Last December I commissioned an independent review of personnel security across the transport sector. This followed Lord West's review last year which focused on physical infrastructure and confirmed that, although it is impossible to eliminate every risk, a robust transport security regime is in place. The review of personnel security was conducted by Stephen Boys Smith who has now delivered his report. It contains a detailed assessment of current security processes and recommendations of where changes might be needed. Because of the sensitive nature of the subject matter, it is not appropriate to publish it in full, but I have published a short summary of the report, and of its key recommendations.
The Government and the transport industries are committed to countering the threat from terrorism. The existing security regime encompasses a wide range of measures which seek to reduce the potential threat from insiders. These measures include both personnel security measures, such as background checks, and physical security measures, such as the searching and screening requirements. Many of these physical security measures apply to industry staff as well as passengers. For instance, the UK requires airports to screen 100 per cent. of staff working in the restricted zone, and has played a leading role in ensuring that this approach has been incorporated into European regulations, as well as promoting it elsewhere.
Stephen Boys Smith's report acknowledges the effectiveness of the UK transport security regime, which overlaps multiple layers of security measures in this way. The report also points out that the more effectively the security regime mitigates external threats, the more likely it becomes that terrorists will look for vulnerabilities elsewhere. I therefore agree with the key message of the report: that there should be an increased focus on personnel security and that this should be informed by systematic analysis of the risks. This is consistent with work already in hand within the Government's counter-terrorism strategy "CONTEST", where personnel security is one of the workstreams.
The most important challenge will be to integrate fully a risk-based approach to personnel security into industry practices. This clearly cannot be delivered by Government alone. Only the industry has the detailed knowledge of its operations and systems that is needed accurately to identify the specific personnel security risks that it faces and how they might be mitigated. But the Government have a vital role to play in raising awareness of personnel security issues within the industry, providing guidance and support to the industry, and ensuring that full and rigorous assessments are carried out and that appropriate action is taken where vulnerabilities are identified.
For this reason, I have asked my Department to ensure with immediate effect that industry's attention is drawn to the advice which is already available (for example, that issued by the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure), and to enhance the personnel security elements of our existing training programmes. Alongside this, my officials will urgently work up policy options over the summer for a cross-industry conference, to be held in the autumn. This conference will identify the most effective approaches to embedding risk assessment in the personnel security regime. The next phase will be for Government and industry to work together, including through ongoing working groups such as the National Aviation Security Committee, to ensure that the necessary risk assessments are carried out and a clear programme of work delivered. This will require sustained effort by all.
I agree with the report's view that identity is a key factor in personnel security regimes and note its conclusion that ID cards are a useful addition to identity assurance. This endorses the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 6 March that ID cards will be part of the identity assurance regime for airside workers, starting in 2009. Officials from the Home Office and my Department are currently in discussion with the industry about how best to do this.
I also accept the report's advice that, in the light of experience both in the Security Industry Association (SIA) and within some sectors of the transport industry, overseas criminal record checks are now a more viable option than they have been in the past.
While checks of this kind are primarily intended to reduce crime, they can also provide a useful additional check on an applicant's integrity as part of the overall personnel security regime. I have therefore asked my Department to produce clear guidance, building on the approach taken by the SIA, to support those organisations whose risk assessments identify posts for which checks of this kind are necessary. Wherever such posts are identified, I would expect the industry to take rapid action, and my Department will be engaging closely with them over the coming months to ensure that this is the case.
Alongside this voluntary approach, which extends existing good practice in the industry, I believe there is also a case for introducing a mandatory requirement for those posts which present the highest risks, such as those with specific security responsibilities (and which are already subject to a counter-terrorism check). However, before such a requirement can be put in place, there remain a number of legal and practical challenges to be overcome. These including identifying an effective means of dealing with the variability of international criminal records systems and documentation, and developing an approach which does not have undue implications for the ongoing efficiency and security of industry operations.
I have therefore asked my Department to begin immediate discussions with employers and employees in the industry to agree a workable and effective approach to introducing such a requirement, with a view to implementation by the end of the year. In line with Stephen Boys Smith's recommendation, I would expect this to apply to new applicants for these posts, as employers can assess the integrity of existing employees in other, more effective ways.
Over the longer term, as the exchange of information between countries becomes more efficient, it may be appropriate to extend this requirement to other posts. I note here also the statement made on 16 July by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about Sir Ian Magee's review of criminality and the potential for overseas information to be more readily available to UK criminal record offices.
Finally, I agree with the view that whilst there should be some rebalancing of priorities between physical and personnel security activity, this should not result in a weakening of physical security programmes.
Copies of the report summary and recommendations have been laid in the Libraries of both Houses and will appear on the Department's web site.
On 20 February 2007 the then Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, announced a review of criminal cases in which Dr. David Southall had been a prosecution witness. The General Medical Council (GMC) had started a hearing to examine allegations that Dr. Southall had kept so-called "Special Case" (SC) files containing original medical records relating to his patients that were not also kept on the child's official hospital file. These files relate to the period 1980 to 2000. Concerns had been expressed that in some of those cases criminal proceedings may have been brought but the existence of the files not revealed, resulting in their not being available for disclosure as part of the prosecution process.
It was not clear at that stage whether or not there had been any such failures to discharge disclosure obligations. Lord Goldsmith decided to assess cases in which Dr. Southall had been instructed as a prosecution witness to determine whether he had kept a separate SC file; and if so to determine what further review might be required.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) undertook that assessment, establishing a Project Board and a Review Team under the leadership of a Chief Crown Prosecutor.
The Review Team
Identified criminal prosecutions to which individual SC files could be linked;
Retrieved original prosecution files;
Reviewed the SC files against the contents of the associated prosecution files to assess whether there were any grounds for concern as to whether the obligations of disclosure to the defence had been fully discharged; and
Reported their findings to the Attorney-General.
Dr. Southall provided all the SC files he held--a total of 4,344 files--in accordance with his undertaking to the GMC. Of the 4,344 SC files reviewed by the Team 82 were found to be linked to court proceedings of some kind. Of those, 40 were established to have been associated with a criminal prosecution conducted in this jurisdiction.
The Review Team then checked CPS records against these 40 SC files and identified a total of seven CPS prosecution files linked with a total of nine SC files. On reviewing these files in depth, the team found no grounds to suggest that there had been a failure to comply with the prosecution's obligations of disclosure to the defence. Accordingly the Review Team has advised, and the Attorney-General and I accept, that there is no reason to indicate that any of these cases needs to be referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
The ability of the Review Team to identify whether an SC file was linked with a prosecution, and then to locate the original prosecution papers, was constrained by a number of wholly practical factors. The team had to rely on the contents of the SC file for information suggesting that there may be linked criminal proceedings. In some older cases where there was such a link, the prosecution file no longer existed because of the application of the normal procedures for file destruction within the CPS after set periods of time. Differences between the methods of identifying SC files (which were linked to the patient) and CPS prosecution files (recorded by the name of the defendant) also made linking SC files to prosecution files difficult.
Nonetheless this review has been a valuable and worthwhile exercise. The Review Team has approached its task conscientiously and with care and thoroughness, for which the Attorney-General and I thank them.
The report makes a number of recommendations designed to reinforce the message that expert witnesses must fully understand their responsibilities in relation to the disclosure of information in criminal cases. These are explained in the CPS/ACPO "Guidance Booklet for Experts". The report's recommendations have been accepted and are being taken forward.
Recommendation seven is that the Department of Health and the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) should consider whether to conduct a similar review in relation to possible disclosure failings in family court proceedings. DCSF have now considered this recommendation--they agree that there should be such a review and that they are the appropriate department to conduct it. The review will focus on the 82 SC files which the Review Team found were linked to court proceedings of some kind. Thirty six of these were definitely linked to family proceedings. It is to be noted that if a disclosure failure were detected, this may, or may not, have any impact on the case, bearing in mind the passage of time and the fact that the welfare of the child is paramount in family proceedings. However, DCSF will follow the recommendation of the Review Team and conduct a review of the family cases.
The Review Team's report and recommendations (edited to preserve the anonymity of individual patients) have today been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
On 19 March, I published the United Kingdom's first ever national security strategy. It set out how we proposed to address and manage an increasingly diverse but interconnected set of security challenges and some of their underlying factors including climate change, competition for energy, poverty, and globalisation. The aim is to safeguard the nation, its citizens, our prosperity and our way of life, against a constantly changing security environment. I want to update the House on arrangements for support to the National Security Committee and proposals for parliamentary oversight of the delivery of the strategy.
As envisaged in the national security strategy, the Government will be establishing a national security forum. We want to promote a constructive and informed dialogue with experts, stakeholders and the public to understand the security challenges we face and how we need to tackle them. The forum will have a core group of 12 publicly appointed members reflecting the broad range of the subject areas in the national security strategy. It is likely to include people with a range of experience and expertise in these issues; and in addition to this core group we will create a register of up to 100 expert associates who could be called upon to provide advice in specific areas. The purpose of the forum will be to provide expert advice to the National Security Committee (Cabinet Committee on National Security, International Relations and Development (NSID)). It will be invited to focus on the published strategy to inform the annual updates, although it will be able to commission its own research subject to agreement of its programme by NSID.
In advance of setting up the forum as a non-departmental public body, I will be establishing an interim forum in the early Autumn. For the interim forum only, the Government will appoint their members on advice from the Cabinet Office. Though an interim body, it will begin substantive work immediately. The Chair of the interim body will be announced shortly. The national security forum will be supported by a new national security secretariat in the Cabinet Office. Alongside that, a horizon scanning unit will be established which will co-ordinate the security-related horizon scanning currently undertaken in a number of Government Departments, with the intention of giving it an overarching framework and a more coherent output.
It is important that we have the right form of parliamentary oversight of the national security strategy and its delivery. There are already a number of Select Committees, and the Intelligence and Security Committee, who have an interest in the development and implementation of the national security strategy; and any new arrangement should not duplicate their existing scrutiny work. I propose therefore to consult the parliamentary authorities and the Opposition through the usual channels about the establishment and terms of reference of a Joint Committee on the national security strategy comprising the Chairs of the key departmental Select Committees with an interest in national security, and other Members of Parliament and Peers with particular interests or experience.
In March, I said that Government would publish a "national-level risk register setting out our assessment of the likelihood and potential impact of a range of different risks that may directly affect the UK". We will be writing shortly to the chairs of the relevant Select Committees with our national risk register and placing copies in the Library of the House. Its purpose is specifically to give the public information about risks to the UK from natural disasters, accidents and malicious threats over the next five years so that those who wish to can prepare for the consequences. The national risk register will be a key tool in the development of community resilience networks, another national security strategy deliverable, which the Cabinet Office will be taking forward in the coming months and is the next step in improving the UK's resilience.
I have today laid before both Houses the annual reports of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner, the Rt. Hon. Sir Christopher Rose (HC 659); the Interception of Communications Commissioner, the Rt. Hon. Sir Paul Kennedy (HC 947); and the Intelligence Services Commissioner, the Rt. Hon. Sir Peter Gibson (HC 948).
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) established the regulatory framework for the use of a wide range of investigatory techniques. It sets out the purposes for which the powers can be used, the public authorities which can use them, the authorisation procedures which they must follow, and the use that can be made of the material obtained. It also provides for an appropriate oversight regime and a means of redress through the independent investigatory powers tribunal. The reports which I have laid before Parliament today set out how the RIPA investigatory powers have been used during the periods covered.
The Government continue to believe that the existing system of authorisations, inspections and other safeguards set out in RIPA is appropriate, and welcome the valuable oversight role discharged by the Commissioners appointed under RIPA. The independent oversight which they provide is vital in ensuring that the various powers are used appropriately and only when necessary and proportionate.
The Interception Commissioner's report notes that the investigatory powers tribunal reached determinations on 83 cases during the period covered. The tribunal did not uphold any complaints during this period.
A great deal has been done already to improve public authorities' awareness of the obligations placed on them, and to ensure that proper consideration is given to necessity and proportionality. We recognise, however, that there is always more that can be done. The Government are reviewing those public authorities that have access to these powers to ensure that they have a continuing and justifiable requirement for them. On completion, the Government will list the authorities that can use each of the powers and the purposes for which they can use them, and set out revised statutory codes of practice, which Parliament will have the opportunity to debate.
I am grateful to Sir Christopher, Sir Paul and Sir Peter, and to their support staff, for their work on these thorough reports.
I wish to make the following statement.
Procedure Committee reports on public petitions
The Procedure Committee published a report on e-petitions on 6 April (First report, 2007-08, HC 136). This followed its 2007 report on updating the traditional petitions procedure. Both these reports arose in part out of the growing search for measures to re-engage the public with Parliament and with politics, together with awareness of developments elsewhere including the way the petitions process operates in the Scottish Parliament. A number of changes were made to the House's petitions processes as a result of the 2007 report, including agreement within Government to respond to almost all petitions, for petitions and responses to be published in Hansard, and for encouraging individual Back Benchers to select petitions for debate or to 'tag' them to existing debates. The Committee indicated its intention of conducting a further inquiry into e-petitioning, noting the then recent introduction of the Number 10 petitions website.
This written ministerial statement responds to the Committee's further report on e-petitions, ahead of a proposed debate in the autumn, referring as applicable to the recommendations in the report.
The Government welcome the report from the Committee, as foreshadowed in the July 2007 Governance of Britain Green Paper, and endorses the basic recommendation for the House to develop an e-petitioning system. Such a system is likely to lead to a very significant increase in the number of petitions received. The Government agree with the Committee that e-petitioning will reinforce the House's historic role as recipient of public petitions and help to make a major contribution to making the House more accessible to the public (Recommendations 1-3).
Basic features of an e-petitioning system
The report proposes that an e-petitioning system should have the following basic features:
e-petitions to be submitted via the parliamentary website.
If they comply with the House's rules, the petitioner's constituency MP would be asked to act as facilitator.
The e-petition would then be posted on the parliamentary website for a set period, with others able to add their names.
At the end of the period, the e-petition would be closed; Members would also be able to indicate support.
It would then be formally presented to the House (either automatically or on the floor of the House). Petitioners and signatories could opt in to receive updates on the progress of the e-petition and/or up to two emails from their constituency MP.
E-petitions would be printed in Hansard and the Government will normally be expected to reply within two months of presentation.
There would be opportunities for petitions to receive further consideration by the House or by committee.
The petition website would close when Parliament is dissolved. The Committee indicates that these elements are to some extent illustrative and that a range of further details remains to be worked through. The Government agree with this basic approach. Further consideration will need to be given to whether it will be possible or proportionate for the Government to respond to all e-petitions given the large increase in the number envisaged (Recommendations 4-6 and 8-9).
Filters to ensure focused and relevant petitions:
The Procedure Committee proposes that the traditional 'Member link' to a petition, under which a petition should be sponsored by a Member (even if the sponsoring Member does not agree with the petition) should be retained. The constituency Member would be asked to act as facilitator (where the constituency Member is not willing or--in the case of a Minister--able to act as facilitator, another Member could act). The Committee also proposes that e-petitions should clearly state the action the petitioners desire the House to take and that the rules for petitions should be kept under review.
The Government agree that e-petitions should so far as possible be well-focused and relevant to the role of the House and national Government rather than about matters which are the responsibility of other authorities, such as devolved Administrations and legislatures and local authorities. This should be reflected in the rules and in the instructions to officials dealing with petitions, which may therefore need to be tighter than the current rules.
There would therefore be three interlinking filters to promote effective engagement between potential petitioners and the system:
the first point of contact for a potential petitioner would be via the website, operated by a petitions office, which would provide a first opportunity for the public to be guided as to alternative approaches if a petition was not an appropriate course (petitioners could also be required at this stage, as in the Scottish system, to confirm that they had already taken appropriate previous steps to resolve their issue);
the rules of order for petitions would be clearly set out on the website, minimising the scope for inappropriate petitions and assisting the petitions office in enforcing the rules; the rules would be drawn more tightly than the current rules, in terms of relevance to the role of the House and central Government; and
the constituency MP would automatically be approached to act as the facilitator for the petition, allowing a further opportunity for the Member to help to suggest alternative ways of addressing the issue raised where this would be helpful.
This process would help to retain a clearer distinction between petitions to the House of Commons and other petitioning or similar processes (Recommendations 7 and 12-14).
Outcomes
A vital aspect of e-petitioning, if it is to resonate with the public, is that petitioners should be able to see the effect of their pressure. At the same time, the structure should not raise expectations unrealistically.
As well as petitions generally leading to a Government response, the Procedure Committee proposes that e-petitions, as with traditional petitions, should be sent to Select Committees, which may choose whether or not to consider them further, and that provision should be made for debating certain e-petitions in Westminster Hall on three occasions each year (Recommendations 10-11).
The Government consider that there is a case for going further than this. One of the most effective features of the model of petitioning in the Scottish Parliament is the provision for some petitioners to be able to give direct evidence to an appropriate committee, usually in Scotland the Petitions Committee itself. Capacity at Westminster is already very stretched and it would not be appropriate to set up a specific committee. The existing departmental Select Committees are also stretched but could do this as one of their core tasks. The Government consider that over the course of a year it would be reasonable for them each to devote one day to the taking of oral evidence on petitions sent to them which they themselves had sifted for importance. They could then support the petitioners if they felt it appropriate. The mechanics for all of this would require further consideration. The Government would welcome the views of the Liaison Committee on this proposal.
Selection in committee would be a matter for the committee concerned, while the mechanisms for selection of any debates in Westminster Hall would be for further consideration. In both cases, selection would need to take into account all relevant factors (including other House and committee business). But while sheer number of signatures alone could not be the sole determinant--since this would fail to take into account the importance of the subject or the extent to which it had already been considered by the House--it would clearly be a significant factor.
Implementation and next steps
The Procedure Committee report emphasises that introduction of a new system will take time, not least because of the need to commission and procure the relevant IT systems. It proposes that debate on the proposals should be informed by a fuller estimate of likely costs and also that if the principle is agreed then the House service should also set up a programme for briefing Members and Members' staff on their roles under such a system. Importantly, the Committee notes that the new system will require a structure of political governance with a Committee given an oversight role to resolve detailed issues which will need deciding or refining. The Procedure Committee has indicated that it is itself prepared to undertake this role. It may have to report to the House from time to time, in an iterative process, to seek the endorsement of the House for the more high level issues (such as proposed rules of order for petitions). Significant further work would therefore be needed before the system comes into operation. The Government agree with these conclusions (Recommendations 15-19).
The Government therefore envisage providing time later in the year for a debate on the Committee's report and the proposed way forward. The debate would be on the basis of a Motion which would seek the House's endorsement for the principle of e-petitioning on the basis set out in this statement, instruct the House service to begin the design and tendering process, and charge the Procedure Committee with oversight of the introduction of the system and with consideration of more detailed rules of order for petitions to make the system work and to report back to the House as necessary. The Committee would also identify areas in which Standing Order changes may be necessary to make the system work, which would be considered by the House nearer the time of introduction of the new system.
The Government hope that the House will endorse this way forward, allowing it to take a significant step forward in helping to promote better engagement with the public. The Government notes that in due course the House of Lords may also wish to look at its own petitions procedures.
I am today publishing the outcome of my review into the operation of topical debates. I announced the review on 7 February, following their introduction in November 2007, on an experimental basis for the 2007-08 Session. My intention is to place topical debates on a permanent basis and to bring forward a motion before the end of the Session for the decision of the House.
Background
On 25 October 2007 the House welcomed the report of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, "Revitalising the Chamber: the role of the back bench Member"(1), and approved the proposals for change set out in the Government's response(2) to the report introducing topical debates on an experimental basis for the 2007-08 session.
In a written ministerial statement on the 12 November 2007, I set out the process for applying for such a debate, including the criteria on which they would be chosen. The first topical debate, on immigration, took place on 15 November 2007 (a full list of debates is below).
The review
I am grateful to all Members who submitted their views to me, either in writing or on the Floor of the House during business questions. Comments fell into three main areas; the choice of subject for debate (including the issue of the transparency of that process); the scheduling of debates and the time limit on speeches.
Choice of subject for debate
In its report the Modernisation Committee said that "subjects for topical debates would be announced by the Leader of the House following consultation with the Business Managers". In its response to the report, the Government recognised that the selection of debate would be announced by the Leader of the House following representations from opposition parties and Back Benchers.
Several alternatives to this approach have been proposed:
choosing the topic for debate via a ballot, as is the case for daily adjournment debates and some Westminster Hall debates, is one suggestion. The Government remain convinced that a ballot runs the risk that the chosen subject may not necessarily meet the required criteria that the issue is genuinely "regional, national or international", or allow for occasions where the House has had other opportunities to debate the issue. Also suggested was the topic of debate being chosen by a link to the number of names listed for a particular issue on either the Number 10 petitions website or for Early Day Motions. We believe this would give rise to similar problems;
the Procedure Committee proposed a business committee to take the decision, comprising the business managers together with backbenchers (one of whom would chair the committee). The Government do not consider that formalisation of the current informal processes in this way would be an improvement on the present process, particularly given the need to retain a level of flexibility in managing the time on the floor of the House; and
a further proposal raised during the weekly business statement, was that the Speaker should choose the topic. The Government do not support this view, as the Speaker would not wish to become involved in choosing a debate in Government time or adjudicating on the criteria, which could raise questions over his impartiality.
As the Modernisation Committee proposed, topical debates involve no increase to the overall time that the House sits, or any alteration to the nature of other business taken on those days when topical debates take place, which continue to be used for main business. Topical debates take place therefore within Government time. The original approach recommended by the Committee and endorsed by the House, of the final choice of subject resting with the Leader of the House after consultations, is consistent with this.
Transparency
Building on the increased transparency I announced in February (where we would publish a list of all subjects proposed for debate on a quarterly basis), I now propose that these lists should be produced on a monthly basis.
Scheduling of debates
The success of topical debates is dependent on backbenchers suggesting and attending them. The Procedure Committee evidence stated that "there are advantages with a predictable slot for topical debates...We believe, however, that taking them on Thursday has led to lower levels of participation than could have been expected on other days". The Government agree. We will therefore look for opportunities to schedule topical debates on days other than a Thursday, subject to other business management considerations.
Time limits
A concern has been raised regarding the time allocated to the second largest opposition party. Under Standing Order No. 24A, the governing party and the main opposition party currently have up to 10 minutes to speak (plus an additional minute for each intervention to a maximum of 10). In contrast, the spokesperson for the second largest opposition party is limited to six minutes (plus an additional minute for each intervention to a maximum of six). The effect of this, in topical debates where no other time limits are set, is that the spokesperson for the second largest opposition party has less time than Back Bench Members speaking in the debate. To address this I propose that the Standing Orders should be amended to limit all Front-Bench speeches to no more than 10 minutes each, with a reduction in the time allotted for interventions from a maximum of 10 minutes to five minutes. This would reflect the principle used for other debates and would increase the overall time available for Back Benchers, the control of this time being a matter for the Speaker under Standing Order No. 47.
Next steps
I have considered all representations. The Government believe that topical debates should continue, with the Leader of the House continuing to choose and announce the topic for debate.
Topical debates will continue to provide a forum for important debates on a wide range of issues. I urge Back Benchers to take the opportunity to request debates. This is the single biggest measure that will contribute to their future success.
The following list of key performance indicators has been set for Her Majesty's Courts Service for 2008-09:
To commence 78 per cent. of cases within the following time scales in the Crown court:
defendants' cases that are sent for trial within 26 weeks of sending;
defendants' committal for trial cases within 16 weeks of committal;
appeals within 14 weeks of the appeal; and
committals for sentence within 10 weeks of committal.
To speed up criminal cases in the magistrates courts so that, for charged cases, the average time from charge to disposal is less than six weeks.
Time taken to produce and send court results to the police (historical KPI):
95 per cent. court registers produced and despatched within three working days.
100 per cent. court registers produced and despatched within six working days.
To achieve an 85 per cent. payment rate for financial penalties in the magistrates courts.
For 60 per cent. of all breached community penalties to be resolved within 25 working days of the relevant failure to comply.
To increase the proportion of defended small claims that are completed otherwise than by court hearing to 65 per cent.
To increase the proportion of defended small claims that are completed (from issue to final hearing) within 30 weeks to at least 70 per cent.
Increase the amount of civil work initiated online--55 per cent. of eligible possession claims through PCOL and 70 per cent. of specified money claims through MCOL.
To ensure that 48 per cent. of care and supervision cases in the county court and 56 per cent. in the magistrates court are completed within 40 weeks.
To increase the proportion of residence and contact orders made by consent in the County Courts (excluding cases involving allegations of harm) to at least 37 per cent. in each HMCS area.
To increase the 'very satisfied' element of the HMCS court user satisfaction survey from the 2007- 08 baseline.
More information on these and other key supporting targets are published in the "HM Courts Service Business Plan for 2008-2009". Copies of the business plan for 2008-09 have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies are also available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.
The Justice and Home Affairs Council will be held on 24 and 25 July 2008 in Brussels. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice), Cabinet Secretary for Justice in Scotland (Kenny McAskill) and I will attend on behalf of the United Kingdom. As the provisional agenda stands, the following items will be discussed.
The morning of the Council will focus on asylum and immigration business, starting with a state of play report on the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum. The pact covers five areas: legal migration of third-country nationals, illegal immigration and returns; border controls; asylum; and partnership with countries of origin and transit (the "Global Approach"). The presidency is seeking agreement on the pact in time for the 15 October European Council. We support the strong focus on immigration and asylum issues under the French presidency and will use this as basis for stronger practical co-operation in the EU. The Government are generally content with the pact but will continue to work with the presidency on the detail of the final document.
There will follow a discussion on the directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment (commonly known as the EU Blue Card), which aims to set admission conditions for highly skilled migrants. It also proposes to determine the conditions in which third-country nationals who are legally residing in a member state under the proposal may reside with their family members in other member states. The French presidency is aiming for political agreement at the September JHA Council. The UK has not opted in to this measure since it does not fit with the UK's Points Based System.
The presidency is seeking an agreement to the directive providing for sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals by member states. The UK chose not to opt-in to this directive as a result of concerns in relation to the proposed definition of "employer", a notification requirement and inspections. However, the UK is seeking to influence discussions in order to amend the text in a manner which would allow a review of our opt-in position post-adoption of the directive.
The Council will be asked to agree conclusions on the taking in of Iraqi refugees by member states. The Government strongly agree that member states should be able to determine their own resettlement policies. The UK will continue to resettle Iraqi refugees under our established policies and selection criteria and do not consider common resettlement criteria to be feasible. We support sharing good practice.
The presidency would like to reach a general approach on the directive amending directive 2003/109/EC to extend its scope to beneficiaries of international protection. The UK has chosen not to opt-in to the proposed directive as we believe it is not in line with our Frontiers protocol. We want to determine the status of third-country nationals via the UK's Immigration Rules.
The Council then revert to discussions on interior business, starting with the Mixed Committee with Norway, Iceland and Switzerland. The presidency will present a state of play report on the draft regulation amending common consular instructions on visas for diplomatic and consular posts in relation to the introduction of biometrics. Although the United Kingdom does not participate in issuing Schengen visas, we welcome the efforts of Schengen member states in ensuring that the Schengen external EU borders are as secure as possible.
The Commission will also update the Council on the state of play of the Second Generation Schengen Information System (SIS II). The presidency will also look to agree the Council Regulation and Council Decision on the migration of SIS1+ to SIS II.
Under any other business in Mixed Committee, the Commission will present their communication on visa reciprocity. Although the United Kingdom does not participate in the EU Common Visa Policy, the United Kingdom will continue to support the principle of reciprocity and extending the US Visa Waiver Program to all EU member states.
The presidency intends to present its proposed working method on the Passenger Name Records Framework Decision to the Council. Their approach will focus on seeking agreement on the key issues of the dossier, namely scope, the depth of harmonisation necessary, data protection and relations with third countries. The presidency will also suggest that there should be consultation with data protection authorities, the European Parliament and carriers. The UK is in broad agreement with this approach and welcomes the ambitious programme of work outlined in the French proposal.
The presidency will present the final reports of the Future Groups on Home Affairs and on Justice, which aim to provide input to the new JHA work programme that will replace the Hague programme at the end of 2009. The Government see these reports as one element among several that should feed the debate on the direction of the new work programme.
The presidency will propose taking forward work to improve co-operation in tackling cybercrime. The UK supports action in this area to promote co-operation between private industry and public authorities, as well as between law enforcement. We will work with the presidency to develop their ideas.
On the morning of the second day, the Council will move to justice issues. The presidency will seek political agreement on the Council decision on strengthening Eurojust. This instrument aims to improve the efficiency of Eurojust, including by giving national members a minimum set of powers and increasing the flow of information between national competent authorities and Eurojust. The Government are content with the outcome of negotiations and believe the draft strikes a good balance.
The French presidency will also seek political agreement on the Council decision amending the European Judicial Network. This instrument is intended to update and replace the 1998 Joint Action which established the European Judicial Network and take account of subsequent developments in EU judicial co-operation, including the establishment of Eurojust in 2002. The Government are generally content with what is proposed.
The presidency will present a proposal for a Council decision on the establishment of the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS). There will be a policy debate on this measure which aims to find a standardised format for exchange of the content of a conviction, as well as other general and technical implementation aspects of the information exchange. The Government strongly support this measure insofar as it aims to improve and speed up the arrangements for exchanging information on past convictions.
There will be a policy debate about the Rome III Regulation (choice of law in divorce). The UK did not opt-in to the negotiations on this proposal. Member states have been unable to reach agreement on the measure, and some now wish to proceed by way of "enhanced co-operation". The treaty provides for this, as a last resort, where eight or more states wish to participate in something that falls within Community competence but cannot be attained within a reasonable period. If it went ahead, it would be the first use of enhanced co-operation. There is no expectation that the UK will participate and the Government do not intend to do so.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced in his statement on 14 November 2007 a review of what more we need to do to strengthen security to protect against the use of hazardous substances for terrorist purposes.
This review has been completed. I do not intend to publish it because I do not wish in any way to compromise our security. However, this statement provides a summary of the main conclusions of the review.
The review shows that a substantial amount of work has been undertaken in this area. It also identifies areas where further improvements could be made but recognises that we must ensure that protective security measures are proportionate to the risk. We need to ensure that individuals and businesses are free to carry on normal social, economic and democratic activities and, as a result, there will always be some vulnerability to the use of hazardous substances for terrorist purposes.
First, it is important to underline that considerable progress has already been made in recent years to reduce our vulnerability to the use of hazardous substances for terrorist purposes. The National Counter-Terrorism Security Office (NaCTSO) provide specialist advice regarding the security of a variety of hazardous substances. They have undertaken a range of activities to reduce the vulnerability of hazardous substances. These include "Know Your Customer" campaigns to raise awareness about the 'dual-use' nature of certain products and encouraging suppliers to be more enquiring of new customers and to report suspicious enquiries to police. NaCTSO have also played an important role in overseeing the local police Counter-Terrorism Security Advisers who implement part 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 which provides the police with powers to impose security measures at laboratories that hold certain dangerous pathogens and toxins.
The Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI) is the Government authority on protective security in relation to national security threats. CPNI works with NaCTSO to advise businesses and organisations on the security of hazardous substances and sites.
The Environment Agency has managed a Government-subsidised programme that has disposed of more than 9,000 disused radioactive sources from hospitals, universities, museums, schools and other sites across the UK. The Environment Agency, and their sister agencies in Scotland and Northern Ireland, working in partnership with NaCTSO, are also regulating the security of radioactive sources used at hospitals, universities and industrial sites throughout the UK. This review did not cover those nuclear or radiological materials used within the civil nuclear sector, as they fall under the specific regulatory regime led by the Office for Civil Nuclear Security.
The Transport Security and Contingencies Directorate of the Department for Transport (Transec) enforces a statutory regime for the security of dangerous goods in transit. The Department for Transport's Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) carries out inspections of vehicles at the roadside, and of road depots, on behalf of Transec. Transec's own inspectors carry out compliance activity for the movement of dangerous goods by rail in the UK.
The Government also welcome the steps that industry has been taking, through a knowledge of its customers and through codes of conduct, to help reduce the chances of abuse of hazardous substances. For instance, the UK Fertiliser Industry has developed, at the request of the UK Government, the Fertiliser Industry Assurance Scheme (FIAS) scheme.
The main outcome of the review is a new risk-based strategic framework to drive prioritisation of work to reduce the accessibility of hazardous substances for terrorist purposes. This will enable work to focus on reducing the accessibility of hazardous substances considered to be at highest risk, taking account of the need for a proportionate, cost effective and practical response. This will allow us to target resources where most needed and to improve the security of hazardous substances even further.
The framework will direct a cross-Government programme of work to reduce the vulnerability of highest risk substances. This programme will be delivered under the "Protect" strand of the Government's Counter-Terrorism Strategy (CONTEST) and will be led by the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism in the Home Office.
This framework has prioritised hazardous substances on the basis of the risk they pose, taking account of the threat, vulnerability and impact of those substances. The review examined the vulnerability of substances across their life-cycle (from their precursors through to their disposal).
We are reviewing the pathogens and toxins listed under schedule 5 of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 with the assistance of the Health Protection Agency. We are also considering whether further legislative changes are required to clarify the scope of the application of the legislation, and will consult on any proposed changes in due course as appropriate.
Another example of specific work underway as a result of the review is a joint Department for Transport-Home Office project which has been established to agree an impact-based list of substances of most concern, to inform our assessment of the risk, and to identify areas for further reduction of the vulnerability of these substances throughout the supply chain, including transportation.
We will continue to reduce the risks from the illicit transportation of hazardous substances at the UK border. We will build upon existing initiatives such as Programme Cyclamen, which provides radiation screening capability at UK points of entry to prevent the illicit importation of radiological substances, and will use the strategic framework to inform counter-terrorism requirements at the UK border, in conjunction with the UK Border Agency, the National Co-ordinator of Ports Policing and other stakeholders.
We are also considering what further work may be appropriate to reduce the vulnerability of hazardous sites and substances to insider action. This will build on existing work led by the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure and take account of the findings of the independent review of personnel security in the transport sector by Stephen Boys Smith.
In taking forward this work, the Government recognise the importance of engaging fully with industry and academia. In particular, we are committed to working with them to identify proportionate, risk-based measures. Equally important is the need to work with international partners to reduce the risk of terrorists acquiring hazardous substances. For example, we are currently working with our European partners to reduce the availability of high-grade ammonium nitrate fertiliser.
Taken together, the various recommendations of the review will further reduce the risk of terrorists obtaining hazardous substances and will increase the likelihood that those attempting to access such materials will be detected.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is today publishing proposed changes to the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the East Midlands ("The East Midlands Plan"). They follow the Public Examination held between May and July 2007 and the Panel Report published on 28 November 2007.
The Panel Report endorsed the strategy set out in the draft RSS, but made numerous recommendations to clarify and improve it. The Secretary of State has considered all of the panel's recommendations, along with other relevant evidence together with updates to the Sustainability Appraisal and a Habitats Regulations Assessment. The main changes that are being proposed are:
Increased housing growth across the region to 21,750 per year for the period 2006-26. Much of the additional growth is proposed in and around the main cities of Derby, Leicester and Nottingham, recognising growth related to Growth Point agreements in those cities and surrounding areas (that is, the Three Cities Growth Point) and in other Growth Point agreements at Lincoln, Newark and Grantham.
No change to Growth Area plans in Northamptonshire, which were set in the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-regional Strategy in 2005, though the plan period for the area is extended to 2026 and the housing provision figure for Northampton is replaced following a successful legal challenge (in 2006) which quashed the original figure.
Reduction in housing provision in Lincolnshire coastal districts (East Lindsey, Boston and South Holland) pending a coastal strategy being agreed which will consider growth needs and flood risk implications.
A new policy relating to affordable housing in rural areas has been added, and increased pitch requirements for Gypsies and Travellers are also proposed.
Rejection of the Panel's recommendation to delete Green Belt areas around Nottingham.
Removal of site specific references to major development sites around Nottingham, Leicester and Lincoln.
I have today written to the East Midlands Regional Assembly with the proposed changes which will be published today on the Government Office for the East Midlands website at: www.goem.gov.uk and distributed to interested people and organisations across the region. There will now be a public consultation period of 12 weeks on the proposed changes, which will end on 17 October.
Copies of the relevant documents will be placed in the Library of the House and will also be sent to all of the region's MPs, MEPs and local authorities.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is today publishing proposed changes to the draft revisions of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South-West.
The Regional Spatial Strategy forms part of the statutory development plan for every local authority in the South-West, and sets the framework for the production of Local Development Frameworks and Local Transport plans. It provides the spatial plan for the development of the region, and provides the policy framework for employment, housing, transport and the environment.
The current strategy, initially published as Regional Planning Guidance, became the Regional Spatial Strategy in September 2004 with the enactment of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act. A draft revision of the Regional Spatial Strategy was submitted to Government in April 2006 by the South-West Regional Assembly. It was subsequently tested in an Examination in Public (EIP) between April and July 2007 and the report of the independent panel which conducted this examination was published in January this year.
The Secretary of State has considered the recommendations of this independent panel which held the EIP and has taken into account the representations made on the draft revision, and also changes in Government policy since the draft revision was submitted.
Today's publication of the Secretary of State's proposed changes now represents the commencement of a public consultation of 12 weeks. Also being published are the report of a sustainability appraisal of the proposed changes and a Habitats Regulations Assessment.
Following consideration of the responses to the consultation, the Secretary of State expects to publish the finalised Regional Spatial Strategy for the South-West by the end of the year. On final publication it will supersede the current RSS.
In writing to the Regional Assembly to give notice of the publication of proposed changes, I have drawn particular attention to the need for further work by both the region and Government on the infrastructure required to deliver the strategy.
Copies of the relevant documents have been placed in the Library of the House and have been provided for all of the region's MPs, MEPs and local authorities.
Yesterday, I wrote to the chair of the DCSF Select Committee to update him on the position with the return of national curriculum test results to schools, placing a copy of the letter in the Libraries of both Houses.
Further results have been released to schools by ETS Europe this morning, taking the total of scripts marked and released to over 98 per cent. of marks at key stage 2 and some 88 per cent. in key stage 3--94.1 per cent. in maths, 93.4 per cent. in science and 76.9 per cent. in English.
QCA confirmed in a statement over the weekend that they are in discussions with ETS Europe following the unacceptable delays in delivering this year's national curriculum test results. These discussions are highly sensitive--legally and financially--and, as I set out to the House yesterday, it is very important that the QCA should be allowed to conclude them in a timely and orderly fashion in order to safeguard the interests of pupils, schools and taxpayers. Ministerial intervention, at this stage, would be totally inappropriate and would jeopardise the public interest.
I shall continue to update Parliament regularly over the coming weeks on progress with release of results and Ofqual's work on marking quality. I will write regularly with an update to the chair of the Select Committee, copying this letter to Opposition spokespeople and the Speaker and placing a copy of the letter in the Libraries of both Houses.
At the same time, and following my oral report to the Select Committee last week, Lord Sutherland has started work on his independent inquiry and will be collecting evidence in August and September before reporting publicly (when the House returns) in the Autumn.
