The Housing and Regeneration Bill, currently before Parliament, establishes the Homes and Communities Agency, bringing together, for the first time, land and money to deliver decent, affordable housing and regenerate our communities by creating places where people choose to live. It will give local authorities a clear strategic partner to work with on housing and regeneration, and will enable better and more effective use of a range of assets, resources and funding streams to respond to the particular housing and regeneration problems in different communities.

Work to establish the agency is progressing well. Following his appointment as chief executive designate of the agency, Sir Bob Kerslake has appointed a full time set-up team comprising staff drawn from the Housing Corporation, English Partnerships and CLG. The team will lead the delivery of the detailed work necessary to bring the agency into being.

Reflecting the devolved arrangements that operate for the London Development Agency, and the Mayor of London’s responsibility to produce a housing strategy for the capital, my predecessor asked Sir Bob Kerslake, chief executive designate of the Homes and Communities Agency, to discuss how the HCA and the Mayor’s bodies could most effectively co-operate to meet London’s housing and regeneration needs. Following those discussions, I have agreed to their proposal that, once the agency is established, a sub-committee of the HCA board should be set up with specific responsibility for London. The board will be chaired by the Mayor, and the vice chair will be the chief executive of the HCA. The London boroughs will also be actively involved through participation on the sub-committee and involvement in the delivery of individual schemes on the ground. The sub-committee will be supported by a team comprising the London staff of the HCA and staff drawn from the London Development Agency. The team will be able to draw on the resources and assets of both the HCA and the LDA in meeting London’s housing and regeneration needs.

I am today announcing the final allocations of the second tranche of £90 million of planning delivery grant (PDG) for 2007-08. The grant is paid to local authorities to support improvement in the delivery of planning services. Over the period 2003-08 the Government will have made available a total of £605 million through PDG which has played a significant part in raising the profile of planning, providing additional resources for both development management and plan-making, and incentivising improvement in performance against a background of a rapidly increasing number of planning applications.

The total PDG for 2007-08 amounts to £120 million which has been paid in two parts. The first tranche was paid in May 2007.

The grant is performance-related. The aim is to enhance resources for the planning system in a way that drives performance improvement and ensures effective delivery of our objectives for sustainable communities.

Grant allocations are not ring-fenced and authorities have complete discretion in the way they spend this money. However, to encourage investment for the future, 25 per cent. of the total grant paid to any individual authority must be spent on capital. The remaining 75 per cent. can be spent by the local authority on resource or capital budgets.

A copy of the determination and a table showing the local authority allocations is available in the Libraries of the House.

On 21 January 2008 I informed the House about the theft of laptop computers from Ministry of Defence vehicles and premises and announced that, following consultation with the Information Commissioner, I had invited Sir Edmund Burton to undertake a full investigation into the losses. In response to questions I gave an undertaking to the House to provide further details of the Burton Review, including reporting timescales, when they were available. I am now in a position to do so.

I have agreed the following terms of reference for the review with Sir Edmund following consultation with the Information Commissioner:

To establish the exact circumstances and events that led to the loss by MOD of personal data; to examine the adequacy of the steps taken to prevent any recurrence, and of MOD policy, practice and management arrangements in respect of the protection of personal data more generally; to make recommendations; and to report to MOD’s permanent secretary not later than 30 April 2008.

I will make a further statement to the House once Sir Edmund’s work has been concluded.

The 2008 report of the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body (AFPRB) has now been published. I wish to express my thanks to the chairman and members of the review body for their report. I am pleased to confirm that the AFPRB's recommendations are to be accepted in full, with implementation effective from 1 April 2008.

In line with the AFPRB recommendations, the basic military salary for officers and all other ranks will increase by 2.6 per cent. In addition, the AFPRB has recommended an increase to X-factor of 1 per cent. and a restructuring to increase the amount of X-factor paid to officers at Lieutenant-Colonel, Colonel and Brigadier (and equivalent) ranks.

The rates of specialist pay (including flying pay, submarine pay, diving pay and hydrographic pay) will also increase by 2.6 per cent. The Government have also accepted the AFPRB’s recommendation to introduce additional targeted financial retention incentives for Nuclear Submarine Watchkeepers, Army Vehicle Mechanics, Royal Artillery, RAF Regiment Gunners and Firefighters and a new category of specialist pay for Explosive Ordnance Disposal personnel to tackle specific recruitment and retention issues.

The Government remain committed to the Independent Pay Review Body process. This award is consistent with achievement of the Government’s 2 per cent. CPI inflation target which helps contribute to low and stable inflation, macroeconomic stability and economic growth.

Copies of the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body report are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House.

I am today publishing the Government’s new water strategy “Future Water”, together with consultation documents on social and environmental guidance to Ofwat, on surface water drainage and on controls on phosphates in domestic laundry cleaning products. The consultations will close on 30 April 2008.

Securing and maintaining water supplies is vital to the prosperity of the country and to the health of people and the environment. In some areas, current supplies are already unsustainable and this situation was exacerbated by the drought in South East England between 2004 and 2006. These pressures are going to get worse as the climate changes, the economy grows, and population increases. Combined with the need to reduce CO₂ emissions from the water industry and from our use of hot water in our homes, this means that we must find ways of improving efficiency, and of reducing demand and wastage.

There is no single answer. What is needed is a combination—or in some areas all—of one or more of the following measures:

1. buildings and appliances that use less water;

2. further reductions in leakage;

3. better information for consumers;

4. improved incentives through metering and block tariffs; and

5. new supply, including possible new reservoirs.

The strategy summarises the action we are taking on all of these.

We will be commissioning an independent review to advise on the future of water charging and metering including whether there is a need to move beyond the current system in which companies in seriously water stressed areas can introduce mandatory metering where there is a clear case for doing so. The review will need to look at social, economic and environmental concerns. Any proposed change would need to include measures, such as tariffs, that help vulnerable customers.

As well as drinking water, we are concerned about the quality of our lakes, rivers and streams. These are affected by discharges from sewage treatment works, and by direct pollution, such as from agriculture. High quality water is important for habitats and ecosystems and is greatly valued for recreation and leisure.

Over the last two decades we have made great improvements to water quality in the environment. This has been achieved mainly through the tightening of controls on pollution from the end of pipes such as the discharge from sewage treatment works. We must now take action on a wider range of pollution including: tackling phosphate pollution of rivers and lakes by phasing out phosphates as an ingredient in laundry cleaning products by 2015; continuing to clean up the water that is discharged from sewage treatment works; and using river basin management plans under the water framework directive to tackle direct pollution of water from agriculture and water run off in urban areas. I am today publishing a consultation on controls on phosphates in domestic laundry cleaning products which will consider both voluntary and regulatory control options.

The drought was followed in 2007 by major flooding. While this may seem a different problem, science tells us that both droughts and floods will become more frequent with climate change. I announced on Monday the allocation of funding for flood management, and the outcomes we expect to see from this funding. The floods of 2007 have made us all aware of the need to tackle surface water drainage. A consultation on surface water drainage is being launched today on the recommendations from Sir Michael Pitt’s ‘lessons learned’ report. The proposals include introducing surface water management plans to coordinate activity, and clarifying responsibilities for sustainable drainage systems, as well as reviewing the ability of new development to connect surface water automatically to the public sewer.

Alongside the strategy, I am today publishing draft statutory social and environmental guidance to the Water Services Regulation Authority (Ofwat) for consultation. In reflecting the policies set out in “Future Water”, it is one of the ways in which the strategy can begin to be implemented. Following the consultation it will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny as set out in the Water Industry Act 1991, as amended by the Water Act 2003.

Copies of “Future Water—The Government’s Water Strategy for England” and the consultation documents on social and environmental guidance to Ofwat; and surface water drainage have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The documents are also available on the website of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Managing sickness absence continues to be a key priority for the Civil Service.

The latest figures for 2006-07, now available at: http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/about/statistics/sickness.asp show that Departments need to continue their effort to address this. Copies are also available in the Library of the House.

Over the past year, Permanent Secretary Management Group have focused on this area and agreed a suite of actions that include:

Guidelines to departments—to help boards assess their current procedures and systems on a “comply or explain” basis

Senior management master classes—a series of events exploring management aspects of the health and wellbeing agenda for senior Civil Service management.

High impact interventions—a series of good practice case studies from both the public and private sectors on how to achieve a healthy work place has been identified.

From April 2008, Departments are now required to collect, analyse and publish their own sickness absence data each quarter and annually in departmental reports.

Due to an administrative error the text of my written ministerial statement of the 4 February on the Justice and Home Affairs Informal Council was not issued in its entirety. The full statement is as follows:

The Justice and Home Affairs Informal Council was held on 25 and 26 January 2008 in Ljubljana. My right hon. and noble friend the Attorney-General, the Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) and I attended on behalf of the United Kingdom. Since it was an informal Council, no formal decisions were taken. The following main issues were discussed:

The first Home Affairs session opened with a report from the presidency on the work of the Future Group on EU Home Affairs. Those not on the group were invited to give their views. All supported the work underway, stressing the need to prioritise data-sharing, both within the EU and co-operation with third countries. In relation to other subject areas, there were suggestions that work might look at the further harmonisation of rules to manage the Schengen area, tighter border controls, measures to bring terrorists to justice and the strengthening of action in the area of civil protection and disaster response. Several delegations also raised the need to ensure that the work of the Home Affairs Group and that of the Justice Future Group were linked more closely. The new European Parliament’s civil liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) President, Gérard Deprez, gave a general introduction to the approach of LIBE, stressing their concern for privacy and individual rights.

The presidency concluded that interoperability of databases and the needs of law enforcement should drive future EU policy on data sharing, coupled with thorough data protection. On migration, an integrated approach to management was needed based on Frontex (the EU’s border agency), operating across land and sea borders. Links with external policy should be stronger, as should data-sharing, and work with and in third countries. In all these areas the EU should analyse what it already had, and then look at the next steps. The presidency noted that a final report should be prepared under the incoming French presidency, with a view to contributing to the successor to the Hague JHA work programme.

The second session discussed practical cooperation in the field of asylum, with the presidency stressing the need for joint practical projects and asking for views on a European Support Office (ESO) which would oversee all forms of co-operation between member states on the Common European Asylum System. The UK welcomed practical co-operation based on an assesment of why people moved. The Commission said that its proposals on the second stage of the Common European Asylum System were due in July and work on an ESO should start with a feasibility study. All member states agreed that practical co-operation should be strengthened, and that there was a need for more uniform country of origin information. All member states also supported the ESO, but views differed as to its role and staffing. The presidency concluded that work to unify the interpretation of existing instruments, common training, and shared interpretation pool should continue. There was wide support for an ESO, but further work was needed on its tasks and financing. The presidency looked forward to the Commission’s ESO study. The Council would be invited to agree conclusions on this at a future session.

The home affairs session closed the official programme with a working lunch, during which Ministers considered the timetable for the implementation of the second generation of the Schengen Information System (SIS II). The Commission and presidency argued that member states had to set and commit to a real timetable for SIS II. More time for testing was needed, but a formal decision had to be taken at the February JHA Council. Ministers agreed with a presidency proposal to remodel the oversight of the SIS II project on similar grounds to that used for SISOne4all, setting up a ministerial level steering group of various member states.

Ministers also had an exchange of views on the Commission’s proposal on the use of the passenger name records (PNR) for law enforcement purposes. The Commission stressed the need to prevent terrorism, but protect the privacy and rights of honest travellers. At the presidency’s request, the Government presented the UK’s experience of using PNR data, with concrete examples of its use, proportionality, and success, with the conclusion that it should be used to detect all forms of crime. While generally favouring the proposal, member states noted that it raised difficult technical and substantive issues, including concerns about data protection. The presidency concluded that there was general support for the proposal, subject to further work on the scope and to ensure data protection.

Over lunch on the second day, Justice Ministers discussed the report on the Justice Future Group. There was no clear conclusion on whether to merge the Home Affairs and Justice Future Groups, though the presidency encouraged Ministers to co-ordinate better with their Home Affairs colleagues.

After lunch, Justice Ministers discussed whether the e-justice portal should be opened to the public and if so how it should be co-ordinated and whether data should remain decentralised. My hon. Friend, the Under Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Maria Eagle) said that the portal should be opened up, but that issues around data protection and charges for access, if any, had to be carefully considered in each pilot.

The next Justice session focused on the presidency’s paper (co-sponsored by the UK) on “Trials in Absentia”. The paper was unanimously welcomed as a step forward for EU criminal procedural rights. My right hon. and noble friend the Attorney-General congratulated the presidency on its achievement. The presidency aim to conclude agreement by the end of June.

During their final session, Justice Ministers discussed matters of family law and, in particular, their views in relation to the proposed regulation on maintenance obligations and the proposed regulation on divorce, also known as Rome III. The UK has not opted in to either proposal. In response to a question from the presidency, a majority of Ministers agreed that the recently agreed text on the Hague convention and protocol on maintenance obligations should be signed and ratified as soon as possible, reflecting the UK’s position. Further discussions took place on the desirability of eliminating obstacles to the recognition and enforcement of maintenance decisions from other member states. On Rome III, a consensus view emerged that spouses ought to be able to choose the competent jurisdiction and law applicable to their divorce.

The House agreed on 25 October to the introduction of topical debates on an experimental basis for the 2007-08 Session, following the recommendations of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons in “Revitalising the Chamber: The Role of the Backbench Member”¹.

I am today announcing that I will be conducting a review into the operation of topical debates. The results of the review will be published before the House rises for the summer recess. Any Member wishing to submit their views is asked to do so by 23 May 2008.

While the review is ongoing, I encourage Members to continue to propose subjects for debate, either in writing, via the email link on the home page of the website of the Leader of the House of Commons at: www.commonsleader.gov.uk during weekly business questions or in person.

The criteria used to choose debates have previously been announced to the House: the subject should be topical; the House has not had an opportunity to debate it; it is a matter of public policy; it is a matter of public concern; and it is of international, national or regional importance.

The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons has also stated its intention to conduct its own review into the operation of topical debates after their first year of operation. The Government intend to submit the outcomes of their own review to the Modernisation Committee for consideration.

I am also proposing that a new system be introduced to improve the openness of the system. I intend on a quarterly basis to issue a written ministerial statement that lists all subjects that have been proposed for debate, other than those discussed at weekly business questions, which are already a matter of public record. The attached table gives such information from the beginning of the process until the end of December.

¹ HC337 of 13 June 2007

I have today laid amended Education (Student Support) Regulations, making changes in the way we support prisoners undertaking full-time higher education courses.

The education of offenders is an integral part of strategies to reduce reoffending. Improving the skills of offenders, helping them to move into jobs, is likely to help break the cycle of reoffending.

Offenders are encouraged to study at all levels, including courses offered by Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). We estimate about 590 prisoners are currently studying on part-time distance learning courses, usually provided by the Open University. A smaller number of students study full-time in higher education. They must satisfy attendance criteria agreed by the HEI and the prison governor by, for example, securing release on temporary licence (day release). All prisoners released on temporary licence are subject to regular and rigorous risk assessment by the governor.

Financial support for students attending full-time higher education courses is provided through the Student Loans Company (SLC), in conjunction with relevant local authorities which assess entitlement in accordance with the student support regulations. Support comprises loans for tuition fees and loans and grants for maintenance. Payments for tuition fees are paid by the SLC directly to HEIs.

It has been brought to Ministers’ attention that there is a long-established but unjustifiable provision in the student support regulations that has allowed prisoners on full-time courses in higher education to receive financial support in the form of loans and grants for maintenance.

Payments properly made under the student support regulations will have been in compliance with the law. However, I do not believe that it has ever been the intention of Parliament that prisoners, who are accommodated at public expense, should receive any additional form of financial support for maintenance. Nor do I believe that it is an appropriate use of public money.

Last week, I suspended all student support payments to prisoners with immediate effect. While I am examining this further, I am laying amended Education (Student Support) Regulations today to enable me to prevent any further payments of maintenance support being made. These regulations will come into force on 28 February 2008.

I have taken a number of further immediate steps to ensure that no further successful applications for maintenance support can be made by prisoners.

The permanent secretary of my Department is today writing to higher education providers, requesting that they immediately inform the SLC when offering a prisoner a full-time place at their institution. With the support of the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, the Deputy Director-General of the Prison Service has instructed prison governors to identify all prisoners currently undertaking full-time higher education and to inform any such prisoners that they must not apply for maintenance support. In addition, as soon as the amended regulations come into force, all prison governors will be instructed to inform the SLC if an offender within their establishment is offered a place to study full time in higher education, or is currently a full-time student. These measures will enable the SLC to identify all future applications from prisoners, and assess them in accordance with the amended regulations.

I have also instructed the SLC to continue to identify and review all current and past applications, as well as live cases. We will then provide a complete estimate of the number and cost of payments and our investigations will ensure that all legal requirements were properly complied with.

The decisions of HEIs to accept prisoners as students, and the decision of prison governors to allow their attendance, are taken at local level. The student support regulations do not require an applicant to identify themselves as a prisoner. Nor do regulations provide explicitly for the circumstances of a student who is subsequently subject to a custodial sentence. Individuals may also successfully apply for student support while in prison, for courses that they take up upon release. In addition, since full-time student support was introduced in 1962, prisoners have not been specifically excluded from these regulations. As a result, there is no central list of offenders studying full-time HE courses. Current estimates of the amount of support received are therefore provisional. We have identified 91 prisoners who have received a total of £250,000 of repayable maintenance loans, and £120,000 in maintenance grants in the 2007 calendar year.

Our preliminary investigations suggest that, since current SLC operational systems were put into place in 1998, approximately 250 prisoners have received up to £250,000 in maintenance grants. Where prisoners have received loans, these will be repayable in the usual way. These cases will be examined on a case-by-case basis.

I am minded to conclude that support for offenders studying in higher education, which remains a proper Government objective, should be provided through regulations made specifically for that purpose. In consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, I have asked the Permanent Secretaries of my Department and the Ministry of Justice, drawing upon the wider resources of the civil service, to oversee the SLC’s review of cases, in conjunction with relevant local authorities, officials from my Department, the Ministry of Justice and the Prison Service, and to make recommendations to me about the management of support for offenders in full-time higher education.

Although this long-established anomaly applies to full-time higher education in England, I have also informed the Devolved Administrations, further education providers and the Learning and Skills Council on a precautionary basis, in case there are implications for them.

I will endeavour to make further relevant information available to the House prior to any debate on the revised regulations.

I have made an Order under Section 2(6) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 amalgamating a number of Divisions as follows:

with effect from 11 February 2008,

the Maidstone Division, the Sevenoaks Division and the Lower South Aylesford Division are merged into one Division called the Maidstone and West Kent Division

the Peterborough Division and the Wisbech Division are merged into one Division called the Peterborough and Wisbech Division

The amalgamation was made at the request of the general commissioners in all the Divisions with the aim of improving the organisational efficiency of the Divisions concerned. Copies of the amalgamation of Divisions of general commissioners have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.

I have today laid before Parliament the seventh report of the independent Prison Service Pay Review Body (PSPRB) on the pay of governing governors and other operational managers, prison officers and related support grades in England and Wales in 2008 (Cm 7325). I would like to thank the Chair and members of the PSPRB for their hard work in producing these recommendations.

The recommendations include a 2.2 per cent. consolidated increase to the minimum and maximum of the operational support grade and prison officer and the maxima of other operational support staff and other operational managerial pay scales.

The PSPRB also recommended a restructuring of the operational support grades pay scale and a 2.7 per cent. increase to the minimum of the principal officer pay scale, the senior officer single salary point and the maximum of the highest paid operational managers.

The Government remain committed to the independent Pay Review Body process. This award is consistent with the achievement of the Government’s 2 per cent. CPI inflation target which helps contribute to low and stable inflation, macroeconomic stability and economic growth. I am pleased to confirm that the PSPRB’s recommendations will be implemented in full from 1 April 2008. The cost of the award will be met from within the delegated budget allocation for the Prison Service.

The key Pay Review Body recommendations are:

Support Grades

a 2.2 per cent. consolidated increase to the minimum and maximum of the operational support grade, and the maximum of other operational staff pay scales;

a restructuring of the operational support grades pay scale;

Prison Officers

a 2.2 per cent. consolidated increase to the minimum and maximum of the prison officer pay scale;

Continuation of incremental increases for prison officers within the pay scale;

Senior Officers

a 2.7 per cent. consolidated increase to the senior officer single salary point;

Principal Officers

a 2.2 per cent. consolidated increase to the maximum and a 2.7 per cent. increase to the minimum of the principal officer scale;

Operational Managers

a 2.7 per cent. consolidated increase to the highest paid operational managers and a 2.2 per cent. consolidated increase to the maximum of other operational managerial pay scales.

Decoupling of the operational manager pay spine into seven separate pay ranges;

Continuation of performance-related increases for operational managers within the pay range.

In December 2006, the Department consulted on proposals to revise the charges for use of the Dartford—Thurrock River Crossing. The consultation noted that: without any charges traffic levels would be substantially higher than they are now, leading to extensive congestion; that even with the current charge levels, usage levels are leading to regular congestion and occasional very severe congestion; and that without action the likelihood of severe congestion will increase.

The consultation document proposed: an increase in tolls for those paying by cash; substantial reductions for those choosing to pay on account using a DART—Tag to register their charge; and the removal of night time charges for all vehicles, when congestion is less of a problem. The intention was to continue to apply an effective pricing signal given growing congestion pressures while at the same time providing an incentive for more people to opt for alternatives to paying cash, thereby easing flow through the charging booths.

In the run-up to the consultation exercise suggestions were put forward that local residents should benefit from a substantial discount for use of the crossing. The Government invited views on these suggestions.

Substantial numbers of people expressed a desire to see a local discount scheme. Details are set out in the summary of responses to that consultation, which is published on the DfT website at: www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/closed/dftconsuldartford/dartsumconsul.

On 2 April 2007 the Department announced that it would develop a local discount scheme for further consultation, noting that any scheme had to be fair to both local residents and the tax payer.

I am announcing today our proposals. These are that:

(i) Private cars should be eligible for discounts when used by residents of Dartford and Thurrock local authority areas.

(ii) There will be a £10 annual registration fee which will entitle residents of these areas to 50 free one-way journeys per year. Thereafter journeys will be charged at 20p each. (London charges the same annual £10 fee for those who make use of their residents’ discount scheme).

(iii) To benefit from the discount residents will need to register annually and apply for an electronic “tag” that is fitted in the windscreen of the nominated vehicle. The tag will be provided free of charge but a £10 charge will be levied for replacement of lost or damaged tags.

The Government’s intention is that the discount scheme should be implemented alongside the other changes to the charging regime on which we consulted in December 2006. This includes the possibility for any car user, regardless of where they live, to use the Crossing for the current £1 rate if they opt to use a tag and open an account.

Our December 2006 consultation document made clear that if a local discount scheme were introduced then all revenues would go towards national transport projects. Therefore the current arrangement, under which a proportion of revenues from the crossing (£1.75 million) is made available to help deliver integrated transport policies in the Dartford and Thurrock areas, would be discontinued.

The consultation document will be published next week and copies will be placed in the Library of the House. The consultation exercise will run for 12 weeks from the date of publication.

The Government will make every effort to ensure that the new charges, including the local discount scheme, can be implemented in the autumn of 2008, subject to being able to complete the necessary technical work to that timescale. Given that the Government have put forward a clear statement of their preferred approach, work has already started to put in place the necessary systems and processes. A further announcement about the precise start date for the new regime will be made at the end of the consultation period.