During the passage of the 2004 Housing Bill the Government made commitments to consider whether it is possible to devise an approach to overcrowding that provides for some incremental improvement in standards over a period; and to consult on how the new section 216 powers could be used to amend the statutory overcrowding standards in Part X of the Housing Act 1985.

The Government are today publishing a discussion document on “Tackling Overcrowding in England” which sets out options for revising the outdated definition of overcrowding and developing long-term solutions. This document is designed to stimulate and garner ideas about how best we can tackle the problems of overcrowding. DCLG officials will be actively engaging stakeholders in discussions, which will conclude on 15 September 2006. Copies of the document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

The Government are also providing a £51 million package for tackling overcrowding and increasing the number of settled homes for people in temporary accommodation. The funding announced today is focused on two key areas:

£21 million will be made available for immediate action to tackle overcrowding, by increasing the supply of family homes in London. This could include converting existing homes to create extra bedrooms; adding extensions to existing council stock; building or purchasing additional homes, or buying back right to buy homes. Five coordinators will also be funded to work across London to tackle the most immediate problems of overcrowding.

Some £30 million will also be provided to fund an extra home pilot, which could help to deliver up to an extra 1,000 settled homes for families who are currently in temporary accommodation.

I am pleased to announce that I am today publishing the Ministry of Defence's Annual Report and Accounts 2005-06. It combines the Department's Annual Performance Report and Departmental Resource Accounts in a single document that provides a comprehensive overview of the MOD's financial and non-financial performance. For a third successive year the Comptroller and Auditor General has approved the accounts without qualification. For the first time, this year we have achieved this in time for publication before the summer recess.

The report shows that once again the Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence delivered what they were required to do during a busy and challenging year. It reflects the broad and diverse range of operations and tasks undertaken during the year, including a number in support of the output of other Government Departments. It details the progress the Ministry of Defence has made towards achieving the Public Service Agreement and efficiency targets agreed with Her Majesty's Treasury in the 2004 Spending Review, and in delivering the capabilities and reformed force structure set out in the July 2004 Command Paper “Delivering Security in the Changing World: Future Capabilities”. It also sets out the defence contribution against the Government's wider sustainability goals.

Copies of the Annual Report and Accounts will be placed in the Library of the House. It is also available online from the Department's internet site at www.mod.uk.

My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and Minister for Defence Procurement (Lord Drayson) has made the following written ministerial statement.

“I wish to inform the House of developments in the Landing Ship Dock (Auxiliary) (LSD(A)) programme. The Ministry of Defence has reached a full and final settlement for the closure, by mutual agreement, of its contract with Swan Hunter (Tyneside) Limited in Newcastle for the design and construction of two of the vessels.

The programme is to deliver a new class of Landing Ship Dock (Auxiliary) to replace the ageing Landing Ship Logistic, used to deploy Amphibious Task Groups, vehicles and equipment directly into potentially hostile operational areas. Beyond their primary role to support amphibious operations, the vessels will provide wider support to joint operations by providing strategic sealift at high readiness, support to humanitarian and peace keeping operations and sea based support to deployed land formations. The total programme is for four vessels, two designed and constructed by Swan Hunter with a further two built by BAE Systems.

The LSD(A) programme is well advanced. RFA Mounts Bay, the first ship built by BAE Systems, has completed Sea Trials and been accepted by MOD. Cardigan Bay, the second BAE Systems ship, is due to be accepted in August. Largs Bay, the first of the Swan Hunter vessels, was accepted off contract in April but this was over two years later than the original contract schedule. Initial indications are that the vessels will deliver excellent capability once in service.

The major programme issue has been, however, the poor performance and cost growth at Swan Hunter, which has also impacted on the costs of the ships being built by BAE Systems. Swan Hunter were awarded the LSD(A) contract in December 2000. It subsequently became apparent that Swan Hunter had underestimated the complexity of the programme and were unable to control costs effectively and, in December 2004, the contract value was uplifted by £84 million. Swan Hunter was also expected to improve their management performance. However, costs have continued to rise and this funding has been consumed without Lyme Bay, the second Swan Hunter ship being completed.

Although the construction of Lyme Bay is well advanced, we cannot predict her acceptance date nor her cost to completion with any confidence in the current contractual arrangements. Sustaining the current contract with Swan Hunter no longer provides value for money for the taxpayer, and to continue would be likely to lead to more delay and further cost overrun.

