16 May 2007 : Column 183
House of Lords
Wednesday, 16 May 2007.
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Leicester): the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack.
Personal Statement: Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I rise to make a personal Statement. On 25 April, I answered an Oral Question from my noble friend Lord Tomlinson. In answer to a supplementary question, I mistakenly indicated that since December 2006 the Liberal Democrat party in this House had voted on five occasions in favour of fatal amendments against statutory instruments. That was a mistake; the actual number of occasions is three. I apologise to the House for this error.
Terrorism
Viscount Waverley asked Her Majesty’s Government:
How far their war against terror extends in geographical terms; and what are the main activities that they include within the term “global terrorism”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): My Lords, the threat from terrorism is global, and the struggle against international terrorism needs to be equally broad-reaching. The Government’s Contest counter-terrorism strategy makes clear that we need a variety of tools, not military means alone, to reduce the risk from international terrorism and to win the ideological global struggle for values. The activities that constitute terrorism are defined in United Kingdom law in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000, as amended by Section 33 of the Terrorism Act 2006.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, sometimes I cannot but feel that we have brought some of these problems on ourselves. Nevertheless, will the Government align the UK/US list of proscribed terrorist organisations in order better to reflect common purpose? More importantly, will the Government react to the linkage, on the one hand, of the association between worldwide narco-terrorism combined with the general sense of despair, often compounded by poverty, in conflict zones and lack of economic development as a result of inequitable trade policies, and, on the other hand, recruiting grounds for terrorist organisations?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, the United Kingdom’s list is constructed on the basis of groups or individuals that we regard as posing the greatest threat to the United Kingdom. I emphasise that it is largely the same as the list used by the United States, although it is not identical. The European Union also has a list that covers the United Kingdom in its impact, and we have not sought to duplicate it; we make full use of it. I believe that there is a real link between the way in which narco-terrorist groups—the FARC in Colombia, for example—exploit illicit money to further the wars that they have perpetuated. I accept that there is a link between poverty, absence of democracy, respect for human rights, the formation of failed states and the lack of trade opportunities. For those reasons, the Doha development round was always going to be one of the key implements for giving people access to real markets and economic opportunity and the chance to live in a dignified world, rather than in one full of spite and war.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is a clear link between global organised criminal networks and global organised terrorist networks, as we recently saw in a credit card fraud case in Britain in which people associated with the Tamils in northern Sri Lanka were clearly implicated? Are the Government therefore committed to international co-operation through the EU and wider international organisations to cope with this imprecise set of networks, some of which are criminal, some of which are terrorists and a lot of which cross between the two?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, all the evidence is that many of the major international terrorist organisations are involved up to their necks in international crime networks, whether in narcotics, sophisticated forms of fraud or whatever. That funds their terrorist activities and is often the means by which they suborn the Governments of the principal countries in which they operate, although they are, of course, global. Under the priorities of the FCO, we are absolutely committed to working on this as a global problem, and we will continue to do that.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, although some of us may want to handle the expression “global war on terror” with a long pair of tongs, we are all at one that terrorists consider information operations to be a principal part of their effort. Given that there is international agreement that not enough is being done to counteract the information war, what undertakings can the Government give to this House that they are addressing this important front individually as a Government and with other countries?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I welcome the right reverend Prelate back to the House. The whole exercise of trying to deal with some terrorists' ideologies—the hearts and minds campaign, as it is sometimes described—involves sophisticated communication. It is very important. We try to carry that out extensively through our public diplomacy networks. I add that I have taken the view that a great deal more public diplomacy can be done in association with, rather than in competition with, other countries. If we and other Europeans, for example, are able to work together on these things, provided that we can get the result, that seems to me to be what we should aim for.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, the Minister said that those put on the list of terrorist organisations—and I think that I quote him accurately—“pose the greatest threat to the United Kingdom”. Will he explain why the Iranian resistance group the PMOI is on that list, since when it was originally banned the Government noted that it had no presence in the United Kingdom and no record of attacks on British or western interests anywhere in the world?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I hope what I said was—and no doubt the record will show it—that that was one of the principal considerations. There obviously must be considerations about organisations and their records in the international sphere. Under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary is responsible for making a judgment across a wide range of considerations; and he has made judgment in respect of that organisation. It is currently appealing on whether that judgment is right and, while the appeal is in progress, I would not wish to go into the matter further.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon: My Lords, further to the noble Lord’s previous answer on the question of winning the battle for hearts and minds, do the Government recognise that this extends far further than the conventional networks of newspapers and television? I give the noble Lords a figure: at the time of the Vietnam War the average citizen had access to information through three, maybe four, outlets, of which two could be regarded as being under government control. Nowadays, the average citizen has access to 24 sources of information, of which only one is the internet. Very few are under government control. It is these viral networks, the internet and other networks, which are the battleground of terrorist networks in this country. Are we sure we are making it ours, too?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, the realities of modern communication are as has been described. We have made every effort to ensure that in the electronic communications world we are more effective. The BBC World Service has decided to run an Arabic language television service. This is the first time in modern times that it has run a television service across the whole of that linguistic community. Deep consideration is being given to a Farsi language television service, also to be run by the BBC World Service if the funding can be secured. In all the new avenues there is constant active investigation of what can be achieved.
Common Agricultural Policy: Single Farm Payment
3.08 pm
Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What progress has been made on the 19,000 2005 single farm payments currently being reviewed by the Rural Payments Agency.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I apologise for the length of this Answer. The figure mentioned by the noble Baroness in her Question is the original number of claims that the Rural Payments Agency identified for review in September last year. Further cases were identified over the winter so that the total reached some 25,000 cases, as announced by the Secretary of State, David Miliband, in February of this year. As reported by Written Ministerial Statement yesterday, taking account of both those cases now reviewed and the further cases identified, the net number of outstanding cases currently stands at approximately 22,000.
It should be noted that, apart from 24 cases, 116,000 claimants have received over £1.5 billion of single farm payment 2005 money. The cases now under review are to check for accuracy and to see whether claims have been underpaid or, indeed, overpaid. The sums involved are often very small.
Our immediate priority now is to complete payments under the 2006 single payment scheme. Of course we will continue to review the 2005 claims, because these have an effect on processing claims in subsequent years.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister, but does he agree that the RPA is still failing and that, if it was a private contractor, it would probably have been sacked? Will he also admit that some farmers—he mentioned 22,000—are actually worse off today than they were a year ago when David Miliband took over as Minister? How confident is he that the 2006 target of 96 per cent will be achieved by the end of June?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, on the last point, we are obviously working towards that target—96.14 per cent is an EU requirement. I do not accept what the noble Baroness said about the RPA. When the history of this comes to be written, the 2005 year of single farm payments may well turn out to have been the easiest year. The reason was that there was no 2004.
Lord Rooker: No, my Lords, the impact on 2006 of 2005 and, from today, 2007, because yesterday was the closing date for forms, has the enormous consequence of being able to close this down. That is part of the reason why cash flow for farmers this year—I challenge anyone to contradict this from their experience—has been far superior to cash flow last year. Nevertheless, it will still be an effort to meet the target.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, has the Minister undertaken a study on the number of man hours undertaken by other Defra officials to meet the RPA workload, especially in the north-east, which has its own problems, and what impact that has had on other Defra programmes?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we do not have to undertake a study; it is constantly ongoing. The original plan was for the RPA staff to diminish following the introduction of the scheme. That did not happen. Those manpower targets have had to be spread around the rest of the department, although not to the same numbers. That has had an impact on the rest of the department. No one denies that, but it has not stopped us putting the necessary manpower into the RPA to deliver the programme. Some of that consists of temporary, part-time staff.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree that the RPA situation has generated a complete lack of confidence among the farming community with respect to many things in Defra. What are he and his department going to do to regenerate confidence in Defra’s interest in farming?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I make it absolutely clear that none of this is as a result of the efforts of the staff of the RPA. Both last year and this year, the staff cannot be blamed; it is the system that they are expected to use and the difficulty that we have in changing the system that are to blame. I have said repeatedly in this House that it will be 2008 before we can stabilise the system.
On confidence of farmers, I can say that probably the second-best regional paper in the country, the Yorkshire Post, yesterday gave the important information that the UK agricultural industry’s total borrowing dropped by £253 million in the quarter to March 2007. The March 2007 figure represents the lowest quarterly bank lending figure since the end of September 2005. At the end of March, UK farmers had the highest figure for deposits in banks on record. The cash-flow situation improved dramatically this year compared to last year, so I hope that farmers will trust that we are doing our best to run the system.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, has not the excellent work done by people in Defra in west Cumberland to sort out this problem proved that my noble friend’s decision in 1997 to bring the British Cattle Movement Service to Workington was an excellent one?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I pay tribute to all the staff at the five RPA offices, all of which I visited for the second time during the Recess. I add that the staff at Workington have already started to process the 2007 claims. I understand that the initial processing of some 8,000 claims was already completed before the close at midnight last night. That is where the initial validation will take place.
This year, we paid out money earlier than last year. Clearly, we hope and expect to pay out earlier this year. We must meet the targets set by the European Union to ensure that we do not suffer disallowance penalties and late-payment penalties, none of which have yet arrived at the door of Defra. Contrary to press reports, there have been no penalties imposed on the Government.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government have at any time regretted the system that they have adopted, and its complexity, when the Scottish have adopted their simpler single payment system? What snags for the Scottish farmer will be as difficult as the ones from the complex system for the English farmer?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot answer that question. Since I have been at Defra, I have spent my time, as has David Miliband, looking at the present and the future, learning where we can from the past. It is not in our interests as Ministers at the present time to delve into the past. Plenty of others, including members of Select Committees of both Houses, are doing that.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to speculate on what the Government would have done to me if I owed them as much money as they owe me?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I hope that we do not owe the noble and distinguished Lord very much, although it is true that some payments are still owed. We had paid out some 95 per cent of the money by 30 June. That is our legal requirement for this year. Where payments have been delayed, we have paid interest—more than £1.1 million to late claimants for 2005. It is too early to say what will happen this year, because we hope, and we are trying hard, to meet the target.
Olympic Games 2012: Arts Funding
3.17 pm
Lord Sheldon asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What is their latest estimate of changes in the level of support for the arts as a consequence of the rising cost of the 2012 London Olympic Games.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the Government announced on 15 March that Arts Council England would contribute an additional £62.9 million towards the cost of the Olympics, bringing its total contribution, subject to parliamentary approval in both Houses, to £112.5 million, spread over four years. This means that, based on current projections, there should still be £500 million of new lottery money for Arts Council England between 2009 and 2012. Existing lottery commitments will not be affected.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but is he aware of the consequences of the budget for the 2012 Olympics, which has risen from £3.4 billion in 2005 to £9.3 billion now, and that Arts Council England and the Heritage Lottery Fund have had to contribute almost £400 million? Is he also aware that, although the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has been cobbled together, with culture having little connection with sport, it must be wrong for the arts to lose out to sport as a result of the mishandling of the department?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, may I first dispute the figures given by my noble friend? The lottery will contribute £2.15 billion, and Arts Council England will contribute £112 million. I do not make a distinction between sports and the arts; they are both of enormous importance to our country. It is of great significance that the Olympics are coming to our country, and we must celebrate that. There has been a change in funding figures. We feel that everything is now absolutely under control, and that the impact on the arts world will not be as significant as some people are trying to tell us.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that constancy is essential in arts funding, and that, when this Government demand that the arts sector is disciplined about setting itself targets, they should not then summarily pull the financial rug from underneath it?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness that consistency is very important, but I draw her attention to the fact that 10 years ago the Arts Council budget was £173 million; it is now £412 million. An enormous amount of money is being spent on the arts. The Government will do everything that they can to minimise the impact on arts organisations because of this diversion to the Olympic fund, and I am sure that we will be able to discuss many of these issues at greater length in the debate tomorrow.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, further to the Minister’s reply to the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, are we right to understand that his remarks were an admission from the Government that expenditure on the Olympics was out of control? If that is not what he meant, what did he mean?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I meant that when the Government put in their bid for the Olympics, they used a set of figures that did not include the cost of regenerating the area where the Olympics are to be held. The Government feel that this will be an important legacy of the Games and is an investment well worth making. The essential thing is that the figures we have now cover everything. There is a contingency so that if costs do rise—we do not anticipate that they will—they will be taken care of from the contingency.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that within the Olympics budget a significant amount of money is set aside for the cultural aspect of the Olympics? Can he further confirm that in terms of the overall position of arts funding in this country, the outcome of the forthcoming CSR is considerably more important than any raid on the lottery that is going towards the Olympics?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, to answer my noble friend’s second question first, the spending review is causing some anxiety in relation to this diversion of moneys to the Olympic Games. Obviously, I cannot say anything about that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made an extremely positive speech in Brighton last week about the arts. Yesterday, my right honourable friend made a speech in Liverpool, where she announced the preliminary details of the Cultural Olympiad, suggesting that £40 million would be set aside—which she hoped to have doubled—to encourage arts as a parallel to the Olympic Games over the next four years. It has always been the intention that a very powerful arts programme should run alongside the Olympic Games. That should encourage the arts world.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, what is the total amount diverted from charities to the Olympic Games?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, one of the problems is how we define “charities”. There has been an agreement with the Big Lottery Fund that resources for voluntary and community sector activities will be protected. This means that the sector will still receive the amount implied by the Big Lottery’s earlier commitment of around £2 billion, and the NCVO has welcomed this.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |