Monday 11 October 2004

In my Statement to the House of Commons on 20 January 2004 ( Hansard col. 55WS) on publication of The Planning Service: Costs and Fees, I said that that research would be followed up with full consultation on bringing further resource into the planning service.

I have today issued a consultation document, Changes to the System of Planning Fees in England. This sets out in detail our proposals to improve the resourcing of planning so that it can deliver better services to the community and to business.

The proposals include raising planning fees by an average of 17 per cent. This is intended to help authorities to recover more of the costs of handling planning applications. In many cases, especially for the larger applications, the current fee falls far short of the handling costs.

The increases are designed to fall differentially on applicants. For example, a small business which acquired a new property and needed to apply for a change of use permission would see a fee increase from £220 to £240. Major developers and larger applicants will be asked to pay more. The maximum fee for a major development will rise from £11,000 to £28,000.

I am also consulting on the introduction of a performance relationship—the first time this has happened in relation to fees increases. Those authorities that meet government targets for handling major applications will be allowed to increase the application fee they charge by up to 10 per cent, to help them to meet more of the costs of handling these large and often complex applications. This will encourage authorities to work harder to meet our targets. Authorities that offer the facility for applications to be made online will also have the option to reduce those fees to encourage the submission of online applications and greater efficiency in the system.

In all, the proposed increases are expected to raise around £30 million for the planning service. Next year we will also be considering the need to look at widening the scope of planning fees, and the need for further regular increases in fees to ensure that costs in providing a planning service are being fully covered. In the mean time, I consider that the rises proposed are a sensible increase, which together with the continuing planning delivery grant, is helping to provide sustained and much-needed resource to improve planning services.

The document is available on the ODPM website. Copies are also available in the Libraries of both Houses. The consultation period ends on 6 December.

• how men's and women's education and skills affect which jobs they can get;
• promotion and career progression—the "glass ceiling";
• women's experiences in the job market before and after having children; and
• the different experiences of women working full time and part time.

The Women and Work Commission's terms of reference are as follows:

Women now make up 45 per cent of the workforce, up from 38 per cent in 1971. The Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act in the 1970s were important milestones in breaking down the barriers to women's participation in the labour market. But wages are low in many occupations dominated by women and there is still a gap in mean hourly earnings between men and women: it is 18 per cent among full-time workers and 40 per cent for those women working part time.

There are a number of factors influencing the gender pay gap. The DTI's review of maternity, paternity and flexible working legislation takes account of how caring responsibilities impact upon men and women's labour market attachment and their earnings. The Women and Work Commission will examine the other key factors shaping the difference in hourly earnings between men and women, including labour market experience, skills and education and discrimination. In investigating the impact of discrimination, the commission will look at the measures necessary to strengthen equal pay legislation, including the case for equal pay reviews to be mandatory.

Making progress on the gender pay gap is a key priority because in a full employment economy, we have to draw on the skills and talents of all potential workers, men and women, and remove obstacles to women's greater participation in the labour market. But it is also important because women have the right to expect a fair deal in the labour market.

The aim of the Women and Work Commission will be to look at these wide-ranging influences on the gender pay gap:

How men's and women's educational experience and skills acquisition foreshadow occupational segregation.

General factors shaping women's and men's labour market experience, including entry into employment, occupational segregation, full-time and part-time work experience, progression in the workplace and the tax and benefit system, as well as discrimination.

Women's experience in the labour market before and after having children.

As a substantial employer of women, the public sector warrants particular examination.

The commission will make recommendations to the Prime Minister within 12 months from Autumn 2004, taking account of the importance of promoting employability, the wider benefits to the economy and the impact on employers and public expenditure. The commission will take account of the DTI review of maternity, paternity and flexible working legislation in shaping its recommendations.

I am pleased to welcome, alongside Margaret Prosser, Chair of the Women and Work Commission, the following members:

• Chair: Baroness Prosser of Battersea
• Members: Sarah Anderson (Chief Executive, the Mayday Group),
• Chris Banks (Chair of National Learning and Skills Council),
• Kay Carberry (Assistant General Secretary, TUC),
• Naaz Coker (Chair, Refugee Council & Chair, St George's Healthcare NHS Trust),
• Debbie Coulter (Deputy General Secretary, GMB),
• John Cridland (Deputy Director-General. Confederation of British Industry),
• John Hannett (General Secretary, USDA W),
• Sally Hopson (Retail and Managing Director (North Division), Asda),
• Adeeba Malik (Deputy Chief Executive of Quest for Economic Development),
• Stella Manzie (Chief Executive, Coventry City Council),
• Julie Mellor (Chair, Equal Opportunities Commission),
• Christine Ray (Group HR Director, the Rank Group),
• Ruth Silver (Principal, Lewisham College),
• Liz Snape (Head of Policy Development, Unison).

A call for evidence will be made later in the autumn. Any queries on the Women and Work Commission should be directed to Matilda Quiney, Secretary to the Women and Work Commission, Women and Equality Unit, DTI.

Official Report, col. 48WS) I informed the House that I expected the European Commission to take a decision on the Government's proposed restructuring aid to British Energy in the autumn. I am pleased to say that on 22 September, the Commission approved that aid.

This is a very significant milestone in the implementation of British Energy's restructuring plan. We have said from the outset that our aid complied with the Commission's rules and this approval confirms that.

It is usual in restructuring aid cases for the Commission to require the recipient of the aid to implement certain compensatory measures. In this case, the Commission's approval is subject to the following compensatory measures, which are stringent but workable:

The company's nuclear generation business will be ring-fenced from its fossil fuel, supply and trading businesses to ensure the aid to the nuclear business is not used to cross-subsidise any other of the company's businesses. This measure will last indefinitely. It is likely that this will be enforced through an undertaking between the DTI and British Energy although we have also discussed with Ofgem, the gas and electricity markets regulator, how this could best be enforced.

No nuclear or fossil-fuelled capacity expansion (above British Energy's current capacity) by the company in the European Economic Area for six years, and no hydroelectric capacity expansion in the UK for the same period. This will be enforced through an undertaking between the DTI and British Energy.

A restriction on the company selling to its industrial and commercial customers at prices below the prevailing wholesale market price for six years unless there are exceptional market circumstances as determined by an independent expert. This will be monitored by that expert and enforced by the Government.

In addition, the Commission has required the UK Government to provide more detailed reporting if payments in respect of British Energy's decommissioning and uncontracted liabilities and any incremental historic spent fuel liabilities exceed £1.629 billion. This enhanced reporting is so the Commission can satisfy itself that the aid is being kept to a minimum and is only being used for authorised purposes. £1.629 billion is the net present value of the total of these liabilities as at December 2002 calculated using the Commission's discount rate of 5.4 per cent nominal. Owing to the very long timescale over which these liabilities will be discharged, they are the most uncertain in terms of their value. The £1.629 billion does not include the aid we are giving in respect of British Energy's historic spent fuel costs valued by the Commission at £2.185 billion, which are fixed, except for inflation. The estimate of the cost to government (£150 million to £200 million a year on average for the next 10 years falling thereafter) given in my Statement of 28 November 2002 remains unchanged.

To minimise Government's contribution and financial exposure to the company's liabilities, a number of measures have been put in place in the restructuring agreements. In particular, British Energy will contribute 65 per cent of its annual free cash flow towards discharging its liabilities and, if there are material increases in British Energy's liabilities, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority will determine if the additional cost should fall to the company or to government. British Energy's creditors have taken similar measures to protect their own exposures. Subject to these measures, many of which only apply when the company is cash constrained, British Energy has the freedom to run its business, in terms of corporate, operational and financial policies. It continues as a public limited company managed by its board of directors and subject to the normal private sector disciplines and requirements. The agreements strike a balance between protecting taxpayers' interests and ensuring these private sector disciplines maximise the company's contributions to its liabilities.

Under the Commission's rules, rescue aid ceases once the Commission has reached a decision on the restructuring aid. Therefore, no further drawings can be made on the loan facility which the Government have made available to British Energy since September 2002. All drawings on the facility have been repaid with interest by British Energy.

The Government's main objectives in assisting British Energy remain safety and security of supply. A number of conditions of the restructuring remain to be satisfied, including that the Government must not have determined that British Energy will not be viable in all reasonably foreseeable circumstances. The condition remains in effect up to the restructuring effective date and the Government will continue to assess the company's viability until then. If the Government make such a determination at any time up to the restructuring effective date, or if there is a material adverse change in British Energy's position, the Government continue to reserve their right to withdraw their support for the restructuring. Therefore, contingency plans remain in place to secure our objectives if the restructuring plan fails for any reason and British Energy decides administration is the only option.