A new Double Taxation Convention with France was signed on 19 June 2008. After signature, the text of the Convention was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and made available on HM Revenue and Customs’ website. The text of the Convention will be scheduled to a draft Order in Council and laid before the House of Commons in due course.

In recent months I have received a range of representations from trade bodies in the gambling industry seeking changes to the regulatory regime for gaming machines established by the Gambling Act 2005 (“The Act”), and implemented by secondary legislation from 1 September 2007.

Through the Act, we have established a comprehensive new system of regulation for gaming machines, with consumer protection at its heart. Our No. 1 priority remains to protect the public, and I have considered the representations we have received with this uppermost in mind.

A number of hon. Members have expressed support for the campaigns led by the Bingo Association and the British Amusement Catering Trades Association (BACTA). I have also received representations from the British Beer and Pub Association, the British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions and the British Casino Association. I wish now to report to the House the Government’s response.

While the evidence that has been presented from across the industry is mixed, the Government recognise that many operators have found trading conditions difficult. There are likely to be a range of reasons for the current downturn. While the evidence presented to me concentrates almost exclusively on regulatory factors, it attaches lesser or no weight to a range of other plausible factors such as levels of investment in product development, longer term structural and technological changes and wider economic factors. While it is open to Government to take action within the framework of the Act, the industry must recognise and find its own solutions to some of these problems.

Representations have also been made to me concerning what were dubbed under the previous legislation section 16 and section 21 machines. Whatever the view in some sections of the industry of what earlier legislation permitted, there seems little value in prolonging that debate now. The current legal position is beyond doubt.

The new system of regulation established by the Act, and the strict limits it imposes, were set only after lengthy debate during pre-legislative scrutiny, the passage of the Gambling Bill, and on the relevant secondary legislation. The principal trade bodies, including the Bingo Association and BACTA, played a full role throughout the passage of this legislation, and in the public consultation that preceded it.

I must consider the requests for changes within the new framework established by the Act and agreed recently by Parliament. That framework gives Parliament the final say; it is for the Government to decide what proposals should be put to public consultation and then presented to Parliament for consideration.

I have concluded that there is strong evidence that the situation in the bingo industry has been particularly acute. Between 31 March 2004 and 31 March 2007 the number of bingo clubs operating fell from 696 to 634. A further 37 clubs closed during 2007-08, around 6 per cent. of the industry.

Colleagues in the House will recognise that bingo clubs fulfil an important social function in many communities. The 2007 Henley report commissioned by the Bingo Association found that for many people, especially older and retired women, bingo is the main or sole leisure pursuit outside of the home. Despite the range of deregulatory measures that we have already introduced to assist the industry, it is clear that the future of bingo clubs in many communities is under threat.

I am persuaded that a number of other special circumstances apply to bingo. These include the fact that under the industry’s business model there is high demand for machines during short periods of the day, which may impair the fair and open conduct of gambling.

I have also noted two additional points made by the Bingo Association that:

while in recognition of the enhanced social responsibilities imposed by the Act, casinos, betting shops and adult gaming centres (AGCs) received an enhanced gaming machine entitlement, bingo halls retained the same machine entitlement as under the Gaming Act 1968; and,

bingo halls provide a softer gambling environment in which gaming machines are ancillary to bingo.

The Bingo Association has argued that, to help arrest the decline, the number of category B3 machines (£1 maximum stake, £500 maximum prize) that bingo halls are permitted should increase from four currently to as many as 16. In my view this goes too far. An increase of this proportion would be inconsistent with the precautionary approach that the Government have taken to gambling regulation.

Nevertheless I am persuaded that the situation facing the bingo industry is sufficiently grave, and the circumstances surrounding bingo sufficiently distinct, to justify considering whether a smaller increase might be appropriate without jeopardising our principal priority, which remains to protect the public.

For this reason, I have decided to consult on a proposal to increase to eight the number of category B3 machines which bingo clubs may offer. This enhanced entitlement will only apply to bingo halls which operate a strict over 18s entry policy. If, in the light of public consultation, we decide to proceed, we will bring forward the necessary order. This will be for Parliament to approve by means of an affirmative resolution.

I have also been struck by the representations I have received from hon. Members on all sides in support of seaside arcades. Family entertainment centres, which are not permitted to offer high stake, high prize category B gaming machines, form an integral part of many families’ seaside holidays or day trips. I want to see that continue.

The Government have already taken steps to help seaside arcades. In October 2006, in response to requests for assistance from the industry and a year earlier than planned, we increased the stake and prize levels for category C gaming machines to 50p and £35 respectively. These changes benefited not only seaside arcades, but also pubs, bingo clubs and AGCs, as well as gaming machine manufacturers and suppliers.

To give the industry certainty and to enable it to plan properly, we made a commitment to review stakes and prizes again in 2009. However, in view of the difficult trading conditions which many operators are now reporting, I have decided on an exceptional basis to bring forward the planned review by one year for the lowest categories of gaming machine—categories C and D. Category D machines include 10p stake and £5 prize fruit machines, as well as traditional seaside amusements like penny falls and crane grabs.

The industry must recognise that this is a one-off. I am mindful of the risk that, coming so soon after the 2006 changes, an early review could perpetuate a view in some sections of the industry that ever increasing stake and prize levels are the only answer to the pressures it faces. This may lead to tensions in terms of the licensing objectives, and act as a disincentive to the industry to explore other ways to freshen its appeal. At the same time, I understand the need for certainty among manufacturers and operators alike on the date of future reviews.

In addition, I am therefore announcing today that I have decided to reinstitute the system of triennial reviews that grew up by custom and practice under the previous legislation. This will mean that, after the 2009 review (part of which I am bringing forward to this year), the next review will take place in 2012.

In view of the priority which the industry attaches to an early review, I am adopting a fast track process. We are writing today to trade bodies, faith groups and others with an interest in problem gambling, to invite submissions on what stake and prize levels should apply for machines in categories C and D during the period until 2012.

Having carefully considered these submissions, I will formulate proposals and, prior to formal consultation, seek advice from the Gambling Commission on whether any of these proposals raise concerns in terms of the licensing objectives. There will then be a formal three month consultation before any legislation is brought forward. Any changes will be for Parliament to approve, again by means of an affirmative resolution. I intend to complete the consultation with a view to returning to Parliament with any necessary order in the autumn.

There is no guarantee that this review process will result in increases. It will be for the industry to make that case, and for wider stakeholders to state their views.

I have considered carefully whether the evidence that has been presented would justify extending this early review to high stake, high prize gaming machines in categories Bl, B2, B3, B3A and B4. In particular, I have carefully considered BACTA’s call for an immediate doubling in the maximum stake on category B3 machines, found in AGCs and bingo halls, from £1 to £2.

A key element of BACTA’s case is that customers have found the category B3 machine with its £1 stake and £500 prize unattractive, and that this has led in turn to customers migrating from AGCs to play category B2 machines (commonly known as fixed odds betting terminals) in betting shops. Little in the way of convincing evidence has been submitted to substantiate this claimed migration.

I have consistently made it clear that I view the growing popularity of category B2 machines and other high stake, high prize gaming machines with concern. That is why in March I asked the Gambling Commission to prioritise research in this area. The aim is to explore the available research which assesses whether there is any evidence:

of causal links between the availability of high stake, high prize gaming machines and the development of problem gambling;

regarding the attraction of these machines to existing problem gamblers;

that existing gambling problems are exacerbated by access to these machines.

Work is already underway and, by the end of July 2008, the Commission will recommend what, if any, further research is needed. The Commission expects to publish the findings from any further work in June 2009.

If evidence emerges that category B2 machines are a particular problem, I will not hesitate to use the extensive powers under the Act to regulate them more stringently. In the meantime, I have concluded that it would not be appropriate to review stake and prize levels for category B machines, or to agree to BACTA’s specific proposal, before the Commission’s work is complete and Ministers and Parliament can consider any new findings which emerge. The Government have committed to review stake and prize levels on all categories of machine in 2009, and we will make good on this commitment in respect of category B machines once the Commission has reported.

I have also considered carefully a proposal by BACTA that adult gaming centres—arcades restricted to over 18s found on many high streets—should be permitted to make available category B3 machines on a ratio of 20 per cent. to the total number of gaming machines provided, in place of the current limit of four machines per premises.

I have, however, concluded that this proposal would not provide sufficient certainty about the total number of B3 machines in individual AGC premises, or across the AGC estate as a whole. It could create the potential for larger machine sheds with significant concentrations of high stake, high prize gaming machines in easily accessible high street locations. I am concerned that this could have an adverse impact in terms of the licensing objectives.

I have also considered whether AGCs should benefit from the increased machine entitlement I am proposing for bingo clubs. However, I am not persuaded on the basis of the evidence that has been presented to me that the same exceptional and special circumstances apply. For instance, no evidence has been presented of closures on the scale of those experienced in the bingo industry. In AGCs, gaming machine play is not an ancillary activity, nor is there any clear evidence of unmet demand for such machines.

While I understand that this will come as a disappointment to AGCs, they will of course benefit from any increases to stake and prize levels of category C machines, which form the bulk of their machine offer.

I want to update the House today on the action Her Majesty’s Government are taking in relation to proposed bilateral tour of the Zimbabwean cricket team to England in 2009.

The Government have been monitoring the situation in Zimbabwe closely. I hope the House will appreciate that we have delayed intervening in this matter and allowed time for the situation to improve. However, the deteriorating situation around the failed and illegitimate elections in Zimbabwe, and the imminence of the International Cricket Council’s (ICC’s) annual conference in Dubai, means that the point of decision on this matter has now been reached. We have been in close discussions with the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) throughout recent months.

The Zimbabwean Government have ceased to observe the principle of the rule of law: it has terrorised its own citizens, including the ruthless and violent suppression of legitimate political opposition.

The UK Government will always work with the international community to uphold fundamental freedoms and human rights. Accordingly, the UK Government have responded with a measured approach which seeks to isolate Zimbabwe internationally and bring pressure to bear on supranational institutions such as the United Nations and the European Union to take yet firmer action against the despotic regime, while ensuring that its humanitarian life-saving mission to Zimbabwean citizens continues.

The Government are clear that direct intervention on a sporting matter should not be taken lightly and our position has been to intervene in this matter only as a last resort. The Government have previously called on the ICC to reconsider its rules to allow teams to forfeit tours to countries, such as Zimbabwe, where serious human rights abuses are occurring. Unfortunately the ICC has declined to do so.

However, with the ICC Conference due to take place in Dubai next week, the Government now have to make their position clear.

The Government strongly defend the autonomy of sports’ governing bodies. We also support the autonomous management of international sporting competitions by international sports federations and independent representation of British sporting interests on such federations by our national governing bodies. The serious human rights abuses occurring in Zimbabwe and the close ties of the Zimbabwe cricket team to the Mugabe regime present exceptional circumstances that justify exceptional measures. It would never be our wish to penalise domestic supporters, and nor would we wish to place players particularly in the uncomfortable position of having to take difficult individual judgments on these matters.

Therefore, it is with regret that Her Majesty’s Government have decided to make clear that they are prepared to prevent the bilateral tour in 2009 and will take all necessary steps to prevent players from Zimbabwe from participating in that tour.

I have today written to Giles Clarke, the Chairman of the ECB, instructing the ECB not to hold the bilateral tour with Zimbabwe. The Government welcome reports that the issue of Zimbabwe’s involvement in world cricket is on the agenda at the ICC annual conference which is taking place next week in Dubai. We hope that this letter will help ECB play a full part in these discussions, and lead to a positive outcome particularly in relation to the important event, ICC’s World Twenty20 tournament, due to be staged in England in 2009. A copy of this letter is attached to this statement.

We hope that there will not be a need to repeat this exceptional measure and we will continue to work with the international community to allow full sporting relations to be restored. The Government will continue to monitor closely the situation in Zimbabwe and remain prepared to reconsider their position should circumstances in Zimbabwe materially improve.

Letter to Giles Clarke, Chairman of the England and Wales Cricket Board:

I write to set out the Government’s views on the proposed bilateral tour of the Zimbabwean cricket team to England in 2009.

You will be aware of our grave concerns about the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe. In these circumstances, the Government has concluded that it would not be right to allow the proposed tour by the Zimbabwe Cricket (ZC) team in 2009 to take place.

The Government has been monitoring the situation in Zimbabwe closely. I hope you will appreciate that we have delayed intervening in this matter and allowed time for the situation to improve. However, the deteriorating situation around the failed and illegitimate elections in Zimbabwe, and the imminence of the International Cricket Council's (ICC's) Annual Conference in Dubai, means that the point of decision on this matter has now been reached.

The Zimbabwean Government has ceased to observe the principle of the rule of law: it has terrorised its own citizens, including the ruthless and violent suppression of legitimate political opposition.

The UK Government will always work with the international community to uphold fundamental freedoms and human rights. Accordingly, the UK Government has responded with a measured approach which seeks to isolate Zimbabwe internationally and bring pressure to bear on supranational institutions such as the United Nations and the European Union to take yet firmer action against the despotic regime, whilst ensuring that its humanitarian life-saving mission to Zimbabwean citizens continues.

The UK Government considers that it would be contrary to this general approach for the English cricket team to participate in bilateral fixtures with Zimbabwe. The close ties of the Zimbabwe Cricket team to the Mugabe regime have also had a bearing on our decision.

I can assure you that this is not a decision we have taken lightly. The Government strongly defends the autonomy of our sports' governing bodies. We also support the autonomous management of international sporting competitions by international sports federations and independent representation of British sporting interests on such federations by our national governing bodies. This decision on Zimbabwe does not alter that general position, but is made in response to the exceptional circumstances in this case. It would never be our wish to penalise domestic supporters, and nor would we wish to place players particularly in the uncomfortable position of having to take difficult individual judgements on these matters.

The Government has previously called on the ICC to reconsider its rules to allow teams to forfeit tours to countries, such as Zimbabwe, where serious human rights abuses are occurring. Unfortunately the ICC has declined to do so. Therefore, the Government has decided to make clear that it is prepared to prevent the bilateral tour in 2009 and will take all necessary steps to prevent players from Zimbabwe from participating in that tour.

The Government welcomes reports that the issue of Zimbabwe's involvement in world cricket is on the agenda at the ICC Annual conference which is taking place next week in Dubai. We hope that this letter will help ECB play a full part in these discussions, and lead to a positive outcome particularly in relation to the important event, ICC's World Twenty20 Tournament, due to be staged in England in 2009.

I trust that this letter sets out clearly the position of Her Majesty's Government. It is not a letter I take any pleasure in sending, nor one that I would wish to repeat. However, in these exceptional circumstances, I hope the reasons for it will be understood in the wider cricketing world.

On 21 January 2008, Official Report, columns 1225-37 and 7 February 2008, Official Report, column 78WS, I informed the House about the theft of laptop computers containing a database with personal records relating to individuals who had expressed interest in joining the armed forces, and that I had invited Sir Edmund Burton to conduct a full investigation into the circumstances that led to the MOD’s loss of this personal data; the effectiveness of the immediate measures we introduced to prevent any recurrence; and the adequacy of the Department’s policy, practice and management arrangements for the protection of personal data more generally.

Sir Edmund has reported, and I have placed a copy of his report in the Library of the House and published it on the Department’s website at: www.mod.uk. I am very grateful for the effort that Sir Edmund and his team have put into this review. The report is in two parts with an executive summary. Part one sets out the events leading up to the loss of data on 9 January 2008, covering the relevant issues surrounding the Training Administration and Financial Management Information System (TAFMIS) and the attendant policies and procedures. Part two considers the broader MOD approach to personal data protection, drawing on the emerging findings of the Cabinet Office Review of Data Handling Procedure in Government, whose final report is also being published today. Further detail and a summary of Sir Edmund’s 51 recommendations are given in the annexes to the report. These have been published in full, although the names of those consulted have been redacted.

I accept all 51 of Sir Edmund’s recommendations, and I am determined that we should learn the wider lessons to be drawn from this incident. At the direction of the Defence board, an action plan has been prepared to implement the recommendations, and this is being published today also. The senior management of the MOD, in the form of the Defence board, accepts that it has ultimate responsibility for the effectiveness of the Department’s information management and assurance, and will supervise the implementation of the action plan.

The action plan has been shown to Sir Edmund, who has indicated that it has his support and is in his view capable of delivering the improvements in practice which his report concludes are necessary. Sir Edmund’s report, and the action plan including the immediate steps we have taken to bring the TAFMIS system into compliance with the Data Protection Act have also been shared with the Information Commissioner; we will keep his office appraised of progress.

On the TAFMIS recruitment system, Sir Edmund’s report has set out, to the extent that he has been able to establish the facts, the sequence of events that led to the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force version of the system being unencrypted. This confirms that efforts were made to encrypt the system through an encryption upgrade, and that this was successful for most of the system. However, in August 2006 the encryption on the 55 TAFMIS laptops containing the Royal Navy/Royal Air Force recruit database was reported not to be working as expected. Despite examining all the available papers and interviewing relevant personnel from the Army Recruiting and Training Division (ARTD), who manage the contract for the system on behalf of all three armed services, and the system provider, EDS, Sir Edmund has been unable to find an explanation of why encryption of these 55 was not pursued by another means, and those using the system came to believe that it was encrypted when it was not. His main conclusions are that aspects of the TAFMIS project were poorly managed both by the ARTD’s internal project manager and EDS; that for periods in 2006 and 2007 the laptops in question were being used in breach of MOD laptop encryption security policy; and that in certain key respects, detailed in the report, the TAFMIS system is still in breach of data protection regulations. His findings have confirmed my own suspicion that there was no robust business reason for so much personal data to be carried around by recruiting officers on their laptops. Action is already in hand to remedy this position.

After studying the report, the Chief of the General Staff has ordered an inquiry to investigate whether there are grounds to pursue either disciplinary or administrative action in respect of the management of the contract between the Army and EDS.

On the more general aspects of his review, Sir Edmund finds that departmental policies and procedures generally are fit for purpose and he gives some examples of good practice by the Department (the role of the MOD’s senior information risk owner; the emergency measures introduced after the loss which have been effective in preventing similar damaging losses; the network of data protection officers; and the good security data protection and information risk management procedures of the organisations within the Department for whom handling of large volumes of personal data is core business); but he is highly critical of the Department’s general treatment in practice of information, knowledge and data as key operational and business assets, and of low levels of awareness of the threats to information and of the requirements of data protection legislation. Therefore, his recommendations focus on training and steps to raise awareness and compliance, and to raise the profile of the issue within our various management boards.

Sir Edmund’s investigation and other internal inquiries have established more of the facts than were available when I made my statement to the House on 21 January. Of the 600,000 recruits or potential recruits who were in the TAFMIS data base, about 1,000 dated back to 1977. In a substantial proportion of cases, the records included more limited information about next of kin and contact details for referees.

We have also established that, in addition to the three stolen TAFMIS laptop computers referred to in the statement, a further two laptops similar to those stolen in January 2008 and October 2006 were stolen from cars: a Royal Navy laptop in Bristol in August 2004 and a Royal Air Force laptop in Leeds in July 2006. In both cases the laptops were believed at the time to have been encrypted and Ministers were not informed of the losses. The personal data held on these laptops were a subset of that held on the laptop stolen on 9 January 2008 and so does not affect anyone not already affected by that incident.

Following the theft of the laptop on 9 January, the Department conducted a full internal investigation into the details of computer and other electronic storage media lost or stolen since 2003 when mandatory reporting of such incidents was introduced. This investigation has now been completed and the collated data were provided to Sir Edmund Burton as part of his review. He has summarised key elements of the data in his report.

Prior to 2003 the reporting of lost and stolen laptops was not centrally collated and it has been found that the figures for the period 1995 to 2002 may be incomplete and therefore unreliable. As the details of incidents for this period are no longer available it is not possible to provide updated figures.

In conclusion, I reiterate my deep regret over both the losses of personal data and the systemic weaknesses within parts of the MOD that led to this situation. As the Cabinet Office report also published today highlights, these reflect challenges faced by all parts of Government but that does not make them any more acceptable. Both I and senior MOD management are determined to act quickly and decisively on Sir Edmund’s recommendations and bring about an early significant improvement in practice within the Department in this important area.

This year sees the biggest changes to Britain’s immigration and border security system for 45 years. Our policy will deliver strong borders, a selective migration system and an expectation that newcomers earn the right to stay. Our ambition is that migration policy maximises benefits for Britain and manages local impacts.

This strategy underpins our Australian-style points system and reforms to spouse visas, and requires us to modernise visit visas. I am therefore setting out today a strategy for comprehensively overhauling our visit visa system. Copies are being placed in the Library of the House and include our formal response to our consultation on visitor visas published in December 2007.The full analysis of responses to the consultation can be found on the UK Border Agency website.

In modernising our visit visa system, our ambition is two fold; to let legitimate visitors connect with the UK quickly, and to strengthen still further our border security.

Significant changes lie at the heart of today’s strategy:

We will create a separate category for business and special visitors to make clear the activities that are permitted while in the UK. We will bring the current concessions for entertainers and sportspeople within the immigration rules as special visitors.

We will introduce visas for sponsored family visits. Proposals for simplifying the system for family visitors received wide support. I propose therefore to bring forward important changes. Individuals who wish to sponsor family members will need to be licensed by the UKBA. Only British citizens or permanent residents will be able to apply. Sponsors, after being thoroughly vetted, must agree to comply with their duties. We will introduce a range of sanctions for sponsors who do not ensure their family return home, ranging from a ban on future sponsorship, a civil penalty of up to £5000, and a possible jail term of up to 14 years.

We will preserve streamlined appeals for family visit visas.

There are two policy areas to which I propose no change following the consultation responses:

Overseas domestic workers (ODWs). We are proud of the protection we afford overseas domestic workers. The current ODW visa will be preserved and then reviewed as appropriate after the first two years’ operation of the reformed immigration system, when we have properly road tested our anti-trafficking strategy.

Allowing up to six months for tourist visas. In our consultation document we asked whether we should reduce the maximum length of leave for tourists travelling to the UK from six months to three months. The majority of respondents did not agree with this proposal and we have agreed to retain the maximum length of leave at six months, although the UK Border Agency will have discretion to grant less than the maximum if it judges appropriate.

We know that many have a stake in us getting today’s policy right. For this reason we coupled a formal consultation with meetings with parliamentarians, with community meetings with the UK’s ethnic minority community and, for the first time, consultation in India, our largest visa market, supported by a cross-party delegation of community leaders and business people. Six hundred and four additional responses were received regarding the consultation.

I am grateful to everyone who contributed. I will now bring forward changes to both legislation and the immigration rules to give effect to today’s announcement. Because of the significance of the changes proposed, I will publish detailed statements of intent in advance of introducing change, together with detailed impact assessments.

I am announcing today the commencement of a feasibility and scoping study into the operation of no-win no-fee arrangements in England and Wales.

We are aware of growing concerns that no-win no-fee arrangements may not always be operating in the interests of access to justice. This includes a perception that consumer interests are not always being best served; allegations over the possible misuse of no-win no-fee agreements and a potential adverse impact on the administration of justice. We feel that now is the appropriate time for a comprehensive, objective and evidence based examination of the operation of no-win no-fee arrangements in relation to personal injury, employment and defamation/privacy cases. This work forms an important part of one of the Department’s key objectives to deliver fair and simple routes to justice, including identifying any gaps in access to justice in the above areas.

We recognise that the issues at hand are complex and varied and their consideration could potentially be a large-scale exercise. Therefore, as a preliminary step, the Department has asked Professors Richard Moorhead (Director of Research, Cardiff law school), Paul Fenn (Nottingham university business school) and Neil Rickman (Head of Economics, university of Surrey, and RAND Europe) to conduct a research-based review of how conditional fee arrangements operate in personal injury, employment, and defamation/privacy cases. Today I am announcing the commencement of the scoping work the purpose of which is to highlight the key issues and identify areas that would benefit from further work.

The study will consider how best to:

identify representative samples of claims data in personal injury, employment and defamation/privacy cases;

examine the nature of funding arrangements in these cases and the outcome;

identify random samples of clients and legal advisers that may help provide more detailed data about the understanding of quality and change within the legal services sector; and

analyse the unmet legal needs in the areas of personal injury, employment and defamation/privacy cases.

Professors Moorhead, Fenn and Rickman are expected to report to Ministers in the autumn. The report will help determine what specific aspects ought to be pursued in more detail and the feasibility of doing so.

The Sentencing Guidelines Council has today published its annual report, jointly with the Sentencing Advisory Panel, giving details of the excellent work it has achieved during the past year and outlining its work plans for the next 12 months.

Copies of the annual report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies are also available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.

On 21 November, the Prime Minister announced that he had asked the Cabinet Secretary, with the advice of security experts, to work with Departments to ensure that all Departments and all agencies check their procedures for the storage and use of data. An interim report, published on 17 December, summarised action taken across Government, and set out initial directions of reform to strengthen the Government’s arrangements.

I am today placing a final report in the Libraries of both Houses. The final report summarises work conducted in Departments to improve data handling. It further sets out how the Government are improving information security by putting in place:

core measures to protect personal data and other information across Government;

a culture that properly values, protects and uses information;

stronger accountability mechanisms within Departments; and

stronger scrutiny of performance.

The measures being put in place, which represent a new set of minimum mandatory standards for Departments, include:

introducing new rules on the use of protective measures, such as encryption and penetration testing of systems;

standardising and enhancing the processes by which Departments understand and manage their information risk, identifying the key individuals responsible for information assets and setting out their responsibilities;

requiring quarterly risk assessment within each Department of the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information;

introducing mandatory training for all staff involved in handling personal data, with training taking place on appointment and reinforced on an annual basis;

requiring the use of privacy impact assessments when introducing new policy or processes that involve the use of personal data;

introducing greater scrutiny and monitoring through the inclusion of information risk in statements on internal control, which are scrutinised by the National Audit Office and through spot checks by the Information Commissioner;

further enhancing transparency of arrangements, through annual reporting to Parliament on progress and the use of information charters which provide clarity to citizens about the use and handling of personal data; and

a range of other measures to improve information security across Government.

The Cabinet Secretary’s work was informed in part by a review of information assurance by Nick Coleman, which is also published today, with copies being placed in the Libraries of both Houses. To complement today’s report, Sir David Omand is examining the handling of highly classified documents. The Cabinet Secretary is looking at the implementation of the rules for handling documents, and will take account of Sir David’s findings.

Progress in implementing the new measures and actions announced today will be overseen by the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Personal Data Security. Departments will report each year on their individual position and the Cabinet Office will report annually to Parliament on progress across Government as a whole, with the first report following the end of the 2008-09 financial year.

Effective public services depend on information about the people they serve. But in order to command public confidence, that information needs to be safely stored and protected. The Government are determined to take the necessary steps to improve data security. The measures outlined today are an important part of that process.