My noble friend the Minister for Science and Innovation, Lord Drayson has today made the following statement:

I have tasked the National Measurement Office to provide a measurement infrastructure which supports innovation, facilitates fair competition, promotes international trade and protects consumers, health and the environment.

I have set the National Measurement Office the following targets for 2010-11:

To increase efficiency by reducing by at least 3 per cent. activities which are not directly linked to delivery or staff training.

To supply a customer-focused certification service by completing 93 per cent. of applications in accordance with agreed customer requirements.

To provide a prompt calibration service that completes at least 95 per cent. of jobs (including preparation of certificates) within 15 working days of acceptance of the work and also an average completion time of less than 10 working days.

To provide a legal metrology programme that completes 95 per cent. of the scheduled milestones by their due dates.

To preserve the investment of public moneys by ensuring that the ratio of spend on science programmes to legal programmes is at least as much as when the NMS unit transferred to NMO on 1 April 2009.

To provide a timely metering service by ensuring all meter examiner appointments, manufacturer authorisations/consents and modifications to meter approval and decisions, completes 92 per cent. of jobs within five business days of receipt of all necessary documentation.

To manage the finances effectively by ensuring that the portfolio of metrology programmes is provided within 1 per cent. of the allocated budget.

To manage the Teddington estate finances within 1 per cent. of the allocated budget.

Chief executive to reply within 10 working days to all letters from MPs delegated to him to reply.

Buying Solutions has been set four performance targets for 2010-11. These are as follows:

to facilitate at least £1,000 million value-for-money improvements (£800 million cashable) for the public sector in 2010-11;

to achieve an overall customer satisfaction level of above 90 per cent;

to make a return on capital employed of 6.5 per cent. over a five year period (April 2009 to March 2014); and

to reduce by 5 per cent. the ratio of internal costs over value-for-money improvements with the out-turn for the same ratio in 2009-10 proportionate to cashable savings.

The Finance Bill will be published on Thursday 1 April.

Explanatory notes on the Bill will be available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office and in the Libraries of both Houses on that day. Copies of the explanatory notes will be available on the Treasury’s website.

Over the Easter recess, the Cabinet Office will publish “Mutual Benefit: giving people power over public services”. The paper sets out the potential for mutuals to stimulate and secure greater citizen participation and engagement in public services.

“Mutual Benefit: giving people power over public services” also sets out the Government’s plans to facilitate the development of mutualism in three key public services.

Following publication, “Mutual Benefit: giving people power over public services” can be downloaded at: www.hmq.gov.uk/media/60217/mutuals.pdf

Copies will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

On 18 January I asked Sir Roger Singleton, the Government’s independent chief adviser on the safety of children, to review the use of the defence of reasonable punishment in certain part-time educational and learning settings to establish the key issues and whether it was an area where we needed to consider a change in the interests of strengthening safeguards for children.

Sir Roger has now provided a report, “Physical punishment: improving consistency and protection”, containing his advice and recommendations, for which I am very grateful. I appreciate the extensive work he has undertaken with a wide range of stakeholders and the careful consideration he has given to this complex and sensitive issue.

Sir Roger’s main recommendation is that the current ban on physical punishment in schools and other children’s settings should be extended to include any form of advice, guidance, teaching, training, instruction, worship, treatment or therapy and to any form of care or supervision which is carried out other than by a parent or member of the child’s own family or household. This will resolve the discrepancy whereby a teacher is banned from smacking a child in a school, but the same teacher could administer physical punishment in an out-of-school setting. I believe this is a sensible and proportionate solution to removing this inconsistency.

Secondly, Sir Roger has recommended that the Government should continue to promote positive parenting strategies and effective behaviour management techniques directed towards eliminating the use of smacking. Parents who disapprove of smacking should make this clear to others who care for their children.

Thirdly, he has recommended that the development of appropriate safeguarding policies in informal education and learning organisations should continue to be promoted. Legal changes which flow from adoption of these recommendations will need to be communicated effectively.

The Government have accepted Sir Roger’s recommendations in full and we are committed to implementing them as soon as possible.

I have placed copies of Sir Roger’s report and the Government response in the Libraries of both Houses.

The 19th report of the School Teachers Review Body (STRB) is being published today, covering a range of matters referred to them in October 2009. I am grateful for the careful consideration which the STRB has given to these matters. Copies of the report are available in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office, the Libraries of both Houses and at www.teachernet.gov.uk/pay.

The STRB has recommended that revised criteria for payment of allowances to teachers of pupils with special educational needs (SEN) are introduced from September 2010. In addition, it recommends that the two discrete values in use currently should be replaced by a range.

I am grateful to the STRB for these recommendations which will allow teachers of pupils with special educational needs to continue to receive appropriate reward, and subject to consultees’ views, I intend to implement new criteria.

The STRB has also made recommendations concerning criteria for appointments to deputy head and assistant head roles as part of a programme of work on which the STRB has previously made recommendations.

I note the STRB’s recommendations for criteria for these leadership posts and I agree that this work should be taken into account in developing leadership standards and professional responsibilities for all teachers. I would welcome consultees’ views on the criteria.

My detailed response contains further information on these issues.

The following sets out the full set of recommendations from the School Teachers’ Review Body and published in the 19th Report (Cm 7836) on 30 March 2010, together with the response from the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. The STRB’s recommendations are set out below.

The 19th report of the School Teachers’ Review Body (STRB) is being published today. It covers the matters referred to the STRB in October 2009. Copies are available in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office and in the Libraries of both Houses and at http://www.ome.uk.com/STRB_Reports.aspx.

In making its recommendations, the STRB was required to have regard to items a to f set out in the remit letter of 8 October 2009. This report covers criteria for posts in the leadership group, and for special educational needs payments. I am grateful for the careful and detailed attention the STRB has given to these matters. I am inviting comments on the STRB’s report and my response to its recommendations by 29 April 2010.

Special Educational Needs Allowances

The STRB has recommended that:

SEN allowances should continue to be paid to teachers working in specified SEN roles but that the present system of two separate and defined SEN allowances be replaced with spot value allowances that fall within a specified SEN range.

The new SEN range start at £2,001 and the maximum be set at £3,954, to be uprated in line with any general uprating of teachers’ pay. Schools and authorities should determine the spot values for individual posts, taking account of local context and specified factors.

SEN allowances be paid to those teaching:

in SEN posts that require a mandatory SEN qualification (all settings);

in special schools, and in designated special classes or units in schools and local authorities.

SEN allowances be paid to those teaching in non-designated settings, including PRUs, that are analogous to designated special classes or units where the post:

involves a substantial element of working directly with children with special educational needs;

requires the exercise of a teacher’s professional skills and judgement in the teaching of children with special educational needs; and

has a greater level of involvement in the teaching of children with special educational needs than is the normal requirement of teachers throughout the school or authority.

In other exceptional cases, payment of SEN allowances be at the discretion of the school or local authority.

Schools and local authorities set out clearly in their teachers’ pay policies the arrangements for rewarding teachers with SEN responsibilities.

I am grateful to the STRB for its consideration of this issue and agree that the two current allowances should be replaced by a range, and the existing criteria revised. I consider that any new criteria should be linked to teaching and learning in all educational settings, and am not therefore convinced of the need for discretion. Subject to consultees’ views, I intend to implement revised criteria and an SEN range from September 2010.

Leadership Group criteria

The STRB has recommended the following:

Subject to review in any future STRB consideration of school leadership issues, the STPCD—the school teachers pay and conditions documents—be revised to include the following, with effect from September 2010:

Before establishing or making an appointment to any deputy head teacher or assistant head teacher post, the relevant body must be satisfied that:

(i) the post carries a substantial element of whole school responsibility that is not required of all classroom teachers or TLR holders, and

(ii) the holder of the post plays a major role, with full accountability, under the overall direction of the head teacher, in—

(a) formulating the aims and objectives of the school;

(b) establishing, developing and implementing the policies through which they are to be achieved;

(c) managing staff and resources to that end;

(d) monitoring progress towards the achievement of the school's aims, objectives and policies; and

(e) undertaking any professional duties delegated by the head teacher, including, for example: duties that impact on the standards of achievement and behaviour of pupils across the school; duties that involve working with external bodies and agencies; or duties that impact on securing pupils’ access to their educational entitlements.

That there should be an additional requirement for deputy head teacher posts to carry a level of responsibility exceeding that expected of an assistant head teacher employed in the same school, including, when appropriate, responsibility for discharging the responsibilities of the head teacher in his/her absence.

I am grateful to the STRB for its detailed consideration of this issue and I welcome the recommendations for criteria for deputy and assistant head posts. I believe that this work should be taken into account in developing leadership standards and professional responsibilities for all teachers. I agree that pay arrangements for the leadership group should continue to be taken forward by the STRB in the course of a future remit. I would welcome consultees’ views on the criteria which I will consider when developing criteria for implementation in 2010.

I am announcing today the implementation of the duty for local authorities to respond to petitions, giving real power to local people to raise the issues they care about with their council and ensuring they receive a meaningful response.

The petitions duty is provided for by chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. The core elements of the duty, ensuring that local authorities must set out in a petition scheme how they will respond to petitions from people who live, work or study in their area, will come into force on 15 June this year. The requirements relating to electronic petitions will come into force on 15 December, reflecting the additional time needed for local authorities to procure, install and test software and to train staff.

To support effective delivery by local authorities, I am publishing today statutory guidance and a model petitions scheme, alongside the Government’s response to consultation on draft versions of those documents. A total of 123 responses were received, and a number of changes have been made to the guidance and model scheme to reflect the helpful points that were raised.

The guidance draws attention to a number of areas where the Government expect local authorities to use the strong powers and influence they already have to respond to the issues raised in petitions. Examples include:

On antisocial behaviour—asking the courts to grant an antisocial behaviour order (ASBO); applying to the courts for a premises closure order to close properties where there is persistent nuisance or disorder; making a gating order to restrict access to any public highway to prevent crime or ASB; providing intensive, non-negotiable behavioural support through family intervention projects to perpetrators of antisocial behaviour and their families;

On alcohol related crime and disorder—placing restrictions on public drinking in the area by establishing a designated public place order or, as a last resort, imposing an alcohol disorder zone. When an alcohol disorder zone is established, the licensed premises in the area where alcohol related trouble is being caused are required to contribute to the costs of extra policing in that area;

On underperforming schools—issuing a warning notice outlining expectations and a time frame for improvement; for schools that have failed to comply with a warning notice or are in an Ofsted category of notice to improve (requiring significant improvement) or special measures, authorities can also appoint additional governors, establish an interim executive board, remove the school’s delegated budgets, require the school to enter into a formal contract or partnership or (only if the school is in special measures) require its closure; and

On underperforming hospitals—asking the council’s scrutiny committee to investigate concerns on issues like poor hygiene—the committee has powers to review services, request information from NHS bodies, and make urgent recommendations; work with local involvement networks, which have powers to carry out spot checks and seek information and responses from health service providers.

In order to avoid confusion and duplication with existing statutory arrangements for citizens to express their views, the Local Authorities (Petitions) (England) Order 2010 excludes petitions on planning decisions and on licensing decisions on alcohol, gambling or sex establishments, from the scope of the petitions duty. However, any broader issues around the delivery of services in these areas remain within scope (for example, the effectiveness of an authority’s process for dealing with planning applications). It also excludes issues relating to the dealings of individuals or entities, where there is already a statutory right to a review or appeal (other than the right to complain to the local government ombudsman). The order stipulates the maximum threshold which local authorities can set for a petition to trigger a full council debate at 5 per cent. of the local population.

I am publishing today a paper “Park Homes Site Licensing Reforms: The Way Forward and Next Steps” which sets out the Government’s proposals for the reform of licensing of park home sites in light of the responses received to the May 2009 consultation paper, “Park Home Site licensing—Improving the Management of Park Home Sites”. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

The Government want a thriving and well-run sector that provides sites where people want to live. We want a licensing system that raises and maintains standards on sites and protects residents by ensuring sites are safe, well planned and properly managed with appropriate facilities and services

The paper announces that the Government are committed to introducing a number of key reforms to the current site licensing regime, including a requirement that persons engaged in the management of park home sites are “fit and proper” and only such persons may hold licences. The new system will give local authorities duties to impose management conditions in licences and provides a range of enforcement tools to ensure that site licensing conditions are complied with. Measures will be required to be put in place for alternative management arrangements where sites are not able to be licensed. The new scheme will also allow licensing authorities to recover their costs in connection with their duties under the provisions by charging appropriate fees. A new regime for appealing licensing decisions to the residential property tribunal will be introduced.

The Government intend to establish a task force, including representatives of local authorities, the industry and residents to advise and recommend how some of the key elements of licensing may be most effectively implemented with minimum burdens.

The Government’s proposals are intended to drive up standards in this sector (where that proves necessary) and where that is not possible, to remove the ability of those unscrupulous and incompetent site owners from continuing to manage park home sites.

I am publishing a consultation paper today, 30 March, on the arrangements for the production of the second local spending report. The aim of the local spending reports is to assist local authorities, their partners and local people in promoting the sustainability of local communities by providing more information about the public funding that is spent in their area. The Act requires me to make arrangements for the production of local spending reports and to consult such persons likely to be affected by the arrangements, as I think appropriate. This consultation document places work to develop local spending reports in the broader context of our efforts to make public data public. This approach was summarised in the report to Parliament “Making local public expenditure data public and the development of Local Spending Reports” in December 2009.

The document will be placed in the Library of the House and will be available on the Communities and Local Government website at: www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/consultationsecondspendrpt.

We have presented also the first local spending report on the Places database today at http://www.local pending.communities.gov.uk/ and are seeking views on this as part of the consultation process. This will provide intuitive, user-friendly tools to explore, compare and contrast data via interactive maps, charts and tables. These online tools will be freely and publicly available, thereby ensuring that these local spending data are available not only to local authorities and their strategic partners but also to citizens in a consistent form.

Following consultation, I propose to publish the second local spending report in summer 2010.

The Government committed to implementing in full all the recommendations arising from the review of the armed forces compensation scheme when it was published on 10 February 2010. As the review acknowledged, considerable detailed work is required to translate the review’s high-level recommendations into legislation. An important first step is the formation of the proposed independent medical expert group, which I am establishing on an interim basis today in order to meet the time scales envisaged by the review. The terms of reference, structure and membership of this interim medical expert group, which will advise on armed forces compensation, is set out below:

Terms of Reference

The interim independent medical group is established as a result of the AFCS review (Cm 7798) published 10 February 2010. Its role, primarily, is to advise on the appropriate levels of compensation for all the specific injuries, illnesses and diseases highlighted in the AFCS review as being areas of concern, in time to be included in the consultation in autumn 2010 leading to the legislation planned for early 2011 to implement the review.

In addition, the interim group will also, as appropriate:

a. provide initial advice on the list of recognised diseases that, on the balance of probabilities, are predominantly caused by service in the armed forces since 6 April 2005:

b. provide initial advice on those injuries, illnesses or diseases that might be made worse by service during the first six months of service that are currently excluded from the scheme. This advice will need to distinguish between those injuries, illnesses or diseases that might simply be triggered by service, but are not caused by service (perhaps such as asthma, which might only become apparent during initial training):

c. advise on the definitive structure and membership of the group, beyond the transitional group which would only be in existence for around 12 months:

d. advise on any other medical matters in relation to the armed forces compensation schemes that the Minister for veterans requests it to provide.

Membership

The chairman and expert members of this interim group will comprise senior licensed consultants drawn from the relevant specialties, including: trauma/orthopaedics, neurology, ear/nose/throat, occupational medicine, and mental health. The MOD’s senior medical adviser to the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (personnel) will also be a member of the group. Three lay members will also be appointed to the group: one from service/ex-service organisations on the statutorily established Central Advisory Committee on Pensions and Compensation (CAC), one from the in-service representatives on the CAC, and an injured serving person who has claimed under the scheme. The group will be able to draw on other expert advice where required.

The chairman of the group will be a member of the CAC that advises the Minister for veterans, and the chairman would present the advice of the group to the Minister as a member of the CAC. The advice and the Government’s decisions in relation to it would be published together at the same time on the MOD’s website.

The following individuals have been appointed to form this interim group:

Chairman:

Professor Sir Anthony Newman Taylor CBE, FRCP, FFOM, FMedSci

Expert Members:

Professor David Alexander MA(Hons) C.Psychol PhD FBPS FRSM(Hon) FRCPsych;

Professor Linda Luxon FRCP;

Dr. John Scadding MD FRCP;

Dr. David Snashall MSc FRCP FFOM LLM;

Professor James Ryan OStJ, MB, BCh, BAO (NUI), FRCS (Eng), MCh (NUI), Hon FCEM, DMCC(SoA), RAMC(V)

MOD’s Senior Medical Adviser to the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (personnel):

Dr. Anne Braidwood CBE MRCP MRCGP

Lay Members:

Lt. Col. Jerome Church MBE, General Secretary British Limbless Ex-Service Men’s Association, member of the CAC, representing the Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations;

Col. Robin Vickers, Army Pay Colonel, representing the three single Service members on the CAC: and

Col. David Richmond, a serving member of the armed forces who suffered an AK47 bullet wound that shattered his femur in Afghanistan in June 2008, who was injured when Commanding Officer 5SCOTS.

Mode of working

The group itself will not be expected to create its advice from first principles. Instead, the MOD would investigate issues and draw up evidence-based proposals for the group to consider and either validate or advise, support or challenge in the same way that the MOD conducted the work of the AFCS review and used the independent scrutiny group to validate this work. The MOD will provide secretariat support to the group.

The group will meet as and when required, perhaps four to six times during its existence. Between meetings business will be conducted via correspondence. Some meetings may be conducted virtually via video or telephone conferencing.

Terms of Appointment

The chairman and members of this interim independent medical group to advise on armed forces compensation will be appointed until February 2011. The roles will not be remunerated, but the MOD will reimburse reasonable travel and subsistence expenses. The chairman and members will be expected to follow the seven principles of public life enunciated by the Nolan committee.

The Government have accepted the findings of the review board for Government contracts as detailed in their report of the 2010 general review of the profit formula for non-competitive Government contracts. The board’s recommendations will be implemented in accordance with arrangements subsequently agreed with the industry side and recorded in an addendum to the published report. I will be placing a copy of the report in the Library of the House. The recommendations will be implemented for new non-competitive work with effect from 1 April 2010.

I am today publishing “Adapting to Coastal Change: Developing a Policy Framework”, which takes forward some of the ideas on supporting community adaptation to coastal change that we consulted on last summer. The work of the coastal change pathfinders that I announced on 1 December 2009 is part of this work.

“Adapting to Coastal Change: Developing a Policy Framework” sets out ideas and guidance on how communities can plan for coastal change as well as looking at what managing change might mean for business, local infrastructure and our historic and natural environment. In doing so, it draws on examples of best practice, including the pathfinders which are looking at new approaches. It also confirms the introduction of a new coastal erosion assistance grant. This is a fixed grant of £6,000 available to local authorities to help homeowners with the costs of demolishing a home at risk of loss to coastal erosion and some basic moving costs.

“Adapting to Coastal Change”, together with a report summarising responses to last summer’s coastal change policy consultation and new guidance on community adaptation planning and engagement, will be published on the DEFRA website today.

I wish to announce that for 2009-10 DEFRA will switch £25 million available near-cash resource DEL budget to cover a forecast deficit against its capital DEL control total, in accordance with HM Treasury’s consolidated budgetary guidance. Although the financial outturn for the year is not final, the current assessment of the required switch is £25 million. The movement in spend from near-cash resource DEL to capital DEL is in respect of flood defences where the exact nature and classification of the expenditure is determined by the Environment Agency, as they undertake the work.

I have set the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) the following performance targets for 2010-11.

Service delivery quality

To administer common agricultural policy and other schemes to meet the following requirements:

To have paid 85 per cent. of customers by 31 December 2010 and 95 per cent. by value of valid single payment scheme 2010 scheme claims by 31 March 2011.

To record 98 per cent. of notifications of births deaths and movements of cattle on the cattle tracing system within 14 days of their receipt.

To make 98 per cent. of rural development programme for England payments for Natural England and Regional Development Agencies in accordance with agreed service level agreements.

Customer impact

To demonstrate a continued commitment to customers by achieving a minimum annual average customer satisfaction score of 7.5 out of 10.0, as measured through surveys of external customers.

To increase electronic uptake of RPA services by receiving:

10,000 electronic applications for SPS 2010.

85 per cent. of CTS transactions via an electronic channel by the end of 2010-11.

Value for public money

To demonstrate clear progress towards achieving the Treasury disallowance target of 2 per cent. or less of fund value, for all CAP schemes administered by the RPA.

Achieve a 9.8 per cent. efficiency saving in revenue budget by the end of the 2010-11 financial year by managing service delivery within indicative budget levels.

For the single payment scheme, achieve a cost per claim reduction of 15 per cent. for processing costs.

Capacity and capability

To demonstrate improved capacity and capability to meet targets and implement change with particular focus on leadership, (core to RPA) data quality, financial performance and contributions in response to the DEFRA review and the Public Accounts Committee.

Further details are given in the RPA business plan for 2010-11 and copies are available on their website.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has recently undertaken a review of the fees charged for visa and consular services, both in the UK and overseas. On 10 February 2010 Her Majesty in Council approved the Consular Fees Order 2010. This revokes and replaces the Consular Fees Order 2009. The Government are today announcing changes to the consular fees to be charged under this order with effect from 6 April 2010.

Fees for passport applications made in the United Kingdom remain at current levels whereas the fees for passport applications made abroad including applications for temporary and emergency passports and the new emergency travel documents have increased by 2.90 per cent. which is the current rate of inflation.

The fees for legalisation services have also increased in line with inflation.

Fees for receiving applications for entry clearance to Commonwealth countries, British overseas territories and Crown dependencies continue to be charged in the order and have increased since last year. These fees are “Home Office fees” and are approved by the Home Office Minister but are still contained within the Consular Fees Order.

Other consular fees, representing a range of services performed at posts abroad, are also set to increase by 2.90 per cent.

It is right that those who benefit from consular services should meet the cost of them, rather than the UK taxpayer. The new fees represent the full economic cost of what we do, and will ensure that British missions continue to provide a high standard of service to consular customers.

Details of the new fees will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

The General Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council were held on 22 March in Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary represented the UK.

The agenda items covered were as follows:

Foreign Affairs Council

The provisional report of the meeting can be found at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/113482.pdf

Iran

The agreed ‘A’ points included a EU declaration on free access to information in Iran calling on the Iranian authorities to stop jamming satellite broadcasting and internet censorship. There was no FAC discussion. A text of the declaration can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/113468.pdf

Haiti

High Representative Ashton and Humanitarian Affairs Commissioner Georgieva briefed on their recent visits, stressing the need to learn lessons and review structures. The Commissioner said humanitarian efforts must continue for at least 12 months and should take account of the coming hurricane season. Both the High Representative and the Commissioner said the EU needed to do more to raise its visibility. Development Commissioner Piebalgs noted the need to push for realistic reconstruction plans at the donors conference on 31 March in New York.

Ministers agreed conclusions on Haiti including on the donors conference. These can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/l13466.pdf

Afghanistan/Pakistan

The High Representative introduced the new double-hatted EU Special Representative (EUSR) for Afghanistan, Vygaudas Ušackas, and urged member states to give him their full support to implement the EU’s action plan. She stressed the need for the international community to maintain momentum generated by the London conference and ensure the Afghan Government fulfilled its commitments. The EUSR said his three key tasks were to merge the two existing EU offices in Kabul, establish a close working relationship with member states missions on the ground and increase the EU’s visibility.

The Foreign Secretary said the EUSR should make his own distinct contribution to the international effort and suggested three objectives: to become the effective EU political voice on the ground; to ensure that EU activities were a catalyst for progress—including integrating EUPOL with NATO efforts and supporting local governors; and to develop a coherent EU development strategy.

The High Representative said she was considering options on EUPOL and would share her thoughts with member states in due course. She looked forward to a discussion on implementing the action plan at the April FAC.

A text of the agreed conclusions can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/113468.pdf

On Pakistan, High Representative Ashton urged member states to show support ahead of the 21 April summit, especially on generalised system of preferences (GSP+). We should back Pakistan economically as well as politically. The Foreign Secretary strongly endorsed the importance of EU trade with Pakistan.

Middle East

The High Representative briefed on her visit to the region of 18 March.

The Quartet Representative (Tony Blair) set out the difficulties facing the peace process. Europe had a key role in helping progress negotiations. The Foreign Secretary stressed the need to support proximity talks, which needed to focus on substantive issues.

AOB: Ukraine

The Commissioner, Štefan Füle, said the Commission was taking forward the action plan, including with the new Ukrainian Foreign Minister this week, and would revert with further recommendations at a future FAC.

AOB: Moldova

Member states urged the Commission to speed up the provision of macro financial assistance to Moldova which Enlargement Commissioner Füle confirmed would commence in April. He noted the visa dialogue was expected to start on 15 June and he had written to the Moldovan Government asking them to follow the Venice Commission’s advice on future constitutional reform.

AOB: Libya/Switzerland—Visas

Ministers discussed the Libya/Swiss bilateral dispute, which had resulted in Libya refusing visas to citizens of all Schengen countries. The High Representative undertook to give clear messages to the Swiss Foreign Minister at their meeting on 24 March.

AOB: Western Balkans

Slovenia gave a short brief on the Brdo Western Balkans conference of 20 March reaffirming the leaders’ commitment to joining the EU, meeting the required criteria and promoting good neighbourly relations.

Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council

The General Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council met in joint session, chaired by the High Representative and the Presidency (Mr. Moratinos), to discuss the European External Action Service (EAS).

The High Representative presented progress so far. She committed to present her proposal shortly, noting this needed to be agreed by both the Council and the European Parliament. She hoped all institutions involved would recognise each others’ perspectives and work together to deliver a coherent service. She highlighted the financial and staffing regulations and the budget as areas where a constructive approach was necessary. And Ministers should engage with national Parliaments ahead of discussions with the European Parliament.

The Foreign Secretary set out the UK’s support for the EAS as a shared project and a great opportunity. The EAS needed to have the capacity to add value and this should include having a complementary role on cross-cutting policy issues such as climate change and migration. He stressed the need for merit based appointments.

General Affairs Council

The provisional text of the Council’s discussion and agreed ‘A’ points can be found at: http://www.consilium .europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/genaff/l13481.pdf

Europe 2020 Strategy

The Presidency (Mr. Moratinos) invited comments on the draft European Council conclusions covering Europe 2020 and climate change.

Ministers discussed the Commission’s proposals on competiveness, the setting of targets, the stability and growth pact and financial regulation.

The Foreign Secretary stressed the need to send a clear signal about the EU’s response to the economic crisis. We also needed to learn from the Lisbon strategy and work towards achievable, relevant targets that were set and owned at member state level.

Climate Change

On climate change, the Foreign Secretary led a number of member states in stressing the need to maintain ambition, implement the Copenhagen accord and move forward on fast start financing and mitigation/adaptation.

Dinner with President Herman Van Rompuy

The President of the Council hosted a General Affairs Council dinner where Europe 2020, European Council working methods and external relations were discussed.

On Europe 2020, member states discussed the Commission’s proposed targets in areas such as poverty and education and the need to reconcile these with national targets.

The Western European Union (WEU) has played a valuable role in discussion on European security. It embedded the principle of mutual defence in post-war Europe, promoted consultation and co-operation on defence and security matters in Western Europe and has conducted operations in a number of vital theatres, including the Persian Gulf and the Adriatic. Members from both Houses, past and present, have played a valuable role in pursuing the UK’s interests within the WEU and I would like to take this opportunity to pay warm tribute to their efforts.

But the WEU’s mutual defence role was essentially symbolic as soon as NATO was established and successive UK Governments have made clear, as the Lisbon treaty does, that NATO is the forum and the foundation for collective defence of the allies.

Moreover, the operational role of the WEU has been succeeded by the EU, following the UK/French initiative to create security and defence policy capacity in the EU. With this development, which NATO and the US specifically have welcomed, it is clear that the Western European Union is no longer relevant to today’s European security architecture. While the UK recognises the role the WEU Assembly has played in engaging the views of national parliamentarians from across Europe on European defence, we do not believe this justifies the cost of over €2 million a year to the UK alone.

For that reason, the UK intends to withdraw from the Western European Union. In accordance with the modified Brussels treaty, we will formally inform the Belgian Government of our decision in April 2010. A 12-month notice period will then follow, during which the UK will remain a member of the WEU, giving an opportunity for discussion on how to develop cross-European parliamentary scrutiny of European defence issues.

Given the inter-governmental nature of the EU’s common security and defence policy, we believe that this remains entirely a matter for national Parliaments and co-ordination between them. There is no reason and no case for the European Parliament to expand its competence in this area.

We are in discussion with other WEU member states on this issue. Many of them also believe that the time has come to radically reform or close the organisation. Following this announcement, we will continue to engage our European partners on this issue and on future cross- European parliamentary scrutiny of European defence.

We will also seek to use this opportunity to improve the exchange of information and engagement between the EU and NATO, including the involvement of non-EU NATO European allies in European defence.

Today the Government are laying before Parliament the White Paper, “Building the National Care Service” (Cm 7854).

We have listened to the views of the public and stakeholders through the 2008 engagement process and the 2009 Big Care Debate. The Big Care Debate received over 28,000 direct responses, with more than 40,000 people contributing to the debate through further research or events organised by stakeholders. The consultation showed that there was strong support for our vision of a National Care Service and while there was no clear consensus on funding, the comprehensive option was the most preferred. Today we have published an independent summary of the consultation alongside the White Paper and placed a copy in the Library.

We also held a Care and Support Conference last month with the Care and Support Alliance and other key stakeholders. They urged us to push forward with reform and favoured the comprehensive option.

We believe the time has come to build a comprehensive National Care Service. This will be for all adults in England with an eligible care need, providing free care when they need it—whoever they are, wherever they live in England, and whatever condition leads them to need care. It will give everyone the peace of mind that they and their families will be cared for should the need arise, and it will mean that no one need live in fear of losing their home or their savings to pay for care.

The Government’s vision is for a National Care Service that gives people choice and control, and is focused on keeping people well and independent. It will ensure that different parts of the system work better together, with a new duty for NHS bodies and local authorities to deliver integrated care.

Millions of people care for a family member or friend. This is the hallmark of a civilised society. But we must do more to give support to those who provide such care. Building on the carers’ strategy, the National Care Service will support those caring for others by improving the quality of formal care, and working with employers and Job Centre Plus, to help carers to live the life they want to live.

We recognise that building the new National Care Service will be one of the biggest changes to the welfare state since the creation of the NHS. We are also creating it during a period of fiscal consolidation. Reform to social care must be consistent with our plans for fiscal consolidation and reflect the tough decisions that will need to be made in the next spending review. This means we need to build the new service in stages.

The first stage is to create a step change in the provision of services in the home and in our communities. These services are essential if we are to ensure that more people are supported in their homes. Central to this is the Personal Care at Home Bill, to be implemented in 2011, enabling us to provide free personal care for people in their own home for those with the highest needs. The first stage of reform will also see reablement services available in every community, ensuring that there is a service by which people are supported to regain their independence and confidence when they need home care for the first time. As part of the first stage we will push forward with existing reforms that are already delivering real benefits for people such as the dementia strategy, the carers’ strategy and Putting People First.

The second stage of reform, during the next Parliament, will be to put in place the building blocks of a national system of care and support, in particular the establishment of clear national standards and entitlements. We will introduce a National Care Service Bill early in the next Parliament as a major step forward. From 2014, care entitlements will be extended meaning that anyone staying in residential care for more than two years will receive free care after the second year. The first and second stages together will mean that the most vulnerable in our society, those with the highest needs, will be protected from very high care costs and that many more people will be supported in their own homes.

During the next Parliament, we will take further steps towards the full reform of the system—moving towards the third stage in which the comprehensive National Care Service becomes a reality, with care free when people need it.

To do this will require everyone to contribute through a fair care contribution. So at the start of the next Parliament, we will establish a Commission to help to reach consensus on the right way of funding the system. The Commission will determine the fairest and most sustainable way for people to contribute. It will make recommendations to Ministers which, if accepted, will be implemented in the Parliament after next. The Commission will determine the options that should be open to people so that they have choice and flexibility about how to pay their care contribution. Our expectation is that the Commission will consider all the various options for payment put forward by stakeholders and the public as part of the Big Care Debate and at the Care and Support Conference.

“Building the National Care Service” (Cm 7854) is in the Library and copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote office.

The Police Pensions Additional Voluntary Contributions (AVC) Scheme, which was introduced in 1990, has served as a useful means by which police officers can top up their retirement pension. However, the opportunities now open to those who want to save for a personal pension reduce the need for an in-house AVC scheme. After consulting the Police Negotiating Board we have decided to close the police AVC scheme to new business from 1 October 2010, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary changes to the relevant regulations.

Notice of this change has been given to the two providers concerned, Standard Life and Equitable Life. Regular contributions in effect on 30 September can continue to be made but the change will mean that no new or increased contributions will be possible from 1 October. We recommend the need in all cases for officers to satisfy themselves about whether AVC investments are right for them, if necessary by taking independent financial advice.

As part of our review of the current arrangements for topping up police pensions we are discussing with the Police Negotiating Board proposals for introducing a new facility, Added Pension, which will enable officers to buy specific amounts of pension, subject to set limits, on a cost-neutral basis for the police pension scheme. The introduction of Added Pension would be accompanied by the closure to new contracts of the current facility of buying added years. The aim is for this change to be made at the same time as the closure of the AVC scheme to new business but this is subject to confirmation.

This week marks the end of phase 2 of the tackling knives and serious youth violence action programme (TKAP). Over the past 12 months, we have targeted nearly £7 million of funding on 15 high priority areas and on the British Transport Police in order to reduce serious youth violence.

Last week’s deaths of two young people in London was a stark reminder, if one were needed, of the need for our continued action in this area. We are committed to reducing serious youth violence to make sure that no families face the devastation that these young people’s families are suffering.

We are focused on tougher enforcement, tougher sentences and new legislation to tackle violent crime and gangs. We increased the starting tariff for a life sentence for adults committing murder using a knife or other weapon taken to the scene to a minimum 25 years in prison.

We will publish detailed results from the programme in the summer, but across England and Wales as a whole the picture is encouraging. Recorded crime statistics show that in the period April to September 2009 covering the first six months of phase 2 of TKAP, there was a 7 per cent. fall in recorded knife crime, compared with the same period the previous year, including a 34 per cent. fall in homicide with a knife/sharp instrument —100 homicides involving a knife/sharp instrument in April to September 2009 and 152 in April to September 2008. These statistics build on annual figures for 2008-09 which saw a 7 per cent. drop in knife/sharp instrument homicides, compared with 2007-08.

Over 100 hospitals are now sharing A&E data with local police and community safety partnerships in England and Wales, to enable targeted local enforcement and other activities to reduce violence. The Home Office has provided £300,000 to eight TKAP police forces for nine Portcullis Operations, an intensive enforcement and prevention tactic. Increased police activity has led to 736 arrests, 23 knives and one shotgun being recovered, and over 20,000 people passing through knife arches. In addition, street based teams have worked with over 1,500 young people.

But preventing serious violence is about more than tough enforcement; it is also about prevention. There have been over 22,000 after-school patrols in TKAP areas over the same period, engaging with over 67,000 young people and signposting over 13,000 young people to positive activities.

Where young people have been involved in knife crime, we have worked hard to ensure that they receive appropriate education and rehabilitation to teach them about the dangers of knives. The Youth Justice Board rolled out the knife crime prevention programme to all 97 youth offending teams in the 15 TKAP areas with the aim of reaching 2,000 young people cautioned or convicted of knife crime in the TKAP areas by the end of 2010, to bring home to them the consequences of carrying a knife.

All of this activity to tackle serious youth violence will not stop at the end of TKAP 2. A third phase of TKAP begins on 1 April 2010 aiming to continue our work to keep young people safe. TKAP 3 will make £5.5 million of Government funding available to local TKAP areas: £4 million to local community safety partnerships, on top of £1.5 million already announced for 150 local voluntary organisations receiving help from the Home Office community fund. In 2010-11, we will focus the TKAP programme on 52 community safety partnerships within 21 police forces. The British Transport Police will receive also TKAP funding and support. Agencies in these local areas know that serious youth violence matters to their communities and they want to do all they can to prevent and reduce it.

I am today publishing the Government’s “Cyber Crime Strategy” (Cm 7842) which sets out the Government’s proposals for tackling cyber crime. Copies are available in the Vote Office.

Cyber crime is a large and growing problem. It is responsible for a significant amount of social and economic harm, both financially and through threats to children; and is a threat to confidence both in the provision of services through the internet generally, and in the move of Government services online. As the UK becomes more dependent upon digital services, so the threat to the UK as a whole from cyber crime increases.

The overarching theme of the new strategy is that there is significant scope to extend our response to cyber crime, as part of the overall Government focus on cyber-led by the Office for Cyber Security.

The new strategy has five key elements:

Co-ordination to tackle cyber crime across Government: there is already significant work across Government to tackle cyber crime. We will ensure that there is enhanced leadership to provide a clear focus for cyber crime issues. We will ensure that this work will link closely with the overall cyber security approach set out in the Government’s Cyber Security Strategy.

Provision of an effective law enforcement response: We will continue to support all of the existing law enforcements units that respond to cyber crime, and will seek to enhance their operational and intelligence functions through the development of accurate reporting mechanisms for the public.

Raise public confidence: We will strengthen the links with Get Safe Online and with the work done on the “Think U Know” programme run by CEOP, to ensure that the public continue to have accurate information on how to keep themselves safe on line.

Work with industry: We will work with the private sector to prevent e-crime, through the e-crime and disorder reduction partnership, and through the cyber industrial strategy being developed by the OCS.

Work internationally: We will maximise collective efforts overseas — from capacity building through to strengthening multilateral institutions. We will continue to lead efforts to ensure that children are protected online and that there is good co-operation between law enforcement agencies internationally.

Today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I are announcing the final stage of the UK’s first global review of visa regimes in relation to the seven countries of the Eastern Caribbean—Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

A visa regime is a very effective immigration, crime and security control measure. As part of our overseas defences our visa waiver test helps us determine whether our visa regimes are in the right places. Travellers from every country beyond the European economic area and Switzerland were measured against a range of criteria including illegal immigration, crime and security concerns. The test has been taken forward in close collaboration with other Departments across Whitehall. New full visa regimes were introduced on Bolivia, Lesotho, South Africa and Swaziland, along with a partial regime on Venezuela, in 2009.

Having initially considered the Eastern Caribbean states on a regional basis, we decided to examine them individually to ensure any potential regimes would be aligned correctly. Our evaluation highlighted a number of concerns with two countries, Dominica and St. Lucia.

We recognise that we have close historic, economic and political ties with Dominica and St. Lucia and are aware that the introduction of a visa regime would be a significant step. It is a decision we do not take lightly. As a result we will now enter a six-month period of detailed dialogue with the Governments concerned to examine what actions will be taken to address our concerns and mitigate the need for a visa regime to be introduced. During this period, Dominica and St. Lucia will need to demonstrate a genuine commitment to put into effect credible and realistic plans, with clear timetables, to reduce the risks to the UK, and begin implementing these plans by the end of the dialogue period.

Additionally we have written to the Governments of Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis and St. Vincent and the Grenadines to advise that, while they will maintain their visa-free status for the time being, the decision will be subject to a further review.

The UK Government remain committed to operating a firm but fair immigration policy. It gives a high priority to treating all foreign nationals coming to or present in the UK with dignity and respect, and the highest legal standards. However, it expects all visitors to the UK to play by the rules. The UK will always welcome genuine visitors, whether business, tourist, student or family, but will continue to take all steps necessary to protect the security of the UK.

On 9 March I hosted a high-level meeting in the Houses of Parliament in London to review progress towards universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support in East and Southern Africa, where there are high or rising HIV prevalence rates and AIDS remains a major health and economic burden.

Around 50 HIV leaders attended, including representatives from Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Ministers of Health and Gender, religious leaders, activists, people living with HIV, the heads of the Global Fund, PEPFAR, UNAIDS were present, as well as representatives of other donors and the pharmaceutical industry. We were delighted that a representative of the Canadian High Commission in London was able to attend and contribute.

In 2005, through our presidencies of the G8 and the European Union, the UK-led the world in a commitment to the historic goal of universal access. The UK is the second largest donor to the AIDS response globally and we continue to show leadership and commitment. This high-level meeting aimed to keep universal access high on the international agenda during 2010 and beyond.

At the meeting, participants spoke about the key factors that have led to progress at country level, the major challenges ahead and what needs to be done to accelerate progress towards the universal access goals.

The meeting celebrated successes but highlighted the need to provide HIV treatment for the estimated 10 million people still waiting for it, and “turn off the tap” of new HIV infections through evidence and rights-based interventions. Transforming harmful gender norms and stopping violence against women is central to achieving universal access. The group recognised the need for health systems that effectively deliver both maternal, newborn and child health services and services for women, men and children who are vulnerable to and living with HIV. We need to integrate efforts to achieve MDGs 4, 5 and 6. To achieve this we need financing for scale-up, through the Global Fund and other mechanisms. But equally we need leadership—political and at all levels of society.

The meeting resulted in a declaration of shared principles that calls for:

G8 countries to recognise the devastating impact that unmet financial commitments have on global health, and to deliver their financial pledges to the global fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria.

G20 countries and emerging economies to do more to fight global poverty by adopting the global poverty targets agreed by the G8 at Gleneagles in 2005, including financial contribution to the global fund for HIV, TB and Malaria.

Southern and Eastern African countries: to put human rights and the need to reach marginalised groups and those most at risk at the heart of country-led efforts to tackle HIV and AIDS.

Pharmaceutical industry: to help avert a treatment crisis by signing up to the UNITAID patent pool to make effective drugs affordable for developing countries.

I will place a copy of the “Shared Principles” in the Library. I am grateful to the all-party parliamentary group on AIDS for their support to this event.

Today my department has published the annual review of DFID’s works with the World Bank “The UK and the World Bank 2009”.

This report reviews the UK’s work with the World Bank from December 2008 to 2009. During that period we saw the effects of the financial crisis spread to the developing world. The report looks at how the World Bank was able to assist developing countries facing the impact of the financial crisis, as well as other major issues on which DFID has worked with the World Bank:

the bank’s response to the financial crisis;

progress on World Bank reform;

a review of the performance of the bank’s work in the poorest countries;

an assessment of progress against the Government’s high-level objectives for the bank; and

priorities for engaging with the bank in 2010.

The report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and an electronically accessible version is available on the DFID website at: www.dfid.gov.uk

On 16 July 2009, I announced to this House the Government’s intention to consult directly academy schools, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Universities and Colleges Admission Service (UCAS) with a view to including them within the Freedom of Information Act (“the Act”) by bringing forward a section 5 order under that Act.

Since this Government introduced the Act in 2005, it has given the public access to information held by over 100,000 public authorities. Section 5 of the Act gives the Secretary of State the power to make an order designating new bodies as public authorities for the purposes of the Act where those bodies appear to him to perform functions of a public nature. In accordance with our continuing commitment to openness and accountability in public life, I wish to announce to the House today the decision to extend the Act to all of the bodies consulted, insofar as they perform public functions.

Having carefully considered all the evidence it is clear that all of the bodies listed above perform functions of a public nature. I have written to each of the bodies to explain the decision in detail, and to identify the functions to which the Act will apply. However the reasons in brief are as follows:

ACPO’s functions are concerned with providing leadership for the police force, improving policing, acting as a voice for the force, encouraging high standards of performance and development, providing the strategic police response in times of national need and other ancillary and related functions. Policing is clearly recognised as a function of a public nature. For these reasons it is appropriate to include ACPO in a section 5 order for all of its functions.

The Financial Ombudsman Service resolves disputes between consumers and providers of financial services. It was established under a statutory scheme in order to provide consumers with a quick and informal alternative to the courts. We consider that the functions of FOS appear to be functions of a public nature and that it would be appropriate to include its in a section 5 order.

UCAS provides its member university and colleges with admissions services. Without such services, those institutions—which are bodies listed as public authorities in either the Freedom of Information Act or the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act—would need to perform these functions for themselves, and the information would be captured by those Acts. As UCAS provides these services on behalf of its members, it is clear that UCAS does perform a function of a public nature.

Finally, although independent of local authority control, academies are publicly funded schools and a part of the state education system. Provision of state education is clearly a public function and parents and local residents should be able to access the same kind of information about academy schools as for any other state-funded school. The Academy Trust, is the body responsible for the running of the academy school. In our view, the public functions of academies are those set out in the funding agreement signed between the Academy Trust and the Department for Children, Schools and Families: in short, the establishment, maintenance and carrying on of an academy. We propose to include Academy Trusts in a section 5 order for these purposes from the point at which they enter into funding agreements.

The order will be laid and debated at the earliest possible opportunity in the next parliamentary session, with the intention that it will commence in October 2011.

I am today pleased to announce the appointment of Louise Casey as Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses.

The Victims Commissioner’s key objectives, as defined in Coroners and Justice Act 2009, are to:

promote the interests of victims and witnesses;

encourage good practice in the treatment of victims and witnesses; and

keep under review the operation of the code of practice for victims.

Additionally, the Victims’ Commissioner will chair the Victims’ Advisory Panel.

The Victims’ Commissioner is an independent role appointed through an open recruitment exercise. Although this was not formally an Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA) process, the appointment was made in accordance with OCPA principles. The Commissioner will make an annual report to the three Criminal Justice Ministers and will be accountable to parliament as chair of the Victims’ Advisory Panel—victims of crime who advise ministers on how we can do things better.

I wish to inform the House that from 1 April 2010, there will be established 29 further probation trusts operating in England and Wales. This brings to 35 the total number of probation trusts and means the dissolution of the last remaining local probation boards.

The trusts programme has presented a challenge to the probation service to demonstrate that it can deliver locally tailored services efficiently and effectively. I am pleased that all of the remaining probation areas have successfully met this challenge and I am confident that they will all be successful in realising the benefits they have identified in moving to trust status.

At the request of Sir Hayden Phillips, and on his behalf, I am today placing in the Library of the House the agendas, papers and minutes for the five meetings which he chaired and which were attended by representatives of the three main parties in 2007 on the Funding of Political Parties. These items are also being placed on the Ministry of Justice website, at: www.justice.gov.uk.

Sir Hayden has asked me to say that, as far as the minutes of the meetings are concerned, only those of the first meeting were agreed by the parties. The other four were drafts from the secretariat to the talks, authorised for circulation and comment to the parties by Sir Hayden. The agendas, papers and minutes are released in their entirety. There is one substantive exception to this: a paper produced following the fourth session of the talks which contained legal advice from Ministry of Justice officials on donation caps. The advice was given in confidence and Sir Hayden judges he should respect that. However Sir Hayden wishes to make it clear that the content of the advice relates to the lawfulness of a proposal to impose a cap on political donations, and the advice given was that a cap was capable of being compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, provided that it was prescribed by law and sought to achieve a legitimate aim in a proportionate way. The CVs of two advisers to the talks have also been removed as they do not relate to the substantive discussions.

I am announcing today the Government’s intention to establish an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 to investigate the death of Azelle Rodney in April 2005. The inquiry will be established by the Ministry of Justice

It is intended that this inquiry will be chaired by a retired judge and that, subject to his or her views, it will determine the matters which an Article 2 compliant inquest would have determined had it been able to take place. These are: how, when and where Mr. Rodney died, and the broad circumstances which led to his death.

The inquest into the death has been adjourned by the north London coroner since August 2007. The coroner and, most importantly, the bereaved relatives of Mr. Rodney have been given advance notice of this decision.

During debate on the Coroners and Justice Bill, I said that any inquiry established because an inquest cannot be held would be subject to a protocol between Ministers and the senior judiciary. This protocol is intended to cover the procedure from the point the inquest cannot continue until when the inquiry is established.

I have been working with colleagues across Government on the terms of the protocol but it has raised some complex issues and is not yet ready for use. As the inquest into Mr. Rodney’s death is already adjourned and cannot continue, I have decided that an inquiry should be established to avoid further delay for Mr. Rodney’s family. A further announcement on the inquiry chair and its terms of reference will be made as soon as possible.

The Government are publishing today two reports on important aspects of constitutional reform. The first is a summary of responses to the Green Paper, “Rights and Responsibilities: developing our constitutional framework”. The second is an independent analysis of the programme of deliberation that was carried out between October 2009 and February 2010 on identity, values (including a statement of values), a Bill of rights and responsibilities and a written constitution.

The reports bring to a conclusion key aspects of the first stage of public debate initiated by “The Governance of Britain” Green Paper in July 2007. They also meet the commitment in “Building Britain’s Future” to complete a national consultation on a Bill of rights and responsibilities during 2009-10.

The responses to the Green Paper, combined with the programme of deliberative research, reflect the views of around 2,500 people. They demonstrate an appetite for further debate about a Bill of rights and responsibilities, as well as a broader range of constitutional issues such as statement of values and for making progress on them.

The programme placed public deliberation at the heart of decision making. The research was carried out independently—ensuring that the public were given the opportunity to debate issues in a balanced way, exposing them to views from across the political spectrum to inform their deliberations; and providing a space to enable views to influence policy. As the independent analysis says:

“The study can be viewed as a constitutional experiment in deliberative democracy—with the deliberative method helping to inform representative systems of government and promote democratic legitimacy. This approach was not intended to replace representative democracy but to complement it—enabling participants to come to an informed view on policy; which in turn, and alongside other evidence, will inform the views of decision makers in Government.

As part of the process the Government made an explicit commitment to participants that any constitutional reform would only progress if there was sufficient public appetite.

The independent report shows that such deliberative approaches were valued by what were demographically-representative groups of participants as a means of building public views into policy making. It shows there is a clear appetite to take further these aspects of the debate on constitutional reform: stating the values that bind us together as a nation, building on the existing protections for individual rights and clarifying our responsibilities.

The Government believe that work taken forward in this area must reflect the approach adopted so far, putting the public at the heart of policy formation.

In taking forward work on a new Bill of rights and responsibilities, the Government remain committed to the Human Rights Act and the protections and remedies provided by it. It is encouraging to see the responses to the Green Paper support the Government’s view on this point. The Government are proud of the Human Rights Act and will not resile from it.

Copies of “Rights and Responsibilities: developing our constitutional framework—Summary of responses” have been laid before Parliament. Copies of “People and power: shaping democracy, rights and responsibilities” have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

The Highways Agency’s business plan target for the programme of national schemes in the development phase, contained in the Highways Agency business plan 2009-10, has been revised so as to remove the following target at Annexe B:

Major Projects—Development: For the programme of national schemes in the Development Phase, progress these projects by an average of at least 37 percentage points through this phase.

This has been replaced with the following target:

Major Projects—Development: For the programme of national schemes in the Development Phase, progress these projects by an average of at least 35.7 percentage points through this phase.

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

I am announcing today an independent review of the transport sector’s response to the severe weather experienced this winter 2009-10 and lessons for the future.

The winter of 2009-10 has seen the most prolonged period of sub-zero temperatures for 30 years, creating extremely challenging conditions for the travelling public. For the most part, our transport networks coped well in the circumstances. However, there are lessons that can be learned in order to improve our resilience for future winters.

This winter, the Salt Cell successfully achieved its objective of prioritising salt deliveries to highway authorities across the country to minimise disruption to transport networks. The Salt Cell held its final meeting on 16 March. Since it was first convened on 6 January, the Salt Cell met 20 times and advised salt suppliers on the distribution of approximately 530,000 tonnes of salt.

Now that the severe weather has receded, we must focus our attention on learning the lessons presented by this winter. The aim of this exercise will be to identify practical measures to improve the response of transport systems to severe winter weather. The work will review and build upon the recommendations of the UK Roads Liaison Group “Lessons from the Severe Weather February 2009” and present a series of practical measures that authorities must consider for implementation better to prepare themselves for winter 2010-11 and beyond.

The review is part of a Government drive to ensure that local authorities are prepared for future severe weather. Last week the Government announced an additional £100 million for local authorities to help pay for repairs to potholes. This builds on the trebling of funding to local authorities over the last 10 years for road maintenance from £265 million in 2000-01 to £809 million in 2010-11.

The review will be led by a small panel of independent experts comprising:

David Quarmby CBE (chair), currently chair of the RAC Foundation and former chief executive of the Strategic Rail Authority;

Brian Smith, retiring as assistant chief executive of Cambridgeshire county council on 31 March; and

Chris Green, a non-executive director of Network Rail, former chief executive of Virgin Trains and English Heritage.

During the review, the panel will be seeking evidence and views from a range of stakeholders in order to develop the detailed scope and identify examples of best practice.

A copy of the terms of reference for the review has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

The Local Transport Act 2008 includes provisions designed to make bus quality contracts schemes—the London-style model of bus contracts—a more realistic option for local transport authorities throughout England and Wales. The Government announced on 10 December 2009 that these provisions will come into force, in England, on 11 January 2010.

The Government are announcing today the appointment of six individuals to a QCS board panel from which members of QCS boards will be appointed. QCS boards are independent boards with a remit to provide an opinion on whether proposed quality contracts schemes in England meet the statutory public interest criteria, and on whether due process has been followed.

It is also envisaged that QCS board panel members will be called upon to provide advice to traffic commissioners on quality partnership scheme (QPS) “admissible objections”.

A QPS is made by a local transport authority, under which the authority provides facilities (for example, bus lanes) and any bus operator wishing to use those facilities must operate services to the standard specified in the scheme.

Following amendments made by the Local Transport Act 2008 to the 2000 Act, a QPS can include requirements about frequencies, timings and maximum fares as part of the “standard of service”. But they can do so only if there are no “admissible objections” from relevant bus operators.

In the first instance it is for the local authority to determine whether an operator has an “admissible objection” on either or both of the two grounds set out in regulations. But where there is a disagreement between operator and authority, the objecting operator may refer the matter to a traffic commissioner for an independent determination.

A number of local authorities either have, or are planning, quality partnership schemes.

The panel will comprise:

Andrew Burchell

Currently an “Appeals Decision Maker” for the Department for Transport in respect of concessionary travel appeals from bus operators, Andrew has gained a wide range of skills including as a Government economist, a senior civil servant and member of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ management board. He sits on the community services board of his local primary care trust, as an “independent lay member”, and is Vice-Chair of the Board of Trustees at his local citizens advice bureau.

Tim Larner

Founding Director of Strata Consultants, Tim has over 35 years’ experience of local transport planning, including providing advice to passenger transport executive CEOs as the former Director of the Support Unit at PTEG. He has worked to raise the profile of PTEs, highlighting their role in transport policy development.

Peter Hardy

A Project Director at JMP Consultants, Peter has 26 years experience in transport planning starting in a local authority environment and specialising in areas including passenger transport development, policy and strategy for both the public and private sectors.

James Reeves

Currently Technical Director for Gifford UK, James has worked extensively in the transport sector both in the UK and abroad. Including a period as a local authority officer, he has experience in transport economics and planning.

Alan Wann

Former roles at Northumberland county council include Head of Highways, Transport and Waste services; Head of Regeneration; and Principal Adviser to the Chief Executive. Alan has recently become an independent consultant specialising in sustainable economic, social and cultural regeneration.

David Humphrey

Recently retired after 42 years in the public transport industry, David has held a number of senior roles in both the bus and tram sectors. A former President of the Confederation of Passenger Transport, he is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport.

A further two candidates will be held in reserve.

A range of high-level targets for the 2010-11 year has been set on behalf of the agencies within the Motoring and Freight Services Group: the Driving Standards Agency, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Vehicle Certification Agency, the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency and the Government Car and Despatch Agency. They are included in the agencies’ business plans together with their associated measures. The plans also include a range of management targets, performance indicators and key tasks which are appropriate to the agencies’ businesses. Copies of the business plans will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses shortly.

The key targets for the Driving Standards Agency are:

The key targets for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency are:

The key targets for the Vehicle Certification Agency are:

The key targets for the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency are:

The key targets for the Government Car and Despatch Agency are:

I am today able to announce the annual performance targets in 2010-11 for the executive agencies of the Department for Work and Pensions and of our crown Non-departmental Public Bodies—the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission and the Health and Safety Executive. The targets I have agreed are set out below.

Further information on the plans of the Department, its executive agencies and crown Non-departmental Public Bodies for 2010-11 is contained in their individual business plans which have been published today. Electronic copies have been deposited in the Library.

Jobcentre Plus’s 2010-11 targets are:

The Pension, Disability and Carers Service targets for 2010-11 are:

The Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission’s 2010-11 targets are;

The Health and Safety Executive’s outcome targets consist of the 2008-11 Departmental Strategic Objective3 indicators that reflect direction of travel and the 2000-10 Revitalising Health and Safety numerical targets. The latter are:

I am pleased to announce the publication of the Government’s response to Rita Donaghy’s report into the underlying causes of fatal construction accidents.

The UK is rightly regarded as having one of the best health and safety records in the world. Since 1997-98 the rate of fatal injuries to workers has fallen by 40 per cent., including in the construction sector, reflecting the significant focus on improving safety by the Health and Safety Executive, local authorities, businesses and trades unions. While this is very welcome, every death is one too many and a tragedy to those involved and their families. The Government believe that more must be done.

The number of deaths in the construction industry has been a particular cause of concern, with the rate of fatal accidents four times that of other industries. While there have been important improvements, 53 construction workers were still killed in 2008-09, for example. We therefore asked Rita Donaghy to carry out a review into the causes of construction fatalities

On the 8 July 2009 I announced the publication of Rita Donaghy’s report. The report contained 28 far-reaching recommendations for improving safety in the construction industry, extending across safety representatives, building control, the legal system, training and competence, and public procurement. I would again like to thank Rita Donaghy and her team for their excellent work in undertaking the inquiry.

We are publishing now our response which builds on the issues and analysis within Rita Donaghy’s report to provide a framework for delivery of improvements in these areas. Our response reflects widespread consultation across Government and with stakeholders. The Government fully accept 23 of the 28 recommendations including support of common minimum standards throughout publicly funded construction projects; mutual recognition between pre-qualification schemes; and support for greater worker participation. Two further recommendations related to the extension of gangmaster licensing regulations and the introduction of positive duties on directors raise important issues and warrant further consideration. Additional work is required to explore fully the relative options and understand the potential impact of introducing such measures. The reasons for these decisions are detailed within the response.

I hope that the action set out in the response improves further the safety record in the construction sector and provides some comfort to the families of those who have been killed by construction-related accidents.

This response is not an end in itself though, and we must continue to work together—Government, business, unions and workers—if we are to ensure that jobs in construction are as safe as any other.

The Government’s response (Cm 7828) has been laid before Parliament and will be published later today. Copies of the response will be available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office. It is also available on the DWP website at www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/policy-publications/fatal-accidents-inquiry.shtml.

I am pleased to announce that the gross discretionary social fund budget for 2010-11 will be £802 million.

With the net funding available, I have been able to allocate a gross national SF loans budget of £660 million and a national community care grants budget of £141 million from 1 April 2010.

The net funding available includes £141.5 million additional loans funding for 2010-11 only.

I will allocate a gross national SF loans budget in line with the provisions in the Welfare Reform Act 2007. The aim is to control and manage the national allocation while providing consistency of outcomes for budgeting loan applicants wherever they live. All loans budget expenditure will be made from the gross national loans budget of £660 million. Concerns have been raised by stakeholders about the current methodology of allocating community care grants and these will be considered as part of the reform process that was announced on 15 March 2010 in the “Social Fund Reform: debt, credit and low-income households” consultation paper Cm 7750.

To provide help to Jobcentre Plus budgets facing unexpected and unplanned expenditure I will retain centrally £1 million as a contingency reserve.

Details of individual community care grant allocations will be placed in the Library.

Background note about the discretionary Social Fund Budget

The discretionary social fund budget is cash limited. Funding for community care grants is allocated to each budget area for management by Jobcentre Plus social fund benefit delivery centres on 1 April each year. The gross discretionary social fund budget allocated for 2010-11 is £802 million. This is made up of:

New money (net AME)—£319.7 million

Forecast loan recovery—£482.3 million

This is to be allocated as follows:

Loans—£660 million

Grants—£141 million

Contingency reserve—£l million