| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to give a slightly more robust answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who asked whether the
26 Apr 2007 : Column 764
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that the noble Earl is going to become an even more regular rail traveller, and that the Benches opposite are now full of those wishing to travel by rail. I would almost invite them all to put their hands up if they have taken a rail journey this week.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I correct the Minister. He said that I was going to become a greater rail traveller than at present. I did not say that.
Lord Teverson: My Lords, the real challenge in the medium term is capacity, as the Minister mentioned. The huge increase in rail and passenger traffic is good, but it will stretch the rail network, causing prices to increase in comparison with air travel and other forms of transport. Do the Government have an answer to capacity problems in the medium term?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have had a massive increase in rail investment. We have so far matched the challenge, and I see us matching the challenge of the future. We predict a 30 per cent increase in rail usage over the next 10 to 15 years. We are investing more in rolling stock, the quality of which has undoubtedly improved over the past few years. It is a challenge but one that we need to meet because of all the environmental benefits which many noble Lords recognise as a virtue of the rail network.
Palestine: Alan Johnston
11.35 am
Baroness Deech asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What further steps they are taking to secure the release of the BBC journalist Alan Johnston, and to obtain information about his detention.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): My Lords, we are extremely concerned by the kidnap of Alan Johnston in Gaza on 12 March. We have called for Alan’s unconditional release, and continue to do so. We are working closely with the Palestinian Authority. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have spoken to Palestinian President Abbas, and our consul-general in Jerusalem has met President Abbas and Prime Minister Haniya.
We remain actively engaged. We are in close touch with the BBC and Alan’s family. Our thoughts are with them at this difficult time.
Baroness Deech: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the efforts clearly being made. Does he agree that the situation is a triple tragedy—for the Johnston family, for the Palestinians, and for efforts to maintain
26 Apr 2007 : Column 765
Lord Triesman: My Lords, the abduction of Alan Johnston has done no favours whatever to the people of Gaza. He produced, reliably, and on the basis of staying in a very dangerous environment, extremely high-quality and objective reporting. That was what was needed. It is a tragedy for everybody concerned and I hope that people, whether in trade unions or not, will give the most careful consideration to whether they are helping others to move in a constructive direction.
Lord Dykes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this abduction is totally unacceptable for such a distinguished and hard-working journalist? We thank the Government for the work they are doing in trying to secure his release. Gaza is a hotbed of turbulent rumours; is the Minister aware of the rumours that recur from time to time of some bizarre connection between this and the attempt by Palestinian militants and others to secure the release of a large number of Palestinian refugees held, mostly without trial, by the Israeli authorities? The number is about 8,000, which, pro-rated, is equal to twice the entire prison population of the United Kingdom.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I hope the House will bear with me. In these very delicate circumstances, in which we are trying to ensure the safe release of a distinguished journalist, I really do not want to speculate on the issues. Almost anything said in this House will be read by those whom we believe may hold Alan Johnston. I do not want to forearm them at this difficult time.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, is it not the case that, even as we speak, Members of the European Parliament, from all parties and countries, are voting to support the urgent call for the release of Alan Johnston? That, surely, is a practical and tangible way of showing support. What opportunity do we have in this Chamber, where there is clearly enormous support, for sending a similar message of support to Alan Johnston and his family and of our hope for his speedy release?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I am quite sure that that is needed and desired on all sides of the House. I will ensure that the sentiments of the House are conveyed to the Palestinian Authority and all others in the region, if that is acceptable to your Lordships. I applaud all those in the international community, including those in the European Parliament today who are making their voices heard, and the journalists from all parts of the Middle East who, irrespective of their views about the peace process, have added their voices. That is constructive: speculation on the precise nature of any discussions is not.
26 Apr 2007 : Column 766
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we join the Minister in the concerns that he expressed and the sympathies that he extended to both the family of Alan Johnston and all his colleagues in the BBC and elsewhere. Will he throw light on one aspect? A sinister report came from an obscure terrorist group—I think that it was the Brigades of Tawhid and Jihad—that Mr Johnston had been executed and that further evidence of it would be provided. No further evidence has appeared and the story seems to have vanished from the press. What is his assessment of that story?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I will try to answer with the greatest circumspection, for all the reasons that I have given. We are all aware of the reports that Alan had been killed, and of President Abbas’s more recent suggestion that he is still alive. We are unable to verify this in either direction.
Baroness Tonge: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree that this is yet another terrible example of the deteriorating situation in the Occupied Territories. Has he had discussions or contact with the Israeli Government about the proposals recently put forward by 22 Arab nations, led by Jordan?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I can confirm that the quartet has taken up those suggestions and they are being played into the discussions with the Israeli Government. It is essential that those discussions lead towards a two-state solution and to real security for each of the peoples involved. A new dynamic was added, and we need to capture it.
Ministry of Justice
11.42 am
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, namely:
To ask Her Majesty's Government on what grounds they have concluded that transferring responsibilities for prisons to the Department for Constitutional Affairs under the Lord Chancellor’s direction and renaming it Ministry of Justice is consistent with the statutory responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the Lord Chancellor has specific duties to defend the independence of the judiciary under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Section 20 of, and Schedule 7 to, that Act also provide that ministerial responsibility for the courts must remain with the Lord Chancellor so that independence can be protected. In addition, the Lord Chancellor has a duty properly to resource the court system under the Courts Act 2003. The Ministry of Justice was created on the specific basis, as the statutes require, that the
26 Apr 2007 : Column 767
The Lord Chief Justice has made it clear that the senior judiciary have no objections in principle to the creation of a Ministry of Justice, subject to the provision of safeguards to protect the independent administration of justice. A working group, chaired by the DCA Permanent Secretary and on which senior members of the judiciary sit, reporting to me and the Lord Chief Justice, has been convened to address these issues and will report. I am confident that, through the working group and other discussions that I am holding with the judiciary, we will be able to agree what safeguards are necessary.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, bearing in mind that the noble and learned Lord, with his new responsibilities for prisons, will be subject to frequent judicial reviews, and that he is likely on occasions to be found to have failed to respect the rule of law, does he agree that that state of affairs is in conflict with his statutory duty, unique among Ministers, to protect our constitutional principle of the rule of law, with the result that the authority of his office will be undermined and its role weakened?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords, I do not accept it. There is nobody in our estate who is not subject to judicial proceedings. The Lord Chancellor has always been subject to judicial proceedings. The fact that from time to time the Lord Chancellor has lost judicial proceedings has not for one moment meant that his position has been undermined because he, like everybody else in this country, respects the law, and that is how it should be. I do not think for one moment that the prospect of being brought to court means that you cannot have a Ministry of Justice, nor does it mean that you cannot have proper safeguards. That is why the senior judiciary agree that subject to those safeguards there can be an effective Ministry of Justice.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the revised oath for the Lord Chancellor in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 reads:
“I ... do swear that in the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain I will respect the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary and discharge my duty to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts for which I am responsible”.
The noble and learned Lord may not as yet have taken that oath because he was already in post. Is he prepared to give us an assurance that the resources for the courts will be ring-fenced and that the resources available to the judiciary and court system will not be reduced by the demands of the prison population, the building of more prisons and so on?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I commit myself to the terms of the oath. In addition to the terms of the oath, I am rightly subject to a statutory duty properly to resource the courts. I do not agree that ring-fencing is right; for example, last year it was
26 Apr 2007 : Column 768
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, would it not have been a good idea if the Government had sought the views of Parliament before undertaking these substantial changes?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, these matters were told to Parliament first on 29 March. The machinery of government is a matter for the Prime Minister.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, if something goes very badly wrong in the prisons, it would be normal for the Minister responsible to resign, so I presume that if there is a massive prison break because there is a failure in the Prison Service the Lord Chancellor will have to ignore his responsibility to the judiciary and resign as a responsible Minister.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, if the Lord Chancellor is guilty of something that requires his resignation, nothing in relation to his obligation to the courts prevents him resigning.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, what is the rush on this? Why would it not have been possible to set up the working groups and have a proper consultation before deciding to break up the Home Office and set up this Ministry of Justice? When the noble and learned Lord says that Parliament was told, are the Government not accountable to Parliament and should Parliament not have had an opportunity to hear the views of outside interests before a conclusion was reached on this matter by the Executive?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, a balance has to be struck, and ensuring that the Prison Service, Probation Service and the courts know where the political leadership is. Time has been set aside to have the discussions; the working party was set up before the announcement was made to Parliament and the matters were discussed with the judiciary before the matter was raised in Parliament.
Lord Woolf: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware—as I am sure that he is—of the concerns of the judge in charge of the Central London County Court as to the lack of resources? As I understood it, the statement that he made was certainly not only in relation to maintenance; he referred to a crisis in the civil justice system.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am aware of the concerns expressed by his honour Judge Collins, which, I should make it clear, have nothing whatever to do with the issue of the Ministry of
26 Apr 2007 : Column 769
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord confirm that there is no slippage about the transfer of functions, which we were told initially was likely to be on 8 May?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, none.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, what is the logic behind the transfer of prisons to a Ministry of Justice? Why would it not be appropriate to leave the enforcement of penalties, along with the activities of the police, in the Home Office?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe that bringing together responsibility for the courts, prisons, probation, criminal law and criminal justice means that there is much clearer co-ordination and a much greater sense of the consequences of what the courts do in driving much better outcomes in the penal system.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend recall that it was the policy of the Liberal Democrats to set up a department of justice?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it was and they are nodding.
Business of the House: Debates Today
11.50 am
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of Lord James of Blackheath set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of Lord Bruce-Lockhart to two hours.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
NHS: Resources
11.51 am
Lord James of Blackheath rose to call attention to budgetary reporting and the use of resources in the National Health Service; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the title of our debate today indicates a concern with how the resources of the National Health Service are allocated, used and are subject to budgetary reporting. The debates on the National Health Service that I have attended so far contained wish lists similar to those that children send to Santa Claus at Christmas, which is all very well if
26 Apr 2007 : Column 770
I start with my concerns based on the published quarterly accounts, as filed in the Library here. I shall then explain how they are confirmed by the overall expenditure figures and conclude with a plea to the Government to present NHS accounts in a manner that would better allow us to monitor its solvency and financial performance.
The previous two published quarterly filings of the Department of Health report on the National Health Service show what looks to be a very encouraging trend: there is a forecast improvement from a £683 million deficit to a £13 million surplus in just six months. However, we should be a little cautious before we start to celebrate.
I have had an exchange of Written Questions and Answers with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, from December 2006, and he has been very patient and tolerant in answering seven of my eight Questions. I have asked the eighth Question three times and received three Answers from him, but they were never responses to the question that I asked, which is rather surprising because it was not a particularly swervy ball. All I asked was the value of the deferred cost of the redundancy programme and the lost value of income expected from that programme, which will now occur in the middle of this year, and which I needed for my modelling exercise. In one of his Answers, the noble Lord emphasised that the new forecast surplus of £13 million for the current year is after deferral of the previously announced redundancy programme but also after utilising the last available contingency for the NHS this year, amounting to £350 million.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also told me in a Written Answer in January that the strategic health authorities had,
He went on to explain that SHAs had,
- “reported their ability to create an additional £100 million through their continued management of the central budget programme”.—[Official Report, 29/1/07; col. WA 17.]
Such creationism is of some concern, as it is surely normally to be found only in the Book of Genesis. Are we now to believe that the Government are looking for divine intervention to save their National Health Service figures?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |