My honourable friend the Minister of State for Employment and Welfare Reform (Jim Murphy) has made the following Statement.

The Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Amendment (No.2) Regulations 2007 have today been laid before Parliament. The regulations implement, from 1 October 2007, the recommendations set out in the report of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) on hand arm vibration syndrome (command paper Cm 6098, published July 2004).

The principal recommendation in the report was that the existing prescription for prescribed disease A11 be extended to recognise both the vascular and sensorineural symptoms of hand arm vibration syndrome (HAVS). This means that people who have sensorineural symptoms of the severity described in the regulations arising from working with the prescribed tools will now be covered by the terms of the prescription, whether or not they have the prescribed vascular symptoms.

There are three other minor amendments which:

clarify the existing prescription for the vascular element of A11;

include a causal reference to the occupational exposures listed for PD A11; and

reflect a Court of Appeal judgment that has broadened the definition of forestry.

My right honourable friend the Minister for Europe (Geoff Hoon) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary (Margaret Beckett) and Sir John Grant (UK Permanent Representative to the EU) represented the UK at the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) in Luxembourg.

The agenda items covered were as follows:

General Affairs

Pursuing the Treaty Reform Process

The council discussed reform of the EU treaties in preparation for the June European Council. It considered a report by the presidency and looked at possible ways forward.

Preparation of the European Council on 21 and 22 June

The council discussed the draft conclusions for the European Council, covering justice and home affairs, economic, social and external relations issues.

Global Approach to Migration

The council adopted conclusions on the EU’s global approach to migration. These underline the importance of working closely with African, EuroMed and other partners, including the EU’s eastern neighbours, on migration and migration-related issues.

External Relations

WTO/DDA

The council was briefed by the Commission on progress in trade negotiations under the World Trade Organisation's Doha development agenda. The council will meet in extraordinary session on 25 June in Geneva to discuss the outcome of a meeting of the EU, US, India and Brazil, to be held in Potsdam from 19 to 23 June.

Cuba

The council adopted conclusions calling on the Government of Cuba to undertake the political and economic reforms needed to improve the daily life of the Cuban people. It emphasised the importance of democratic reform and of respect for human rights, while setting out the EU’s willingness to engage in dialogue with the Cuban Government.

The EU and Central Asia: Strategy for a New Partnership

The council approved a draft strategy for the EU's relationship with central Asia, which will now be submitted to the European Council. The strategy sets out the EU’s interests in the region and possible avenues through which to pursue an enhanced relationship.

Strengthening the European Neighbourhood Policy

The council discussed the European neighbourhood policy on the basis of a report by the presidency and welcomed the progress made in strengthening the policy.

EU Anti-Death-Penalty Initiative

The council decided that the EU would, as part of a cross-regional alliance, introduce a resolution against the death penalty during the 62nd session of the UN General Assembly.

Sudan

The council adopted conclusions expressing alarm at the humanitarian and security situation in Darfur. It urged the parties to the conflict to abide by the existing ceasefire agreements, to respect the neutral role of the AU mission and to ensure safe and unhindered humanitarian access throughout Sudan. It stressed the need for a political solution and reaffirmed its full support for the AU/UN initiative to revitalise the political track. It welcomed the Government of Sudan's acceptance of an AU/UN hybrid operation but underlined the council’s expectation that the Government of Sudan should swiftly take action to facilitate the deployment of the operation. Ministers also underlined the importance of continued funding for the AU mission.

Relations with the Western Balkans

The council adopted conclusions welcoming renewed co-operation by the new Government in Belgrade with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the reopening of talks on a stabilisation and association agreement with Serbia. On Kosovo, the council reaffirmed its support for UN special envoy Martti Ahtisaari and reiterated that his comprehensive proposal provides the basis for the settlement of Kosovo’s status. It called for intensified efforts to reach agreement on a UN Security Council resolution on the issue.

Iran

The council adopted conclusions deploring the failure of Iran to comply with its obligations under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747 and reasserting its full support to the Security Council including in its resolve, expressed in Resolution 1747, to adopt further appropriate measures.

Libya

The council discussed the latest developments in the case of the Bulgarian nurses and Palestinian doctor sentenced to death in Libya in connection with the infection of children with HIV/AIDS in Benghazi. The presidency and Commission briefed the council on their joint visit to Libya. The council will continue to watch the situation closely and hopes that the case can be resolved in a way that leads to the release of the medical workers.

MEPP

The council discussed the latest developments in the Gaza Strip and called for a rapid resolution to the crisis. It expressed its full support for President Abbas and decided to resume normal relations with the Palestinian Authority immediately, including through direct financial support, support to the Palestinian police, capacity-building for Palestinian institutions and the resumption of the EU border assistance mission in Rafah. It also pledged to do its utmost to provide emergency and humanitarian assistance to the population of Gaza and reiterated its call on Israel to release tax and customs revenues.

The council met Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni in separate session. The council and Foreign Minister Livni agreed on the need to support President Abbas and moderate Palestinians, including through the release of tax and customs revenues to the Palestinian Authority, progress on the political track and co-operation with the Palestinian side on alleviating the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Strengthening EU-Arab League Relations

The council discussed strengthening ties with the Arab League and tasked the relevant council bodies to take forward consideration of the issue.

Today I have deposited copies of The Freedom of Information Act 2000—Statistics on Implementation in Central Government: January to March 2007 in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies are also available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office. This is the ninth quarterly bulletin produced by the Ministry of Justice and former DCA, monitoring the performance of central government and associated bodies under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Copies are also available on the Ministry of Justice website at www.justice.gov.uk/publications/freedomof informationquarterly.htm.

My honourable friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality (Liam Byrne) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

I would like to update the House on the provision introduced in Section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. This provision is intended as a means of influencing the attitudes and behaviour of unsuccessful asylum-seeking families who are not taking steps to facilitate their departure from the United Kingdom to their country of origin. It does this by providing for the termination of support in cases where the assessment is that the family is not co-operating or placing themselves in a position where they can leave. The provision was piloted between December 2004 and December 2005 in three areas.

We introduced the provision because it is not right that families who have had their asylum claims carefully considered—including by the independent appellate authorities—should expect to remain in the United Kingdom indefinitely, even after it has been decided that they are not in need of international protection. It is preferable for all concerned if families agree to make a voluntary return home. This is a more dignified approach and allows access to the reintegration assistance provided through the International Organisation for Migration. However, the Border and Immigration Agency must be able to enforce return where a family refuses to make a voluntary return, including in cases where the co-operation of the family is required to obtain necessary passports or other travel documents.

In the form piloted, Section 9 did not significantly influence behaviour in favour of co-operating with removal, although there was some increase in the number of applications made for travel documents. This suggests that the Section 9 provision should not be seen as a universal tool to encourage departure in every case; therefore, we do not propose that it should be used on an indiscriminate basis by Border and Immigration Agency case-owners in the future.

Since the pilot of the Section 9 provision was undertaken, the approach to dealing with asylum applications by the agency has, however, undergone a significant transformation. Making fast-track asylum decisions, and removing those whose claims fail, was one of the four objectives set out in the review we published last July. The new approach being taken by the agency offers a more credible and sustainable end-to-end system. Specialist case owners are now responsible for managing the claimants and their cases through the whole system to either removal or integration as a refugee. Faster and higher quality processes are leading to a better deal for the well founded claimant. This is supported by a strong focus on ensuring that early steps are taken so that those whose claims are not successful leave the United Kingdom in a timely manner.

I have therefore decided that the Section 9 provision should be available to case owners dealing with cases under our new end-to-end asylum process. While it will not be suitable on a blanket basis, it is important that we retain an ability to withdraw support from families who are wilfully not co-operating in the process. Going forward, it should be for case owners to take a view, based on an established relationship with the family and an intimate knowledge of the unsuccessful asylum claim, of which approach to encouraging departure is most likely to be effective. Case-specific close working with appropriate officials from the local authority will normally be required if the use of the Section 9 provision is being considered.

A short report detailing the outcome of the pilot for the 116 families involved in the pilot and the 116 families used as a control group has been made available on the Border and Immigration Agency website.

On Friday 22 June I laid before Parliament Implementing Legal Aid Reform: Government Response to the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee Report (Cm 7158). It is also available on the Ministry of Justice website at www.justice.gov.uk/publications/policyreports.htm.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Peter Hain) has made the following Ministerial Statement.

The Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland, Douglas Bain, is responsible for all aspects of electoral administration in Northern Ireland, including the conduct of all elections and referendums, as well as electoral registration. In accordance with Section 14 of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962, as amended by Section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006, the Chief Electoral Officer is required to submit an annual report to the Secretary of State.

I am pleased to announce that the annual report of the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland for 2006-07 has been laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library.

My right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

As part of the announcement of normalisation made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 1 August 2005, we undertook to reduce the number of military bases in Northern Ireland to the 14 core sites named in the security annex of the joint declaration. We have since reported that we will in future require only 10 of those 14 core sites.

Since 1 August 2005 we have successfully undertaken a major programme of work to remove 37 years worth of military infrastructure. At one time there were 106 military sites in Northern Ireland, and even at the beginning of the security normalisation period less than two years ago there were 44 sites.

The departure of troops from Bessbrook Mill today marks a key step in the delivery of tranche three of security normalisation as set out in the revised annexe to the joint declaration on 1 August 2005. Of the other sites to be closed in this tranche, the observation post at the Police Service of Northern Ireland Rosemount and Masonic Base in Londonderry have already been vacated and, in the case of Masonic Base, handed to defence estates for return to the landowners. We are on schedule to vacate Harmony House, Lisburn; Drumadd Barracks, Armagh; and Lisanelly Barracks, Omagh, by 31 July 2007. This will mark the completion of the work set out in the joint declaration with the exception of Moscow Camp, Belfast, which will be vacated by the end of the year. Following my Statements of 10 May and 12 October 2006, work to vacate St Lucia Barracks, Omagh, and to close Laurel Hill House, Coleraine, is expected to be completed by 31 July 2007; and plans to close St Patrick’s Barracks, Ballymena, by 31 March 2008 and Shackleton Barracks, Ballykelly, in April 2008 remain on schedule.

The Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland has today issued a Statement in relation to decisions as to prosecution arising out of the Stevens III investigation. Copies of the Statement have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

My right honourable right friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is today publishing the Government's response to The Power of Information review.

In February 2007 my honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster commissioned Tom Steinberg, director of mySociety, and Ed Mayo, chief executive of the National Consumer Council, to:

“explore new developments in the use and communication of citizen and State generated public information in the UK, and to present an analysis and recommendations to the Cabinet Office Minister as part of the Policy Review”¹.

Their report, The Power of Information review, was published on 7 June. Copies are available on the Cabinet Office website and have been placed in the Library for the reference of noble Lords.

The Government take three overarching lessons from the review. The Government should:

engage in partnership with user-led online communities;

ensure that they fully understand and respond appropriately to changes in the information market; and

advise civil servants on how best to participate in new media.

Citizens themselves are already helping each other in online communities and working towards the same goals as the Government on a range of policies, from parenting to health and financial management. The Government in particular agree with the reviewers’ comparison between online mutual support and the 19th century co-operative and self-help movements. They are concerned that this comparison should not be misused as a simplistic justification for a return to a laissez-faire approach.

The government response welcomes the findings of the review in general and sets out how its recommendations will be taken forward. Accordingly, the Government will make a progress report in December 2007. This response is not the Government's final word but the beginning of a phase of policy activity to work through the review's recommendations and their consequences.

Copies of the Government's response to The Power of Information review have been placed in the Library for the reference of noble Lords and are also available in the Printed Paper Office.

¹ Terms of reference from The Power of Information by Ed Mayo and Tom Steinberg.

My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Tom Harris) has made the following Ministerial Statement.

The department announced on Friday 22 June that Stagecoach Midland Rail Limited, a subsidiary of Stagecoach Group plc, has been awarded the east Midlands franchise, which will begin on 11 November 2007 and will increase capacity, improve performance and begin the introduction of smartcard technology by 2010.

The east Midlands franchise brings together the current Midland Mainline operating out of London St Pancras and the eastern section of Central Trains.

The department will receive a premium of £133 million over the life of the seven-year, four-month franchise.

A new timetable will be introduced in December 2008. This will support extra capacity, including a new hourly service between Kettering and London and a 9 per cent increase in peak capacity into and out of London St Pancras. Punctuality and reliability of 90.4 per cent has been forecast. Stations will see investment of more than £5 million across the franchise area, including the creation of 1,250 more car-parking spaces and 400 more bicycle spaces. Over £20 million will be invested in trains.

The Government will continue to regulate fares for the franchise in line with national policy, currently RPI plus 1 per cent. As with all franchises, unregulated fares are the responsibility of individual operators.

In the east Midlands the new operator has indicated possible average annual rises in unregulated fares of 3.4 per cent above inflation.

A single compensation policy for all passengers will be introduced during replacement rail franchises, commencing with the east Midlands and West Midlands.

With improving passengers’ charter performance in punctuality and reliability, the current discount system means that an increasing number of passengers receive no compensation for delays. Therefore discounts in renewal for season tickets valid between one month and one year in compensation for poor punctuality and reliability will be replaced by compensation based on delays to individual journeys, known as delay/repay. Under the new system, all passengers will be entitled to claim compensation for all delays, whatever their cause:

50 per cent of the price paid for a single-leg journey delayed by between 30 and 59 minutes;

100 per cent of the price paid for a single-leg journey delayed by between 60 and 119 minutes; and

100 per cent of the price paid for a return journey delayed by more than 119 minutes.

The changes will also start to standardise disparate compensation arrangements for single, return and weekly season ticket holders on different train operators.

My honourable friend the Minister of State for Schools and 14 to 19 Learners (Jim Knight) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement, which relates to funding for schools, early years and 14-to-16 funding for 2008-09 to 2010-11.

In March this year, the department launched a consultation on changes to the school funding system to be implemented over the coming Comprehensive Spending Review period, 2008-09 to 2010-11. The proposals continued the programme of reform we started when we introduced the dedicated schools grant and multi-year budgets for schools for 2006-08. They set out a series of evolutionary changes to the distribution of funding to local authorities and schools, alongside more far-reaching proposals to deal with the significant developments at 14 to 16 and for early years.

I am today publishing a summary of the responses to the consultation and placing a copy of that summary in the Library. I am grateful to all those who responded to the consultation, and in particular to our national partners, with whom we have been discussing detailed implementation issues in parallel with the consultation.

Many of the Government's proposals were welcomed by respondents to the consultation; but it is also clear from some of the responses and from our discussions with stakeholders throughout the consultation that there remain issues where further work will be required: the distribution methodology for dedicated schools grant in the long term, and the role and functions of the schools forum are two examples.

Over the past 10 years the Government have invested record amounts in education: funding per pupil has increased by £1,800 per pupil, a 66 per cent increase in real terms. The Comprehensive Spending Review settlement will mean that schools funding will continue to increase for each of the next three years, although not at the high levels seen in recent years. This demonstrates our continuing commitment to raise standards for all young people. Schools and local authorities have a key role to play over the next three years, and three of our key priorities for them are: taking the next steps on personalisation of learning; ensuring that every school provides access to the core offer of extended services; and implementing the extension of the free entitlement to early years education while increasing its flexibility.

That is why we have decided that the dedicated schools grant will continue to be distributed using the spend-plus method for the next three years: all authorities will receive a basic per pupil increase each year, and all authorities will receive funding for our priorities on top of that. We will announce in the autumn the basic increase and the funding for ministerial priorities for each of the next three years. This will deliver the funding to all authorities for our priorities—reverting to a single formula at this time would not do so.

However, we appreciate that there are arguments in favour of a single formula—primarily that it provides a more transparent way of distributing schools funding to local authorities—and our long-term aim is to move back to a single formula for distributing DSG. That is why we are announcing a fundamental review of the formula for distributing schools and early years funding to local authorities: the outcome of the review will be a single transparent formula available for use from 2011-12 onwards. We will set out terms of reference for the review in July and will work closely with external partners on it.

Narrowing the achievement gap between children of different backgrounds will remain one of our key aims; we want all children to succeed, whatever their background. Ensuring that the distribution of funding takes account of deprivation will therefore continue to be a critical issue over the next three years, at national and local level. Where our priorities demand that funding be weighted to take account of deprivation we will use a new measure to distribute dedicated schools grant, based on tax credit data, which will reflect much better the circumstances of the children in an authority's schools. Alongside this, we will make available additional funding for children from deprived backgrounds who go to school in authorities where the overall level of deprivation is low.

These two measures complement the action we are already taking on deprivation funding: we have asked all authorities to review their formulae for funding schools to ensure that they properly reflect the funding for deprivation distributed to them through dedicated schools grant in 2007-08. We are monitoring progress on this and have made guidance available to local authorities; in addition, we will be asking them to submit a further statement in the autumn setting out in detail their plans for the CSR period. Where progress is not adequate there will be further challenge and support.

Multi-year allocations of funding for local authorities and schools have been welcomed as providing a better basis for forward planning and for longer term, more strategic decision-making. However, there is a need to reflect changes in circumstances that could not be foreseen at the beginning of a three-year funding period. We will therefore make available a grant to local authorities that, during the three years, experience exceptional increases in pupil numbers both in overall terms and in the number of children whose first language is not English.

There will be a sharper focus over the next three years on achieving the greatest possible value for money from the resources we invest in schools; that is a shared responsibility for schools, local authorities and central government. Schools will need to think carefully about how they use the funding we make available to them, and we will work closely with them and their local authorities to ensure they have the tools they need to plan and use their resources most efficiently and effectively.

The minimum funding guarantee will continue to deliver a minimum per pupil increase in each of the next three years. However, the assessment of cost pressures will reflect our expectation of a substantial improvement in efficiency from schools. That will reduce the cost to local authorities of implementing the minimum funding guarantee so that more of the increase in resources across the next three years can be used to support our key priorities. This balances continued stability of funding for schools with greater flexibility to target new resources at our key priorities.

We will also take further action on school balances, to follow up the claw-back mechanism for excessive balances that we introduced this year. Our aim is to ensure that the £1.6 billion currently in school balances is substantially reduced and is used to support the education of today's children rather than sitting in schools' bank accounts. Local authorities will be required to redistribute to schools a small percentage, 5 per cent, of all surplus school balances through the local authority funding formula. This broadly equates to the interest that accrues on balances. We will consult on the detailed implementation of this measure in the autumn, but local authorities and schools forums will take final decisions on how this funding will be reinvested locally.

We will broaden the membership of the schools forum; they have a key part to play in the implementation of our reforms of early years funding and the roll-out of diplomas for 14 to 16 year-olds. Local authorities will be expected to have non-schools members, including representation from the early years sector and from 14-to-19 partnerships. The limit on the proportion of non-schools members will be raised from one-fifth to one-third; that will allow us to broaden the membership to reflect the full range of interests in the decisions it takes without the need to recruit significant numbers of extra schools members; and it retains the schools character of the forum.

The private, voluntary and independent early years sector is diverse, so its membership of the schools forum is only one part of ensuring greater involvement and consultation with the sector on funding decisions. As well as setting out in guidance that representation on the schools forum should reflect the amount of early years provision delivered through the PVI sector we will expect all local authorities to consult a group of early years providers on local implementation—and it will be an option for this group to be a sub-group of the schools forum.

We also need to consider how schools forums will relate to the developing arrangements for children's trusts, and the wider every child matters agenda. We have therefore announced today a review of the scope and functions of the schools forum, to start at the same time as the review of the distribution formula for dedicated schools grant.

We will adopt a staged approach to reforming the funding system for early years provision:

we will publish estimates of local authority spending on early years provision with our annual benchmarking data on all local authority schools spending in August. Building on this, we expect that all local authorities will carry out an assessment of the cost of delivering the free entitlement in PVI settings and present this to their schools forum before they consider in early 2008 the distribution of funding to schools and early years providers for the next three years;

from 2009-10, we will require all local authorities to count pupils in maintained and PVI settings on the same basis for funding purposes. The presumption will be that the amount of funding received will depend on the amount of provision taken up, but local authorities will be allowed to vary this and continue to fund on the number of places, where the small size of a setting needs this approach; and

from 2010-11, all authorities will be required to introduce a new funding formula to cover early years provision in both maintained and PVI settings, and this will incorporate a standardised transparent method for setting the basic unit of funding per pupil. While 2010-11 is the final date for introduction of a new formula in all local authorities, we will encourage and support as many local authorities as possible, through pathfinder projects, advice and guidance to implement such a formula in 2009-10.

Funding for 14 to 16 year-olds taking diplomas will be distributed through a specific formula grant. The formula will reflect the costs faced by local authorities from: the diploma lines being offered, the number of children taking up diplomas, the higher cost of provision in high wage areas and the additional costs in sparsely populated authorities. How this funding is delivered to the front line will be left mainly to local discretion; there are already a number of local funding models in operation, and we want to allow those to continue where they are working successfully. But our guidance will set out the benefits of a partnership-level approach: retaining much of the funding allows for economies of scale in commissioning and paying for provision and gives schools more budget certainty if they can draw on funding from a central pool rather than having to meet all the costs of diplomas from their delegated budgets. Finally, we will set out a framework for the costs that schools should be charged for diplomas, based on the LSC funding methodology, but with local flexibility to reflect the differing levels of funding for 14 to 16 year-old pupils across local authorities.

This Statement sets out the key decisions on school funding for the next three-year period. They put in place a firm foundation for the school funding system to meet the challenges of the CSR period: there is further devolution to the local level; there is a programme of change for early years funding, coupled with local flexibility; and there is reform of the MFG, coupled with a focus on efficiency to free up resources for our priorities.

The department will be issuing further detailed guidance, including details of all the decisions on the consultation, to local authorities and other key stakeholders, in the near future. A copy will be placed in the Library.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Alistair Darling) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

In my Statement of 1 November 2006 I said that I expected the Technology Strategy Board to be formally inaugurated in the first half of the 2007-08 financial year.

Following the sealing on 27 March of the royal charter establishing and incorporating the new body, I am today announcing that the new body will become operational as an executive non-departmental public body from 1 July.

I am also announcing the appointment of 11 board members for the governing body of the new Technology Strategy Board.

The newly appointed board members are Graeme Armstrong, Nick Buckland, John Brown, Joseph Feczko, Anne Glover, David Grant, Jonathan Kestenbaum, Julia King, Andrew Milligan, Jeremy Watson and Peter Ringrose. Five of the 11 were board members of the advisory Technology Strategy Board who have been appointed to serve on the new body, and six are new appointments.

The Technology Strategy Board will take on legal responsibility for delivery of a number of technology and innovation support activities from the DTI. It will promote and support research, development and the exploitation of science, technology and new ideas to benefit business, increase economic growth and improve the quality of life in the UK. It will be responsible for delivering government support to encourage business investment in technology and innovation across all sectors of the UK economy. It will deliver this in a range of ways, including collaborative R&D, knowledge-transfer networks, innovation platforms and knowledge-transfer partnerships. It will also advise the Government on areas where barriers exist to the exploitation of new technologies and put forward recommendations on how they can be removed.