes some account of criminal convictions when deciding on the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary loss, and in assessing the amount of compensation he is able to take account of conduct by the applicant which contributed to the circumstances leading to the wrongful conviction. Typically, such deductions have been modest, ranging in most cases from around five to no more than 20 per cent. In contrast, reductions in payments to victims of crime are much higher, ranging up to 100 per cent. in serious cases.

The assessor has decided that, with immediate effect, he will take greater account of the criminal convictions of applicants when determining the level of non pecuniary compensation to be awarded. He will also, with immediate effect, take greater account of conduct by the applicant which contributed to the circumstances leading to the miscarriage of justice. These changes will apply to all existing cases (both under the statutory and discretionary scheme) which are currently awaiting a decision from the assessor on the amount of compensation, as well as to all existing cases (both under the statutory and discretionary scheme) where the question of eligibility for compensation is being considered by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform, and to all new cases for compensation under the statutory scheme received by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform.

The assessor has also decided that legal costs in relation to applications for compensation will, with immediate effect, be paid by reference to the fees for publicly funded civil cases as provided for in the legal help contained in the Community Legal Service (Funding) Order 2000. This change will apply to all existing cases (both under the statutory and discretionary scheme) which are currently awaiting a decision from the assessor on the amount of compensation, as well as to all existing cases (both under the statutory and discretionary scheme) where the question of eligibility for compensation is being considered by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform, and to all new cases for compensation under the statutory scheme received by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform. However, in the case of applications already received by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform or already under consideration by the Assessor, the change will apply only in relation to legal costs incurred after today and compensation in respect of legal costs before today will be paid on the same basis as before.

I am also asking all those dealing with applications for compensation, including my officials, to deal with them much more quickly than has been the case in the past. I propose that all supporting details of the amount of compensation being sought should be with the assessor within six months of notification of eligibility, and I welcome the assessor's decision to make final assessments within twelve months on the basis of the information to hand. I believe that the clarifications and simplifications introduced should enable that target to be met.

Legislative plans

Currently, section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 limits deductions from compensation awards in respect of convictions to the amount awarded to the applicant for non-pecuniary loss. I intend to bring forward legislation as soon as a suitable opportunity arises to empower the assessor in appropriate cases to make deductions because of convictions from the whole of the award—including pecuniary loss—and to provide that in exceptional cases the amount of compensation may be reduced to nil because of criminal convictions and/or contributory conduct by the applicant.

I also intend to bring forward legislation to provide that the maximum amount of compensation payable under the statutory scheme should be £500,000 and that the maximum compensation payable in respect of loss of earnings should be one and a half times the gross average industrial earnings.

Finally, I have embarked on an urgent review, with the Lord Chancellor and Attorney-General, of the statutory test the Court of Appeal must use in deciding whether to quash a conviction. I propose to examine whether and if so to what extent an error in the trial process necessarily means a miscarriage of justice. I will consult upon the results of this review as soon as possible. If a change in the law is needed, we will propose it.

My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, has also decided, with immediate effect, not to consider any new applications under the discretionary compensation scheme in Northern Ireland. He also intends to have the legislation I will bring forward on compensation extended to Northern Ireland. He is now raising with assessors in Northern Ireland the other changes for the treatment of claims by Lord Brennan. In association with my own review, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will also consider the need for changes to the test for the quashing of convictions by the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.

The IMPACT Programme, a key element of our work to deliver Sir Michael Bichard's recommendations following the murders in Soham, has already delivered some significant benefits to the police service, most notably the IMPACT Nominal Index (INI). For the longer-term, we have a very clear vision of what the programme is planning to deliver.

The programme is now in a strong position to deliver a range of capabilities to the Police Service which will not only meet Sir Michael's recommendations but will transform the service's ability to protect the communities it serves.

IMPACT will deliver a programme of technology-enabled business change for the police service which will:

discharge our commitment to implementing the relevant recommendations in Sir Michael Richard's report following the Soham murders;

enable the delivery of improvements in police performance, producing substantial benefits through increasing numbers of crimes prevented and detected, and by bringing more offenders to justice;

increase police operational efficiency, driving out considerable savings annually in direct benefits; and

deliver a replacement for the Police National Computer (PNC).

The delivery of the IMPACT Nominal Index (INI) in December 2005 responded to the second of Sir Michael Bichard's recommendations: police officers can now establish whether any other force in England and Wales may have information on individuals of interest to them. However, the system does not give direct access to the records themselves and the next stage is to develop a national information sharing infrastructure which will make operational information visible to forces across the country, transcending force and system boundaries.

The work will build upon the achievements already delivered by the programme, providing a modular and incremental approach comprising the following stages:

The continued deployment of the INI to forces in England and Wales during 2006, initially expanding within Child Abuse Investigation Units then into other selected business areas including some non-Home Office forces and central agencies. This will be accompanied by some limited further development, to improve its functionality;

during 2006, the continued development within police forces of the capability to extract data from their local force databases in a common format (The Cross Regional Information Sharing Project—CRISP—Data Schema), enabling the data to be shared with other forces and partner agencies through data warehouses.

Completion of the development of the CRISP software, as the basis for:

Deploying to each force in England and Wales from the middle of 2007, an interim data warehousing capability which will enable information from systems serving their eight main operational business areas to be retrieved by a single query; leading to:

A national data sharing capability (A Police National Database) available to all forces in England and Wales and delivering the full benefits described above by early 2010.

Officers will be able to search for information on specific people, objects, locations and events to inform operational decision-making, or to use the national data as a resource for producing intelligence products prescribed by the National Intelligence Model (NIM). The programme will also link the information contained on the current PNC, and other national systems, to force-level information.

Business processes will be optimised through an associated programme of business change based upon the NIM; the code of practice and associated Guidance on the Management of Police Information (MoPI); and procedures developed within the programme.

This programme of work will be delivered using a managed service based on existing and planned Criminal Justice System (CIS) Exchange shared services developed by Criminal Justice IT (CJIT). This offers the potential to exploit the new technology being piloted by CJIT and to re-use existing CJS Exchange components.

The use of the CJS Exchange will provide other Criminal Justice organisations with continued access to PNC data, and the delivery channels to populate the central system with data from outside the police service. The IMPACT programme will continue to retain responsibility for delivering the programme with a strong business lead and a sharp focus on driving out the benefits.

In order to realise the potential benefits from the programme, it will be managed alongside other related developments:

the programme to create strategic forces, including by force amalgamations, to improve the police service's capacity to deliver level 2 protective services;

the framework of police performance measures managed by the Home Office, which incentivise Chief Officers to give the appropriate measure of priority to tackling level 2 crime;

the ACPO level 2 crime programme, which aims to enhance the police operational capability at the supra-force level;

and will support the following key stakeholders:

Chief Officers directly, by demonstrating the extent to which they can reduce the risk to the reputation of their forces by exploiting the opportunities offered by the IMPACT solutions;

Police Authorities, by demonstrating the savings and efficiency gains in prospect;

HMIC, by supporting and strengthening monitoring and compliance measures developed by the programme.

While the police national database is under development, resources have been allocated to enable the police IT organisation to update the hardware platform of the PNC. This will ensure that the PNC remains fit for purpose until the police national database is fully in service.

The Government are 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.

The UK will stop accepting South African temporary passports with effect from today. This decision has been taken due to concerns over the effectiveness of the South African passport issuing process and the impact that has on our immigration controls.

Fraudulently obtained South African passports are regularly encountered at UK ports, held by a wide variety of nationalities. The South African temporary passport, which is issued pending the issue of a full South African passport, poses a particular problem as fewer checks are carried out prior to issue. In our opinion the temporary passport does not satisfactorily establish identity or nationality/citizenship or is in compliance with international passport practice. As a consequence there is intelligence to suggest that these passports provide an easy target for those with other nationalities who seek to come to the UK illegally.

This decision will not prevent South African nationals coming to the UK, but it will require them to obtain a full South African passport before coming here.

Transitional arrangements will apply to those who already hold SA temporary passports obtained on or before 19 April: those travellers who purchased tickets prior to 19 April will be able to travel on their temporary passports to the UK before 1 June; those who purchase an airline ticket after the announcement but before 10 May will be able to travel to the UK on their temporary passport, providing they arrive in the UK before 10 May; and those who purchase an airline ticket following the 19 April for travel between 10 and 31 May, can travel to the UK before 1 June provided they have first secured a visa for entry to the UK. This will ensure that anyone with plans to visit the UK will be able to do so or will have time to secure a new full South African passport.

Further to my oral statement to the House yesterday, copies of the joint statement made by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach in Armagh on 6 April have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, as have the associated speeches they delivered that day.

The Prime Minister's speech was as follows:

"So the moment comes, as we always knew it would, for the ultimate decision. On Tuesday, we had a reminder of the past: an horrific, bloody murder. It represented all we have sought to escape from, these past nine years.

Today we have the possibility of deciding, over the next nine months, to make the future work.

Go back to the core of this issue for a moment—and it's never wise to prolong this in the politics of Northern Ireland—recall the history. We are here in the island of Ireland that has been driven by strife between British and Irish for centuries.

In the early part of the last century, it was eventually partitioned. The larger part became the Republic of Ireland. The rest stayed part of the UK. But the struggle continued within that part: one tradition wanting a united Ireland; the other to remain in the UK; one predominately Catholic; the other predominately Protestant.

For decades up to 1998, the issue was marked by conflict, often of the most brutal kind. Politics here in Northern Ireland were divided not on the basis of ordinary political philosophy but on the core issue. Perpetual attempts were made to break out of this constraint but none with lasting success. The brutality continued.

Why did we manage to reach agreement in April 1998 on a basis to settle the struggle? Of course, there were acts of courageous political leadership. Of course, painstaking negotiation, often creatively deployed, allowed us to unravel knots of discord. Of course, the advent of new Governments and the pressure of the world to grasp resolution, played their part.

But what determined it, was something different and more profound. The people understood the futility of the status quo. They looked at the world around them, changing rapidly as the millennium drew to a close and realised that they were in danger of being left behind; that the way this struggle was being conducted was indeed brutal and bloody but most of all, it was unbearably old-fashioned, out of date, pointless. No-one was ever going to "win". "Winning" in the sense of the unionists driven by bombs and terror into a united Ireland; or in the case of republican and nationalist sentiment cowed into accepting partition: was simply never going to happen.

The people, without necessarily articulating it in quite this way, understood it and empowered the politicians to move forward.

The basis of the GFA was actually one of mutual respect for a difference of view. Each tradition accepted the other had a right to think and feel differently. One had a right to believe in a united Ireland; the other to believe in the United Kingdom. Both had legitimacy. But neither could be pursued without the consent of the people, freely given.

The idea was then to make politics take the strain of resolving the issues of concern to the people in Northern Ireland within that framework of mutually acknowledged difference.

The GFA was a massive achievement. If it was naive ever to think that, by it, all could be resolved with relative ease, then it is fair to say that perhaps only naivety could have emboldened us to aim so high; and without such ambition, we would have achieved nothing.

What has happened subsequently is an object lesson in all conflict resolution. I have dealt with all sides now for almost a decade. The problem is that agreements such as the GFA can provide procedures, mechanisms and laws. What they can't do is enforce a belief in the other's good faith. That can't be forced. It can only come through genuine conviction.

Essentially, in the eight years since the GFA, that has been the issue. Of course it has manifested itself in endless wrangles over the procedures, mechanisms and laws. But the true problem has been that each side has believed in its own good faith but doubted that of the other. Naturally, most of the time, everyone has doubted the good faith of the Governments!

So unionism has often thought that republicanism was adopting a series of tactics in the name of peace; but its strategy was in reality still one of physical violence to circumvent the principle of consent. Republicanism believed it was making the most mighty moves to set aside the past and that unionism was only interested in peace not equality, and without equality there could be no proper peace.

Each side wanted certainty before moving. Each side's uncertainty of the other's certainty led to more uncertainty.

In October 2002, I asked for acts of completion. The ambiguity had to end. Negotiation followed negotiation, the most recent intensive bout in December 2004. But then came the Northern Bank robbery and the McCartney murder, and uncertainty again set in. In July last year, the IRA announced its armed struggle was at an end. That was a move of huge significance. However, those earlier events still cast their pall. But now I feel, after months of desultory discussion, there is a renewed willingness to break the deadlock uncertainty has imposed.

How can this now be done? How can we make the ultimate decision?

We have today set out a framework beginning with the recall of the Assembly on 15 May; but running up to November of this year for the ultimate decision to be made. At that point we close the chapter or close the book.

The details are set out in the joint statement.

But once again, it won't be the details that settle this. This is a framework that only works if the parties choose to use it for proof of good faith, not to themselves and their own community but to the community of the other.

Unionism has to show republican and nationalist sentiment that it is serious about its commitment to share power; serious about equality; and serious about its recognition that republicanism has indeed changed and its leadership taken real and verifiable risks for peace. When, as will happen, dissident elements opposed to all we jointly seek to achieve, try to disrupt by the methods of the past, unionism must play its part, in refusing to give those elements a veto over democracy.

Republicanism has to address the unionist community in a way that recognises that though of course there may be those within unionism that hanker after the old days, the mainstream of unionism is very clear: it is worried that violence is still in the culture of republicanism and will re-assert itself, but does indeed want to put the past behind it and share power if it can be convinced it is doing so on a shared basis of democratic belief. So

when the law is broken, then republicans should play their part in bringing those who break it to account and support the police in doing so.

Above all, this is a moment to let the process be governed not by suspicion but by the faith that the other does want this to succeed. I don't say suspicions will not still be there. Just don't let them prevail, to the exclusion of the basic truth: people do want this to work.

In Northern Ireland over the coming years, crucial decisions will be taken on the economy, health, schools, local government. Is it not more sensible that they are taken by the directly elected representatives of the people those decisions will affect, not by Direct Rule?

The IMC will continue its work. It has said unequivocally that the IRA no longer poses a terrorist threat. That must be recognised for the vast leap forward it is. But there are real issues about criminality and normal policing, accepted as legitimate on all sides, with criminals pursued whatever their political allegiances, would go a long way towards convincing people that culture and attitude had changed decisively.

There is ample scope to find agreement if that is what people want. But be in no doubt. At the conclusion of this period, we either resolve to go forward on the basis of mature democracy or we call time on this and seek another way to go. Two things must be understood. There can be no room for compromise or ambiguity on the commitment only to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. Political argument is the only means of persuasion. That was set out clearly in the Belfast Harbour speech and remains.

On the other hand, however, there can be no way forward that does not recognise the legitimate aspiration of nationalists and republicans for a united Ireland; and give expression to it, through partnership, North and South.

In other words, the essence of the GFA, is valid. The question is: do the political parties in Northern Ireland lead its implementation or do the two governments, perforce have to step into the breach? Stasis is not an option. The option is whether the dynamic is driven by a hale and healthy democratic mandate derived from the people or by a necessarily more rigid will imposed from outside. We, the two Governments, can't exercise that option. Only the people and parties in Northern Ireland can.

So the coming months will see a decision taken. One concluding thought: If it was a sense of the futility of the past and a desire to be part of the future, that has taken us this far; reflect please on how much more relevant that sense and that desire is today. Look at Britain and Ireland. Today, we are allies. Today we engage in common purpose in a new Europe. Today our rivalry is found in a healthy competition for which economy is more vibrant. Today there is a confidence and vitality in our relationship that has enabled us, after almost 70 or 80 years of mistrust, to work together to carry this process forward. And do so not as surrogate leaders of warring tribes, but as friends.

Today also Northern Ireland has seen more peace, stability and progress than was ever imaginable 10 years ago. Getting to here has taken many painful decisions. But in any process there is always the ultimate decision. It is yours to take.

You, the leaders here, have a far harder task than us. You have lived with the past, not just contemplated it. But now you and the people you represent have the power to decide. I ask you to use it wisely".

My hon. Friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville, Minister for Science and Innovation today made the following statement:

"I have tasked the Patent Office with managing and shaping an Intellectual Property System which encourages innovation and creativity, balances the needs of rights holders and the public,

promotes strong and competitive markets and provides a firm foundation for the knowledge-based economy. During the coming year, the Patent Office will remodel itself and form partnerships through which new services will be delivered, so as to provide a Patent Office which meets the needs of the 21st Century.

I have also set the Patent Office the following targets for 2006–07:

Patents

Issue 90 per cent. of patent search reports within four months of request.

Grant 90 per cent. of patents within 2½ years of request.

Give good customer service in patent search and examination in 95 per cent. of quality assured cases.

Trade Marks

Register 90 per cent. of processed trade mark class applications, to which no substantive objections are raised or oppositions filed, within eight months of application.

Make the correct decision on registrability for at least 98.5 per cent. of trade mark applications.

To dispose of all trade marks inter partes cases within three years achieving at least 30 per cent. within one year and at least 70 per cent. in two years.

Designs

To examine 95 per cent. of all design applications within three months.

Policy/Awareness

Adoption of our educational resource, THINK Kit version II in UK secondary schools—with not less than 80 per cent. penetration.

Efficiency Targets

Reduce total current expenditure on the operations of the trading fund compared with the baseline of the Corporate Plan 2004–05, in line with the DTI's published "Efficiency Technical Note". Cumulative savings target for 2005–06 and 2006–07 is £2.3 million.

Customer Service Standards

Meet our customer service standards as reported in the annual report and on our website at: www.patent.gov.uk.

Finance

Pay 100 per cent. of bills within 30 days of receipt of goods or services or a valid invoice, whichever is the later.

Questions delegated to the Chief Executive

Reply within 10 working days to all letters from members of Parliament delegated for Chief Executive's reply".

In the autumn of 2005 we issued the draft Occupational Pensions Schemes (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2006 for consultation.

One of the proposals contained in the draft regulations was a new requirement that an annual benefit statement should be issued automatically to everyone in non money purchase pension schemes, including deferred members and pension credit members.

Representations were made in the consultation that there was no need for the statements to be issued automatically to deferred members and pension credit members, as the information contained therein would not change year on year.

While it is useful to remind people regularly about their pension entitlement, we have been persuaded that the burden of issuing automatic statements to deferred and pension credit members would be disproportionate.

The proposed requirement to provide automatic statements to active scheme members will remain. Additionally, the current provision, which requires that relevant information must be provided to deferred and pension credit members on request, will be carried forward into the new regulations.

Although it will not be mandatory for non money purchase pension schemes to provide deferred and pension credit members with an automatic annual statement, schemes may wish to provide this information on a voluntary basis. Many already provide this helpful facility.

A full response to the consultation will be published with the final regulations. The regulations will come into effect from October 2006, although the annual benefit statement changes are only applicable for scheme years ending on or after 6 April 2007.