Following the March 2005 Treasury Committee report on ATM (Automatic Teller Machine) charging, the Treasury invited the Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, the right hon. John McFall, to chair a working group on ATMs to take forward work on key issues. The working group, which included banks, independent ATM operators and consumer groups, published its report on 13 December 2006.

The working group announced an agreement to provide around 600 new free cash machines across 1,707 target low-income areas that it identified as lacking convenient access to these machines. To achieve this, a market-based financial incentive—known as a “financial inclusion premium”—was introduced, to encourage ATM operators to place or retain free ATMs in deprived areas with a low expected volume of transactions. The working group also agreed to implement improved transparency rules for charging cash machines.

The Government are pleased to report that, almost a year on from the publication of the working group’s report, the industry has made excellent progress towards its goals of placing around 600 non-charging machines in low-income areas across the UK, with more than 2 million individuals on low incomes standing to benefit.

As of 23 November 2007, sites for 543 of the 600 new ATMs required have been identified. Of these, 337 new free machines are already in use, with 63 per cent. of these ATMs based in deprived areas and receiving the “financial inclusion premium”. Encouragingly, five of these new cash machines have proved so popular that their level of withdrawals means that they have now graduated from the “financial inclusion premium” scheme.

Banks, building societies and independent ATM operators have all contributed new free-to-use cash machines; independent ATM operators have provided or are in the process of supplying around 40 per cent. of the confirmed new non-charging ATMs. The UK ATM network, Link, is continuing to work with its member banks and ATM operators to identify suitable sites in the remaining target areas, and is engaging closely in this exercise with Members of Parliament, local authorities, consumer councils and landlords.

The benefits in terms of financial inclusion are clear. Data from Link suggest that the new ATMs currently in operation or under contract will enable 1,190,474 residents in the target low-income areas to access cash more conveniently and manage their money more effectively.

In terms of improved transparency, all operators of cash machines that charge users for withdrawals have met the end of June 2007 deadline to improve the on-screen standards of “at a glance” signage. This means that it is clear to a consumer when a charge is applied when withdrawing cash. Good progress is also being made by operators to enhance external signage by the end of December 2007.

The Government are encouraged by the substantial progress achieved, and would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those involved in extending free access to cash to those who need it most.

Full details about progress made is available on the Link internet website: http://www.link.co.uk/atm/access_to_cash_progress/index.html

I am today announcing a review of the Housing Revenue Account subsidy system to be led jointly by officials in my Department and in HM Treasury, reporting to Ministers in both Departments.

In the housing Green Paper, “Homes for the future: more affordable, more sustainable” published in July, we said that we wanted to examine the case for change to the redistributive Housing Revenue Account subsidy system. The purpose of the review is to ensure that we have a sustainable, long-term system for financing council housing and that this system is consistent with wider housing policy, including the establishment of a regulator of social housing.

This system should be fair to both tenants and taxpayers. It should be transparent, giving a clear and accurate picture of the balance of support from local and central Government. It should enable delivery of agreed standards of service and accommodation. It should recognise that social rents should help tenants gain and retain work, whilst acknowledging the need for landlords to improve the quality and efficiency of services. And it should be affordable and not expose Government to unacceptable fiscal risks.

The review will build on the work of the pilots we have conducted with six local authorities which looked at the costs and benefits of councils operating outside the Housing Revenue Account subsidy system. It will consider evidence about the need to spend on management, maintenance and repairs. It will consider rent policy, including the relationship between council rents and rents set by other social housing providers. It will also consider how the self-financing model developed in the pilot exercise would fit with the aims of the review and, if it is consistent with these, how it could be implemented. And it will consider whether the rules which govern the operation of the HRA need to be changed in order to fit with a new system of financing.

The review will make its final report in Spring 2009, setting out a way forward for the subsidy system, rents policy across all social housing, and spending needs for council housing. It will be followed by a period of consultation. This will enable its findings to be considered in the next spending review. It will also be asked to provide earlier advice in 2008 to inform decisions about council rents and subsidy determinations in the remaining two years of the current spending period.

The report will also support our aim of a single regulator for social housing across all providers by developing a policy framework of rents and standards for the regulator of social housing. This output will also be delivered in 2008.

The review team will establish its own detailed working methods. This will however include opportunities for practitioners and stakeholders to put forward their views.

This Government are strongly committed to ensuring that social housing meets the needs of all tenants. The John Hills review found that while investment in social housing had delivered real improvements, tenants living in social housing still faced significant social and economic challenges. As part of the work to improve social housing we are setting out a series of further steps in five key areas. These are part of an ongoing programme of work to improve social housing and make it fairer, more effective, and more personal.

Increasing Supply and Investment in Bricks and Mortar

Our first priority, as set out in the Green Paper, is to increase the supply of housing. By 2010, we will be building 70,000 social homes a year. To increase the supply of social housing over the next three years, we are today confirming allocations totalling £8.4 billion to be shared across the regions. We will be allocating £8.4 billion across the regions over the next three years. Every single region is getting at least a 5 per cent. increase every year over the next three years—with areas of greatest need receiving far more than that. The Housing Corporation and later the Homes and Communities Agency will be tasked with spending this money most effectively.

We will also be investing £2.4 billion in the ALMO programme over the next three years. We expect that this will bring a further 150,000 homes up to standard. A further four ALMOs are joining the programme today, from Charnwood, North-East Derbyshire, Stevenage and Redbridge. A further £200 million will support ALMOs already on the programme which have yet to pass their inspections. We are continuing to assess the remaining round 6 funding bids and will allocate further programme places to ALMOs as individual funding allocations are finalised.

We will also be writing to all stock owning authorities announcing the 2008 Housing Transfer Programme. This will enable local authorities and their tenants, if they wish, the opportunity to transfer ownership of their stock to a housing association to bring in private sector funding needed for further improvements in housing, to build on the decent homes investment that has taken place, and for estate transformation schemes.

Finally, almost £2 billion from the regional housing pot will fund improvements to local authority owned and private sector stock.

Modernising Institutional Structures

The Housing and Regeneration Bill is creating a new regulatory framework, responding directly to Martin Cave’s recommendation that tenants should have a greater say over where they live and how their homes are managed.

This new framework will reward performance and innovation, giving greater freedom to good housing associations. The new regulator will have a range of powers to intervene where tenants’ needs are not being met.

Initially, the regulator will only have the power to regulate registered social landlords. But in response to demand across the sector, we are committed to extending this new framework to local authorities as rapidly as possible. So I have asked Professor Ian Cole of Sheffield University to work with all key stakeholders in establishing the detail of how this will work in practice, and align with the new performance framework for local government.

We will also be conducting a review of the Housing Revenue Account Subsidy (HRAS) system. I have provided a separate written statement to the House on this review.

Improving Housing Services, Mobility and Choice

We know that the most successful local authorities offer their tenants not only a housing service, but housing options—a service which is more responsive to individual need and to changes in individual circumstances. We also know that the system is not meeting the needs of too many groups at the moment—often due to a lack of mobility in the system. So I am setting out a package of measures to promote greater mobility for social housing tenants.

We will be investing £1.8 million that will deliver 18 new choice-based lettings schemes offering people the chance to move across different local authorities. A further £2 million investment in the next two years will enable all local authorities to be part of such a scheme by 2010.

We know that a major consequence of this lack of mobility is overcrowding—a problem that blights the lives of thousands of families. As set out in the Children’s Plan yesterday, we are committed to updating the standard by which we assess overcrowding. And we are today publishing an action plan to achieve that ambition, which has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Initial funding of £15 million will tackle severe overcrowding across 38 pathfinders including all London boroughs and five other hotspots (Birmingham, Bradford, Leicester, Liverpool and Manchester). We estimate that these local authorities cover more than half of overcrowded households in the country. This work will help identify costs and the time needed before we roll this approach out across the country.

Elderly people too are often affected by the lack of mobility, if they want to move closer to their families or to smaller homes. So we will consult on changing the reasonable preference criteria to benefit older people who want to downsize.

Finally, there will be an independent, comprehensive review of the private rented sector and we will set out further details in the new year.

Improving Social Mobility with Greater Opportunities to Work and to Own

Social housing in the 21st century needs to offer people much greater opportunity to progress. As John Hills identified, many social housing estates have high levels of worklessness.

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions have already announced a £1.5 billion programme targeted at areas with high levels of deprivation and worklessness. We will be working to ensure that social landlords and tenants are closely involved in tackling this.

A programme run with the Department for Work and Pensions will sponsor five areas over the next three years to develop a new approach to promote wide-ranging advice on housing options alongside employment and training advice.

We also want to make sure that we offer greater choice to tenants in social housing—not just about where they live, but with options to move into other types of tenure. More social tenants should have the opportunity to progress into homeownership. We have been running a pilot scheme known as social homebuy to offer those who cannot buy outright a stepping stone onto the property ladder. We will be continuing the pilots. Many tenants have been put off by the costs of taking on full maintenance, and so we will work with social landlords to develop options for shared maintenance costs before assessing the next steps to promote wider access to shared ownership among social tenants.

Supporting Mixed Income Communities

Finally, John Hills found that single tenure estates in deprived areas were particularly associated with social problems and high levels of tenant dissatisfaction. We want to promote the development of mixed and stable communities, characterised by a mix of tenures.

We want the Homes and Communities Agency to look further once it is established at how to promote mixed income communities in existing areas. We will also set out a Communities Fund. The fund will work with local communities on how to develop greater mix of tenures. Details of how this programme will work will be announced in the new year.

Today the Department is to launch a consultation on proposals for a strategic framework for funding and investment support to third sector organisations. The document has been placed in the Library and copies are available for hon. Members in the Vote Office.

The purpose of the review, informed through the consultation process, is to develop a framework for strategic investment in the sector by the Department and transform the current, rather piecemeal, arrangements for funding the sector into a strategic portfolio of investments that will more explicitly support the delivery of the Department’s objectives and priorities for health and social care. This consultation document sets out the vision of a more strategic approach to the Department’s investment in the sector, that reinforces the sector’s value in a way that reflects the Department’s role in creating the conditions for innovation and improvement in service delivery across health and social care.

The consultation proposals are set in a coherent framework with four key objectives to:

allow more coherent investment;

support evaluation of outcomes and benefits;

increase value for money; and

reinforce the sector’s integral role.

The consultation process will help to further the Government’s aim of supporting the development of a strong and sustainable third sector, and will have the benefit of not only promoting and supporting the third sector’s role in delivery of the health and social care agenda more effectively, but also promoting strong and sustainable communities through both community involvement and volunteering.

The consultation will run until 20 March 2008 with a view to the Department setting out proposals, based on the responses we receive to the consultation, in a document to be published summer 2008.

Section 14(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (the 2005 Act) requires the Home Secretary to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of the control order powers during that period.

The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.

Control orders continue to be an essential tool to protect the public from terrorism, particularly where it is not possible to prosecute individuals for terrorist-related activity and, in the case of foreign nationals, where they cannot be removed from the UK.

During the period 11 September 2007 to 10 December 2007, there were no new control orders and no control orders have been revoked, or renewed, or expired.

As stated in previous quarterly statements on control orders, control order obligations are tailored to the individual concerned and are based on the terrorism-related risk that each individual poses. Each control order is kept under review to ensure that obligations remain necessary and proportionate. The Home Office continues to hold Control Order Review Groups (CORGs) every quarter, with representation from law enforcement and intelligence agencies, to keep the obligations in every control order under regular and formal review and to facilitate a review of appropriate exit strategies. During this reporting period, six review groups were held in relation to the orders currently in force. In addition, further meetings were held on an ad-hoc basis as specific issues arose.

In total, 14 control orders are currently in force, eight of which are in respect of British citizens. Four of the individuals live in the Metropolitan Police Service area with the rest living within other police force areas.

During this reporting period, 47 modifications of control order obligations were made. Fifteen requests to modify a non-derogating control order obligation were refused. A right of appeal exists in section 10(1) and (3) of the 2005 Act against decisions by the Secretary of State to modify an obligation imposed by a non-derogating control order, without consent, and to refuse a request by a controlled person to modify any such obligation. Appeals have been made in respect of two modification requests that were refused. One modification appeal made by a controlled individual was heard on 25 September 2007 and it was dismissed by the High Court. The other modification appeal has not yet been heard.

There have been no prosecutions of controlled persons for breaches completed during this reporting period. An individual who is not subject to a control order was, however, found guilty on 10 September 2007 of assisting an individual to breach his control order.

Judgments relating to a number of control orders were handed down by the House of Lords on 31 October 2007. The House of Lords had heard the cases of JJ and others, MB, AF and E in July and considered both articles 5 (Right to Liberty) and 6 (Right to a Fair Trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In relation to E, the House of Lords also considered the extent, if any, of the Home Secretary’s duties under section 8 of the 2005 Act.

The House of Lords upheld the control orders regime and the effect of the judgment is that no existing control orders need to be weakened. Furthermore, their Lordships did not find that the review process in the cases before them had necessarily been unfair.

In relation to article 5, the House of Lords agreed unanimously that control orders with curfews of up to 14 hours did not amount to a deprivation of liberty under article 5. It was held by a 3:2 majority that control orders with 18-hour curfews do amount to a breach of article 5. The Home Secretary is disappointed that the House of Lords found against control orders containing 18-hour curfews which she feels are necessary, in certain circumstances, to protect national security. The Home Secretary believes that the ruling does, however, allow us to impose curfews of up to 16 hours.

In relation to article 6 the House of Lords unanimously held that a non-derogating control order does not amount to a criminal charge. It was further held by a majority of 4:1 that procedures for the courts to review non-derogating control orders—in particular the procedures for withholding closed material—do not inevitably amount to a breach of the civil limb of article 6. It will now be for the High Court to review the cases of AF and MB in light of their Lordships’ decision and determine whether they are article 6 compliant.

In the case of E, the House of Lords upheld the Home Secretary’s arguments that it is not a pre-condition to the making of a control order that that she must consult with the chief of the police force about whether there is evidence available that could realistically be used to prosecute the person for a terrorism-related offence, and that there must be an absence of a reasonable prospect of prosecution for such an offence. They found that the duty to consult with the police with regard to prosecution would only lead to the control order being quashed in exceptional cases.

There have been no substantive reviews during this quarter, since the section 3(10) review for GG & NN, which commenced on 9 November 2007, and was adjourned on 12 November 2007.

The Home Office has today published a summary of responses to the consultation paper, “Banning Offensive Weapons”, which sought views on further measures to restrict the supply of weapons which are being used in violent crime.

The Government’s primary concern is public safety. Ministers have concluded from the consultation that banning the sale, hire and import of Samurai swords is necessary better to protect local communities, and will make an important contribution to our wider strategy to tackle violent crime.

The Government will now proceed with seeking to add Samurai swords to the Criminal Justice Act (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988 through the appropriate parliamentary procedures.

In reaching a conclusion to proceed with banning these weapons we have taken into account both responses to the consultation paper and the views expressed in a larger amount of correspondence which we have received since we first raised the possibility of amending the Offensive Weapons Order. We will seek to protect the legitimate use of Samurai swords by certain groups through enforceable exemptions and defences.

Copies of the consultation document are available in the Library of the House and on the Home Office website at: www.homeoffice.gov.uk

I wish to inform the House of a recent error in processing an application for section 44 Stop and Search powers under the Terrorism Act 2000.

The application by Sussex police, dated 3 September 2007, did not follow the recognised procedure. Forces submit applications to the National Joint Unit (NJU) at the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) which are then sent to the Home Office for ministerial authorisation. This must occur within 48 hours of the request being signed by an officer of assistant chief constable or above (Commander in the MPS) in the relevant force. In this case, due primarily to a process failure, the application was not passed to the Home Office for ministerial authorisation but the force continued to use the powers for the period up to 25 September when the next authorisation was submitted to the NJU. Sussex police has confirmed that 259 stops and searches were carried out at Gatwick airport during the unauthorised period. This relates to the period between the previous authorisation expiring and the next one being signed by the force.

This error was identified on 25 September 2007, when an application for section 44 powers was received by the Home Office making reference to the previous authorisation for Sussex police. I met officials at the Home Office on 27 September to discuss the matter. Officials were in contact with both the then chief constable of Sussex police and the NJU to establish where and how the failure took place, and to put in place more robust systems to ensure that there was no repeat of this error. On 25 October I subsequently wrote to the new chief constable of Sussex police outlining my concern that this error had occurred. I also wrote to Lord Carlile in his role as the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. Lord Carlile replied on 9 November to indicate that he would be recording this incident in his annual review, which I expect to be published in Spring 2008. A note from ACPO (TAM) (Association of Chief Police Officers, Terrorism and Allied Matters) was disseminated to all forces on 14 November outlining the more robust section 44 process.

No arrests occurred as a result of these stop-and-searches; however, Sussex police will shortly be writing to all of the individuals concerned to apologise. Since this error came to light, it has been brought to my attention that this is not the first time that Sussex police have used these powers without proper authorisation. Regrettably, a similar incident occurred in June 2003. All steps have now been taken to ensure, with the NJU, that such regrettable and serious omissions do not occur again.

In light of this, Home Office officials are reviewing previous section 44 authorisations to identify any other occasions where the power has been used in error. Officials will keep Lord Carlile and me informed and I will report back to the House as appropriate.

I represented the UK for the session on Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) at the General Affairs and External Relations Council in Brussels on 10 December 2007. The Foreign Secretary attended all other sessions for the UK.

Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson and Development Commissioner Louis Michel represented the European Commission and gave an update on negotiations and proposed that the Council approve the Regulation 2007 0205/ACC. The Commission confirmed that to date 17 countries had signed a goods-only Economic Partnership Agreement and reported that there is a good possibility that Ghana, Cameroon, Gabon, Namibia and the Caribbean will sign agreements in the coming week. The Commission believes that the recent progress was due to their flexibility and generosity and the approaching external deadline of 31 December 2006 when the Cotonou agreement, which governs current trade relations between the ACP and EU, will expire.

Our objective at the Council was to continue to maximise the development benefits of EPAs, in particular to protect the duty and quota-free access from 1 January and the liberalised rules of origin offer from amendment, whilst also ensuring that no ACP country has worse market access from 1 January. The UK made the first intervention and called on the Council and Commission to ensure that poor countries do not face tariff increases as of 1 January 2007. The UK also urged negotiations to continue over the coming days and for further discussions to take place at a Council meeting next week. We also welcomed President Barroso’s recent commitment to review progress on EPAs in the new year and the Commission’s unwillingness to adversely amend the duty and quota-free access and rules of origin offers.

This stance was supported by the Netherlands who also argued for a debate at future Councils before the end of the year. Ireland took a similar view. However, a series of other member states noted their support for immediate approval of the regulation as of 10 December. The presidency concluded therefore that the Council adopted the regulation on EPAs, which formalises the market access offer of 100 per cent. duty-free quota-free market access to the EU with improved rules of origin for African, Caribbean and Pacific countries that have signed WTO-compatible agreements.

The UK, along with the Netherlands, Denmark and Ireland therefore made a declaration setting out our continued concern for non-LDCs who have not yet initialled an agreement and urged the Commission to show maximum flexibility over the coming days in order to secure agreement with the remaining non-LDCs in particular.

The Commission stated they will continue negotiations with other countries and that those ACP countries which sign agreements before the end of 2007 will also benefit from this improved access to the EU from 1 January. The Commission will report back to the General Affairs and External Relations Council in January 2008.

In their consultation paper on the law on damages which was published on 4 May 2007, the Government announced their intention to increase the level of bereavement damages awarded under section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 every three years for inflation in line with the retail prices index (rounded to the nearest £100), and that the first such increase would be made later in the year. Bereavement damages were last increased from £7,500 to £10,000 on 1 April 2002.

To give effect to this, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor has laid before Parliament an order increasing the level of bereavement damages awarded under section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act from £10,000 to £11,800. An order has also been laid under Article 3A(5) of the Fatal Accidents (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 to make the same increase in the level of the award in Northern Ireland. The orders will take effect from 1 January 2008, and the increased level of the award will apply to all causes of action that accrue on or after that date.

I am today announcing the next stage in the review of the law of homicide.

In July 2005, the Law Commission was asked by the Government to review the law of murder in England and Wales. In December 2006, it published its report on “Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide” with wide-ranging recommendations for changes to the law. That report was intended as the first stage in the review of the law, with the Government undertaking the second stage.

It is that second stage which begins today. The Government have considered the Law Commission’s recommendations carefully and have decided to proceed on a step-by-step basis, looking first at the recommendations for:

reformed partial defences to murder of diminished responsibility and provocation (including the use of excessive force in self-defence);

reformed offences of complicity in relation to homicide; and

improved procedures for dealing with infanticide.

The Government believe it is right to deal with these crucial elements of the existing law before moving on to consider the wider structural proposals from the Law Commission.

We want the review to be open and transparent. Over the next few months we will be talking to key stakeholders, both inside and outside the criminal justice system, to seek their views on the Law Commission’s recommendations in these areas. We will publish draft clauses for consultation next summer prior to introducing any necessary legislation.

I am announcing today that the Community Development Foundation will be the lead national partner for Grassroots Grants, the Government’s programme to help develop and sustain the grant funding available to small community organisations in England.

The final report of the review of the future role of the third sector in social and economic regeneration (Cmnd 7189) announced that, in addition to the £80 million we will be making available for small grants to the community sector over the CSR period, we would also make £50 million available in capital grants to local independent foundations to invest in endowment funds. These capital grants will generate income to support frontline organisations in the future and lever in additional money from the private sector on a matched basis. The allocation of £130 million underlines the high importance that the Government attach to this strategy.

This combined programme will be called Grassroots Grants. It will be targeted at improving the grant funding available to the smallest community organisations which play a vital role in building strong and active communities. It will be delivered locally by independent local funders with good knowledge of their local communities and the ability to reach out and engage both small community organisations and donors.

The Community Development Foundation as lead national partner will be responsible for running a selection process to identify and appoint the local funders. It will also manage the programme once the local funders have been appointed. CDF has considerable understanding of the community sector in England and experience of managing grant programmes. The appointment is being made under a framework agreement for the provision of grant administration services which the Government have with CDF and other service providers.

CDF will open the application process to select local funders in January and applications will be invited by April. Appointments of local funders will be made in June. Full details of the application process and the programme will be announced in January.