It has therefore been mutually agreed with the management of Swan Hunter that the contract should be closed. BAE Systems will instead provide Lead Yard Services and Design Authority until completion of the programme and will complete the construction of Lyme Bay at Govan on the Clyde. There has been significant cost escalation on this programme and we now expect the revised combined contract values to be approximately £600 million. The details of the commercial agreements currently remain confidential, but the relevant cost data will be released once it is possible to do so. The new arrangements bring far more certainty to the programme, both in cost and timescales.

Our priority has always been effective delivery of the required military capability, which we have attempted to achieve through successful completion of the contract with Swan Hunter. The company has been given every encouragement and opportunity to succeed, through additional funding and time. While the workforce itself has performed well, with excellent workmanship, we no longer have adequate confidence in the company's ability to complete the contract within an acceptable timescale or cost. We therefore have no choice left. It would be fundamentally incompatible with our obligations to the taxpayer, or indeed the principles of the Defence Industrial Strategy, for us to continue with this state of affairs.

We will be doing what we can to minimise the impact of this decision on the region. Discussions are underway with the Trade Unions, local MPs, and others regarding the way ahead. The Ministry of Defence is also working with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Regional Development Agency, One North East, to identify opportunities for the workforce including the apprentices currently employed within the company. We expect that a number of the main sub-contractors will be re-employed by BAE Systems to complete Cardigan Bay and Lyme Bay.

While the need for this decision has been unwelcome, we now look forward to introducing all four ships to service and providing our Armed Forces with the high level of capability and support they have the right to expect”.

On 21 November 2000 the then Minister for Veterans Affairs (Dr Lewis Moonie) announced a package of measures intended to address emerging concerns that some Porton Down volunteers might have suffered unusual ill health because of their participation in trials at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has sought to address these concerns through a number of measures. These include a Historical Survey of the Porton Down Service Volunteer Programme 1939-1989 (the period of most interest to volunteers) which is published today. It sets out a full description of the size and shape of the studies in which volunteers took part, and explores their ethical aspects. Also, the MOD is funding an independently run epidemiological study, overseen by the Medical Research Council, to assess the incidence of cancer and mortality among former Porton Down volunteers. The study is expected to report in 2007 and it is hoped that the results will be published in peer reviewed literature shortly thereafter.

Copies of the Historical Survey will be placed in the Library of the House and it will also be available on the MOD website at:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/Issues/PortonDownHistoricalSurvey.htm.

The Survey has been conducted by MOD officials who had no previous professional contact with Porton Down. No member of Porton Down staff was involved in determining the ground the survey should cover or the documents which were to be consulted. Porton Down's advice has been sought in order to clarify explanations of scientific matters (for example, the effect of agents and treatments on physiology and the metrics used to measure doses and exposures). They have not had any further editorial involvement.

I would like to place on record my deep appreciation of Professor Sir Ian Kennedy's contribution as the independent supervisor to this project. I know that the survey team appreciated his valuable guidance. Sir lan's assessment of Porton Down's conduct appears at the end of the survey. It draws on the descriptions of the trials conducted by the Chemical Defence Establishment, the information presented on how service volunteers were recruited, and on Dr Alasdair Maclean's analysis of ethics codes/guidelines and practice. No attempt has been made by the MOD to summarise Sir lan's assessment, to avoid any inadvertent changes in meaning or language.

Sir Ian identifies a small number of trials spread over several decades which he considers amount to serious departures from what should have been done. However, he is clear that they are few in number. Sir Ian also warns that these studies must be viewed in the historical context of both the Second World War and the Cold War. The MOD welcomes Sir lan's view that ‘a very great debt of gratitude is clearly owed to those who volunteered to take part in the research at Porton and to those who carried it out'.

The MOD takes the health of veterans very seriously indeed. We are seeking to address the concerns of former volunteers who are worried about their health and it is for this reason that the MOD established an independent Medical Assessment Programme (MAP) at St Thomas' Hospital in London. Attendance at the MAP is free of charge but is conditional on the provision of details of participation in the Porton Down Service Volunteer Programme and access to individual NHS medical records. If volunteers have concerns about their health and are interested in attending the MAP they should contact Porton Down on their Helpline number (0800 7832521) in order to obtain their records of attendance. Volunteers also have the opportunity to inspect their own records relating to the trials in which they took part at Porton Down. Alternatively, they can contact the MAP direct on the MAP Helpline 0800 169 5401 or ask their GP for a referral. The MOD welcomes the publication of this Historical Survey today as being complementary to these existing resources.

