---

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I reiterate that these issues are being looked at. One of the difficulties I have is that noble Lords would hate me to give a timetable which would be alighted upon by others. All I can say is that there are more aesthetically pleasing structures elsewhere. Those issues are being looked at. Your Lordships can look forward to a delightful future when the concrete blocks may not be here although I cannot tell your Lordships when that will be.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, Horse Guards Parade has been mentioned. My noble friend will be aware that the horrible concrete blocks across the end of it have been replaced by proper bollards which look very aesthetically pleasing. Will my noble friend explain why the concrete blocks have been put back inside the bollards as a second form of defence? It seems to me rather a waste to spend all that money on pop-up bollards as a security measure and then put concrete blocks back inside them.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, every metre of stand-off counts in relation to security. The scientific assessment is made with real precision. We are advantaged in as much as there are new, great precision blocks that can be used and will be used. The most important thing for the moment is to ensure that there is a visual deterrent and that it is discreet and effective. Security is of primary importance. Other matters, such as aesthetics, are important but cannot impinge on the fundamental security of the buildings.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, are the blocks of any use at all? I believe that the concrete blocks are not shatterproof, so they are in fact worse than useless. If there was a bomb outside Parliament, we would all probably be killed by the shattered blocks rather than by the bomb. What are we about?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I reassure the noble Baroness that the blocks have a really substantial effect. When you look at the science of how the blocks are shaped and created and the way in which they can better protect, it is absolutely clear that they may not be pleasing to the eye, but they are better than not having them there. I can certainly assure your Lordships of that.
 
27 Jun 2005 : Column 9
 

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, will my noble friend look into the case put by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain? What she said is true. Is it not the case that they simply provide a physical barrier against vehicles that might want to come nearer to this institution? Is there not every need for very early action to be taken to ensure that they are replaced by something more aesthetically pleasing? There can be no excuse for delay.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there is no delay; energetic efforts are being made. I reiterate that it would be very foolish indeed for me to indicate when one sort of security will be there and when another sort of security may be replaced. Therefore, I am not able to tell noble Lords when it will happen. However, I assure your Lordships that the design, the nature, and the issue that was raised by the noble Baroness are of real importance and are very much at the forefront of the minds of the security services and of others who are responsible for these matters. They are being dealt with well.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, have the blocks been physically tested in a laboratory or anywhere else; and if so, when?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the design of all the barriers that have been put up has been scientifically tested. I repeat that we have discovered through bitter experience that every metre of stand-off counts. Noble Lords know that the threat that we now face has mutated and changed, and the barriers that we put in place are there to meet that threat.

UN High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change

3.13 pm

Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will publish their response to the recommendations in the report of the United Nations High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): My Lords, we welcomed the High-level Panel report on Threats, Challenges and Change in December 2004 as an ambitious blueprint for tackling the challenges facing the international community. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs presented the report to the other place in February. I have placed copies of his introduction to the document in the Library of the House. The report was a major contribution to the preparations for September's millennium review summit.
 
27 Jun 2005 : Column 10
 

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his Answer, but he will recall that in its report in another place the Foreign Affairs Select Committee said:

"We recommend that, in its response to this Report, the Government set out its policy position on the implementation of the Panel's recommendations".

We are about to become the president of the European Union and of the G8 in a very few days. The Minister will be aware that the United Nations, which is an indispensable international organisation, is coming under organised and unremitting criticism from a certain section in particular of the US Congress. Therefore, it is important for the United Kingdom Government to make plain their support for the United Nations and for reforms—which are certainly needed—to the United Nations.

Will the Minister promise the House that this will receive urgent attention from the Foreign Office and the Prime Minister so that it can be done while the United Kingdom is in this powerful and uniquely influential position?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I completely accept the proposition that the United Nations is vital to our interests. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel reassured that we have made explicit our priorities during our presidency in relation to reform of the United Nations. They will be for more and better aid achieved through faster progress towards the MDGs, environmental sustainability and tackling climate change, the establishment of a peace-building commission to assist states emerging from conflict, comprehensive counter-terrorism policy, agreement on a responsibility to protect, improvement of the UN's response to humanitarian crises, and reform of the human rights machinery. Also, there should be significant administrative changes to streamline the Secretariat and enlarge the Security Council. All those are explicit priorities to which the Government are committed, and for which we will use our presidency of both the EU and, with the support of the EU, the G8.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, will the Government give their full support to the criteria or principles for the use of force, which were set out both in the high-level panel report and in the Secretary-General's report, In Larger Freedom? They will be on the table in September. I did not notice any reference to them in the list that the Minister rattled off, after having given a somewhat general reply to the Question, if I may say so.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the whole issue about the criteria advanced by Kofi Annan is one with which there is a good deal of sympathy. However, there is also felt to be a need for further and detailed discussion about it. The United Nations has not always been successful in peacekeeping missions, preventing human rights abuses, or protecting those who need the greatest protection—those who are often most vulnerable. A good deal of detailed work is required to make sure that, when the
 
27 Jun 2005 : Column 11
 
United Nations puts blue berets or helmets on people, it knows exactly what it is doing and what purpose it has in mind.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the report was extremely valuable; the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, among others, made a notable contribution to it. However, has the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, not reminded us of what is happening in the US Congress? Has the Minister noted that the US Congress is delaying the whole business of American contributions to the UN, which is a serious matter as America is by far its biggest funder and financier? Congress is doing that because it is particularly concerned about the way in which human rights commissions and committees are set up by the UN, with a chairman or chair country often from or being a country that abuses human rights. Do we share that concern?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the issues in front of the United States Senate, including the appointment of an ambassador to the United Nations, are matters for the United States. However, we certainly share the view that the various agencies and bodies under the auspices of the United Nations that undertake its principal responsibilities and duties must all act in a co-ordinated way. They must not duplicate each other's functions; that is wasteful and does not achieve the results that everyone wants. They must all work to the same sets of priorities. Kofi Annan has been pretty explicit in sharpening up those priorities, which should be of great benefit not only to the UN but to all the interlinking agencies.

---