Written Statement of 15 June 2004

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  School Inspection
  The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband)
  I have today placed in the Library of the House copies of a new publication "A New Relationship with Schools". This document, produced jointly between DfES and Ofsted, follows the speech I made at the north of England education conference in January and sets out our intentions to simplify school improvement processes, reduce bureaucracy, and deliver an intelligent accountability framework. This new relationship will put a premium on ensuring effective and ongoing self-evaluation in every school combined with sharper edged. lighter touch, but no less rigorous external inspection. Ofsted consulted on the future of inspection proposals between 10 February and 8 April 2004. HMCI David Bell has now reached agreement with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on the changes. The document sets out our intention, subject to the scrutiny and approval of Parliament, to change the inspection system with a range of complementary changes for schools. Based upon the responses to the consultation and the work with LEAs and schools, actively engaged as our partners, I have confidence that these changes will improve education for pupils and ensure parents and the public know even more about the schools their children attend.

  New Relationship with Schools proposals

  The DfES is currently developing detailed proposals for a new relationship with schools, which cover a group of interlocking changes that will affect school inspection, schools' relations with local and central Government, schools' self-evaluation and planning, data collection from schools and communications with schools. They aim to reduce bureaucracy, strip out clutter, and release greater energy in schools.

  Future of Inspection Proposals

  The new inspection system will mean shorter and more frequent inspections at shorter notice than at present. The proposed framework would allow two to five working days' notice before an inspection instead of the current six to 10 weeks. There will be a greater emphasis on school self-evaluation and a simplified approach to schools causing concern. The current approach to schools that need special measures will be retained and a new improvement notice for other schools where there are weaknesses will be introduced.

  In the trials of the new inspection process, the outcome has been a stronger link between school improvement and the reports produced by inspectors. Schools have welcomed the new system.
  24WS
  HMI will play a role in all inspections and inspection reports will be published within three weeks of an inspection, compared to four to five months at present. The proposals will reduce burdens on schools whilst ensuring that parents benefit from more frequent information about the quality and standard of education provided by schools. Overall the weight of inspection—with much sharper inspections, a smaller team, but at a greater frequency—will be roughly half the current weight.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Regional Planning Guidance (West Midlands)
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  Regional planning guidance 11 (RPG11) sets out the spatial strategy for the sustainable development of the region, with a framework for the land use aspects of housing and transport infrastructure and economic development. The strategy gives priority to the regeneration of the major urban areas and the regeneration zones identified in the regional economic strategy. RPG11 also sets out proposals for the conservation, management and enhancement of the region's natural and cultural environment.

  I am pleased that the vision, objectives, and core strategy of RPG11 are largely as proposed in the draft RPG submitted by the West Midlands regional planning body (RPB) in November 2001. This reflects the effective partnership working which was led by the RPB and involved local authorities and a wide range of other stakeholders. Many of these stakeholders have continued to make valuable contributions through the consultation process. Many of the comments received through the consultations have made a very positive contribution to the strategy.

  The West Midlands regional assembly, now the regional planning body, will continue to work with a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that RPG11 is effectively implemented, monitored, and reviewed.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Sewage Treatment Works (Nuisance Control)
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael)
  On 23 December 2002 the Government published a consultation on proposals for the control of odour and other nuisances from sewage treatment works. This included an option for a voluntary code of practice.

  Incidents of odour problems are relatively few compared with the number of sewage works throughout England and Wales, but when problems do occur they can have a significant and prolonged impact on local residents. For this reason an apparent lack of effective enforcement had to be addressed as a matter of urgency. The outcome of the consultation supports the use of the statutory nuisance regime to resolve such problems. I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses a summary report of the responses to the consultation.

  In addition the position has been clarified by a recent High Court judgment which confirms that odours from sewage treatment works can be considered as a statutory

  25WS
  nuisance within the terms of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. As a consequence, local authorities have both a duty to investigate such a problem and corresponding enforcement powers. This means that abatement notices can be used to resolve long-term problems of odour from sewage treatment works. An appeal against this ruling has now been withdrawn.

  The consequence of the High Court decision is that we have a statutory tool to address sewage odour. The Government therefore propose to drop the reference to a "voluntary" code, a throwback from when the code was envisaged as an interim measure in the absence of a statutory regime. The code will equally address concerns raised within the responses to the consultation that the application of the statutory nuisance regime may lead to inconsistencies in its application and increased uncertainty for the sewage industry. Therefore, the Government are asking the sewage industry, its regulatory and professional bodies and organisations representing customers, the public and local authorities to co-operate in the production of a code of practice that will provide advice and guidance to support the successful resolution of odour problems from sewage treatment works. A draft code is to be the subject of full public consultation in summer 2004, and should be published by late 2004. Ofwat has indicated it will lend its weight to the code.

DEFENCE

  Mrs. Hulme and the Pensions Ombudsman v. the MOD
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  I announced on 19 November,Official Report, columns 39–40WS that the Ministry of Defence would not seek leave to appeal to the House of Lords the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Mrs. Hulme and the pensions ombudsman v. the MOD. I also announced that, as appropriate, the Department would review previous decisions on entitlement to pensions where death-in-service or injury that resulted in invaliding was due to service and where armed forces pension scheme administrators have previously not accepted war pension scheme decisions on attributability; that awards would be backdated; and that the Department would consider compensation to reflect the effect of inflation on the value of pensions over the period of non-payment.

  I can now advise the House that those pensioners, widows, widowers or their estates who will receive backdated pension benefits as a result of this judgment, will also receive interest on those payments. Where the error occurred within the last six years, the interest will be based on the scheme's usual formula of simple interest. Where the error occurred beyond six years, interest will be based on a formula using the rate of RPI plus 2 per cent. compounded. This is consistent with the formula used in compensating those who were affected by the armed forces pension scheme tax and related pension errors, which I announced to the House on 15 December 2003.

  Work has begun on identifying the cases involved and we hope that back payments and interest will be paid within one year to those who were affected.
  26WS

  Defence Estates Corporate Plan
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  I have set out the following Key Targets for 2004–05 for Defence Estates, as set out in the Agency's Corporate Plan:Key Target 1
  To improve the condition of the defence estate for fitness for purpose and condition by:
  Delivering 1,640 Single Living Accommodation Grade 1 bedspaces under Project SLAM, and reporting on the provision of 4,307 bedspaces delivered under parallel projects, and improving service families accommodation by delivering 500 upgraded properties.
  Ensuring that at least 70 per cent. of MOD Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the UK meet the criteria for satisfactory condition.
  Key Target 2
  To provide an estate of the right size, by increasing the number of personnel on Core Sites by 4 per cent. by 31 March 2005, producing business cases to support the MOD Estate Rationalisation Plan by December 2004, and by achieving Accrued Estates Disposal Receipts of £661 million from 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2008, including £126 million from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005.
  Key Target 3
  To improve customer satisfaction and service delivery, by decreasing customer dissatisfaction with Service Families Accommodation by a percentage point by 31 March 2005, compared to the outcome as at 31 March 2004.
  Key Target 4
  To implement key 2004–05 milestones for MOD estates change initiatives by achieving the contract award for the Housing Prime Contract by 31 July 2004 and the Regional Prime Contract (South-East) by 30 November 2004.
  Key Target 5
  To produce the necessary strategies and to establish target baselines in support of the DEFRA Sustainable Development In Government requirements.
  Key Target 6
  To integrate baseline information to inform the methodology for demonstrating value for money efficiencies from Prime Contracting, and to reduce the management margin of vacant housing to 10.7 percent by 31 March 2005.

  I am placing a copy of the new Defence Estates Corporate Plan in the Library of the House.

  Met Office Key Performance Target 2004–05
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  The chief executive of the Met Office is responsible for providing meteorological and related environmental services, including climate change prediction, to a wide range of customers, including the armed forces, Government Departments and local authorities, civil aviation, shipping, emergency services, media, commerce, industry and the general public. The Met Office also undertakes research related to meteorology and climate.

  Over the last 12 months the Met Office completed the challenging relocation of its headquarters and operations centre from Bracknell to Exeter. It was one of the biggest moves of IT capability undertaken in Europe, with no interruption in output or customer service. Some 1,000 staff transferred to Exeter in a project that was completed on time, to budget and against quality standards set. The move to new premises supports new ways of working; and an advanced

  27WS
  technology and IT infrastructure, which will result in increased resilience and data reliability for the Met Office's customers.

  To reflect the established strategy of investment and growth, the Met Office has adopted a new target relating to growth. A new target has also been included to ensure that the Met Office is prepared for the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on 1 January 2005.

  Previously the Met Office has had a target set against commercial contribution. This has become less relevant given that there is no longer a clear distinction between commercial work and public sector work. This target has therefore been discontinued.
  Key target 1
  To achieve an increase in value for the Numerical Weather Prediction Index (measuring forecasting skill) of at least 1.4 by 31 March 2005, from the level achieved at 31 March 2004.
  Key target 2
  To deliver an operating profit before strategic investments of at least £15.5 million in FY 2004–05, whilst making strategic investments of between £5.8 million and £6.8 million.
  Key target 3
  To achieve a return on capital employed of at least 3.5 per cent. in the FY 2004–05.
  Key target 4
  To achieve direct services growth in both Government and non-Government revenue of at least 4.1 per cent. in FY 2004–05 from the 2003–04 baseline. whilst maintaining direct services operating profit
  Key target 5
  To have in place, by 31 December 2004, basic procedures to answer requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and to review by 31 March 2005 the initial operation of the procedures to ensure that they are fit for purpose.
  Key target 6
  To develop, by March 2005, an efficiency measure which demonstrates the continuous improvement in value for money of the National Met Service (including the Public Met Service and relevant parts of the National Met Programme).

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  UK Gas Quality Exercise
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms)
  On 8 January 2004, in a written ministerial statement,Official Report, columns 13–14WS, I launched the second phase of a three-phase strategy addressing the issue of future changes in the quality of gas imports to the United Kingdom. I can now inform the House that as part of this phase my officials have successfully let two separate research contracts to address specific technical aspects of the potential remedial measures being explored.

  Phase 1 of the gas quality exercise, an independent scoping report commissioned by Government, was completed in November 2003. It confirmed that the Wobbe specification of certain anticipated gas imports to the UK is, before processing, likely to fall outside the current limits of the Health and Safety Executive's Gas Safety (Management) Regulations (GS(M)R). In light
  28WS
  of the expected increase in the UK's dependence on imported gas I launched phase 2 to identify an appropriate policy response.

  As stated in previous announcements, our broad policy options appear to be: the "default" option, to retain the current gas quality specifications, or to change the current specifications to more closely reflect the expected quality of future gas supply. Two separate research contracts have recently been let, under a competitive tendering process, to Advantica Limited, to address specific technical issues in connection with these two options. The first will identify the costs, benefits and risks of the options for processing future gas imports to ensure that they comply with existing quality specifications. The latter is the pilot for an exercise aimed at understanding the likely costs, benefits and risks of adapting the UK's gas appliance population to ensure continued safe operation under the delivery of gas with different quality specifications.

  I can tell the House now that there is no question of the Government recommending to the HSC, who are responsible for the GS(M)R, to implement an early change in the UK's gas quality regulations. The effective choice, for consideration in due course when the results of the research exercises are apparent, is expected to be between recommending no change at all versus the option of making no immediate change but implementing transitional measures that would provide the flexibility to introduce a change in the gas quality specifications at a much later date, perhaps towards the end of the next decade.

  My officials, together with HSE and Ofgem, will be working over the coming months to prepare the ground for a consultation exercise. Once this work is complete I shall make a further statement to the House.

  This exercise has been developed by the DTI as a member of the sustainable energy policy network (SEPN), which is working to deliver the Energy White Paper "Our Energy Future—Creating a Low Carbon Economy".

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Safety Cameras
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  An independent review of the first three years of the safety camera programme's operation 2000–01 to 2002–03, carried out by University College London and PA Consulting Group which I am publishing today, concluded that safety cameras significantly reduced speeding and collisions, and had cut deaths and serious injuries at camera sites by 40 per cent.

  These findings are based on the large body of evidence now available from three years of the programme's operation, and the 24 police and local highway authority safety camera partnerships which were participating in the national scheme by 2002–03, covering around half of the police authority areas of England, Wales and Scotland.

  I have placed a copy of the UCL—PA report in the Library. It will also be available on my Department's website.
  29WS
  The report contains details of each partnership's audited costs and receipts from fixed fines for 2002–03. I have also placed in the Library copies of the English and Welsh partnerships' responses to my Department earlier this year, confirming that they are operating in accordance with the rules and guidance for the programme.

  The sole objective of safety cameras is to save lives and reduce injuries—as it has always been, since the previous Government provided for the use of cameras in the 1991 Road Traffic Act.

  Road safety is a Government priority. Despite the UK having one of the best safety records among major countries, some 3,500 people are still killed and another 35,000 seriously injured each year on the roads. This level of deaths and injury is not acceptable, and excessive and inappropriate speed is a significant element in the problem. People who drive 25 per cent. faster than the average for a road have six times higher risk of collision. Excessive speed is a contributory factor in over a quarter of fatal collisions. Moreover, speed makes any collision worse, whatever its cause. Pedestrians hit by cars travelling at 20 mph have a 21.2 per cent. risk of being killed; a 20 per cent. risk at 30 mph; and a 90 per cent. risk of being killed at 40 mph.

  Safety cameras have a key role in tackling the problem. They cannot be the only way of helping to reduce speed, but they do make a major contribution. The key findings of the UCL—PA report are that:
  there was a 40 per cent. reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites ( "KSI casualties"), over and above the UK's general downward trend in killed or seriously injured casualties.
  the percentage reduction equated to 870 fewer people per year being killed or seriously injured at the 24 camera sites—including 105 fewer deaths per year;
  within the overall reduction in killed or seriously injured casualties, there was a 35 per cent. reduction in pedestrians being killed or seriously injured;
  there was a 33 per cent. reduction in overall collisions involving personal injury at camera sites—fatal, serious or slight—("Personal Injury Collisions"—PICs), again over and above the general downward trend in PICs. This equated to 4,030 fewer PICs per year for the 24 Partnership areas;
  the benefit to society of the avoided deaths and injuries in 2002–03 was £221 million, based on the standard Government values for road injuries—over four times the £54 million resource cost of the programme in 2002–03;
  there was a 32 per cent. reduction in the number of vehicles breaking the speed limit at camera sites. Average vehicle speed across all new sites fell by 7 per cent. overall;
  there was a larger, 43 per cent. reduction in excessive speeding—vehicles doing 15 mph or more above the limit;
  there was a clear correlation between the level of speed reduction at sites, and the level of reduction in collisions and casualties;
  independent research showed a high level of public support for the use of cameras. 79 per cent. of people agreed with the statement "The use of safety cameras should be supported as a method of reducing casualties".
  This evidence of the road safety benefits of safety cameras shows why local residents and pedestrians value them strongly, as hon. Members know from contact with constituents. The report also shows that the majority of motorists also support cameras. They
  30WS
  too are threatened by thoughtless drivers who are prepared to ignore speed limits and go through red lights.

  As well as the national results, the UCL—PA report also includes estimates for the percentage reduction in KSI casualties and PIC collisions for the individual partnership areas. As is to be expected, partnerships' figures vary—partly reflecting their different mix of urban and rural sites and different camera types. Also, collisions are by nature random events and their incidence varies from year to year. So the report should not be regarded as providing a "league table".

  We already expect partnerships to keep their camera sites under review and up to date with changing local circumstances. My Department will give guidance to partnerships on particular issues to consider in preparing and submitting their operational cases for the period ahead—in particular looking at camera sites where a good safety record has been achieved, to assess whether they need to be retained for maintaining effective compliance, or whether the site can now be safely stood down—and also at sites where there appears to be a continuing problem of high numbers of collisions notwithstanding the use of cameras, and assessing whether further or different action should be taken, including for example road improvements or engineering measure, traffic calming measures, road safety education of information programmes. In making these assess] vents, we will of course expect partnerships to take account of the views of both local communities, and those of road users.

  The UCL—PA report shows the high level of public support for safety cameras. An essential element in this is the availability of full information on camera sites. Partnerships provide a wide range of information, presented in a range of ways.

  But hon. Members and others with an interest in the safety camera programme are also interested in being able to access core information, set out on a common basis, covering all partnerships' sites nationwide.

  Earlier this year I asked my Department to review the operation of cameras at each site across each partnership area. Drawing on information provided by the partnerships, my Department has prepared tables covering each of the 35 partnerships in England and Wales now participating in the programme. Copies will be placed in the Library, and will be available on the Department's website. The tables provide information on the location of sites, the reason for their establishment, and summary "before and after" data on the numbers of people killed or seriously injured in collisions since the partnership joined the programme and up to 2002–03, including part-year data for sites which were established in the course of 2002–03. The tables will be updated each year.

  In total for England and Wales, at the end of March 2004, there were 5,215 safety cameras, comprising:
  2,364 fixed speed camera sites, at which cameras operate continuously or from time to time;
  2,153 locations at which mobile speed cameras are deployed from time to time;
  698 red light camera sites at which cameras operate continuously or from time to time.
  31WS
  These tables provide a full picture of the safety camera sites currently in operation. Hon. Members with questions about any camera in their constituency should contact the partnership concerned.

  Around half of the camera sites listed in the tables had been established prior to partnerships joining the national programme, under the guidance issued in 1992, in Department of Transport Circular 1/92 "Use of Technology for Traffic Enforcement: Guidance on Deployment". This guidance did not set any quantified collision criteria, asking only that partnerships should
  "have evidence that all additional cameras have been deployed in areas where historically there have been a high incidence of speed related collisions."

  The Government did not regard this generalised guidance which we inherited as adequate, and we have progressively developed detailed rules, guidance and criteria for the setting up and operation of cameras under the national programme, as currently contained in the handbook of rules and guidance for the operation of the national road safety programme for England and Wales, 31 October 2003, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Alongside setting the quantified criteria for site locations, the handbook of rules and guidance for the programme recognises the independent operational discretion which police forces must have to enforce the law, and provides also for "exception sites"—mainly "community concern" sites where there is evidence of speeding causing road safety concerns to local residents. The operation of exception sites is now subject to a maximum of 15 per cent. of a partnership's total "camera time". Exception sites do not require Government approval. But for information, the tables include fixed exception camera sites. Exception mobile sites are often temporary, and are not included in the tables. Information on exceptional sites is available from partnerships.

  The rules on camera sites' visibility and conspicuity that the Government introduced in 2001 apply to all speed cameras, including exception sites. The police however need the discretion in exceptional circumstances to mount "covert" operations to deal with exceptional problems. The police advice that the use of this discretion is rare—fewer than 10 instances a year.

  We encourage lower speed limits where these are appropriate in urban areas and in the vicinity of schools, including 20 mph zones, which have proved very successful in reducing collisions and injuries. For rural areas, the Government recommend that 30 mph should be the norm in villages. The current guidance to local authorities on local speed limits is being revised and updated, covering both urban and rural roads. We will consult road users and other stakeholders shortly on a revised circular advising on the setting of local speed limits.

  Penalties need to fit the crime. There is a significant problem with people prepared to exceed limits seriously and recklessly. Following the review of road traffic penalties, we made a commitment to create an aggravated offence to deal with these people, with a new higher fixed penalty when the legislative opportunity arises. This reflects serious public concern.
  32WS
  At the same time, many drivers feel that the present fixed three point minimum penalty, laid down in primary legislation is not necessarily the most appropriate or effective way to deal with less severe speeding. We therefore propose that, when the opportunity arises, legislation will reduce the minimum penalty to two points, with the detailed provisions for the offences to which two point and higher penalties would apply to be set in statutory orders. These would be subject to both formal public consultation, and to affirmative resolution in Parliament, to ensure full discussion with motoring organisations, road safety groups and others with an interest.

  Meantime, a number of police forces have been developing and offering drivers the option of speed awareness courses as an alternative to the formal legal processes, where this looks to be a more effective remedy. And at the national level, the Association of Chief Police Officers has announced that it is putting in place arrangements for a national programme for the use of speed awareness courses, which will ensure consistent and rigorous standards of courses. The Government welcome the police's wide thinking on the best way to achieve the result which everyone wants to see—that of drivers and riders with changed, safer and more considerate attitudes.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Indian Ocean Territory
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  I would like to inform the House of developments in relation to the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT).

  In 1965, prior to Mauritius achieving independence in 1968, and with the agreement of the Mauritius Council of Ministers, the islands of the Chagos Archipelago were detached from Mauritius to form part of the British Indian Ocean Territory. The territory was created to provide for the defence needs of both Britain and the United States of America. Subsequently, the plantations on which the population of the islands had depended for their livelihood were run down and closed; and the inhabitants—the Chagossians—were in due course relocated to Mauritius and Seychelles, from where they or their families originated. The vast majority of them automatically acquired Mauritian or Seychelles citizenship when those countries respectively achieved independence. In addition, the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 gave a large number of them British citizenship. This carries with it the right of abode in this country, which some of them have already taken up, and freedom of access to other EU countries. Following the relocation, Britain made £650,000 available for the express purpose of assisting resettlement. And in 1982 Britain made a further ex gratia payment of £4 million for the benefit of the Chagossian community in Mauritius.

  In November 2000 the High Court in the UK held in judicial review proceedings that a provision of the territory's immigration law that had previously precluded the Chagossians from returning to the territory without a permit was invalid. In the

  33WS
  circumstances which then obtained, it was decided not to appeal against that ruling, and the immigration law was amended to reflect it.

  Following the departure of the Chagossians in the late 60s and early 70s, the economic conditions and infrastructure that had supported the community of plantation workers ceased to exist. While the judicial review proceedings were still pending, the Government therefore commissioned a feasibility study by independent experts to examine and report on the prospects for re-establishing a viable community in the outer islands of the territory. The latest report of the study was delivered after the November 2000 judgment and it was then placed in the Library of the House. It concluded that
  " … whilst it may be feasible to resettle the islands in the short-term, the costs of maintaining long-term inhabitation are likely to be prohibitive. Even in the short-term, natural events such as periodic flooding from storms and seismic activity are likely to make life difficult for a resettled population … Human interference within the atolls, however well managed, is likely to exacerbate stress on the marine and terrestrial environment and will accelerate the effects of global warming. Thus resettlement is likely to become less feasible over time."
  Specifically with reference to climate change, the report advised that
  " … the main issue facing a resettled population on the low-lying islands will be flooding events, which are likely to increase in periodicity and intensity and will not only threaten infrastructure, but also the freshwater aquifers and agricultural production. Severe events may even threaten life."

  The report also highlighted the implications for resettlement on such low-lying islands of the predicted increase in global sea levels as a result of climate change.

  In effect, therefore, anything other than short-term resettlement on a purely subsistence basis would be highly precarious and would involve expensive underwriting by the UK Government for an open-ended period—probably permanently. Accordingly, the Government consider that there would be no purpose in commissioning any further study into the feasibility of resettlement; and that it would be impossible for the Government to promote or even permit resettlement to take place. After long and careful consideration, we have therefore decided to legislate to prevent it.

  Equally, restoration of full immigration control over the entire territory is necessary to ensure and maintain the availability and effective use of the territory for defence purposes, for which it was in fact constituted and set aside in accordance with the UK's treaty obligations entered into almost 40 years ago. Especially in the light of recent developments in the international security climate since the November 2000 judgment, this is a factor to which due weight has had to be given.

  It was for these reasons that on 10 June 2004 Her Majesty made two Orders in Council, the combined effect of which is to restore full immigration control over all the islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory. These controls extend to all persons, including members of the Chagossian community.

  The first of these two orders replaces the existing constitution of the territory and makes clear, as a principle of the constitution, that no person has the right of abode in the territory or has unrestricted access to any
  34WS
  part of it. The second order replaces the existing immigration ordinance of the territory and contains the detailed provisions giving effect to that principle and setting out the necessary immigration controls. These two orders restore the legal position to what it had been understood to be before the High Court decision of 3 November 2000. I am arranging for copies of the orders to be placed in the Library of the House.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  British Soldiers (Prosecution)
  The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman)
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General has made the following ministerial statement, 14 June 2004,Official Report, House of Lords, columns WS 22–24:

  "This statement concerns the current position in relation to prosecution of soldiers and offences involving Iraqi civilians.

  Soldiers and reservists serving in Iraq, and indeed all members of the armed forces, are subject to military law which lays down that they are liable to be tried by a court martial for an offence contrary to English criminal law. If soldiers do something outside the UK that would be a crime here, they commit a crime under military law. The English criminal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over certain offences, including war crimes, torture and unlawful killing abroad.

  Investigations of offences alleged to have been carried out by service personnel are undertaken by the Royal Military Police or other service police authority. In the case of the Army, following an investigation the matter will be referred to the soldier's commanding officer who will also receive advice from the Army legal services branch which will include a draft charge. The commanding officer may decide to dismiss the charge; refer the charge to higher authority; deal summarily with the charge (if it is within the CO's jurisdiction); or stay proceedings with a view to them being otherwise dealt with, for example, by referring them to the civil authorities. The higher authority may in turn then refer the case to the Army prosecuting authority. Then the Army prosecuting authority becomes involved.

  The Army prosecuting authority was established under the Armed Forces Act 1996 and came into existence on 1 April 1997. It acts independently of the military chain of command. It is subject to the general superintendence of the Attorney General. I have held regular meetings with the APA as part of that superintendence. Recently I and the Solicitor-General met with the APA in London and I and LSLO officials met with the APA in Germany.

  If the APA decides there is sufficient evidence for the case to proceed (and it is in the public interest to proceed), they will then decide whether there should be a district court martial (a Judge Advocate and three military members with a sentencing limit of two years imprisonment) or a general court martial (a Judge Advocate and five members but with no sentencing limits save that imposed by statute). The court martial system was established under the Army Act 1955 and is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Defence. The APA conducts prosecutions in courts martial and the normal rules of procedure and evidence apply.
  35WS
  The verdict is returned by the military members of the court martial and the sentence is decided by the military members and the Judge Advocate together.

  Appeal against sentence or conviction is to the court martial appeal court comprised of judges of the Court of Appeal sitting in the royal courts of justice.

  Courts martial sit in public and are subject to the same rules on reporting as civilian criminal courts. Thus the Contempt of Court Act 1981 applies whether the court martial is sitting outside the UK or not. The common law contempt of court also applies to courts martial.

  In his recent statement, 8 June 2004, Official Report, House of Commons, columns WS 4–5, my right hon. Friend, the Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Ingram) referred to 75 cases being investigated into civilian deaths, injuries or alleged ill treatment of Iraqi civilians. Of those four cases have been referred to the APA which involve Iraqi victims.

  I have more details about one case, involving four defendants, referred to the APA which is detailed below. In relation to the remaining three cases with the APA, they are actively being considered at the moment.

  The APA is aware of at least four other cases which are likely to be referred to them in the very near future. This will make a total of eight cases out of the 75 which have been referred to them.

  As I have previously announced, there is in addition a further case which was brought to my attention by the APA but which had not been formally referred to the APA. It concerns an alleged unlawful killing of an Iraqi in the course of an arrest. This case was brought to my attention after charges were dismissed by the soldier's commanding officer. This means the case cannot be tried by court martial, but I have referred it to the CPS who have asked the Metropolitan police for assistance in
  36WS
  collecting further evidence. Any decision in relation to this prosecution will be taken by the CPS in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors.

  The APA directed trial on 11 June 2004 against four soldiers from the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers on charges relating to alleged abuses of Iraqi civilians. The charges against the four include assault, indecent assault which apparently involves making the victims engage in sexual activity between themselves, and a military charge of prejudicing good order and military discipline. This case has previously been referred to in the press. The case concerns conduct alleged to have occurred whilst the civilians were being temporarily detained, but not in a prison or detention facility. It involves photographic evidence developed in this country and referred to the UK police. A date for the trial has yet to be set by the military court service. Any trial will be held in public.

  As and when any further charges are laid against soldiers arising from incidents in Iraq I will inform the House of these charges by way of written statement and give all the information it is appropriate to give in advance of any hearing.

  To assist the House further I have made arrangements for three papers to be placed in the House Library. These deal with (a) procedures in relation to courts martial, (b) the contempt rules and how they apply to courts martial and (c) my Ministerial superintendence of the Army Prosecuting Authority."

  Three of the four soldiers accused were informed of the charges against them on 14 June. I can therefore confirm that their names are: Corporal Daniel Kenyon; Fusilier Gary Paul Bartlam; and Lance Corporal Mark Paul Cooley and that the charges relate to incidents which allegedly took place on or about 15 May 2003 in a camp just to the west of Basra.

  The Attorney-General will give the name of the fourth soldier by written answer once they have been informed of the charges against them.

  Iraq: Service Police Investigations
  The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith)
  Further to my Statement of 14 June (Official Report, cols. WS 22–24) three of the four soldiers accused were informed of the charges against them on 14 June. I can therefore confirm that their names are: Corporal Daniel Kenyon; Fusilier Gary Paul Bartlam; and Lance Corporal Mark Paul Cooley and that the charges relate to incidents which allegedly took place on or about 15 May 2003 in a camp just to the west of Basra.

  I will give the name of the fourth soldier by Written Answer once they have been informed of the charges against them.

  British Indian Ocean Territory
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  I would like to inform the House of developments in relation to the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT).

  In 1965, prior to Mauritius achieving independence in 1968, and with the agreement of the Mauritius Council of Ministers, the islands of the Chagos Archipelago were detached from Mauritius to form part of the British Indian Ocean Territory. The territory was created to provide for the defence needs of both Britain and the United States of America. Subsequently, the plantations on which the population of the islands had depended for their livelihood were run down and closed and the inhabitants—the Chagossians—were in due course relocated to Mauritius and Seychelles, from where they or their families originated. The vast majority of them automatically acquired Mauritian or Seychelles citizenship when those countries respectively achieved independence. In addition, the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 gave a large number of them British citizenship. This carries with it the right of abode in this country, which some of them have already taken up, and freedom of access to other EU countries. Following the relocation, Britain made £650,000 available for the express purpose of assisting resettlement. And in 1982 Britain made a further ex gratia payment of £4 million for the benefit of the Chagossian community in Mauritius.

  In November 2000 the High Court in the UK held in judicial review proceedings that a provision of the territory's immigration law which had previously precluded the Chagossians from returning to the territory without a permit was invalid. In the circumstances which then obtained, it was decided not to appeal against that ruling, and the immigration law was amended to reflect it.
  WS 26
  Following the departure of the Chagossians in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the economic conditions and infrastructure which had supported the community of plantation workers ceased to exist. While the judicial review proceedings were still pending, the Government therefore commissioned a feasibility study by independent experts to examine and report on the prospects for re-establishing a viable community in the outer islands of the territory. The latest report of the study was delivered after the November 2000 judgment and it was then placed in the Library of the House. It concluded that.
  "whilst it may be feasible to resettle the islands in the short term, the costs of maintaining long-term inhabitation are likely to be prohibitive. Even in the short term, natural events such as periodic flooding from storms and seismic activity are likely to make life difficult for a resettled population … Human interference within the atolls, however well managed, is likely to exacerbate stress on the marine and terrestrial environment and will accelerate the effects of global warming. Thus resettlement is likely to become less feasible over time".
  Specifically with reference to climate change, the report advised that,
  "the main issue facing a resettled population on the low-lying islands will be flooding events, which are likely to increase in periodicity and intensity and will not only threaten infrastructure, but also the freshwater aquifers and agricultural production. Severe events may even threaten life."

  The report also highlighted the implications for resettlement on such low-lying islands of the predicted increase in global sea levels as a result of climate change.

  In effect, therefore, anything other than short-term resettlement on a purely subsistence basis would be highly precarious and would involve expensive underwriting by the UK Government for an open-ended period—probably permanently. Accordingly, the Government consider that there would be no purpose in commissioning any further study into the feasibility of resettlement; and that it would be impossible for the Government to promote or even permit resettlement to take place. After long and careful consideration, we have therefore decided to legislate to prevent it.

  Equally, restoration of full immigration control over the entire territory is necessary to ensure and maintain the availability and effective use of the territory for defence purposes, for which it was in fact constituted and set aside in accordance with the UK's treaty obligations, entered into almost 40 years ago. Especially in the light of recent developments in the international security climate since the November 2000 judgment, this is a factor to which due weight has had to be given.

  It was for these reasons that on 10 June 2004 Her Majesty made two Orders in Council, the combined effect of which is to restore full immigration control over all the islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory. These controls extend to all persons, including members of the Chagossian community.

  The first of these two orders replaces the existing constitution of the territory and makes clear, as a principle of the constitution, that no person has the right of abode in the territory or has unrestricted

  WS 27
  access to any part of it. The second order replaces the existing immigration ordinance of the territory and contains the detailed provisions giving effect to that principle and setting out the necessary immigration controls. These two orders restore the legal position to what it had been understood to be before the High Court decision of 3 November 2000. I am arranging for copies of the orders to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Regional Planning Guidance for the West Midlands
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
  My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  Regional Planning Guidance 11 (RPG11) sets out the spatial strategy for the sustainable development of the region, with a framework for the land use aspects of housing and transport infrastructure and economic development. The strategy gives priority to the regeneration of the major urban areas and the regeneration zones identified in the regional economic strategy. RPG11 also sets out proposals for the conservation, management and enhancement of the region's natural and cultural environment.

  I am pleased that the vision, objectives and core strategy of RPG11 are largely as proposed in the draft RPG submitted by the West Midlands Regional Planning Body (RPB) in November 2001. This reflects the effective partnership working which was led by the RPB and involved local authorities and a wide range of other stakeholders. Many of these stakeholders have continued to make valuable contributions through the consultation process. Many of the comments received through the consultations have made a very positive contribution to the strategy.

  The West Midlands Regional Assembly, now the regional planning body, will continue to work with a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that RPG11 is effectively implemented, monitored and reviewed.

  School Inspection Arrangements
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland)
  My honourable friend the Minister for School Standards (Mr David Miliband) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I have today placed in the Library of the House, copies of a new publication A New Relationship with Schools. This document, produced jointly between the DfES and Ofsted, follows the speech I made at the
  WS 28
  North of England Education Conference in January and sets out our intentions to simplify school improvement processes, reduce bureaucracy and deliver an intelligent accountability framework. This new relationship will put a premium on ensuring effective and ongoing self-evaluation in every school combined with sharper-edged, lighter-touch, but no less rigorous external inspection. Ofsted consulted on the future of inspection proposals between 10 February and 8 April 2004. HMCI David Bell has now reached agreement with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on the changes. The document sets out our intention, subject to the scrutiny and approval of Parliament, to change the inspection system with a range of complementary changes for schools. Based upon the responses to the consultation and the work with LEAs and schools, actively engaged as our partners, I have confidence that these changes will improve education for pupils and ensure parents and the public know even more about the schools their children attend.

  New Relationship with Schools Proposals

  The DfES is currently developing detailed proposals for a new relationship with schools, which cover a group of interlocking changes that will affect school inspection, schools' relations with local and central government, schools' self-evaluation and planning, data collection from schools and communications with schools. They aim to reduce bureaucracy, strip out clutter, and release greater energy in schools.

  Future of Inspection proposals

  The new inspection system will mean shorter and more frequent inspections at shorter notice than at present. The proposed framework would allow two to five working days notice before an inspection instead of the current six to 10 weeks. There will be a greater emphasis on school self-evaluation and a simplified approach to schools causing concern. The current approach to schools that need special measures will be retained and a new improvement notice for other schools where there are weaknesses will be introduced.

  In the trials of the new inspection process, the outcome has been a stronger link between school improvement and the reports produced by inspectors. Schools have welcomed the new system.

  HMI will play a role in all inspections and inspection reports will be published within three weeks of an inspection, compared to four to five months at present. The proposals will reduce burdens on schools while ensuring that parents benefit from more frequent information about the quality and standard of education provided by schools. Overall the weight of inspection, with much sharper inspections, a smaller team, but at a greater frequency, will be roughly half the current weight.