As part of the Government's continuing commitment to investigate Gulf veterans' illnesses openly and honestly, data on the mortality of veterans of the 1990-91 Gulf conflict are published regularly. The most recent figures, for the period 1 April 1991 to 30 June 2006, are published today as a national statistic on the Defence Analytical Services Agency website.

The data for Gulf veterans are compared to that of a control group known as the ‘Era cohort’ consisting of armed forces personnel of a similar profile in terms of gender, service, regular/reservists status and rank, who were in service on 1 January 1991 but were not deployed to the Gulf. As in the previous release, the ‘Era' group has been adjusted for a small difference in the age profile of those aged 40 years and over, to ensure appropriate comparisons.

Key points to note in the data are:

There have been 784 deaths among the Gulf veterans and 796 in the age-adjusted Era comparison group.

The 784 deaths among Gulf veterans compare with approximately 1,265 deaths which would have been expected in a similar sized cohort taken from the general population of the UK with the same age and gender profile. This reflects the strong emphasis on fitness when recruiting and retaining service personnel.

These statistics continue to confirm that UK veterans of the 1990-91 Gulf conflict do not suffer an excess of overall mortality compared with service personnel who did not deploy.

The full notice can be viewed at http://www.dasa.mod.uk

I will be representing the United Kingdom at this month's Agriculture and Fisheries Council.

This being the first Council of the Finnish presidency, the new Chairman of the Council will start by setting out his presidency work programme.

The Agriculture Commissioner will present the Commission's communication analysing the situation on the EU wine market and setting out various options for the reform of the current regime. Following the presentation, the Council will hold its first exchange of view on the communication structured around two questions posed by the presidency. I will intervene to welcome the initiative and stating the UK's views in response to the questions.

At the request of France the Council will discuss the WTO agricultural negotiations.

There will be a policy debate on the Commission's proposal laying down rules for voluntary modulation in light of the December 2005 European Council future financing agreement for 2007-2013. This proposal sets out the terms by which member states can voluntarily modulate from pillar 1 of the Common Agricultural Policy (direct payments) to pillar 2 (rural development). I will welcome the proposal because of its vital importance for the UK given our reliance on the voluntary modulation mechanism since 2001. I will also touch upon the need for flexibility in the proposal to allow for voluntary modulation to continue to operate in a way which meets member states' needs.

Under any other business, the Fisheries Commissioner will update the Council on the EC/Mauritania fisheries agreement.

France will request an update from the Commission on the emergency measures to conserve anchovy in the Bay of Biscay.

Austria will draw attention to the Commission's proposed changes to the agricultural state aids rules. The UK supports many of the proposed changes but has concerns about some of the animal and plant health aspects of the proposal.

The Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner will then update the Council on developments with regard to Avian Influenza H5N1.

The 2005-06 annual report and accounts for the Central Science Laboratory will be laid before Parliament today.

Copies will be available in the Libraries of the House.

The General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) will be held on 17 July in Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will represent the UK.

The agenda items are as follows:

General Affairs

Presentation of the Presidency Priorities

The Finns will present their Presidency programme. They will cover a number of important areas over the next six months, including follow-up to the Hampton Court agenda initiated under the UK Presidency. Their informal European Council meeting in Lahti on 20 October will focus on innovation and energy. They also plan to take forward work in key areas such as climate change, enlargement, security, migration and emergency and crisis response. We welcome these priorities.

Migration

This item is on the agenda following the recent conference in Rabat (10-11 July), which addressed migration from West Africa. The UK supports the work done by the Rabat conference and agrees with other Partners that there is a need for parallel action on migration from East Africa. We will work with concerned partners on setting up follow-up action.

Conclusions are expected.

External Relations

World Trade Organisation/Doha Development Agenda

Commissioner Mandelson is expected to update partners on the latest state of play on the negotiations.

External Spending Instruments

This was originally put on the agenda as follow-up to discussion by officials in Brussels. However, as the structure of the external financing instruments has changed over the past week, following further discussions with the European Parliament, an agreement may be reached on financial allocations at working group level this week, which would lead to this item being taken off the GAERC agenda.

Sudan

The UK is very concerned by President Bashir's refusal to accept transition to a UN force in Darfur. We will call for continued pressure on the Government of Sudan to accept handover. In the meantime the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) needs urgent bolstering. This will require significant financial support from the international community.

At the 18 July pledging conference all member states, including those who have not been significant donors so far, should make generous contributions. The UK will formally announce £20 million in support of AMIS for this year, bringing our total contribution to £52 million. We have been lobbying others to do more.

Conclusions are expected.

Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

Discussion is likely to focus on elections and the EUFOR RDCongo.

The DRC will see its first democratic elections in 45 years on 30 July. Together, the EC and EU member states are contributing 80 per cent. of the financing for elections. The EU is providing an Election Observation Mission (EOM) of over 300 observers. At UN request, the EU is also providing a force (EUFOR RDCongo) to support the UN Organisation Mission in the DRC (MONUC) over the election period. The French and Germans have provided most of the troops. The UK is providing three officers (one in Potsdam, two in Kinshasa headquarters). We are unable to provide further military personnel because of commitments elsewhere.

Conclusions are expected.

Relations with the Western Balkans

We expect Kosovo and Serbia to dominate ministerial discussion. Martti Ahtisaari is likely to brief the GAERC following the UN Security Council meeting this week. We will want to see continued strong EU support for Ahtisaari.

The first meeting of the Enhanced Troika with Serbia is scheduled to take place following the GAERC.

The Council is expected to adopt conclusions covering Kosovo, Montenegro, the conduct of the Macedonian elections and regional cooperation.

The Middle East Peace Process

Ministers will discuss the current situation in Gaza. They will consider how best to continue to work to reduce tension in the region.

The Council is expected to adopt conclusions.

Iran

We expect partners to consider latest developments and the High Representative to brief on his recent contacts with the Secretary General of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani.

Iraq

There may be discussion over lunch on Iraq, which is likely to focus on the International Compact, the preparatory meeting of which is scheduled to take place on 20 July.

The Secretariat and Commission have also produced a joint paper on the Iraq Compact.

We do not expect conclusions.

Yesterday I published two publications which will take forward our commitment to place patients and the public at the heart of the way our health services are run: “Health Reform in England: Update and Commissioning Framework” and “A Stronger Local Voice”, which set out the Government's plans for the future arrangements to support public involvement in health and social care.

The update on health reform sets out a clear vision: to develop a patient-led NHS that uses available resources as effectively and fairly as possible to promote health, reduce health inequalities and deliver the best and safest possible healthcare.

The centrepiece of the update publication is a framework for commissioning. It will act as a manual for new primary care trusts to achieve excellence in the way they secure healthcare for their local people.

Commissioning is the means by which we secure the best possible healthcare and outcomes, including reduced health inequalities, within the money made available by the taxpayer. Commissioning itself is not new, but stronger primary care trusts and the acceleration of practice-based commissioning—together with the powerful new set of incentives and mechanisms introduced by the health reforms—provide the opportunity for far more effective commissioning that will benefit patients and taxpayers alike.

Effective commissioning will require:

Real community engagement and a stronger voice for patients achieved through increased choice, widespread involvement and greater opportunity to influence changes to services:

clinical engagement through practice-based commissioning;

improved information to support commissioning; and

commissioning levers through choice, payment by results and robust contracts.

The reorganisation of PCTs, the moves towards universal coverage of practice-based commissioning, and the establishment of the specialist commissioning groups will provide the basic architecture for commissioning NHS services.

The Department of Health will be seeking views from the NHS and partner organisations over the summer on the key proposals to inform final decisions. Views are sought on options for contracting in the NHS, a governance and accountability framework for practice-based commissioning and triggers for petitions.

The framework sets out the development programmes we are making available to all PCTs as they build on the good commissioning practice that already exists. We also issued yesterday an Official Journel of the European Union notice to procure a framework agreement and call-off contract which will enable PCTs to draw on private sector expertise to support their commissioning. This does not in any way affect or relate to PCT directly provided services. PCT boards will be entirely free to choose to what extent, if any, they make use of the call-off contract. In all cases the PCT board remains accountable and responsible for all commissioning decisions.

This commissioning framework focuses on commissioning NHS services, and in particular commissioning hospital services. This is the first step in making commissioning truly effective. We know that joint commissioning of services with local authorities and commissioning for health and well-being are important too. A second framework covering these wider issues will be published in December.

The commissioning framework is supported by an update on the other elements of the reform programme: choice, provider reform, workforce, system management, tariff and other financial incentives and information.

Effective commissioning will require real community engagement. The commissioning framework will therefore work alongside “A Stronger Local Voice”, which sets out the Government's plans for the future arrangements to support public involvement in health and social care.

These include plans to build on patient and public involvement forums through the creation of local involvement networks (LINks). The networks will provide a flexible vehicle for communities and groups to engage with health and social care organisations, and will promote public accountability in health and social care through open and transparent communication with commissioners and providers.

