| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord reminds the House that the question of airport expansion is one of tough choices. Had the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, been in his place, I am not so sure that he would have had the same perspective on Essex. The noble Lord has indicated that one part of Essex is gaining, whereas someone else may think that it is losing.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, are we to understand from the Minister that BAA is at liberty to thwart the Government's declared intention with regard to airport policy?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the White Paper, which is based on very extensive prior consultation, is quite clear on the position regarding the south-east. The British Airports Authority has clearly indicated that it is following the broad strategy of the White Paper, as we expect it to do.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, now that a Bill has passed through
your Lordships' House drawing attention to the necessity for limiting emissions and airport building on good agricultural land, and now that a committee of another place has recently reported along the same lines, it is time that the Government abandoned the "predict and provide" method of dealing with airports, just as they abandoned it for roads?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government are not following "predict and provide". We are taking into account the point which the noble Lord has put forward both today and in his Bill. He will recognise that the question of expansion at Heathrow depends on Heathrow's ability to meet clear environmental requirements, which on present predictions it is not able to do. Any expansion is contingent on improvements in that respect.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I declare an interest as an Essex resident although I live at a distance from Stansted. BAA is currently operating in agreement with many of the property owners in the airport vicinity and is purchasing property. That is a commercial decision with which it and the vendors will have to live. However, if at the end of the planning process there is any question of there being a designated site for Stansted to expand, will the Minister assure the House that the designation will include only land to be used for purposes of airport development, and not land which might be used for other forms of commercial development that, although indirectly related to the airport, would more properly not be on the airport site? There is otherwise a risk that land might be designated and bought at one price but then sold on at a very high profit.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, everyone is aware that Stansted airport is located in an area of considerable architectural merit and attractive countryside. We have sought to identify the limitations in order to protect those features as much as we possibly can. The noble Lord will recognise that the White Paper identifies the broad area for airport expansion. It is now for the planning authorities to deal with BAA's proposals.
Tobacco Growing: Subsidies
11.15 a.m.
Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they will continue to subsidise the growing of tobacco within the European Union; and, if so, what that subsidy will cost the United Kingdom in 2004.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, proposals for further CAP reform, which include full decoupling of tobacco support, are before the Agriculture Council. If agreement is reached on the proposal as it stands, then direct subsidies for tobacco will be phased out completely by 2007.
Member states contribute to the EU budget as a whole and not to individual programmes. In 2004, the UK contribution is estimated to be around 13.3 per cent. To help the noble Lord, although the figures cannot be exact because of the global contribution, we estimate that the cost to the UK for the tobacco subsidy within the total budget is about £88 million.
Lord Renton: I thank the Minister for her full and helpful reply. Does it not reveal that there is a good deal of chaos in the European Union? This still considerable subsidy for growing tobacco is a contradiction when the European Union hopes to spend a much smaller sum to stop tobacco smoking. Does the Minister realise that this financial year's commitment of £642 million has to be compared with the much smaller total amount of food subsidies? The subsidy on wheat is only one-twentieth of the tobacco subsidy.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I share the obvious concern of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. We fully support the Commission's proposal for complete decoupling in the tobacco sector and welcome his support in that matter. The Government also support his comments about the deleterious effects of smoking tobacco.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this has become a scandal over the years? What conceivable moral difference is there between governments subsidising the growing of tobacco and governments all over Asia subsidising poppy growing to produce heroin?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, has come up with a question I did not contemplate in considering the questions that might be asked. At the moment, smoking tobacco is legal but the Government share his concern that we should not be subsidising tobacco growing. We must reach agreement on achieving what appears to be the united aim of noble Lords.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that, in the agricultural negotiations this year, the United Kingdom was outvoted? We took a positive view in relation to the abolition of agricultural subsidies, yet we failed to carry a majority. Therefore, will she not say in quite unequivocal terms that there is a most obtuse sense of priorities given that we have £642 million spent on tobacco subsidies when the European Union, at the Madrid Donors Conference, managed to donate only £200 million for the reconstruction of Iraq?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I cannot but agree with my noble friend. However, I would point out that, in terms of progress, the Commission has now put forward the proposal. It is anticipated under the Irish presidency that there will be a meeting at the end of April, and that the issue will be pursued with all vigour then.
Lord Addington: My Lords, have the Government considered that tobacco is actually a very unsuitable
crop for the ground on which it is grown? It requires huge amounts of chemical intervention to produce it. Will the Government indicate how much thought they have given to choosing crops suitable to the ground in which they are grown, quite apart from the obvious health problems associated with the crop?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is very difficult for the Government to have a specific policy, because those countries within the EU, and the accession countries to the EU, have very different circumstances in terms of climate, soil and the alternatives. However, as part of our commitment and very successful achievements in terms of decoupling, we want to see the maximum amount of help and advice given to farmers who, were the decoupling agreed, would need an opportunity to look at alternative crops.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, although the reform of the CAP decouples the payment from production, as the Minister rightly says, it does not decouple the payment from the land. Is there any sign that the EU will work to subsume the tobacco payments into the general land payments, which would have the desirable effect of stopping tobacco production?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord is exactly right; that would be the result of the policy that I have tried to outline.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the government tax on tobacco is sufficient to pay for what we contribute to the EU as a subsidy for tobacco growing and for what we use in advertising against smoking tobacco?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I do not have an answer for the noble Baroness in terms of the amount of money raised in tobacco taxation within the EU. I will write to her.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, we should move on to the next Question.
Abu Qatada
11.23 a.m.
Lord Ahmed asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they can confirm recent media reports that the Al'Qaeda cleric Abu Qatada has provided information to the British security services.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Security Service had three meetings with Abu Qatada during 1996 and 1997.
Information on that is provided in the open determination handed down by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission on 8 March 2004.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply. Will she confirm whether Omar Bakri and Abu Hamza are also providing information to security services? If not, why have they not been deported to their countries of origin, as they are working against the interests of our community in our country, inciting hatred between communities and encouraging the recruitment of young people into militancy? Is she aware that any threats of terrorism to Britain—London or anywhere else—are also threats to the British Muslim community? Does she agree that reports of Islamic terrorism and bombs are offensive to mainstream Muslims, who are law-abiding citizens of the United Kingdom, proud to be British and proud to be Muslims?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page