Lords Sitting of 8 March 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.
Lord Stafford Lord Stafford—Took the Oath.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I have been invited to attend the Memorial Service for the late Lord Fraser of Tullybelton in Edinburgh on Wednesday, 15th March. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Wednesday, 15th March.

Schools: Moral and Ethical Balance
2.37 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: What action they propose to ensure that a proper balance is maintained in the discussion of moral and ethical issues in schools.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government look to schools and teachers to adopt a balanced and sensitive approach in dealing with moral and ethical issues, taking account of the views of parents.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and LIFE have been distributing written material and videos of a quite unsuitable kind for adolescents? Is he aware that this material is emotionally disturbing, technically inaccurate and politically motivated, and that it is causing parents a great deal of concern? Can he say what action the DES is taking to deal with the problem?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has received a complaint about the use in schools of a video concerning abortion which has been produced by LIFE. The complaint is currently being considered and a full reply will be sent in due course.
Lord Peston: My Lords, can the noble Viscount extend his answer a little further? He will be aware that the 1986 Education Act makes political activity in school illegal. These bodies seem to be political pressure groups. They themselves are connected with charities and seem to be endangering the charitable status of the organisations with which they are connected. Is it not the responsibility of the Secretary of State under the Act to take the lead in the matter?
1474
Is it not also the case that this has been going on for some time? It is very difficult to comprehend why the 1986 Act introduced the ban on political activity if it takes so long to do anything about that activity.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it is for the schools themselves to decide whether and how to deal with the issue of abortion. It may be covered within different subjects, including science, personal and social education or in religious education. The Government look to the schools to show sensitivity in dealing with issues such as abortion, taking into account the views and concerns of the parents.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hate to press the noble Viscount, but perhaps I may ask this question. While he is right that the schools can consider the issue of abortion, it is not the case that the schools are free to engage in political activity. Two years ago the Government went to a great deal of trouble to stop precisely that. The Question is not about a balanced approach to abortion (which we would all favour); it is about political activity. One requires an answer on that.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper is about moral and ethical issues. That is essentially a matter for each school to determine. Most typically moral and ethical issues will fall to be discussed either within religious education or personal and social education.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is not the key word in this Question “balance”? Will the Government accept that if the organisations named are allowed to put their point of view, then those with a different point of view should also be allowed to have their say? Will the noble Viscount accept that these subjects may only be suitable for education, discussion and examination by certain more mature age groups of pupils?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, abortion is covered as an option in some GCSE religious studies syllabuses. However, there is no obligation on any school to teach pupils about it.
Baroness Young: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the particular case which has been cited this afternoon is one that will cause everyone some concern? As he said, the matter is now before the Secretary of State. Does he not also take into account whether or not this is a political matter? Is that not one of his considerations?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend will take into account everything that has been said here today.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask whether HMI are going to produce any information on moral education in the curriculum matters series?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is a different question, to which I do not have the answer.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, will the noble Baroness be kind enough to tell me the difference between a moral and an ethical issue?
A noble Lord: Answer!
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I think that that is an extremely difficult question to answer. I apologise to the House for some duplication in my Question; but 1 think it is important for us to take into account that there is a great deal of blurring between "moral", "ethical" and "political". I wish to ask the Minister whether he is aware of the blurring that takes place on the subject. Also, is he aware that the Health Education Authority has not been consulted about these extremely unfortunate and emotionally disturbing videos? Will the DES be consulting the Health Education Authority as to their suitability?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, although personal and social education is not a foundation subject within the national curriculum, the subject will figure throughout the national curriculum on a cross-curricular basis. The Secretary of State has asked the National Curriculum Council as one of its first tasks to advise him on the place of personal and social education in the curriculum as a whole.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when we were debating the 1982 education legislation and looking at the powers of governors and the moral and ethical teaching in schools, that was one of the things that we tried to emphasise should be at the discretion of local governors and not that of the Department of Education and Science? Surely it is for local governors at each individual school to decide that school's own policy as to what should be taught in that particular school in this area.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is exactly what I have been trying to say.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister realise that in some cases I have read about neither the head teacher nor the governors knew what had been going on in the schools? Apparently one teacher had been showng the video for three years.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I did not know that.

Henry VII Chapel: Westminster Abbey
2.43 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn Lord Gladwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider making a grant towards the cleaning and restoration of the exterior of the Henry VII Chapel of Westminster Abbey.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we have considered this and the answer is, no.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which was not unexpected. However,
1476
surely the Government are aware that the funds available to the Westminster Abbey Restoration Fund must now all be devoted to the reconditioning of the towers and the east side of the Abbey, and that no money will be available for the cleaning of the Henry VII Chapel until 1993, if then? As the apparent maintenance of the chapel in its present filthy state is something in the nature of a national disgrace, could not the Government, exceptionally, co-operate with the Abbey on ways and means of remedying this situation? Perhaps something in the nature of a loan might be considered. This would not necessarily involve any serious strain on our national resources.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's concern, but government funding for the maintenance of historic buildings is channelled through English Heritage whose policy is to exclude cathedrals and equivalent churches from its general programme of church repair grants. That is in line with the Church of England's own view that parish churches should get priority over cathedrals, which are better placed to raise substantial sums from the public and other private sources.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in view of the fact that Henry VII was really an Anglesey Welshman, will the Minister make inquiries to see whether Welsh Heritage can help?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall certainly take up the noble Lord's point, but of course it was a Labour government which in 1977 came to this agreement with the Church of England.

Air Traffic Control Systems
2.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Whether they are encouraging the installation of an advanced system of special computers to help solve the problems of air traffic control in the United Kingdom and Western Europe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Government fully support the work of the Civil Aviation Authority on advanced air traffic control systems. The UK is playing a leading role within ICAO and Eurocontrol in carrying forward developments in this field internationally.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he agree that the present system cannot be regarded as satisfactory when breakdowns still occur at West Drayton causing chaos and long delays at Heathrow for the rest of the day? That happened again only last month—on 17th February.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. My Answer looks rather further forward than next year. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the new computer to be installed has

1477
been brought forward and should be in operation by next summer. That should alleviate the situation.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Lord chance his arm and tell us what kind of air traffic problems we will have this summer? Will they be as bad as last summer, or will the position be somewhat better?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not wish to make too firm a prediction at this stage, but I very much hope that there will be some improvement. The CAA and National Air Traffic Services have made proposals for small improvements this summer and a number of European initiatives should also come to fruition.

ConsGold Share Dealings: Report
2.48 p.m.
Lord Morris Lord Morris asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they will publish the 1986 Department of Trade and Industry report relating to share dealing in Consolidated Gold Fields plc.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, as I said in your Lordships' House on 24th January of this year, it is my intention to publish this report as soon as possible, but it would not be appropriate to do so until the issues raised by it have been fully considered.
Lord Morris: My Lords, has the Secretary of State yet exercised his power by virtue of Section 180 of the Financial Services Act 1986 to bring these matters to the attention of the appropriate regulatory authorities in order to assist the discharge of their functions?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, these are matters being considered by my department. There are matters which might possibly affect prosecution; they are being investigated at the present time.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, was this report released to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission when that body studied the Minorco-ConsGold merger?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords. A copy was sent to that body during the consideration of the bid, as was a copy of an interim report which I asked the current inspectors to produce for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's consideration. I should confirm to your Lordships' House that the 1986 report does not criticise Minorco in any way.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if that is the case, why did the Monopolies and Mergers Commission state in its report, in a footnote referring to the 1986 report, that the latter report
"has only recently been completed, and has not been published. We understand that it does not contain any information or conclusions directly relevant to our inquiry".
1478
Those are not the words of a commission which has received a copy of the report.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, will readily concede that the wording is that of the MMC; it is not mine. I understand that the 1986 report was seen by Monopolies and Mergers Commission officials who concluded that it had no relevance to their current enquiries. They reported that fact orally to members of the commission. That was a decision for them. That is what happened.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend give any indication as to the likely timescale for publication?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords. That is a matter for those who consider whether prosecution would be appropriate in this case.

Business
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I should like to say a word about the arrangements for this afternoon's two Short Debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. As is customary in Short Debates, the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes, and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate. In the case of the Short Debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulharn, speeches should be limited to a maximum of eight minutes. In the case of the Short Debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, the number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to propose any formal time limit, but I am confident that noble Lords will keep the length of their speeches within limits that are compatible with the spirit of these Short Debates.

Teacher Shortages
2.51 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I come to be moving the Motion because my name has come out of a hat. About 30 years ago, in somewhat similar circumstances, my name came out of a hat in another place. Being in a position to choose a subject for debate, I chose the shortage of teachers. The problem has persisted ever since. That is not altogether surprising because experience has shown that whatever plans one makes for education those plans will not come to very much unless one has enough qualified teachers. That is as true now as it was 30 years ago.
One of the chief advantages enjoyed by the most favoured section of the private sector of education is that it can make a more generous allowance of teachers in relation to the number of pupils.

1479
The point is emphasised at the end of the recent report of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, where it is pointed out that whatever is projected under the recent Education Reform Act will come to nothing unless there are enough qualified teachers. Therefore, I make no apology for bringing this subject again before Parliament, albeit in a somewhat different context.
We are by no means short of advice and information on the subject. There is the report I have just referred to from the inspectors, there is the activity of the Select Committee of another place and evidence submitted to that committee from many quarters. There is the report of the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions and a survey by the Institute of Manpower Studies. All those provide information from which one endeavours to draw, first, a picture of the general position, and then of the position as it affects different subjects to be taught. However, that is not easy because there does not appear to be any sure source from which one can make precise calculations as to what is likely to happen to teacher supply in future.
One thing at least appears to be clear: in the years between now and 1995 the number of pupils will first go down and then rise again, but not to its present level. During that time there will be a persistent decline in the number of people likely to come forward for teacher training. That is partly because of the demographic position—the number of people in the relevant age group—and partly because of growing competition for graduates from business, finance and industry which makes it increasingly difficult for teaching to attract a sufficient proportion of graduates. There is, therefore, that underlying difficulty.
In their evidence to the Select Committee the Government make the assumption that the number of people coming forward to be trained as teachers will increase perceptibly in the next few years, to such effect that by 1995 the number of teachers trained and the number of teachers wanted will be equal. It is not quite clear why the Government have made that assumption. One gains the impression that they did so because it would give the answer that they wanted. That is rather like the position of the pupil who has stolen the teacher's mathematics book containing the answers at the back of the book as well as the problems at the beginning: having decided how many teachers we shall need by 1995, the Government assume that the intake will be such as to make that possible.
Even if the Government are right and the overall totals of supply and demand are equal, it is alarming that there will be large gaps in particular subjects, some of them subjects to which the Government attach particular importance. According to the Government's calculations the supply of mathematics teachers will be 5 per cent. below what it ought to be. Nearly everyone else makes assumptions of a good deal more pessimistic nature about the supply of mathematics teachers. The Government take the view that the supply of physics teachers will be 12 per cent. below what it ought to be: chemistry, 20 per cent.; modern languages, 14 per
1480
cent.; technology, 27 per cent., and music, 28 per cent.
According to the Government there will be surpluses in some departments. They have suggested that there will be a surplus of teachers in religious education. I find that that view is not shared by other authorities who have studied the problem. Indeed, several warn of a shortage of teachers in that subject. I stress that point because we have spent a great deal of time in this House debating religious education. It would be a pity if all that thought came to nothing through a lack of teachers.
Among all the various commentators on the matter I found only one who took an optimistic view of the situation. That was to be found in the Daily Telegraph. It encouraged us with the thought that when the Education Reform Act was running at full blast the head teachers would have control of the school funds, they would be able to dismiss a large number of the teachers as being incompetent and replace them with people gathered from business and industry who would teach the children what education was really about. I heard a good deal of the debates on the Education Reform Act, but I did not think that that was what the Secretary of State had in mind. Perhaps the Government will enlighten us before this debate is over.
The Education Reform Act is certainly an impressive piece of work. One newspaper commentator likened it to the invention of the wheel. However, I could not be sure whether he was speaking in sycophancy or in satire.
The Act will place increasing demands on teachers. I notice in The Times today that yet another demand is to be made on teachers' time. We are told that every school has to nominate a teacher who will be responsible for dealing with theft, arson, vandalism and graffiti. That decision has been reached by what is called a "Special Action Squad" chaired by a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and composed of inspectors of schools, officials of the Department of Education and Science and education officers. As I am afraid one would expect from the present Government, there was not even one teacher among them. No employer would get anywhere if he went to a group of industrial employees and said, "We are going to require you to carry out a new and arduous duty; we have not consulted you about it, but have consulted several other people: this is what you have to do". No employer would get anywhere if he did that. He would have more sense than to attempt it. However, I am afraid that that is the sort of action we are used to at the present time.
I mentioned shortages in regard to various subjects. We must also notice that there will be regional shortages. Even if the total number of teachers was brought up to requirements, we could not be certain that they would be where they were wanted. It is notoriously difficult to move to certain parts of the kingdom at the present time because the cost of accommodation is rising to such fearsome heights. Broadly speaking, the more prosperous a region of the country, the more difficult it will be to obtain the necessary number of teachers in the coming years. Some local authorities endeavour to

1481
deal with that problem by, for example, providing hostel accommodation for teachers. If it is a question of re-employing women teachers who have been away from the profession while their children were very young and now want to return, some local authorities make provision for child care. Others give help with mortgages. It is worthwhile noticing that those steps can be taken by a local education authority which deals with a good many teachers. I cannot see a grant-maintained school which wants to employ one or two teachers setting up a mortgage system or a hostel for them. I shall be interested to know what the Government think about the application of those remedies to grant-maintained schools as distinct from those in the local authority network.
A great many other particular remedies have been offered to the Government, all of which are worthy of study, although none looks like producing a substantial increase. I hope that the Government will give those remedies attention. I shall mention the schemes put forward by two of the principal unions. The National Union of Teachers proposes to attract teachers from overseas into teaching in this country and the Assistant Masters and Mistresses' Association offers a premium or bounty for a school that manages to encourage another teacher into its employ.
All those measures are worthy of study, but there is one remedy that I must invite the Government to approach with great caution; namely, any kind of dilution of the teaching profession. I do not rule that out in all circumstances. There was a considerable measure after the war that one could have called dilution, but one must remember that that was done when it was apparent that the Government were taking education extremely seriously. They intended to spend more money on it and to raise the school-leaving age. If one wants goodwill for a scheme of dilution, one must convince the employers that it is not a way of obtaining a certain number of teachers on the cheap, but of obtaining substantially more teachers to overcome a national problem. In general, one must obtain the goodwill of the lobby of people with whom one deals. That is what is so sadly lacking as a result of the way in which the Secretary of State has handled his approaches to the teaching profession.
It is no good talking about goodwill unless there is a realistic approach to the question of teachers' pay. At the moment there is talk of an increase of 6 per cent. With inflation running at 7.5 per cent. and most industrial settlements at 9 per cent., that is not an extremely encouraging recipe for encouraging more people to come into teaching. If it is doubted whether monetary incentives matter, one must ask the Government why they propose to pay the staff of CTCs—the technical colleges—about 5 per cent. more than any local authority could provide. Evidently, they take the view that it is desirable to have a monetary incentive, but I am afraid that that is an example of a general error of government policy towards education. Instead of trying to make all schools as good as possible, they seem to regard it as chiefly important to produce some schools that will
1482
be better than others. I believe that to be a disastrous approach.
I mentioned the proposal for teachers to deal with vandalism, arson and so on. I do not entirely make fun of that proposal; it is surprising what teachers will accomplish if they are approached with a certain amount of patience. They will make some sense of that proposal. I do not deny the seriousness of the problem. However, it is not consistent to make exceptional new demands on teachers and at the same time ignore the nature of their pay claim and deny them the negotiating machinery that every other group of worker enjoys. I believe that that is fundamentally inconsistent and illustrates what I regard as the Government's ill will towards the profession. They must get rid of that ill will. To show that this is not merely a party point of view, I shall end my remarks with a quotation from the Independent newspaper which states:
"In so far as the Government is unwilling or unable dramatically to improve teachers' pay, this suggests not merely that it is not really serious about tackling the growing crisis of teacher recruitment but also that it is deeply contemptuous of teachers and their calling".
The words "deeply contemptuous" are not too strong to describe the Secretary of State's attitude towards the teaching profession. A profound change of attitude is required. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.5 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we should all like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, for introducing this important debate this afternoon. Teachers are central to the whole education system, implementing the Education Reform Act, raising standards, developing the potential of individual pupils and preparing young people for the 21st century. The supply of teachers is crucial, especially in the core and foundation subjects, and the supply must be spread throughout the country so that all pupils may benefit. It is important that teachers should know that they have our support. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, only in so far as I am aware from talking to a number of teachers, that morale is low at the present time.
I should like to begin by saying that I recognise very well—as I believe will my noble friend who will reply to the debate and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State—that many new tasks are now being demanded of teachers. There are the new GCSE examinations with an immense amount of internally assessed work. There is TVEI which will be part of every school by 1990. Teachers must learn how to use all the new high-tech equipment which, although splendid, I am told is a new skill to learn and manage in quite different circumstances.
It is perfectly possible to argue at length whether or not pupils are more difficult today than they were 20 years ago, but it is certainly a view consistently expressed to me by teachers to whom I have spoken that discipline is more difficult, and that there are certainly a great many more outside temptations so that children find it more difficult to concentrate. It is also unquestionably true that there are many more broken homes. Then there is the time taken up by

1483
those new areas and the new requirement of records of achievement. I have supported such records, but I am now told that they can take up one teacher's time for two or three full lessons as each child's record of achievement is individually discussed. We need to consider whether that is the most valuable use of the time of teachers of crucial subjects, especially when it occurs so frequently, although it may be right once a term. I also understand that the whole area of social and personal development can take up a lesson a week of the time of a crucially important teacher.
Despite all that, I am one who believes that there are thousands of teachers today who do a very good job. I have read with great interest, as I am sure have all noble Lords who will take part in the debate, the HMI report that came out last week. Clearly, although there are areas of concern, a great deal of good work is going on at the present time which we should support and on which we should build.
At the centre of this debate today is the supply of teachers. We need to keep this subject in proportion. I was most interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, said in his opening remarks: that he had raised this subject some 30 years ago. Certainly in my entire time of taking a real interest in education I never recall a time when there has not been a shortage of maths teachers, to which of course other shortages have subsequently been added. Perhaps I may say that that should not in any way make us complacent, but it is a fact of life.
However, I suspect that with the core curriculum and the foundation subjects, every school is being forced to look closely at what is being taught and how the school day is planned, with the financial delegation to schools, and with governors looking very closely at what is happening. The gaps are showing up in a very clear way. Indeed, one needs again to look no further than HMI's report. It states that,
"in primary schools there are acute shortages in many of the inner and outer London boroughs".
There is a rapid turnover of teaching staff.
"Primary education is critically short of teachers with expertise in science technology and mathematics".
In secondary schools there are shortages in teachers of maths, science—in particular chemistry and physics—and craft design and technology. This is an issue that we must take very seriously indeed. We shall all listen with great interest to what my noble friend has to say in response to what I think he would acknowledge is a very real problem.
I therefore very much welcome what the Government have done in looking at the requirement of the core curriculum and foundation subjects, and the recognition that there is likely to be a very considerable shortfall in teachers in some important subjects at least until 1995. I am not absolutely certain that the figure is quite sacred, in the sense that everyone expects us to have reached as many teachers as we would have liked at that date. I hope that that is the case; we shall see.
I welcome the proposals on the recruitment and training of teachers. The Teaching as a Career Unit has been set up in conjunction with local authorities.
1484
This is especially important at the present time with the fall in numbers of school leavers, the numbers of employers who will all be fishing in the same pool, and the importance of attracting new teachers. I believe that the Government are quite right—perhaps I may put it in terms of thinking the unthinkable—to consider ways of attracting in people whom I think a few years ago no one would have considered. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, did not dismiss out of hand the prospect of bringing in people who may have had experience of industry, who are scientists, or physicists, or mathematicians, who bring expertise not because they may turn out to be perfect teachers but because they will certainly bring practical experience and knowledge of the world. Consideration of these men and women—who could become, as I understand it, licensed teachers—is valuable not because it will solve all problems but because it would be a positive step in the right direction.
I agree with what the trade unions have said on attracting teachers from overseas. I see this in particular in the European Community in shortages of modern language teachers. This would be very valuable.
We therefore need to look at a great many other issues. I think in particular of bringing back some of the 400,000 teachers who have left the profession. Many married women might well be interested in a part-time or a split job share. Teaching is, above all, a job that fits in well with the family. We need to provide refresher courses to encourage those married women to return.
I see that my time is up. I shall simply conclude by saying that I accept that we must always look at pay and conditions. These must not fall behind those of others. However, if one reads the evidence given in another place, pay and conditions are not the only, or even the primary, reason for the shortfall of teachers which has been with us for a very long time. We need to look at other matters. We need to recognise that this is one of the most important issues facing the education service. I very much welcome the steps that the Government have taken. I ask them to keep this matter ever before them for the good of the education system and the pupils.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I too should like to add my words of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, for introducing this very important subject and for giving us a typically wise and witty speech.
In considering an enormous and complex subject, I should like to confine my remarks in particular to London. It is an area that I know a little more about than others. It is an area where the shortage of teachers is particularly acute. The unfilled teacher vacancies at secondary level throughout London are 2·7 per cent. as against a national level of 1 per cent. At primary level it is 4·2 per cent. against a nationwide level of 1·5 per cent. I shall not quote a lot of statistics because they become meaningless. I should like to focus my attention on certain problems which bring to light the gravity of the situation.

1485
As an example, in the borough of Waltham Forest, there are two primary schools which are offering only four days' schooling a week. For this they are being sued by parents for failing to comply with the requirements of the Education Act 1944 of five days' schooling a week. In the borough of Redbridge, a secondary school is not offering maths or English teaching to its fifth year pupils. They are having to teach themselves for the GCSEs. There is a school in the borough of Newham that I happened to visit last week. In this borough in the autumn of 1986 240 Bangladeshi pupils were introduced. They were non-English speakers. The number of pupils in special need of English teaching in this school now is 163. They have been identified as being in particular need by the education authority. Only 100 of them are receiving very scant special help. Children cannot progress in the national curriculum and in the requirements or the hopes of the Government generally if they cannot speak English.
The borough of Tower Hamlets is a particularly difficult case. Five hundred Bangladeshi children there are receiving no schooling. In Tower Hamlets in January 1989 there were 118 primary school vacancies. The same number of secondary school vacancies exist. There are 17 nursery school vacancies and 12 special school vacancies. I understand that the recruitment level for new teachers in the autumn is to be about 25 per cent. down. This is at a time when pupil numbers are beginning to climb since the rise in the birth rate in the mid 1980s. The numbers of children coming into school will become greater.
These are desperate cases, but I should like to say a few words about less desperate, but more widespread, cases. As noble Lords know, the education service has a system of supply teachers. There is a pool of teachers who are in reserve, ready to fill gaps that may suddenly appear through illness, through the need for a teacher or teachers to do in-service training, or for classes to be taken on school outings. These supply teachers are now filling permanent posts in schools so that supply teachers are becoming unavailable if the teacher is ill or in dire need of in-service training. The new national curriculum will require much in-service training. I know that a number of primary school teachers are extremely worried about inadequate training in science. They have to fulfil the requirements of the curriculum in basic science. They are not able to do so without special training.
If there is a school outing—a class is taken to a museum or, shall we say, to a farm—two teachers are required to go with that class. That means there is one class left in the school without a teacher unless a supply teacher is employed. If no supply teacher is available, there is no outing. That, too, will cause a narrowing of the curriculum.
Head teachers are being drawn into this. They are doing full-time teaching. I know of several in the borough of Lewisham who have been teaching full time for the whole of this term. Head teachers should not be doing that. There must be time for administration and in particular for the coming requirements of local financial management. Head
1486
teachers are even finding difficulties in going on management courses for the same reasons.
The HMI report already referred to recommends that all teachers should have 10 per cent. non-contact time for assessments, discussing the prospects of pupils and generally thinking about them. The planned average in most authorities is 4 per cent. The actual non-contact time in primary schools is zero per cent. Teachers are teaching the whole time.
The Government seem to have been caught by surprise over the teaching situation in London. Those problems have been touched upon already: they include the costs of accommodation. It may be all right for a young teacher to share a flat. But if, after a few years, he or she wants to get married, take out a mortgage and get on to the home ownership ladder, that cannot be done in London. At the moment teachers are most wanted—when their experience is beginning to show, together with their knowledge of the job—they have to leave London and go somewhere else. Another problem is the cost of transport. There is also the deterrent of the stress of teaching in London and the insecurity and worry, following abolition of the ILEA, arising from new education authorities which are inexperienced and likely to be underfunded.
The remedy for London is the same as the remedy for the profession as a whole. It is, as we on these Benches have been saying for a long time, investment in education. In other words, teachers must be paid sums which are consonant with the importance of the work they are doing. Those sums should demonstrate a general recognition of the importance of their status as public servants.
I should like to conclude by reading the final paragraph of the HMI report. It puts better than I could the means of implementing the improvements that the Government wish to see. The report states:
"In seeking to ensure that is what happens, teachers' pay, conditions of service and the nature of the changes intended will all have a part to play. But of great importance to most teachers is that the work they do is seen to be valued and rated highly by society; that its difficulties are understood; and that teachers and education are not used as convenient scapegoats for all society's problems. Currently, too many teachers feel that their profession and its work are misjudged and seriously undervalued. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that view, it is as unsteady a basis on which to build change and improvement as was a situation in which teachers were the first and final arbiters of all matters educational".
3.24 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I, like others, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, for raising this timely debate on the shortage of teachers. In 1066 And All That it is remarked that for every person wishing to teach there are 30 not wanting to learn. We are now in danger of reversing the wisecrack and saying that for every 30 wanting to learn at least one will not be able to find a teacher. The shortage of teachers is now well documented; the seriousness of it cannot be underestimated.
Like many others, I believe that the Education Reform Act has given us a charter for a fresh approach to education. But if we do not have enough teachers, the Act will look no more than political theatre. Surely one significant factor in the shortage of teachers is that nowadays it is in large measure a

1487
gloomy and anxious profession. The quotation just made from the senior chief inspector's report indicates a widespread feeling among teachers that they are misjudged and seriously undervalued. It will not be easy to recruit the teachers we need unless they have confidence in their future.
I must refer particularly to the position of religious education teachers. The Education Reform Act has raised the expectations of religious education and worship in schools. The Churches are party to that new hope and arrangement. We, for our part, will do all that we can to encourage people of high quality and integrity to accept the responsible role of religious education teachers. That will be much easier if we can establish at least four facts.
The first fact to establish is that there is a shortage of religious education teachers. Some people seem to think that there are plenty. The basis for that belief seems to be that there are over 16,000 RE teachers in existence. However, only some 9,000 actually teach. The figures obscure the fact that much religious education is being taught by non-specialists. Some 57 per cent. of those teaching religious education in the secondary schools have no qualifications or training in the subject, even at a subsidiary level. Nor is it just a matter of more strategic deployment, because the number of full-time teachers with religious education as the subject of their highest qualification is lower than for nearly any other subject. It will help if the Government publicly recognise that there is a shortage of available religious education teachers.
Secondly, there is some frustration among religious education teachers that they may have to relate to as many as 500 pupils in any one week. That does not make for good education, nor for job satisfaction. Furthermore, the pressures of the curriculum are such that a secondary religious education teacher may have no GCSE or A-level pupils. That is where the principal interest of many religious education teachers will be. Therefore, in the present circumstances, there are some inbuilt frustrations.
Thirdly, the new requirements for worship in the Education Reform Act will make heavy demands on a school. Where there are separate acts of worship in age groups or school groups, there can be several acts of worship in a school each day. The head will properly turn to the RE teacher for help. If such teachers are to devise and prepare not routine rituals but appropriate acts of worship for reluctant participants, they will need skill, vision and time. The Churches will give every encouragement in the implementation of this requirement of the Act, but it will help if the Government recognise the increased responsibility likely to be given to religious education teachers in connection with collective worship.
Fourthly, the senior chief inspector's report says that,
"in many (primary) schools, history, geography and sometimes religious education are incorporated into topic work. Although sometimes of high quality, it more often than not lacks continuity and progression, or any serious attempt to ensure that adequate time and attention are given to the elements said to comprise the topic".
Not all primary school teachers are trained in religious education. Indeed, their initial training may
1488
have contained little guidance in the teaching of RE and worship. In recognising those difficulties, are the Government willing to increase the £1.1 million available for in-service training in religious education so that the expectations of the Act can be realised?
If the Government can acknowledge the shortage of teachers in religious education, as in some other subjects, accept that heavier responsibilities are now falling on teachers of RE, and provide more money for in-service training and shortage-subject status where initial training provision is concerned, then we may be able to move forward in confidence.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, for introducing this important debate. It takes me back, like a familiar tune, to the debates which took place in your Lordships' House during the passage of what is now the Education Reform Act. Noble Lords may remember that we on these Benches did not agree with the other opposition parties on every amendment. Once or twice we voted with the Government when we thought that they were right, producing shock-horror reactions on this side of the House.
However, we concurred absolutely with the many warnings issued from neighbouring Benches, no less than from our own, that the whole reform package was seriously under-resourced. The National Association of Head Teachers said so; other unions said so; we all said so. It was a refrain which ran through our debates. But, apart from some minor educational support grants, the Government have paid little or no attention; and now we are seeing the results.
Other noble Lords have given facts, figures and instances, and have made projections. I should like to add a few of my own. In doing so I shall try to avoid quoting statistics which have already been given. There are the eye-catching instances, one of which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee. It was the fifth formers in Redbridge who wrote to the TES complaining that they were having to teach themselves because they had no maths or English teachers. There is also the notorious case of the 500 children in Tower Hamlets who are being kept away from school because there is no one to teach them. But the underlying and cumulative trends are the greatest threat and give the greatest cause for concern.
In his opening speech, the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, mentioned that applications for mathematics and physics teaching are falling alarmingly; so I shall not speak about that matter in detail. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that in her experience a shortage of maths teachers is a fact of life. However, it is not desirable—particularly in the light of the current emphasis which the Government are laying on maths. The situation should not be allowed to persist.
According to DES figures there will be a shortage of 2,000 chemistry teachers by 1995. That estimate is based on the Government's targets. Professor Smithers, the professor of Education at Manchester

1489
University, has projected that the shortfall will be nearer 3,400. Shortages may be hidden where subjects are being taught by teachers with inadequate qualifications. Suppressed shortages result from under-representation in the timetable owing to lack of suitable teachers. According to a DES memorandum, hidden shortages suggest that in 1984 13 per cent. of timetabled tuition in maths and 18 per cent. in physics were provided by teachers with no higher qualification in those subjects.
A survey of 36 schools, carried out by Professor Smithers and Dr. Pamela Robinson of Manchester University, discovered that there were no physics graduates in any of the schools for 11 to 16-year olds. According to their projections, if wastage rates are kept to 5 per cent. and recruitment increases by 30 per cent. schools will be short of 4,000 maths teachers in 1995. In 1988 the number of students on postgraduate training courses in physics at Leeds University fell from 25 to 14. Of those 14, only five took physics as part of their degree and only three graduated in that year.
All such figures are alarming. Of course, statistics can be misleading and the results may not turn out to be quite so dire. However, on any view, the figures must give cause for considerable alarm.
The Institute of Man power Studies estimates that the number of graduates entering teaching fell by 40 per cent. between 1980 and 1986. Since 1984 the secondary school teaching force has been reduced by more than 17,000. The worst years for graduates applying for PGCE courses were 1985-86. Even in 1987 when recruitment for maths and physics courses increased by 33 per cent. and 49 per cent., the DES targets were not met.
There is also the PIT (Pool of Inactive Teachers). The department estimates that 395,000 qualified staff are not teaching. That is almost equal to the number who are teaching. An even higher estimate was given to the House of Commons Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts on 17th January this year. It was then said that there is a pool of 404,000 out-of-service teachers.
That pool of experience and talent becomes all the more important when one surveys the demographic scene. According to evidence also given to the Education, Science and Arts Select Committee the number of 18 and 19-year olds peaked at 1.7 million in 1984. From then until 1997 the number will decline by 33 per cent. Therefore, competition for the shrinking share of qualified manpower will be ruthless and insatiable, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said. Under present pay, conditions and esteem teaching as a profession is unlikely to win out. There will be a dwindling pool of applicants for entry into initial teacher training. From the autumn of 1989 the shortage will be exacerbated by the national core curriculum.
I have mentioned the debates that took place during the passage of the Education Reform Bill. I recall in particular the warnings issued by the National Association of Head Teachers. Looking at the shortages projected from a number of sources—and without going into them in detail—they add up to a potentially whopping 15,000
1490
teachers across the range. These shortages bear heavily on the core and foundation subjects.
All this brings us up squarely against the desperate need to attract teachers from non-conventional sources. On 27th January Mr. Kenneth Baker announced a scheme for licensed teachers with at least two years in higher education. It means that untrained teachers will be released immediately into classrooms without relevant teaching qualifications, although they must pursue a part-time course.
Naturally, that is controversial. It is to the credit of the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the ILEA that they have reacted favourably to it. I understand also that the NUT is not opposed provided that the scheme is restricted to mature entrants and that there is a proper training component. Perhaps in reply the Minister will say more on that aspect of the Secretary of State's scheme.
At the end of the day the unavoidable need will remain to provide more resources to attract high-flyers into teaching, particularly in the core and foundation subjects. The Government are wedded to market economics, and I have no particular quarrel with that. However, it means they must pay the rate for the job.
The Secretary of State's great opportunity will arise when on 1st April, 1990, he brings to an end, as he is obliged to do, the Interim Pay and Conditions Act. That will give him a great chance to get together with the profession and work out a proper set of arrangements. As has already been said in the debate, he must have the profession with him. He must not fumble the issue. If he does, there will be no way of increasing recruitment to the profession and his exit from the "political theatre"—to use the right reverend Prelate's happy phrase—will be less than glorious.
3.40 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, this debate is very timely from many points of view as my noble friend Lord Stewart indicated in his opening remarks. The difficulties already encountered in the supply of teachers are due to many factors. Demographic trends not only affect the number of children in schools but also the source of supply for recruiting new teachers into the profession. A further difficulty is the introduction of the national curriculum and that, along with the new General Certificate of Secondary Education, places greater demands not only on the number of teachers but also on the in-service training which those teachers require.
In his report the chief inspector draws attention to some of the problems which are encountered in providing in-service training or in enabling teachers to take advantage of the provisions. For example, he says that it is difficult for teachers to take up the opportunity of in-service training when they are spending as much as 100 per cent. of their time in the classroom. The Chilver Report on teachers' pay and conditions also makes that point at paragraph 3.18, which states:

1491
"Classroom teachers were often working well in excess of the minimum prescribed working year in order to achieve the standards they have set themselves".
Those are some of the problems, additional to pay and general conditions, which cause the low morale to which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred. These are some of the matters which must be addressed if we are successfully to retain people in the teaching profession and also if some of the initiatives which the Government have sought to introduce in order to attract people into the profession arc to be successful.
It is the latter aspect—attracting people into the profession from non-traditional sources—on which I should like to concentrate. In that respect I welcome the comments made by the Secretary of State to the annual conference of the Society of Education Officers. He underlined the importance of conversion courses if we are to attract people into the shortage subjects. Many women in their earlier period of education were not attracted into science and technical subjects because they were not regarded as particularly good for women at that time, but now many such women may be attracted to that sphere of work.
The Secretary of State also referred to the importance of local education authorities providing adequate schemes to encourage women returners back into teaching. Returners to teaching—and they are mainly married women who have taken a period off for family formation—constituted 55 per cent. of the entrants to the profession in 1986. That proportion has risen from 32 per cent. in 1980.
I do not believe that there is any certainty that that trend will continue because as shortages of young people become more and more apparent, the demand for women returners will increase and education will find itself in a more competitive situation for both young entrants to the profession and mature returners.
Secondly, although from the point of view of school holidays and school hours teaching has been a convenient form of work for women with children, it does not have a particularly good record in providing a career structure for women teachers. While the majority in teaching at school level are women, women do not hold the same proportionate number of senior positions. Indeed, they are largely clustered at the bottom end of the scale. That has been a subject of concern and report from the Equal Opportunities Commission on many occasions.
Thirdly, women returners have been regarded as peripheral to the real teaching force—a source to he encouraged at times of shortage but the first to be dispensed with when the crisis is over. Again that has been a cause for comment by the Equal Opportunities Commission. In that respect a number of cases have been brought by women who have successfully taken their claim to court and have proved that they have been discriminated against.
There is a point about that in the Chilver Report which highlights some of the difficulties which women returners, part-time and supply teachers may have. Very often women who are returning to the
1492
profession do so first on the basis of supply teaching. They go in on short-term contracts for a short period or on a part-time basis. The Chilver Report pointed out that there are some rather niggardly differences of pay between teachers on short-term contracts and teachers in other forms of employment. They are not receiving the same basic pay, nor are they enjoying the same opportunities for in-service training. Both the Chilver Report and the Chief Inspector are concerned about in-service training being available for part-time and supply teachers if they are to make a full contribution to the teaching service.
A number of local authorities are tackling that problem. For example, Kent County Council has a policy for the development of careers for women teachers. That involves counselling and also a period of up to seven years when women can take leave to bring up their families on condition that they give a number of days in the course of the year as supply teachers. That enables them to keep in touch with developments in the profession and also with their colleagues. Programmes of that kind will be essential in the future if the educational world and the teaching profession is successfully to compete for that very important source of manpower—women returners.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, in expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, for introducing this subject, I have the additional pleasure in an education debate of being able to agree with much of his argument. It seems to me that we have probably neglected the importance of the supply of teachers, particularly in crucial subjects, in looking at general reforms with which many of us are in sympathy. There is clearly a serious situation to which it is desirable that we should return from time to time with various suggestions put forward as to how to remedy it—for example, those which have just been put to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood.
However, the difficulty is clearly one which does not stem only from immediate circumstances, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, said. It is a problem which goes back a long way. It is related to—I appreciate being saved the trouble of reading out the extract from the chief inspector's report—and aggravated by the decline in the appeal of the teaching profession to the able young.
That is not a recent development and I doubt whether it is confined to this country. It seems to me that teachers as such, certainly all over the western industrialised world, do not hold the prestige they once did. That is perhaps understandable because when that prestige was built up teaching was one of the few ways of social promotion available to large sections of the community. If you became a teacher you somehow or other ascended a step in the social ladder. Appeal to social promotion is, I believe, as important as monetary rewards in determining the direction of people's aspirations for themselves and, perhaps even more, for their children.
Now there are other avenues; indeed, avenues so attractive in some cases, as has been pointed out, that we have the very special problem relating to teachers in mathematics, physics and those subjects which

1493
have a considerable marketable value in industry. There is no escape from the fact that special measures will need to be taken for those subjects, whatever we may think can he done about the more general supply.
There may be elements in the situation which relate particularly to educational experience in this country. Teachers are always in a somewhat peculiar situation because they have two objects of concern. They are concerned with the children whom they teach, but they are also concerned with the subjects which they promote in the school, in which they give instruction and in which they are thought to be, at different levels, expert. It would seem to me that as a result of perhaps educational theory over recent decades, perhaps because of demands made by society and perhaps (more likely) a mixture of all those factors, the former role has been to some extent extended at the expense of the latter.
More and more, as parents shed their responsibilities and as television acts as a disincentive to home reading, teachers are asked to take up more and more of the slack. At some point they must ask themselves: are we part of a teaching profession? The word "profession" has been used by many speakers in this debate, though, formally speaking, teaching does not have the structure of a profession. It ought to have, and there ought to be, a General Teaching Council. However, people may well ask themselves whether they are part of a profession or whether they are child minders on society's behalf. The skills that are needed are different.
The point made about today's report on teachers coping with vandalism, for example, is an illustration of that. The manager of a company whose installations arc threatened by vandalism and so on would not consider detaching one of his specialised engineers to that responsibility. He would say that the company needed a security man, someone whose prime concern is that sort of thing. That is an illustration of what I believe has happened in all aspects of modern school life.
The position is perhaps being accentuated by some denigration of the original basic teaching subjects. As I fear I have said in this House on previous occasions, it is important to keep the traditional subjects clear, and "topics" are not good enough, as was said earlier. We need the systematic study by children, at whatever level they can reach, of the traditional subjects—history, English, languages, mathematics, physics and chemistry. Those are disciplines which we know that generations of teachers have managed to introduce to children. I believe that in many cases they would be more impelled to join the profession if they thought they could continue the subjects and were not expected to be mere minders.
We need to look carefully at that aspect if we are to rebuild the attraction which the profession must have if it is to encourage able young people. Here I come to the economic or monetary arguments which have been adduced by several noble Lords. If teachers are to receive higher remuneration they will not do so because of the good will of a particular administration but because there is a ground-swell of
1494
public opinion which favours it. Until the public are convinced that they need a teaching profession of higher calibre, with greater training, greater selectivity—indeed, some pointers as to who enters the profession—we will not get the pressure which will lead to the fulfilment of at least the minimum requirements suggested in the Chilver Report and which will enable us to look back on this recent period as a very bad patch.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I trust that we are not going to hear too much repetition in this debate, and indeed outside Parliament, of the statement already made on more than one occasion that there has always been a shortage of teachers. The implication is that it is a shortage that has always been with us and that it is perhaps an insoluble problem. It is simply not true that there has always been a shortage of teachers. Furthermore, I suggest that the present shortage of teachers and the nature of the shortage is more criticial and more serious than it has ever been.
The blame for the general shortage of teachers and the critical shortage of teachers in some subjects lies fairly and squarely at the door of the Government. I make that unequivocal statement for two main reasons, but other reasons can be adduced and I shall refer to them later. First, the Government have now been in power for 10 years, and a decade is long enough to have dealt with this problem. Secondly, and very much related to that point, numerous people, organisations and reports have drawn attention to the matter for the whole of that period. There is an abundance of documentation and evidence to that effect. In other words, the Government cannot say that the problem has arisen in only the past two or three years.
A crisis usually arises unexpectedly, but in this case the information has been available to the Government for a long time. For example, the present primary school population has been known since 1983. The number of statutory school pupils for 1991 has been known since 1986 and the current population of 18 year-olds has been known since 1970. On the other side of the coin, in the middle and late 1970s literally thousands of qualified teachers came out of the colleges and university departments to find school doors closed in their faces. The Government and the LEAs refused to employ them, when to do so would have ensured an adequate supply of teachers for later years. The reason for that, of course, is well known to some of us. It was simply that government money was not made available; and that, as we now see, was a serious misjudgment.
The Minister should also comment on what is surely one of the strangest happenings ever in dealing with teacher supply. Why is it that in present circumstances, for three years at least, local education authorities have been allowing, indeed encouraging, teachers to take early retirement? By that I mean really early retirement, at 50 years of age and in their early 50s. That requires justification. The Secretary of State has known for a long time that three in 10 newly qualified teachers fall to go into

1495
teaching the next year. Four in 10 new teachers leave the profession within five years. Yet it was only last Sunday that we read that Kenneth Baker has warned the Treasury that the country faces a critical shortage of teachers unless their pay is substantially improved in the next five years. The only matter wrong with that is that it was a long time in coming from the Secretary of State. The Observer newspaper called it:
"a startling admission of the crisis in teacher supply."
Applications for places on teacher-training courses for the current academic year were 4 per cent. down on last year, with a 14 per cent. drop in applications for posts in secondary schools. So the miserable story goes on. In my long association with education I have never known the morale of teachers to be so low. Many teachers—dozens of them known to me personally and I am sure to other Members of your Lordships' House—cannot wait to get out. There is no doubt that the main cause is pay. It has been at the centre of all the disputes that we have had for some years now. But the Government are learning nothing. The recent increase of 6 per cent. imposed by the Government is well below the rate of inflation. As my noble friend Lord Stewart said, it is well below the 9 per cent. settlements now being made in industry. This is a Government with a market-place philosophy. Do they really believe that most good honours graduates will be satisfied with £8,900 rising to £13,800 after seven years? They have had the answer for a long time in the figures that I gave earlier, and there is other evidence to support that.
It is inevitable that a large number will go elsewhere where the money is so much better and our young people are the sufferers. It would be possible to make the whole of one's speech on the subject of the pay problem, but as I said earlier—a number of other noble Lords also referred to it—there are other factors in dealing with the shortage of teachers. First, there is the question of status. Status is closely linked to training and standards. I find it utterly deplorable that this or any other government should be thinking of anything but full-time training for the honourable and difficult profession of teaching.
Would anyone dream of not having fully trained doctors, dentists, vets, lawyers, solicitors and so on, or are the Government thinking "Well, teaching is not quite so important as the other professions"? If that is what they think they should be honest and straightforward and say so. I find myself, quite surprisingly, agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and it is perhaps the only matter on which we will agree. There should be a general teaching council—I use the same words that were used by the noble Lord—parallel to the governing bodies of other professions. The initiative for the establishment should come from the Government themselves. The teaching profession itself would have an important role to play in making it successful, and I am sure that is what they would do.
Instead of that reasonable expectation, what have the Government done? On salaries that are so important to any profession, the Government have taken away the unions' negotiating rights and have imposed settlements. So much for the dignity and status of the profession. Now there is talk of licensed
1496
teachers. The name itself carries a stigma. There are people who will have to stand in front of a class and accept two years of on-the-job training. Such so-called "training" is completely inadequate and should come after the normal course of training. I am certainly not against an increase in the amount of time spent in schools during training, but it should always be done in the context of the college or university course.
I have no doubt, too, that, despite whatever safeguards there are, many unsatisfactory trainees will find their way into permanent posts. That would be disastrous not only for the teacher but for the pupils. Those of us who had responsibility for the appointment of untrained and inadequately trained teachers in the 1960s have bitter memories of what happened as a result of that policy. Many of us thought that the struggles for a fully-trained profession had been won in 1973 when professional training and qualification was made compulsory. The clock is now being turned back.
The Government are attempting to draw some comfort from the recently-issued HMI report on Standards in Education 1987–1988 that has been referred to by most speakers so far. We have already heard quoted several times, and not least by the Secretary of State, the phrase,
"the education service is well placed to face the future with some confidence.".
Anyone relying on that sentence should go on to read the next one, which says,
"But some old, familiar problems persist.".
The report makes crystal clear that the biggest of those problems concerns teachers. It says that without a sufficient supply of trained, qualified and competent teachers all else fails. Then a specific warning is directed to what is undoubtedly the Government's policy:
"It will be vital to maintain the quality of entrance to teaching even though circumstances may well pull towards a 'never mind the quality, feel the width' attitude.".
I assume that the Government take heed of what HMIs say. The Secretary of State has shown himself to be completely out of touch with what goes on in schools, but it is reasonable to assume that HMIs, with their regular visits and professional knowledge, do know what is going on and what is needed. The word "crisis" is overworked, but I believe that its use is justified in the context of this debate. The future of our young children and young people, and therefore the nation, is at stake.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, why is there a problem in recruiting teachers? To find the answer we must surely look at the job itself and the rewards that are offered for it. We all know from personal experience, some of us rather more recently than others, how children behave or misbehave in the classroom. There is an obvious correlation between the behaviour of a class and the effectiveness of a teacher in doing his job. That is teaching in order to impart knowledge.
However, there are groups of children who are badly behaved no matter how diligent their teacher is. There are groups who will behave perfectly well for

1497
one teacher but who are abominable for another. There are also individual children who, for whatever reason, find nothing more enjoyable than to make classes completely unmanageable. In other words, teaching is a job that involves possible if not actual conflict at a constant level.
It would seem obvious that in recruiting to a profession where there is such a high degree of stress there should he an adequate degree of compensation through salary. It would seem essential that if we are to ensure an adequate supply of teachers in a free labour market where teaching is competing with other professions, the rewards should at least compensate for the stress factor. In an ideal situation teachers are supposed to teach to individual needs. That means, for instance, that where a teacher is confronted with 30 pupils he can be dealing with any number of behavioural and education problems. While trying to teach the day's prescribed part of the core curriculum, at present there is also the distinct possibility that because of particular subject shortages the teacher may not be an expert in the subject that he or she is trying to teach.
He may well be trying to deal with all the aforementioned problems while having to make furtive references to carefully concealed textbooks and at the same time possibly trying to prevent little Darren from incinerating little Fred with a Bunsen burner. He may also have to deal with the insistent demands of various members of his class—usually two girls sitting at the front, if I remember correctly—who want a constant supply of spellings and who are always ready to help the teacher out with comments as regards what the miscreants in the class are doing. We can then further add to his problems by having a few children with special educational needs in his class. For instance, there may be a couple of children with dyslexia or someone with bad eyesight or bad hearing.
Discipline can be a problem in any school. Of late there has been much publicity about violence from pupils and parents towards teachers and the general harassment of staff, with a lowering of respect for authority in any form that appears to be apparent in our society. Parents should be made to take more responsibility for the behaviour of their children while they are in school. A disruptive or violent child will not only fail to learn but he will also prevent his fellows from learning. For too long teachers have had to tolerate such children and perforce to give a very high percentage of their time to them. This is to the loss and detriment of the well-behaved majority in the class. One cannot expel a child from the state system. If the disruptive child is not sent to a special unit he can be dealt with only by sending him to another school through a reciprocal arrangement. A problem child from one school is swapped for a problem child from another; that is, if another headmaster can be persuaded through the kindness of his or her heart to take the child.
Those considering teaching as a career would find the prospect for more attractive if they knew that children who were consistently disruptive would be returned to their parents, who should have the ultimate responsibility for their children. It is difficult to punish children in schools. Strict adherence to the
1498
new contracts has not only put paid to many extracurricular activities but has made it hard to put into practice punitive exercises and detention systems. This again is due to pressure on time. All too often parents seem to back up their children against teachers who have legitimate complaints about their behaviour.
This leads to a feeling of helplessness among staff; a feeling that teachers are being asked to teach manners to the unmannerly, to instil discipline in the undisciplined, and at the same time teach their individual subjects. They are criticised for not being willing to give up their free time to do voluntary work with their pupils. They are criticised on all sides for asking for higher salaries. This is hardly a public image likely to encourage quality graduates into the profession. Long holidays would seem to be a real bonus offered by the job, but teaching comes high on the list of stressful occupations. Holidays may rightly be seen as a form of safety valve.
There have been great changes in education recently and people are uncertain about the future of the whole system. There is a new examination system and implementation of the Education Reform Act. These changes entail the introduction of the national curriculum, new pay and staffing structures and the possibility of schools opting out and being made responsible for their own budgets. Teachers have a heavier burden of marking through the new GCSE examination, no matter how educationally beneficial the examination may be. They have to profile the pupils and face appraisal themselves while teaching. A difference is appearing in both salary and authority between those in administrative and management posts in teaching and those mainscale teachers who do the bulk of teaching. All things considered, in an era when jobs at higher salaries are readily available in industry and commerce, a graduate would have to feel a great sense of dedication to choose teaching.
If our workforce in the future is to be capable of competing in an ever more difficult and competitive world, we must look as a first step to the quality of the instruction given in school. At present we are unable to fill the posts currently available in teaching, especially in subjects such as modern languages, mathematics and physical science. This is hardly the best footing for 1992 and the single European market.
4.14 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I want to talk about two subjects, the PIT and licensed teachers, both of which present similar problems. The PIT, unattractively named, stands for the pool of inactive teachers. There are, as has been said, about 400,000 qualified teachers who are not currently employed as teachers, roughly the same number as those employed. More than half of them are women aged between 30 and 49, so it is reasonable to assume that a large number are involved in child bearing and child rearing. Half of the entrants to teaching jobs are re-entrants, so they are of prime importance in helping to alleviate the problem of teacher shortage. It is generally agreed that there is a problem and that it is likely to get bigger rather than smaller with the

1499
demographic trend and the demands of the national curriculum. We want to know how the DES plans to attract this large pool back to the profession and what retraining will be provided. They will certainly need retraining, with the rapidly changing demands of the education service.
My question about training—how it is to be done—and who is to pay for it—applies equally to the licensed teacher. The original proposition for routes to qualified teacher status different from the normal B. Ed. and PGCE came in a Green Paper last summer. It suggested that the proposal was a tidying up and a simplification of the present variety of routes. It did not appear that the Secretary of State expected a large number of new entrants to the profession by this new route. He may do so now.
The Green Paper had a mixed response. It is fair to say that most of us did not welcome the idea of the licensed teacher. However, there was not general hostility to the idea of encouraging people who had started their careers in, for instance, business or industry to come into teaching, but there was hostility to the idea that the profession might be diluted from the aim of a fully trained graduate body, which had at last been achieved.
Standards had to be preserved and the licensed teacher was not to be used as a short-term expedient to deal with the teacher shortages. There was anxiety on the part of LEAs that with the greater powers of governors and the changed LFM—laissez-faire management, as I have heard it called—after the passing of the Education Reform Act, control over the standard and expertise of those being appointed as teachers would not be with the authority, which would nevertheless still have the overall responsibility for the education service in its area.
In his speech in January to senior education officers the Secretary of State said that he would be issuing by Easter draft regulations and a circular on how the scheme will operate. He said that he intended all licensees to have the equivalent of two year's higher education in the United Kingdom and grades C in GCSE maths and English. There would be a minimum entry age of 26 except for those who had received training overseas. For LEA maintained schools, there would be full involvement for the LEA, which would decide whether to agree to the appointment of a licensed teacher and would settle on a suitable programme of training. At the end of the period of training it would decide whether to recommend the award of QTS. That has allayed some of the earlier fears.
I should like to know what is intended for grant maintained schools and CTCs. Will they decide for themselves what the training is to be and whether or not a licensed teacher will achieve QTS and permanent employment? It is the kind of training these licensees will receive about which we are curious and concerned. We want to know what the department has in mind. We have had the HMI report on the visit to New Jersey where a provisional teacher programme is in operation. However, it is important to remember that in New Jersey the circumstances are different as there is no PGCE route to QTS.
1500
Teachers there are recruited on a salaried basis and follow a phased programme of induction and training during the first year of teaching. HMI concluded that on-the-job training schemes could provide an alternative to traditional training if, first, the training is comparable with the best available by more traditional routes; secondly, if all concerned have a clear idea of the framework of the training; thirdly, if care is taken to ensure that training is undertaken in schools which can provide a supportive and relevant environment; and fourthly, if the schools involved have a cadre of good teachers experienced in the trainee teacher's subjects who can undertake the supervisory role.
There have been other suggestions for school-based training, possibly in connection with a nearby polytechnic or university institute of education and the LEA advisory service. The Department of Education Studies in Oxford has pioneered some experiments. In his January speech the Secretary of State said that he wanted to invite LEAs and teacher training institutions jointly to devise experimental schemes that would involve the students being given progressively more responsibility during their training and being paid by the school or the LEA for their contribution to the work of the school instead of receiving a grant.
Two things must be remembered if certain schools are to be picked out as teacher training schools, as happens with teaching hospitals in the medical sphere. First, they will need extra teachers as the job, if it is to be done properly, is bound to take time from the teacher's normal programme of work. Secondly, if the trainee is to be paid a salary instead of having a grant, that salary should not have to come out of LEA funds unless the Government arrange in the RSG for extra money to be put into local authority budgets to take care of this. What must be avoided is any attempt to get people into the profession by any method encouraged by the Government because it is cheap and will effect a reduction in public expenditure. There is no cheap way to get a quality service and the recent HMI report confirms that fact. I shall also quote one sentence therefrom:
"Standards of learning are never improved by poor teachers and there are no cheap, high quality routes into teaching".
The Open University is running, with a specific grant from the DES, a number of courses including a PGCE one which enables students to study two years part time. However, the total number per institution is restricted by quota. Relaxation of that arrangement, or a separate quota for part-time students, would increase the uptake. Moreover, if the grant provision was raised to half that for a full-time PGCE student that would help, because the present grant is derisory.
If the Government are serious about wanting to lift standards in schools, more resources are essential. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that the public now realise and believe that fact. To achieve a satisfactory and adequate number of teachers of quality needs a far greater input of resources than the Government now seem prepared to consider. We want to encourage teachers to come back to teaching; and if they are teaching, we want to encourage them to stay in teaching. Above all, we want no dilution of

1501
the quality of the profession by makeshift measures to meet accumulating but differing crises in different parts of the country.
4.21 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I think that most noble Lords speaking in this debate agree that the many highly desirable changes on which schools in England and Wales are now embarked all depend for their success on there being a sufficient number of committed, enthusiastic, suitably qualified and skilled teachers to put the plans into effect. We all agree on that aspect.
Central government and local government have a big responsibility to calculate the number of teachers who will he required to make known to potential teachers, to the 400,000 to whom the noble Baroness, Lady David, referred, who have been in teaching and have left, and to existing teachers, just what the possibilities are. They also have a responsibility to ensure that adequate and suitable training and retraining opportunities are available for those who seek them. A large number of imaginative initiatives are under way. I shall not reiterate what they are, although a lot of them have not been mentioned, because I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench will tell us something about them. As many noble Lords have said, salary levels also count and the Government have a part to play in that respect.
However, what has not been emphasised so far in the debate is the fact that the group of people who can do most of all to enhance the attractiveness of teaching as a profession, to raise the profession in public esteem and enable more money to become available where it is most needed is not to be found in central government or in local authorities; it is the teachers themselves.
There is no questioning the fact that the way the public see the teaching profession has changed considerably over the past 20 years. There have been many reasons for that, as my noble friend Lord Beloff said. But surely one root cause has been the changing role adopted by the teachers' organisations as they have gradually allowed themselves to change from what were mainly professional organisations and professional spokesmen into industry-type trade unions and industry-type trade union spokesmen. That change has had all sorts of effects on the way teachers themselves have seen their job; how they have managed their work; and how they have related to parents, to pupils, to governors and to their own head. Most of those effects have not been liked by the parents and the public and of course the prolonged so-called industrial action a year or two ago compounded the problem.
That change in public perception has undoubtedly affected the recruitment of teachers; the encouragement parents give to their offspring to enter teaching; the encouragement of more mature people to enter or to return to teaching and the public's willingness to see big increases in teachers' salaries. It seems to me that this is the time for the profession to put that era behind it and to embark with enthusiasm, and in partnership with parents and
1502
local communities, in grasping the opportunities opened up by the new arrangements and making their enthusiasm and their aims plain to the public at large.
Financial delegation will undoubtedly help. When the spending of the school budget becomes a matter for the school itself to determine, the teachers and the head of a particular school will be able to concentrate alongside parents and the local community on the needs and possibilities of their school and how they as professionals can provide the best possible education for local children within the budget allocated to them. There, within the school and its community, they will be able to demonstrate and prove to all concerned the quality of their professionalism and in turn make the profession more attractive to others. That is for teachers to do—not teachers' spokesmen, not central government, but teachers themselves. I believe that such financial delegation will help.
It will be for teachers themselves to take advantage of retraining opportunities in order to upgrade their existing skill and perhaps to enhance knowledge of a shortage subject. There are many ways to do this, and no doubt my noble friend will tell us about some of those when he replies. I know that in addition to what the noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to, the Open University has been given a 1·5 million specific grant by the Government over two years to produce distance learning packs and courses to help secondary teachers to upgrade knowledge of maths and physics, and to help primary teachers with maths. Eleven hundred teachers are involved in such courses at present. The scheme is working well, and if continued funding is available those opportunities can and will be further developed.
Likewise it is for teachers themselves to influence their profession's approach to salaries. For reasons which other noble Lords have outlined, teacher shortages are mainly confined to certain subjects in certain areas of the country. But I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, that I do not believe it is realistic to expect public backing at this time for an increase for all teachers everywhere in all subjects of a dimension that will solve some problems which exist in only limited areas and subjects.
With the community charge impending, the public is increasingly sensitive to the fact that teachers' salaries make up something like one-fifth of all local government spending and will make up one-fifth of the community charge. Surely teachers themselves must insist that some of their colleagues are allowed some specific incentive payments in areas of acute shortage in the short term, while they seek to build up public confidence and understanding that will lead to better salary levels for everyone in the longer term.
It is for teachers themselves to encourage new entrants into their profession and to point out the opportunities, the importance and the satisfaction of the job. All those things are for teachers to do. The Government have a big responsibility in taking a lead regarding teacher shortages. Noble Lords are right to point that out. We shall all listen to what my noble friend has to say about that when he replies. I hope that an important part of the message which will emerge from the debate is that most of what can be

1503
done about shortages in the teaching profession can be done by teachers themselves.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, there can be few more serious failures of planning, policy-making and administration in the public sector than the discovery that there are too few teachers to achieve our educational goals. Our future depends more than ever on our population being well educated. To achieve this we must value our teachers. We must give them the status they deserve, for we entrust them with the enormously important task of influencing how the next generation thinks, what knowledge it has and what skills it can muster. I was rather sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, should suggest that teachers have been responsible for a change in public perceptions of them. I simply do not believe that that is the case. Teaching our children, and doing it well, is the most important investment any society makes.
This debate, as many of your Lordships have already said, is extremely timely because of the growing public concern about teacher shortages. The publication last week of the senior chief inspector's report, to which many speakers have already referred, has been extensively covered in the press, partly because of his concerns about the grave and growing shortage of teachers. It is also timely because if the Government act quickly to put their house in order, disaster can be averted. If they do not, the position in the mid to late 1990s will have deteriorated greatly. It will not be possible to implement many of the provisions of the Education Act and we shall enter the 21st century with an educational system of which we are ashamed because teaching in some crucial areas will be very near to collapse.
Returning to the present, there are already serious shortages in some sectors and some subjects, as has already been said. Attention has focused on what has become known in the jargon as shortage subjects in secondary schools. Before coming on to them, I want to examine the equally important problem of shortages of teachers of younger children. When Mrs. Thatcher was Secretary of State for Education she introduced a White Paper proposing the expansion of nursery education for all three year-old and four year-old children whose parents wanted it. Since becoming Prime Minister in 1979 she has presided over a government who have done little to support local education authorities in expanding nursery education. I am not sure how to explain her inconsistency, since the circumstances of the 1980s seem to make the expansion of nursery education just as desirable as those of the 1970s.
However, we are now in a situation where even if finance were available in local authorities LEAs would find it very difficult because of the shortage of trained teachers for this age group. We must expand the places to train those teachers in colleges of education. We must recruit more nursery assistants. We must develop schemes to help more women not just to return, as my noble friend Lady Lockwood has already said, but also to stay in the profession by
1504
including more part-time opportunities and more part-time posts when the children of those women are very young. What plans have the Government to deal with this problem?
Turning to primary schools, there are now acute shortages, as has already been said, in many inner city areas, especially in London, where the cost of living is now so high that teachers cannot afford to stay in the capital. Recruiting heads and deputy heads of good quality is particularly difficult. This means that standards of leadership are threatened, as well as stable, high quality classroom teaching. It also means that some children are attending school for only four days a week. In Tower Hamlets and some other parts of London some children are out of school altogether. I should like to know what the Government intend to do about this problem since the legislation requires that all children over the age of five should be in full-time schooling.
We are talking about the pupils who most need good teachers in adequate supply because their parents would find it particularly difficult to make up at home any deficiencies at school. I should be grateful if in his reply the noble Viscount who is to speak for the Government would give some indication of how they intend to deal with the special problem of shortages of primary teachers in the inner city.
As the senior chief inspector has said, we must dispose of the myth that all primary teachers are the same. A balanced curriculum requires some differentiation and the national curriculum will make it all the more necessary. As has been said already by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, primary education is desperately short of teachers with expertise in science, technology and mathematics. What are the Government going to do about this? If they do nothing the necessary foundation for effective learning in science and mathematics in secondary schools simply will not have been provided and more, rather than fewer, young people will choose to discontinue these subjects as soon as they possibly can. It is simply no good saying that the existing primary scientists and mathematicians can be used as subject consultants supporting other teachers. Most of them are already teaching for 100 per cent. of the time, and planned non-contact hours in primary schools are as low as 4 per cent.
In these circumstances it is also extremely difficult to provide adequately for in-service training, and the lack of supply teachers further exacerbates the problem. Would the Minister agree that without the opportunity for in-service training the scope for improving the quality of the existing stock of teachers will be negligible? The Government's claims that their legislation will improve standards will then come to nothing.
Turning now to the shortage subjects in secondary schools, we have known for some time about the difficulties of recruiting and retaining physics and maths teachers. This is not a new problem. Other countries have also had a problem in this respect but they have dealt with it much more effectively than we have in the United Kingdom. Here the Government have done too little and too late. I hope that when the

1505
Minister responds he will not simply refer to vacancies as an indication of shortages. There are vacancies, but they grossly underestimate the problem. The ingenuity of head teachers is such that they will do everything they possibly can to find a way round the problem, mainly by employing people who are not qualified in maths and physics to teach those subjects.
The Manchester University Survey by Alan Smithers and Pamela Robinson which has already been referred to found that only 45 per cent. of maths teachers and 38 per cent. of physics teachers were well qualified to teach these subjects. This is a disgrace. Poor teaching produces dissatisfied pupils. It is now increasingly difficult to fill physics places at universities and polytechnics. This means that in turn there will be even fewer graduates to go into the teaching of these subjects. In fact we are in a vicious downward spiral, and drastic action is now needed to get out of it.
However, to focus all our attention on physics and maths would be extremely complacent. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford has already referred to religious education; but the proportion of school periods taught by non-specialists in chemistry is 16 per cent; in craft design and technology it is 35 per cent; and in computer studies it is an amazing 82 per cent. There are now serious shortages in modern language teachers. Even English teachers are in short supply. The simple facts are that young people do not want to train to become teachers; that those who do the PGCE to go into secondary teaching end up in other jobs; and that those who start teaching leave in droves to go into other jobs.
Of course demography is not now on the side of the Government as it has been until recently. The number of pupils in primary schools is rising. The number 0121 year-olds is set to fall steeply from now on and the education system will therefore be competing, as has already been said, with many other employers from a much smaller pool of young adults. Unless the Government can rapidly turn round the perception of teaching from very demanding yet low status and low paid work for graduates to highly valued and highly paid work, they do not have a hope.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young—I must say that I agreed with almost everything she said—rightly referred to the extra demands being made on our teachers. We cannot ask teachers to take on a whole lot of new tasks associated with local financial management, testing, the national curriculum, TVEI and changes in the GCSE at the same time as reducing their salaries in real terms and expect them to stay in their jobs. Nor can we expect large numbers of new recruits to come forward. It is sheer lunacy. Teaching in the modern world is already made more difficult as a result of changing values about authority.
Few of us in this Chamber would be able to contain a class of 14 year-olds in the inner city. It requires energy, patience, ingenuity and intellect as well as a touch of charisma. The pay of teachers compares badly with most other graduate employment at all
1506
stages and levels. Starting salaries are worse. Elsewhere in the public sector, for example, similar qualified entrants to the police, the Civil Service, the Army and local government all get more. After several years of service the disparities increase. After five years good honours graduates will have increased their salaries in teaching by 45 per cent. and after 10 years by 56 per cent. This compares with figures of 70 per cent. and 110 per cent., on average, for graduates in other professions. Is it then surprising that the teachers' organisations have had to focus a lot of their attention on traditional trade union activity?
Against this background teachers were given an overall increase of only 4·75 per cent. in 1988 as well as a paltry offer so far this year. As we all know, the level of inflation turned out to be considerably higher last year. Teachers must now be paid more not just to maintain their standard of living but to improve it and to attract more people into the profession. All teachers should be paid more, contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, said. I see no reason why a generous offer should not be accompanied by a package that requires in return certain concessions from the teachers which help to improve quality. They might include in-service training requirements and some commitment to both extra-curricular activities and school planning outside normal school hours. The Government are very well placed to respond, given the huge Budget surplus. I hope that they will take their responsibilities to our children and their parents seriously enough to do so.
Finally, members of the Government must stop implying that it is teachers who are to blame for all the problems of our society. Doing so will only rebound on them. Understanding their problems, showing sympathy for their predicaments and congratulating them on their successes would go a long way towards improving morale. I end where I started. We shall continue to be short of teachers as long as we undermine their confidence, disregard their difficulties and pay them too little.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, this has been an excellent debate, introduced by my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham. We have covered a great deal of material on teacher supply. I confess that I have nothing original to add to what has been said on the facts. I must however add my voice to those who say that new initiatives are urgently required. Many of us on this side were critical of it as a Bill, but now that we have the Education Reform Act 1988 it is our duty to make it work. We pointed out last year how dependent it was for its success on teacher supply. And how right we were. It may well be that the Secretary of State exhausted himself getting the Act on to the statute book. Perhaps he is looking for new fields to plough. Until that happens he, and no one else, is the responsible person. He must accept full responsibility for the teacher shortage and the solution to it. We hear that he is pressing the Treasury for new money. We can only hope that he is successful. We must also hope that he does not fall for typical Treasury arguments based on naive views of productivity.

1507
The teacher shortage, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington is particularly critical. If allowed to persist, it is a recipe for economic disaster in the next century. This is especially true in regard to the shortage of maths teachers, science teachers and technology teachers. I cannot help but reflect that when the Chancellor introduces his Budget next week he and all the economic pundits will relate the economic success of the nation to interest rates, exchange rates, one penny off income tax or similar things. The Chancellor will probably say nothing about education and teachers except to utter some bromide on pay restraint. However, it is probably that our future standard of living depends more on our teachers than on the conventional economic variables or on anything the Chancellor will do.
It is worth bearing in mind that the teacher today has to cope with violence and truancy. I wonder whether the noble Viscount, in replying to the debate, can tell us anything about the report of the committee headed by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. When will that report be published? The noble Lord, Lord Beloff referred to parents shedding their responsibilities. How right he is. Too many parents are non-supportive. Some are actively antagonistic to the efforts of teachers.
I cannot forbear from adding—other noble Lords have made this point—that we must recognise that there is also an apparent antagonism of the Government towards teachers—even towards the profession, as has been said. Perhaps that is a misunderstanding. I hope it is. It is certainly not too late for the Secretary of State to make clear his total commitment to the teaching profession rather than blaming it. If I dare say this—I do not refer to the noble Viscount here—the Secretary of State would do well to bring one or two of his junior colleagues into line on this matter.
I wish to pursue the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, and by my noble friend Lady Blackstone. I must stress the problem of young people who are not able to go to school because there is no one to teach them. What a reflection that is on Great Britain in 1989. What is the scale of the problem? Does the Department of Education and Science know? More to the point—I shall be interested to hear the noble Viscount's reply now or later—I am intrigued to know who is to enforce the law when it seems perfectly clear that children must be in school. I have referred to the urgency for action. I can think of no area of education more in need of immediate action than making places available for children who ought to be in school.
Perhaps I may raise a minor technical point. Accounting for its share of the public expenditure White Paper the DES says that it has a great interest in manpower planning. I should like to know whether the DES has a manpower model for teacher supply and what its statistical basis is. More generally, I wish to raise the question of DES statistical work. In my day it was first class. How seriously now does the DES take statistical work? What detailed studies is it undertaking or supporting on teacher supply? In particular, to pursue a point raised by my noble friend Lady Blackstone and by the noble Lord, Lord
1508
Addington, do we know how many teachers are teaching subjects for which they are unqualified and in which they are not specialised? Do we know the rate of change of the problem? Is it a growing problem, or has it stabilised? Again, I should be interested to know what the DES has discovered about these matters.
What is to be done? Many noble Lords have made valuable suggestions for training and re-training. They would encourage returners. There is enormous scope for action in that area, as my noble friends Lord Dormand and Lady David have pointed out. The existence of the PIT—I hesitate to use the word again—tells us that there are large numbers of people who are trained to be teachers. They may need some retraining. Nevertheless there is a pool of people available and we must do something about bringing them back. We must also do something—I shall return to this in a moment—about tapping new sources of supply.
Many noble Lords have suggested that we have to look beyond pay. Status, for example, is important. I have spent my working life as a university teacher: I have always been told that I had status. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me repeating an old cliche but I have not noticed that status leads to bills ceasing to fall on my doormat. I have not discovered that I can pay many of those bills with status. Of course, status is important; but it is not a substitute for decent pay. It is important to bring teachers' pay up to a proper level and it is of overwhelming importance to restore teachers' negotiating rights.
In this connection the Treasury must face up to its financial responsibilities. It is curious, to say the least, that a government who make strong, or, as some of us would say, exaggerated, claims of economic success, are unable, or claim not to be able, to afford to pay their teachers properly. Noble Lords have mentioned the market mechanism. Surely we must accept that the market mechanism in this area works. If we want to retain teachers, especially teachers of quality and if we wish to attract first class people away from industry, we must pay them a competitive salary.
Perhaps I may make one or two other points on attracting people from other walks of life into teaching. I do not like to have a closed mind on such matters. I am certainly willing to consider various schemes sympathetically. What is fundamental is that there must be appropriate safeguards. As my noble friends Lord Dormand and Lady David have emphasised, those safeguards are to do with the maintenance of standards. We must have a teaching profession with high standards. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, about other professions was quite fundamental. What is there about teaching that makes everybody say, "Well, I can do it. It requires no special skill". These people have no intention of doing any teaching, I might add. They seem to think that it is the easiest job in the world. Why does that not apply to all the other professions? The answer is, of course, that it is arrant nonsense.
It seems to me that the recruiting standards of independent schools should be no higher than those

1509
for which we aim in our maintained schools. If, for example, licensed teaching schemes were particularly good, I should very much like to see them introduced in the independent schools to start with. However, I do not believe that for one moment.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? When the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, and I were pupils at an independent school, our teachers came direct with first-class degrees. They never underwent any training at all. I owe everything I have done in life to those teachers.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I cannot possibly comment on the connection between the teachers of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and, for that matter, those of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, and the enormous achievements of those noble Lords. However, I remind those who are devotees of the writing of Evelyn Waugh that those were the bad old days of the independent schools. Exactly the same kinds of people—not the excellent teachers whom the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, had—went into teaching. The independent schools made it their business to try to bring that to a stop. I am not saying that there have not been inspired people of all sorts, but I do not believe for one moment that that should be used as an argument to detract from professionalism. Since we are on the subject, although it has nothing to do with the main theme, I take the same view about university teachers who could also do with some professional training.
Perhaps noble Lords will forgive me but I must add a word of warning to people entering teaching. They must want to teach. Not wanted are people who have failed elsewhere or who are disaffected and who come into teaching as a way of solving their personal problems. Let me add immediately that that is not true of women returners. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has reminded us of the discrimination against women in teaching, especially when it comes to obtaining positions of responsibility. That is deplorable. It is also inefficient. I re-emphasise the theme that the more we can do to encourage women into teaching the better.
We have talked of the increased burdens on teachers. I do not need to reiterate all of them. However, one is worthy of special mention. The Government pride themselves on deregulation in many fields. One of the more curious consequences of their approach has been to increase bureaucracy and place a greater burden of administration on many people. This is apparent in the Government's approach to the National Health Service where it appears that from now on doctors will have to become accountants. The ludicrous football identity card scheme is another example of the bureaucratic nightmare.
Teachers and researchers in universities are now obliged to become form-fillers, and that is also true of their colleagues in the schools. It seems to me that the Government have failed to create a working environment in which professional people of all kinds can get on with their jobs. In other words, in the
1510
context of the present debate, let us give our teachers a chance to teach. They will not let us down.
4.57 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, for initiating the debate on what is a vitally important issue, and for the very fair way in which he introduced the subject. It was in July 1986 that the Secretary of State for Education and Science issued his consultative document called Action on Teacher Shortages, and introduced an action programme to boost teacher numbers in maths, physics and technology. I therefore welcome this opportunity to remind your Lordships of the robust action taken by the Government, and to assure the House that we have no intention of seeing our education reforms put at risk for lack of teachers.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, reminded us, teacher shortages are not a new phenomenon. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, that the position we now face is that we have enough teachers overall but there is a lack of specialist teachers of some secondary subjects, particularly in London and the South-East. I remind noble Lords that the pupil to teacher ratio at 17 to 1 is now the lowest that it has ever been. We have more teachers relative to pupils than ever before.
Unlike the opinion expressed by some of your Lordships, I have to tell the House that the Government have faced up squarely to the problem of a lack of specialist teachers. We now have an energetic teacher recruitment publicity campaign which, by advertising, special publications and careers fairs, aims to interest more people in teaching. That campaign is led by the Teaching as a Career Unit which is able to offer individual counselling and advice to those wishing to come into teaching. We have encouraged local education authorities to focus their recruitment efforts on qualified but out-of-service teachers who might wish to return to teaching, some on a part-time basis. We have encouraged mature entrants seeking to enter teaching—particularly those changing from other careers—and have supported them by the establishment of new courses of initial training geared to their needs. We have made available special bursaries for trainee teachers in the shortage subjects. As a special measure we have extended the bursary to chemistry this year. There are many other measures which the Government have initiated or supported. We consulted on our action programme over two years ago and have followed up all the useful ideas which were put to us.
Our action programme has not neglected the problem of shortages on the primary side. The position here is complex. There is no overall national shortage. Indeed, recruitment to courses of primary initial teacher training is buoyant—teacher training institutions recruited 9 per cent. above the targets set for 1988 and 12·5 per cent more trainees on the primary side in that year than were recruited in 1987. Again this year recruitment on the primary side is very healthy with applications to courses of teacher training up 10 per cent. over the same time last year,

1511
and with many courses, at this early stage, already being full. The problem of the supply of primary teachers is a regional one: difficulties in recruiting sufficient teachers are mainly to be found in London and the South-East, as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, said. The same problem occurs in other professions and industry as a whole.
Clearly, the high cost of housing is a factor. There is no easy answer to this. But much can be done by good recruitment measures such as seeking to attract former teachers who already live locally and by offering part-time employment. Other incentives, such as help with housing costs, are already being adopted by local education authorities who have discussed these matters with the department and the Teaching as a Career Unit.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, referred to the position in some parts of London. With regard to Tower Hamlets, I can tell him that of course the Government are concerned if children are not receiving the education to which they are entitled. We welcome the initiatives to recruit teachers which Tower Hamlets Council, soon to take over as the education authority, has announced in its development plan. The Inner London Education Authority, which is currently responsible for provision in Tower Hamlets, has 1,000 unattached teachers. They could be deployed in schools in Tower Hamlets.
As regards Waltham Forest, the Government are aware that the local education authority is trying very hard to recruit teachers. We welcome its endeavours. We hope it will receive all the encouragement locally it needs in its efforts to do better. Recruitment of a teacher is not the end of the matter. Schools and the local authority must make more effort to retain staff by providing continuing support for the classroom teacher and enhancing the attractions of teaching in Waltham Forest.
The Government are not complacent about the problem of teacher shortages. But neither are they defeatist. We know there is a real job to do and we are determined to do it. The action which we have taken so far represents a coherent strategy to tackle teacher shortages. But we have to look not only to remedying present shortages, but also to the anticipation of future shortfalls which might arise unless remedial measures are taken.
Turning now to the future, the prospect of the 1990s is one of increasing primary numbers, up by some 640,000 by the year 2000. Secondary numbers will also be rising from 1991 onwards, although by the year 2000 they will only just have reached the level of secondary pupil numbers in 1988.
The memorandum which the department recently produced for the Education, Science and Arts Select Committee in the other place, spells out the relevant demand and supply factors. I suggest the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has a look at that. The introduction progressively of the national curriculum will alter the balance in the required subject expertise in secondary schools. Demand in individual subjects will depend upon the timing and phasing of the implementation of the national curriculum, particularly in respect of extension to years four and five in secondary schools.
1512
But it is already clear that we will need to plan for more provision for modern languages and music and that there will be continued pressure for teachers with subject expertise in technology, maths, physics and chemistry. On the other hand, there will be less demand for teachers in some other subjects such as home economics and physical education.
For the primary sector, most teaching is provided by the general class teachers. To provide primary teachers with the extra subject expertise and support in foundation subjects the Government are supporting in-service training through the LEA Training Grants Scheme and the provision of advisory staff through education support grants.
On the supply side, we shall need to recruit more intensively from other sources of potential teachers in addition to new, young graduates. There is likely to be intense competition for highly qualified manpower as the relevant population of young people falls by about a third over the 1990s.
Perhaps I may now attempt to answer some of the questions which have been raised in this useful and wide-ranging debate. There may be some which can be better answered in a letter, and if that is the case I shall of course undertake to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, referred to the supply and demand projections for teachers in the department's memorandum to the Select Committee in another place, which I have also just referred to. Let me say first of all that those projections are illustrations only and must be seen as highly uncertain at the moment. The department needs to do much more work on those projections, as further data become available. We have tentatively identified subjects in surplus and deficit. All of these will be subject to reconsideration, including our projected surplus for RE teachers. But the projections have allowed us to identify the subjects likely to be in shortage, and this allows us to plan now to overcome these problems.
The noble Lord also referred to the recruitment incentive in grant-maintained schools. Grant-maintained schools will have an element in their budgets for recruitment. The entrepreneurial drive that has led schools to seek grant-maintained status will help. It will be up to them to make themselves attractive to potential teachers.
On the question of teachers' pay, which I know many of your Lordships have raised, I have to say that the interim advisory committee reported in February. The Government have accepted its recommendations in full. Those recommendations will mean a 6·3 per cent. increase to the teachers' pay bill. This comes on top of an extra £100 million in 1989–1990 due to changes introduced in 1987 and 1988. The pay bill will therefore be 7·5 per cent. higher overall in 1989–1990. The report's recommendations will mean an increase of over 40 per cent. in teachers' pay since March 1986.
The IAC has again endorsed the Government's view that the right criteria for determining pay are recruitment, retention and motivation. The committee found that overall retention of teachers was adequate and that the rate of departure from education was generally low. There is certainly no

1513
evidence that teachers are leaving in droves. The new pay structure is now widely accepted. It provides an increasingly flexible base on which to build future pay arrangements. This means for individual teachers that all teachers will get at least 6 per cent. extra in 1989–1990. Heads and deputies will get an extra 7·5 per cent. Most secondary heads will get nearly £2,000 extra, some even more.
Incentive allowance will rise in value by 7 per cent; 27,500 additional incentive allowances will be introduced in September 1989. That is 9,500 above existing plans. Over 20,000 extra teachers can look forward to receiving A allowances this September, giving them increases of at least 12 per cent. Teachers on the top of the main scale who are promoted from a B to a C allowance in September will see their salaries rise this year by nearly 15 per cent.
My noble friend Lady Young was correct to point to the time which, with the introduction of the national curriculum, teachers will need to devote to assessing their pupils. We are conscious of that, but the fact is that teachers assess their pupils now. Much of the new forms of testing will therefore be replacement activity and not an additional burden on teachers.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford asked about the supply of RE teachers. There are sufficient teachers of RE, but not all of them are so deployed to teach the subject. It is a matter for schools to deploy RE teachers sensibly across the school. The existence of qualified teachers of RE in a school represents a resource for the teaching of the subject. Primary school teachers are generalists. It is up to local education authorities to concentrate more resources on in-service training in RE. The Government are supporting expenditure of over £1 million this year on in-service training for RE. Local authorities are adding further expenditure. The plain fact is that they can provide substantial in-service training and they are doing so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, spoke about the problems of women teachers. The noble Baroness was absolutely right to remind us that women teachers, including those seeking to return to teaching, are a most valuable resource. I agree entirely with her that they should be seen and treated as such. Perhaps I could just mention that out of the speakers in this debate, five have been noble Baronesses.
My noble friend Lord Beloff, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, called for the establishment of a general teaching council. The Government are aware of activity which seeks to establish a general teaching council for England and Wales. The Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues have consistently made it clear that they will consider a specific proposal from others for a GTC that commanded widespread support from, and was likely to serve the interests of, all relevant parties, including parents and employers as well as teachers. I have to tell the House that no such proposal has yet been submitted.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, spoke about quality in the proposals for new routes to qualified
1514
teacher status. The Government are not in the business of lowering teacher quality. Indeed, under our proposals teacher training will be compulsory according to individual needs. The routes available now, which our proposals will replace, have no such training requirement.
The noble Lord also referred to teacher unemployment 10 years ago and teachers taking early retirement now. He is right. However, secondary pupil numbers fell, and are still falling, and primary pupil numbers fell until 1985. There were too many teachers for the pupils in the schools, and I repeat that the pupil to teacher ratio of 17:1 is now better than ever before.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked about the retraining of teachers returning to teaching after being away from the profession for a time. The retraining of returning teachers is the responsibility of local education authorities as employers. The Government support such training through the LEA training grant schemes. So far as concerns licensed teachers, we shall have to await details of training requirements in the draft regulations for licensed teachers. We shall be advising on the content of training for licensed teachers. I expect that grant-maintained schools and CTCs will wish to follow that advice. I cannot say more on that point at the moment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, spoke about the provision being made for nursery education. I remind the House that the proportion of under-fives receiving education rose by some 25 per cent. between 1979 and 1988.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked about my noble friend Lord Elton's report on truancy. I can tell him that that report is due to be published soon. I do not wish to comment in advance of publication. However, I shall send the noble Lord a copy of the report as soon as it is published.
I have already mentioned the question of department statistics and I refer the noble Lord to the DES memorandum to the Select Committee.
What then will the Government do? The Government intend to consolidate, strengthen and develop our present measures to combat teacher shortages. In particular the Government aim to concentrate on four sources of supply other than new, young graduates. First, we shall be encouraging local education authorities to use the training grants scheme to re-train teachers of subjects which are in surplus to become teachers of shortage subjects. That will allow schools and local authorities to employ the existing teacher force to best effect.
Secondly, it has already been demonstrated that teaching is a very attractive career option for mature people either re-entering the labour market or contemplating a career change. For example, the department's campaign in March last year, specifically targeted at potential mature entrants, attracted some 15,000 responses and mature entrants make up some 30 per cent. of all those starting courses of initial teacher training. We aim to build on that undoubted success in attracting mature people.
Thirdly, former serving teachers returning to the profession already make up some 50 per cent. of new

1515
teaching appointments each year. That level has been achieved without any specific measures designed to attract back out-of-service teachers. With proper publicity for employment opportunities, good employment practices—such as offering part-time teaching—and support and training measures, we should certainly be able to attract back many more re-entrants to the profession.
Fourthly, the directive adopted by the EC Commission on the mutual recognition of higher education diplomas will allow for a greater mobility of the trained teacher force across the European Community. That will allow employers greater scope to recruit teachers from other countries in the Community. Most obviously teachers from those countries could make a contribution to our need for additional modern language provision, as my noble friend Lady Young said.
Our proposals for the new licensed teacher route to qualified teacher status will help in attracting mature entrants as it clarifies the routes into teaching and helps to ease the path of those seeking to enter the profession. Draft regulations on how the scheme will operate will be issued soon with a view to a start of the scheme in September this year. One other proposal, which the department will be discussing with the interests concerned, may also help in providing more flexible ways of entry into teaching—experimental schemes of school-based training. The idea here is that local education authorities and training institutions would jointly devise schemes which lead after two years to a postgraduate certificate of education but with as much of the training as possible conducted in schools themselves. Trainees would be paid a salary for their contribution to the work of the school rather than a grant. It is hoped that pilot schemes could be started in September 1990.
In sum, the Government are now acting determinedly and positively to tackle present teacher shortages. We also aim to develop our present measures further to ensure that schools have the teachers they need to deliver the national curriculum to their pupils as it is introduced over the 1990s.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and to those who have attended it. I hope that the debate has been useful to the Government and that we shall see results—I believe the term is "in due course". I believe that a table ought to be published indicating what is the precise degree of urgency of the phrases "in due course", "shortly", "at the next opportunity" and "not this Session".
The noble Viscount was kind enough to say that I had made a fair approach to the problem. Since I charged the Government with fudging the figures about the possible intake of teachers and described the Secretary of State's attitude to the teaching profession as contemptuous, I am quite prepared to accept the noble Viscount's assessment of the nature of my approach.
1516
I am particularly indebted to those noble Lords who dealt with the problems of primary school teachers, to which I am afraid I did not pay sufficient attention in my original contribution. I am glad to have that omission remedied.
The noble Viscount set out a great many of the schemes, large and small, that have been devised for dealing with teacher shortage. I accept that the Government are now applying their minds to the various problems such as drawing former teachers back into the profession and attracting young people. However, I am afraid that they are still playing Hamlet without the prince.
The noble Viscount depicted the pay settlement in the most glowing terms that the figures allowed. It still remains true that the profession will be competing at great disadvantage with the other occupations trying to get hold of those young people. The Government have not solved that problem.
I also noted that there was no mention—unless my hearing misled me—of restoring the negotiating machinery for teachers. I believe that that is a serious omission and one that the Government must redress.
I thought that the Government's attitude towards the suggested general teaching council was rather poor spirited. The Minister said that so far no-one had produced a scheme which had the degree of agreement that the Government want. There was no suggestion that the Government themselves might try to remedy the deficiency. They do not appear to be taking the initiative in setting up such a council; they seem to be waiting for somebody to put forward a scheme and then pointing out that that scheme is insufficient. I think that the Government ought to do rather better than that. Both the negotiating machinery and the teaching council are essential to the proper development of the professionalism of the teaching profession.
I noted what the Minister said about grant-maintained schools. I must still press my view that whereas I could envisage a local education authority setting up hostels for teachers to meet accommodation difficulties, I do not see how a grant-maintained school, which may be concerned with only one or two teachers, would be able to do that. I do not believe that the Government have considered how far having grant-maintained schools is weakening the opportunities to apply some of the various remedies that have been put forward for alleviating teacher shortage.
My Lords, I must not attempt to recapitulate the whole debate. I see that we are approaching the proper time for it to end and I hope that we have used our time well. I repeat my thanks to those noble Lords who have helped in the debate and beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Toxic Wastes Disposal
5.20 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy rose to call attention to the international traffic in toxic wastes and to the case for

1517
safe and thorough disposal arrangements to be made before the transport of such wastes is undertaken; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion in my name on the Order Paper calls attention to the need for international arrangements concerning toxic wastes. I thank the noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have put down their names to speak and I look forward to hearing their contributions and listening to their views. I intend to raise one particular subject affecting the environment in different parts of the world because that subject requires urgent decisions, as I hope to explain.
First, I must make it clear that the toxic wastes referred to in the Motion are by-products of industries. The industries may manufacture goods required for ordinary life. However, some of the residues are dangerous to human or animal life and health and lethal to plant life and vegetation. They may give off dangerous gases or contaminate water, including both drinking supplies and rivers and lakes where aquatic life will be killed.
They are wastes to be discarded. They are not newly manufactured chemicals or substances to be used in further industrial processes. For that reason, the manufacturer usually wishes only to be rid of those wastes and is prepared to pay someone else to assume the responsibility for disposing of them. My Motion does not include radioactive waste—products of the nuclear industry and, in this country, of radiographic departments of hospitals and universities. That is a separate subject for debate on another occasion. Nor do I intend to refer to the offences of fly-tipping and illegal dumping by lorries which have become a menace in some parts of the country. In those cases, the waste is mostly local rubble and rubbish. I hope that that practice will soon be stamped out, but that is not part of today's debate.
The kinds of hazards to which I call attention were well illustrated by the erratic voyaging of the ship "Karin B" some months ago. A cargo of toxic waste had already been transported to Nigeria from Italy. No safe disposal had been arranged and the waste was in leaking drums and in an unstable condition. The Nigerian authorities apparently ordered it to be removed. The "Karin B", believed to be German-owned, was loaded with that dangerous consignment and then had great difficulty in finding a port that would admit her and in making a disposal arrangement for her cargo. The world press had put a spotlight on that vessel's situation. The master of the "Karin B" tried United Kingdom and Continental European ports and was understandably refused. Eventually, he succeeded in returning the waste to Italy.
Fortunately, that incident was in the news. Other such incidents have also come to light. There was an earlier attempt to dump toxic waste in Venezuela. That was discovered after it had been unloaded and it was removed by order of the Venezuelan authorities. How many more of those transactions have been carried out without public knowledge? I do not know. Where they have taken place, we can be
1518
certain that safe and thorough disposal has not been carried out and that rough burial in Africa or South America has seriously contaminated the areas where the waste had been dumped.
In addition, there must be a temptation to irresponsible operators to dump such cargoes at sea, especially if the operation is discovered, receives hostile publicity and is opposed by the intended country of destination. The results in terms of pollution of marine life, fisheries and coastlines could be as bad as on land.
It may be asked how that traffic arises. Because proper disposal arrangements can be difficult or expensive at the industrial site where the waste has been created, a great deal of money can be earned by entrepreneurs who will take it off the manufacturer's hands. In turn, there is a great deal of money for anyone who is prepared to accept the waste and provide a supposed final destination for it.
There is a wide range of current practice. No fault can be found—I emphasise that point; indeed, this is to be encouraged—where toxic waste is transported safely, under appropriate conditions, to the technology and plant available to treat and dispose of it. In many cases that is expensive, but the costs must be accepted. At the other extreme, there are opportunists with no scruples who are interested only in dumping the waste in a remote area of the third world without treatment or any thought of safety.
The incidents that have come to light show that that has been happening and that personal fortunes can be made by those in that disreputable business. I regard the activities of such people as diabolical and almost as evil as those of drug traffickers; indeed, the effects could be considered in some cases to be worse than in the peddling of drugs. Whether or not hazardous waste has been deliberately misdescribed as some harmless substance, the communities living near the dumping site are unlikely to be aware of the dangers to life and health until months or even years later. At least drug addicts know what is happening and what they are doing.
Noble Lords will understand why traffic in those wastes should urgently come under effective supervision and why I strongly urge the British Government to continue to play a leading part in attaining that objective. It may be suggested or argued that all toxic wastes should be treated and disposed of at or near the place of origin, or not produced at all. For reasons that I believe noble Lords will have gathered from what I have said already, that is not a practical solution, certainly for the foreseeable future. Essential industries would be severely reduced or hampered, for example, metal and chemical industries in Western industrialised countries which produce components and goods regarded as necessities for modern life.
Where treatment and disposal can safely be carried out near the place of origin, that will usually be the best course. Different processes are needed for different wastes. For example, incineration at very high temperatures is required for some, but the particular incinerators may not be available locally all year round in the numbers required in a particular area. For reasons of geography, geology and density

1519
of population, treatment and disposal at the place of origin may be environmentally unsound. The latest and best technology may be available in another area or another country. So we must accept that some of those wastes may have to cross frontiers for the right reasons. However, unless there is international cooperation, the way will still be open for deception and irresponsible carriage and dumping of highly dangerous substances. That is especially so when sea transport is used.
As for safe and thorough disposal at the destination, that should be definitely and satisfactorily arranged together with suitable transport and containers, before the toxic waste is moved. In most cases it will not be enough to ship the waste to some remote part of Africa and there tip it into a hole in the ground, euphemistically naming that as landfill. That is clearly what has recently been attempted.
The House will know that progress is being made by governments. The British Government have put into effect the directive on transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste which the EC has agreed and issued. Wider international agreement is necessary because the interests of the developing countries are so clearly involved, although those interests may not always be the same.
A series of meetings and conferences has been taking place under the aegis of the United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP. The next one is to be held in Basle later this month. It seems that a number of African countries are at present opposed to any toxic waste leaving Europe or North America. In the light of what I have been describing, that attitude is understandable. Any country can of course refuse to receive the waste but that country may be worried about contamination from waste disposed of in a neighbouring country. However, there have been other attitudes in the recent past.
Noble Lords may have seen the television programme two weeks ago on 22nd February on a scheme for waste to be shipped and buried in Benin—the African country formerly known as Dahomey. A change of mind seems to have taken place and that plan will not now go ahead. There have been two or three similar schemes, apparently at first acceptable to the African governments concerned. They have been reported, but now also seem to be suspended or dropped. It is not difficult to see why they have been considered. The amount to be earned in foreign exchange would immensely assist the economies of those countries and help to reduce their international debts.
This is the background to the negotiations now proceeding. I wish the Government well in trying to reach an early convention. Whatever may be agreed now with developing countries alerted to the present dangers, once a demonstrably safe and reliable system is working some of these countries may be prepared to provide a final resting place for some of these wastes with complete confidence. At the same time they would then be earning much-needed income from that service. When their own industrialisation proceeds, as most of them hope,
1520
they will also themselves meet problems of waste and will no doubt wish to have the means of dealing with it.
I recognise that much needs to be done in reaching an international agreement. Some of the matters to be settled are, for example, the rights of countries whose land or territorial sea is to be entered in transit only, powers in territorial seas and on the high seas, rights of inspection, where, and by whom, and the whole system of monitoring, enforcement and penalties for false descriptions in manifests. Those are just a few of the matters that have to be part of an agreed scheme.
Non-governmental organisations too have been helping to identify requirements for an international convention. One of them—the Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea, ACOPS—has been drawing attention to the abuses being uncovered and suspected. I have been involved, as some of your Lordships know, having been in the chair of ACOPS for two periods in the last 10 years. A conference arranged by ACOPS is to be held in London in October with the object of promoting understanding on the subject and giving support to the efforts of the governments who are striving to reach agreement on an effective international system. I suggest that the British Government should be given encouragement and support in pursuing this policy. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, this has been a week which has been conspicuously dedicated to the environment, both at a Royal and, one can only call it, a quasi-Royal level.
A noble Lord: My Lords, pseudo-Royal.
Baroness White: My Lords, I prefer the term "quasi" to "pseudo", but one can take one's choice. The Prince of Wales, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Prime Minister, very much in person, have all participated. It is therefore fitting that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, should draw our attention to one of the many baffling global environmental problems that confront us: the international trade in toxic waste.
We are fortunate to have available as from midday today the report on toxic waste presented by the Environment Committee of another place, chaired by that most experienced parliamentarian, Sir Hugh Rossi. It is perhaps less fortunate that this debate should come in the middle of the review by our own Select Committee on Science and Technology of its various recommendations for handling toxic waste, made initially by that committee under the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, in 1981, and considered subsequently in several successive reports.
Under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, we heard our first review witness yesterday and expect to interrogate the Secretary of State for the Environment in person next week. The noble Lord, Lord Gregson, has asked me to present his personal apologies to the House and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for his

1521
inability to be here this afternoon. He is much concerned about the international problems as well as the conditions for handling imported waste in the United Kingdom. We are, however, one of the member states of the European Community which act in compliance with the directive on transfrontier shipments which should have been implemented by all the member states as from 1st January 1987.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mentioned, we have had direct experience of some of the problems. Everyone has heard of the rogue ship, the "Karin B", which was driven from our shores. However, that is not the only uninvited guest which has tried to visit us. Furthermore, it can be argued that if such cargoes are quite legitimately driven away, will they not then possibly be landed elsewhere in countries that do not have the technology or the facilities to handle them; or, alternatively, will they not be dumped at sea or on other people's beaches? Examples have occurred quite recently of dumping a toxic cargo in the sea area between Madagascar and Mozambique. We have also learnt of the washing up on the shore of the Black Sea of barrels of other very dangerous material suspected to he of Italian origin.
As the Minister knows, and as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has mentioned, an international conference under the auspices of UNEP is to be held in Basle in the next few weeks to try to sort out the conditions of trade appropriate to the handling of special or hazardous waste. The OECD is also concerned. In other words, this is not just a European or a transatlantic matter but, like other global issues, it is world-wide. It closely affects the relationships between the industrialised and less developed countries in ways that have also arisen at the ozone layer conference and other gatherings recently held.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness on this matter. She referred to the question of dumping at sea. I ought to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that I missed the first two minutes of his presentation. Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness, in view of her great experience on these matters: what is the difficulty in dumping some toxic waste at sea, say, at a distance of at least 500 miles to 1,000 miles from any land territory?
Baroness White: My Lords, I was not referring to dumping of that kind, which might have been done with the open knowledge of everyone concerned and deliberately in an appropriate, chosen spot. I was referring to toxic material which was quite clearly being dumped without any such considerations, but in a situation where no such proper consideration or planning had taken place. It was dumped in that spot simply to get rid of it as inconspicuously as possible, regardless of its effects on any neighbouring fishery, other marine activity or possible landing places on shore. That is quite a different matter. On dumping at sea, there are arguments one way or another just as there are about incineration at sea, but it was not that kind of activity that was in my mind. It is this covert,
1522
fly-by-night dumping which concerns us most particularly.
It is partly for these reasons that we must have not merely agreement in principle but practical arrangements for handling this type of waste. It is for such reasons, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that some countries wish to forbid all exports of hazardous waste, which, as he has described, is not really a practical suggestion. Nevertheless, one can sympathise with them. I believe that the United Kingdom is perfectly entitled to claim credit for the way in which we have tried to handle these issues. I believe we are also properly in favour of a regulated system.
The European Commission has been preaching the gospel, perhaps beyond the reach of certain countries, that we should pursue what it calls clean technologies. That, like most gospels, is difficult to attain and is sometimes preached to rather inattentive ears. I hope that the Minister, who may be able to go to Basle in person, will give us some indication of what he thinks may be achieved there. Meanwhile, we need to clarify our own attitude towards taking in waste from other countries. I cannot believe that we want to become the dustbin or the garbage dump of Europe.
This is the first opportunity I have had of reading the evidence given by the noble Earl, Lord. Caithness, to the Environment Committee in another place. I was heartened to see that in his view there should be no transboundary transfer of non-special waste for direct landfill. It should go only for treatment or incineration. In other words, we should not be taking in ordinary domestic waste for which other countries ought surely to be able to make their own arrangements. I hope that we are all agreed upon that. We must have some method of identifying and tracking any such waste if people attempt to bring it to our shores. I find it hard to believe that we should accept waste from the United States or Canada, other than in the most exceptional circumstances. Such countries have high technology facilities of their own and they have wide open spaces which we do not possess. Furthermore, although I fully recognise that it is a counsel of perfection, possibly dangerous material should be treated as close to base as possible. I am puzzled by the attitude of some countries nearer home, particularly West Germany, which is not lacking in scientific expertise but which seems bent on exporting as much of its own toxic waste as it can.
There are arguments for some such transfrontier traffic, but it is disquieting, as the House of Commons report indicates in paragraph 250, that,
"Imports of waste into the United Kingdom have increased considerably; imports of special waste were in 1987/88 15 times the level in 1984/85. This increase has caused considerable public concern".
That is hardly surprising. I hope the Minister will be able to give us a clear analysis of the situation which accounts for such a startling increase.
Nevertheless, there are situations in which it is perfectly proper for establishments in the United Kingdom or anywhere else to make use of particular scientific or technological expertise for handling wastes with especially difficult characteristics. I have today received some information from one of the best

1523
known handlers of high level waste, Rechem of Pontypool in South Wales. It operates one of only three incinerators in the United Kingdom capable of accepting certain substances and of using the most sophisticated electronic analytical equipment to deal with them. I confess that Rechem is not popular in its own locality, but I have always been of the opinion that on balance its activities are justified and that it performs a necessary service.
As recently as last September, however, Rechem was importing cargoes by plane and by ship from Canada of steel drums containing PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls, for treatment. I cannot help thinking that this hazardous oceanic journey is surely unnecessary and, to my mind, is undesirable. I believe the trade started when the United States indicated that it did not want to import these substances, but I cannot believe that the Canadians could not cope or that alternatively Rechem could not establish an appropriate plant in Canada, thus avoiding this hazardous handling.
Whatever the merits or demerits may be of such trade, the European Commission has recently proposed a new directive on PCBs on which the Minister may perhaps wish to comment. This is a very wide subject and I am sure we all wish to hear the Minister, who has been very active on these issues. I encourage him particularly to attend the appropriate conferences at Basle and elsewhere, not least because of certain other comments which are made in the House of Commons report, in which the Government are chided for being aloof from some of our European partners. The House of Commons Environment Committee comments that it has received a list of influential conferences which lacked or had insufficient United Kingdom representation. The need to restore the United Kingdom's reputation in order to forestall inappropriate legislation, particularly from Brussels. is well understood by the industry.
I am sure that in the circumstances we all hope that the Minister will make it part of his onerous duties to attend even more of these conferences. We should all be grateful if he would enlighten us as to where he thinks we now stand in this difficult but interesting situation.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I should like to ask a question. She referred to the possibility of there being no objection to waste being imported into this country for treatment. Is there not a danger of the waste being imported allegedly for that purpose but really in order to get round any regulations prohibiting imported waste, thereby adding to the waste already in this country? That issue was referred to at the meeting of the Science and Technology Committee to which the noble Baroness referred.
Baroness White: My Lords, undoubtedly that is a hazard and I hope that the Minister will describe the mechanisms or provisions that he believes we must make in order to avoid such a difficulty.
If one is dealing with people who are criminal—because they are criminal if they try to
1524
conceal their purpose—one must take robust measures. I hope that we may be in a position to do so.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. He has shown a superb sense of timing in arranging the debate on the day of publication of a thunderous report from a Select Committee of another place.
My sympathy goes out to the Minister for having to defend the Government's position in the light of such a thunderous report. I can remember no other report which has voiced such forthright condemnation. Never in any of our inquiries into environmental problems have we experienced such consistent and universal criticism of existing legislation, and of central and local government, than during the course of that inquiry. However, the Minister is well able to take care of himself and no doubt he will satisfy the House.
We cannot ignore the rising tide of sincere concern as regards the swamping of our countryside with toxic wastes. I do not take an entirely apocalyptic view. We have the technology for dealing with such ghastly wastes but we need to provide the framework, show the resolution and spend the money necessary to ensure that they are properly dealt with.
The situation changes year by year. Each new pharmaceutical product—and dozens emerge every year—produces a new series of wastes, too many of which are toxic. New methods are required to deal with them. As our standard of living rises so do the demands. Therefore, the volume and toxicity of waste products rise each year. The problem will not disappear, but will grow year by year and require our increasing attention.
The problem of dealing with wastes throws a searchlight on the conflict between the immediate profit for the individual and the long-term cost to the public. Nowhere do we see that more clearly demonstrated than when looking at an individual company, where the cheapest way of dealing with waste is to throw it away where no one will notice it. The cost to crops. our children's health and the environment is incalculable. Her Majesty's Government must face up squarely to their responsibility for setting a firm framework of controls under which legitimate enterprises may operate alongside the legitimate public interest.
The EC directive has recently been published and I have no doubt that the Minister will refer to it in his reply. It can and should be a milestone in the tackling of toxic wastes. It will be so if it is properly implemented. The flood of imports into the UK, referred to by the noble Baroness, is particularly worrying. We cannot help asking why that has happened. It is clear that it is not entirely a case of the Germans wanting to get rid of it, but if prices are cheaper in this country firms will send their wastes to the UK. If it is all too easy for dumpers to get round controls in the UK but more difficult to do so in Germany, we shall collect more than our share. The rapid increase in the tonnages imported makes one

1525
suspect that that is the situation. Every country should deal with its own wastes but that is a policy of perfection.
The new EC directive is promising but it means nothing without enforcement. Noble Lords will remember a famous speech made a few years ago in this House when the Government were accused of selling the family silver. In dealing with the problem of wastes they are also selling the family dustbin, or are in danger of doing so. While the EC directive is promising, the Minister will appreciate that if it is not properly enforced it will become another useless piece of paper, as was the Chamberlain document.
I should like to raise five points for clarification as regards the EC directive. First, the document appears to provide adequate controls over toxic wastes. Why only toxic wastes? Can the Minister say why the directive does not deal with all wastes? I can see no reason why it should not have done so, especially because in dealing with toxicity one man's meat is another man's toxin. It is not easy to decide what is a toxic waste because there are borderlines. It is strange that the document does not cover international trade in all waste products.
Secondly, I should like to hear the Minister's comments about the variation in standards which appears to operate not only between one country and another but between one authority and another within the UK. I understand that approximately 150 authorities within the UK are responsible for wastes. Their standards vary widely, as do the standards with which they enforce their requirements. The areas which have the slackest standards and the lowest enforcements attract the greatest volume of dumping.
Thirdly, co-disposal is a topic which exercises the experts at length. Some have told me that there is nothing wrong with it; but others have told me that that is rubbish and there should be no co-disposal. I do not know the truth but I believe that in Germany the dumping of co-disposal is banned. That may be another reason why so much waste comes to this country from Germany. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten the House about the Government's view of co-disposal. Do they believe in it?
My fourth point relates to high technology. It has already been said that the treatment of highly toxic waste is a skilled business, but it is a legitimate business which we can welcome if it is properly operated. Firms in this country are skilled in the ultra high-temperature oxidation of toxins and can legitimately make money. However, representatives of those firms tell me that they have great difficulty in obtaining planning permission. It is the "not in my back yard" syndrome.
To treat toxins efficiently is a totally different matter from dumping them. I believe that it is far less objectionable to dispose of a small percentage of toxins than to have a chemical factory alongside making thousands of tonnes of those same toxins. However, the high-tech companies which we welcome and need for the best disposal of the worst toxins are having great difficulty in obtaining planning permission, and they constantly complain
1526
that they are almost always turned down by the local authority and have to go to the Minister for permission. Is it not possible to facilitate planning permission in appropriate cases? I should be grateful for the noble Earl's thoughts on that matter.
Above all, there is the question of enforcement. It is one matter to have a piece of paper issued by the EC, but that means absolutely nothing unless it is enforced. Is the noble Earl willing to assure us that Her Majesty's Government will face up to the sheer cost of beefing up the numbers and quality of the inspectorate? Without that, all our debates are utterly useless.
I remember 30 years ago listening to debates in Parliament on the problem of clean air. The Clean Air Act was a triumph and was one of the greatest blessings that legislation has granted to our present generation. It has made a dramatic difference to the health and welfare of our people. That is a wonderful example for us. In our turn we have to face the problem of this rising tide of pollution, and particularly of toxic waste. If we do our duty and face up to the necessary expenditure—because there is no cheap way, and the cheapest way is usually the dearest way in the long run—and our responsibility, then we pass on to our children a cleaner Britain and a higher quality of life.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I should like to pay my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, both for introducing this Motion and for his consistent work concerning the environment. I shall confine myself to speaking from the third world point of view already mentioned by the noble Lord and by other speakers. The text of what I have to say is aptly contained in a statement made last July by the Government of the Ivory Coast which reads:
"We cannot accept that the industrialised countries sell us death while at the same time they refuse to pay reasonable prices for our agricultural products".
This debate gives an opportunity to the Government to tell the House what they are doing and will do on environmental issues set against all the rhetoric we have heard in the past six months. That rhetoric rings hollow in the light of action, or lack of action, in the past 10 years.
I take up an incident raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, regarding the "Karin B" and give that as a specific incident of what is happening in third world countries, particularly in West Africa, although it is by no means confined to the African continent or to the western coast of that continent. Between August 1987 and May 1988, almost 4,000 tonnes of toxic waste from Italy were dumped in Nigeria in an illegal arrangement between Italian businessmen and certain officials in Nigeria—not the Nigerian Government. I believe that that is an important distinction to make. The government were unaware of what was happening. There is a tiny delta port in Nigeria called Koko. It was there that a Nigerian businessman agreed to rent his back yard to an Italian businessman for approximately 100 dollars a month. The property was used for the storage of 8,000 drums of hazardous waste including a substance mentioned by my noble

1527
friend Lady White; namely, PCBs. Those were stored in barrels. Later the barrels were found to be leaking. They were randomly stacked and were discovered to have the labels of a variety of international firms.
In early June, after the dumping had been discovered, the Nigerian Government recalled their ambassador from Italy and seized an Italian freighter. Whether that action is approved of or not, it showed the attitude of the Nigerian Government as soon as they discovered that the waste was being dumped in their country.
As the scandal broke, the Italian businessman concerned fled from Nigeria but another Italian businessman and 54 others involved in the scandal were gaoled by the Nigerian Government. On 17th July the Italian Government agreed to direct the removal of the waste from Nigeria and to return it to Italy. The "Karin B" then came on to the scene and another freighter—a deep sea carrier.
Let us look at that matter from the point of view of the Nigerian people. Over 150 Nigerian workers, mostly from the Nigerian port authority, were employed in removal of the waste. The Nigerian Government tried to provide them with protective clothing, mechanical equipment and even gas masks. However, they had insufficient supplies. As a result a number of workers were sent to hospital with ailments that included severe chemical burns, nausea, blood vomiting and partial paralysis. At least one worker went into a coma. Over 2,000 tonnes of the waste were removed from Nigeria on the Italian chartered ship the "Karin B" and the remainder on the second ship, the deep sea carrier.
Although the wastes were removed, contaminated soils remained on the site to be cleared. I do not know whether that has been done. However, soil removal was necessary as well as the removal of waste. It is estimated that that operation will cost the Nigerian Government at least £1 million. Of course, businessmen from the developed, industrialised world are involved in that, but so also are businessmen and people who wish to make a fast buck within the developing countries—yes, on both sides.
However, many developing countries, particularly in Africa, have shown, and shown quite clearly, where they stand on this issue. I should like to cite one example of what they are prepared to sacrifice as regards their economic situation in order to avoid a repetition of what happened in Nigeria. In May last year the Government of Guinea-Bissau, also in West Africa, postponed a deal with United States and European waste brokers that would have brought to that country 15 million tonnes of foreign industrial waste. The proposed payment to the Government of Guinea-Bissau was 40 dollars per tonne of waste. Therefore, the total potential payment was 600 million dollars. That may not seem a very large sum to those of us who live in the developed world; in fact it represents four times the gross national product of Guinea-Bissau and twice its entire foreign debt. That is an earnest of the determination of developing countries' governments, whatever sacrifice it may mean in monetary terms, to prevent their countries being contaminated and their people being poisoned.
1528
I want to draw to the attention of the House and of the noble Earl who is to reply the fact that I have a list of the waste disposal companies based in this country which are exporting, or trying to export, to the developing world—mostly, but not entirely, to West Africa. There is also one company trying to export to the Netherlands Antilles. I propose to read out the names of those companies. They are: BIS Import-Export Ltd; Dumba International; Emvratex; Hamilton Resources; Hobday Ltd; and Power, Water and Waste. Those companies are based in this country. Finally, there is Varn Products.
Several organisations within the developing world have spoken out clearly and specifically on this issue. The summit conference of the Economic Community of West African States, meeting in Lomé, Togo, last June, had this to say:
"Our efforts for the economic development of our states and for the progress of our people will be in vain if we do not … preserve the lives of our people and the environment".
The members of that conference agreed to enact national legislation against the dumping of foreign waste. They stated in their communique:
"We cannot accept that at a time when industrialised nations refuse to buy our commodities at reasonable prices, these same countries are selling us death for ourselves and our children".
In May last year the organisation of African Unity, the supreme body of co-operation within Africa, meeting in Addis Ababa, adopted a resolution,
"to refrain from entering into agreements or arrangements with any industrialised countries on the dumping of nuclear and hazardous industrial waste on African territories".
The leaders and the governments of those countries are doing their best to make it clear to their own people and to the outside world that they will not allow the African continent to become the dustbin for the developed world's waste.
I pay tribute to the work done by organisations in this country such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth which are exposing these scandals and are listing the companies and the incidents that occur all over the world. These organisations are nongovernmental. They are supplying the public of this country and, indeed, other countries, with the facts. However, they cannot pass legislation. They are not responsible for government policy. That is where our Government have to take their responsibility.
Everything that has been said this afternoon points to the fact that so long as market forces and private enterprise are regarded as paramount influences in this country, then so long will such scandals, and similar scandals in other fields, be inevitable. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said in his opening speech, there is money to be made. If there is money to be made, then the market forces, private enterprise, will try to find a way to make that money. The real debate is between those who consider that market forces should be paramount, that private enterprise and the making of profits should take priority over morals and ethics, and those who believe that in our dangerous world today regulation is essential to preserve the health and needs of the people.
I ask the noble Earl who is to speak for the Government these questions. What are the Government doing about this scandal? What actions

1529
are the Government taking and proposing to take? Have they any legislation in mind? Are the Government considering that the export of goods from this country, the freight that goes in ships from this country, should be examined before leaving British ports?
Finally, are the present British Government prepared, on the top of all their rhetoric about the environment (of which we have heard so much during the past six months) to take a lead in international regulation, which alone can prevent the exploitation for profit of the people of the third world and the making of profits out of the deaths, injuries and diseases of the citizens of the developing world?
6.19 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am pleased to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, both on his good furtune and on his characteristic skill. His good fortune, of course, is in winning a place in the ballot. His skill lies both in the precision of the wording of his Motion and particularly in the timing of it.
Reference has already been made by my noble friend Lady White to the good fortune that the debate is taking place so few hours after the report of the Select Committee on the Environment in another place which, although it makes only passing reference to international issues. puts forward some valauble points which have been confirmed in the debate by a number of noble Lords.
The second reason why he has exercised skill in his timing is that this appears to be a week or month in which the Government are capable of being bounced. The Government were bounced last week when the Secretary of State for the Environment stood up at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre and solemnly said that a 100 per cent. reduction in the use of CFCs was impossible. Within 24 hours the Minister who is replying to this debate said something very much better. He agreed with the European environmental Ministers that 100 per cent. was possible. We made very substantial progress because the Government were open to persuasion for once on that issue.
Let us consider the Dutch auction that took place at the weekend as regards the Government grant to the United Nations' Environment Programme. The Secretary of State knew perfectly well that the Government grant to UNEP was £1·25 million. But somehow the briefing that reached the Prime Minster was that the figure was £1·5 million. Then, completely off the cuff it seems, the Prime Minister was able to increase that figure to £3 million. When she was told that that was not a doubling, she said: "Bring it up to £1·5 million so that we can double it".
That was a welcome change, but not exactly an example of coherent or cohesive policy-making on the part of the Government. I suppose that as long as it is on the right side we are not going to object too strongly. Finally, in terms of timing, it is very important that this debate should occur as the opening legal discussions take place in preparation for the Basle conference, to which reference has
1530
already been made. I repeat the hope of my noble friend Lady White that the Minister himself will be able to attend that conference.
We must remember that at an earlier conference in Dakar, at which a number of participating countries were represented by their Ministers or at least by very senior civil servants, this country was represented by the Second Secretary at the embassy in Dakar. That is no discredit to the gentleman himself and I have nothing against him. It is certainly not an adequate reflection of the importance that this country should be giving to environmental matters. The presence in person of the noble Earl, despite his onerous duties of which I am very well aware, will be a welcome move in the direction of serious consideration of these problems.
I have already congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, on the precision of his Motion. He has been talking only about the international traffic in toxic wastes. As he recognized, the regulation of international traffic also brings into play the issue of dumping at sea. If the regulations for the transport of toxic wastes are unenforceable or intolerable, then dumping at sea will take place whatever happens. Clearly, that is going to be a major issue at the Basle conference.
As I understand it, the conflict that arose at the previous conference and which led to its failure to adopt a convention—it could only produce a communique—was because of a disagreement between the mainly African countries, supported by the Netherlands and Italy, who wanted a complete ban on the international transport of toxic wastes, and the other Members of the Community, the Commission itself and the British Government, which wanted control of the international traffic of toxic wastes by the doctrine of prior informed consent.
I wish to look at those two proposals in a little detail because it seems that the position that we take on them at Basle and subsequently will be of very great importance. I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument that there should be a total ban on the international transport of toxic wastes, particularly by sea. My principal reason is that which was advanced by my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby; namely, that the international traffic in toxic wastes is virtually entirely an exploitation of the poorer nations of the South by the richer nations of the North. It is some elements in Europe and the United States that are seeking to dispose of toxic wastes that they are not prepared to deal with themselves, by dumping them either completely illegally or in clandestine ways in poorer nations. My noble friend's description of the situation in Koko (referred to in the House of Commons' Environment Committee report) was very vivid and a very strong warning to us all.
Almost before we get to the scientific issues may I say that I have a great deal of sympathy with the position that has been put forward by a number of African countries, and also by two European countries. It is also true that the doctrine of prior informed consent that has been supported by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and by my noble friend Lady White, depends for its efficacy on really

1531
effective control at all stages of the process. Once you say that it is legal for toxic wastes to be found on the high seas, it is very difficult to conceive of a system of enforcement that would actually control the dumping at sea or the illegal disposal of those wastes at the end of the voyage. On the other hand, if there was a total ban, then the enforcement could take place at the port of embarkation or at the place where the toxic waste is created. That seems a very strong reason for a total ban.
The arguments for some trans-frontier traffic in toxic wastes also have a considerable degree of force. The United Nations' Environment Programme itself proposes the principle that international traffic should be allowed where it is,
"equally or more environmentally sound to dispose of waste far rather than close to where it is generated".
When you consider the irrationality of national frontiers in relation to sites where toxic wastes can be disposed of, that makes a good deal of sense. If you think also about the very high degree of unenforceability of total bans, wherever they may be—my noble friend Lord Hatch has made reference to them—then there seem to be strong arguments on the other side as well.
I suggest to the House and to the Government that there is somewhere in between a policy that would give adequate evidence of our real concern in these matters, be enforceable and would move things forward in a way that the present conflict between two groups of people appears unlikely to achieve. Let me make it clear that the worst possible result of the Basle conference would be if no convention resulted or one emerged that was simply a mouthing of words and avoiding all the real issues.
I propose that the Government should adopt the prior informed consent principle, but that they should also make specific provision for both exporting and importing countries to impose a complete ban or stronger controls if they believe that is appropriate. That would certainly apply to many of the African and developing countries that have very good cause to mistrust the developed countries and the way in which they approach the issue of toxic wastes.
In addition, the convention should adopt the UNEP principle that I have already quoted; namely, that it should not be allowed, unless it is more environmentally sound, to dispose of the waste far from rather than close to where it is generated. Also, we should pay more than lip service to the principle that the polluter pays. In other words, the only real solution to the problem of toxic wastes is going to be prevention and not cure.
It is true that in principle the producer of the toxic waste has to take responsibility for disposing of it. However, in practice, unless we can ensure that we adopt the principle of the best available technology rather than the minimal acceptable technology, those producing toxic waste will have many financial and economic incentives to continue doing so without let or hindrance, because disposal, and even imperfect disposal with its environmental consequences which may be long lasting although not immediately felt, is cheaper than adapting the manufacturing process to
1532
contain and reduce the production of toxic wastes. If we really mean what we say by "the polluter pays", we must impose severe penalties on polluters in our own country—and if it is an international convention, in all the countries signatory to the convention—to enforce the principle and to discourage the unnecessary production of toxic waste.
These are minimum requirements for the agreement that ought to come out of the Basle convention. I hope that the Minister, who I know is personally concerned, however great may be the turmoil in his department about the environment, will be there and will feel able to take a strong stand on behalf of the British Government. I hope that we shall see a convention which will do this country credit.
6.32 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for raising this important subject. As so many noble Lords have already pointed out, it is extremely timely that my noble friend should raise it, particularly at the end of a very environmental week, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, said.
The Government recognise the considerable concern which exists about the international traffic in toxic waste. This issue was raised on 1st February during the important debate in the Chamber on pollution. The Science and Technology Committee of your Lordships' House is looking at the subject and I can tell noble Lords that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has today received a copy of the report of the Select Committee on the Environment of another place on toxic waste. We shall of course send the committee a full and authoritative response to the report as soon as possible but we have noted that the report has joined the department in criticism of the way in which waste disposal authorities were carrying out their duties.
I should like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, that many of the report's recommendations for improved control are in line with the Government's total review of waste legislation and policy which has taken place over the past three years and which is now completing its process of consultation. Legislation to implement the new policies will be introduced at the earliest opportunity in the life of this Parliament. The committee has proposed the setting up of an independent environmental protection commission. This is a far-reaching proposal. It is similar to one suggested by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook on 1st February and it is one which we shall examine carefully, in detail.
Toxic waste is moved across frontiers for a variety of reasons. It may be moved because there are no suitable disposal facilities in the country of production but there are in the country of destination, or, on the other hand, because disposal facilities in the country of destination are closer to hand than those in the county of production. More worryingly, however, is that in some cases toxic waste has been moved across frontiers to evade more

1533
stringent national controls and requirements and to exploit another country's more rudimentary controls. We believe that the country of production of toxic waste should not cease to have responsibility for it when the truck carrying it passes through the Customs post or the ship with it in its hold leaves port. It is not acceptable either for a country of destination to know nothing about the toxic waste consignment or for the place of disposal not to be identified and vetted for its suitability.
We believe that there is a need for a strict system of international control and we support the three main instruments of international action: the European Community directives; an agreement which is currently being prepared by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; and perhaps most importantly, and a matter to which some noble Lords including my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy have referred, the global convention which is being promoted by the United Nations Environment Programme. The Government attach great importance to the emerging UNEP convention because the international trade in toxic waste is a world-wide phenomenon. Work on the convention is well advanced and I hope to be able to sign on behalf of the United Kingdom in Basle later this month. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that an agreement is necessary, and we are all working to that end.
The international community has established four broad principles to govern the international trade in toxic waste. First, the parties to the movement must enter into a binding contract. Secondly, movements have to be pre-notified to the competent authorities of the countries involved. Thirdly, the movement of the toxic waste cannot begin until the competent authority of the country of destination has given its consent. Fourthly, the actual movement is to be accompanied by appropriate documentation. The European Community's directives embody these principles. They have been implemented in this country by the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988. As the noble Baroness, Lady White, said, all countries should have implemented them, but my understanding is that Portugal, Spain and France have not. I hope that they will soon.
The directives lay down what waste the regulations apply to. They are, with some exceptions, those wastes which we designate in this country as special wastes. Noble Lords will know that this country imports some toxic wastes for disposal. The quantities involved are small by comparison with the levels produced here and by comparison with the amounts that cross European frontiers.
Under the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations the producer or holder of the waste in the exporting country has to prenotify his intention to ship toxic waste to the disposal authority for the area in this country where the disposer operates his facility. The producer or holder has to provide details of the source and composition of the toxic waste that he intends to dispatch. He should also give details in the contract he has entered into
1534
with the disposer of the route he is proposing to take and of the arrangements he is making for insurance. The disposal authority may ban the shipment if it considers that its transport or disposal would breach EC and international laws on health and environmental protection. The disposer would commit an offence if he accepted a shipment which the disposal authority had not approved. Documents accompany the consignment to provide a record of its movements and are sent to the disposal authority after the consignment has been accepted by the disposer.
A very small amount of toxic waste is exported from this country. This goes to EC countries and to other countries which have specialist facilities for disposal or recycling. As far as the Government are aware, no exports of toxic waste have been sent to developing countries. The Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations provide special safeguards in respect of exports to countries not members of the European Community. The general rules on contracts and pre-notification apply and in addition the country of destination must give its consent, and the Secretary of State has the power to prohibit the export if he considers that the disposal operation in question in the importing country poses a risk to health or the environment. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, said, I hope that he will send me details of the information he has and that he will be prepared outside the House to make the same remarks with full details as to which wastes he is referring to and from which countries these wastes might be exported.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister may not be aware that the Select Committee on the Environment of another place says that some cases have involved exports from the United Kingdom. Therefore it is not only my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby who has to give information but the Select Committee on the Environment of another place.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord's afternoon has been more free than mine. I have not quite reached that stage of the report. However, as I said earlier, I shall read it in detail and we shall be responding.
The Government believe that the international trade in toxic waste, indeed all waste, should be under strict controls. It is for that very reason that I have already proposed to the European Commission and other EC member states that the policy of the European Community should be that international trade is restricted to waste which goes to specialist treatment plants or incinerators, that shipments of waste to go for direct landfill should be generally ruled out and that all movements of waste, not just toxic waste, should be subject to pre-notification procedures. That would help stop the unacceptable practice of dumping wastes on developing countries and at the same time leave open the opportunity for responsible, well-equipped firms to deal with foreign wastes which might otherwise be disposed of with harm to human health and the environment.

1535
I am pleased to tell the House that the Commissioner and some member states have welcomed the proposals and that they are to be discussed in detail in a working party. It would of course be disappointing if they were not viewed constructively, and it is for that reason that I am grateful for the support which the noble Baroness, Lady White, has expressed for the proposals.
Perhaps I may now take up in a little more detail the point which the noble Baroness raised about imports of specialist waste into this country. It is true that over the years there has been an increase in the waste coming to this country, but, in comparison to Europe it is very small. The latest figure which I have for 1987–88 is that about 80,000 tonnes was imported into the United Kingdom. I am afraid that I do not have comparable figures for that year in respect of Europe. However, in 1983 the OECD estimated that some 2·2 million tonnes of hazardous waste crossed Western European frontiers each year and there is no reason to believe that the figure has not increased since then. Further, I understand that in recent years France has imported as much as 700,000 tonnes of hazardous waste per annum and that Germany has exported as much as 1·5 million tonnes per annum. Therefore, compared to our 80,000 tonnes that shows what a very small percentage the United Kingdom is taking.
The noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, asked some particular questions. I think that the important one was about co-disposal. Since 1974 the department has conducted research into the co-disposal of difficult waste with domestic refuse. It is not a technique which should be conducted at small or poorly resourced sites, but properly managed at a suitable site it can be a very effective disposal route for some industrial wastes. The results of our research have informed the department's advice and guidance on this matter and a review of that research will be published in May of this year. Aspects which will be covered in that review include the rates at which landfill material can be successfully degraded and immobilised as well as information on the mechanisms of degradation and questions of leachate monitoring.
The noble Lord also questioned the delay which some firms were experiencing in getting their planning applications through when they wanted new sites for disposal. He asked me to intervene. I am sorry but I shall not intervene in the local planning process; it is up to the local authorities. However, what he did say encouraged me and led me to believe that he was in support of the consultation paper that we have issued on the future of waste disposal authorities. That matter is still subject to consultation and if the noble Lord has any views in this respect we look forward to receiving them. But the consultation paper supports, basically outside the metropolitan areas, the shire county councils as the waste disposal authority. We believe that it should be done at local level.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, said that the real debate was between market forces, profit and regulation. I think that he is entirely mistaken and misunderstands the situation. The two aspects are
1536
totally complementary. Full state control in some of the countries which he idolises has not meant better regulation; indeed, it has led to much worse regulation. We all want strict regulation with the market being allowed to operate under that basis.
I am glad to note that the sentiment of the House is not that the entire international trade in toxic waste is wrong but only aspects of it. Major industrial countries should aim to dispose of all the toxic waste they produce. The smallest countries cannnot be expected to be self-sufficient, or nearly self-sufficient, in the necessary disposal facilities. There are therefore genuine reasons for making some transfrontier shipments. A policy of no imports and no exports of toxic waste would be environmentally regressive because it would lead to waste being disposed of unsatisfactorily. It would not happen here, but it would happen somewhere else. A polluted environment in any part of the world diminishes all of us.
The other feeling of the House is that when transfrontier shipments of toxic waste take place the disposal facilities to which they are directed must have the capacity to deal with the waste in a sound environmental manner. Therefore, the dispatch of toxic waste across frontiers must be subject to the consent of the relevant authorities before it takes place. I believe that that is self-evident. The European Community has a strong control system set up and running and the prospect is that through the forthcoming UNEP convention controls it can be adopted world wide. The Government believe that those are important steps which will do much to provide the necessary controls on international traffic in toxic waste. As I said earlier, we have made proposals to extend the controls to the international traffic in other wastes. We are all grateful to my noble friend for raising this most important matter.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, and as we have plenty of time, perhaps I may ask him a question which will expand and, I hope, make more firm what I understand to be a firm commitment on behalf of the Government which will be most valuable. However, first may I assure him that all the facts which I have used in my speech have been published. Moreover, as the Official Secrets Bill has not yet been enacted, I am not liable for prosecution for repeating matters which have already been published.
The question is this. I pointed out that when African governments discover what their businessmen and corrupt officials have been doing they intervene. Do I understand the Minister to say that the present Government will intervene in the export of any toxic waste from this country and any toxic waste passing through the ports of this country unless they are satisfied that the country to which it is being sent approves its receipt? If he can confirm that, it will be of immense importance and will give a great lead to the international community.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if the noble Lord carefully reads the debate in tomorrow's Official Report I think he will see that I have said that the Secretary of State has powers. We do not necessarily

1537
think that he has quite enough powers because that is the lacuna in the existing legislation upon which we are acting. It is for that reason that we want to strengthen those powers. But certainly within the European framework we can intervene and will not hesitate to do so if there is to be a disposal of waste from this country to another which does not have the necessary facilities and which has not gone through the correct procedure.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in that case, are the Government preparing legislation now?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord should know the answer to that question. Indeed. I said that we are doing so. Moreover, I have told him that before in this House during the pollution debate, if he cares to remember.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords, and especially the noble Baroness, for their speeches in this debate. They have contributed to what I think is an informative debate on a subject which has clearly been of concern to them.
On the question of the timing of the debate which was raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, it was purely by chance and not within my control, because my Motion has been down since the beginning of this Session. However, I hope that the discussion which we have had today has been helpful to the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which is at present in the course of its inquiry into this subject. I certainly would not wish to pe-empt in any way its findings or recommendations.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord. Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, were discussing the question of disposal at sea. I must clarify what I meant. I referred to the temptation to dump cargoes when a vessel carrying toxic wastes was running into trouble; that is to say, when publicity was focusing on it in the country where it was intended to dispose of the waste and where that country was opposing it. I should perhaps have used the word "jettison" because I was indicating that there was a tendency to do that.
Of course besides that there could be attempts at deliberate and surreptitious dumping at sea as an alternative to deliberate dumping on land. I understand the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, because of his expertise on technological subjects. I must also confirm what the noble Baroness said, that authorised dumping and incineration at sea are normal and there are international agreements covering them.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, for having narrated in some detail the saga of the Karin B" and one or two other episodes affecting Africa. However, like my noble friend Lord Caithness, I think that he oversimplified the situation by presenting a stark choice of either no free market or of dangerous practices. The convention that we are seeking would be able to make sure that there was still a free market but also that the dangerous practices could be wiped out.
1538
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, after having discussed it, did not, I am glad to say, come out in favour of a total ban on any international trade in toxic wastes. I am glad that he referred to the principle which has been proposed by the United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP. The Basle Conference in a few days' time will represent the next stage on the way to reach a convention and I hope, like others who have spoken, that an agreed draft will be concluded at that conference.
I am especially grateful to my noble friend Lord Caithness for a very comprehensive reply to the debate after what must have been for him a busy and tiring seven days recently at conferences both in London and in Brussels. He gave us an up-to-date account of the latest developments in this field. I wish him well in all the coming discussions and negotiations on this subject. In this I am sure I speak for others who have been following this subject and who are here this evening. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Unborn Children (Protection) Bill [H.L.]
6.53 p.m
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Government plan to introduce a comprehensive Bill to deal with the issues raised by the Warnock report, published in July 1984. The Government also published a White Paper in November 1987; but still there are no signs of an actual Bill and many of us feel that unethical deeds are taking hold in parts of the medical profession.
I should like to inform the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that after two Queen's Speeches have gone by with no mention of a Bill on this subject, I can hardly think it is premature to put my Bill forward now. At this very moment there are no statute laws governing the origin of the human species that are fertilised in vitro. Paragraph 20 of the White Paper proposes alternative clauses. One of them prohibits research procedures on human embryos and the second permits research as part of a project sanctioned by the statutory licensing authority, on which both Houses will have a free vote.
This Bill anticipates and supports the first proposal: that experiments should be prohibited. Research in this context must not include therapeutic procedures aimed at preparing the embryo for safe transfer to the uterus of a woman. The all-party pro-life group proposes with this Bill (which I might point out is similar to that which the right honourable Enoch Powell introduced in another place in February 1985) that it would be unlawful for a human embryo to be used for experiments. That is the whole burden of this Bill. The embryo created in vitro must be to enable a specified women to have a child. Spare embryos may be frozen for future use by that woman but not for any other purpose. And of course if that women does not require them for a second attempt they must ultimately be allowed to die.

1539
The Bill is not concerned with surrogacy. It is not concerned with abortion or with forbidding in vitro fertilisation and it is not concerned with the source of the gametes of the IVF embryo. Some doctors and medical research scientists advocate research and experiments on embryos, often to destruction, holding that genetic diseases can be cured or eliminated by these experiments; but world-famous paediatricians, among whom are Professor Peter Koop (Surgeon General of the USA) and Professor Peter Gray of Cardiff, uphold the view that the outlook for those with inherited diseases has steadily improved as a result of conventional research carried out within the traditional ethic of respect for the individual patient, and sometimes using animal models. These advances do not require non-therapeutic experiments on human embryos.
As recently reported in The Times on 15th December 1988, a team studying thalassaemia and sickle cell anaemia has achieved a major breakthrough and also hopes to find a cure for haemophilia through the insertion of the appropriate purified artificial gene or genes into the bone marrow cells where blood is made. Others have had success with bone marrow grafts, and new drugs are being tested to improve the well-being of those who require regular blood transfusions. Biosynthetic blood clotting factors hold out new hope for haemophiliacs. These remarkable advances have been made without the use of human embryos.
Professor Jerome Lejeune originally won world acclaim when he became the first scientist to identify a chromosomal disorder, when he discovered the cause of Down's sydrome. Through his work great improvements have been made in helping Down's children to develop physically and intellectually. An understanding of the way in which chromosomes function could lead to new therapeutic approaches. None of the work done in this way requires human embryos at all, and the predictions of Professor Lejeune made at a meeting in the Grand Committee Room in the Houses of Parliament in January 1985 regarding various genetic chromosomal diseases have all proved to be correct. That can be seen from a number of medical papers, including the document Upholding Human Dignity, which was published in 1958 by the scientific and medical advisory committee to the all-party parliamentary pro-life group.
I believe that human life starts when the woman's ovum is fertilised by the sperm of a male, thus conceiving and creating an embryo. This of course includes a pre-embryo, which is a false division of the early embryonic life. Not even the Warnock Committee at its meetings or in its subsequent report ever referered to the term "pre-embryo". It is a word invented since that time in order to make the unethical uses and exploitation of the human embryo appear to be respectable because public reaction to the procedures going on is one of utter repugnance.
The Geneva decaration of the World Medical Association states:
"I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception; even under threat I will not use my medical knowledge contary to the laws of humanity".
1540
The Helsinki declaration of the World Medical Association declares:
"In research on man, the interests of science and society should never take precedence over considerations relating to the well-being of the subject".
I maintain, first, that destructive experiments on human embryos created in vitro must be ethically flawed since they do not respect human dignity. Secondly, inter-species fertilisation producing a hybrid human must be prohibited because sooner or later curiosity could tempt medical scientists to try this. Thirdly, I believe that implanting human embryos in the uterus of an animal, which certain scientists admit to having attempted, should be outlawed.
We are now having a debate late in the evening, and I have spoken for 10 minutes. Perhaps I may counsel some noble Lords to speak for a lesser time than I have; shall we say for five or six minutes, but not for too long. I know that the House is apt to wither away towards the approach of midnight, and I want to have the votes of noble Lords on my side.
The Judaeo-Christian view of man is that he is made in the image of God. We must respect this prime place of homo sapiens in the reality of the universe and not allow scientists to play games with experimenting on human embryos, whom we consider to be our unborn brothers and sisters. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Duke of Norfolk.)
7.4 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, the noble Duke has criticised the reference in the amendment to my opinion that the Bill is premature. But he adduced no evidence or arguments to support his view that tonight's proceedings are urgent. I shall not follow him in all the medical and scientific detail of this dispute. He is obviously much better equipped in that than I am.
I want to deal with what the noble Duke is asking us to do tonight and why he is asking us to do it. In my submission he is asking us to do the wrong thing and he is asking us to do it at the wrong time, on the wrong occasion and at the wrong hour of night. I respectfully suggest that he is not the appropriate Member of your Lordships' House to do it.
What is the purpose behind the Bill? Why are we asked to choose tonight between Enoch and Warnock? What is happening to require the noble Duke to try to force the pace? I submit that he has not been as candid in the explanation of the Bill tonight as he was when he sent out his circular to his friends on 12th December. He referred then—I quote from

1541
the letter that he sent to a number of his friends—as he has done tonight, to the promise of the Government to introduce their own legislation. He referred then, as he has done tonight, to the absence of clear evidence of the expected date or time at which the Government might fulfil that intention. In the circular he said of this delay:
"However, a number of us arc becoming seriously concerned that for the second year the Queen's Speech has included no reference to any such Bill and the Government has given no indication of when it might be introduced".
That he has repeated virtually tonight. He then continued:
"It has been suggested that the cause of the delay is that some officials hope that, given time, human embryo research will become more acceptable, and the pro-life lobby will lose its majority, which at this point in time is enormous in the House of Commons".
For this reason, he goes on to say, the pro-life group proposes to introduce the Powell Bill into your Lordships' House,
"so that we can demonstrate the strength of feeling in the Upper House".
That is a clearer example of what the noble Duke is doing tonight than he gave in his speech. I do not think that he has fully explained to the House why he is showing so little consideration to all of us in order to pursue what he feels in his conscience no doubt is a requirement on the House to give him a verdict on this issue. One ought to have some explanation of why he is putting us through the mill like this. What is the occasion, what is the urgency, what is the pressure behind this?
This is a whipped up occasion. The noble Duke is staging a mock session of the House because as we all know, the Bill is not a business matter at all. It is merely the means by which the noble Duke seeks to get the demonstration of his constituents that he hopes for at the end of the debate. What, then, does this mean? The noble Duke is completely ignoring the last debate that took place in your Lordships' House on 15th January last year. He was present and spoke in the debate. When the Minister came to reply, he said at col. 1504 of Hansard:
"It is interesting to note that your Lordships have pretty well decided the issue today. The tally is that four out of the 21 speakers have come down firmly against research in any form of the word, whereas the rest are prepared to accept it".
That was his summary in the debate. The noble Duke was one of the four out of the 21 who registered the extreme position. He is obviously seeking tonight to remove the impression left by the debate in January 1988. Why is he wanting to do that tonight? What has happened between then and now that requires him post-haste to register a fresh demonstration of the feeling of the House which he hopes will go his way? Is he afraid of losing his constituency? Is he afraid that the Government will not honour their promise? Or is he hoping that in this way, after whipping up his friends, he will get a vote of the House which may replace and change the verdict which was given by the debate on the White Paper?
The White Paper was the basic document upon which the House debated the matter just over 12 months ago. We have no replacement for that White Paper. We have no legislation before us. We have no
1542
government statement of policy in order to judge what we think of the future of this highly sensitive and complicated matter.
Without further evidence, the noble Duke has not made his case. Perhaps I may respectfully, and with great affection, submit to him that on such a flimsy basis for troubling the House at this hour of the night, he has placed at the disposal of the presumptuous all-party pro-life group—as if all the rest of us were anti-life—his weight as Earl Marshal, Premier Duke and Earl of England, Chief Butler of England, Knight of the Garter, and head of the Catholic laity in Britain. All that weight and influence has been placed by him at the disposal of the self-appointed group of parliamentarians who are trying to push your Lordships around. That is the truth of the matter. We may as well be blunt about it.
I am not concerned with the technical side of the controversy at all. I am concerned with the tactics and the parliamentary propriety of what the noble Duke is doing. One of the drawbacks of many influential Members of your Lordships' House is their complete lack of experience in political and parliamentary affairs. We have examples of that, if I may say so with great respect. They do not understand what he is asking us to do. It is a futile exercise because he knows as well as I do, or he should know, what fate awaits the Private Member's Bill that has no claim on parliamentary time and for which the Government arc probably not disposed to give any time. Nevertheless, I shall concede that we all want the Government to say when they will bring some proposals forward.
Before I finish, perhaps I may say how wrong in my opinion, the timing of this Bill is. The newspaper the Financial Times this morning suggested that the Cabinet tomorrow will decide on the legislation that the Government propose to introduce in the next Session of Parliament. Gossip is going around that a Bill to implement the Government's proposals on the Warnock Report will be among the measures. Clearly in moving dangerously near to the end of this Parliament, there will be reason to become a little more anxious in case the next Queen's Speech contains no reference to it.
However, we are merely in the middle of the Parliament and an event next week fully justifies the Government taking a little more time to consider their position. I refer to publication of a report entitled Fertility and the Family by Jonathan Glover. Jonathan Glover is a British academic nominated by the European Commission to preside over a working party of Europeans seeking a European perspective on the problem of research on human embryos. The report is a most important document. It is an attempt by a working party of Europeans to find the highest common denominator on the issue among EC countries.
We cannot live in a cocoon of our own making any longer. We are in the European dimension. If we seek to go our own way nationally we may find the European Community at loggerheads with us, having different policies which will seriously complicate the pattern of medical research and social policy in the Community.

1543
The Glover Report is an attempt, which we in this country and certainly the noble Duke have not made, to find whether there is a level, a common denominator, which might form the basic elements of national legislation. It is not an attempt to get a European directive over its members; it is an attempt to avoid disparities and conflicts which might otherwise arise. The report is only becoming available now and the Government will have to take it into account. It describes its approach to the medical, ethical, family and social aspects of the problem. It makes certain recommendations which it hopes that the governments of the Community will consider. At the moment it is a document requisitioned by the European Commission, not the Council of Ministers nor the European Parliament. The Commission is seeking a solution to a problem which will otherwise no doubt trouble the deliberations of the Common Market a very short time hence.
I plead with your Lordships, first, to have regard to the Government's problems, and, secondly, to the repute of the House. This debate is misleading people into thinking that we are doing business when we are not. We are debating. And the matter ought to be left as a debate, as it was in January 1988. But the noble Duke, under the pressures behind him, feels that he must press on and obtain some verdict from the House which will be no more reliable than any other verdict of the House and probably much less reliable than the last one. No verdict of this House in the circumstances tonight will be worth the paper it is written on for the simple reason that this is not an occasion when all Members of your Lordships' House have been properly briefed and warned of the importance and significance of what they are asked to do.
It is a Catch 22 occasion. The noble Duke asked that we should cut our speeches short, adding naively that this was in order that his constituency should not disappear were the House to sit too late. That is a problem we all have. What does the noble Duke expect to be the value of what we are being asked to do? I deal with this matter solely on the parliamentary occasion which the noble Duke has staged. I say in conclusion that I hope we have an interesting debate with a large number of noble Lords taking part. I hope that we shall discuss anything your Lordships wish. But, in the end, I hope we shall try and avert needless acrimony and suspicion that there are religious sectarian elements in what is being done tonight. If we look at the list of speakers, we can see who is represented.
The noble Duke is doing a disservice to all of us. He is damaging the repute of the House. He is stirring up controversy and difficulty when that is unnecessary. He will not further his cause and he will not improve our tempers. I appeal to the noble Duke. I should like to withdraw my amendment, if he will withdraw his Bill. Let us finish the evening in an atmosphere of harmony and amity, having at least gone over the ground a second time and got it ready for the final stage of decision in this House when a Government Bill comes before us. That will come soon.
1544
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, That this Bill be now read a second time; to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "This House declines to give a Second Reading to a Private Member's Bill on the use of in vitro fertilisation in view of the fact that Her Majesty's Government have made clear their intention as recently as 2th July 1988, of introducing legislation on this subject during this Parliament; and that this Bill is, therefore, premature.".—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
7.22 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, assuming that the noble Duke is not going to take up the invitation just offered to him, I must start the first of what is a long list of speeches. I shall endeavour to be brief. I oppose the Bill and I support the reasoned amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. But in doing so in such a sensitive area I do not presume to speak for any of my noble friends.
I suggest that the Bill has an emotive and misleading title. It is a Bill with a highly restrictive purpose and it does not pretend to be anything else. It is a Bill which would deny us the benefit of valuable research that has been done in the past and which would deny us the benefit of responsible research yet to come. It would criminalise those responsible scientists now working on licensed research for the benefit of mankind. Under this Bill such a scientist could be sent to prison for two years.
It is a Bill which would allow in vitro fertilisation but would allow no research to improve its techniques. It is a Bill which tells the public that they can have test tube babies but they cannot have any research to advance the techniques involved. There is of course no definition of research in the Bill, or I think in the report of the committee under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. Research can simply be observation of an early embryo through a microscope. But that would be an offence under the Bill.
To discard rather than implant an embryo which was seen by a scientist to be defective would be an offence under the Bill. As Professor Winston has, I believe, pointed out, nature discards early embryos. This Bill and its predecessors give greater protection to embryos than nature itself. I am sure that we would all respect the sincerity of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk. But I hope he respects the views of those who do not enjoy the doctrinal certainty which makes his position so easy and so unshakeable. I hope he will understand that we all care about the quality of individual life.
Reference has already been made to the timetable of what has happened so far. I suggest that the Government have been right to avoid rushed and piecemeal legislation. We have the blueprint of the report in 1984 of the Warnock Committee. That report balanced the status of the collection of cells that is or can be an early embryo against the benefits of research. It came down in favour of licensed research on embryos in the 14 days after fertilisation.
We had a debate on the report in this House on 31st October 1984. For those whose Christianity brings them to this House this evening and makes

1545
them feel that they must support the Bill, I simply refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soper. He stated:
"I am not particularly impressed by the argument that one must not indulge in any research on one of the spare embryos which necessarily will he produced in this way. It is clear to me that there is no greater moral value in saying that we must just allow the spare embryos to die, or to say that we can indeed make use of them for future culture or for future ways of delivering them ourselves from these particularly difficult and complex problems".—[Official Report; 31/10/84: col. 548.]
Indeed the illogicality in this Bill is perhaps underlined by those remarks.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, would the noble Lord make it a criminal offence to conduct research on embryos after 14 days?
Lord Meston: My Lords, as I understand it, there is some significance in the 14-day period. I understand that some scientists may speak in terms of a longer period. I do not know what is right. I support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that we need to be informed. If the noble Earl waits, he will hear the suggestion I have to make as regards how we should proceed with this Bill.
I was going to say there is an illogicality in the Bill which would prevent the destruction or damage of an embryo in research but which allows the destruction or damage of an embryo if there is an imperfect, unsuccessful IVF implantation. In 1985 the voluntary licensing authority was set up. This has proved a success. It has allowed responsible, licensed research; that is research with defined objectives, limited timescales, and research in respect of which it is demonstrated that it cannot be carried out other than by using an early embryo. As I have said, such people would now be criminals under the Bill. The licensing authority has succeeded. It has not been sidestepped. Indeed, as I understand it, there has been no incentive for scientists to sidestep the licensing authority. My understanding is that the researchers in this field very much want the safeguards which the Warnock Committee recommended.
In 1986 the Government produced their consultation paper and in 1987 they produced their White Paper. As the noble Duke said, that was quite remarkable for proposing in paragraph 30 alternative choices in the Bill which it hoped in due course would be put before Parliament. There was an alternative between a clause which prohibited research, as this Bill does, and a clause which permitted licensed research. If that is still the intention of the Government—I hope we shall hear their intention this evening—I suggest that the provisions of this Bill can wait.
In 1988 we had our debate on the White Paper itself. Again those whose Christianity brings them to the Chamber this evening may wish to read the speech of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. That speech was in favour of research and accepted the validity of the 14-day limit. Frankly, the noble Duke wants to stop the clock and then put it back. He dealt with, but did not deny, the benefits of controlled research. He dealt with the benefits by saying that conventional research works as well. It
1546
does not follow that conventional research is sufficient to achieve what can be achieved.
We must face the fact this evening that we shall never reconcile or resolve the different views about the status of the embryo. That being so, I suggest that the best that Parliament can do is to undertake a serious evaluation of the present and potential benefits of research, and also the possible detriments, in order to allow informed debate in this developing field.
I hope that consideration will be given in due course to setting up a Select Committee on this Bill, assuming that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. is unable to persuade the House that the Bill is premature. The report of such a Select Committee may assist the Government to decide whether there is a need for this novel alternative choice of legislation. I hope that this evening the Government will indicate what legislation we can expect and when.
The supporters of the Bill are entitled to their strong views. They are entitled to have nothing to do with the research which I suggest should be allowed to continue and to have nothing to do with the benefits of that research. However, those in Parliament and outside who do not share their views are entitled to an informed debate free from prejudice.
It is my view that responsible research should be allowed to continue. I may be wrong. I understand there to be considerable benefits from the controlled research which is being undertaken and which is proposed in the alleviation of infertility, the improvement of contraception, the detection of genetic defects and research into miscarriage and other problems of pregnancy and possibly into the use of tissue for transplants. I suggest that if we really care about the future of unborn generations we should oppose this Bill.
3 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I welcome the introduction of this Bill into your Lordships' House by the noble Duke and I hope that your Lordships will resist the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
This particular matter of research upon embryos is the most contentious of the recommendations of the Warnock Report. For that reason I believe that the issue deserves debate on its own. It has been contentious since the time of the Warnock Committee, and no doubt since long before that time. Three members of the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, signed a minority report expressing dissent from the report and recommending that experimentation on the human embryo should not be permitted. Four further members dissented from the view that embryos should be brought into existence for research purposes. Of a committee of 16, nine signed the full recommendation on this issue.
That division has been reflected in subsequent debate both inside and outside the Churches. The Board of Social Responsibility of the General Synod of the Church of England was, by a majority, in favour of research on human embryos up to 14 days. A minority opposed that view. However, the board

1547
was opposed to the direct production of embryos for the sole purpose of research. The General Synod of the Church of England has voted twice on the matter. Both votes indicated a fairly even division of opinion within the Synod. It is therefore clear that the Church of England does not speak with one voice on this matter.
As I see it, the point at issue is at what moment in its life an embryo becomes entitled to the protection to which a human person is entitled. At what point do we say that here is a human, perhaps in the very earliest stages of development but a human nevertheless, and we must accord to him or her the protection to which humans are entitled, arising from our conviction and belief that all humans are entitled to certain protections under the law?
The theological arguments on the matter have already been rehearsed in your Lordships' House, notably by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York in the debate on 15th January 1988, to which some noble Lords have already referred. Broadly, the theological arguments fall into two groups, both of which have been part of our Christian tradition.
The first group of arguments revolves around the notion of a person being one who possesses certain attributes. Sometimes the word "soul" is used to sum up those attributes. The most important of those attributes is consciousness. On the basis of that set of arguments an organism which does not possess such attributes—one might say, which does not possess a soul—should not be treated as a person.
The second group of arguments centres upon the notion of life as a continuum, a development, a history with a beginning. In my view—and I shall try to justify it later—the obvious point marking that beginning is the moment of fertilisation. According to that set of arguments, from the moment it begins its existence as a potential human person an embryo is entitled to treatment as a potential human person, an organism with the possibilities of human creativity, relationship and consciousness ahead of it.
I place myself firmly among those who hold the second set of views. I find the notion of soul, whether interpreted as consciousness or in some other way, infused at a certain moment into an organism, without meaning. I find it a non-sensible concept—a concept which cannot be recognised by the senses—imposed upon the history of the organism. I think of life as a continuum.
However, I discover that there are others who think of life in that way who place some other beginning on it than the moment of fertilisation. Their argument, and this was the argument of the most reverend Primate, runs that the embryo in its very earliest form is too unstable, cells have not yet begun to split and differentiate. They say that we must speak of the history of the person beginning at some stage after fertilisation and in any case beyond the 14 days of life within which the Warnock Committee recommended that research could take place.
It is tempting to follow that line. It would allow research. It would balance the need to protect the
1548
embryo on the one hand against the needs on the other of those whom research would benefit. A powerful Christian voice, enunciated by Professor Gordon Dunstan, formerly Professor of Moral and Social Theology at the University of London, urges us to follow that way. I cannot feel it to be so.
Many of your Lordships will have received a briefing paper from the Genetic Interest Group. I read it with great interest. It includes a good deal of moral and theological argument. The briefing frequently uses the phrase "absolute protection" which is to be afforded to the embryo and argues that an embryo has no right to such absolute protection. I would not argue for absolute protection but for protection from destruction. I am not opposed in principle to research on embryos. I am not opposed to observation and testing, which indeed takes place on many of us. I am opposed to testing to destruction.
I therefore agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, the Chief Rabbi. He expressed the Jewish position and said:
"What is crucial in allowing the use of embryos for experiments is that they must have been brought into being not for research purposes but solely for the possible prospect of ensuring a successful pregnancy. The moment they are no longer potentially required, or in a fit condition. for possible reimplantation, no further experiments should be done; until then such observation or tests as do not irreversibly lead to their destruction … may be carried out".
That is a view to which I hold. Testing to destruction may be right for materials but not for embryos. I recognise that there is wastage in nature, but it seems to me that allowing natural wastage is not the same moral act as testing an embryo to destruction.
If the notion of a beginning to our personal history is to make sense—and I would argue that it does—I believe that it does so only by accepting fertilisation as that beginning. The papers from the Genetic Interest Group point out that the notion of life is a difficult one. They suggest that it is not possible to say when life begins. It is possible to argue that both sperm and ovum separately possess life and that we cannot speak of life as beginning at the moment of fertilisation. I accept that claim. I want to speak not of the moment at which life begins, but of the moment at which an individual's history begins. I believe that there is a good argument for maintaining that it is at the moment of fertilisation. That is the moment at which the genetic composition of the organism, which is a potential person, is determined. It is those genes that will be carried by a person throughout his or her personal history and the history will he determined to a considerable extent by the genes. The moment of fertilisation is the moment at which the history of that unique combination of genes begins and is therefore the moment from which we can say that a person exists in embryo.
In another place, presenting a similar Bill, the right honourable Mr. Enoch Powell based his argument on an instinct of revulsion and repugnance. Those who contend against him say that such an instinct must be based on a knowledge of the medical facts, and I agree with that. I have attempted to argue that his instinct is soundly based on a recognition of the fertilised ovum as the carrier of a unique set of genes and the moment of fertilisation as the starting point of a unique personal history.

1549
I therefore cannot accept that, up to 14 days, an embryo is not a potential person. I have heard it argued that, as it is not implanted in the womb, it has no future and therefore cannot be regarded as a person in potential; but on that argument, we could not accept that a born child facing certain death had an entitlement to treatment as a person and protection under the law.
I am not one of those to whom the answer to the question seems obvious. I listened to the clarion calls of those who are clear in their minds and am not immediately persuaded by either of their claims. In reading the briefing papers, I have continually asked myself: what is the gain that we are asked to recognise which will be achieved by research, and which those who oppose the testing of embryos to destruction are said to be blocking? As I read the current literature on this matter, it seems to me that two groups of people will he helped: those who are apparently infertile and those couples whose possible offspring are, for genetic reasons, at risk of handicap. In both cases, the right of the couple to have a child is asserted: in the one case at the moment, they cannot, and, in the other case at the moment, they could choose not to. It is that right to have a child of one's own genes that is placed against the right of the embryo to protection. I do not believe that that is sufficient gain to offset against the cost.
My reaching this point of personal conviction has come slowly and with some inner wrestling. By training, I am a mathematician, not a theologian. By nature, I am one who looks forwards not backwards; who is excited by modern technology; who believes in the future and welcomes the work of scientists as revealing to us the mysteries and opportunities of God's creation. I long for misery and suffering to be overcome, not least by developments in the medical field. However, if research on embryos is permitted, I ask: what is the cost? I believe that, in the end, the cost is an erosion of that sense of reverence for life which is at the heart of our relationships and our moral endeavours. I therefore welcome this Bill.
7.43p.m
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, as chairman of the Medical Research Council I must express a deep interest in this debate. I shall divide my remarks into two parts: first, substance, and, secondly, procedure. As regards substance, as a purely amateur Anglican, I am not qualified to delve into deep theological waters and shall not therefore do so. However, as a purely amateur Anglican I confess that I go along more willingly with the views expressed by the most reverend Primate 14 months ago in our debate in January than with the views that we have just heard so beautifully expressed by the right reverend Prelate.
As regards research, I strongly believe that my noble friend's Bill—I use the word "friend" both in the political and personal sense—will effectively kill or at least cripple research which carries with it great promise for the future and for the alleviation of the suffering of millions of people around the world. I believe that the possibilities of that research go wider than the right reverend Prelate mentioned.
1550
For example, research is being undertaken into fertility. I believe that only couples who are childless and desperately want children can fully appreciate what the inability to have children can mean in terms of deprivation. As I reminded noble Lords when we discussed this matter some 14 months ago, it is worth remembering that it is estimated that over a quarter of a million couples in this country aged between 24 and 35 are infertile.
Much research has been done since the birth of Louise Brown 11 years ago, but much remains to be done. At present, the success rate of in vitro fertilisation is about 10 per cent.—one in 10. A great deal of research is still required in order to increase that success rate and thus to avoid the disappointments—indeed, the considerable hardships—from which many couples hoping tohave children through in vitro fertilisation still suffer. Much work still needs to be done to avoid what sometimes happens at the present imperfect stage of our techniques; namely, accidental multiple birth. At the same time, useful work, which my noble friend's Bill would effectively terminate, is at present being undertaken into the reasons for and causes of miscarriage. That is frequently due to embryo abnormalities and continuing research into the human pre-embryo is needed to elucidate what is a very mysterious area. Then, again, the research that is at present being undertaken can also help to throw light upon and possibly alleviate the reasons for male infertility, which is much more prevalent than is sometimes supposed.
That is one side of the research coin. The other side is research into new methods of contraception. I hazard a personal view that the dynamic growth of the population worldwide is one of the most serious challenges facing man on earth today. It is worth remembering that the population of our globe increases by approximately a quarter of a million people every 24 hours. Very important research, which my noble friend's Bill would terminate, is at present being undertaken into the possible development of a contraceptive vaccine. That would carry with it dramatic and beneficial possibilities, especially for the developing world.
Above all, my noble friend's Bill would effectively hamstring the research that is being clone in this country at present into the possibility of eliminating at the pre-embryo stage a number of highly unpleasant genetic diseases. My noble friend referred to haemophilia. I shall not bandy words with him, praying in aid one scientist against another. However, I agree with the noble Lord and am convinced that conventional research in that genetic area will not be sufficient.
Apart from anything else, there are some 2,000 genetic diseases some of which are susceptible to the type of research to which I have referred. I have in mind, for example, Tay Sachs syndrome, Huntingdon's disease, muscular dystrophy and, not least, that particularly horrible Lesch Nyhan syndrome. As many noble Lords know, some of those diseases can be diagnosed only at a comparatively late stage of pregnancy, probably not earlier than 10 or 11 weeks and probably as late as 18 or 19 weeks into pregnancy. That can present a

1551
couple with what can be a really agonising dilemma. Is the mother to go through the appalling trauma of one of those late, distressing abortions or is the couple to decide— and some bravely do so— to go ahead with the birth of a child that they know will be abnormal, which at the best will live a crippled life both mentally and physically, and at the worst may be destined for an inevitably early death?
I was deeply moved by the words of the late Lady LaneߝFox, herself a cripple from an early age from polio, when, speaking in our debate in January a year ago, she focused attention on the
"compelling and urgent need for everything possible to be done to advance research aimed at preventing congenital handicap".
I can only say that I take the same view as my late friend
I should also add that research on preߝembryos may not only be of great value in the case of congenital disorders. In the report to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred, entitled Fertility and the Family, it is rightly stated:
"We may come to understand the origins of cancer by looking at genetic mechanisms in embryonic cells, and seeing how the genes that control an abnormal cycleߝtime express themselves".
Indeed, a project in this area has just been authorised by the voluntary licensing authority.
I fear that most of what I have said is very much repetition of what I tried to say in our last debate on this vastly complex and deeply emotional topic, and one which of course has deep underlying moral elements. I should like to add only two comments on the substance of the matter. First, there has been a great deal of useful research done in the past 14 months within my personal knowledge. For example, there was an article in the Lancet some three weeks ago which described the truly remarkable research being done at the postߝgraduate medical school at Hammersmith. This has demonstrated that we are getting significantly closer to making feasible the diagnosis at the preߝembryonic stage of some of the major genetic diseases.
Secondly, I have had the chance during these past 14 months to see on the ground some of the work that is being done by British medical scientists up and down this country in this field. I have been struck above all by the dedication of these research teams, their professional ability, and, above all, the responsible manner in which they are carrying out that research. I for one am proud—and I am glad to state it—that in this field of scientific inquiry, carefully regulated, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has said, by the voluntary licensing authority, Britain at present leads the world. I must make it crystal clear that the research being undertaken by these dedicated professional and responsible teams is a far cry from the monstrous genetic manipulation to which my noble friend referred and which all of us would find repugnant, and which in any event would be ruled out if effect were given to the Government's proposals.
So much for substance. On procedure, I say only this. So far as I can judge, no one is more anxious than the members of the medical scientific community, and those who are active in research in this area, to see that these complex issues are resolved, in so far as they can be resolved, by the
1552
earliest possible government legislation. That is certainly the impression that I have derived from all the visits that I have paid to the rather numerous places where this research is being carried out
My own strong preference—and I do not wish to disguise this—is that when the Government lay their Bill before Parliament, Parliament will in its wisdom choose to endorse the second option in paragraph 30 of the 1987 White Paper: that of permitting research in this area but permitting it only within a strict regulatory regime subject to a strict timeߝlimit of 14 days after fertilisation and with a strict, strong and effective statutory licensing authority
I was very much encouraged by what my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale had to say in our debate in January. He affirmed the Government's intention to introduce a Bill during this present Parliament. Indeed, he went further in his winding up speech when he expressed the hope that a Bill would be laid before Parliament very shortly—to quote his words "I hope within the next year or 18 months". Those words were spoken 13 or 14 months ago. I am convinced that this is the way to proceed. If at the end of the day Parliament were to decide, for whatever reason, right or wrong, that the preߝembryo research to which I have referred is to be ruled out, then, very sadly, I would say so be it.
I am equally convinced that in these circumstances, with a Government Bill in the offing, the way not to proceed is by a Private Member's Bill. That is why I find myself in considerable sympathy with the sentiments expressed in the noble nonagenarian's (if I may so term him) reasoned amendment. I of course respect, as we all do, the strength and sincerity of my noble friend's views. I know that they are founded on a deep religious belief. But I should like to join other noble Lords in expressing to him as strongly as I can the hope that, having once again given us an opportunity to discuss these complex issues, and given the stated intention of the Government to introduce this muchߝneeded legislation—in my view it is overdue—in the present Parliament, he will rest content and not proceed with the futher stages of this Bill.
7.57 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I have been asked by everybody, including the noble Duke, to speak briefly—even more briefly than previous speakers. I intend to comply. That will make it impossible to reply to the very sincere speeches that have been made in criticism of his Bill.
I was saddened by one part of the speech of my old and deeply respected noble friend Lord Houghton. He described the noble Duke as an inappropriate person. I have been here a lot longer than my noble friend, if I may say so. I was given a lecture on procedure of the House at one point. It would be a sad day if people were picked out and described as appropriate or inappropriate according to their credentials, real or imagined. I imagine that he was referring not to the fact that he was the senior Duke but that he was a Roman Catholic. My noble friend cast his eye down the list and stated that he could see the kind of views that were held by many people. I cannot tell a Roman Catholic when I see one.

1553
However, so far as I can make out there are four or possibly five Roman Catholics out of a possible 26. He is therefore misinformed if he thinks that this debate has been engineered from Rome.
The truth is that a very high proportion of speakers, including the last speaker, who is extremely appropriate in this context, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, are active Christians. But surely that cannot be counted as a disqualification. It is not only the atheists who are allowed freedom of speech in this House or anywhere else. However, I am not in the mood to indulge in personalities in particular about my noble friend, as I have enormous regard for him.
It may be thought that I am a stooge of the noble Duke. Noble Lords who listened to the debate last summer may remember that, like St. Paul challenging St. Peter, I confronted him face to face here and we had some quite hot exchanges across the Chamber. I do not automatically jump to his whip. On the other hand, on this occasion I support him. I do not always do exactly what the Roman Catholic Church thinks appropriate, even though I have been a member of that Church for 48 or 49 years now. It seems a long time. I hope that in the lifetime of many younger peers we may have women priests. That is not a very popular view in my Church. I do not want your Lordships to think that to everything the Catholic Church says I say "ditto".
It counts a lot to me, which I shall explain in a moment, that in the Roman Catholic Church—the position of the Anglican Church has been well explained by the right reverend Prelate—enormous work has been done on this by theologians, scientists and doctors of a Catholic persuasion for many years. Therefore when they come forward with a considered view, articulated here by the noble Duke, I am inclined to favour it.
Speakers on the last occasion said that the contest was between reason, which they saw themselves representing, and faith —presumably it was some muddled, irrational form of faith which they attributed to the Christian lobby. I am afraid I do not accept that way of looking at the issue. All this work has been done by these theologians, doctors and scientists and they have reached certain conclusions which put them at least equal with any scientist that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has been able to mobilise. Incidentally, I am glad to see that she has descended from that Back Bench. I think she means business tonight.
I would find it easy, perhaps one might say too easy, to agree with what was said by the minority of members of her commission when they made it plain that they thought the embryo had a potential for development and they concluded that research should not be undertaken on embryos. That was the conclusion of a group less numerous but as well qualified as the majority. I do not think we can say that on the one side there is reason and scientific research and on the other a lot of hot gospellers or Roman acolytes. We have to look at this issue fairly and squarely as Members of the House. I agree that Christians have a rather difficult time because it is no good looking in the New Testament—I speak subject
1554
to the guidance of two Bishops—because we shall not find in it what our Lord said about embryos. It is a question of the development of Christian doctrine, and undoubtedly there is more than one view taken in the Church as a whole.
I wish that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London was speaking. Perhaps he will speak before night falls, because I know he holds strong and acceptable views. However the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon has supported the Bill.
I find it easy to accept the views of the minority, knowing that they are favoured by the Church to which I belong. I would never stand up and support them if I had not reached that conclusion and if I did not in conscience consider that these were reasonable views. There are other views held with deep sincerity. I appreciate that but let us not talk as though reason was on one side and faith on the other, even, as it is often implied, a rather idiotic faith. There is reason on both sides. When all is said and done some of us consider research on embryos as an evil operation, carried out rather high mindedly perhaps, but it is an evil operation that would do untold damage to humanity.
8.4 p.m
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I begin by expressing my appreciation to my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk for introducing this Bill, which concerns matters of such ultimate significance and which I believe is very timely.
I preface my contribution by declaring my position which is based on two sets of values. I speak as a Christian and as a nurse. As a Christian, I am committed to respect the sanctity of individual human life, however embryonic. As a nurse, I have been profoundly influenced by the medical ethics of Western culture, so timelessly articulated in the Hippocratic oath. Both sets of values combine to reinforce my wholehearted support for the Bill. The fundamental purpose of the Bill is to outlaw the utilitarian use of human life—albeit in embryonic form. In other words, the Bill is designed to prevent the sacrifice of human life for ulterior ends, in ways which are antithetical to the life of the embryo and/or to the creation of a new human life.
In the Warnock Report, the foreword refers to
"barriers that are not to be crossed,"
and asks
"What kind of society can we praise and admire? In what sort of society can we live with our conscience clear?"
It is my belief, shared by many others, that some barriers have already been crossed which should not have been, and that many people feel that some recent developments are such that they cannot live in the same society with them with clear consciences. The crossing of barriers refers both to the level of principle, with the use of human embryos for nonߝtherapeutic research—that is research aimed at ends unrelated to the wellbeing of the embryo and/or the initiation of a new life through pregnancy—and at the level of practice, for example with the long term storage of very large numbers of frozen embryos.
Before going into a little detail on the thorny question of what is a truly human embryo, I wish to

1555
refer briefly to the question of human rights and duties. Of course one must respect the duty to provide appropriate and available medical treatment. It can also be claimed that there is a right to have a child. It is therefore important to stress that the present Bill does not prevent various measures which have been developed, using human embryos, to enable many people to have children who would otherwise have been unable to do so.
However, present policy has been shaped by a utilitarian calculus which justifies the sacrifice of human embryos for some ostensible greater good, unconnected with the development of new life through a successful pregnancy. Jane Mellor argues in her excellent booklet published by CARE called"What is an Embryo?",
"Many of the statements by scientists involved in the Warnock debate are based on the utilitarian reasoning that sacrifices one life for another. Yet the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, revised in 1983, states 'The interests of the subject must always prevail over the interests of science and society'
"Professionals, MPs and the rest of us must work together to safeguard innocent human life from being sacrificed either on the altar of scientific research, or even for the future wellbeing of other human beings. Such protection must be enshrined in our law. If we do not reject the utilitarianism which underlies the case for research on human embryos, then we have abandoned one of the cardinal principles upon which our society has stood—and for which it has been respected—for hundreds of years: the protection in law of the life of innocent human beings".
That leads into the question of the definition of human life and the stage at which it is ethical and reasonable to define a collection of cells as a human being. The position which has so far informed policy is the 14ߝday rule, suggested by the Warnock Report, to which reference has already been made. That allows for the storage of younger embryos, their use for nonߝtherapeutic purposes and for their destruction. One justification is that in some senses the embryo at this stage is not fully human; for example, it has been argued that cells in the very early days after conception, when they are characterised by to tipotency, make it impossible to distinguish a distinctive embryo. Hence the use of the phrase "preߝembryo" which conveniently allows a distinction to be made between this bundle of cells and their successors a few days later.
The argument can then justify the use of research on a preߝembryo which is not yet human, while claiming to protect the rights of the embryo proper. But as Jane Mellor argues, if I may briefly quote again:
"From the moment of fertilisation, the embryo is obviously a human embryo since it is derived from human parents, with DNA of a specifically human type. It is also a living being, growing and changing with incredible speed and beauty … The early embryo is not simply a loose aggregation of cells. It is genetically unique, of the human species, with molecular differentiating activity in the cells from the outset. From the earliest moment the embryo … if allowed to develop in a normal environment will become a human baby".
Of course, not all practices involve the deliberate destruction of the human embryo without the associated intention of the creation of a new human life. The happy conclusion of some pregnancies achieved by methods using embryos in different ways has been felt by society to be quite justifiable. But not all research is directed to the wellbeing of the embryo and the mother in this way. For example, there are
1556
four research units in the United Kingdom listed in the 1988 Voluntary Licensing Authority Report, where experimentation is being undertaken with no direct clinical intention of implanting the embryo into a uterus.
Such developments raise other questions on which there is time to touch only briefly in the debate. The questions have been asked by many people, including the Women and Children's Welfare Fund. They raise profoundly complex ethical problems yet to be resolved. For example, who owns the manufactured human embryo? Who is the parent or guardian of the embryo? Is it the responsibility of one or both of the people who provided the components of conception to authorise or refuse experiments on "their" embryo? Who is the guardian of the interests of the welfare of the embryo? If parents do not consent to research, individually or jointly, can scientists define themselves as the owners and decide on research? There is widespread confusion, ignorance, anxiety and concern over these ethical issues; hence the urgent need for clarification and for protection of the embryos by law.
Finally, I return to where I began: my commitments as a nurse and as a Christian. As a nurse, I have been deeply influenced by the famous and wise words often used to try to provide some ground rules for making agonising decisions concerning the care of people who are terminally ill, or who are so ill that they seem to have lost all quality of life and to be merely enduring an apparently intolerable existence. These words, which are widely accepted as wise guidelines, can be seen to apply to the issues before the House tonight. They are:
"Thou must not kill but shoulds't not strive officiously to keep alive".
The phrase "thou must not kill" is preߝeminent. Beyond that there is the warning against officious intervention which maintains human life artificially and transcends nature's normal processes. I believe that in some of the areas we are considering, policies have been developed which interfere officiously to keep alive, and also to kill innocent human beings. That is one reason why I so wholeheartedly support the Bill.
And as a Christian, I must support the Bill because I believe that man is made in the image of God. Therefore, I must also believe that any undue interference in the natural, Godߝgiven processes of procreation, is running a profoundly serious risk of hubris in which man is taking upon himself fearful and godߝlike responsibilities, with excessive interference in making, shaping and destroying human life. I believe that that is creating a situation and a society in which many people cannot live with clear consciences. Therefore, I believe that the Bill is not only timely but also urgent. I passionately hope that the House will give it a Second Reading tonight.
8.14 p.m
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, your Lordships' House has already heard many arguments that have been propounded with great passion, feeling and enormous sincerity and doubtless will hear many more before the issue is concluded. I hope that noble Lords will not be so carried away as to forget to make

1557
important distinctions among the kinds of arguments that are being put forward.
Briefly, the issue is whether research may be carried out using human embryos that have been fertilised in vitro. I need hardly remind your Lordships that there are those who believe that from the moment of fertilisation—if that is a moment"—all human life is of equal value and must be given protection from destruction by the law. Thus for those holding that belief it is irrelevant to raise the question, for how many days from fertilisation in the laboratory research using human embryos should be permitted—that is research which involves the destruction of those embryos. Their answer is that it should never be permitted.
Moreover, the absolute equality of value assigned by those people to all human life at whatever stage of development entails that it is also irrelevant to argue that much human suffering among people who have been born or who will be born in the future can be avoided as a result of the research. That is because no consideration of consequences can have the faintest relevance in the eyes of those who believe that to destroy a preߝl4ߝday gamete is a mortal sin; indeed, the same mortal sin as murder.
However, there are others who, if they are opposed to research using human embryos, are opposed on different grounds. They do not believe that there is anything intrinsically wrong in using an early postߝfertilisation embryo for the purposes of research, provided that the research is beneficial. They recognise that at that stage of development many embyos are lost spontaneously, often without knowledge that they exist, let alone the mourning of them. They are prepared in principle to justify research on the grounds of the enormous benefits which will flow from it and about which your Lordships have been told and doubtless will be told again. They are benefits to other humans who have been born or who will be born.
Yet they are afraid that if this research were permitted anything would be permitted. That is to say, they rely on what is popularly known as the slippery slope argument. It is that if once we embark on the course of using human embryos in research there will be no stopping it. If today we use preߝ14day embryos, tomorrow we shall be using preߝ14ߝday babies, preߝ14ߝweek infants or preߝ14ߝyear children and so on to the bottom of the slope. There perhaps people we do not like can be used for research for the benefit of the rest of us.
Despite the words of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I believe that it is no good offering arguments against the position of the first group of people I have described. That is because most moral arguments in favour of research using human embryos rely on the specification of the good and beneficial consequences of such research.
To those arguments members of the first group are quite properly deaf because they are defending an absolute principle to which they are committed though the heavens fall. Citing good consequences of abandoning the principle or bad consequences of adhering to it are alike matters of no importance to
1558
those who believe in the principle absolutely. The whole nature of such absolutism, whatever its source, is to be indifferent to the consequences that flow from adherence to the principle.
To the second group of people—those who rely on the slippery slope argument—to the people who are afraid of research using the preߝ14ߝday embryo, I hope that it may be possible to suggest that what we do not need is a total ban on all research but we need strict and wellߝmonitored regulation; and in order for the regulation to be fair and to create a genuine harrier beyond which we shall not be able to slide down the slippery slope, the force of law is required.
Therefore, in speaking against the Bill I should like to urge the Government as soon as is practicable, reasonable and possible to come forward with legislation which will seek to regulate and monitor research using human embryos. I am convinced that we have good reason to put our trust in such regulatory law and that we have before us an issue, perhaps more than any other, where regulation is appropriate and would be widely welcomed by scientists, the medical profession and the public at large.
8.20 p.m
Baroness LlewelynߝDavies of Hastoe: My Lords; I shall be as brief as possible but, because this whole question of in vitro fertilisation is so important, I should like to stress some of what I believe to be the most important points at issue. For a couple who want children, childlessness is a real tragedy. In vitro fertilisation has seemed almost like a miracle for those for whom it has ended that tragedy. However, it is not always realised that there is a 90 per cent. failure rate for those undergoing the process—sometimes undergoing it for many years. It is essential that there should be ongoing research in order to improve the rate of success.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, referred to genetic diseases. It is ofcrucial importance that there should be more research, as it has become increasingly possible for parents who are carriers of genetic diseases to have a healthy child. Seven thousand children are born with genetic diseases every year. We know from our debates in your Lordships' House of the terrible distress women suffer having abortions when grossly handicapped babies can be detected only at a very late stage in pregnancy. If research continues, there is a real possibility for such parents of fertilising and diagnosing a perfect preߝembryo and placing it in the mother's uterus for implantation and healthy growth. How much desperate unhappiness, indecision and moral and physical agony could be avoided.
I have thought a great deal about the ethical aspects of this kind of research. I accept that my noble friend Lord Longford, who has been my noble friend for a very long time, should feel and speak as he has. The right reverend Prelate and the noble Earl both referred to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. In our last debate I thought his the most profound and moving approach. About the

1559
difficult question of the 14 day preߝimplantation embryo, he said:
"I believe that in the very early stage when personal attributes are nonߝexistent and when identity is yet to be established there is room to allow experiment" [Official Report, 15/1/88; col. 1463].
Those words are closest to my own view and, I believe, to the views of many of your Lordships.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Earl mentioned that further preߝembryo research would study other serious conditions of pregnancy, such as the cause of premature labour, stillbirth and frequent miscarriages. That would be of the utmost value to the human race.
I should like to make one more reference to the noble lord, Lord Skelmersdale. In winding up our last debate, he said that,
"we intend to legislate in this Parliament. I cannot promise when that will be, although … it will be sooner rather than later". [Official Report, 15/1/88; col. 1503].
I submit that it is difficult under these circumstances to understand why the noble Duke wishes to bring in his Bill in the middle of the most crowded legislative programme that the House can remember. I very much hope that if he succeeds in obtaining a Second Reading this evening, he will not proceed further with the Bill. It would be much better for such a complex matter to be referred to a Select Committee.
I add, with great trepidation, that I am not wholly sure about the views of my noble friend Lord Houghton on the EC. I believe that we should have our own position quite clear before entering into negotiations with other EC countries. However, I put that view forward and await the consequences. In any case, I urge the Government to do what they have said they will do; namely, to bring in their proposed legislation as soon as they can, and I very much hope that the noble Duke will not press his own Bill too far.
8.25 p.m
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk for introducing the debate on this Bill. It is a Bill to confer legal status upon embryos produced by in vitro fertilisation, a status which prohibits their creation, keeping or use, other than for enabling a child to be born to a specified woman. Therefore, it specifically prohibits two thingsthe depersonalised traffic in human embryos for commercial gain and the abuse or misuse of human embryos for experimental purposes.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that he was not concerned with the merits but with the tactics. I am in no sense concerned in a debate about tactics. I am only concerned about the merits. Who knows whether life begins at the moment of conception? Medical opinion is clearly divided. Until it is established whether it does or does not for a certain
period of time—and 14 days seems to have been chosen—the misuse of what may well be a life in being should under no circumstances be countenanced, unless there is just cause.
That has not been established. My noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, and I, believe that life begins at the moment of conception, as does my noble friend Lady
1560
Cox. I know—and I see them in the Chamber—that other noble Lords who have been friends of mine for years also believe what I believe. However, let us put aside the question of belief. Medical opinion is divided. Until it is affirmatively established, quite apart from the question of belief but as a matter of reason, why should a life in being or what could be a life in being be exposed to destruction?
The term "preߝembryo" is a term to justify research. I know not really what it means. It is an invented term and a device designed to beg the question, which it does. I am no expert in these matters. I have read and listened to what I can on the matter. One can only make a personal judgment which is not necessarily correct. However, to my mind, in the light of what I have heard and read, the speech of my noble friend Lady Cox really answered the speech of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe who was advancing a case of just cause. That case, it appeared to me, was answered by my noble friend Lady Cox. Surely there is common ground between the tenets of all religious faiths, even if the respective approach to IVF differs and has not crystallised, and even if the Church of England does not speak with one voice, as the right reverend Prelate said. It seldom does, and I can say that as a member of the Church. On that basis I made some inquiries and discovered this afternoon that it is common to the tenets of the Moslem faith, certainly the Shia Moslems. How does one justify the destruction of what would be or could be a life in being without just cause?
Those who use what is or what may be at that time a human life, contending that experimental research affords just cause—the noble Lord, Lord Meston, took the point—must discharge, with my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, the onus of justification. Have they done so to your Lordships' satisfaction? It is said that the purpose of research is concerned with congenital and genetic disease, infertility and new means of contraception where the embryo (I think this was the means referred to by my noble friend) is killed before the mother is aware of conception, and so forth. However, medical opinion is still divided, from what I have read and heard. Alternative methods are available, I have again heard from my sources of information, in particular on infertility, referred to by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe.
The nature of the proposed experiment is uncertain and was not expounded on nor explained by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe and has not been propounded or explained in anything that I have yet seen. The results so far achieved have shown no viable success rate. Ten per cent. means 90 per cent. failure and that surely is not a justification to warrant continued experimentation.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I intervene?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, of course. I am always glad to give way.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful. In the noble Lord's search for knowledge about research has he taken the opportunity of visiting any of the research centres? A number are based in London and are supported by the Medical Research Council. The

1561
noble Lord might have found some answers to some of his questions had he sought information from those actively involved in the research.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am in the hands of the House. We are under strict constraints of time. lithe House wishes me to answer I will do so, but it will take more time. Perhaps I will be able to reply if there is time at the end of my speech.
I was dealing with the justification that had been put forward for carrying on experiments which led to what could be—I put it no higher on reasoning but it is what I believe it to be—a life in being. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe referred to the value of preߝembryonic research. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred to benefits. As I have sought to explain (and times moves on) there is not sufficient evidence which is clear enough to serve as justification. The onus on just cause, the only justification, has not been discharged. If that has not been discharged, use becomes misuse or abuse.
Is it not idle to talk in terms of cocoons of our own making, as did the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and putting the clock back, as did the noble Lord, Lord Meston? Already we have tampered with the mechanism of the clock so that it gives a false reading on the dial. Whose clock is it, anyway? What time can it tell in the timelessness of infinite ethical values?.
8.36 p.m
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I thank the noble Duke for moving the Second Reading of this important Bill and I welcome the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, because it gives us an opportunity to stand up and be counted and have a straight vote rather than letting the Bill go through on the nod, thereby sending a message to the Government and to the other place as to how the feeling of this House is shown by a Division.
By implication in the Bill—and this is my only reservation—I VF is an acceptable practice. On that I have my doubts. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, whether he had visited research centres. I have not, but I have spoken to their directors and engaged a research assistant who has given me an abstract of the world's literature on the subject. I had intended to recite some figures, but in view of the plea from the noble Duke to curtail our remarks I have placed the abstract in the Library and it is available for all to see.
This is a perplexing subject. I feel that I am wearing three hats—a Christian hat in which I have nothing to add to the admirable remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox; a scientific hat in which I have to confess that I regard knowledge in itself as a good thing, but when it comes to the application of that knowledge we are in a contextߝsensitive domain and I am not sure that the uncritical domain and knowledge is necessarily compatible with Christian values. Finally, I am wearing a legislative hat in which I have to impose on my fellow countryman, along with my noble colleagues in this House, laws which they all have to obey, albeit their opinions on
1562
many subjects may be widely different from my own and from one another's.
For the purpose of this debate I define an experiment as simply a procedure the outcome of which cannot be predicted with sufficient certainty to make the experiment unnecessary. That goes along with testing a fertilised embryo for normality prior to implantation. It would be irresponsible to implant in utero an embryo the normality of which had not been tested by observation. I do not think that the Bill in any way inhibits that. The Bill does not prohibit experiments as such. In fact, so far as I can see the word "experiment" does not appear anywhere on the face of the Bill. Therefore, any test prior to implantation with the purpose of implantation is enfranchised by the Bill, though other types of experiment may not be.
Let it not be supposed that I have no sympathies with infertile couples, but there are research opportunities in other directions which are never mentioned. There are anecdotal facts, if facts they be; but they have occurred among my own relatives and I know some persons affected by them. A childless couple adopts a child or children. The foster mother immediately becomes pregnant. Something maternal, whatever it may be, is mobilised by the mere fact of motherhood. I even know of a most extraordinary case of a woman who was infertile for six years and who was asked by chance to care for a baby owl that had broken its leg after falling out of the nest. She fostered that owl; fed it once an hour and she looked after it for some months. At the end of that time she found herself spontaneously pregnant. I am told that relief of a longߝendured stress can have the same result; relieve the stress and pregnancy may be the result. Why?
Somewhere between the pituitary, the hypothalamus, the adrenals, the gonads or possibly elsewhere, some neuroߝhumeral transmitter, lies what? That is where research should go. I have always been inspired in the direction of research by Kipling's "Explorer's Song" which says:
"Something hidden, go and find it.
Go and look behind the ranges.
Something lost behind the ranges,
Lost and waiting for you. Go!"
A word of warning. Of course, I favour the establishment of knowledge which is good in itself by observation and experiment as recommended by Lord Chancellor Francis Bacon in the reign of King James I. But not all applications are wise. From Mother Eve onwards the human race, unable to swim, has been jumping in at the deep end without measuring the temperature of the water or its depth. It finds itself out of its depth, unable to swim and landed in trouble. It is enmeshed in vested interests which it has allowed to build up carelessly.
Going into reverse is not all that easy. In so far as this Bill will damp down irresponsible efforts, I welcome it and it will have my support. If the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, cares to divide the House, I shall follow the noble Duke into the Lobby.
8.42 p.m
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jellicoe has referred to the two

1563
alternative clauses that the Government propose to draft into any Bill that they bring forward for our consideration. They express the wish or the hope that the House and Parliament will choose the second. The second says:
"Except as part of a project specifically licensed by the SLA, it will be a criminal offence to carry out any procedures on a human embryo other than those aimed at preparing the embryo for transfer to the uterus of a woman",
and so on.
There is an alternative and we shall be given a choice between the two. The other is the totally negative one:
"It will be a criminal offence to carry out any procedures on a human embryo other than those aimed at preparing the embryo",
and so on. That is the one that is envisaged by the Bill that we are debating now. I wish to know what will happen if the first is carried; namely, the one that absolutely forbids all experimentation. What will the Government do when faced with that situation? I do not believe that it is likely that they will be faced with it, but it is perfectly possible.
The reason I ask that question is because the White Paper we have been discussing and the Bill, and also the Warnock Report, do not refer to in vitro fertilisation in any connection other than for the relief of infertility with the possible exception of various medical researches designed to improve the condition of the child that is born by these means.
It may surprise some noble Lords to know that the relief of infertility is by no means the chief use of IVF. The chief use is utterly different and exactly the opposite. That has not been mentioned at all. I wish to quote from a letter addessed to me from the Medical Education Trust. It has not been mentioned that IVF has,
"been on the agenda of population control organisations since the 1960s and that the World Health Organisation has funded worldߝwide research into it since 1972. The object of this research is to discover a reliable 'antiߝbirth' vaccine which will cause the death of the embryo before the mother is aware of conception".
My noble friend Lord Jellicoe referred to that. In other words, a postߝcoital superpill is to be handed out, presumably by governments, under the auspices of the World Health Organisation, to women in overpopulated countries with the idea of preventing what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, described some years ago in the telling phrase as "human infestation by too many babies".
I quote again from the same letter:
"There are grounds for hoping that the use of IVF embryos for research will lead to the discovery of efficient new methods of population control. This is the real justification for the promotion and funding of IVF by Governments and organisations involved in population planning."
Are Her Majesty's Government numbered among these governments? I read on:
"The International Population Union Conference on the Scientific Study of Population, held in London in 1969, was funded by the governments of the UK, Denmark, Finland, West Germany, Norway, Sweden and the US",
and some others. The projects proposed at this conference, held in London and funded in part by the United Kingdom, included a search for an oral preparation that would destroy the corpus luteum whether or not fertilisation had taken place. Such a procedure means killing the embryo which cannot
1564
live without the corpus luteum. For that purpose what has been described as a constant supply of human embryos is required.
I ask noble Lords to remember that this is a World Health Organisation programme. The director of the programme made a point in a speech that the WHO's perceived neutrality made it,
"a most appropriate instrument to deal with an area as sensitive as that of family planning research".
That is killing hosts of human embryos in the hope of finding a reliable abortifacient. Some neutrality!
I hope my noble friend the Minister will answer this question at the end of the debate. Are the Government still involved in this? If they are, we believe that they are giving large sums of money to provide great numbers of embryos purely for the purposes of destruction in research. If we find ourselves faced with an alternative forbidding such things, they will be in a very difficult situation. Can my noble friend tell me what the position is now?
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will feel better in the morning. He has moved an amendment, and that is what we are now debating. It is to the effect that this Bill is premature. I do not know exactly what is the objection to prematurity, but we are asked to play it out on that ground. So far as I know, this Bill is the first legislation that has come before Parliament in the history of the world on this subject. It is only in the past 30 years that modern technology has made it possible to investigate and interfere in the actual structure of the ovum and the sperm and consequently of the embryo.
This is something utterly new. It is taking place in an area about which nothing is known; that area being the nature of life itself. For the first time in the history of the world we have an enormously important milestone in the evolution of mankind. That is the point in evolution at which we stand, and no one has yet made any laws about it; there are no regulations and no legislation. There is nothing. That has been going on for 20 years. Louise Brown is now 10 years old. She was the first test tube baby and 10 years of research has gone on. Is it not time that something was done, and done in a hurry? We are asked not to bother, and we are told that it is quite unnecessary, that it is a matter of procedure.
The lecture of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, had nothing to do with the merits of the Bill. He said so himself. It is a matter of procedure, when possibly the whole future of the world is at stake. We do not know what the future will hold, any more than man knew when electricity was first discovered what would flow from that. I suggest that we should proceed with the utmost despatch, not with haste or undue speed but with resolution, to some kind of conclusion before it is too late, as it may well be. Therefore I strongly hope that we shall reject the amendment moved by the noble Lord and proceed to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, can my noble friend clarify one point? He referred to a contraceptive vaccination. The purpose of any such vaccination would be to prevent fertilisation.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, that is my point.
8.52 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Duke for bringing forward this Bill, which I entirely support. At present there is no statute law to protect the in vitro fertilised embryo before it is implanted in its mother's womb. Legislation is therefore needed, and needed urgently.
Naturally medical researchers want to extend the frontiers of research. However, as Cardinal Hume pointed out in a notable article in The Times on 6th June 1985, there needs to be a framework of absolute moral principles within which and only within which research is permissible. To be uniformly recognised, these principles must be put on a statutory basis. In the frame of legislation, the overriding consideration is what one means by the term "embryo". In both the Warnock Report and the Government's White Paper the term "embryo" referred to the human being in its earliest period of growth—from fertilisation to the first appearance on ultrasound at six weeks. I would emphasise "from fertilisation". Most noble Lords would go along with this definition. However, subsequently, the term "pre-embryo" has been invented to describe the embryo prior to implantation. This phrase is a contradiction in terms and I fear that its only effect is to throw dust in our eyes.
In using the term, scientists may wish to refer to a particular stage in the life of the embryo, but it is still an embryo, which given favourable conditions can develop into a fully grown man or woman. Although still on the threshold of life, the embryo is a member of the human family and is entitled to be treated as such. In this connection I have always understood that it is a basic principle of medical ethics that no one is given treatment that is not to his benefit and that is not overridden even in the case of research towards some allegedly greater good.
Accordingly, to create and use embryos for general experimentation, after which they may be thrown away, would be to breach a basic medical ethic that has served well both patients and doctors down the ages. The Bill before the House seeks to prevent a human embryo being created, kept or used for any purpose other than that of enabling a child to be born to a specific woman. On that ground, I support it.
8.56 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, in supporting the Bill promoted by my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, it is appropriate to draw to the attention of the House the fact that there is considerable pressure for such a measure not only in this Parliament but in parliaments on the continent of Europe and also in the two institutions with which I have had some connection. I refer to the Council of Europe and specifically to the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament in which we have only recently adopted resolutions on this matter. I wish to address my remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I should like to call him my noble friend but that would not be proper. He has been courteous enough to listen to all the speeches made so far. I say
1566
to him that this debate is not premature. He may not like the Bill but there is tremendous pressure from scientists in Europe and in this country for some kind of legal framework in which they can operate. That is outside the question of the human embryo.
This point was made in the report by Mr. Rothley, who is a member of the legal affairs committee. I do not know whether he is a Christian. I know that he is a German and a Socialist, neither of which I happen to be. He said:
"In principle a ban should be placed on experiments on human embryos as they cannot be justified in ethical terms".
That view was broadly accepted by the committee.
I do not want to go into the substance of the matter but one real concern is that the priority of scientific freedom over legal and ethical standpoints is being seriously questioned in all the reports before those two bodies. Secondly, there is a genuine fear, which is shared by many people on all sides of all the fences that seem to be surrounding the argument, of the scientists' power of selectivity and destruction of the embryo. The report therefore states that the human embryo must be granted comprehensive and unlimited protection, that the legal status of the embryo should be defined and that it is the criterion of human dignity which should apply.
Thirdly, I should like to quote very briefly from the report. Mr. Rothley, supported by the Legal Affairs Committee, says:
"Laws are intended to establish and implement the principles of law within a society. One of the principles embodied in our laws is that one human being cannot be the property of another and can therefore not he bought and sold. An associated legal principle is that of the inviolability of life and physical integrity which is the right of every human being".
My fourth point concerns infertility, to which I know the Bill addresses itself. I should like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to those thousands of couples who adopt children and get tremendous pleasure, satisfaction and happiness from doing so. They give happiness to a child who would not have the benefit of a home life. That is often left out of the argument. This is an occasion on which that statement should be made. I hope it will be supported by all noble Lords.
Fifthly, the many reports and the proposals in the Bill lead to the conclusion that there is need for the early establishment of a legal framework which can take account of the rapid developments in this field. There have been tremendous advances in genetic engineering and genetic manipulation. Scientists are genuinely worried about their position in this area. I am not saying that it is right or wrong. I do not care whether someone is a Christian. I resent the implication that because a person is a Christian he has not the right to support a certain Bill. It is not a question of Christianity but of seeing what scientists are doing within an established legal framework. They themselves are asking for it.
That is why I did not quite understand the argument of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe. Perhaps he did not like the Bill. He said that he would go along with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, because he agrees that the Bill is premature. Those are the words used in the amendment. I understood from him that scientists want a legal framework. Whatever the result may be,

1567
I hope that the Bill will put pressure on the Government to get on with the job they undertook to do early last year and to provide a framework which we would all welcome, from whatever side of the House we come.
9 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I shall be brief in what I have to say. I do not intend to speak on the merits of the Bill, because other speakers are far better equipped than I to do so. However, I am greatly influenced by the fact that the Government have promised to offer to Parliament alternative sets of draft clauses fully compatible with a government Bill to deal with the issue of research on human embryos.
In those circumstances, I feel that it really would be more appropriate to await the Government's Bill rather than to seek to pre-empt the issue by a Private Member's Bill which will be constrained by severe time factors and hampered by daunting procedural obstacles. I respectfully suggest to your Lordships that the promised government Bill would be a better course to take than a private Member's Bill.
Two of your Lordships have suggested the setting up of a Select Committee to consider the matter. I do not see the purpose of that, having regard to the publication of the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and the fact that notice has been taken of that report in this House as a result of a debate which took place on 15th January last year.
9.2 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I shall intervene but briefly in the debate, for two reasons. First, I am not in favour of the purpose behind the Bill; and, secondly, I do not think that it is the right vehicle for a decision of this magnitude to be made. On the substance of the Bill, I shall not say very much. The principles and the philosophy, as well as the medical aspects of in vitro fertilisation and the ethics of research on the human embryo, were gone into in great detail in the Warnock Report. They were also discussed in your Lordships' House by means of the debate on the report of the Select Committee.
Further, I do not wish to go into the theological arguments as to when life really begins. The contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon illustrated how difficult that is. It is not just a question of differences between the Christian Churches, because in the whole field of Christian religion there are very real differences of opinion. I think that each of us must be guided by our own conscience.
However, I believe that research in this area should continue. I believe that because of the suffering that occurs in many areas. The problems of infertility, the continual miscarriages and the problems of congenital handicap bring very real suffering to couples in our country. There is also need to prevent as many late abortions as we possibly can by further research. Therefore I believe that this Bill would impede the progress being made in those directions.
I understand and value the research referred to by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, in more traditional spheres. But, like the noble Earl, Lord
1568
Jellicoe, I do not think that that is sufficient; I believe that research in all spheres should continue. Those of your Lordships who have had the privilege of visiting the M RC research units on in vitro fertilisation will know of the dedication that the medical scientists bring to the subject. They are not so much concerned for research for its own sake but they are concerned to relieve human suffering. Moreover, their work is continued in the interests of humanity. In carrying out their work they are conscious of the sensitivity and the ethics of this whole area. They would like legislation to provide regulation and a framework in which their work could continue. I believe that they should be allowed to continue that work on the basis of the Warnock Report, and also on the basis of the Government's White Paper.
That brings me to my second point. We now have the White Paper and the Government have promised legislation by means of a Bill that would give Parliament a choice of two options. We need to have such a Bill with those two options. Further we need to have it fully debated in prime time and not squeezed in on the basis of a Private Member's Bill late on a Wednesday evening.
I think the public have a right to expect that this issue will be fully debated in that way and in a manner which will enable them to make their views known to their elected Members of Parliament, as well as to this non-elected Chamber. A decision tonight should not be allowed to pre-empt that debate. I believe that such a decision ought not to be taken tonight.
9.6 p.m.
Viscount Sidmouth: My Lords, I find myself in both categories of supporters of the Bill, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. Moral philosophers—she is a most distinguished one—seem always to be reluctant to concede that some things are good, or bad, within themselves, because they cannot accept what Kant called "the categorical imperative". However, those of us who believe in God find that a decisive way in which to resolve that problem.
It seems to me that by taking only human considerations into account values become relative and arguments tend to be at the emotional or utilitarian level. They also often cancel each other out. For example, opponents of this Bill make much of the emotional joy of couples who have been enabled to have children through IVF, and think that there should be more of them. Against that, utilitarian argument would have it that the world is suffering from overpopulation and nothing should be done to increase that.
Sometimes these arguments get to a trivial level. When the Government's White Paper was debated in January 1988 a noble Lord dismissed the two week-old embryo on the grounds of its size. Would those who hold such views dismiss virologists because the subject of their study needs microscopes which can magnify 1 million times? Would they take that Nobel Prize from Crick and Wilkins because the DNA double helix is insignificant in size? Punch long ago ridiculed this argument when it showed a maid being dismissed for having an illegitimate baby and saying, "But it's only a very small one, ma'am".

1569
I believe there is indeed a slippery slope for research on embryos. Those who oppose this Bill aver, rather sotto voce in my view, that there would be no question of research into cloning or of introducing new or foreign genetic material into the embryo, which they declare would be wrong in principle. However, judging by the speed with which principles have melted away with the mere whisper of the magic words "pre-embryo", I believe that some further weasel word might well be found to do the same for these more drastic fields of research. The word may perhaps be "therapeutic", although we have heard evidence that material taken from embryos is not essential for research into the causes and nature of various malign syndromes which affect children from birth.
As a layman, I ask myself for what experiments material taken from embryos might be suitable, and it seems to me it might be very suitable for tissue culture, which is at the heart of cloning. It would also lend itself very well to experiments involving genetic engineering. That these things are not yet possible is exactly the kind of challenge which attracts research scientists. It is already being done with plants and bacteria.
In saying this, I add as a one-time member of a research council that I accept without question what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, about the personal integrity of the scientists who work both in-house for the council and those engaged on work commissioned by them in universities; but that is only part of the potential research capability involved.
To conclude, there was a notice in a laboratory concerned with nuclear fission which read:
"Anything that is not specifically allowed is forbidden".
I believe that that also applies to work on embryos and unless we legislate without further delay it may well be too late.
9.11 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I think we all ought to be extremely grateful to my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk for having initiated this debate through his introduction of the Bill. I wholly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and I was sorry that he made criticisms of my noble friend and questioned his motives in introducing the Bill. One of the great advantages of this debate is that it has shown almost total unanimity in the views of your Lordships that early legislation is very important.
As a Christian I find this issue one of the most difficult I have ever had to wrestle with. Initially I felt inclined to agree with the minority view of the Warnock Report—that we should not have any research—because I believe that research could very easily get out of control and lead to real damage, and in itself it is repugnant to do research on anything approaching a human being, even a potential human being.
So my first point is the least difficult one to make: there is great urgency for legislation, which the Government promised in this Parliament. That might mean a delay of several years before it is effective, which is far too long. I hope that my noble friend on
1570
the Front Bench will be able to give us an assurance that legislation will be promised in the next Queen's Speech.
The much more difficult problem is to determine, as we have seen tonight, what the legislation should be. There are big religious and ethical issues involved. I am no expert but I have visited one of the medical research units doing this work and I confirm what my noble friend Lord Jellicoe said: how responsible and dedicated are the people who do this work. I have talked to several friends and experts in the field and have tried to inform myself as best I can. They are people of the highest integrity and ethical standards.
As briefly as I can, I should like to make one or two relevant points which I believe to be factual so far as I understand them. Up to 12 or perhaps 14 days after fertilisation the embryo is a minute cell with the potential to become a human being, or perhaps two human beings or even three. As I understand it and as experts have told me—several have confirmed it—there is an element of instability in the embryo up to about that time. I therefore agree with the right reverend Prelate in expressing the opinion that it is impossible to put forward the view that an embryo, which might become one individual or two individuals in the future can in religious terms have a soul.
Nevertheless, experiments and research even on a potential human being are repugnant. There are two sorts of research. The first is observation research, in which changes are observed and knowledge created. Much can be learnt from that. The second is active research, in which modifications are made to the composition of an embryo with the objective either to observe further results and learn more or to improve or change the properties of the embryo and perhaps remove a defect that in due course will result in the creation of a grossly deformed baby; or, as my noble friend has suggested, there is the ghastly possibility of this leading to experiments with unspeakably dreadful results.
I have checked with experts and, as far as I am able to understand, it seems clear that research work on embryos up to 14 days can provide knowledge that is not obtainable in any other way which can and increasingly will contribute, if pursued, to reducing the number of babies born grossly deformed through genetic diseases, of which we have heard examples from noble Lords more expert in this matter than I am. Such deformities when detected at a much later stage of pregnancy very often result in abortion, as my noble friend Lord Jellicoe made clear. Abortion involves the killing of a human being in the most repugnant circumstances, a human being with a nervous system and a personality—a soul, in religious terms. It is an evil in itself that Parliament has decided to legalise as the lesser of the other evils that flow from making abortion illegal.
I understand that research on embryos up to 14 days can, and increasingly will, contribute to preventing the creation of deformed babies, which often results in abortion. I believe that research, repugnant though it may be to some of us in different degrees, on embryos up to 14 days, is the lesser evil than more abortions at a much later stage in the development of the baby.

1571
Many of your Lordships of my generation took part in a war in which we killed or attempted to kill other human beings. That was a great evil, but we thought—I believe rightly—that it was a lesser evil than the victory of Nazism with all its ghastly consequences. I think that the analogy is not too far off the point, although analogies are always dangerous.
I believe deeply that research should not be banned, as suggested in the Bill, for the reasons that I have given, though I greatly respect the strong feelings of my noble friend and of the noble Lords who support him. I believe that research should be formally legalised under strictly controlled conditions.
I wish to make one point to my noble friend Lord Jellicoe. I would not be happy about legalising research on the basis that it was a rather doubtful, possibly evil, means justified by good ends; that is, more knowledge about contraception and other useful matters. I believe that it is justified because it is a lesser of two evils, as I have explained. I hope that we shall move quickly towards legislation so that research work can be done on a strictly licensed, carefully controlled basis in premises controlled and inspected by people who are authorised and monitored.
I oppose the Bill for the reasons that I have given. I implore the Government to give high priority to legislation in the next Session, not at a time towards the end of this Parliament. This concern is for people and for future generations. To say that it cannot be fitted in to the legislative programme is rubbish. It is far more important than the privatisation of water and other such proposals which are concerned mainly with money. This is not a political point. It is about people and future generations, not about money, which is much less important. I implore the Government to grasp the nettle quickly. It is in their interests to do so because the longer it grows the stronger the sting will be when it is eventually grasped and the greater the damage that will be done. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a firm assurance on this point.
9.20 p.m.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, there are, as always, complex problems about all Bills. As a Catholic sharing my concern with many other religions, I find certain aspects of the Bill quite abhorrent. We have heard from our noble friend Lord Jellicoe of childless couples, yet we forget the 5 million aborted infants. Surely some of the murdered children might have been adopted.
Let me state at the outset that I favour research which is likely to result in genuine benefit to the human race, particularly in preserving life. But in everything we do in this field we must ensure that we uphold the dignity of the human being and the sanctity of human life. I stand here in the name of internationally famous doctors, scientists and pathologists who themselves were prisoners of the Nazis. I shall later refer to their courage.
1572
In paragraph 12.2 of the Warnock Report we are told that trans-species fertilisation between human sperm and hamster eggs is already used in the investigation of male subfertility. The report says:
"Men whose sperm will fertilise a specially treated hamster egg may eventually father a child, whereas those whose sperm will not, are probably infertile".
The report goes on to tell us that although any resulting embryo does not develop beyond the two-cell stage, it is possible that other similar forms of trans-species fertilisation tests could be developed which,
"might develop for a considerable period of time".
The committee concluded that,
"where trans-species fertilisation is used as part of a recognised programme for alleviating infertility … it should be subject to licence and that a condition of granting such a licence should be that the development of any resultant hybrid should be terminated at the two cell stage. Any unlicensed use of trans-species fertilisation involving human [sperm or ovum] should be a criminal offence".
This almost makes experiments into the possibility of trans-species fertilisation sound respectable, and very plausible too. But I suggest that we have real grounds for fears, and I am afraid also that the Voluntary Licensing Authority which was set up by the Medical Research Council gives me scant comfort.
For one thing, the gentleman who in this country displayed the most interest in trans-species fertilisation at the time of the publication of the Warnock Report, was Professor Roger Short, then head of the Medical Research Council's team on in vitro fertilisation. In evidence to the US Congress Ethics Advisory Board in Washington in 1978, he stated that the possibility of developing animals with human attributes could soon be within the grasp of scientists using human eggs, with sperm from gorillas and chimpanzees. In his evidence he stated that while,
"it would be abhorrent to many … only fear of public reaction"
had so far restrained scientists from attempting such experiments. Neither am I comforted by the Warnock recommendation that any human-animal hybrid should be terminated at the two-cell stage. I tremble to think what would happen if that was ever done.
Indeed, this brings me to a point which was apparently never considered by the Warnock Committee, but I wish to put it to the House. First, it has to be recognised that inter-species fertilisation, as described in the Warnock Report, does not involve simply placing the human sperm and a hamster ovum in a dish. It involves special treatment of the hamster egg at the very least. One question which no scientist has yet answered to my satisfaction is, what were they seeking to do when they discovered that they could fertilise hamster ova with human sperm? From Professor Short's statement—let us remember he was at that time head of the MRC IVF Research Centre—we know that some people were very anxious about the possibilities before them.
I now wish to turn my attention to the voluntary licensing authority which was set up by the Medical Research Council and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. All members of the VLA, both scientific and lay, support the use of the human embryo as a guinea pig. Indeed, one of their most eminent members is Professor Sir Malcolm Macnaughton, a former president of the

1573
RCOG. As long ago as 1967, this gentleman published two papers on experiments he had carried out injecting steroids into live aborted babies of between 14 and 22 weeks. That hardly encourages us to believe that the VLA would take any form of brave stand in defence of the human embryo.
In any case, the idea being propagated by the VLA, that we only need a team of officers to inspect research centres to ensure that they are behaving well, is just too naive, to say the least. The late Professor Ian Donald, who was a very eminent researcher, told MPs and Peers when he visited the Houses of Parliament during early debates on the Warnock Report:
"To catch me out, any inspector would need to know as much about my work as I did".
In any case, if work is ethically wrong or evil, having a team of inspectors will not make it right.
May I remind noble Lords—I now refer to all generations in this House—of the absolutely unspeakable medical experiments which were performed on literally thousands upon thousands of helpless men, women and children; on Poles, Slays, Jews, gypsies, and indeed on victims from over 40 different countries. Each died a martyr's death in the Nazi extermination and concentration camps, following the Germans' total obsession with the Aryan race. The Nazis justified, together with their medical colleagues from all over Germany and Austria, those most terrible and excruciating experiments. This subject is too involved, and indeed sadly almost totally unknown by the majority of people, but I had the privilege of working with many of the victims whose suffering and deaths were agonising.
Time, alas, does not allow me to mention by name the specific SS doctors and scientists I met. There were many hundreds of them. This may seem a digression from the Bill, but in fact it is not, for we are dangerously near to going down the same road the Nazis followed. As one of the few witnesses to those victims, I plead with your Lordships that what we assume is secure and safeguarded by legislation today or tomorrow still gives opportunities and thus leads to further terrible acts and their similar consequences. Mere promises and platitudes will not convince me, or indeed millions of others.
Perhaps I am privileged, but perhaps I am not, because of the continuing nightmares which I share with survivors, to have actually seen and nursed the victims of those experiments of genetic engineering. I would never have believed, working as I did in the ruins of Europe in 1944 to 1945, that the horrendous and horrific scenes which I witnessed among the victims of the Nazis could possibly be the subject of debate in this House, or indeed this country, on the night of 8th March 1989. I beg your Lordships tonight to support the Second Reading of this Bill.
9.30 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I shall be brief. First I should say that I intend to support the Bill of my noble friend. I have very little knowledge on this subject. It is not really my ground.
1574
However, I have a certain knowledge of genetics from breeding animals. I have no such knowledge of breeding human beings, although I have children. That is not very difficult to achieve.
I was appalled to hear what the noble Baroness opposite has just told us. If such a Bill becomes law, scientists will be allowed to take embryos out of cold storage and experiment on them. The results could be horrifying. If the scientists are good people they might produce useful research, but I cannot speak on that issue because I do not know much about the subject. However, if the scientist was not a good man, and there are plenty of those about, I am afraid that he might implant an embryo into a gorrilla or some other animal. That would be appalling.
I support the Bill because so many doctors and specialists regard it as acceptable for an embryo to be fertilised to enable a particular woman to have a child. That would be allowed under the Bill, and safeguards are provided requiring the authority of the Secretary of State. Otherwise I am opposed to embryo research, which I believe would destroy what dignity there is left to the human race.
I have already spoken for three minutes—no, two minutes. I think that that is probably long enough. It is not my subject and I shall now sit down and allow others who know more about the subject to speak.
9.32 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I think that I was the first person to raise this subject in the House several years ago. It is one of the most difficult subjects on which we have had to try to make decisions in my time in the House. I cannot say that I find it any easier with the passage of time.
When I first learnt of the research being carried out on embryos I was appalled that what I believe to be potentially an individual human being—even though it might be only the size of a pinhead—should be used in such a way.
Earlier in the debate the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, whether he had seen any of the research that is being carried out. I have visited the Medical Research Council at Carshalton and Edinburgh and the Cromwell Hospital. I have seen embryo research and the various processes involved in in vitro fertilisation taking place.
I was fascinated and deeply impressed by the scientists I met and by the sincerity of their belief that the research that they were engaged in was in the best interests of mankind. They explained to me how, until the age of approximately 14 days, the embryo could not possibly be regarded as an individual with a personality. It had not until that stage even the beginnings of a nervous system and could not, in all reason, be regarded as anything but a conglomeration of cells. I found the arguments enormously persuasive and I was sufficiently persuaded in the debate on the Government White Paper early last year to support the continuance of such research, but I was never entirely happy. A little niggle of doubt always remained and, with reflection, that doubt has grown. I can no longer disregard it so I am turning my coat and eating my words.

1575
There is apparently no earthly reason why, up to the age of 14 days, the embryo should not be used for research. We have no scientific proof that it is at that stage an individual human creature possessing that spark of divinity that many of us believe distinguishes mankind from all other creatures. There is no physical evidence to show that it is, but on the other hand there is no evidence to show that it is not, bearing in mind that there may be dimensions other than the purely physical one which are as yet not recognised by science. It may not be possible to prove that the embryo is a human individual, but is it possible to prove beyond all doubt that it is not? Surely in a matter of such crucial importance—this is a matter literally of life or death—the burden of proof that the embryo is not an individual must be on those who wish to undertake research. I do not think that they have yet proved their case beyond doubt and for that reason I shall vote against the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and support the Bill.
9.36 p.m.
The Marquess of Reading: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Duke for bringing forward this Bill. I made my maiden speech in this House in the Warnock Report debate and, in a way, I regret having to speak again on the same subject. The repetition only serves to demonstrate the Government's delay in bringing forward legislation on the matter. We have been promised legislation since 1986 and three years later we are no further forward. I ask the House to resist the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. It is no good relying, as the noble Lord suggests, on the speculation that legislation on this subject will definitely be included in the next Queen's Speech.
On the other hand, I suggest that there is considerable urgency for the following reasons. I believe that the validity of the Bill depends upon the understanding of what the human embryo is. If the embryo is a human person, it is Parliament's duty to recognise the right to life of the human embryo and to accord proper legal protection. Parliament does not confer the right to life on citizens of this country. If it could confer that fundamental right on citizens, it would follow that it could take away such a right. The right to life is inherent in the human condition, so Parliament recognises that and makes laws necessary to protect human life. Human life which begins in a laboratory, begins through the natural process of fertilisation, notwithstanding the laboratory procedures which enable that process to begin. Parliament's responsibility in that matter is particularly necessary to protect those individuals least able to protect themselves and special legal protection is enacted for the young, the elderly, the disabled and others who are poor or disadvantaged.
The questions before us are, first: do human embryos fall into the category of vulnerable human beings who have a special claim on Parliament? Secondly, is Parliament morally obliged to accord human embryos their right to live and protection from procedures that are against their best interests? Thirdly, should Parliament prevent destructive non-therapeutic experimentation on human embryos? I would answer yes to all three questions.
1576
There are those who say that the human embryo is human and alive but is not a person. They say that an embryo becomes a person later in the human life cycle when it can perform certain functions. However, there is disagreement among those who propose such a view as to which function defines personhood. They draw the line at different times. This definition of the values of the human individual according to functional usefulness has certain fatal flaws. First, the choice as to which functions will determine the status of the embryo depends on subjective opinion. Since the choice is subjective, the line drawn might change to suit particular scientific or society interests. Whose opinion do we adopt? Secondly, if functions determine human worth, what happens to the elderly or infirm who lose the functions necessary to meet the criteria? Thirdly, if functions do not define my human nature, my human nature surely must define my functions. The absence of certain functions does not show that I am not a human person.
The last point is critical. The word "person" comes from the Latin persona which means mask. The body is the mask, the persona, that expresses the reality of human nature. It is sometimes called the anima or the soul. The human being is therefore more than just a body. It is the radical union of soul and body. It is this something special about human nature which requires us to treat human beings differently from rabbits. This "something" is the essence of our humanity. It is there in the human embryo since the human body is itself evidence of our human nature. It expresses itself more and more as the human body grows and develops from its early embryonic form to full maturity as an adult. I therefore hold that the embryo is special and is fairly human although not yet developed. I reject the philosophies that attempt to reduce the value of the human person to human functions. The human embryo is a human person. It is the mask, the persona, which expresses its real nature.
Time is running out and I shall not today develop this more fully except to refer to my maiden speech in which I spoke of the understanding of the embryo in theological terms —terms that I believe are compatible and consistent with the more philosophical approach that I have attempted today. It is dangerous to recognise the right to life in individuals simply for those who meet certain criteria. The sick, the young or the disabled have much to fear if Parliament adopts such a method in defining human personhood with a right to life. Any doubt in this matter should be resolved in favour of life. The onus of proof must be on those who favour destructive non-therapeutic experiments on human embryos to show that they are not killing human persons.
Finally, I believe that Parliament should pass this Bill and say no to the delay amendment in order to prevent the destructive non-therapeutic experimentation on human embryos. if Parliament does so, it will be acting consistently with the laws of humanity and the natural law. It will also be acting consistently with the Judaeo-Christian tradition which has helped shape the laws of this land, in particular those laws which recognise and enhance the rights and dignity of the human person.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, this has rightly been a serious and solemn debate. I hope I might be forgiven for striking a slightly frivolous note at the outset of my speech. Hearing the noble Earl, Lord Longford, say that he could not recognise a Roman Catholic when he saw one, it seemed to me rather a good idea that when the noble Duke summons, cajoles or marshals (which might be the right word) his troops they should all be distinctively dressed in the Papal uniform of the Guard of the Vatican. That would add to the gaiety of life in this House and match this Chamber. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, would then be able to recognise his co-religionists.
I should like to say what so many others have said. Her Majesty's Government should redeem their pledge to introduce the legislation. They have promised it more thanlonce, most recently in July last year. If only that had been done this Session, it would have made our discussion unnecessary. To give the pledge would make any further discussion on the Bill unnecessary. It is both immediate and urgent that the Government should renew their pledge.
Secondly, I join those who have urged the noble Duke not to press his Motion for Second Reading to a Division, partly for the reasons I have stated and partly for the reasons set forth in the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. Following the Warnock Report and after very full discussion, the Government's promise to introduce legislation in this Parliament must make any attempt to legislate by Private Member's Bill otiose. The essential authority of Her Majesty's Government is lacking in a Private Member's Bill. The noble Duke's Bill does not meet, quoting from the White Paper,
"the concerns about developing reproductive technologies while recognising the benefits that they can bring".
The Bill produces only half that package. And it does not offer the alternative draft clauses to Parliament that the Government promised. For all these reasons the noble Duke's Bill is not only otiose (as I have described it) but premature (as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has described it). Furthermore it is pre-emptive, and I hope that it will go no further.
I renew the plea made to the noble Duke not to press his Motion for Second Reading to a Division. I believe he will agree that it would be most disagreeable to Members on all sides of the House if he pursued the Bill beyond Second Reading into Committee and possibly to Report and Third Reading, just as we are entering the busiest period of this very busy Session of Parliament. That consideration, I hope, will weigh heavily with the noble Lord the Leader of the House when he studies the implications of timetabling for the remainder of this Session.
In my opinion the noble Duke's Bill is defective in what it proposes to do, not merely in detail—which would be cured in the subsequent proceedings, if there were to be any—but fundamentally in that it does not permit research.
1578
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York has been quoted more than once. However, I do not believe that these words that he spoke last year have yet been quoted. He said:
"Research must continue if in vitro fertilisation is to continue. I regard as totally unrealistic and indeed immoral any proposal to continue in vitro fertilisation without a proper backing in research".
This evening we have heard too much from those who support the Bill about how immoral are those who conduct research under the authority of a voluntary licensing authority with the approval of the Medical Research Council. I find it hard to take the suggestion that those upright, dedicated people should be subject to the opprobrium of noble Lords who have spoken. On behalf of the dedicated doctors who carry out the work perhaps I may repeat a word used by Mr. Enoch Powell and say that I find that to be "repugnant".
Not only did the most reverend Primate say that it was essential to have research buttressing in vitro fertilisation but Professor Winston has written that,
"research and clinical treatment are inseparable."
I believe that most scientists, especially medical scientists, will agree with that position.
We have heard that the present success rate for in vitro fertilisation is less than 10 per cent. per treatment cycle. None of us can be satisfied with that. I do not believe that the noble Duke and his supporters, who are providing for in vitro fertilisation with safeguards, will wish that low rate of 10 per cent. to continue when research will bring a great improvement in the success rate to the benefit of parents who wish to have a child by that means.
Mr. Powell, speaking in the House of Commons about his Bill, which was much the same as this Bill, said that in no way did the Bill inhibit the future improvement of in vitro fertilisation processes by those carrying them out. I am afraid that it does just that and that he was mistaken in what he said, as attested by the opinion of the most reverend Primate. I regard that to be a fundamental flaw which alone makes the Bill unacceptable.
I should like to comment on the drafting of the Bill, as did the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I do so especially because the Government gave Mr. Powell drafting assistance and access to medical opinion inside the department. That was announced by Mr. Kenneth Clarke on 15th February 1985, on the Second Reading of Mr. Powell's Bill. Despite that, the Bill has many drafting defects and is open to serious medical questions, even within its narrow scope.
In particular, I must object to the question-begging Short Title referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Meston: Unborn Children (Protection) Bill. That is a plain misdescription of the Bill and bears no relationship to the Long Title. It is a misdescription of such enormity that the explanatory memorandum must resort to a device which has never before been used to the best of my knowledge. Since explanatory memoranda came into being nothing like this has been recorded.
Explanatory memoranda should explain without argument the purposes of the Bill. However, so misleading is the Short Title that this explanatory

1579
memorandum has to declare what the Bill does not do. The explanatory memorandum states:
"The provisions of the Bill do not involve any issue concerning abortion, surrogacy or legitimacy".
As so often, one misdescription—and I use my words with care—leads to another. The Bill seriously and deleteriously involves issues concerning abortion.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, said, the brightest hopes for diminishing the number of abortions, especially late abortions of either a nonviable foetus or one which is genetically abnormal, would be extinguished by this Bill. Only by means of legitimate research on the pre-embryo licensed by a statutory authority, which I hope will take the place of the current voluntary authority, can there be any hope of preventing unwanted pregnancies by safer contraceptive means and also the elimination of genetically defective embryos.
Therefore, in my view the Bill of the noble Duke is deeply flawed and gravely damaging to the life and happiness of parents and children and, I should add, to public health. It effectively puts a stop to the improvements in vitro fertilisation success rates. It puts an end to research into genetic disease. It stops all hope of better contraception, possibly by vaccine, which would be of great benefit in the underdeveloped countries. It would give no hope for those males who suffer from infertility. It would continue indefinitely the grief and emotional distress of those mothers who have a miscarriage which research in future could make a rare event.
1580
Like the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, I put at the very top of my list the same category as the late Lady Lane-Fox. I feel compelled to quote her again because her words are so important. She said that there is a compelling and urgent need for everything possible to be done,
"to advance research aimed at preventing medical handicap".
I do not see how anyone could fail to be moved by that urgent plea by Lady Lane-Fox, so cruelly handicapped when quite young by polio, which, as she said, had been virtually extinguished. She said that that was an infinite blessing conferred on mankind by medical science in her generation. Polio has virtually ceased to be a scourge of this country together with TB, smallpox and diphtheria. I ask the House: how can anyone who knew the noble Baroness fail to respond to that poignant statement made so shortly before her death?
If this Bill is passed, it will end one of the most promising fields of medical research and take us back three or four centuries to when the experimental method started. One of the founders of the experimental method was Galileo who was in conflict with the Church for supporting the Copernican theory. Galileo was under house arrest for the last eight years of his life. We must not allow that again.
I conclude with the words of the late and most eminent benefactor of mankind, Sir Peter Medawar, who after saying that we already had a moral commitment to biomedical research, continued:
"I see no reason to think that the highway of medical melioration that has brought us so far already will now lead us into evil".
I commend those words to the House and to all those who have hope of progress.
10 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, despite my own personal premonitions, I believe that this has been an extremely interesting debate. Despite disagreements across the Floor of the House—certainly not on party lines—there has been a call for legislation. Everyone feels that the present situation of a voluntary licensing system is not enough. I believe that it is true that the scientists who are working in this field are as strongly in favour of legislation to govern, control and manage the work that is being done as has been expressed by noble Lords on both sides of the House.
In commenting on some of the points that have been made—your Lordships will be glad to know that I do not intend to go over the whole field covered by the debate—I am speaking only for myself and not attempting to do so for my noble friends. The present situation is not satisfactory, though I must from my own knowledge and information provided by the Medical Research Council pay my tribute to the way in which the voluntary research system has operated. A remarkably good job has been done and the researchers have met the challenge with which they have been presented.
I have often said in your Lordships' House how impressed I have been by the quality and knowledge of the contributions made in these debates, but I do not feel that that standard was at its highest in this evening's debate—I say no more than that. If we are to discuss these matters and speak on what is going on in research laboratories we have an obligation to find out something about the subject. Some of the statements made this evening have been inclined to make the blood boil and have created some bloodcurdling effects, but they cannot refer to research that has been licensed by the voluntary system. It is of some unfairness to those who are working within the system that such allegations should be made against them.
What has been so valuable about this debate, in my view, is that it has clearly established the need for early legislation. The Government could have avoided this debate and the Bill if they had been clearer about their intentions. In winding up the debate on 15th January 1988—and I have read it again and I do not want to change the words I used in that debate, which will be of some relief to noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, put forward a very good and firm position. He made clear that the Government would legislate sooner rather than later. He said:
"The way to tackle these problems is not to try to block or ignore medical advance, but to accommodate it within proper safeguards which ensure that due respect is given to the presence of human life".—[Official Report, 15/1/88; col. 1450.]
I believe that is the proper approach. I cannot believe that those who support this Bill think that it would be better for these matters of such high import to be' introduced and presented to Parliament in a Private Member's Bill of this simplicity, if I may put it that way. The Bill says so little. It is necessary to have government legislation.
I repeat the view expressed by others in his debate. When the Minister replies I hope he will make clear what are the Government's intentions. I hope that
1582
they have not changed from the position stated on 15th January. I hope that we will have the two alternatives presented to us. I hope that no words will be changed from those enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in winding up that debate. The House will expect a clear indication that we are not going to be kept waiting for legislation. If that clear indication is not given, then of course there will be people who will seek to step into the Government's shoes and do the job better than the Government are doing it themselves.
I have read through the debates, not only the debate on 15th January 1988, but also the one that took place on 31st October 1984 which was the original debate on the Warnock Report. I found the arguments put forward then and now by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, persuasive, and her conclusions sound. I believe that what I myself said in those two debates was very sound and I do not wish to change it. Therefore I will not go over it again.
The matter that concerns me most, and also many of your Lordships, is what will be lost if this Bill is carried through. It is the research work. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, stated the case very clearly when setting out the five tasks which are the important ones. They are the low rate of successful pregnancy following IVF. The second task is especially important; it is the need for an effective diagnosis of genetic defects to prevent at least some of those 7,000 children born each year with such defects to mothers in this country.
How can we find help for sufferers from a wide range of disorders; namely, sickle cell anaemia, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy and Huntingdon's Chorea. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, wrote to me three days ago asking whether I can do something to help the Huntingdon's Chorea Society. I shall reply and she will receive my letter saying that I will do anything I can. One matter I wish to achieve is to see that we do not have legislation that stops being done research that can alleviate the plight of many of these unfortunate and sad parents.
The third task is to develop new contraceptives. I was grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for setting out the situation. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said that we must pay tribute to those who have undertaken adoption. I shall always do so. However, if you wish to adopt a child today you will have very great difficulty in finding children available for adoption unless they are several years old., black, and already suffering from some mental or physical defect. The situation is not easy.
The fourth task is to discover more about male infertility and to seek to reduce the number of miscarriages which can produce so much unhappiness. Having said that, I pause for a moment to see whether I knew what I was talking about. In the past two months, in the very small circle of my own family, there have been two miscarriages. They occurred to two girls whom I deeply love and with whom I have a blood connection. It was a very sad event for them, and for their families and the husbands.

1583 s
I know of another case within my close circle where the problem of infertility is a desperately frustrating one for two people whom I know would make very good parents. Last Saturday I was dining with old friends who had three children. Two of them died in their teens of cystic fibrosis. In no way was it the fault of the parents because they were loving parents. I believe that so much of this work that is now going on at those hospitals and research centres that have been licensed by the voluntary licensing authority, with the assistance of the Medical Research Council, will cease. I do not understand how those who say they support this Bill can justify for themselves cutting back on that research that can help to alleviate so much real and genuine human distress. I wonder whether some of them are out of touch with what is going on in the research field. That is why I asked at one stage the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, if he had visited any of the centres. He was showing how much research he had done into what was going on. One can go to several of the medical schools in London. For example, one can take an afternoon and go to Hammersmith and observe the work that is being done, the people and the quality of the work. One can also see the dedication of those people.
I am against the Bill. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, it would be a retrograde step. I hope that we shall hear from the Government a clear statement of their intention. If the Government give a clear indication that they will bring forward legislation which will enable both options to be voted on in the House, surely the noble Duke will feel that that is the proper way forward. These matters should not be dealt with by Private Member's Bills. I say in congratulation to the noble Duke that if governments do not do their job other people will edge themselves forward and do it. The Government have a responsibility to do the job, and to relieve those who support the Bill of the burden of having to carry it through all its stages. It lies with the Government to find a solution to the problem.
10.10 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I hope that I shall be able to answer many of the questions that have been raised. In particular, I hope that I shall be able to answer the question asked by several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I apologise in advance if I fail to answer some questions but I can write to noble Lords.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk for introducing the Bill and for giving the House the opportunity to debate these highly complex and controversial issues. I appreciate the factors which have led the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, to move his reasoned amendment. It will be for the House shortly to reach its decision on both the Bill and the amendment. These are matters of great concern to Members of both Houses. Their concern reflects the concern of society generally about an issue which raises important moral,
1584
religious and ethical questions, as we have seen in this evening's speeches.
Questions of legislation on these matters, about research involving human embryos, about infertility treatments which involve the creation of human embryos by fertilisation outside the human body and about research involving human embryos for purposes other than achieving a pregnancy, should be addressed with the greatest care and seriousness. That was why the Government set up the inquiry on human fertilisation and embryology in the first place in 1982. The inquiry's report, the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, published in 1984, recognised that there were no easy answers to these questions. I pay tribute to the important contribution which the noble Baroness has made to the debate on these issues. The House debated her report shortly after its publication and in January last year we debated the Government's White Paper which responded to it.
The Bill before the House today concentrates on possibly the most contentious of all these contentious issues: whether or not research on human embryos should be permitted. Before turning to that issue in detail it may be helpful if I set it in the broader context of the Government's response to the Warnock Report. As I stated earlier, the Warnock Report was published in 1984. The consultation exercise following its publication generated a great deal of debate and produced many highly detailed and diverse comments from a variety of individuals and organisations, especially on the subject of embryo research. It was obvious that these were not easy issues and that much debate would be needed to enable them to make up their minds about such ethically sensitive and emotive issues.
In 1986 a consultation document was published by the Government inviting views about legislation by mid–1987. Again there was a good response with about 200 representations being received from a wide range of organisations and individuals. In November 1987 the Government published their White Paper Human Fertilisation and Embryology: A Framework for Legislation, setting out their proposals for legislation.
The White Paper proposed that a statutory licensing authority should be set up to oversee and control not only embryo research, if Parliament agreed such research should be permitted, but also infertility services involving techniques such as artificial insemination by donor and in vitro fertilisation. Storage of eggs, sperm and embryo would be permitted only under strict controls which would be specified in detail by statute. Legislation would also cover the legal status of children born as a result of these techniques and, for example, make surrogacy contracts unenforceable in the courts. The White Paper also proposed that counselling should 'be made available for couples considering IVF treatment. I hope that I have said enough to indicate the complexity and that the question of embryo research needs to be considered in the broader context of wider legislative control.
My noble friend Lord Jellicoe and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, both mentioned the comments my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale made at the end of

1585
the debate last year. He said then, if I remember correctly, that he hoped there would be legislation within 12 to 18 months. I must, however, stress that he only said he hoped that would be so. Many other noble Lords have stressed the question of timing and I think it would rather waste time if I were to read out all the names of those who stressed the need for legislation as soon as possible.
I am sure that many noble Lords were disappointed that there was no reference to legislation about the issues dealt with in the Warnock Report in the Address from the Throne last year. The Government have, however, made clear their intention to legislate during this Parliament. That commitment has been given in various ways, not least in the White Paper itself. The commitment has subsequently been reiterated many times in another place. I am happy to make clear the Government's intentions once more, although obviously I cannot be drawn further on the precise timing.
I turn now to research on human embryos. I need not remind the House that this is a subject upon which there are deeply-felt emotions and sincerely-held opposing views, as we have heard this evening. The Warnock Committee, after carefully considering all the evidence presented to it, concluded that research should be permitted, under strict controls, on embryos of up to 14 days. The committee's argument was that, in its very early stages, it is not possible to establish whether the genetic material produced by the fusion of egg and sperm will develop into a human person; and that, though it should certainly be offered some protection in law, this should not be such as to prevent the benefits which study of the early embryo can bring in terms of improving the prospects for allowing infertile people to bear children and reducing the risk of congenital disease.
It is understandable that this passage in the report has been one of the most controversial of all and that a minority of members were unable to support it and advocated a ban on all embryo research. The argument of those who support this view is that genetically unique human life is a process which begins with the fusion of egg and sperm and that it deserves from the beginning the full protection of the law. These differing points of view highlight the need for calm and thorough debate, such as we have been given the opportunity to have today.
I was impressed by the clear analysis given by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, of the arguments of those who are opposed to embryo research through conviction or because they are concerned that allowing such research would be the beginning of the slippery slope. It is precisely to those concerns that the proposals in paragraph 30 of the Government's White Paper are addressed. The alternative clauses which will be made available will either prohibit research or permit it under strict controls.
Both clauses would permit procedures aimed at preparing the embryo for transfer to the uterus of a woman, or procedures carried out to assess the suitability of the embryo for that transfer. However, one clause would make it a criminal offence to carry
1586
out any other procedures on a human embryo; and the other clause would permit research procedures as part of a project specially licensed by a statutory licensing authority. The Government will take a neutral position on the alternative clauses because they do not take a collective view about ethical matters of this kind on which members have strong personal religious and moral convictions.
Even if Parliament decides to permit research under strict controls, some procedures would be banned completely. Certain forms of human embryo research such as cloning and the creation of hybrid species understandably arouse deep public disquiet. Although there are no known examples of projects of this nature occurring and it seems unlikely that anyone would undertake such work, the Government propose to prohibit those activities even if Parliament accepts embryo research in general. No one favours the unnecessary use of embryos for research for benefits which could be obtained in other ways. The White Paper proposes that, if research is permitted, the Statutory Licensing Authority should satisfy itself in granting a licence that adequate consideration has been given to the possibility of achieving the aim of the project by other means.
In the light of what I have said it will come as no surprise that the Government are neutral on the embryo research issue which is dealt with in this Bill. The issues it deals with will form an important part of the legislation which, as I stressed earlier. is expected later during this Parliament.
The purpose of the Bill before the House today is to prevent human embryos being created, kept or used for any purpose other than enabling a child to be borne by a specified woman, and then only with the authority of the Secretary of State. Private Members' Bills on almost exactly similar lines have previously been introduced each Session until this one in another place. That introduced by the right honourable former Member for Down, South was debated in 1985 and a ten-minute rule Bill introduced by the honourable Member for Hyndburn was also debated in 1986. These Bills have served to add to the very necessary public debate on these issues and illustrate the strong views that the subject of embryo research arouses. The baton this Session has passed to your Lordships' House.
The effects of this Bill would be to prevent virtually all research using human embryos. It leaves a number of issues unclear and raises some immediate questions such as whether embryo biopsy should be permitted and what should be done with embryos not reimplanted. The need for authorisation in each and every case has to he seen against the background, given that in 1986 (the latest year for which figures are available) almost 5,000 patients underwent over 7,000 in vitro fertilisation treatment cycles. These are matters which the House would want to examine in detail if the Bill makes progress.
It may assist the House if I refer in an entirely factual way to the arguments advanced by those who say that the research which it seeks to prohibit should be allowed. These are set out in Annex B to the White Paper. They fall into four main categories: first, improving the treatment of infertility; secondly,

1587
gaining further knowledge about factors leading to congenital disease; thirdly, developing more effective forms of contraception; and, finally, detecting gene or chromosomal abnormalities before implantation.
For many infertible couples in vitro fertilisation is the only means by which they can have their own children. But at present only about one in 10 attempts result in successful pregnancies and the technique can only be improved by further research, including research using embryos. Such research could also help couples at risk of passing on serious genetic disease to have normal children. It might also help in understanding and preventing the one in five miscarriages that affect the population at large. It may also lead to the development of new and safer methods of contraception. The Medical Research Council supports such research as being consistent with its function to carry out research which will improve people's lives, including the medical care available to them. The House will want to weigh the arguments carefully, balancing the advantages of embryo research which I have just outlined with the repugnance which some people feel about such research. It is argued from this premise that the ends cannot justify the means.
I know many noble Lords have been concerned that the Government have not before now brought forward their own measure to follow up the Warnock Report, but there has not been a vacuum in this field. There has been an effective system of voluntary regulation of embryo research and IVF by the voluntary licensing authority. This was set up in 1985 by the Medical Research Council and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists as an interim measure. The authority has invited applications from centres wishing to carry out research involving human embryos and certain infertility treatments. The Government are grateful for the work the VLA has done in this difficult area. However, it has clearly functioned for a longer period than originally expected and, to help it continue its work during the period until a statutory licensing body is established, it is to receive direct government financial help of £43,000 for the next financial year. The work of the VLA does not of course in any way pre-judge the decisions that Parliament itself will need to take on the statutory licensing authority and the extent of its remit, if any, in in vitro fertilisation and embryo research.
I suggest to the House that we can make good use of the time before government legislation is introduced in studying and discussing in detail the issues raised in the Warnock Report and in subsequent debates. Few other countries have attempted legislation about these sensitive and difficult issues and there will be clear advantages, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has indicated on several occasions, in ensuring their widest possible consideration before legislation is introduced.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for drawing to the attention of the House the report Fertility in the Family by Dr. Jonathan Glover. I understand that it was commissioned by the European Community and is to
1588
be published next week. Dr. Glover was assisted by a team from a number of member states, among them lawyers and doctors as well as those with interests in ethical matters. I understand that the report recommends that embryo research should be permitted in certain circumstances and that each member state should devise its own regulatory system. The Government will study Dr. Glover's report and take its findings into consideration when they prepare legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, mentioned the possibility of sending the Bill to a Select Committee. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, also mentioned this, although I think that he felt that it was not a sensible idea. I note the suggestion that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. It is for the House to decide whether this would he an appropriate action after consultations through the usual channels. However, I remind the House that the substance of the Bill has been extensively debated here and in another place and there will be a further opportunity for debate when the Government bring forward their legislation on the matters dealt with in the Warnock Report.
My noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery referred to the fact that research using human embryos for the development of new forms of contraception, possibly for use in third world countries, is in breach of the Government's claim of neutrality. The Government support and assist the work of population control in developing countries in view of the major social and economic problems that increasing populations present. Such research as is going on in this country is endorsed at present by the voluntary licensing authority. It would be for the statutory licensing authority to satisfy itself, if Parliament decided to permit such reform, that it was appropriate to carry out such research.
As I said earlier, this is not a question with an easy answer. It is one on which people sincerely hold differing views. It is an issue on which many people have yet to make up their minds. A reasoned debate of the case for and the case against is therefore helpful and necessary.
I emphasise once more that the Government are neutral over the Bill and over the reasoned amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, as they are on the issue as to whether research involving human embryos should be permitted. I reiterate the Government's commitment to legislation on these matters as laid out in the White Paper during this Parliament, although, as noble Lords will understand, I cannot make any firm statement about when it will be introduced.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, I was invited by the noble Duke to wind up this debate. That was not for any sectarian reasons, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, seems to imagine. It was because if Enoch Powell's Bill had finally gone through all the stages in the House of Commons, I had been invited by him to take the Bill through this House. That is why I am winding up the debate. There is therefore no papist plot to worry the noble Lords, Lord

1589
Houghton and Lord Henderson. It is purely a matter of winding up for my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk. That seems to be rather a stupid thing to have to do because the Leaders of both parties have spoken, so I shall speak briefly.
Two years ago another place was ringing with the sound of these matters. That Bill, which has been regarded so contemptuously by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, went through the whole of its Second Reading and Committee stages in another place. What defeated it? It was a procedural wrangle, procedural finangling, in which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is a great expert. It was defeated then, so that this House never had the opportunity of debating it. That is why the present Bill is being promoted—to allow the House the opportunity to debate it.
As was rightly said by my noble friend Lord Caldecote, we talk in this House about many things but we can rarely speak about a more important matter than the one before us today. It is sad that people should denigrate a real subject for debate, a real issue affecting the world, let alone ourselves. It rather than some other subject deserves debate.
I recollect 10 years ago on a summer morning in Sussex a Canadian scientist talking to me about the future. He said, "Once we are able to replace one defective gene there is an irreversible progress towards the ability to change others. We shall have the ability to fashion, to create the quality of human specimens". I can never forget that. I do not think any of us should ever forget that we are reaching that stage.
Dr. Simone Novaes was a member of the commission of which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, spoke which produced Fertility and the Family. The note to the report said that the medical profession is now making available a medical alternative to sexual relations; that reproduction is now outside the family and into the laboratory. That is something of such gravity that we must all feel a sense of awe.
The question is surely whether society accepts that result. Is the result of what a man and a woman contribute to create life an acceptable subject for experimentation? That question must be answered. Is it acceptable that many thousands of embryos should be frozen, labelled and stored in racks in refrigerators, not for the purpose of being able to supply them to a woman in order to have a child but for research? They are embryos, potential human beings.
A question arises which I ask my noble friend Lord Jellicoe: who owns these embryos? Who has the legal ownership of them? If they are stolen from those refrigerators, who has lost them? Whose property has been taken? Who is entitled to exercise power over them? Who allows them to be used for experiments? All these are matters which must be decided. The law must be introduced, society must make up its mind. This is at last something to which society must apply the law. If we have no control under the law, then we have no control over the experiments.
I accept there may be very good and worthy humanitarian reasons for the experiments. But there
1590
must be control, and a limit, especially when there is an alternative. Professor Lejeune came to Parliament in 1985. He was in Rome quite recently. He warned that the Warnock 14–day limit would not satisfy scientists. He said embryo research was the wrong road. He was the man who identified the cause of Down's syndrome. No advances have been made in research—or at least we have not heard of any—into the cures for genetic diseases in which human embryos have been used.
However, we have been told of molecular biology applied to cells taken from patients with cystic fibrositis, muscular dystrophy, Huntingdon's disease and Retinablastome which has generated greater understanding of genetic factors and location in the human genome without embryo research and without embryo experimentation. Is not that the responsible road, and the road of Professor Lejeune, Professor Marshall, Professor Kool, Professor Short, Professor Maclean and Professor Gray?
This Bill seeks to bring under law the possession of that which a man and a woman have contributed to create life by making the possession and fertilisation of a human ovum in vitro lawful only for the purpose of enabling a specific woman to bear a normal child. Is not that the decent, acceptable, reasonable and rational attitude which a civilised nation should adopt to this extraordinary new power which is coming the reproduction of life in the Laboratory? The opportunity has been given in this Bill presented by the noble Duke for this House to think about these matters and debate them and to make the Minister, with respect, repeat that he will bring forward a Bill on this matter. Even if a Bill is brought forward in the next Session of Parliament, when will it become law?
All the time the problems exist as regards who owns embryos and who has rights and control over them. I consider that the noble Duke has done right to bring this Bill before this House. I hope that the Government see, by the majority which is given to this Bill and the defeat of the amendment, the seriousness with which this House views these vital issues.
10.38 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I think the most dignified thing the House could do would be to end this debate without dividing. At any rate, I must resign myself to the appointed role of being the only defender of the Government's position in the debate today. I was trying to save them from the humiliation which might otherwise befall them. I was trying to bring the House to a dignified conclusion to a most interesting and, I think, valuable debate. However, I must hand the Government over to the tender mercies of their so-called supporters. I cannot help them any more.
I accuse the Government of ill-treatment of an embryo Minister. Look what they have inflicted upon him just now. The noble Lord the Leader of the House sits there as if he had nothing whatever to do with what was going on. As for the noble Lord the Chief Whip, he looks as if he has broken off having dinner and has come back to see how we are all getting on.

1591
As for the noble Duke, I must leave him to make up his own mind how he wishes this debate to end. I think he must realise that the message from the House tonight is for the Government to produce this legislation. They have not responded to that, except in the terms of what we heard 14 months ago. This is the third dress rehearsal on the subject. We have discussed it in 1984, 1988 and now again in 1989. We are still waiting for something more conclusive from the Government.
I shall not add to the present confusion or to the indignities of the House. I shall withdraw my amendment and leave the mover of the Bill to decide for himself whether, for a change, he will co-operate with me and leave the House with a message to the Government, having contributed what I think is of the greatest value—opinions rather than a straw poll at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
A noble Lord: I object!
On Question, amendment negatived.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I have moved that the Bill be now read a second time. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before eleven o'clock.