On 30 January I announced that in response to our Invitation to Councils we had received 26 proposals from local authorities for the creation of unitary local government in their areas.

We have now completed our assessment of these proposals against the five criteria set out in the Invitation. These criteria are that change to future unitary structures must be affordable, and be supported by a broad cross section of partners and stakeholders; and the future structures must provide strong, effective and accountable strategic leadership, deliver genuine opportunities for neighbourhood flexibility and empowerment, and deliver value for money and equity on public services.

On the basis of this assessment my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided that the following unitary proposals will proceed to stakeholder consultation.

In reaching her decision, my right hon. Friend has had regard to the submitted proposals, any supplementary material submitted by the proposers themselves, and other available relevant information. Her judgment is that there is at least a reasonable likelihood that these proposals, if implemented, would achieve the outcomes specified by the five criteria.

We are launching this consultation today, seeking the views of partners and stakeholders in the areas affected by the proposals. As the Invitation explains, partners and stakeholders include all local authorities, the wider public sector, the business community, and the voluntary and community sector. It is, however, open to anyone to respond to the consultation document that we are issuing today, copies of which are placed in the Library of the House.

We are in particular seeking views on the extent to which consultees believe the proposals would deliver the outcomes specified by the criteria, and in the case of the alternative proposals for Bedfordshire, Cheshire and Northumberland, which of the alternatives in each case would better deliver those outcomes.

The consultation will run until 22 June 2007.

After the stakeholder consultation, we will consider very carefully all the representations that we have received. Proposals will proceed to implementation if, and only if, when we take our final decisions, we remain satisfied that they meet the criteria, and that the overall use of reserves remains affordable, having regard to the prevailing fiscal position and the risks around the estimated costs of implementation.

As explained in our original Invitation, implementation of any proposals involving transitional costs financed by the use of reserves impacts on planned public expenditure totals. Any use of reserves must therefore in aggregate be within the limited envelope available.

It was because of this limited envelope that the Invitation stated that the Government think it unlikely that it would be able to implement more than eight proposals, but that this maximum number would not preclude the Government from deciding to implement more if they offered good value for money and were affordable.

If when we take our final decisions there are more proposals that meet the criteria than we can afford to implement, we will prioritise in order to decide which ones to implement. We will consult during our main stakeholder consultation on the proposed means of prioritising restructuring proposals in such circumstances.

If implemented, the proposals could, on the basis of current estimates, save up to around £200 million annually.

In those cases where there are alternative proposals, any decision on implementation will necessarily involve a decision as to which option should proceed. If we were to decide that Bedford Borough's proposal should proceed to implementation we may need to consider the future local government structures in the remaining county area, which might no longer be a viable two-tier area.

The legislative provision necessary to implement unitary proposals is contained in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill which is currently before the House.

Finally, in respect of the following proposals, my right hon. Friend has decided that, having regard to the available relevant information, there is not a reasonable likelihood that, if implemented, they would achieve all the outcomes specified in the five criteria, and that accordingly they should not proceed to stakeholder consultation.

The Compensation Act 2006 received Royal Assent on 25 July 2006. Part 2 of the Act provides the statutory framework for the regulation of claims management services.

In line with the Government's commitment to bring the Act into force as soon as possible a third commencement order has been made. This brings into force the prohibition and offences sections.

From 23 April 2007 providing a regulated claims management service without authorisation, an exemption, being subject to a waiver or an individual acting otherwise than in the course of business will be prohibited. Those providing claims management services will be required to give consumers clear advice about the validity of their claim, options for funding the costs and provide a complaints mechanism if things go wrong. The claims regulation website at www.claimsregulation.gov.uk provides a register of all authorised persons.

This order follows the Compensation Act 2006 (Commencement No.1) (SI 2006/3005 (C. 107)) that came into force on 1 December 2006 allowing regulation to commence. The Compensation Act 2006 (Commencement No. 2) (SI 2007/94 (C.5)) came into force on 23 January 2007 formally establishing the Claims Management Services Tribunal.

The UK's chemical protection programme is designed to protect against the use of chemical weapons. Such a programme is permitted by the Chemical Weapons Convention, with which the United Kingdom is fully compliant. Under the terms of the Convention, we are required to provide information annually to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. In accordance with the Government's commitment to openness, I am placing in the Library of the House a copy of the summary that has been provided to the Organisation outlining the UK's chemical protection programme in 2006.

Over the past 12 months the Ministry of Defence has undertaken a thorough review of the Defence Medical Services (DMS) manpower requirement. The aim of this review was to determine the number of uniformed, regular DMS personnel required to support operations consistent with overall Defence Planning Assumptions, provide full healthcare and allow for continued training and the provision of headquarters staff during deployment. The review has now been completed and I am now in a position to inform the House of the new DMS manpower requirement. I am convinced it provides a credible baseline on which the DMS can base its planning and ensure that the excellent level of healthcare which it provides both on operations and, in collaboration with the NHS, in the UK, is sustained into the future.

The last full review of the DMS uniformed regular manpower requirement took place at the time of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) over eight years ago, and produced a requirement for a grand total of 8,970 posts (the 'SDR total'). This however exceeded the available medical manpower, and subsequent experience in support of deployed operations showed that a different balance of medical specialisms was more appropriate. Hence a lower overall figure was adopted as a pragmatic interim basis for funding a different mix of established posts (the 'established liability'). To ensure that the requirement was valid not just in the light of emerging practice on operations since SDR, but also to be consistent with current defence-wide planning assumptions, a formal review was undertaken, starting in January 2006. The review was carried out by the multi-disciplinary Medical Operational Capability (Med Op Cap) project team, drawing on previous studies, lessons learned work, high-level operational analysis and incorporating military judgment.

The overall result of this work is that the DMS baseline uniformed regular manning requirement (the ‘Med Op Cap requirement') has now been set at 7,573 posts plus an additional manning and training margin of 678, making a grand total of 8,251 posts.

This compares to the previous established liability of 7,741 posts plus a manning and training margin of 543, making a grand total of 8,284 posts.

The SDR grand total of 8,970 posts did not separately specify within it a manning and training margin.

As at 1 January 2007, the uniformed regular manning was 6,497 (namely, the number of people we actually have, rather than the number of posts required).

There are also some significant changes within individual medical cadres between the SDR and the Med Op Cap requirement, with some cadres increasing and some decreasing. Some additional potential for civilianisation of up to 320 posts in the Med Op Cap total requirement was identified by the review, which will be investigated further.

I shall place full details of the new requirements against individual cadres in the Library of the House. It is a necessarily complex package, but one which provides an essential building-block for the DMS to focus its efforts on addressing the most critical shortfalls.

The impact of the new requirement on the individual career paths for personnel in the Royal Navy, Army and RAF Medical Services will be small. The review has validated the existing policy of maximising capability from staffing our Field Hospitals on a collaborative tri-Service basis.

The Government are committed to ensuring that the DMS continues to be sufficiently flexible to respond to future operational challenges. The recent review of the DMS uniformed regular manpower requirement is a necessary and positive step to achieving this.

I represented the United Kingdom at this month's Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels.

The Council adopted conclusions on the Commission communication on employment in rural areas, stressing the development of job creation in rural areas.

The Council reached a unanimous political agreement on a Presidency compromise proposal, laying down rules for voluntary modulation (VM) in light of the December 2005 European Council future financing agreement for 2007-2013. I voted in favour of the compromise text, as it delivered the flexibility we had argued for with regards to applying voluntary modulation on a regional basis without a franchise applying. I also indicated that the UK will make a formal declaration at the time the regulation is adopted which states that: all four regions of the UK would use VM; the rate would be below 20 per cent.; and that in England we would spend 80 per cent. of VM receipts on environmental measures and would co-finance these at a significant level. A joint declaration was also made by the Council and Commission emphasising that VM and all pillar two funding arrangements should be reviewed in the context of the CAP Healthcheck.

The Presidency and Commission summed up the informal lunchtime discussion on implementation of controls in the food chain. The Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner urged all Member States to implement EU food law fully and effectively. The Presidency too called on all Member States to maintain Community standards, whilst acknowledging that EU food safety legislation needed to be kept under review with particular emphasis on reducing unnecessary administrative burdens.

There was a policy debate on the Commission's simplification proposal on the common organisation of agricultural markets, based on three Presidency questions: timing of inclusion of the fruit and vegetable and wine sectors; transfer of competence from Council to Commission; abolition of Pigmeat intervention. The proposal aims to consolidate the existing 21 sector-specific Common Market Organisations into a single Regulation, in an effort to streamline and simplify the legal framework. Along with other Member States, I broadly supported the Commission's proposal as an important step in the CAP simplification action plan and agreed that a case-by-case approach should be taken to the transfer of competence for implementing powers from the Council to the Commission. Some Member States did not agree to the inclusion of the fruit and vegetables and wine sectors in the Single Common Market Organisation in advance of the reform of those sectors, and opposed the abolition of pigmeat intervention.

A number of issues were raised under any other business, none of which required any intervention on behalf of the United Kingdom. These were as follows:

The Environment Commissioner presented the Commission's Soil Thematic Strategy, for information only, as it falls within Environment Council competence. A number of Member States expressed concern at the administrative burdens the proposed strategy would have on agriculture and argued for the implementation of the principle of subsidiarity as previously discussed at January Council.

The Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner gave a written update on Avian Influenza and reported on the recent EC-Russian Federation veterinary agreement negotiations.

The Presidency updated the Council on the outcomes of two recent conferences: “Fuelling the Future—Renewable Resources” and “Prevention for Health—Nutrition and Physical Activity—A Key to Healthy Living.”

The Agriculture Commissioner updated Council on the state of play of the WTO Agriculture negotiations following her bilateral contacts with some WTO partners (United States, India, Brazil and Japan). She said that despite fruitful technical discussions there had been no breakthrough in negotiations. In reply to some Member States, the Commissioner confirmed that the EU's position in the negotiations is still its offer from October 2005.

My noble Friend Lord Triesman of Tottenham has made the following written ministerial statement.

On 22 February, Official Report, column 1241 during the Lords debate on Iraq, in response to a question by my noble Friend Baroness Gould of Potternewton, I said that ‘the review of the constitution is due to end on 15 May 2007, and I assure my noble Friend that the removal of article 41 indeed remains one of our objectives’.

I should have said that the Constitutional Review Committee, which was formed on 15 November 2006, is due to present its proposed amendments for the Council of Representative’s consideration by mid-May 2007, and that while there is no stipulated time frame for the whole review process, Iraq’s political party leaders have committed to completing the constitutional review process, including the required referendum, within a year of the review committee forming. We are making clear to the Government of Iraq that article 41 must be implemented in a way that does not contravene the various human rights provisions in the Iraqi constitution. I apologise to my noble Friend and to the House for this inadvertent error.

We are also supporting Iraqi women’s groups with concerns about the impact of the constitution—helping them make their voices heard. We will continue to press the Government of Iraq about the important role of women in society and to develop policies and laws in line with the constitution which states that all people should be treated equally irrespective of gender, race or ethnicity.

In my statement to the House on 19 March 2007, Official Report, col 557-8, I set out the background to the review of the new national recruitment and selection process for doctors in postgraduate training. I outlined the decisions that had been made by the review group up to that date. As the review group continued to meet last week, the purpose of this statement is to provide a further update on progress.

The review group issued a further statement on 22 March. This said:

“Building on last week's announcement, at a minimum, every long-listable applicant who applied through Medical Training Application Service (MTAS) and meets the eligibility criteria for their relevant specialty will be invited for an interview. Under this guaranteed interview scheme, candidates will be able to choose which of their preferences to be interviewed for in light of geographic specialty-specific and specialty training level-specific competition ratios which will be available on the MTAS website. We are in discussion about the implications of this for the timetable.

The recruitment system has worked satisfactorily for general practice and this will continue. In other specialities, there is evidence that the short-listing process was weak and we will therefore eliminate this part of the process immediately. In contrast, the interview process has been working and therefore the revised approach will ensure that all long-listable candidates will be interviewed. The review group believes that this new approach is the most equitable and practical solution available. The group also recognises the enormous effort by the consultants, service and deans that has already taken place to ensure that the interview process has worked. The time and effort required for further interviews is recognised by the service and the time required will be made available. Therefore first choice interviews that have already taken place should not need to be repeated.

In accordance with the advice already issued, we reiterate that all interviews will be informed by the use of CVs and portfolios and probing questions.

In broad terms, this means that all eligible applicants at every stage of their training, whether or not they have already had interviews or interview offers, will be able to review their stated first choice preference and have the opportunity to select the one for which they want to be interviewed. We will be discussing operational details over the next week and these may differ between specialties and between different parts of the UK dependent on local circumstances. We will also consult widely. Exact details for how applicants will be able to do this will be available week commencing 2 April on the MMC website at www.mmc.nhs.uk. In the meantime, interviews will continue and applicants should attend unless they are confident that this will not be their preferred choice.

No job offers will be made until all these interviews have taken place. Discussions are taking place on the implications of this for the filling of General Practice training places. We expect that the majority of training places will be filled through these interviews. Unfilled vacancies will be filled through further interviews.