We also plan to simplify and strengthen the legislative requirements currently set out in Section 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001, to clarify the duties on all NHS bodies to involve and consult patients and the public on all services they provide or commission. There will be a new duty placed on commissioners to respond to what patients and the public have said.

I believe that the new environment being created by the reforms, using incentives and commissioning, will mean that commissioners become advocates for patients and taxpayers, driving up the quality, fairness, responsiveness and value for money of NHS services.

Copies of all publications are available in the Library.

The Shipman Inquiry, chaired by Dame Janet Smith, examined the circumstances surrounding the murders of some 250 patients by Dr. Harold Shipman, a general practitioner.

Following the publication of “The Shipman Inquiry: Fifth Report” in December 2004, which was highly critical of the General Medical Council and the broader arrangements for medical regulation, my noble Friend the Minister of State, Lord Warner commissioned a review. Shortly thereafter, the Department of Health elected to conduct a parallel review of the arrangements in place for the regulation of the other healthcare professions in order to provide consistency of approach and in recognition of the blurring of traditional job roles in healthcare.

The review of medical regulation was conducted by Sir Liam Donaldson, Chief Medical Officer for England. His report, “Good Doctors, Safer Patients” is published today, along with the parallel departmental review of non-medical regulation. Both reports focus upon the protection of the interests and safety of patients.

“Good Doctors, Safer Patients” is a rigorous and thorough report, taking into account systems of regulation in other high-risk industries, systems in operation in other jurisdictions and the views of the profession and the public. It is the first comprehensive review of medical regulation for over 30 years. There are 44 recommendations. The parallel review of non-medical regulation followed a similar process.

Among the key themes raised in the two reports are: changes to the governance and accountability of the professional regulators; the importance of operationalised standards against which to regulate; the appropriate legal standard of proof; the introduction of an independent adjudicator; a spectrum of revalidation across all clinical professions; and devolution of some regulatory powers to the local level.

Professional regulation is a complex area. I very much welcome the publication of these reports and the authoritative contribution that they make.

Today, I am announcing a period of consultation on the proposals put forward by the Chief Medical Officer in “Good Doctors, Safer Patients”, and upon the options outlined in the parallel review of non-medical regulation. As regulation of most professions is a matter reserved to Westminster, comments on the reports are invited on a UK wide basis. Matters relating to specific devolved administrations may be copied to the appropriate administration. Both reports are accompanied by initial regulatory impact assessments. Copies of the reports have been placed in the Library.

I have laid before both Houses the Annual Report for 2005-06 of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Andrew Leggatt. I am grateful to the Commissioner for this report and the work that has gone into preparing it.

This is Sir Andrew's last report before his retirement as Chief Surveillance Commissioner. I would like to place on the record my thanks for all that he has achieved over the last eight years to keep under review the conduct of lawful surveillance by public authorities (other than intelligence agencies), to identify and promote good practice and, where it occurs, to challenge and eliminate bad practice.

In their 2006 report to Government the Low Pay Commission recommended that the accommodation offset provisions should continue to apply to all workers housed by their employer in all circumstances, and that Government update existing guidance and raise awareness. It also recommended that the Government should implement legislative measures to prevent employers using the device of a separate accommodation company to evade the offset.

The Government accept the need to update guidance on the accommodation offset in its response in March 2006. In the House of Commons debate on 3 July and the Lords debate of the 4 July 2006 on the Draft National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment Regulations) 2006 the Government announced that they agreed with the Low Pay Commission's recommendation that the accommodation offset should apply in all situations, but believed that legislative measures were not required. Existing legislation already covers a wide range of circumstances in which the employer provides accommodation to workers. We announced our intention to consult on the clarity of the revised guidance.

I am pleased to advise in line with better regulations guidelines that we are issuing draft guidance on the accommodation offset for consultation and will be consulting with a range of interested parties.

Copies of the draft guidance will be placed in both Houses.

Further to my statement to the House on Tuesday 11 July, it has come to light that the statistics quoted on electricity appliances on standby should have referred to 8 per cent. of electricity used in the home, not 7 per cent. electricity generated in the United Kingdom 11 July 2006, Official Report, column 1261.

I am pleased to inform the House that the Export Credits Guarantee Department's pilot trading fund has been extended for a further year.

ECGD has made good progress with its work to determine under what conditions it would be right for the Department to move to Statutory Trading Fund status. This has coincided with ECGD undertaking a significant restructuring programme. Extra time is therefore required to allow ECGD to complete its testing of Statutory Trading Fund status and to advise Ministers accordingly.