| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Paul: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that encouraging Answer. Is the outcome of the UN General Assembly Special Session likely to be a commitment to ensure better education for both girls and boys? I commend the UK Government for launching the Commonwealth Education Fund. How will the fund be distributed and how will the Government ensure that girls in particular are helped?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Commonwealth Education Fund was launched earlier this year. We are committed to the achievement of the millennium development goals in education, which include gender equality. The fund will be distributed through NGOs. A key part of the fund will be to ensure that girls have equal access to education.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, while welcoming the Government's commitment to the outcome document, A World fit for Children, and the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in New York, even though there were not any figures attached to it, does the Minister agree that, whereas some of the commitments in the declaration—to health, education and so on—demand enormous resources, others demand acts of political will, such as the injunction for all states to sign up to the declaration on the rights of the child and the optional protocols dealing with
matters such as child prostitution? Will the Government use all their endeavours to persuade other Commonwealth partners to sign up to the convention and protocols? In the case of child soldiers, does the Minister agree that we have acquired particular expertise through our experience in Sierra Leone which might be made available to other members?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that some elements of the outcome of UNGASS require political will rather than resources. We do everything that we can to encourage other governments to sign up to the declaration. As to the optional protocol, we have signed the optional protocol ourselves and are encouraging other governments to do so. Where we can use our expertise, we will.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the children most at risk overseas are street children, whether or not they happen to be fully homeless, and children in danger of sexual exploitation, very often because of the poverty of their families? Does she further agree that these are not matters about which the United Nations, by itself, can do a great deal, but are dependent on the efforts of individual states? Can that message be urged very strongly?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, all would agree that the plight of street children and the situation regarding the sexual exploitation of children are very grave indeed, and that international measures are needed to deal with the problems. The Government have signed the new convention against trans-national crime, which includes a protocol on the trafficking of women and children, and we are working directly with NGOs and governments to address this problem. For example, we are providing a £2.9 million project covering parts of Cambodia, China, Thailand and Vietnam. We shall do all that we can to ensure that individual governments take seriously their responsibilities in this area.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the Government's plan to disperse over 3,000 refugee children across the country for the purpose of care? Does the plan meet the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and our commitment as regards the document, A World Fit for Children?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, what we are trying to ensure in regard to refugee children—whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere—is global consideration of such matters. For example, the issue of refugee children is being discussed as part of the UNHCR global consultation. We want to ensure that the plight of refugee children is taken on board. That is a key component of our policy. This is an area in
which the Home Office leads, but I know that it is concerned that refugee children have, for example, adequate access to education and other services.
Lord Elton: My Lords, recognising the duty that we have to our own children, should we not be attempting to reduce the large proportion of children in this country who are being drawn into crime, and to prevent it by the most effective means—which is often voluntary agencies, particularly in areas such as Liverpool, where I see today there is a plan to withdraw such help?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am unable to comment specifically on the programme in Liverpool to which the noble Lord refers. He will know that a key part of the Government's crime prevention strategy is to tackle child crime. We are examining these matters across the board. We have initiatives not only within the Home Office but also within the Department for Education and Skills. We see this as an issue that needs to be addressed across government. It is not simply a matter of criminal activity, but of activity that affects other areas as well.
Transport Policy
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they have any intention of changing their 10-year strategy for transport.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the 10-year plan is an unprecedented long-term framework for increased investment to improve our transport system. It marks an end to years of under-investment and "stop-go" funding policies, and was widely welcomed as such. Like any long-term programme, it will need to be reviewed periodically to assess progress and take stock of events; but we remain committed to delivering the plan's long-term objectives and providing the funding needed to do so.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. Does he accept the view of the Select Committee of another place that transport policy is a shambles? The Deputy Prime Minister is openly criticised by his colleagues as a failure, and his successor has humiliatingly resigned, after hanging on for far too long. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that we now know that this Government have spent less in real terms on transport than their Conservative predecessors? When will the Prime Minister get a grip on this utter mess—which the public have to endure on a daily basis?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords, I do not agree with the characterisation given by the noble Baroness or the Select Committee. Transport poses real problems. The 10-year plan is unprecedented. It involves a 44 per cent real terms increase over the
previous 10 years. Over many, many years, there has been a huge period of under-investment in the railways. Until this Government came to office, there had not been a government committed to the importance of the railways. If you speak to people engaged in the railway industry now, they will say that the foundations are being laid for a better and improved rail service. So it is difficult; it will take time; but we are committed to it.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that one of the successes of the 10-year plan is a 6 per cent increase in bus use in London? Does he agree that that is due to bus lanes? There are now more buses on the road and fewer cars. Only 6 per cent of journeys in London are now made by car—although I suspect that the proportion to and from this House is rather higher. Is not that a significant benefit; and does it not indicate the success of the 10-year plan in regard to London?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, my Lords. I was aware of the points made by the noble Lord. The importance of bus traffic, not only in London but throughout the whole country, is very great, and is improving. People should recognise improvements when they occur.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, has the Government abrogated all responsibility for London in their 10-year plan?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the Minister aware—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, but the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, did ask a complete question—he put his question and then sat down in a manner which indicated that the question was complete. We have not abrogated responsibility for London. We have provided responsibility in the GLA Act that was passed in the previous Parliament. That gives the setting of priorities and the delivery of transport policy in London to the mayor—and that is sensible.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord confirm that any transport plan must put the needs of railway passengers before those of shareholders? Does he accept that some form of restraint on the use of the private car in congested places will be necessary? Does he agree that we need a real policy, rather than the gossip and rhetoric that we are getting from the other side?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord's final remark. "Gossip and rhetoric" would be too kind a way to describe the Conservatives'
contribution to the debate. Yes, I agree that it is very important that the needs of the travelling public should come first. This Government have taken the difficult decisions that seek to get rid of the conflict between the interests of shareholders and those of the travelling public.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |