Written Statement of 27 February 2003

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Prison Service
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy)
  I have today laid before Parliament the report of the Prison Service Pay Review Body on the pay of governor and officer grades in the Northern Ireland Prison Service for 2003. Copies have been placed in the Library of both Houses.

  Both the Secretary of State and I welcome the recognition in the report of the work of staff in the Northern Ireland Prison Service.

  The Review Body has recommended a consolidated increase of 2.5 per cent. on existing rates of pay for the 12 month period commencing 1 April 2003 and an increase of 1.5 per cent. on allowances.

  I have decided to accept the recommendations and implement the award in full.

TRANSPORT

  Airports Consultation
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  Last summer the Government published a set of seven consultation papers on the Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom.

  On 26 November the High Court upheld a challenge against the exclusion of options for additional runways at Gatwick Airport. On 28 November I told the House, Official Report, columns 474–87, that I would not appeal against the judgment, because an appeal would result in an extensive period of uncertainty for people up and down the country. I therefore announced that I was keeping open the consultation, which had been due to end on 30 November, and that I would publish a further consultation paper including runway options at Gatwick.

  I am today publishing the further consultation material. I have decided that it would be easier for consultees to publish it in the form of second editions of the full South East consultation paper, the summary South East paper and the questionnaires for both the South East and other areas of the UK. Consultees can easily see the text added as a result of including the Gatwick options.

  The new documents include the original consultation material on options at Heathrow, Stansted, Luton and other South East airports, and the option for a new airport at Cliffe. In addition, in accordance with the High Court decision, the papers now include options for additional runways at Gatwick.
  26WS
  As for options on the other South East airports published last July, the papers now set out for Gatwick all the options which were appraised in detail in the later stages of the South East and East of England Regional Air Services (SER AS) study. Accordingly, there are two options for a single new runway at Gatwick and one option for two new runways there. The papers also set out alternative assumptions on the timing of these Gatwick options.

  The consultation, for all parts of the UK, will now close on 30 June. We will consider carefully all responses received by that date, including proposals for options other than those which have been included in the Government's consultation documents. As I told the House on 28 November, this is an opportunity for anyone to express their views on all the options in the consultation, as well as to put forward any reasonable alternatives.

  Copies of all the new documents are available in the Vote Office and in the Library. My officials are writing to everyone on the original consultation list, and to all those who have responded to the consultations so far, to alert them to the new documents and to the 30 June deadline, and explaining that people who have already submitted responses can choose either to let their response stand, or to add to, or amend, or withdraw their response in the light of the new material.

  Night Noise Restrictions (Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted Airports)
  The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. John Spellar)
  We have been considering the timetable for the forthcoming consultation about night restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports. The present night restrictions regime at those airports is due to end in October 2004. We have decided to consult shortly on an interim proposal to extend this regime for a further year, to October 2005. This would allow us to consider comments received in response to the question about the five yearly review cycle in the consultation paper Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East (the second edition of this paper has been published today), as well as the wider policy context, before we consult on a regime to take effect from October 2005.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Agri-environment Scheme
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)
  The Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food recommended that an entry-level agri-environment scheme should be made available to as many farms in England as possible. The Government accepted this recommendation and announced in the Sustainable Farming and Food Strategy in December 2002 that, subject to a successful pilot, the Entry Level Scheme would be made available to farmers across England from 2005.
  27WS
  I am pleased to inform the House that the pilot for this new scheme begins today. Guidance Booklets which give full details of the scheme design, including the environmental management options that farmers will implement under the scheme, the application process and application forms are now available. Farmers in the four pilot areas will be able to apply for the new scheme from now until 30 May 2003.

  All farmers with land in the four pilot areas have been invited to launch meetings in the week beginning 3 March, at which they will be able to collect copies of these booklets. Defra staff and representatives from our partner organisations will be on hand at the meetings to answer farmers' questions and provide further information. These meetings will be followed by workshops in the four pilot areas, which will provide further practical help for farmers.

  The design of the pilot for the Entry Level Scheme, including the location of the four pilot areas, has been developed in close consultation with key partner organisations through regular meetings of an Entry Level Scheme Working Group.

  The pilot areas were chosen carefully, according to a range of objective criteria, to be representative of a variety of English farm types and landscapes. There are approximately 200 farms in each of the pilot areas. The areas chosen to pilot the new scheme are:

  Area

  Nearby towns

  Pilot area broadly Representative of:

  North East

  Barnard Castle(Co.Durham)

  Upland farming

  South West

  Tiverton (Devon)

  Grassland farming

  South East

  Mortimer (Berkshire, nr Reading)

  Mixed farming

  East Midlands

  Market Deeping

  Arable farming and (Lincolnshire) cropping

  Maps showing the precise boundaries of the pilot areas have been placed in the Defra library in Nobel House.

  The basic features of the Entry Level Scheme Pilot will be as follows:
  Farmers taking part in the Pilot Scheme will have to identify important environmental features and areas on their farm. They will also have to make a commitment to carry out simple, yet effective, environmental management activities, which they will select themselves from a wide-ranging list of options. Examples of options available include wildlife-friendly hedge management, buffer strips around key features on the farm, the maintenance of stone walls and managing low input grassland.
  Each option will be worth a certain number of points, related to the cost to the farmer of implementing that option. If the farmer achieves a target number of points for their farm they will be guaranteed entry to the scheme and payment. The target number of points will be based on farm size. Farmers will have to get 30 points per hectare, except for LFA land in parcels of 15 ha or more where the threshold will be 15 points per hectare.
  28WS
  There will be a flat rate payment of £30 per hectare over the whole holding, paid annually. However, for LFA land in parcels of 15 ha or more, farmers will receive £15 per hectare. The lower rates reflect the fact that this land, which is normally extensively grazed, is generally managed less intensively, farmers could not be expected to implement such a wide range of measures, or at the same level of intensity, as in lowland farming situations.
  The scheme will be open to all farmers who farm land within the pilot area boundaries.
  Agreements will be for 5 years.

  A key aim of the scheme is high take-up, as the environmental management activities available will be most effective if they are applied across a wide area. To facilitate high uptake, the scheme has been designed to be simple to administer for both the farmer and Government. We hope that farmers participating in the pilot will be able to understand and implement the entry level scheme themselves, without the need for specialist advice on a one-to-one basis.

  The pilot will be closely monitored and evaluated for the next two years. The evaluation will assess the application of the environmental management measures at the farm level, including their potential to deliver the expected environmental benefits. The accessibility and popularity of the scheme, and an analysis of the factors affecting uptake, will also be considered.

  The experience gained from the pilots will enable us to adapt and improve the scheme design before aiming to roll out the Entry Level Scheme across England in 2005.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pension Schemes 2003–04
  The Minister for Pensions
  (Mr. Ian McCartney): I am pleased to announce that there will be no increase in the General Levy rates for 2003–04. Rates will remain at the 2000–01 level as set out in the tables, due to buoyant levy receipts and good housekeeping.

  I am also pleased to announce that although some payments have been made out of the pension compensation fund, it will not be necessary to raise a Compensation Levy in 2003–04.

  The Government's Green Paper, "Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for retirement", Cm 5677, published 17 December 2002, sets out plans for a new, risk-focused pensions regulator, which also provides support, advice and guidance to the pensions industry.

  The General Levy rates for 2003–04 are as follows:

  Table 1—Occupational Pension Schemes

  Scheme Size (Number of Members)

  Basis

  Amount per Member

  Minimum payment per Scheme1

  2 to 11

  £12 Per scheme

  -

  -

  12 to 99

  Per Member

  £1.25

  -

  100 to 999

  Per Member

  £0.90

  £125

  1,000 to 4999

  Per Member

  £0.70

  £900

  5,000 to 9,999

  Per member

  £0.53

  £3,500

  10,000 or more

  Per member

  £0.37

  £5,300

  29WS

  Table 2—Personal Pension Schemes

  Scheme Size(Number of Members)

  Basis

  Amount per Member

  Minimum Payment per Scheme1

  2 to 11

  £5.20 Per scheme

  -

  -

  12 to 99

  Per Member

  £0.50

  -

  100 to 999

  Per Member

  £0.35

  £50

  1,000 to 4,999

  Per Member

  £0.30

  £350

  5,000 to 9.999

  Per member

  £0.20

  £1,500

  10,000 or more

  Per member

  £0.15

  £2,000

  Note: 1. Minimum payments ensure that schemes in the lower bands do not pay more overall than those the higher bands

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Employment Relations Act
  The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson)
  I have today placed in the Libraries of the House copies of a consultation document as part of the Government's review of the Employment Relations Act 1999.1 have also placed in the Libraries copies of the draft regulations prohibiting the blacklisting of trade unionists, which arose from the review. The review was announced on 11 July by the Secretary of State, with the following terms of reference:The Government has reformed the labour market to build a durable and fair basis for constructive employment relations. By a range of measures, the UK labour market is achieving high levels of employment and combining fairness and flexibility.
  In line with commitments made in the 1998 Fairness at Work White Paper, the Government will review the operation of the statutory union recognition and derecognition procedures in the Employment Relations Act 1999. The review will also look at the operation of the other provisions of the Act.
  The review will be carried out by the DTI through full public consultation. The DTI will complete this task to a timetable enabling any legislative recommendations which the review may make to be introduced within the lifetime of this Parliament.

  Based on the evidence, the review has found that the Act is working well. The review has concluded that the central pillars of the Act should remain unchanged, but it makes a number of proposals to amend other parts of the Act to improve their practical operation. The consultation document also presents the Government's proposals to change trade union law in line with the judgment reached on 2 July by the European Court of Human Rights in the Wilson and Palmer case. The consultation period ends on 22 May.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hong Kong
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  The twelfth Report on the implementation of the SinoBritish Joint Declaration on Hong Kong was published today and copies have been placed in the Library of 30WS
  the House. A copy of the Report is also available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website http://www.fco.gov.uk/. The Report includes a foreword by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I commend the Report to the House.

  European Union Council Business (March-September 2003)
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)
  The business for the period March to September is as follows:

  MARCH

  1–2—Athens—Informal Education

  3—Brussels—Competitiveness Council

  4—Brussels—Environment Council

  6—Brussels—Meeting of the Presidium

  6—Luxembourg—Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs

  6—Brussels—EUROGROUP (Evening)

  7—Brussels—ECOFIN

  7—Luxembourg—Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  13—Brussels—Meeting of the Presidium

  14–15-Athens—(Informal Defence Meeting)

  17–18-Brussels—Convention Plenary

  17–18-Luxembourg—Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  18–19—Brussels—General Affairs & External Relations Council (GAERC)

  21—Brussels—EUROPEAN COUNCIL

  27—Brussels-Meeting of the Presidium

  27–28—Luxembourg—Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  27–28—Brussels—EU-RIO Group, EU MERCOSUR

  28–29—Veria—Informal Justice & Home Affairs

  31—Brussels—Agriculture & Fisheries Council (to be confirmed)

  Date

  Location

  Event

  April

  2

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  3–4

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  4

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs

  4–6

  Hania (Crete)

  Informal ECOFIN (Ministerial)

  5

  Lisbon

  Europe—Africa Summit

  10

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  14–15

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs & External Relations

  14

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries

  16

  Athens

  Signature Of The Accession Treaty

  17

  Athens

  European Conference

  23

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  24–25

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  May

  2–4

  Olympia

  Gymnich (Informal Foreign Ministers)

  3–4

  Athens

  Informal Environment (Ministerial Informal)

  5–6

  Brussels

  Education, Youth & Culture Council (To be confirmed)

  8

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  Corfu

  Agriculture (Ministerial Informal)

  12–13

  Brussels

  Competitiveness

  12

  Brussels

  EUROGRUP

  13

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  14

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  31WS

  Date

  Location

  Event

  14

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  15–16

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  16

  Brussels

  EU-ACP Ministerial

  16–17

  Halkidiki

  Informal Regional Policy (Ministerial)

  16–18

  Cruise off Greece

  Informal Transport & Merchant Marine (Ministerial)

  17

  Brussels

  EU-W. Balkans (Zagreb Process)

  19

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations (+ Defence)

  20

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations

  22

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  24

  Thessaloniki

  Informal Culture (Ministerial)

  26–27

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  26–27

  Crete

  EUROMED Conference (Mid Term Ministerial)

  27

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  28

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  30–31

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  31

  St Petersburg

  EU—Russia Summit

  June

  2

  Brussels

  EUROGROUP

  12–13

  Alexandroupoli

  Development Co-operation (Ministerial Informal)

  2–3

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  3

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  4

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  5–6

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  5–6

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs Council

  5–6

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs Council

  6

  Rhodes

  Public Administration (Ministerial Informal)

  1l

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  11–12

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  12–13

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  17–18

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs & External Relations

  20

  Halkidiki

  EUROPEAN COUNCIL

  21

  Halkidiki

  Zagreb II Summit

  22

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations

  24

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs Council

  July

  2–3

  Rome

  Research Ministerial Informal)

  4–5

  Naples

  Transport Infrastructure (Ministerial Informal)

  6

  Brussels

  Trade (Ministerial Informal)

  10

  Varese

  Informal Council/Troika

  11–12

  Varese

  Informal Council of Ministers of Labour and Social Affairs

  15–16

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  11–12

  Varese

  Informal Council of Ministers of Labour and Social Affairs

  15–16

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  17–18

  Treviso

  EU Employment Committee (Informal)

  18–20

  Montecatini

  Energy & Environment (Ministerial Informal)

  22–23

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  22

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations

  24–25

  Milan

  European Conference on Discrimination

  25–26

  Verona

  Education (Ministerial Informal)

  August

  No Meetings Planned

  September

  3–5

  Viterbo

  Telecommunications (Ministerial Informal)

  12–14

  Stresa

  ECOFIN (Informal Council)

  32WS

  Date

  Location

  Event

  19–20

  Rome

  Justice & Internal Affairs (Informal Council)

  22–23

  Brussels

  Competition (Internal Market, Industry & Research)

  29–30

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations

  29–30

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

HOME OFFICE

  Prison Service Pay Review
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn)
  The second report of the Prison Service Pay Review Body (PSPRB) on the pay of governing governors and operational managers, prison officers and related grades in England and Wales in 2003 is being published today and copies will be placed in the Library.

  The PSPRB have continued to be impressed by the professionalism and dedication they found amongst the remit group staff, particularly in view of the pressures of rising prisoner numbers. They have recommended a basic rise of 2.8 per cent, which is in line with the rate of inflation in December 2002 and other review body awards.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has decided that the recommendations will be implemented in full, with effect from the operative date of the award of 1 April 2003.

  The key recommendations of the report are:

  A 2.8 per cent increase to basic pay rates from 1 April 2003;

  Locality allowances paid to Prison Service staff in eligible areas in London and the South East will be increased from 1 April 2003:

  from £3,500 to £3,800 per annum for the top rate from £2,300 to £3,000 per annum

  for a new "higher" rate

  from £2,300 to £2,500 per annum for the middle rate

  from £1,000 to £1,100 per annum for the lower rate

  An improved performance-related progression system for operational managers from 1 April 2003 and assimilation to a new pay spine retrospectively to 1 January 2003;

  An increase of 2.8 per cent. to the Healthcare specialist allowance paid to prison officers from 1 April 2003. Other specialist allowances frozen at current rates; and

  Other allowances increased by 2.8 per cent.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  On 6 September 2002 I announced the appointment of an Independent Review Team, led by Patrick Carter, to take a fundamental look at the operations of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). In particular, the Review Team was tasked to support the CRB management in the short-term and to identify necessary longer-term changes in the way the
  33WS
  CRB operates to ensure that it can deliver its twin objectives of providing greater protection for children and vulnerable adults whilst ensuring that the Disclosure process does not act as a bar to speedy recruitment.

  I have today placed in the Library the main findings and recommendations of the Independent Review Team.

  I am extremely grateful to Patrick Carter and his two colleagues—John Holden and Ron Skelley—for their rapid and thorough examination of the situation at the CRB and their recommendations on the way forward. The team has come up with a wide-ranging set of recommendations for improvements to the CRB intended to enable it to meet future challenges as demand for its services continues to grow. The CRB is a vital element of the Government's programme to improve the protection of children and vulnerable adults from those who might wish to harm them. It needs to be put on a sounder footing to meet these objectives more effectively and provide the levels of service rightly expected by its customers.

  The Independent Review Team's recommendations build on the steady improvement in the GRB's performance over the last six months which has seen the average number of Disclosures issued rise from 24,500 per week in August 2002 to the current 40,000 per week. Some 80 per cent of Standard Disclosures and 50 per cent. of Enhanced Disclosures are now issued within three weeks. These improvements have been achieved by both the Agency and Capita working in partnership to deliver the service that the CRB's customers are entitled to receive.

  The Government propose to take forward the 10 recommendations in the report as follows:
  Ways should be sought of optimising the end-to-end CRB process efficiency, by reviewing and rationalising the management responsibilities and respective roles in the complete chain undertaken by Registered Bodies, the CRB Agency, Capita and local police forces.

  The Government agree that the roles of the different parties involved in the CRB process should be strengthened and clarified. In particular, we intend to enhance the intelligent customer function within the Agency so that there is a stronger focus on setting standards across the whole operation and ensuring that these are met. There also needs to be better management co-ordination of the CRB end-to-end business processes. This may involve the more flexible deployment of Agency and private sector staff and to this end we will take powers in the Criminal Justice Bill to enable the Secretary of State's functions under Part V of the Police Act 1997 to be exercised by the private sector as well as Agency staff.
  The critical role of Registered Bodies in the CRB process needs to be recognised and upgraded. Registered bodies should be unambiguously responsible for validating the identity of those for whom they seek Disclosures and for ensuring the quality and completeness of applications submitted to the CRB. The number of Registered Bodies should be optimised to establish sensible economies of scale and improve proficiency.

  The Government accept this recommendation and will legislate this session to make it clear that Registered Bodies are responsible for verifying the identity of an
  34WS
  applicant. It would, as now, be open to a Registered Body to delegate the function of validating identity to the prospective employer or other agent while retaining overall responsibility, as long as we are satisfied in a particular case that delegation provides a reasonable safeguard. To ensure that Registered Bodies discharge their responsibilities effectively, we will take powers to attach conditions to a registration and to revoke a registration where such conditions are breached. We share the Review Team's view that optimum levels of efficiency within a Registered Body can best be achieved by handling a sufficient number of Disclosure applications. With the new responsibilities for Registered Bodies, a number of those currently countersigning relatively small numbers of applications may seek to de-register of their own volition. We will monitor the situation carefully. The Government will take reserve powers to set a threshold for the minimum number of applications to be processed by a Registered Body each year and to de-register those Registered Bodies which fall below the threshold. Registered Bodies and others across the sectors which use the CRB's Disclosure service will be fully consulted before these changes are implemented. We will take particular account of concerns that have been expressed about access to Registered Bodies and the level of fees charged by some umbrella bodies. As part of the consultation exercise, we will seek views oh placing a cap on the fees that may be levied by Registered Bodies.
  There should be a progressive move to mandate electronic submission of applications by Registered Bodies.

  The CRB will introduce an electronic application channel as soon as practicable; a pilot will be undertaken later this year. We believe that many Registered Bodies will want to adopt this channel as their preferred means of submitting Disclosure applications. In time, as more and more Registered Bodies migrate to the electronic channel there will be a diminishing case, on efficiency grounds, for maintaining the existing paper and telephone channels. At that point, consideration would need to be given whether to mandate—by means of a condition attached to registration—the electronic channel for registered bodies to submit applications to the CRB. This will not preclude individuals submitting their applications to registered bodies by paper or telephone channels where mutually agreed.
  Given that the production of Enhanced Disclosures is significantly more costly and ties up local police force resources, new arrangements should be established for the Agency to set priorities, in accordance with Government Guidelines, on which applications should get Enhanced and which should get Standard Disclosures.

  The Government agree with the spirit of this recommendation, but it is important that the criteria are set by ministers, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, on the basis of a risk assessment. Having established the criteria for Standard and Enhanced Disclosures it is important that there is some mechanism to ensure that they are properly observed. It is proposed, therefore, to amend the Police Act 1997 first to enable the type of Disclosure for any given occupational group to be determined by regulations and then to enable the CRB to give effect to such regulations. Where necessary, the CRB would be expected to seek additional information from the registered body in order that it

  35WS
  could make its assessment in any given case. We will take account of the views of Registered Bodies and others before implementing these changes.
  It is recommended that the Police National Computer (PNC) files are "flagged" to denote the existence of intelligence information on any individual held at local force level and not included in convictions recorded on the PNC.

  The cost and feasibility of introducing a system of flags on the PNC to denote the existence of local intelligence will be tested in a pilot due to commence in three forces (Metropolitan Police, Staffordshire and West Midlands) in the spring. Decisions about the rollout of such a system will be taken in the light of the outcome of the pilot.
  It is recommended that the launch of Basic Disclosures be postponed until the CRB systems have been developed to provide a substantially greater capacity. It would be inappropriate to launch Basic Disclosures until higher priority categories of applicant for higher level Disclosures are seeing their needs fully accommodated. It is also recommended that Basic Disclosure applications should be routed through Registered Bodies, with identity validation undertaken by these Bodies, rather than allow direct submission from applicants as currently envisaged by the legislation.

  The Government concur that the priority for the CRB is to ensure that demand for higher level Disclosures is fully met and that applicants for such Disclosures receive a satisfactory service. Basic Disclosures will not be introduced until these objectives have been achieved. The Government note the case for routing applications for a Basic Disclosure through a Registered Body as in the case of Standard and Enhanced Disclosures, but will want to consult fully with employer organisations and others on the implications before coming to a final view. In the event that the Government decide to proceed, legislation would be needed to implement this recommendation.
  The Information Technology system built and operated by Capita has been subject to a range of improvements and enhancements since original delivery, as a result of which performance has improved. A further programme of significant enhancement will be required. Additionally, almost all the recommendations set out here would lead to requirements for system change and therefore would have contractual consequences. It is therefore recommended to attempt to renegotiate the contract with Capita to implement necessary technology renewal and align the contract to the changed and evolving circumstances.

  The Government accept this recommendation and will seek to renegotiate the contract with Capita so that it reflects the changed environment in which the CRB will be operating.
  An investigation should be undertaken into the possibility of requiring fingerprints to be submitted by applicants for Disclosures where the sensitivity of the employment role to be undertaken makes this appropriate. This would enable a more rigorous linking of police records (which in turn are mostly linked to fingerprints) and the individuals submitting applications for Disclosures. This investigation will need to look at the balance to be struck between such increasing rigour of CRB identity processes and the cost and convenience of the service to the customer.

  The Government will undertake a further study in consultation with Registered Bodies and others on the case for, and practicalities of, requiring applicants for Disclosures in particularly sensitive employment roles to submit their fingerprints with their application. Among the issues the study will need to address, is how
  36WS
  to avoid any unnecessary intrusion into the privacy of applicants. A decision whether to proceed will be taken in the light of the results of the consultation exercise. Legislation would be needed to implement this change.
  While recognising the benefits derived from establishing the CRB under the wing of an existing Agency, it is now recommended that an independent Executive Agency is created within the Home Office to carry forward the CRB's changing and increasingly demanding functions. There will need to be a transitional period which will be overseen by a transitional Management Board operating within an appropriate governance framework.

  The Government agree that the CRB, currently part of the Passport and Records Agency, should be reconstituted as a free-standing Agency. The new Agency will be established as soon as practicable. A Transitional Board has been established to ensure a smooth transition. John Holden has agreed to serve as the non-executive chairman of the Board and Patrick Carter and Ron Skelley as non-executive members. A stakeholder group will be established under John Holden's chairmanship to represent the interests of Government Departments and the police.
  In order to implement a number of the recommendations, changes to the legislative framework under which the CRB operates (Part V of the Police Act 1997) will be required.

  As indicated above, the Government will take forward in the Criminal Justice Bill the necessary legislative changes needed to implement recommendations 1, 2 and 4.

  Certificates of Identity
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  On 6 February we announced that we would consult on plans to tighten the policy on issuing Certificates of Identity. We have completed the consultation as quickly as possible, as there was evidence of abuse. I can now announce that, from 27 March, these documents will only be available to people who can prove that they need them.

  The change has proved necessary because some people who claim to have fled their home countries in fear of their lives have used our documents to travel back. Recently, we found 125 Iraqis using these documents on just 16 flights to Damascus, which is 140 miles from the Iraqi border. (There are no direct flights to Iraq). We cannot allow this to continue. We have decided that all applicants for a Certificate of Identity, including those who have indefinite leave to enter or remain, must prove that they cannot obtain a passport from the authorities of their own country. People who have exceptional leave to enter or remain (i.e.leave for a limited period) will also have to show that they need to travel for an essential reason, such as business, education, religion or compassionate circumstances. They will have to tell us which country they need to travel to and will not be allowed to go to any other countries using the Certificate of Identity.

  With this change of policy, we also intend to send a clear message that the United Kingdom takes its obligations seriously, and we expect those who benefit from our protection to do the same.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Councillor Codes of Conduct
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  Promoting high standards of ethical conduct among Councillors is one of the most important requirements for the strengthening of local democracy and the building up of trust between people and their elected representatives. The Government are today laying an amendment to the Local Government Bill which will lead to new regulations allowing local authorities to play a more active role in dealing with cases of councillor misconduct.

  The amendment has been prepared following an extensive consultation exercise last summer on the proposed regulatory framework which would allow local investigation of allegations and local hearings. Close consideration of more than 1,000 responses to that consultation led to the conclusion that a robust and workable set of regulations could not be made without changes to the primary legislation.
  38WS
  The Government now intend to issue regulations in two parts. The first set of regulations will set out the regime within which local standards committees will be able to consider reports on alleged councillor misconduct completed by ESOs and referred to the monitoring officer of the relevant authority under section 59 (4) (c) of the Local Government Act 2000. The intention is that these regulations will be laid before Parliament in early April. I understand that the Standards Board for England intend to publish guidance for local authorities on the operation of these regulations

  The second set of regulations will provide for the conduct of investigations by monitoring officers, or their deputies, following a decision by an ESO to cease an investigation and refer the matters to the monitoring officer under section 60 (2) (b) of the Local Government Act 2000. Our intention is not to lay these regulations until a change has been made to the Local Government Act 2000 which would allow a monitoring officer to appoint another person to conduct an investigation, especially in circumstances where the monitoring officer might have a conflict of interest. The amendment which is being laid before Parliament today is designed to achieve this change. Subject to Parliament's enactment of the amendment, regulations dealing with investigations will be laid in the Autumn.