The review group has recommended the development of a programme of career support for applicants at all stages of the process. Further details to support applicants, deans and selectors through this process will be available next week on the MMC website. Future work will explore what the possibilities might be for doctors to change specialties.”

This represents a reasonable way forward to meet both the aspirations of junior doctors and the timetable for making appointments for August. I therefore regret the fact that the British Medical Association representatives have withdrawn from the group. Despite this, the important work of the review group will continue and I would encourage the British Medical Association representatives to come back to the table to ensure that all stakeholders can work together to take forward a workable solution to these issues.

I am glad to note that the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges supports this revised approach. They believe that with the work of the review group it offers the most equitable and practical solution available.

The timetable for the group's work is very tight and the next two weeks will see important progress. Applicants, consultants, employers and all those with a stake in the process will be anxious to be kept informed of progress. I trust that the House will understand if we continue to issue updates on important developments during the recess.

As ever, I am very grateful to Professor Douglas and his colleagues for their continuing work on the review group. We will publish the group's final report once it is completed.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has set a range of high-level targets for the 2007-08 year on behalf of the agencies within the Driver, Vehicle and Operator Group; the Driving Standards Agency, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Vehicle Certification Agency and the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency and on behalf of the Government Car Despatch Agency. They are included in the agencies’ business plans together with their associated measures. The plans also include a range of management targets, performance indicators and key tasks which are appropriate to the agencies’ businesses. Copies of the business plans will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses shortly.

The Highways Agency’s business plan for 2007-08 is published today and contains eight key performance indicators for the Agency to deliver against by 31 March 2008. The indicators and associated targets are:

Explanatory notes against each of these indicators are provided in the business plan, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

Today I am publishing “Working for Children” (Cm:7067) which includes our response to recommendations made in the report “Delivering on Child Poverty: what would it take?” by Lisa Harker in November 2006. It is only one element of a cross-governmental child poverty strategy and sets out the additional measures DWP will take to maximise its contribution to the ambitious targets of halving child poverty by 2010 and eradicating it by 2020.

Building on the announcements made in the Budget to take a further 200,000 children out of poverty by increasing tax credits and widen support for parents, “Working for Children” refocuses £150 million of resources within the Department for Work and Pensions towards greater support for families.

Measures include:

Piloting a New Deal for Families approach so more families get access to support that is often only available for lone parents. To do this we will extend support available in the New Deal for Lone Parents Plus pilot areas to all families with children in those areas.

Extending the New Deal for Lone Parents Plus scheme to help more lone parents benefit from this service and signalling initial support ahead of a period of consultation for recommendations from David Freud to increase obligations on lone parents with older children to look for work.

Providing more support to families, particularly in London where employment rates lag, including widening and improving the in-work credit scheme which provides additional financial support for lone parents as they make the transition to work.

Changing Jobcentre Plus systems so parents are properly identified in the benefit system for the first time and record the childcare needs and preferences of all parents - not just lone parents as at present.

Providing advice and support for the partners of parents claiming Jobseekers Allowance, with the introduction of mandatory six-monthly work-focused interviews for this group.

We have made significant progress by lifting 600,000 children out of relative poverty since the Prime Minister set the historic target in 1998 to eradicate child poverty by 2020.

Our success in helping people into work has been key to reducing child poverty. We have seen 2.5 million more people in work than in 1997 and there are now over 1 million lone parents in employment. We need to continue to build on this success but recognise there is more to do if we are to reach our goal.

Copies of the report are available from the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.

I am publishing today Households Below Average Income 1994-95 – 2005-06.

This is the 18th edition of the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) series. This report presents information on potential living standards in the United Kingdom as determined by disposable income in 2005-06, and changes in income patterns over time.

I am pleased to announce the local authorities that have been chosen to pilot a sanction of Housing Benefit linked to anti-social behaviour. The sanction, contained in the Welfare Reform Bill (Clause 31), is part of the Respect programme and would apply where a household has been evicted for anti-social behaviour and subsequently refuses to engage with rehabilitation services offered. It will give local authorities an additional tool for tackling anti-social behaviour in order to achieve a culture of self-respect, respect for others and respect for community.

The intention is to pilot the scheme for a period of two years (subject to the Bill receiving Royal Assent) in the following local authorities:

Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council

Blackpool Borough Council

Dover District Council

Manchester City Council

New Forest District Council

Newham London Borough Council

South Gloucestershire Council

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council