| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The UK remains committed to achieving an ambitious, pro-development outcome to these negotiations. Our priority now is to encourage all WTO members to re-engage in the negotiations as soon as possible. The UK Government have taken and will continue to take every opportunity to press for this—within the EU and with other WTO members. The UK Government will also continue to press for progress on Aid for Trade for developing countries. Building developing countries’ capacity to trade is important in helping them to integrate into the global economy and for providing a route out of poverty and we do not believe that Aid for Trade should be conditional on the successful conclusion of the DDA.
The UK will continue to support a multilateral, rules-based, international trading system. We believe multilateralism is the best way of tackling unfair trade practices.
World War I: Pardons
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Des Browne) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
On 16 August I announced that the Government planned to seek parliamentary approval for a statutory pardon for service personnel executed for a range of disciplinary offences during the First World War. I am now taking this opportunity to confirm these plans to the House and to provide some further information on our intentions.
I have reviewed carefully the case for granting pardons and concluded that although this is a difficult issue it is right to recognise the exceptional circumstances that gave rise to these executions and to show compassion to the families who have had to live with the associated stigma over the years.
Given the paucity of records for the courts martial of those executed, I have taken the view that it would not be appropriate or fair to consider individual pardons under the Royal Prerogative but that a statutory pardon for all members of the group should be introduced. This approach removes the risk of individual cases failing to meet the criteria for a pardon under the prerogative simply because of lack of evidence.
It is the Government's intention to introduce an amendment to the current Armed Forces Bill during the Lords Committee stage to give effect to this. Rather than naming individuals, the amendment will pardon all those executed following conviction by court martial for a range of offences likely to have been strongly influenced by the stresses associated with this terrible war; this will include desertion, cowardice, mutiny and comparable offences committed during the period of hostilities from 4 August 1914 to 11 November 1918. Over 300 individuals from the UK, her dominions and colonies were executed under the Army Act 1881. We will also seek pardons for those similarly executed under the provisions of the Indian Army Act 1911, records of whose identities we have not been able to locate. We consider that it would not be appropriate to include in the pardon all capital offences and specifically the offences of murder and treason will be excluded.
In each case, the effect of the pardon will be to recognise that execution was not a fate that the individual deserved but resulted from the particular discipline and penalties considered to be necessary at the time for the successful prosecution of the war. We intend that the amendment should so far as possible remove the particular dishonour that execution brought to the individuals and their families. However, the pardon should not be seen as casting doubt on either the procedures and processes of the time or the judgment of those who took these very difficult decisions.
The pardon would apply to those sentences of execution confirmed and carried out but convictions would not be quashed. The amendment will not create any right to compensation and the Royal Prerogative of Mercy will remain unaffected.
As the amendment would affect the cases of personnel who were serving in the Armed Forces of a number of dominions and colonies, we are consulting with the Governments of those states or their successors on our plans. We are expecting to receive their responses shortly but I can confirm that our decision has already been welcomed by one of those principally affected. I anticipate the Government's proposal will also be warmly welcomed by the public at large and particularly by the families concerned.
Young Offender Institutions: Lambert Report
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Gerry Sutcliffe) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
On 16 September 2004, Paul Goggins, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Correctional Services, announced the appointment of David Lambert, a former assistant chief inspector of social services, to examine the operational issues raised by the tragic death of Joseph Scholes at Stoke Heath Young Offender Institution in 2002.
David Lambert completed his report in October 2005. The Government have considered it and responded to its recommendations. I am placing copies of the report and of the Government's response in the Library of the House. Both documents can also be accessed at http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/lambert-report-180906 and http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/lambert-report-govt-response.
As well as identifying procedures and practices that require further development, the report notes the positive steps that have been taken since Joseph's death to improve assessment, placement and safeguarding of young people in custody.
Disability: Independent Living Funds
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Anne McGuire) has made the following Statement.
On 3 May 2006 in a Written Ministerial Statement, I announced details of a strategic review of the independent living funds which, it was then planned, was to be concluded by the end of December 2006.
The review is currently under way. The joint independent consultants, Melanie Henwood and Bob Hudson, have developed a consultation strategy to gather evidence to inform the review's recommendations. As part of the consultation strategy, consultants have requested concise, written submissions from key stakeholders by the end of August 2006. Following several requests from stakeholders, my department has decided to extend this deadline to the end of September 2006. This extension will result in the review being completed later than originally planned.
The strategic review of the independent living funds will, accordingly, conclude by the end of January 2007, with its report being published in February 2007.
The independent living funds enable thousands of severely disabled people to live independently and the Government need to consider the future direction of the funds in the light of both our goal of equality for disabled people and the wider context of proposed changes in social care. It is therefore important that we provide sufficient time for our stakeholders’ input to this review.
EU: Economic and Financial Affairs Council
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
The informal Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) took place in Helsinki on 8 and9 September 2006.
The informal council discussed global competition, innovation and productivity, including the role that financial markets can play in promoting innovation, productivity and research and development.
Ministers discussed the economic and financial aspects of energy, including both external energy policy and the development of a single market for energy in Europe.
The informal council also discussed the working methods of ECOFIN; financial market and stability issues; the present economic situation and prospects for the global economy; and the preparation of the annual meetings of the Bretton Woods institutions.
The UK was represented by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Ed Balls MP.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
Items on the agenda are as follows:
Price stability criterion: Finance Ministers will be briefed on the application of the price stability criterion used for assessing entry to the euro.
Stability and growth pact: Council will receive Commission communications regarding Germany and the UK, and will be invited to adopt an opinion on the updated convergence programme for Hungary and a Council recommendation under Article 104(7).
Energy, innovation, financial stability arrangements and working methods: Finance Ministers will be invited to adopt conclusions taking into account the discussions held at the informal ECOFIN Council meeting in Helsinki on 8 and9 September.
Better regulations, administrative burdens: Council will be invited to adopt conclusions to support the Commission's approach to measuring and reducing administrative burdens resulting from EU legislation.
The quality of public finances: Ministers will be invited to adopt conclusions on a report regarding the design of national fiscal rules and institutions in EU member states.
EIB external lending mandates: following an initial debate at the July ECOFIN, Council will continue to discuss issues relating to the renewal of the EIB's mandate for the lending that it carries out outsidethe EU.
Clearing and settlement: Ministers will hold an exchange of views on the Commission's approach to tackling barriers in the clearing and settlement industry.
Single euro payments area: Council will be invited to adopt conclusions on the single euro payments area initiative, which will deliver a common system for cross-border payments in euro.
Freedom of Information
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): Today I have deposited copies of The Freedom of Information Act 2000—Statistics on Implementation in Central Government April to June 2006 in the Libraries of both Houses. This is the sixth quarterly bulletin produced by the DCA monitoring the performance of central Government and associated bodies under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Please note that this report contains some revisions to previously published statistics on disclosure outcomes. A full explanation of the changes is given in the report.
Legal Aid: Inquests
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
With the agreement of the Lord Chancellor, I am pleased to announce the amendments to the Lord Chancellor’s authorisation on inquest funding and related changes to the Community Legal Service (Financial) Regulations 2000. These amendments came into force on 2 October 2006 and will streamline the process for providing legal aid in those exceptional inquests that require it.
Since 1 November 2001, the Legal Services Commission (LSC) has had the power to grant funding for advocacy, to the immediate family of the deceased, at certain inquests where the deceased has died in police or prison custody, or in the course of police arrest, search, pursuit or shooting.
From 2 October 2006, the LSC will also be able to grant funding for advocacy in certain inquests where the deceased has died while detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. The LSC will also have the power to waive the financial eligibility limits—and, where appropriate, financial contributions—for legal aid in these inquests. For all other inquests, the Lord Chancellor retains the power to authorise exceptional funding for advocacy and to waive the financial eligibility limits.
These changes will simplify the current arrangement and help to provide prompt access to legal representation for the families of the deceased in those exceptional inquests where Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires it.
Copies of the amended authorisation and amendment regulations have been laid in the Libraries of both Houses.
Legal Services Bill
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): On Monday 25 September, the Government published their response to the recommendations made by the Joint Committee on the draft Legal Services Bill in its report of 25 July.
The Government regard pre-legislative scrutiny as a vital step in the consultation process and I would like to thank Lord Hunt of Wirral and the Joint Committee for their swift and thorough deliberation of the draft Bill.
The Government welcome the Joint Committee's support for the overall framework put forward in the draft Bill. We look forward to introducing legislation, as soon as parliamentary time allows, that reflects the interests of everyone and provides a legal services market where excellence continues to be delivered.
NHS: Audited Accounts
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health (Patricia Hewitt) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
My department has today published the audited figures for the NHS for the financial year 2005-06. These show that the NHS recorded a deficit in 2005-06 of £547 million.
At the time of publication, the final figures for one trust, Whipps Cross Hospital NHS Trust, have not been agreed with auditors. However, London Strategic Health Authority has confirmed to me that it does not expect the final figures from this trust to materially affect the national position.
My department’s report on NHS finances at quarter 1 of 2006-07 indicates that the NHS is on track to achieve our aim of net financial balance by the end of the current financial year.
Audited figures by organisation for each strategic health authority have been placed in the Libraryand will be published today on the department'swebsite at www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidanceArticle/fs/en?CONTENTID=4139550&chk=MbVP%2BG.
NHS: Foundation Trusts
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health (Patricia Hewitt) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
The chairman of Monitor (the statutory name of which is the Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts) announced last week that, in accordance with Section 6 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003, Monitor had decided to authorise Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust as a NHS foundation trust from 1 October.
Monitor's announcement brings the total number of NHS foundation trusts to 49. A copy of Monitor's press notice has been placed in the Library.
The Government remain committed to offering all NHS acute and mental health trusts the opportunity to apply for foundation status as soon as practicable. Further waves of NHS foundation trusts are set to follow.
Northern Ireland: Independent Monitoring Commission Reports
Lord Rooker: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Peter Hain) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
I have received the 11th and 12th reports of the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC). These reports have been made under Article 5 and Articles 4 and 7 of the international agreement that established the commission and reports on security normalisation and levels of paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland respectively. I have considered the content of the reports and I am today bringing them before Parliament. I have placed copies in the Library of the House.
I thank the members of the Independent Monitoring Commission for their 11th report, their second report on security normalisation in Northern Ireland. I am pleased to note that they consider that the Government continue to fulfil their obligations to the people of Northern Ireland by ensuring that their safety and security are protected.
I also thank the members of the Independent Monitoring Commission for their 12th report and acknowledge the painstaking, methodical and objective way in which they have conducted their assessments of paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland during the past three years.
The best commentary on it is the words of the IMC itself and I believe that they should be studied with care. As the IMC notes, the situation in Northern Ireland has been transformed from whatit was three years ago—particularly in regard tothe IRA. As the report concludes, the IRA is not the same organisation as it was three years ago. The IMC’s clear conclusion is that the leadership of the IRA does not consider a return to terrorism in any way a viable option, and that it continues to direct its members not to engage in criminal activity. Importantly, the IMC assesses that the IRA has disbanded its structures that were responsible for procurement, engineering and training and has stood down volunteers.
The IMC also concludes that the leadership has maintained a firm stance against the involvement of members in criminality and taken action against members who have continued such activity. We also note that the report says that, where individuals have been involved, as individuals, in criminality, that has not been sanctioned and it should not call into question the leadership’s position.
The IMC concludes that there is convincing evidence of the IRA’s continuing commitment to the political path and believes that it is no longer credible to suggest otherwise. The significance of these statements cannot, and should not, be underestimated.
I also acknowledge and welcome the report’s finding that the work of IRA members, along with that of loyalist paramilitaries, contributed significantly to the most peaceful marching season since the 1960s.
Like the IMC, the Government, however, believe that further progress needs to be made on the issue of policing, though welcoming the report’s conclusion that the IRA leadership has accepted the need for engagement.
It is also important to note the report’s conclusion that some members of the UDA and UVF continue to try to move their organisations away from violence and criminality—though I agree with the IMC that there is much more to do if the loyalist organisations are to match the profound change brought about by the IRA.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |