---

Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that the problem is not limited to the third world and that, if we are to lead convincingly, we have to address the issue of illegal practice in our own society? With perhaps as many as 250 million children still at risk worldwide, is there not a danger that the 1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child will become a mockery unless rigorous efforts are made to enforce it? Is there not an acute need for more precise data on the abuses so that they can be targeted? Apart from assisting in the provision of universal compulsory education, what is the ODA able to do in helping to build up reliable systems of birth registration and in encouraging companies operating overseas to introduce effective self-monitoring and monitoring of their suppliers?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord puts a whole raft of questions. Of course we agree that child labour has to be corrected. We ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The important thing is to allow civil society groups to hold their governments to that convention. That applies right across the world. We are committed to protecting children from economic exploitation through legislative, administrative, social and educational measures. It is

19 Feb 1997 : Column 683

one convention that has received near-universal ratification. That is why we take every opportunity to urge countries to ensure its effective implementation. But we need the help of civil society in the countries to do so.

It is right that there should be rigorous implementation. We can encourage and help countries to have reliable systems of statistics, including birth statistics. We can condemn bad practice--child labour and forced labour--and continue to urge governments to take all necessary measures. But, importantly, we can also help to educate them out of the practice. The way to educate them out of the practice is to make sure that children go to school and stay in school for longer and to see that governments are fully notified of any exploitation found by any donor country.

The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether any discussions have taken place within the Commonwealth about the child labour records of India and Pakistan in view of the extensive coverage of the Harare declaration on social matters?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I know that some discussion has taken place; it has been of a rather informal nature. My noble friend is absolutely right: this is one of the issues which the Commonwealth should take into account. I hope that the Commonwealth countries will work with us on the UN Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour, which sets out in detail the measures which every government should take. We have urged all countries to implement that programme. The ILO is taking a very good lead with the non-governmental organisations, prominent among them the Save the Children Fund, which has done excellent work in combating child labour.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the interesting statistic contained in the UNICEF report that 95 per cent. of child labour takes place outside the export industries, mainly in the agricultural sector? Is ODA currently funding any specific schemes in the agricultural sector?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, yes, it is. I would need more notice to give the whole raft of such schemes. We have been working with the international programme for the elimination of child labour and support the Government of Pakistan's intention to set up 35 rehabilitation centres for child labourers. Some of those child labourers certainly come from the agricultural sector, although others may well come from the textile industry.

Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that during the election campaign in Pakistan, Mr. Imran Khan, the cricketer, advocated child labour, of which there is a great deal in Pakistan, India and elsewhere among members of the Commonwealth? Will she consider withholding grants to those countries which use child labour?

19 Feb 1997 : Column 684

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, this is a matter of education. I was not aware of what Mr. Imran Khan said in Pakistan but I am aware that in many of the south Asian countries to ban or to act against child labour per se can have a very negative effect. I think that that is something your Lordships would wish to be conscious of.

We know from Anti-Slavery International and others that in some countries where children have been stopped from working in the textile industry they have turned to prostitution. We obviously do not wish that to happen. There is therefore a very important role to be played by those donor countries who seek to educate the children and to make sure that they do not move from one bad situation to something which we might consider even worse. Child labour is a bad thing but there is no doubt that the basis for persuading countries to move away from child labour has to be an educative one.

Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that, as my noble friend said in asking the question, this is not a matter which concerns the third world alone? The report to which my noble friend referred says, for example, that between 15 and 26 per cent. of 11 year-olds and between 36 per cent. and 66 per cent. of 15 year-olds in this country are working illegally. In those circumstances had we not better put our own house in order? Should the Minister not have a word with her colleagues in government so that we can more effectively help others by first of all putting an end to this bad practice in our own country?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am aware of the figures in the UNICEF report; I am also aware that there are questions about some of them. The critical thing is that all exploitative and hazardous child labour must be eradicated. In this country we shall certainly take any measures which are necessary to eradicate the problem of child labour. However, child labour is nothing like the problem in western countries that it is in the developing world. There is a very special problem in the developing world for which I am answerable in your Lordships' House. My colleagues will answer in this House for this country.

Local Authorities: Revenue Support Grant

3.5 p.m.

Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they have any proposals to alter the basis of support to local authorities through the revenue support grant.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): No, my Lords.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his usual helpful approach to these matters. Is there not something wrong with a system which classifies the City of Westminster as the fourth most deprived local

19 Feb 1997 : Column 685

authority in the country and results in the Government giving it so much support that a millionaire living in Belgravia pays less in council tax than, for example, a person living in the poorest quality accommodation in Liverpool and also thousands of other people up and down the country? Is there some good answer for that, or is it simply that the Government wish to support their Conservative friends at Westminster City Council?

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there is a good answer, of which the noble Lord's last observations do not form part. The noble Lord says that Westminster is the fourth most deprived local authority. So it is. Noble Lords and noble Baronesses opposite seem to think that that is funny. If they addressed their minds to the facts, they would see that independent research carried out by Bristol University confirms that Westminster is the fourth authority on an index of material deprivation. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, may therefore like to take the smile off her face.

If the noble Lord is still worried, let me point out that Westminster has a higher density of population than Hackney, Islington, Lambeth or Southwark; it has a higher proportion of people likely to be from ethnic minorities than Hackney, Islington, Lambeth or Southwark; it has a higher proportion of people living in overcrowded accommodation than Hackney, Islington, Lambeth or Southwark; and it has a higher proportion of elderly people over 85--some of whom may be in your Lordships' House--and a higher proportion of elderly people living alone than Hackney, Islington, Lambeth or Southwark. That is the reason for the grant which Westminster City Council receives.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, what sort of council has caused these appalling figures?

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may say so, that is a peculiarly helpful question from the noble Lord. It happens to be a Conservative council. If one looks at the position for Hackney, Islington, Lambeth and Southwark, one finds that they charge far higher council taxes. The council tax in Westminster last year was £295, in Camden it was £779 and in Islington, £853.

Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Earl encourage the City of Westminster to improve the efficiency of its services? The Audit Commission demonstrated last year that many of the services provided by Westminster City Council are by far the most expensive in Britain. Westminster spends more on refuse collection and disposal, street cleaning and benefits claimants than any other council in England. Instead of giving Westminster Council a lot of taxpayers' money, would it not be better to ask it to get its act together?

---