Clause 17 of the Finance Bill entitled, "authorised unit trusts and open-ended investment companies", contains powers to make regulations relating to the taxation of authorised investment funds. In order to inform discussion in Committee of the measures contained in clauses 17 to 19 of the Bill, I am arranging for a description of what these regulations will cover to be placed in the Library of the House.

It has been a key principle of the Government's approach to dealing with the concerns of 1990–91 Gulf veterans that the Ministry of Defence will fund appropriate research into Gulf veterans' illnesses issues. In 2003, at MOD's request, the Medical Research Council (MRC) undertook a review of research into Gulf veterans' illnesses and provided recommendations about where future studies should focus. One recommendation was that MOD should pursue research to replicate preliminary US neuro-imaging studies in the UK. The MRC subsequently hosted meetings of experts in order to consider what research might be carried out in the UK. Among the conclusions reached by the expert group was that a major study now underway in the US is likely to be definitive, and that there is no need to replicate the preliminary work in the UK. The group were also unable to identify a specific way in which neuro-imaging studies could provide clear benefit to UK veterans. On 8 June 2005 the MRC advised that based on current evidence they do not recommend that this area of work be taken forward. Taking that advice into account, MOD has decided that it will not now proceed with neuro-imaging studies, although it would not close off the possibility of looking again at this once ongoing US studies have reported. The MOD continues to work with the MRC to take forward other recommendations of the MRC's 2003 review particularly in the area aimed at improving the long term health of veterans with persistent symptoms.

The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council met on 2–3 June. I represented the United Kingdom. Items on the agenda relating to health were covered on 3 June. Items for discussion were: European Commission proposals for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on medicinal products for paediatric use; and the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on nutrition and health claims made on foods; the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the addition of vitamins, minerals and other substances to food; the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a programme of community action in health and consumer protection; obesity, nutrition and physical activity; combatting HIV/AIDS; and community mental health action.

On the paediatric medicines regulation, the UK supported the European Commission on the length of the supplementary protection certificate extension. The Commission was content with the proposal to incorporate a review mechanism specifically aimed at studying the reward mechanism. The UK spoke in favour of public access to the paediatric clinical trials database. This issue will need to be discussed further by the Council.

All member states voted in favour of a political agreement to the proposed regulation on nutrition and health claims made on food. The UK secured an amendment that safeguarded the development of "signpost" labelling for nutrients. The UK also made statements for the minutes concerning its disagreement on the choice of legal base and the need to ensure that opportunities were taken to reduce authorisation burdens in the next stages of the negotiation.

There was a qualified majority in favour of a political agreement to the proposed regulation on the addition of vitamins, minerals and other substances to foods.

The Council had its first discussion of the Commission's proposed health and consumer protection programme for 2007–13. The Council's exchange of views was structured around presidency questions focused on the health objectives of the proposal. The UK gave its support for the general direction of the new programme but stressed that it would be important to ensure that the programme respected the scope of the treaty.

Ministers unanimously adopted three sets of council conclusions on obesity, nutrition and physical activity, HIV/AIDS and mental health.

Ministers took note of presidency information on: the proposal to amend the council regulation on fees payable to the European Medicines Agency; the international health regulations; the framework convention on tobacco control; the proposal on additives other than colourings and sweeteners to food; and conferences held during the Luxembourg presidency.

Member states also took note of information from the Commission on: the follow-up to the G10 pharmaceuticals process; pandemic preparedness planning; the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control; environment and health; the high level group on health care and medical services; and follow-up to the tobacco products directive.

On the follow-up to the tobacco products directive, the UK undertook to take forward any work from the Commission and the World Health Organisation that emerged on this issue during the UK presidency of the European Union.

Ministers also discussed the health response to the tsunami in South Asia.

The African Union mission in Darfur is doing an important job in trying to provide security for the people of Darfur who have suffered too long from this terrible conflict.

Where the AU troops are deployed, there has been a significant improvement in the security situation. But the impact of 3,000 troops is inevitably limited, which is why we fully support their decision to expand the force to more than 7,700. At the same time, we recognise the essentially political nature of the crisis in Darfur and will be supporting fully the Abuja peace talks process.

The UK has played a leading role in assisting the AU mission and I am announcing today that the UK will increase our contribution to the expansion of the mission to £19 million, from the £6.6 million contribution we announced at the AU donors' conference in Addis Ababa on 26 May. This brings our total contribution to AMIS since its inception to almost £32 million.

We will use this money to purchase up to 500 additional vehicles and further rapid deployment equipment. As part of NATO's efforts to assist AMIS expansion, the UK is also ready—subject to AU requirements and other donors' contributions—to support the airlift, co-ordinated by NATO, of up to three battalions into Darfur. The Defence Secretary has also agreed to provide a mobile air movements team of up to 15 people if required. The UK is also keen to provide the AU with technical expertise, and will be talking to the AU secretariat and others about this.

We are also keen to support the civilian police part of the mission. We will support the EU's efforts to offer the AU a package of support, including training for the AU police and technical experts and advisers. We will also build accommodation for AU civilian police in camps for internally displaced people and villages, so that they can be deployed where they are needed most.

The Foreign Secretary and I also wish to announce the appointment of Mr. Alan Goulty as the UK special representative for Darfur. He will support the African Union-led work to achieve a durable political settlement of the Darfur conflict, keeping in regular contact with all the main parties.

Mr. Goulty has an unparalleled knowledge of Sudan, deriving from his previous appointments as British ambassador to Khartoum, director for the middle east and north Africa in the FCO, and, from 2002 to 2004, as the United Kingdom's special representative for Sudan, where he played a key role in the successful negotiations of the comprehensive peace agreement, which ended the 21 year civil war in Sudan. He will perform his new role in addition to his current responsibilities as British ambassador to Tunis.

This appointment marks the UK's continuing commitment to achieving lasting peace throughout Sudan, including in Darfur. This cannot happen without a political settlement in Darfur.

Along with Jeff Rooker, Minister of State for the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, I have deposited copies of the annual report and financial statements of Ilex URC Ltd. for the year ended 31 March 2004 incorporating the auditor's report in the Libraries of both Houses.

Together with my noble Friend the Attorney-General I am pleased to announce today the launch of the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland.

This new service was one of the main recommendations of the Criminal Justice Review, which was published in March 2000. The review itself stemmed from the Belfast agreement. The recommendations of the review were implemented by the Justice (Northern Ireland) Acts 2002 and 2004.

The Public Prosecution Service will take responsibility for all prosecutions arising from a police investigation. It will provide an enhanced service for victims and witnesses, and encourage greater provision of prosecutorial and pre-charge advice to police. All charges will be reviewed by a public prosecutor before first appearance at court to ensure the case is properly brought. Prosecutions in the magistrates, youth and county courts will be carried out by public prosecutors. The new service will make use of the range of diversionary opportunities including informed warning, caution and youth conferencing as well as a range of restorative justice measures.

The number of cases dealt with by the service will increase from approximately 10,000 cases per year to more than 70,000 cases because it will take over all prosecutions originally conducted by the police. This increased demand will be met by a considerable increase in the number of lawyers, support and administrative staff. The current workforce of 150 staff and 40 lawyers will increase to 550 staff with 165 lawyers. The new service will grow to become one of the larger employers in Northern Ireland and the largest employer of lawyers and legal staff.New staff will be subject to an intensive six month training programme. It is a programme that ensures prosecution staff are not only knowledgeable in the law, but in the standards of fairness and of human rights that form the basis of any fair prosecuting authority. The training programme has already won a regional award in a National Training Awards UK competition.

The new Public Prosecution Service will operate an enhanced case management system. When the Causeway project goes on line on 21 June 2005, it will enable the service to receive files electronically. These, and other changes, will promote efficiency and help reduce the causes of delay.

The new Prosecution Service will also follow the recommendation of the Criminal Justice Review and be a regional service. It will have a devolved structure with regional prosecutors and five regional offices based in Ballymena, Lisburn, Londonderry, Newry and Omagh. This will not only allow for greater involvement with the community at a local level but will also create jobs in the regions.

The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland is publishing a code of practice, which includes a code of ethics. These detailed documents will provide for the first time in Northern Ireland a detailed explanation of the factors and considerations taken into account in deciding on a prosecution and will set out the standards by which the prosecution will carry out its task. The code is the result of two periods of public consultation.

A copy of the code will be placed in the Library of the House.

I have considered very carefully all the information that Merseytravel has provided for Merseytram Line 1.

I provisionally approved a Government contribution of £170 million, in cash terms, towards the cost of Merseytram Line 1. That commitment remains if the scheme can be delivered at that cost. However, it has become increasingly clear that there is a problem with the cost of the scheme. The public sector cost has increased by 40 per cent. since I gave provisional approval, and that is for a smaller scheme.

In December 2002 the scheme was given provisional approval at a public sector cost of £225 million, in cash terms, with a capped DfT contribution of £170 million.

In November 2004 Merseytravel advised the Department that the public sector cost was £325 million. The Department's contribution was then presented as £204 million. That was for a reduction in scope, compared with the scheme we approved. If the northern loop was still included, that would have added around £25 million to the costs, bringing the cost increase for the original scheme to over 50 per cent.

In February 2005 Merseytravel submitted a claim for £4.2 million towards the preparatory costs incurred. This was in addition to the £204 million contribution it was seeking from the Department.

In February 2005 it also became clear that Merseytravel would seek additional funding from the Department if its proposal for a finance lease did not proceed as proposed. This assumed the Department would pay all its contribution upfront and allowed Merseytravel, in effect, to take advantage of the leasing company's tax allowances, providing Merseytravel with an extra £30 million but at a cost to the Government and taxpayer. The Department advised Merseytravel that this was an unusual arrangement for the public sector, which would need careful consideration within Government. I have concluded that I cannot approve it.

The Department told Merseytravel in March 2005 that under the new approach to approvals a final decision on whether to fully approve the scheme would not be made until the prices and risk allocation were firm, based on negotiated terms. Merseytravel advised the Department in May 2005 that, following negotiations with the preferred bidder, the total public sector cost was £315 million. But with the proposed local contribution of £77 million, the Government's contribution would be £238 million.

Last summer Merseytravel was confident of delivering the scheme for the agreed Government contribution of £170 million. Since last November, when Merseytravel put forward a revised public sector cost of £325 million, the Department has kept closely involved with the way the costs have developed. Merseytravel has managed to bring the costs down at the margin, reducing the total funding requirement by £10 million. However Government's contribution remains at some £238 million—40 per cent. more than the original capped figure of £170 million.

I appreciate that Merseytravel has made every effort to keep costs under control. However, it is clear that costs remain significantly higher than those that I approved, and that this scheme is an expensive way of delivering these transport benefits for Merseyside. Whilst I support tram schemes, I cannot do so at any cost. In the light of all the information I have therefore concluded that I cannot approve the proposal for Line 1.

I recognise that transport investment is needed in Merseyside to tackle the current problems and to support the future growth of the city. We have committed over £200 million to transport improvements in Merseyside over the last five years, and I intend to continue to support good value schemes in the area.

The £170 million that I committed to Merseytram Line 1 remains available if the scheme can be delivered at that cost. If it cannot, a great deal can still be done for Merseyside through other transport improvements; the Department would welcome a discussion with Merseytravel to develop a good value package of improvements, especially for improved public transport for the areas that would have been served by the tram. The funding will be there for the right proposals.