7 Dec 2006 : Column 1239
House of Lords
Thursday, 7 December 2006.
The House met at eleven o’clock: the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.
Houses of Parliament: World Squares for All
Lord Berkeley asked the Chairman of Committees:
What progress has been made in the world squares project for Parliament Square and Old Palace Yard and the consequent impact on security.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the latest stage of the world squares project is the development of proposals for the implementation of the mayor’s Parliament Square public spaces scheme. That involves reorganising the road system, closing Broad Sanctuary on the north side of St Margaret’s Church and making Parliament Square accessible to pedestrians. It is planned that the work will be completed by 2012. There will be no impact on our security measures. I placed a paper illustrating the proposed changes to the road system in the Library of the House today.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that comprehensive reply. Many noble Lords will recall that the first world squares project document, which I think your Lordships discussed, was published in 1998—I still have a copy of it. This project will be completed 14 years after the first document was produced. Could my noble friend explain why it is taking so long? Can he do anything with the other organisations in the intervening period to try to make the road across Old Palace Yard a little safer for cyclists, car drivers and pedestrians? What is going to happen to the pavement that the House spent £2 million on a couple of years ago, which is now falling to bits under the weight of traffic?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord’s concern about the length of time that all this has taken, but I must say that the parliamentary authorities are not in the lead on this subject by any manner of means. A whole series of organisations is involved in the world squares steering group, including the Greater London Authority, Westminster City Council, Transport for London, English Heritage, the Government Office for London and the Royal Parks Agency—not forgetting the Mayor of London himself. So it is not fair to blame the House authorities in any way for the slowness of the project; it is probably because so many people are involved that it has taken such a long time.
As for Old Palace Yard—that is to say, Abingdon Street—no plans are envisaged by the world squares steering group to close Abingdon Street. However,
7 Dec 2006 : Column 1240
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, following that point about security, while I understand the need for the security barriers, does the noble Lord share my concern about the safety consequences? It is extremely easy for someone to step from the narrow gap in the security barrier straight into the moving traffic and then to step backwards into moving traffic because that is the filter lane out. Having experienced that myself, I think that there is a problem. There is also a problem at the exit from our car park with cyclists, especially at night. It is impossible to see them, because the height of the barriers hides their lights. Sooner or later, there will be an accident, and it would be a great tragedy if we compromised safety in the name of security.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, on the noble Lord’s last point, I am aware of the problems at the exit from the car park. We have looked into that, especially with regard to the bus stop adjacent to the exit, which means that noble Lords and others have to pull out into the middle of the road. I am not sure where we are on that at the moment, but we are looking at it. I appreciate the other point that the noble Lord makes, but there is a traffic light-controlled crossing, which I encourage noble Lords to use.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, will the Chairman of Committees say what progress has been made on the completion of the visitor reception centre, because that work is having a significant impact on the traffic flow along the front of this building and, I imagine, some impact on safety?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I regret that there is no good news on the visitor reception building. It was originally due to be opened in, I think, October. It was then hoped that it would be opened by the time we came back after Christmas. There are now serious delays, and it is not expected to open until probably the spring. We have set up an external review to examine the reasons for the delay. I do not wish to go into details on this, because it could very well end up in litigation.
Lord Addington: My Lords, is this square not like many other projects in that, if it happens quickly, the result will be good and will increase security, and we should really just get behind it and give as much support as we can to make sure that that happens?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, security is, of course, important, which is why we are moving, probably next year, to push the barriers further out to give a greater gap between the frontage of the Palace and the road. As I said earlier, it would probably be
7 Dec 2006 : Column 1241
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, on the question of the underground car park on, I think, Abingdon Street, has there been any development on direct underground access to this House? Also, has any work been done on evaluating the congestion effect of the world squares project on traffic on the embankment, Victoria Street, Birdcage Walk and Whitehall?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the noble Lord’s latter point is not for me but for the various authorities—the Greater London Authority, Westminster Council, Transport for London and so on—to which I referred earlier. On the other point, we are looking at the possibility of building a subway to connect the Abingdon Street car park and Millbank House to the Palace, although we are at a very early stage on that.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, does the noble Lord understand that any representations that he can make to close Abingdon Street will have a great deal of support in this House? Is he aware of the grave danger to cyclists coming from Parliament Square when they come upon the barriers, which force them out into the flow of traffic? When that happens, they have nowhere to go. On the left is the big black barrier and on the right is the traffic. It is an accident waiting to happen.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am aware of the situation regarding cyclists. That has been looked into and, as I say, when we move the barriers further out, there might be a possibility of improving the situation, but I am afraid that there is no possibility of that at the moment.
Agriculture: Hill Farm Allowance
11.13 am
Lord Livsey of Talgarth asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What consideration they have given to extending the period for hill farming allowance payments for a further three years after 2006-07.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): My Lords, we previously announced that the hill farm allowance for England would continue in 2007. A further announcement regarding scheme operation from 2008 onwards will be made before the end of next week. We remain committed to rewarding upland farmers for the environmental and landscape benefits they provide.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I gather that that is a considered reply. What hill farming in England needs at present is stability. There are cuts in Natural England’s budget, as we know, and a delay in environmental schemes coming on stream. Rather than descending into the kind of delays and problems that we have experienced with the Rural Payments Agency, which, even now by Defra’s own admission,
7 Dec 2006 : Column 1242
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Yes, I gave a considered Answer. Before the end of next week we will make an announcement to Parliament, probably through a Written Ministerial Statement.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that. I know he appreciates that the income of hill farmers is crucial because many do not have an option to diversify. My question is slightly wide of the Question, but the noble Lord, in his answers, has not been very forthcoming. On 16 October, a Question was asked about the single farm payments which were due. Is the Minister in a position to update us on those few outstanding payments?
Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords, but that is not relevant to this Question. I freely admit that I have figures available but I am here to answer questions on the hill farm allowance. I have to leave immediately after this Question: I had hoped to get it over quickly, so that I can visit a chicken farm. There are still a few single farm payments to complete. Of the 40-odd major claims of more than €1,000 that have not been paid, the top 10 involve cases relating to probate. Frankly, the position is no different from what it would have been under the old IACS system. That is the latest position.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the Minister any longer than I have to, but will Defra be influenced by the fact that in the north-east many Defra front-line officials have been taken off measuring farms for Entry Level Stewardship and Higher Level Stewardship to fulfil the task of the Rural Payments Agency? That has caused a great deal of unhappiness among hill farmers because their ability to join these schemes, which would give them finance for environmental schemes, has been put on hold.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I make the same apology for the delay in payment of the hill farm allowance as I do for the single farm payment. Obviously, we have made commitments in a Statement about what we expect to happen early next year regarding single farm payments. I fully accept that it is no good people suggesting that hill farmers, particularly in severely disadvantaged areas, should diversify or grow other crops. You cannot do that. In my Answer, I said that we remain committed to rewarding the upland farmers. I want to see that whatever adjustments are made, the money stays as much as possible in the upland areas. But that cannot be done on the old basis. It has to be done on a landscape and environment basis.
We have paid 10,188 full or partial claims for hill farm allowance for this year and 168 claimants have not received any payment, which means that we have dealt with 98.3 per cent of claims and have paid out £23.2 million. There is more to pay out. We will probably be under budget and I am looking at that situation.
7 Dec 2006 : Column 1243
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I appreciate the fact that the Minister has acknowledged the need to keep hill farmers in business. Has he seen the figures recently produced by the English Beef & Lamb Executive showing the losses sustained by farmers, particularly hill farmers? The figures are £300 for a beef animal and £60 for a lamb. Does the Minister recognise the importance of farmers getting a decent price for their stock when it comes to marketing and can he do anything to help raise that price?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the short answer is no, because the same applies to the dairy industry. Ministers cannot interfere in the price. We want people to get as close to the market as possible. It is our job as the Government to provide a good playing field for farmers so that their businesses are sustainable and profitable. The chances are that unless they are profitable they will not be sustainable, so we need to do everything we can. But we cannot interfere with the market because we would have the competition authorities down on us like a ton of bricks.
In answer to the first part of the question, I have seen those figures and we have discussed livestock in some detail at the highest level in the department in order to find ways in which we can assist. However, we cannot assist by artificially affecting the price in the way that people might want.
Burma: Ethnic National Groups
11.19 am
Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether they will make representations to the State Peace and Development Council of Myanmar (Burma) over reports of continuing offensives against ethnic national groups.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): My Lords, we have repeatedly condemned the continuing attacks on civilians carried out by the Burmese army. We remain deeply concerned about the plight of ethnic groups. My right honourable friend the Minister for Trade, Investment and Foreign Affairs, Ian McCartney, raised the issue of the offensive against the Karen and other ethnic groups with the Burmese ambassador on 15 June and with the Burmese Foreign Minister on 5 July. Our ambassador in Rangoon raises the issue of human rights violations with the Burmese Government regularly, most recently with the Burmese Home Affairs Minister on 23 October.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Are Her Majesty’s Government aware of the sheer scale and intensity of these military offensives against innocent civilians? More than 25,000 Karen and Shan people have been forced from their villages during these recent offensives. Only two weeks ago I met many of them who were fleeing through the jungle. Old people, children and pregnant women were dying on the way. They had no food, no shelter and no medical care. I understand that DfID is
7 Dec 2006 : Column 1244
Lord Triesman: My Lords, the House will recognise the extraordinary work that the noble Baroness does, not only from these Benches but by going to Burma and seeing what is happening on the ground. I thank her profoundly for that. Through our embassies in Rangoon and Bangkok, we monitor the situation as best and as accurately as we can and we are aware of its scale. In August, DfID announced a £20 million contribution to the three-diseases fund. That is a part of further contributions of £55 million in the joint donor programme. The resources are targeted at local level and are delivered through international NGOs, the UN agencies and community groups. We always try to ensure that money is spent wisely, but I take the point—as, I am sure, do my colleagues in DfID—that in these circumstances we should not be so prescriptive that we are mean spirited in the outcome.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, my noble friend has said that the Government are deeply concerned about the situation. Does he think that the violations that have taken place against people in Burma are war crimes? Are they crimes against humanity or crimes of genocide or attempted genocide? If they are, what action do the Government intend to take to pursue these matters?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, what constitutes genocide has a very strict legal definition. There is no doubt whatever that the extent of the actions being taken by the Burmese Government falls within the realm of crimes that should be of concern to the international community; that headline covers almost all the kinds of crime listed by my noble friend. We are working very hard, together with the United Nations Under-Secretary-General, Ibrahim Gambari, who visited Burma between 9 and 12 November, to see what kind of process can be got going, more successfully than in the past, at the United Nations. This is bound to be one of the areas to be considered.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, while I would not favour breaking all contacts with Burma, as some do, has the Minister noted that India—which, nowadays, is our very good friend and ally—is nevertheless apparently involved in supplying substantial packages of arms and equipment to the Burmese regime? This cannot be right. Can he assure the House that there will be discussions with the Government of India, if they are not already going on, to deter them from that particular kind of contact? Such contact, of course, leads only to more suppression of the wretched people about whose plight we are now hearing.
7 Dec 2006 : Column 1245
Lord Triesman: My Lords, that is a very telling point. My right honourable friend Ian McCartney has raised these issues frequently with the Chinese and with the Indians, so that is a process in which we are currently engaged at ministerial level. He has also discussed them with and called for a proactive response from Ministers right across ASEAN, which has, albeit with growing irritation with the Burmese, provided a good deal of sustenance to them. We raise these issues. Other Ministers in the United Kingdom Government raise them all the time. No player in the region, including India, can doubt our view and what we believe is necessary.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister seen the estimate by Human Rights Watch that 82,000 people have been displaced by the current offensive and 232 villages have been destroyed? In view of the fact that this is likely to increase the flow of refugees across the border, will he suggest to ASEAN states that they pick up the tab for the 140,000 people who are now being looked after in camps and for the increased commitment to their livelihoods and welfare that has now been expressed by the Thai Government? Should that expense not be borne regionally, instead of by Thailand and the UNHCR?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I understand the rhetorical thrust of the question, but we have regarded it as our task to try to prevent these atrocities in the first place, rather than saying that if they happen we will ask someone else to pick up the bill for the consequences. I believe that we use our aid programme properly. It is right to do so. There is no reason why an action of ours should inflict further suffering on people who are suffering enough.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, in addition to the barbarities that my noble friend has described taking place inside the Karen state, does the Minister accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that we must do more to aid and support the 120,000 to 140,000 people who have for up to 40 years been in the festering camps along the Thai-Burmese border? What role did Her Majesty’s Government play recently in the welcome increased interest shown by the Security Council in looking at the plight of the ethnic minorities, and holding that plight in tandem with the brave and courageous struggle of Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy inside Burma?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, we are entirely aware of the scale of the problems in the camps, and a great deal of DfID aid is allocated to that. There is continual review of whether that aid is adequate and whether we are capable of doing more. It is clear to us that we have an opportunity now, because of the Gambari initiative, to begin to get a number of steps taken in the UN Security Council. In late October, we were able for the first time to get a discussion without it being blocked by some of those powers that have done so hitherto. We find it difficult sometimes to get these initiatives off the ground when there is such resistance in the background, but we are now beginning to do so. We have to capture the momentum and be absolutely determined to see this through.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |