Following the decision of the Supreme Court quashing the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006, and its indication that the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2009 was vulnerable to being quashed on the same basis as the 2006 Order, Parliament passed the Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Act 2010 in February. The Act restores the validity in law of the UK’s terrorist asset-freezing regime until 31 December 2010, providing a period for Parliament to consider and pass more permanent legislation without, in the meantime, incurring a gap in our terrorist asset-freezing regime that would have damaged national security.

The Government have set out their proposals for permanent terrorist asset-freezing legislation in the draft Terrorist Asset-Freezing Bill that was published on 5 February 2010. The structure of the draft Bill follows closely that of the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2009 and contains a number of safeguards to protect human rights, for example the requirement that asset freezes can only be made where necessary for public protection and the requirement that asset freezes expire after 12 months unless the Treasury has reviewed the case and made a fresh decision to renew the asset freeze.

The Government are committed fully to ensuring that there is proper transparency and accountability to Parliament with respect to the operation of the terrorist asset-freezing regime. That is why since December 2006, the Treasury has reported quarterly to Parliament on the operation of the terrorist asset-freezing regime. The most recent report was laid on 8 March 2010.

The draft Terrorist Asset-Freezing Bill will further strengthen transparency and accountability to Parliament, by enshrining in law the requirement to report quarterly to Parliament on the operation of the terrorist asset-freezing regime, and by requiring an annual independent review of the asset-freezing regime, with a report following such a review to be laid before Parliament.

Consistent with our commitment to transparency, the Government have made it clear that they wish there to be full and proper scrutiny of our proposals for new terrorist asset-freezing legislation. These are important legislative proposals. It is right that members of the public and other interested parties should have the opportunity to consider the proposals and submit views and evidence. And it is right that Parliament’s consideration of the legislation in due course should be informed by the views and evidence of the public and interested parties. This is why the Government proposed a sunset clause of 31 December 2010 in the temporary legislation—to allow sufficient time for external views and evidence to be gathered and considered by Parliament when it scrutinises the new legislation.

The Government are today launching a public consultation exercise on the draft Terrorist Asset-Freezing Bill, which will close in three months’ time on 18 June 2010. The consultation document, which would complement and aid any future scrutiny by Members of both Houses or a Select Committee, if that is the decision of Parliament, explains the background to terrorist asset-freezing: the terrorist threat and the role of finance in supporting terrorism; the international framework for terrorist asset-freezing; and the UK’s current approach to terrorist asset-freezing. The consultation document also sets out how our current terrorist asset-freezing legislation works and explains the provisions in the proposed new terrorist asset-freezing legislation. The consultation particularly invites views on the following questions:

Does the draft Bill set out the most effective way of meeting our UN obligations and protecting national security while also ensuring sufficient safeguards in respect of human rights?

Do you have any views on the current operation of the UK’s asset freezing regime under the Terrorism Orders?

Does the regulatory impact assessment reflect accurately the costs and benefits of the regime? Is there more that can be done to reduce the costs for the financial sector and others in implementing the regime while maintaining its effectiveness?

The Government hope that the consultation exercise will be useful in stimulating public debate on these important issues and that it will provide a valuable source of views and evidence that will assist Parliament in scrutinising the Terrorist Asset-Freezing Bill in due course.

The Government are keen to work with Parliamentary Committees and all Members of both Houses of Parliament to seek to achieve a cross-party approach to taking forward the draft legislation.

Today I have placed copies of the report on “The State of the Estate in 2009” in the Libraries of both Houses. This report, required by the Climate Change Act 2008, provides an assessment of the efficiency and sustainability of the Government’s civil estate and records the good progress that Government are making as well the improvements that continue to be made. This is the second time that Government have reported in such a comprehensive way and this has allowed improvement trends to be analysed. The report is published on an annual basis.

My noble Friend the Minister of State for Energy and Climate Change today made the following statement:

I would like to inform the House that a direction modifying and partially revoking the Energy Act designating directions for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s Capenhurst site has been laid before Parliament.

The direction removes two small plots of land from the area designated in 2005 and we are satisfied that NDA has discharged all its responsibilities in relation to decommissioning and clean up of this land. This area may be reused by Urenco in the future, and potentially provides for future investment at the site.

Any new developments will be subject to regulatory and other consenting processes.

We are laying today before Parliament the Government’s response (Cm 7832) to the Health Select Committee report on Alcohol, which was published on 8 January 2010.

The range of the Health Select Committee’s inquiry and their report recognises the scale and complexity of the challenge we face. Alcohol is a rapidly rising major public health challenge and the Government have been working hard to address it, but there is no single action we can take to change our culture overnight.

The Government’s response welcomes the Health Select Committee’s thorough and far-reaching report on alcohol. While we are working to deliver our current strategy, we believe their recommendations will make an important and lasting contribution to the ways in which Government and society regard this important issue.

The breadth of the Committee’s inquiry and the nature of the report has required in-depth consultations across Government. In particular, the Department has liaised closely and extensively on this response with those other Departments called to give oral evidence to the Committee: the Treasury, the Home Office and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Each of those Departments has also wished to ensure that the Committee received the fullest response where their areas of responsibility and those of the Department of Health coincide.

The Government take the health and social harms caused by alcohol seriously and our Government strategy on alcohol recognises the challenges we face as a society.

Action on alcohol requires close working between sectors and Departments, and a careful balance between protecting the rights of the individual, and protecting the health of the nation.

The comprehensive strategy we have in place tackles these problems in four main areas:

to help people make informed decisions (for example, information and education campaigns and labelling). The Committee recognises that information and education policies do have a role as part of a comprehensive strategy;

to create a healthier environment (for example, through licensing and enforcement regimes). The Committee has welcomed the mandatory code on alcohol retailing and called for its early introduction;

to provide advice, support and treatment for people at risk (for example, providing “brief interventions” in primary care and treatment services for dependent drinkers). We welcome the Committee’s view that early detection and intervention in alcohol-related ill health are both effective and cost-effective; and

to improve the underpinning delivery system to support those services. For example, from 2008 the Government created the first ever indicator for primary care trusts to tackle alcohol-related hospital admissions. Our alcohol improvement programme supports PCTs taking action in this area).

Current levels of alcohol-related hospital admissions, crime, and deaths are unacceptable. Much more can, and will, be done to turn around the drinking culture in this country. We are currently taking forward action on a mandatory code to tackle the irresponsible promotion of alcohol. New, and strengthened, campaigns, this year will raise public awareness further on the link between drinking too much and poor health, and on the harm that alcohol can do to children.

Today’s publication is in the Library and copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office.

My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office, Lord West of Spithead, has made today the following written ministerial statement:

The then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend Jacqui Smith, announced in her statement on 14 November 2007, Official Report Vol. 467, c. 44WS, the outcome of my review on how best we protect crowded places from terrorist attack.

This review concluded that further improvements would be achieved by putting in place a number of initiatives. These included publishing, after further consultation, guidance on a new strategic national framework to encourage greater partnership working at the local level and doing more to protect buildings from terrorism from the design stage onwards.

We published for public consultation on 20 April 2009 two documents that set out the Government’s approach to reducing the vulnerability of crowded places to terrorist attack. The consultation period ran for 12 weeks and concluded on 10 July 2009 and was supported by a series of stakeholder events in the English regions and in Scotland and Wales. We received 103 written responses, (mainly from private and public sector organisations). We have been very pleased with the level of engagement a wide range of partners have had with the consultation process. We are also pleased that most respondents thought that the Government’s approach, with its emphasis on identifying and describing the potential contributions key stakeholders could make, was the right one.

In the light of the consultation exercise, the Government are publishing today a number of documents. “Working Together to Protect Crowded Place” relates to the United Kingdom as a whole and while reflecting the differing arrangements in the devolved Administrations, it aims to encourage greater partnership working at the local level between local authorities, other local partners and in particular businesses.

“Crowded Places: The Planning System and Counter-Terrorism” is jointly published by the Home Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government and is sharply focused on guidance that is directly relevant to the role of planning officers. While this document applies only to England, it will be of interest to devolved Administrations in considering what guidance they might offer within the context of their own planning systems.

“Protecting Crowded Places: Design and Technical Issues'” is jointly published by the Home Office, the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI) and the police National Counter-Terrorism Security Office (NaCTSO). It contains design and technical counter-terrorism protective security guidance that will be of particular interest to architects and designers and their clients.

We are also publishing today on the Home Office website, an impact assessment and an accompanying equality impact assessment, including the Government’s response to its recommendations.

We will keep our overall approach, contained in the published documents, under review to ensure that it delivers the proportionate reductions in the vulnerabilities of crowded places that we want to see.

Copies of the documents published today will be placed in the House Library.

I wish to make the following statement.

Armed Forces

I am making a change to the Immigration Rules, laid before the House today, to change marriage visa age policy so that the age requirement is lowered to 18 for serving members of the armed forces and their partners. This recognises the role of partners in supporting those on the frontline. I believe that it is important that we give the armed forces special consideration to reflect the unique circumstances in which they operate.

Points-based System

Other changes I am making to the Immigration Rules today implement recommendations made by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to change tier 1 and tier 2 of the points-based system.

The points-based system continues to provide a flexible means to better identify and attract those migrants who have the most to contribute to the UK, while enforcing our effective border controls against those with less to offer. Tier 1 is for the most highly skilled workers, and tier 2 for other skilled workers who have a job offer from a UK employer licensed to sponsor migrants.

The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) provides the Government with independent, evidence-based advice on the economic case for managed migration. The MAC published its recommendations for tier 2 on 19 August 2009, and its recommendations for tier 1 on 4 December 2009. In arriving at them, it considered evidence from hundreds of organisations. The Government have also engaged with a wide-range of employers, trade unions and other organisations to ensure that the changes we make meet their needs and control migration in the best interests of the UK as a whole.

I can announce today that the Government are accepting all but two of the MAC’s recommended changes to tier 1. The statement of changes to the Immigration Rules laid before the House today includes new points tables for both tiers, a simpler route for very highly skilled workers without master’s degrees, greater flexibility for short-term transfers by multinational companies, and more protection against such transfers being used to nil long-term vacancies that should go to resident workers.

We have disagreed with the Committee in the awarding of points for professional qualifications held in addition to academic qualifications. We consider the approach would be complex, confusing for applicants and difficult to administer, and that operationally it would be very difficult to assess which combinations should attract particular points. So the Government have not accepted the recommendation at this time.

Further, the MAC recommended that the Government commissions detailed analysis of the economic returns to studying at particular institutions and for particular degree subjects. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) has already commissioned research which will shed more light on international students’ experience of the post-study work route, the jobs they take on and whether or not the availability of post-study leave to remain was decisive in them choosing to study in the UK. The Government have therefore decided that any further consideration of this recommendation should await the outcome of that research.

The UK Border Agency is also publishing a statement of policy for sponsors to ensure they have as much detail as possible about the Government’s response to the MAC’s recommendations, including those which do not require legislative action to implement.

Today’s rules changes also make relatively minor changes to other parts of the points-based system. Under tier 4, we are making a number of changes that will support the introduction of the new highly trusted sponsor category from 6 April. We are also amending the rules to permit sponsored researchers, who are part-way through research projects at our higher education institutions, to make an application to extend their leave under the Government authorised exchange sub-category of tier 5.

ESOL/Knowledge of Life

We are also making some changes to the requirements concerning English language qualifications for migrants seeking indefinite leave to remain in the UK. It is important that immigrants seeking permanent residence in the UK have some understanding of one of the native languages of this country (English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic) and of life in the United Kingdom. This will help to ensure that they integrate more easily into the British way of life.

I have today laid changes to the Immigration Rules which will ensure that all applicants relying on qualifications in English for speakers of other languages will study at accredited colleges; ensuring the quality of provision and preventing the possibilities of abuse of the provisions and exploitation of migrants. I have also clarified the progression which migrants are required to demonstrate before applying for permanent residence. Additional technical changes bring the rules into line with current terminology for the relevant qualifications.

Equivalent amendments are also being made to the regulations governing applications for naturalisation as British citizens.

Protection/Asylum Rules

We are also making some relatively minor changes to the Immigration Rules on asylum in order to clarify existing practice and procedure in the UK. These changes will have the effect of preventing asylum applicants from claiming humanitarian protection where there are serious reasons for considering that they have engaged in undesirable behaviour as set out in the rules.

We have also clarified interview procedures for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and have removed an unnecessary requirement for an asylum seeker to be asked to sign the interview record after their asylum interview to verify its contents. We have done this because we are satisfied that there are other procedures in place to safeguard the process.

Tier 5 Youth Mobility Scheme

I am pleased to announce that we will be adding Monaco to the youth mobility scheme.

I am today publishing the report of the Independent Adviser for Criminality Information Management, Mrs. Sunita Mason, into the arrangements for retaining and disclosing records on the police national computer (PNC), together with the Government’s response. I am placing copies in the Libraries of both Houses and in the Vote Office.

I welcome Mrs. Mason’s helpful report and I accept the principles behind all her recommendations, although in some cases we will need to think further about how they should be delivered.

In looking at retention Mrs. Mason had regard to the recent Court of Appeal judgment in the “Five Constables Case” and in the light of the findings has recommended that the current retention arrangements should continue. We agree with that view.

On disclosure of records, while Mrs. Mason considers that the current arrangements for sending information to the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) should be maintained, she is not persuaded that employers always need to see old and minor records. She suggests that some rules are developed to filter out such cases and that a non-statutory panel be established to provide Ministers with further advice in this area. This impacts on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (ROA) and cannot be considered in isolation from that legislation.

Mrs. Mason also recommends wider reform of the ROA. The Government agree that the Act needs to be looked at afresh to see what might best be considered in today’s context, and that work should include public consultation, before moving to introduce any reforming legislation.

The other major recommendation in the review is that further work should be done around the disclosure of soft intelligence as part of enhanced criminal record checks. Mrs. Mason is concerned that soft intelligence is disclosed too routinely in such circumstances and wonders whether the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) disclosure should be limited to conviction data. This is a complex area, but once again I am anxious to ensure that the disclosure process is proportionate and I will be asking officials to look at this further.

The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone has access to justice and that justice is provided locally. We need to ensure that we have a modern court estate that is properly aligned to where services are needed, that the estate is efficiently utilised and that courts have the necessary facilities for victims and witnesses and to allow proper access for court users with disabilities. On 13 October I announced full public consultations on the closure of a number of under-used courts.

The Government must always look to ensure there is an effective and efficient system to deliver justice so that we can continue to provide these vital public services at a level that offers real value for money for the taxpayer. Therefore, after careful consideration and following the public consultations, I am today announcing the closure of the following under-used courts:

Bourne Magistrates Court

Bridport Magistrates Court

Cheshunt Magistrates Court

Cullompton Magistrates Court

Dorking Magistrates Court

Eastleigh Magistrates Court

Gainsborough Magistrates Court

Havant Magistrates Court

Launceston Magistrates Court

Louth Magistrates Court

Mildenhall Magistrates Court

Minehead Magistrates Court

Sherborne Magistrates Court

Sleaford Magistrates Court

Stamford Magistrates Court

Wantage Magistrates Court

Wareham Magistrates Court

Wells Magistrates Court

Whitby Magistrates Court

Widnes Magistrates Court

I have not yet made a final decision on the proposed closure of Leigh County Court. I am still considering this matter, and will make an announcement in due course.

It is right that going to court should not place undue stress on the victims and witnesses of crime. Her Majesty’s Courts Service has made significant improvements in the facilities for these court users over recent years. These improvements have helped to make giving evidence in court less stressful. We need to ensure that court buildings have suitable facilities for all court users. Many of the courts listed above are significantly under-utilised and do not have adequate facilities for victims and witnesses. In addition, a number of the buildings do not allow adequate access for disabled court users. Due to the low utilisation rates and in some courts, physical constraints, I do not believe it would provide good value for money to spend taxpayers’ money to bring these buildings up to the required standard.

Magistrates courts developed in certain locations in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when areas of local government (then responsible for these courts) were much smaller and transport links were elementary. It is no longer necessary to have a court in every small town. This was recognised by many of the former Magistrates Courts Committees who made a very significant number of closures. Successive Governments have in recent decades had to undertake closure programmes. Since 1997, the Government, with this announcement, will have closed 171 courts, compared with 450 courts which were closed between 1979 to 1997. Our plans ensure that communities have access to good quality local courts within a reasonable travelling distance. We have considered the suitability and proximity of nearby courts which can meet the needs of the community. Most of the courts affected are not currently hearing cases. Therefore, cases in that area have been heard at a nearby court which has not caused significant disruption to court users. In many cases the better facilities available have improved their experience at court.

The consultation papers asked respondents to comment on any impacts that closure may have. In the light of the responses received, I am confident that the closures will not have a significant adverse impact on the provision of local justice. Indeed, as many respondents noted, these closures will assist the delivery of modern justice services and provide communities with better, more efficient facilities.

The responses to the consultation papers will be published on the Ministry of Justice website. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses, in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.

I have today laid before the House the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Annual Report 2009-2010 (Cm 7844). This follows consultation with the Committee over matters that could not be published without prejudicing the work of the intelligence and security agencies.

I have also today laid before the House the Government’s response to this report (Cm 7845). Copies of the report and the response have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

I am grateful to the Intelligence and Security Committee for its valuable work.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Lord Adonis, has made the following ministerial statement:

The Government are today publishing a consultation document and accompanying impact assessment on the European Commission proposal for a regulation on the carbon dioxide emissions of new vans.

We strongly support the principle of regulating van CO₂. This sector of road transport accounts for a growing proportion of transport emissions, and we estimate this regulation would save millions of tonnes of CO₂ emissions within the next decade. It would also improve the fuel economy of vehicles, thereby substantially reducing the running costs of those using vans as part of their business.

Our priority for this regulation is to set an ambitious but realistic long-term framework for the reduction of emissions from this sector. The regulation must respect the realities of the sector to ensure that it does not reduce the diversity of the van market. In some areas we believe that the Commission is broadly right, for example in making separate provision for manufacturers selling below a certain volume of vans, and in encouraging new emission-lowering technologies. For other aspects we believe the approach should be modified.

We are already taking an active part in discussions with the European Commission and other member states on this issue and outcome of the consultation will feed into our evolving position. A copy of the consultation document and accompanying impact assessment has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be available from: http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open.

The first Transport Council of the Spanish presidency was held in Brussels on 11 March. The United Kingdom was represented by Andy Lebrecht, Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU.

The Council agreed a general approach on a directive on transportable pressure equipment. The directive aims to revoke obsolete directives on pressure equipment and therefore remove conflicts between EU law and international rules on the transport of dangerous goods. It will align with the changes to the international agreements on the carriage of dangerous goods by rail and road (RID and ADR) which form the annexes of Directive 2009/68/EC. The United Kingdom supports this general approach.

There was a progress report on the proposal for a directive on aviation security charges. The Commission noted that the subject, and notably the question of who should pay for any more stringent security measures, was complex and that there were no obvious solutions. The first reading and vote from the European Parliament is scheduled to take place in April. Following that vote the presidency will examine the proposal and decide how it should be taken forward. The Council agreed to the presidency approach and took note of the progress report. The United Kingdom is content with this approach.

The Council reached a general approach on a regulation on investigation and prevention of accidents and incidents in civil aviation. The regulation seeks to facilitate the standardisation of legislation and co-operation in the investigation of accidents and incidents in civil aviation. A number of interventions were made by the majority of delegations (including the UK) in support of the presidency text, with comments being made on the independence of the network, the participation of the European Aviation Safety Agency in safety investigations, the role of judicial authorities, the protection of sensitive safety information and release of passenger lists following an accident. There was general consensus that these issues could be addressed as the European Parliament proceeds with its consideration of the proposal. The United Kingdom supports this general approach.

There was an update from the Commission on progress in the negotiations on a second stage EU-US Air Transport Agreement. The Commission noted the good progress made in widening the scope of the agreement to include environmental, labour and regulatory issues. While the US Congress was currently unwilling to relax investment and ownership in US airlines, it was felt that the US had conceded some useful points that would make the agreement mutually beneficial. The Commission raised the three outstanding issues of liberalisation, noise and commercial rights. Member states were broadly supportive of the Commission’s approach and welcomed the recent progress on environmental matters. However, there were several interventions by delegations seeking to ensure that the final agreement strikes the right balance. The Council urged the Commission to continue negotiations on this basis.

There was a brief discussion on electric cars under AOB during which the United Kingdom reiterated that electric vehicles were only part of the solution to decarbonising transport and that any solution must be technologically neutral.

The Secretary of State will be making changes to the discretionary social fund in relation to direction 17, with effect from 1 April 2010.

With effect from 1 April a new benefit sanction for all first offences of benefit fraud, “One Strike”, will be introduced along with a sanction for those jobseeker’s allowance claimants who fail to attend their fortnightly reviews. Direction 17 of the discretionary social fund will be amended to take account of these new sanctions. This will ensure that all healthy childless people with no caring responsibilities who apply for a crisis loan, regardless of which benefit they receive, will not be able to counter a benefit sanction by applying for a crisis loan for living expenses. As now, they will be able to apply for a crisis loan to alleviate the consequences of a disaster or for the expenses for items for cooking or heating when there is a proven risk to their health or safety.

I am today announcing the publication of the Government’s response to the ICL Inquiry Report.

The Government’s response (CM 7849) has been laid before Parliament and will be published later today. In publishing the response I would like to once again extend my condolences to the families and friends of those killed and injured in the factory explosion at ICL Plastics Ltd in Glasgow on 11 May 2004, and thank Lord Gill for his work and his considered recommendations following this tragic—and avoidable—event.

On 16 July, I announced the publication of Lord Gill’s report into the underlying causes of the explosion at ICL Plastics, resulting from a leak of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). As part of his report, Lord Gill recommended a four-phase action plan to secure the safe operation of small bulk LPG installations. The plan consisted of:

a systematic replacement of buried metallic service pipes with polyethylene pipes and inspection of buildings with an LPG supply;

the establishment of a new safety regime for small bulk LPG installations including the introduction of an independent verification scheme;

the continuing development of the safety regime with particular reference to polyethylene pipes; and

improvements in knowledge and information sharing between regulators, and LPG suppliers and users.

On 14 September, I announced the publication of House’s progress report which set out details of the programme to replace buried metallic pipework with polyethylene pipes, supported by an inspection campaign by HSE and local authority inspectors. This work is now well under way.

The progress report also announced the launch of a consultation exercise seeking stakeholder views on Lord Gill’s remaining recommendations. We are grateful to those who responded to the consultation for their helpful comments. Having considered these responses and advice from the HSE board, the Government are now able to publish its full response to the ICL Inquiry.

The Government support the majority of Lord Gill’s proposals for a new LPG safety regime including the introduction of installation records for LPG users; registration of LPG suppliers; clearer demarcation of responsibilities between LPG users and suppliers; the production of an asset register by suppliers; and improved guidance for users on meeting their legal obligations. HSE will consult with stakeholders further on the details of implementation.

The Government have decided to not take forward Lord Gill’s proposals for an independent verification scheme or for independent audits of workplace risk assessments but will instead take steps to raise awareness among users of their responsibilities within the existing legislative framework, underpinned by appropriate enforcement activity. We believe that this approach will effectively deliver the outcomes that Lord Gill envisaged.

The Government acknowledge the need to ensure that the replacement polyethylene pipes themselves remain safe. We have therefore asked HSE to undertake any additional research needed into the safety of these pipes and to consult the LPG industry and pipe manufacturers on appropriate integrity tests.

Finally, the Government agree with Lord Gill that effective communication is vital to ensuring the continuing safety of small bulk LPG installations. The HSE will work with the LPG industry to develop clear and practical advice for LPG users regarding the fulfilment of their statutory duties.

I hope that the Government response goes some way to addressing the concerns of those have suffered as a result of this tragic event and reassures them that the Government are determined to ensure that similar events do not happen in the future.

An analysis of the responses to the preliminary consultation exercise, and other information used in developing the Government response, is now available on the HSE website at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/iclresponse