17 Oct 2006 : Column 641
House of Lords
Tuesday, 17 October 2006.
The House met at half-past two of the clock: the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.
Mobile Phone Networks
Lord Steel of Aikwood asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What social obligations they place on mobile phone networks, when issuing licences, to extend transmission coverage to communities of up to 200 people in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, as the universal service obligation requires that all but the most inaccessible locations are provided with fixed-line telephone services, no social obligations have been placed on mobile phone operators. However, 99.9 per cent of the UK population live in postal districts that have at least one mobile operator with at least 75 per cent area coverage, and 90.5 per cent of postal districts are covered by at least one third-generation mobile operator.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but as mobile phone companies are doing quite nicely out of the licences, should there not be a social obligation on them to extend basic coverage at least to all substantial villages in the country? Is he aware that the Duke of Buccleuch recently pointed out that the Romans, 2,000 years ago, had an effective system of signalling by beacon throughout the Scottish Borders, which is something yet to be achieved by Vodafone?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the issue here is whether mobile phones are a basic need. Only where a particular service can be seen to be a basic need is it appropriate to have licences that require universal service obligation.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I declare an interest in that we have a transmission mast on Kinnordy. My area, the Glens of Angus, is very similar to that in which the noble Lord, Lord Steel, lives. Will the Minister write to me with the mathematics of the 99.5 per cent and so on because, even with the transmission mast at Kirriemuir, there are areas 10 miles away in the Glens of Angus where it is extremely difficult to find anything like the service that the noble Lord decrees necessary?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the same is true of north Henley. If you listen carefully to the statistic that I gave, you will see that it leaves quite a lot of room: 99.9 per cent of the UK population live in postal districts that have at least one mobile operator with at least 75 per cent area coverage.
17 Oct 2006 : Column 642
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, given that Northumberland is one of the largest counties in the country, it seems to take up a large proportion of that 0.1 per cent. Should there be an obligation on mobile companies, if only one operator is operating in that area, to allow other networks to have access to those masts?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this question arises with roaming for emergency services, when there is a case for doing that. Otherwise, we are dealing with a normal, competitive situation.
Lord De Mauley: My Lords, the problem is that one tends to find oneself in an area where the single network to which the Minister refers is not the one to which one’s own telephone works. Can he envisagea non-statutory way in which to achieve greater flexibility—for example, by encouraging providers to offer users the option to switch networks if their own network does not have coverage? That option is already available when one is travelling abroad.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this is just a straightforward competitive situation, and we will find that over time people will make the best possible use of their services. Operators will get as many customers as they can through having as wide as possible an application.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does this not depend almost entirely on the planning system, and is there not a social obligation in that?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, if it could be shown that there was a serious hindrance to the provision of these services from the planning system, we should look at that in terms of trying to change the criteria of the system, but I do not think that that has yet been shown.
Brazil: Amazon Rainforest
2.41 pm
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What support they are giving to the strategy of the Government of Brazil to preserve the Amazon rainforest.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): My Lords, we offer direct support through bilateral projects. Furthermore, sustainable forest management and climate change are both areas of collaboration under the UK-Brazil high-level dialogue on sustainable development. The UK is also working actively with Brazil and other countries to establish a policy framework for reducing deforestation under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
17 Oct 2006 : Column 643
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his informative Answer. Given that the future of the rainforest is crucial to developments in climate change and the fact that we are still losing 12,000 acres a day in Brazil alone, can he help us to understand why the European Union has withdrawn its support for the rainforest and why reportedly the World Bank is shifting its support away from the environment and on to the infrastructure of Brazil?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, for many years the European Commission has provided significant funds for forest-sector work in Brazil under the tropical forest budget line, which comes to an end this year. There is a reorganisation involving the creation of a new environment and natural resources fund. Money for forests will not be ringfenced within the budget line, and I do not yet know what it will mean for expenditure on, particularly, forestry. However, the EC’s Brazil country strategy paper provides for work on the environment. Also, the EC will continue to contribute to PPG7, an ambitious pilot programme set up in the 1990s with the World Bank and other donors for forest conservation in Brazil.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, what steps do Her Majesty’s Government plan to take in the light of the Global Witness report regarding forest law? Experts estimate that we are losing 137 plant, animal and insect species every single day due to rainforest deforestation. That equates to the loss of 50,000 species a year. Most important, as rainforest species disappear, so do many possible cures for life-threatening diseases. What steps are Her Majesty’s Government taking not only to work in this area but to educate people through projects in countries with rainforest environments?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, the issues raised by the noble Baroness were among the key themes of the Gleneagles discussions held over a year ago, and they have been revisited at a high-level meeting in Mexico attended by the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs just a short time ago. The aim of those meetings is to deal with climate change in a general sense and to make sure that the overall policies on the retention of forests and the natural environment that is dependent on them is part of the sustainable programme and project. I suggest that the outcomes of the discussions in Mexico show a great willingness to do that and a willingness to carry the issues into discussions in the United Nations.
Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that 20 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide are from deforestation? Will he assure the House that, following the publication of the Stern report, the Government will engage actively with Brazil, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and the other players in international fora to tackle this vital 20 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions?
17 Oct 2006 : Column 644
Lord Triesman: My Lords, this is an absolutely vital issue. There is no question whatever that unless we get a sustainable environment the prospects for the next generation and generations beyond is very dire indeed. We will do all the work that my noble friend mentions. I know that Brazil, which was mentioned as one of the elements of the Question, is working towards sustainable forest management. That is deeply embedded in the way in which it tries to ensure that the Amazon basin remains one of the great forested areas of the world.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, I declare an interest in that one of my children works for Survival, a charity operating from London that is concerned about the people living in these areas. To what extent are the Government concerned about the people living in these areas—the “natives”, or whatever is the appropriate word? For example, in Africa, people are being pushed off their land by De Beers for the mining of diamonds and so on. To what extent are the Government supporting charities such as Survival?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, there is a very active engagement—I am sure that all parties in the House support it—with all of the NGOs working in these areas. I have on other occasions answered questions about the San people and disputed at least one of the facts that my noble friend has introduced in his question. The point about forestry is complex: it concerns the environment and its contribution towards the elimination of some greenhouse gases. It is also about different species of animals and about the people who live in and are dependent on the forest as part of their way of life. That has all been part of the Gleneagles process and the follow-up. I am pleased that Her Majesty’s Government have made it one of their priorities.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that Her Majesty’s Government are confident that the writ of the Brazilian Government runs across the country and can stop maverick logging companies and landowners from deforesting large areas of land of their own accord?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am entirely confident that the Brazilian Government have taken the most serious and responsible view. There is no question but that everyone works in close co-operation on this. I am able to give that assurance because every part of the dialogue—not least during President Lula’s successful visit to this country—has been plainly focused on exactly the issues that have concerned the House today.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords—
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords—
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): My Lords, there is plenty of time for both noble Lords on this Question.
17 Oct 2006 : Column 645
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, on the issue of people in the rainforest, is the Minister aware that the major agricultural exports that we enjoy from Brazil—such as sugar and ethanol for fuel—are being produced not only at the expense of the rainforest but on the backs of illegal migrant workers, who are being exploited against ILO rules? Are the Government helping Brazil to follow up employers who contravene ILO rules?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, the Brazilian Government are aware of and act on their responsibilities in relation to illegal work. I have no doubt of that from any conversations that I have ever had with them. Brazil is a world leader in the production of ethanol and the development of sugar for other purposes, which, given what has happened in Europe and elsewhere, is very significant to these economies. The production of ethanol and the science around it will be one of the most decisive things in stopping greenhouse emissions over the period to come and is much to be commended.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the Minister will appreciate that Brazil has more capacity than most countries in Central and South America to ensure that issues of illegal land encroachment and so on are followed up. I am told by the Latin American network of women leaders defending the environment that most countries in that region still have considerable problems involving deforestation and mining. Will the Minister assure me that the Foreign Office’s push on trade and investment is taking full account of the effects of agriculture and deforestation and of mining?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I can give the assurance that, in all the bilateral discussions that I have had with Ministers of Latin American countries when I am visiting those countries, we have looked at the issues of economic development of all kinds, and on every occasion there is a full discussion of environmental impact, the ways of measuring it and of containing despoliation. We must talk about these things in a whole way rather than by discussing individual elements. I have not conversed with anyone who is averse to looking at the issue precisely in the way that the noble Baroness suggests.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, will the Minister do all he can to ensure that his department safeguards our own bioethanol industry to meet our RTFO, which comes into effect in two years’ time, rather than our having to rely on Brazilian imports, which is what will happen with this deforestation?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am a bit cautious about getting into what the Foreign Office should do about production in the United Kingdom. However, having said that, I think that everybody will know that the Foreign Secretary has made sure that the environmental impact and our contribution to environmental sustainability are among the top objectives of the FCO, and I hope that we are doing abroad what we would practise at home.
17 Oct 2006 : Column 646
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the Minister say whether the proposal that the richer countries buy tracts of forest in Brazil has any chance of getting off the ground and, if it does, what are its chances of success?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I do not know whether it will get off the ground, but let me make it clear that the Government do not support or promote the purchase of the Amazon rainforest. We are working with the Brazilian Government, who have taken a wholly responsible view of it. I can do no better than to repeat the words of my right honourable friend David Miliband in the discussions in Mexico, when he said that we did not,
It is far better to do it in partnership with a serious Government with serious objectives.
Children in Care
2.52 pm
Lord Roberts of Conwy asked Her Majesty’s Government:
By what percentage the number of children taken into care has risen over the past decade; and whether they anticipate any further increase.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Lord Adonis): My Lords, the number of children entering care on a care order in England increased from 2,600 in 1995 to 4,100 in 2005—an increase of just under 58 per cent. The Green Paper published last week examined how the care population is changing and announced a new working group chaired by Martin Narey, the chief executive of Barnardo’s, to consider the long-term vision for the care system. Its report will inform our long-term strategy for supporting children within and outside care.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his Answer. My understanding is that the actual total of children in care rose by 20 per cent between 31 March 1996 and 31 March last year. If that is so—I think that the Government accept it—do they regard that as a sign of progress or of the deteriorating circumstances surrounding young people? Furthermore, will the total number of young people in care not increase when the Government’s action plan for social exclusion announced by the Prime Minister last month comes into operation? That action plan involves even more and earlier intervention by the state in the lives of young people.
Lord Adonis: My Lords, the figures that the noble Lord cited are broadly correct. We hope that earlier intervention, which is at the heart of the social exclusion action plan, will lead to fewer, not more, children
17 Oct 2006 : Column 647
In conjunction with that, we are developing children’s centres, which will act as a focus of special support for parents. There are 1,025 Sure Start children’s centres in operation. We are committed to having 2,500 by 2008 and 3,500 by 2010. Spending on Sure Start alone will reach £1.8 billion next year, which is double the figure for 2004. I hope that by giving parents earlier support all those measures will result in fewer children going into care in future.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I am sure that everyone supports the Government’s intention of reducing the number of children taken into care. However, do the Government intend to make available support and resources that would enable ageing grandparents or disabled members of a child’s family to take on the responsibility for that child, who might otherwise have to be taken into care, and, if not, why not?
Lord Adonis: My Lords, kinship care is complex, as the noble Baroness will recognise. At the moment, many relatives, including grandparents, are registered foster carers and are eligible for the full support available to foster carers, including the new minimum allowances for foster parents, which were introduced this year. Local authorities that have not offered those allowances to kinship carers have been subject to legal action. Recently, a major local authority settled an out-of-court action in respect of relatives who were not given that allowance. Martin Narey will examine the wider issue of the development of kinship care and the role that relatives such as grandparents can play as part of his review on the future of care.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: My Lords, many of us on these Benches are pleased with much of the Green Paper, not least because it examines the needs of children in care who get into trouble with the law, but how do the Government plan to tackle this group’s over-representation among the prison population?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |