30 Apr 2007 : Column 863
House of Lords
Monday, 30 April 2007.
The House met at half-past two: the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.
Introduction: Lord Krebs
Lord Krebs—Sir John Richard Krebs, Knight, having been created Baron Krebs, of Wytham in the County of Oxfordshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Howarth of Breckland and the Lord May of Oxford.
Introduction: Lord Mawson
Lord Mawson—The Reverend Andrew Mawson, OBE, having been created Baron Mawson, of Bromley-by-Bow in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Cumberlege and the Lord Rogers of Riverside.
Royal Navy: Aircraft Carriers
2.47 pm
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper:
What construction and certification standards they propose for the two aircraft carriers to be ordered for the Royal Navy.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering sincere condolences to the family and friends of Rifleman Paul Donnachie, who was killed yesterday during operations in Iraq.
The construction and certification standards applied to the two aircraft carriers are the Lloyd’s Register Rules and Regulations, supplemented by tailored Defence Standards capturing specific MoD requirements.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, once again from these Benches, we send our condolences to the families and friends of the riflemen killed in Iraq.
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. This vital project risks losing momentum unless a definite order is made very soon. Can the Minister confirm that an announcement of an order will be made without any further delay?
Lord Drayson: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord; we need to get on with this project. We have worked very hard to reach a conclusion on both the design of the aircraft carriers and the agreement with industry. We have strongly encouraged industry to
30 Apr 2007 : Column 864
Lord Garden: My Lords, from these Benches we add our condolences to the family of the rifleman who was so sadly killed yesterday.
The Joint Strike Fighter aircraft is an essential component of our carrier capability. In March 2007, the United States Government Accounting Office reported on it again and showed further cost growth. The GAO said:
“Accurately predicting JSF costs and schedule and ensuring sufficient funding will likely be key challenges facing the program in the future”.
Does the Minister believe that, in the United Kingdom, the current JSF acquisition strategy manages those risks adequately? Can he assure us that the UK will not replicate the much criticised Department of Defense cost-reimbursement contracts which it is issuing for the initial production models?
Lord Drayson: My Lords, I recognise the concerns that the noble Lord has raised about the cost of the Joint Strike Fighter; it is something that we are looking at very closely. I am satisfied that our acquisition process is appropriate to the task, and I concentrate on it as a high priority. Indeed, towards the end of this year I expect to get a clearer view of the aircraft’s overall acquisition costs and, as important, of the sustainment strategy. We have not yet committed to purchasing these aircraft and will closely scrutinise the progress of the project.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, aircraft carriers do not operate on their own. Can we be sure that there will be sufficient support shipping for the aircraft carriers once they come into view?
Lord Drayson: Yes, my Lords. As the noble Baroness says, it is important that the carrier strike force has the necessary protection, both undersea and on the surface. Air defence is an important part of it, and the new class of Type 45 destroyers is a central part of that.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will there be an interval in which the British fleet will not have the cover of carrier-borne fixed-wing aircraft? For how long will the period last, if there is one?
Lord Drayson: My Lords, I can give the House that assurance. There will not be a period in which our aircraft carriers do not have that aircraft cover.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, am I not right in thinking that there is some collaboration with the French on this project? Will the Minister enlarge on that?
Lord Drayson: Yes, my Lords. Last year we signed an agreement with the French where the French acquired the rights to the British designs for the aircraft carriers.
30 Apr 2007 : Column 865
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, do we still plan to build this aircraft carrier in two halves—one in Scotland and one in the south of England—with a very large contract to make sure that they fit together? Is the idea now that the French will build the back half and we will build the front half of two carriers? Would there be a cost saving in that?
Lord Drayson: No, my Lords, that is not accurate. It is a little more complicated than that. My noble friend is right that the aircraft carriers are being built in sections. That is a modern shipbuilding practice that has developed over a number of years. We are confident that the blocks—a total of four, rather than the two that he describes—will be successfully brought together and assembled at Rosyth. The collaboration with the French explores opportunities to make savings in procurement, as there is obvious potential for economies of scale in buying three of everything rather than two, and then sharing the savings between us. The principle was formed on a one-third/two-thirds basis.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, with the delay in signing the contract for these aircraft carriers, will the timescale of the project slip? Will it now be further phased backwards?
Lord Drayson: No, my Lords; I am very keen that that does not happen. The important principle behind the project is that building these carriers—at 65,000 tonnes, the largest two ships that the Royal Navy has ever had—requires the entire assets of the British shipbuilding industry. All of the yards have to work together. Our alliance approach has worked well in making the yards better at communicating and collaborating. There is still some way to go on change within the industry, and that needs to happen before we are in a position to order these two carriers, but it must not be at the expense of the build timescale.
Taxation: Green Taxes
2.54 pm
Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government define an environmental tax as one that is designed to meet environmental objectives. Currently, that includes the climate change levy, the aggregates levy and landfill tax. The Government recognise that other taxes, such as fuel duty, can also have an environmental impact and that other measures, such as vehicle excise duty, have been reformed to build in environmental incentives.
30 Apr 2007 : Column 866
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Under that definition, will not most of the taxes to which he referred have a pretty marginal effect environmentally? In practice, to have any substantial effect, would not green taxes, if that is what they are called, have to be pretty huge and raise little or no revenue in order to have any impact at all on these serious environmental problems? Does my noble friend accept that there are no serious green taxes at the moment and none is being proposed because they do not have a serious impact on what is really happening to the economy?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I cannot quite agree with my noble friend that the present taxation system has no effect. The climate change levy clearly has an effect on reducing carbon emissions. My noble friend needs to bear in mind that in order to condition public behaviour towards environmental objectives, penalties ought perhaps to be second order to incentives and encouragement, which I think is what he suggests the tax system should do.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, can the Minister give an undertaking that should any new green tax be introduced or should there be an increase in any existing green tax, according to his definition, any yield will be offset, pound for pound, by a reduction in other forms of taxation?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is a most interesting financial theory from a former Chancellor of the Exchequer. I recognise the role that the noble Lord is playing in the climate debate at present. He must recognise that, of course, all Chancellors in their long lines of achievement have always retained a degree of flexibility about the revenue raised and how it is distributed.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, can the Minister help me? What effect is the Barnett formula having on our country? The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is for ever saying in the Chamber that it should be looked at again. Are we going to do that?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I think that the Barnett formula has more to do with the Scottish local elections and the Scottish Parliament than anything to do with green taxes. I can be only marginally helpful to my noble friend in saying that whenever my noble friend Lord Barnett speaks in this Chamber, he does so in a way that is most helpful and constructive to all sides of the House.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, how can we overcome the problems that have been created by the landfill tax in the form of fly tipping? It is costing local authorities and landowners millions of pounds every year to clear up the mess from fly tipping. Anyone travelling by road or train to Birmingham will see what is left on roadsides and railway embankments when people just tip their rubbish over a wall. It never seems to be collected.
30 Apr 2007 : Column 867
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Countess raises an important point. We should not underestimate the contribution that landfill tax makes towards tackling global warming and climate change. It is an important element in our strategy. She is absolutely right that where evasion of that tax occurs, it has a most detrimental effect on the environment. This is an issue of enforcement rather than any doubt about the value of the tax in achieving its objectives.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, do the Government believe that they should increase the proportion of tax taken through environmental taxes? The Minister will know that green taxes fell from 9.4 per cent of taxes in 1997 to 7.7 per cent in 2005. Will he say what proportion of such taxes will be taken next year as a result of this year’s Budget?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I would be extremely brave to forecast the Budget settlement for next year but I want to emphasise to the noble Baroness that the issue of the definition of environmental taxes is not of the greatest importance. What is important is that we condition and change public behaviour. Our taxation system is designed to reinforce those changes in public behaviour and she will recognise that we are having considerable success. After all, the United Kingdom is only one of two countries on course to reach the Kyoto objectives so we should not minimise the success of our position thus far.
Lord Newby: My Lords, would the Minister care to invite the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, to produce a new green Barnett formula encompassing a range of green taxes which would be really effective in the way that he feels current green taxes are not? In the mean time, will he support those local authorities that are using their limited tax-raising power to introduce environmental taxes to change behaviour for the better in terms of environmental pollution?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we recognise that local authorities have an important role to play, but again we look to local authorities to follow a strategy of encouraging changes in behaviour rather than imposing penalties because we are all too aware of the fact that seeking to penalise can in fact produce adverse reactions whereas encouragement can achieve the goals that we all subscribe to.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, is it not obvious that the Chancellor’s definition of a green tax is a tax that he can raise for additional resources without too much opposition?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I do not think that the Chancellor imposes any tax without anticipating and generally receiving opposition—if not formal opposition from the other side then certainly representations from the interests affected. It is the role of the Chancellor not only to raise the necessary revenue for the benevolent purposes to which he allocates all taxation but also at times to
30 Apr 2007 : Column 868
Sudan and Chad
3.02 pm
Lord Alton of Liverpool asked Her Majesty’s Government:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): My Lords, the humanitarian and security situation in Darfur and eastern Chad continues to deteriorate. In Darfur, 107,000 people have been displaced since January, the total number displaced now rising to 1.2 million, and 4 million are dependent on aid. Insecurity, lack of access and a tax on humanitarian agencies continues to hamper severely the delivery of aid. In Chad, violence and cross-border attacks have left hundreds of thousands of people vulnerable and dependent on aid.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, as the hourglass recorded at the weekend, on the fourth anniversary of the war in Darfur with reports of the Sudanese military continuing to bomb Darfur, some 4 million people are now dependent on aid, some 2 million people have been displaced, and some 400,000 people have been killed during the conflict. Can the Minister tell the House when the heavy-duty package which he referred to when we last discussed this issue will be put in place? Will he contrast the welcome decision of Rolls-Royce to proceed immediately with divestment in Darfur because of the humanitarian catastrophe there with the craven and ineffectual response of the international community to impose a no-fly zone or to impose any form of sanctions against a regime responsible for these deaths?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, it is certainly true that in the past week and a half there have been a couple of incidents of bombing about which we have made the appropriate representations to the Government of Sudan. The problem will plainly not improve until not just the heavy support package but the whole of the hybrid African Union and United Nations force can be deployed. Discussions are proceeding on that but, I agree, far too slowly. It is a matter for businesses to decide whether they will impose sanctions; I hope that whatever sanctions they impose do not impact on the people of southern Sudan who are not guilty of any of the crimes that have been described by the noble Lord. However, each time one of those decisions is taken, it seems to reflect a very sound ethical principle.
30 Apr 2007 : Column 869
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, are the Government supporting the idea of a no-fly zone over Darfur because they think that that would be practical?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am sure that it would be technically very difficult, but it is one of the possibilities that remains in play.
Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, will my noble friend point out to the celebrated actors and musicians who were yesterday calling for intervention in Darfur as well as to the famous writers who recently upbraided the leaders of the European Union that the terrible events of Darfur in the past four years have not been a simple morality tale of evil against innocence or of genocide but have been features of a civil war, born in complex political and economic circumstances, in which atrocious things have been done on all sides? Does he agree that the object of international engagement should not be to enable one side to prevail over another but should be to promote political accommodation and power-sharing within Sudan?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I wholly agree with my noble friend. Atrocities have been committed by all parties fighting in Darfur; they are all violating ceasefire agreements and attacking civilians. None will escape with impunity from the consequences that the international community insists upon. Until there is a comprehensive discussion on a peace as well as a security solution, the prospects for ending the conflict are very poor.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the noble Lord elaborate on the deployment of the heavy support package? Since it has finally been agreed by the Government of Sudan, five months after it was mandated by the Security Council, what obstacles remain to getting the troops on the ground and getting the attack helicopters, which have been accepted as part of the package, deployed in Darfur? Will the noble Lord explain what difficulties have been raised by Chad and the CAR to deployment of the peacekeeping mission which would enable them to restore order and return hundreds of thousands of displaced persons in those countries to their homes?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, the problems with deploying the heavy force which is still being discussed are essentially logistical, although President al-Bashir has agreed to it on several occasions without carrying through his agreement. However, the logistic problems lie in making sure that there are adequate camps, clean water, munitions, and so on. That should be dealt with relatively quickly. The Government of Chad object to having other troops on its soil, much in the same way that the Government of Sudan object, but it is plain to me that, unless a humanitarian effort is mounted by the United Nations, the problems in Chad will not be resolved any more than the problems in Darfur.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |