I would inform the House that the Learning and Skills Council for England has today published its annual report and accounts for the period to 31 March 2009. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

The Government are today publishing two consultation documents on implementation of aspects of the Banking Act 2009, as part of their programme to protect depositors and maintain financial stability.

The Banking Act established a permanent special resolution regime (SRR) to provide the authorities with the tools to deal with banks and building societies that fail. Many of the detailed provisions are set out in statutory instruments, and the Government have committed to consulting on a number of these. The consultation documents that have been published today are:

Consultation on the Building Societies (Insolvency and Special Administration) Order 2009 and related insolvency rules, and on financial assistance to building societies; and

Consultation on the FSMA 2000 (Contribution to Costs of Special Resolution Regime) Regulations 2009.

Some of the secondary legislation included in these two documents has already been made on an urgent basis to enable the effective resolution of the Dunfermline Building Society. For these statutory instruments, the Government will consider whether to bring forward amending instruments in the light of consultation responses. The other instruments will be revised as appropriate in the light of consultation responses before being made.

The first document, “Consultation on the Building Societies (Insolvency and Special Administration) Order 2009 and related insolvency rules, and on financial assistance to building societies”, sets out detailed proposals for supporting building societies and protecting their customers in the event of failure.

The first part of the consultation concerns applying the bank insolvency procedure and the bank administration procedure to building societies UK-wide. The bank insolvency procedure is designed to ensure that in the event of a bank failure depositors eligible for compensation under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) receive their payments quickly, or have their accounts transferred to another institution, and that the affairs of the failed institution are wound up in the interests of creditors as a whole. The bank administration procedure is designed to support a partial transfer, which is an important tool available to the authorities under the SRR to enable them to split up a failing bank by transferring part of its property to a commercial purchaser or a Bank of England-controlled bridge bank. Applying these procedures to building societies will ensure that building societies, their members and creditors are treated in the appropriate way corresponding to the treatment of banks, their depositors and other creditors in the event of insolvency or administration.

The second aspect of the consultation deals with the provision of financial assistance to building societies. Section 9B of the Building Societies Act prohibits building societies from creating floating charges on the whole or part of their undertaking or property. This may make it difficult for societies to offer appropriate security to the Bank of England, or any other provider of necessary financial assistance. An interim measure, made under the Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008, enables societies to grant floating charges to the Bank of England in connection with the provision of financial assistance. The Government are now consulting on legislation to replace this interim measure and on a further measure that would make it easier for building societies to convert financial assistance given in the form of Treasury bills or other securities into cash.

The second document is entitled “Consultation on the FSMA 2000 (Contribution to Costs of Special Resolution Regime) Regulations 2009”. A principle of the SRR is that the FSCS should contribute to the costs of the operation of the SRR. This contribution is capped at the amount of compensation the FSCS would have paid, less the recoveries it would have made if the institution were in default and the FSCS were engaged in the normal way under FSMA. The regulations were made on 29 March 2009 in order to enable the Treasury to require the FSCS to make payments in connection with the resolution of the Dunfermline Building Society. The consultation document seeks views on the regulations.

The Government remain determined to lead global efforts to tackle poverty in the world’s poorest countries. As part of that, they are fully committed to delivering on their international debt relief commitments to ensure the poorest countries are not faced with an unsustainable debt burden.

To support these efforts, I am today publishing a consultation on legislation designed to tackle creditor non-participation in the “Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative”. By opting out of international debt relief efforts, and pursuing the full value of claims through the courts, this minority of private creditors can negate the benefits of debt relief. This is at the expense of poor countries and British taxpayers. The proposed legislation would limit the scope for creditors to recover their debts above a set level, unless the courts consider it just and equitable for them to do otherwise.

Copies of the consultation have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

The Government are taking action today to counter tax avoidance schemes involving capital allowances on plant or machinery. Legislation will be introduced in the 2010 Finance Bill, to prevent tax avoidance through the transfer of an entitlement to benefit from capital allowances on plant or machinery, used for the purpose of a trade, where the tax written down value of the plant or machinery exceeds its balance sheet value (“latent capital allowances”).

The proposed legislation will apply where there is a change of ownership of a company as part of arrangements, one of the main purposes of which, is to transfer to the purchasing group an entitlement to benefit from the latent capital allowances available to the company which is purchased.

The proposed legislation will also apply where there is a change in ownership or profit-shares of a consortium company, or partnership involving companies, as part of arrangements where one of the main purposes is to transfer the entitlement to benefit from the latent capital allowances. Draft legislation, which will take effect from today, 21 July 2009, will be published as soon as practicable.

A technical note explaining the material that will be contained in Finance Bill 2010 will be published on HMRC’s website today.

Copies of today’s HMRC technical note have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and are accessible on the HMRC website at: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk.

I can today provide an update to the House on the continuing progress of Sir John Chadwick’s work in relation to Equitable Life.

On 16 June 2009, Sir John Chadwick issued a document that set out his proposed approach and issues to be addressed, alongside announcing his formal appointment of Towers Perrin as actuarial advisers and establishing a website, through which interested parties can keep informed of his work as it progresses and make representations to his Office.

The document intended to give interested parties an opportunity to comment on Sir John’s proposed approach and Sir John requested that comments be returned in written form to his Office by 17 July 2009. I am pleased therefore to inform the House that Sir John has received a range of representations on his proposals, including from Equitable Life and an Equitable Life members group, a range of policyholders, and the Government. Sir John is in talks with these interested parties and he is now reviewing all representations with a view to identifying the next stages of his work.

Running concurrently with this work I can also inform the House that Towers Perrin, the appointed actuaries to Sir John, have already begun to thoroughly review and analyse the many hundreds of thousands of extensive policyholder records that have been provided by Equitable Life.

Sir John intends to publish a further document in August. This interim report will contain a definitive statement of his approach for determining relative losses and a definitive list of the specific issues he will address.

I am today announcing a consultation on local democratic renewal. This follows the commitment set out in “Building Britain’s Future” to explore ways of increasing both the powers and the accountability of councils and city regions. Local democratic renewal forms a major part of the Government’s proposals for constitutional reform, alongside other strands for debate including reforming the House of Lords; considering a written constitution; reviewing the electoral system; and increasing public engagement in politics.

The founding principle of local government is that citizens have the right to influence the decisions that affect their lives and their communities. A key way in which local citizens are able to exercise that right is their ability to elect a strong local council which can lead and shape their area. That is why the role of councillors and councils, with their unique democratic mandate, is critical to making sure that local services are responsive to the needs of their local communities. Citizens have a right to have their voices heard, and to expect those delivering services to care what they think.

Citizens rightly expect that councils should be the centre of local decision making, and the one place that they can go in order to influence and challenge what local services are doing. In order to do this, councils must be fully equipped to act on behalf of local residents, with the powers to scrutinise and shape local public services, and respond to local need.

There is a large and untapped pool of people who would like more say in what happens in their area, and it is right that both central and local government do more to give them greater direct control over the decisions that affect their lives and their community. But we must also recognise that in today’s time-poor society, citizens have only limited time to give.

There are other imperatives driving the need for stronger local government. First, it is to increase democratic accountability, since councils, uniquely among local services, have a direct democratic mandate from residents. Secondly, it is a way of promoting greater value for money. Local government has already saved £4.5 billion through efficiency measures since 2004. By giving them greater powers to oversee and co-ordinate all the money coming into their area, they will better be able to drive change and improvement, cutting out duplication and waste. Thirdly, councils have a vital role to play in promoting economic development. They are best placed to bring together partners from across their area to support residents and prepare for future prosperity. And finally, delivering personalised services. As the drive continues to deliver personalised services and enforceable entitlements it will become ever more important to ensure that local services are delivered flexibly and in response to local needs.

Recent reform has gone some way to giving councils the powers they need to play this stronger role. The three year financial settlement means that councils have much greater certainty to plan ahead. They have powers to promote the economic, social, and environmental wellbeing of their area. And they have powers of scrutiny to challenge and hold to account some of those who provide public services and serve their local communities.

This consultation sets out proposals to radically reform and strengthen local government so that it is even more able to take on a new role in serving residents by strengthening public service delivery.

It contains proposals to:

Put local authorities at the centre of local decision making. Our aspiration is that they should be the one place where citizens, through their councillors, can hold local services to account. This would mean that when citizens go to vote, they are electing someone who can act on their behalf in relation to every aspect of public spending in their area. We propose to achieve this by enhancing local authorities’ power to scrutinise other bodies, and extending the range of bodies that these powers can be applied to. This builds on the concept of the total place initiative, which gives councils a unique role in scrutinising all the money that comes into their area.

Strengthen local government’s ability to act in the local interest. We ask whether councils have the powers that they need to respond effectively to local challenges, or whether there are barriers which prevent them using the powers they already have. This will be essential to enable local authorities to deliver the minimum entitlements set out in Building Britain’s Future. We also set out our response to the recent LAML judgement: proposing to introduce a specific power enabling councils to engage in mutual insurance and exploring what other arrangements councils may want to engage in but which may fall beyond the existing power to promote well being. We also ask whether more could be done to further reduce the burden of inspection and clarify when and where central Government should intervene in local government.

Strengthen local authorities’ ability to tackle climate change. We propose to give councils more direct responsibility for fighting climate change, perhaps through introducing local carbon budgets.

Support sub-regional working. We set out a range of options to make sure that the greater powers being devolved to city-regions and other sub-regional partnerships are matched by greater transparency and accountability for local residents.

Achieve a clearer relationship between central and local government. We set out the principles in which central and local government broadly operate and ask whether these should be more formally articulated, in order to give citizens greater clarity and certainty about our respective roles and functions. We also explore the possibilities for overseeing these more formal arrangements—potentially through an ombudsman or a joint select committee, subject to the outcomes of the consultation and the views of Parliament.

The consultation seeks views on these proposals and will run from 21 July until 2 October 2009. Copies of the consultation document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

On 30 June I announced my intention to publish a consultation document on reform of council housing finance before the summer recess. I said that this would contain proposals to dismantle the housing revenue account subsidy system and replace it with a devolved system of responsibility and funding which would devolve control from central to local government and increase local responsibility and accountability.

I am publishing the consultation document “Reform of Council Housing Finance” today. I am placing copies of this in the Library of the House. The document can also be downloaded from the consultations section of my Department’s website at: www.communities.gov.uk and I am seeking responses by 27 October 2009.

A fully self-financing locally devolved system cannot be implemented in a single step, but I want to move as rapidly as possible to put these reforms in place. I will work with all those with an interest in improving council housing to deliver this major devolution of responsibility and accountability.

I am today announcing the publication of the Government’s response to our public consultation on “Reforming the Local Authority Business Growth Incentives Scheme”, which sets out that we will distribute a total of £100 million to local authorities in 2009-10 and 2010-11.

The Government launched the consultation on 25 August 2008 and invited comments to help refine their thinking before a new scheme was introduced for 2009-10 and 2010-11. The consultation closed on 20 November 2008.

Given the broad support the Government’s proposals have received, the revised scheme will largely be as proposed in the consultation, although with two significant changes made in response to the representations we received.

(a) Instead of the mapping of local authorities into 28 sub-regions plus London as originally proposed for the purposes of the scheme, we have decided to recognise 55 smaller sub-regions including London. We believe this will go a long way towards reflecting local views about the economic relationships that actually exist;

(b) Instead of the proposed split of rewards between district councils and county councils in two tier areas (which would have favoured the upper tier), we have decided to divide rewards equally between them.

The decision on sub-regional mapping follows further consultation, in February 2009, further to which we invited all local authorities, including those that did not respond to the consultation, to enter into discussions with nearby authorities in an effort to reach a local consensus about the sub-regional mapping they wished the Government to consider.

In the consultation responses, the balance of opinion was that we should publish a provisional list of sub-regions for comment first rather than proceed directly to publish a final list, which we have done at annex A of our consultation response.

Here we are also setting out the proposed allocation of the £50 million available in 2009-10.

A period of two weeks will now be available to authorities to make any final representations on both the provisional list of sub-regions and on the provisional allocations for 2009-10, before those allocations are made.

The Government’s response to the consultation, along with the provisional list of sub-regions and provisional allocations for 2009-10, is available on the Communities and Local Government website at: http://www.communities. gov.uk/localgovernment/localgovernmentfinance/labgi/labgischeme2/

Copies of these documents are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

On the 8 May my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey), the then Minister for Local Government, announced to the House that, as part of a programme of action to help the people of Stoke-on-Trent restore to the city good city governance, the Government were minded to make an Order under section 86 of the Local Government Act 2000 specifying a scheme of whole council elections from 2011. He also announced that to enable the focus of all to be on this 2011 new start, and while an electoral review is being undertaken, the Government were minded to include in the Order provision to cancel the 2010 elections for the city council. He explained that before taking final decisions there would be a short ‘soundings’ period until the 18 June to provide an opportunity for interested parties to make representations to us.

That soundings period is now complete and I am today announcing that, having regard to the representations we have received, we have decided to go ahead with a scheme of whole council elections for Stoke-on-Trent city council from 2011. We intend to lay the necessary Order before Parliament as soon as practicable.

We have, however, concluded that there is not a sufficiently strong case for cancelling the 2010 elections for the city council, and hence the Order will not include provision to cancel these elections.

We reached these conclusions having regard to the 11 representations we received during the soundings period. There was broad support for whole council elections, but a number of concerns were raised about cancelling the 2010 elections to the city council, including from the Electoral Commission which considered that on the available evidence, a clear case for cancelling the elections had not been made.

In his 8 May announcement my right hon. Friend also indicated that he was asking the Electoral Commission to undertake an electoral review of Stoke-on-Trent which would consider the size of the council and the warding arrangements for the City. The Electoral Commission has now directed the Boundary Committee to undertake this review, which we understand will begin shortly.

We are confident that these measures to reform the electoral arrangements of Stoke-on-Trent will help provide for the people of Stoke-on-Trent the opportunity they need to achieve that well governed city, with high quality public services, successful economic regeneration, and improved quality of life, which they deserve.

I am today publishing a list of receptions hosted by Ministers at the Department for Communities and Local Government in 2008-09.

The total cost of these receptions was £23,500.

In February, the Government announced proposals to support third sector organisations through the Tackling Race Inequalities Fund. Today, I am pleased to announce to the House that 27 national and regional organisations will receive grants totalling £8.8 million over two years.

The third sector organisations are:

1990 Trust

Age UK (Age Concern and Help the Aged)

Association for Real Change (ARC)

Black Environment Network

Black Training and Enterprise Group (BTEG)

Business in the Community (Race for Opportunity)

Clinks

Council for Ethnic Minority Communities, Northamptonshire (Limited)

Excell3 Limited

Friends, Families and Travellers

Humber All Nations Alliance

MENTER (Minority Ethnic Network Eastern Region)

Network for Black Professionals

North of England Refugee Service

Olmec

Operation Black Vote

PATH Yorkshire

Race Equality Foundation

Race on the Agenda (ROTA)

Runnymede Trust

Show Racism the Red Card

Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust

The Afiya Trust

The Interlink Foundation

The Monitoring Group

The Rural Media Company

Workers’ Educational Association (WEA)

Funding is subject to agreeing detailed work programmes and monitoring and reporting arrangements. Organisations will be expected to show how they make effective use of the financial assistance to deliver real impact.

The fund will support a range of organisations working to tackle race inequalities and promote equality of opportunity for people of all ethnic groups. It will enable organisations to contribute to policy making.

I am pleased to announce that I am today publishing the Ministry of Defence’s annual report and accounts 2008-09. It combines the Department’s annual performance report and departmental resource accounts in a single document that provides a comprehensive overview of the MOD’s financial and non-financial performance for the year, including the Departments contribution towards public service agreements and departmental strategic objective targets. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. It is also available online from the Department’s website at: www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceFor/Researchers/.

This last year has been a challenging one for defence. Operational tempos remained high, with operations in Afghanistan and Iraq continuing, although now in Iraq we have seen the end of our combat role and the return of the majority of our personnel.

In those theatres and others, British forces have made, and continue to make, an enormous contribution to international security. Recent sad events have highlighted the commitment of all those involved, not just the men and women of the armed forces and the civilians who support them, but also those family members who remain at home and provide vital support to those who serve their country. The success of defence is dependent on them—they continue to do an exceptional job—and the Government remain committed to providing the support that they need and rightly deserve.

I am pleased to announce that I have appointed Ms Judy McKnight as a member of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, for a three year term of office commencing on 1 September 2009. This appointment has been conducted in accordance with the guidance of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

The Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS) highlighted the need for restructuring in the maritime industry to reduce overcapacity in the UK warship build and support industry after the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers (QE Class) have been built, and to ensure in the future a sustainable world-class industrial base. It is paramount that we balance supply and demand in the future, primarily to sustain key maritime skills and jobs that will, in turn, ensure our key industrial capabilities (KICs) are preserved.

As part of the response to the DIS, the shipbuilding and support activities of BAE Systems and VT Shipbuilding came together last year to form a new single company—BVT Surface Fleet Limited (BVT). The company, which is integral to the QE Class and Type 45 programmes, was established as MOD’s strategic complex warship design and build partner, and to work collaboratively with Babcock on surface warship support.

Our joint aim is to deliver, in time, a world-class capability for the UK and global markets. In order to achieve this, we have been negotiating a long-term business agreement with BVT. Known as the terms of business agreement (TOBA), I am pleased to announce to the House today that we have now concluded these discussions and signed a 15 year commercial deal with the company. Worth around £230 million per year to BVT to sustain KICs required for essential operational sovereignty, the TOBA gives an unambiguous commitment to the company for a certain minimum level of workload in the areas of warship design and build work, and elements of warship support covering all surface warships. In return, BVT has committed to the transformation of the sector into a sustainable entity for the future. This will generate major financial benefits to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Royal Navy worth a minimum of £350 million over the duration of the contract, with an aim to double this figure over the duration of the contract.

The MOD expects this new commercial agreement, which is being progressed within the strategic framework of the maritime change programme (MCP), to provide a strong foundation for BVT to compete for non-MOD work, both in the UK and throughout the world. It will be for BVT to retain the capacity it deems necessary to meet the demands made of it and to transform the sector.

This new arrangement is also intended to provide MOD with the confidence that BVT can deliver significant improvements in efficiency and performance needed to underpin the future naval shipbuilding programme, while providing the company with the certainty to enable investment and long term planning. Finally, it demonstrates that we continue to make best use of UK taxpayers’ money in seeking opportunities for transformation and the delivery of efficiencies.

In my written statement to the House on 7 July I announced plans for a Defence Green Paper to be published early in 2010, as part of a process that will enable a strategic defence review early in the next Parliament.

I intend to appoint a defence advisory forum of independent experts to support the preparation of the Green Paper. The forum will be established for a limited period, covering the preparation and publication of the Green Paper.

The defence advisory forum will be affiliated to the Prime Minister’s national security forum and will work in concert with it.

I will inform the House of the membership of the forum once this has been confirmed.

Copies of the British Council’s annual report and accounts for the 2008-2009 financial year have been placed in the Library of the House.

During the period the British Council received £200,963,000 grant-in-aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

I regret that the following written answers contained information which was incorrect:

the written answer given to Ann Coffey on 23 June 2009;

the written answer given to Mr. Stephen O’Brien on 21 April 2009, Official Report, column 587W;

the written answer given to Mr. Don Foster on 5 November 2008, Official Report, column 521W;

the written answer given to Sir Nicholas Winterton on 4 November 2008, Official Report, column 378W;

the written answer given to Mr. Mike Penning in 22 October 2008, Official Report, column 270W;

the written answer given to Sir Peter Soulsby on 15 July 2008, Official Report, column 359W;

the written answer given to Mr. Mark Hoban on 3 April 2008, Official Report, column 288 W;

the written answer given to Mr. David Simpson on 25 February 2008, Official, Report column 1196W;

the written answer given to Mr. Norman Lamb on 5 February 2008, Official Report, column 1071W;

the written answer given to Sandra Gidley on 25 January 2008, Official Report, column 17MC;

the written answer given to Mr. Mark Simmonds on 3 December 2007, Official Report, column 1002W;

the written answer given to Sandra Gidley on 19 July 2007, Official Report, column 641W;

the written answer given to Mrs. Theresa May on 25 June 2007, Official Report, column 23 8W;

the written answer given to Mr. Lansley on 4 June 2007, Official Report, column 302W;

the written answer given to Mr. Mike Penning on 17 April 2007, Official Report, column 576W;

the written answer given to Mr. Lansley on 15 January 2007, Official Report, column 908W;

the written answer given to Mr. Swire on 6 December 2006, Official Report, column 568W;

the written answer given to Mr. Lansley on 8 November 2006, Official Report, column 1871W;

the written answer given to Mr. Hayes on 19 July 2006, Official Report, column 507W;

the written answer given to Justine Greening on 5 June 2006, Official Report, column 382W;

the written answer given to Mr. David T.C. Davies on 28 March 2006, Official Report, column 947W;

the written answer given to Mr. Weir on 28 March 2006, Official Report, column 947W;

the written answer given to Anne Milton on 20 March 2006, Official Report, column 138W;

the written answer given to Mr. Andrew Turner on 7 July 2005, Official Report, column 570W;

the written answer given to Mr. Burstow on 7 July 2005, Official Report, column 576W;

These answers all related to Department of Health advertising spend between 2004-05 and 2008-09. The incorrect information was a result of some non-advertising expenditure being included within the figures. There was also evidence that provisional figures rather than the final discounted totals had been used. In order to prevent this issue from recurring, improvements have been made in record keeping and processes in answering PQs on advertising spend.

The following table shows the correct departmental advertising expenditure over the last five completed financial years. A further breakdown of these figures has been placed in the Library.

On 17 March 2009, the Healthcare Commission, the independent health regulator, published a damning report into the failings of emergency care provided by Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. Since then, the Government and the local NHS have had two priorities: first to ensure services at the trust improve as soon as possible to the level that patients and the public have a right to expect; and second to ensure the right lessons are learned both locally and nationally, so the events of Mid Staffordshire cannot be repeated.

The previous Secretary of State commissioned two rapid reviews from Professor Sir George Alberti the National Clinical Director for Emergency Care, on the present state of emergency services at the trust and Dr. David Colin-Thomé on how the broader system was not able to detect the failings sooner. All their recommendations were accepted and the reports were published, alongside the Government’s response on 30 April 2009.

The new independent regulator for health and social care, the Care Quality Commission, has today published their three month stock-take report. In short, it concludes there has been some progress, but there is much more to do. Its analysis echoes the concerns that Ministers have heard from members of the local community.

Having listened carefully to these concerns, I have resolved that further action is necessary. Today I am announcing a package of measures to lead to a step change in improving local services and to help heal the wounds of the past, so the trust and their local community can face the future together with renewed confidence and optimism.

I have worked closely with Monitor, the Foundation Trust regulator, to ensure a new leadership team with the skills and experience to transform services at the hospital is appointed as a matter of urgency. I am pleased to welcome Sir Stephen Moss, the new Chair, and Antony Sumara, the new chief executive, to their roles. Monitor and the Care Quality Commission will continue to oversee their progress, with a further review due in October.

Fundamental to the trust’s success will be listening to patients, to ensure their voice counts and that they are an integral part of shaping and influencing the future of the hospital. That is why I have asked Dr. David Colin-Thomé to support and advise South Staffordshire Primary Care Trust to play their full part alongside the trust in reaching out and involving people locally.

It is clear from listening to those affected that rebuilding local confidence and restoring trust will take time. The full impact of what happened at Mid Staffordshire is revealed through the personal stories of those affected and it is clear to me that these experiences need to be properly aired if the local NHS is to learn and, in time, move on.

I have therefore decided, following detailed discussions between my Department and the new management of the trust, that it would be appropriate to set up a further independent inquiry. I do not believe it is necessary for this to be a full public inquiry, given the thoroughness of the reports already produced by the Healthcare Commission, Professor Sir George Alberti and David Colin-Thomé, as well as the availability of an independent clinical review to those who have concerns about the care they or a loved one received at the hospital.

This inquiry’s focus will be on ensuring that patients or their families have an opportunity to raise their concerns. It is important, given the events of the past, for those who depend upon the care provided by the trust to be confident that they have been listened to and that any further lessons not already identified by the thorough inquiries that have already occurred be learned.

Robert Francis QC has agreed to chair the inquiry. The terms of reference (a full copy has been placed in the Library) will be:

to investigate any individual case relating to the care provided by Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust between 2005 and 2008 that, in its opinion, causes concern and to the extent that it considers appropriate;

in the light of such investigation, to consider whether any additional lessons are to be learned beyond those identified by the inquiries conducted by the Healthcare Commission, Professor Alberti and Dr Colin-Thomé; and, if so,

to consider what additional action is necessary for the new hospital management to ensure the Trust is delivering a sustainably good service to its local population; and

to prepare and deliver to the Secretary of State a report of its findings.

It is important that this is swift so as not to unduly distract the new management and staff at the hospital from improving services for patients today. The inquiry is therefore planned to report to me by the end of 2009. Should the chair of the inquiry consider that it is necessary to have the power to require witnesses to attend, as Secretary of State I have the power to convert the inquiry into an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005.

There are also national lessons to learn from the investigation at Mid Staffordshire. Dr. David Colin-Thomé’s report contained some important recommendations on this.

Many of these are already being addressed, for example through the implementation of Lord Darzi’s vision High Quality Care for All and our World Class Commissioning programme. In addition, the new National Quality Board will report to me by the end of the year with recommendations on how best to ensure any early signs that something is going wrong in the NHS are picked up immediately, that the right organisations are alerted, and action is taken quickly.

The Mid Staffordshire case has also illustrated that the current regulatory framework for foundation trusts (FTs) needs updating. The FT model is a key plank of reform in the NHS, successfully rewarding high performance with greater freedom and autonomy. The policy is based on the premise that FT status is a privilege to be earned and valued—an incentive to drive up quality, innovation, productivity and local accountability. However, it is clear that in some exceptional circumstances, where an FT has failed to live up to this standard and public confidence has been damaged, it may be right for the privileges of FT status to be withdrawn.

This is why I intend to consult on legislative proposals to enable Monitor to “de-authorise” a foundation trust, subject to agreement by the Secretary of State, where it is clear an organisation has forfeited its right to the freedoms and flexibilities afforded by FT status. It is also important that where there is public concern, the Secretary of State is able to express his views and request that Monitor considers intervention in a particular way. I will also consult on legislative proposals so that, in these circumstances, if Monitor disagrees with the approach suggested by Ministers, they should be obliged to justify this position publicly. The Government will issue a consultation on both these issues in the next few days.

By focusing on the powers and actions of Monitor to intervene, I believe we achieve the appropriate balance between ensuring fundamental failure is addressed and maintaining the significant benefits of the FT model, which gives FTs greater freedom in return for high quality.

All of us who care passionately about the health service were appalled by the events at Mid Staffordshire, which are in stark contrast to the dedication and professionalism shown by NHS staff every day up and down the country. The measures I have announced today, building on those already taken, demonstrate the collective commitment in all parts of the system, to ensure there will be no repeat.

I would like to inform the House that on the 20 July 2009 Ministers agreed that material on our planning for the safety and security of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games should be made available to the public. In doing so we have to ensure that the public are kept fully informed of progress and of practical impacts, but also that sensitive material is not inappropriately placed in the public domain. In my statement to the House on 26 February I announced that the Government had agreed a strategy and developing concept of operations (CONOPS) for Olympic security planning, and promised that appropriate material would be put before Parliament and the public as soon as practical.

This follows a period of hard work by all stakeholders, including the police and emergency services, to ensure that a comprehensive and effective programme can be delivered on time and within appropriate boundaries for additional spending.

The Home Office, in consultation with the main stakeholders in Olympic security planning, is publishing two documents today:

An unclassified version of our safety and security strategy. This sets out our planning work in detail and in the context of our wider counter-terrorism strategy; and

A shorter leaflet setting out the main points of our security planning of wider interest to the public.

Copies of these publications are being placed in the Vote Office and the Libraries of both Houses.

In my written statement on 14 July 2009 I gave an undertaking that the House would be updated on any substantive development.

On 16 July 2009, the Director of Public Prosecutions made a statement following the conclusion of the review he announced on 9 July 2009. He had concluded that in the light of the findings, set out in the statement, it would not be appropriate to re-open the cases against Goodman and Mulcaire, or to re-visit the decisions taken in the course of investigating and prosecuting them. A copy of the full statement by the Director of Public Prosecutions will be made available in the Library of the House.

The Metropolitan Police Service has also written in response to detailed questions about the police investigation to both the Home Affairs and Culture, Media and Sport Select Committees.

In my statement on 14 July, I also reported that the Independent Police Complaints Commission had received a complaint from the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) about police action in this case and was considering whether there were any issues raised that might fall within its remit. That complaint has been passed to the Metropolitan Police Service for their consideration with the hon. Member’s consent.

The MPS will now make a decision as to whether the complaint is recordable under the Police Reform Act 2002 and whether they should refer any matter to the IPCC. The MPS will update the hon. Member for Eastleigh directly.

On 24 February the Home Office and Ministry of Justice, supported by the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA), held a conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the publication of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report. The conference, with an opening speech by Doreen Lawrence, OBE, reviewed the progress that has been made over the last 10 years, shared good practice, and helped to set out a focus for future work.

On or around this anniversary three reports were published: “Stephen Lawrence Review” an independent commentary by Dr. Richard Stone; “Police and racism: what has been achieved 10 years after the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report” by the EHRC and “The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry 10 Years On” an analysis of the literature by the Runnymede Trust.

I am today publishing a report of the 10 anniversary conference and a Government response to Dr. Stone’s, the EHRC and Runnymede Trust reports.

The conference and the reports acknowledge that the police service and other criminal justice agencies have made progress since the publication of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report, in 1999. There have been many positive changes in relation to race equality and the fact that the overwhelming majority of the recommendations of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report have been addressed is a measure of this. However, we must, as the conference proceedings and the reports also demonstrate, not become complacent. Much has been achieved, but there is still considerably more to do. That is why we have published an action plan with the conference report, setting out areas for particular focus, building on existing work, as we move forward from the anniversary. This work includes: increasing the recruitment, retention and progression of minority ethnic police officers and police staff; reducing unjustified disproportionality in the use of stop and search powers; and continuing to improve the reporting and recording of racist incidents.

Copies of the conference report and the Government response to Dr. Stone’s, the EHRC and the Runnymede Trust reports will be placed in the Library of the House later today.

There has been considerable parliamentary and public interest in the policing of the Kingsnorth Climate Camp which took place between 3 and 9 August 2008. The Government have given repeated assurances that the lessons from the policing of Kingsnorth Climate Camp would be identified and shared across the police service and more widely with Parliament.

The National Policing Improvement Agency and the Association of Chief Police Officers have overseen a review that has been commissioned by the Chief Constable of Kent into the policing of the “Climate Camp for Change” at Kingsnorth. Given my previous commitments on Kingsnorth, I am accordingly notifying the House that the report will be published on the Kent Police website on Wednesday 22 July, and that I will place a copy of the report in the House Library on that date.

The Government are committed to working with the police and public to ensure the report’s recommendations are acted upon in order to facilitate peaceful protest whilst upholding and protecting the rights of wider communities and other individuals. The findings from the report will be picked up by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in its wider review of policing and protest which is due to report in the autumn.

This statement follows the undertaking by the Government on 13 May 2008 to report back to Parliament one year after the commencement of the Alcohol Disorder Zone (ADZ) legislation.

ADZs came into force on 5 June 2008 and are designed to help local authorities and the police tackle high levels of alcohol related nuisance, crime and disorder that cannot be directly attributable to individual licensed premises. Guidance published by the Home Office both at the time of commencement and in December 2008 emphasised the point that ADZs should be used only in tightly defined areas and as a last resort, when all other tools and measures have failed to solve the problem.

Our discussions with local authorities have confirmed that no local authority has as yet implemented an ADZ. The principal reason highlighted as to why this is was that local authorities and enforcement agencies already have a wide range of powers and tools to tackle many of the problems that they encounter and no local authority felt that it had as yet reached the point of “last resort”.

However, the Government remain concerned about the effect that a number of licensed premises acting irresponsibly together may have on an area. For that reason, in addition to this legislation we have introduced new provisions in the Policing and Crime Bill, currently before Parliament, that will allow a licensing authority to take action against two or more premises if they are contributing to alcohol related crime or disorder.

I wish to respond to the publication entitled: “Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals—Great Britain—2008”, which was laid before Parliament today.

This annual statistical report meets the requirement in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to inform Parliament about the licensed use of animals for experimental or other scientific purposes. It also forms the basis for meeting periodic reporting requirements at EU level. A hard copy is available and supplementary information with additional tables is also available on the Home Office website.

The statistical report shows an overall increase over the previous year of 14 per cent. in the number of procedures undertaken. The total number of procedures was just under 3.7 million, an increase of 454,000 over the previous year. There has now been an increase for the seventh year running and is the highest total since 1992. A number of factors, such as investment in research and development and strategic funding priorities, determine the overall level of scientific procedures.

Non-toxicological procedures accounted for about 87 per cent. of the procedures carried out. These included fundamental research in human and veterinary medicine to improve understanding of disease mechanisms and possible therapeutic options, and development of vaccines.

Most toxicological studies (79 per cent.) were for the safety and efficacy testing of new drugs and medicines and the majority of all toxicological procedures (71 per cent.) were performed in order to carry out legal or statutory requirements.

In line with previous years, those procedures that used mice or rats (or other rodents) were the great majority at 77 per cent. Those using fish amounted to 17 per cent. and those using birds, 3 per cent. The total of all procedures using dogs, cats, horses and non-human primates, that is those species offered special protection by the Act, was less than 1 per cent. of the total.

Genetically normal animals were used in about 1.9 million regulated procedures, (up 160,000 (9 per cent.) on 2007 figures, largely as a result of the use offish and mice in fundamental biological research and applied studies. Genetically modified animals and those with a harmful genetic mutation (nearly all were rodents, fish or amphibians) were used in 1.76 million regulated procedures representing, 48 per cent. of all procedures for 2008 (compared with 46 per cent in 2007 and 16 per cent. in 1995).

Advances in the opportunities to use genetically altered animals for new areas of biomedical research means that the trend of increased production and use of genetically altered animals has continued. It allows a more precise and often less invasive study of physiological studies and disease mechanisms that was previously possible. Most of the animals concerned are mice, which appear and live as normal. Many are only used in breeding programmes. In fact nearly two fifths of all procedures in 2008 were accounted for by breeding procedures (38 per cent.) for the production of harmful mutant and genetically modified animals. Mice (89 per cent.) and fish (9 per cent.) were used in most of these procedures.

I should point out in relation to the statistics, that the Home Office, as regulatory authority under the 1986 Act, does have an effect on the overall amount of animal research and testing that takes place. This is done by ensuring, as part of our licensing function, that the provisions of the Act are rigorously applied in each programme of work and that only work that is scientifically justified, minimises the numbers of animals used and animal suffering that may be caused, is authorised.

The statistical report and supplementary information can be found at:

http://scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk/animal-research/publications-and-reference/statistics/

I am pleased to inform the House that I have today placed in the Library the annual report of the Home Office Animals Scientific Procedures Division and Inspectorate for the year 2008.

Publication of the report honours a commitment given by the Government in response to a recommendation of the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures in July 2002 that more information should be made available about the implementation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

Earlier annual reports have focused on the work of the Animals Scientific Procedures Inspectorate. The report for 2008 has been expanded to include the work of the Animals Scientific Procedures Division licensing and policy teams.

As in previous years, the report explains what Home Office Inspectors do and how they do it and the inspectorate’s role in assessing and advising on applications for personal and project licences and certificates of designation under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

The report also explains the work we have been doing to deliver our better regulation programme and new IT systems to improve our regulation of animal experimentation and provides background to the publication by the European Commission of a proposal for a new European Directive to replace Directive 86/609/EEC on which the 1986 Act is based.

I commend the report to the House.

Following the successful passage of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill through both Houses of Parliament, Royal Assent is expected to be granted today. The Bill includes changes to the routes used to achieve citizenship. In consideration of this the UK Border Agency will be publishing, during the summer recess, a consultation paper entitled “Earning the right to stay: A new points test for citizenship”. This document will seek views on proposals to build on the system of earned citizenship set out in the Bill and fulfils one of the commitments made by the Prime Minister in the document “Building Britain’s Future”.

Copies will be made available in the Libraries of both Houses, as well as on the UKBA website.

In conjunction with the Secretary of State for Justice and Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, I will tomorrow publish the “Youth Crime Action Plan - One Year On”.

This document sets out progress made since we published the “Youth Crime Action Plan” in 2008, and describes the action we will take over the next year.

Copies of the document will be placed in the Library of the House.

The eighth report of the Prison Service Pay Review Body (PSPRB) (Cm 7678) has been laid before Parliament today. The report makes recommendations on the pay of governing governors and other operational managers, prison officers and related support grades in public sector prisons in England and Wales in 2009. Copies of the report are available at:

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm76/7678/7678.pdf

I am grateful to the Chairman and members of the Review Body for their hard work in producing these recommendations.

The recommendations include:

A 1.8 per cent. consolidated increase to the maximum of the OSG, Prison Officer and Principal Officer pay scales and the Senior Officer single pay point; and

A 1.5 per cent. consolidated increase to the maximum of Manager and Senior Manager pay ranges and compression of pay ranges.

This award is consistent with the Government’s policy on public sector pay that awards should

reflect the individual labour market position of work forces, particularly their recruitment and retention position;

be consistent with the Bank of England inflation target;

be affordable for Departments; and

represent value for money for taxpayers.

I am pleased to confirm that the PSPRB’s recommendations will be implemented in full, effective from 1 April 2009. The cost of the award will be met from within the delegated budget allocation for the National Offender Management Service.

My noble Friend the Attorney-General has made the following written ministerial statement:

Following a thorough review of the role of the Attorney-General, the Government have reached the settled conclusion that the Attorney should retain the roles of chief legal adviser to the Government, Criminal Justice Minister with responsibility for superintending the main prosecuting authorities (the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office and the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office), and independent guardian of the public interest.

However, significant reforms to the role have been, and are being, implemented. In particular, measures have been taken to clarify the Attorney-General’s role of superintending the prosecuting authorities and the nature of the Attorney’s involvement in prosecution decisions. A new protocol published today has been agreed with the three prosecuting departments which sets out how the relationship is to work in practice, to safeguard the independence of the prosecutors while enabling the Attorney to be properly accountable to Parliament and the public. Copies of the protocol have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

In addition a strategic board has been set up, chaired by the Attorney and including the prosecuting departments, to provide strategic direction to the Law Officers’ Departments and secure greater efficiency and effectiveness. The strategic board agreed at the beginning of April 2009 that the Crown Prosecution Service should be merged with the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office to create a strengthened prosecution service.

It is intended to amend the Attorney-General’s oath of office to include a specific reference to respect for the rule of law. Furthermore, the Attorney-General now only attends Cabinet when matters affecting her responsibilities are on the agenda.

These significant reforms, which have not required legislation, give effect to the aims of the review of the role, which were to enhance public confidence and respect for the rule of law and to provide greater clarity and transparency.

My noble Friend the Attorney-General has made the following written ministerial statement:

I am today publishing an Annual Review of the Attorney-General’s Office, to help improve understanding of the role of the Attorney-General and the collective workings of the Law Officers’ Departments, to increase public confidence in the criminal justice system, protect the public interest and uphold the rule of law.

As in past years, the Law Officers’ Departments have also each separately produced their individual Annual Reports and Accounts.

Copies of the Annual Review have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Today I am publishing an updated Cabinet Committee list. This provides details of new Cabinet Committees which have been created since the last publication. I have placed a copy of the new list in the Libraries of both Houses. The details are also available on the Cabinet Office website.

I am today publishing a consultation document seeking views on the current UK domestic drivers’ hours rules. These rules prescribe driving and duty limits along with some break and rest requirements for drivers of goods and passenger vehicles that are not covered by the EU drivers’ hours rules. This includes most drivers of vans, and bus drivers on routes no more than 50 kilometre in length.

The domestic rules were introduced to support road safety by ensuring that drivers of commercial vehicles had sufficient breaks and rest.

The Department is now reviewing these rules and as part of this process needs to better understand the views and experiences of those that are affected by them in their working lives. Although the consultation document proposes no legislative changes at this stage, the responses received during the consultation will inform the initial consideration of potential policy options, which will then be the subject of further consultation.

Copies of the consultation will be made available in the Libraries of both Houses.

The period during which the explanatory memorandum and Command Paper for ratification of the optional protocol to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities were laid before Parliament has now ended. I am therefore pleased to announce that the Government will now be taking the final steps to formally ratify the optional protocol as soon as we are able.

As my previous statements of 3 and 27 February, and 22 June, indicated, the optional protocol builds on the convention by establishing two additional procedures in respect of implementation and monitoring of the convention itself.

The first is a procedural avenue that, subject to meeting conditions set out in the optional protocol, will enable individuals or groups of individuals to bring petitions to the UN Committee that has been established to monitor implementation of the disability convention if they believe that their rights under that convention have been breached. The second is an inquiry procedure giving the Committee authority to undertake inquiries when reliable information is received into allegations of grave or systematic violations of convention rights.

Having ratified the convention itself on 8 June, and in now moving to the final step in ratifying the optional protocol, the Government have demonstrated the importance that it places on respect for the human rights of disabled people.